Embodiment · “Being Precedes Having”
Acting on the Word
Take a concrete action that lines up with what you have confessed and believe — treating the act itself as the evidence of real faith — rather than waiting for feelings or sensory proof first.
Name the promise you’re standing on. Ask: what would I do right now if I already believed it? Take that wise, concrete step before the senses confirm — act on “it is written,” not “I feel.” Don’t organize your behaviour around the problem’s appearance. Keep acting consistently, and treat the action — not a feeling — as the evidence. Stay prudent; keep safeguards intact.
What it is
For E. W. Kenyon, faith is not a feeling and not mere mental agreement — it is action. He drew a sharp line between sense-knowledge faith (believing only what the five senses report) and the real thing, which he defined as acting on the Word: faith that moves before the senses give permission.
In his framing, “believing” is really acting on the Word, and faith is the result of action, not its precondition. The mark of genuine faith, he taught, is that you do something in line with what God has said — independent of any sense evidence to the contrary.
This is the deliberately embodied half of Kenyon’s system, the partner to spoken confession. Confession says it; this practice does it. The contrast he hammered is “It is written” over “I feel”: you stop waiting to feel different and instead take the step the promise implies, letting the body’s act lead.
Mere “mental assent” — agreeing the Word is true while behaving as if it isn’t — is, for Kenyon, the counterfeit the practice is designed to expose and replace.
The Method
- Settle what you have confessed/believe. Name the specific promise you are standing on (pairs with ).
- Ask what a person who already believed it would do. Identify the concrete action that lines up with the promise being true now.
- Take that action before the senses confirm. Move on “it is written,” not on “I feel.” The act is offered as the evidence of faith, not a reward for feeling faith.
- Refuse to act on the contrary sense report. Decline to organize your behaviour around the problem’s appearance (“I feel sick / broke, so I’ll behave defeated”).
- Let the action become a settled state. Keep behaving consistently with the believed truth rather than reverting the moment doubt returns — faith “acts” continuously, not once.
- Watch for mere mental assent. If you “agree” but never act, Kenyon’s diagnosis is that real faith is absent; the test is always behaviour. (Sourcing note: quoted phrases are Kenyon’s, from The Two Kinds of Faith; the numbered structure is an attributed paraphrase. Short fair-use quotes only.)
Source & Lineage
E. W. Kenyon, The Two Kinds of Faith (1942), with its central contrast between sense-knowledge and revelation-knowledge faith and the definition of believing as “acting on the Word.” → Distinct from its neighbours: generic and Brande’s “act as if it were impossible to fail” are secular/psychological; Shinn’s “Active Faith — digging ditches” and Behrend’s “faith with works” are New Thought variants of the same move.
Kenyon’s signature is the explicit “it is written” vs “I feel” framing — acting on a scripture promise as covenant fact, and naming mere “mental assent” as the failure mode.
Common refinements
Confusing “acting on the Word” with recklessness. The legitimate version is taking a wise aligned step (apply for the job, start the treatment plan, make the call). It is not stopping medication or making dangerous bets as a “faith test.”
- Waiting for a feeling first. That is precisely the sense-knowledge trap; the act is meant to lead.
- Acting once, then reverting. Faith “acts” as a sustained posture, not a single dramatic gesture.
- Reading a bad outcome as failed faith. Outcomes have many causes; treating a setback as proof you didn’t act/believe enough is the self-blame loop, and is rejected. Mechanism is separate from fault.