more than taking a risk.
I’m one of the dwindling number of Christians who met and sat under the ministry of John Wimber prior to his death in 1997. One of the things many remember him saying during his ministry of stirring the body of Christ in signs and wonders was that Faith is spelled ‘R-I-S-K’. As a church leader I knew exactly where he was coming from. He was looking at a room full of hesitant, theologically educated, even Pentecostal, practically frozen believers and trying to push them off the ledge into actually doing something; praying for the sick, stepping out in the gifts and moving when the Spirit moves. In that context, it was brilliant pastoral provocation, and as always, he was very warm, friendly and funny.
I couldn’t resist it… so here’s the challenge. On First Edition you’re constantly encouraged to step out in faith, so it’s worth asking the question: is faith actually spelled risk? The words are not the same, not even close. I know what Wimber meant and how it was received, but I think sticking to faith as a standalone, is much more solid. Just to clarify, we’re not talking about saving, regenerative faith, but faith tied to the supernatural intervention and activity of God outside of salvation.
Faith is a biblical word to its core. The Greek pistis carries the weight of both faith and belief together. It isn’t two ideas, it’s one. Trusting and being persuaded by the trustworthiness of someone. It has a specific object and always points somewhere, or rather, to someone. Risk however, doesn’t do that. Risk is a purely human calculation about uncertainty. You weigh the odds, you factor in what you stand to lose, you decide whether the potential gain is worth it. There’s no person at the centre of risk. Just probability.
Here’s the thing: risk implies you don’t know the outcome. Faith says you know who holds it. Obedience may involve risk, but, faith itself rests on something far firmer than that.
When Hebrews says “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen,” it isn’t describing a leap in the dark. It’s describing certainty about a person whose track record is absolute. Abraham left everything for a land he hadn’t seen. We call that a massive risk, but God had spoken. The one who spoke had made the universe from nothing. Abraham wasn’t gambling. He was trusting someone and that trust not only implies faith, but speaks of an accompanying obedience.
Faith and risk look similar from the outside, and both involve moving without full information. Both involve acting before the whole picture is clear, but the difference is everything. Risk says, “I don’t know how this ends.” Faith says, “I know who holds the end.”
What Wimber was really after wasn’t risk. It was obedience. Costly, uncomfortable, stretching obedience. And that is absolutely a biblical category- obedience rests on faith, and faith rests on the character of God. That character is most fully displayed at the cross, where the worst thing imaginable became the very mechanism of redemption.
The object of faith is what matters. Always. And that object isn’t an outcome or a feeling or even a spiritual experience. It’s a person. Which is why faith, however hard it feels, is nothing like a gamble. You can call it ‘risk’ if you like, but you know what it means!
I was taught two things in 1979 that I have never forgotten: Grace stands for “God’s Riches at Christ’s Expense”, and faith means “Failing all, I trust Him.” Whilst personally they are very simplistic things, they have never been a risk, and never failed me!
