Doubt

I struggle with doubt. I'm not sure I struggle with actual 'doubt' so much as I struggle with feeling as if I have to believe or think a certain way compared to others and because I don't I think I have doubt. In other words, when comparing myself or feel as if I am supposed to believe a certain way, I associate 'doubt' with 'I don't believe.'

Truth of the matter is that when I stop comparing the doubt goes away. I may not be able to express what I feel or 'intuit' but this doesn't mean doubt in the sense of lack of belief or unwillingness to decide. So in this case, 'doubt' isn't accurate as at my core I have a solid set of beliefs. From the perspective of faith, I am a believer and I do not 'doubt' the basic tenets of the faith.

If we are totally depraved (something I do not subscribe to, i.e. doubt) then how can we know that anything touched by man is true at all? Holy Spirit? Word of God? What I question, i.e. doubt, are the propositions of men which, if you really get down to it, could include the very Bible on which the faith ultimately stands.

Is my depravity what is causing me to 'doubt' that we are depraved? Doesn't take long before I'm buckled up in the corner like Robert Pirsig (whose book, on some level, may have saved my life).

Did a quick search on the word 'doubt' as translated in the KJV with focus on the New Testament (to be cross referenced with the LXX, though there are some mentions in the various lexicons) and there are many Greek words in various shades of subtlety of meaning that are rendered with the one English word doubt.

So as I listen to Drexciya and read my Church Fathers, below is what is found in the New Testament (Greek) for "doubt" using Blue Letter Bible and references to Strong's and Vine's concordances. As you can see, for us to project our definition or understanding of 'doubt' back into the New Testament is to miss the subtlety of each use and meaning.

They all seem to indicate some idea of the will waiting for something - more information? - before making a decision or mental assent toward the object, action or idea being proposed. It is a suspended (quantum?) state. There is a division, two rather than one, so it separates and leads to hesitation and is ultimately an internal wrestling that needs resolved. 

To not have faith is an indication of doubt in the mix. I couldn't tell you what it means to have full faith without any doubt. I have faith and it manifests in belief but there are always area where there is doubt because I haven't brought my mind into captivity and it is there, in the mind, were doubt resides. It is the gatekeeper to translate 'faith' into 'belief.'

ἀπορέω doubt, be perplexed, stand in doubt,
1 Verb Strong's Number: g639 Greek: aporeo Doubt (Be In, Make To), Doubtful, Doubting: always used in the Middle Voice, lit. means "to be without a way" (a, negative, poros, "a way, transit"), "to be without resources, embarrassed, in doubt, perplexity, at a loss," as was Herod regarding John the Baptist, Mar 6:20 (RV, following the most authentic mss., "was much perplexed"); as the disciples were, regarding the Lord's betrayal, Jhn 13:22, "doubting;" and regarding the absence of His body from the tomb, Luk 24:4, "were perplexed;" as was Festus, about the nature of the accusations brought against Paul, Act 25:20, AV "doubted," RV, "being perplexed;" as Paul was, in his experiences of trial, 2Cr 4:8, "perplexed," and, as to the attitude of the believers of the churches in Galatia towards Judaistic errors, Gal 4:20, AV, "I stand in doubt," RV, "I am perplexed." Perplexity is the main idea. See PERPLEX. Cp. the noun aporia, "distress," Luk 21:25. [View Entry in Its Context]
1 Verb Strong's Number: g639 Greek: aporeo Perplex, Perplexity: is rendered "perplexed" in 2Cr 4:8, and in the most authentic mss. in Luk 24:4; see DOUBT, A, No. 1.

διακρίνω doubt, judge, discern, contend, waver, misc, Contend (-ing): lit., "to separate throughout or wholly" (dia, "asunder," krino, "to judge," from a root kri--, meaning "separation"), then, to distinguish, decide, signifies, in the Middle Voice, "to separate oneself from, or to contend with," as did the circumcisionists with Peter, Act 11:2; as did Michael with Satan, Jud 1:9. See RV marg. of Jud 1:22, where the thought may be that of differing in opinion. See DIFFER, DISCERN, DOUBT, JUDGE, PARTIAL, STAGGER, WAVER. [View Entry in Its Context]
1 Verb Strong's Number: g1252 Greek: diakrino Decide, Decision: primarily signifies "to make a distinction," hence, "to decide, especially judicially, to decide a dispute, to give judgment," 1Cr 6:5, AV, "judge;" RV, "decide," where church members are warned against procuring decisions by litigation in the world's law courts. See CONTEND. [View Entry in Its Context]
3 Verb Strong's Number: g1252 Greek: diakrino Differ, Differing, Different, Difference: lit., "to separate throughout, to make a distinction," Act 15:9; RV is translated "to make to differ," in 1Cr 4:7. In Jud 1:22, where the Middle Voice is used, the AV has "making a difference," the RV, adopting the alternative reading, the accusative case, has "who are in doubt," a meaning found in Mat 21:21; Mar 11:23; Act 10:20; Rom 14:23; Jam 1:6; 2:4. See CONTEND. [View Entry in Its Context]
2 Verb Strong's Number: g1252 Greek: diakrino Discern, Discerner, Discernment: signifies "to separate, discriminate;" then, "to learn by discriminating, to determine, decide." It is translated "discern" in Mat 16:3, of discriminating between the varying conditions of the sky (see dokimazo, No. 3, below, in Luk 12:56), and in 1Cor 11:29, with reference to partaking of the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper unworthily, by not "discerning" or discriminating what they represent; in ver. 31, the RV has "discerned," for the AV, "would judge," of trying oneself, "discerning" one's condition, and so judging any evil before the Lord; in 1Cr 14:29, regarding oral testimony in a gathering of believers, it is used of "discerning" what is of the Holy Spirit, RV, "discern" (AV, "judge"). See CONTEND, DECIDE, DIFFER, etc. [View Entry in Its Context]
4 Verb Strong's Number: g1252 Greek: diakrino Divide, Divider, Dividing: "to separate," discriminate, hence, "to be at variance with oneself, to be divided in one's mind," is rendered "divided" in Jam 2:4, RV; AV, "partial." See DISCERN. [View Entry in Its Context]
3 Verb Strong's Number: g1252 Greek: diakrino Doubt (Be In, Make To), Doubtful, Doubting: See CONTEND and DIFFER, A, No. 2; in Act 11:12, AV, "nothing doubting," RV, "making no distinction;" in Jud 1:22, RV, "who are in doubt" (AV, "making a difference," RV, marg., "while they dispute"); in Jam 1:6, AV, "wavereth," RV, "doubteth." This verb suggests, not so much weakness of faith, as lack of it (contrast, Nos. 4 and 5). [View Entry in Its Context]
103 Verb Strong's Number: g1252 Greek: diakrino Judge (Noun and Verb): denotes "to separate throughout" (dia, and No. 1), "discriminate, discern," and hence, "to decide, to judge" (also "to contend, to hesitate, to doubt"); it is rendered "to judge" in 1Cr 6:5, in the sense of arbitrating; in 1Cr 11:31 (1st part), the RV has "(if we) discerned (ourselves)," AV "(if we would) judge" (krino, No. 1, is used in the 2nd part); so in 1Cr 14:29, RV, "discern" (AV, "judge"). See DECIDE, A, DISCERN, A. No. 2. Notes: (1) In 1Cr 6:2 (last clause) "to judge" represents the noun kriterion, which denotes "a tribunal, a law court," and the meaning thus is "are ye unworthy of sitting upon tribunals of least importance?" (see RV marg.), i.e., to "judge" matters of smallest importance. Some would render it "cases," but there is no clear instance elsewhere of this meaning. See JUDGMENT-SEAT. (2) In Hbr 11:11, the verb hegeomai, "to consider, think, account," is rendered "she judged (Him faithful)," AV (RV, "she counted"). See COUNT, No. 2. [View Entry in Its Context]
1 Verb Strong's Number: g1252 Greek: diakrino Partial, Partiality: "to separate, distinguish, discern, judge, decide" (dia, "asunder," krino, "to judge"), also came to mean "to be divided in one's mind, to hesitate, doubt," and had this significance in Hellenistic Greek (though not so found in the Sept.). For the AV, "are ye (not) partial" in Jam 2:4, see DIVIDE, No. 4. "'This meaning seems to have had its beginning in near proximity to Christianity.' It arises very naturally out of the general sense of making distinctions" (Moulton and Milligan). [View Entry in Its Context]
101 Verb Strong's Number: g1252 Greek: diakrino Waver, Wavering: is rendered "to waver" in Rom 4:20, RV (AV, "staggered"); in Jam 1:6 (twice). See DOUBT, No. 3.

διαλογισμός thought, reasoning, imagination, doubtful, disputing, doubting, 2 Strong's Number: g1261 Greek: dialogismos Disputation: is translated "disputations" in Rom 14:1. See below. [View Entry in Its Context] 1 Noun Strong's Number: g1261 Greek: dialogismos Dispute, Disputer, Disputing: denotes, primarily, "an inward reasoning, an opinion" (dia, "through," suggesting separation, logismos, "a reasoning"), e.g., Luk 2:35; 5:22; 6:8; then, "a deliberating, questioning," Luk 24:38; (more strongly) "a disputing," Phl 2:14; 1Ti 2:8 (AV, "doubtings"); in Rom 14:1, "disputations;" marg., "(not for decisions) of doubts" (lit., "not unto discussions of doubts," which is perhaps a suitable rendering). Cp. dialogizomai, "to reason." See DOUBTING, IMAGINATION, REASONING, THOUGHT. [View Entry in Its Context]
101 Noun Strong's Number: g1261 Greek: dialogismos Doubt (Be In, Make To), Doubtful, Doubting: expresses reasoning or questioning hesitation, 1Ti 2:8. See DISPUTE, A, No. 1. Note: For AV, "doubtful" in Rom 14:1 see DECISION, B, No. 2. [View Entry in Its Context]
2 Strong's Number: g1261 Greek: dialogismos Imagination: dia, and No. 1, is rendered "imaginations" in Rom 1:21, carrying with it the idea of evil purposes, RV, "reasonings;" it is most frequently translated "thoughts." See DISPUTE. [View Entry in Its Context]
1 Strong's Number: g1261 Greek: dialogismos Reasoning: "a thought, reasoning, inward questioning" [akin to dialogizomai, see REASON (Verb), No. 1], is translated "reasoning" or "reasonings" in Luk 5:22, RV (AV, "thoughts"); Luk 9:46; Luk 9:47, RV (AV, "thoughts"); 24:38 (AV, "thoughts"); Rom 1:21 (AV, "imaginations"); 1Cr 3:20 (AV, "thoughts"). See DISPUTE, A, No. 1. Note: In those mss. which contain Act 28:29, occurs suzetesis, "a disputation," which is translated "reasoning" (AV). [View Entry in Its Context] 
6 Strong's Number: g1261 Greek: dialogismos Thought (Noun): "reasoning," is translated "thoughts" in Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21; Luk 2:35; 6:8; in Luk 5:22, AV, RV, "reasonings;" in Luk 9:47, AV, RV, "reasoning," and Luk 24:38, AV, RV, "reasonings;" so 1Cr 3:20; in Luk 9:46, AV and RV, "reasoning;" "thoughts" in Jam 2:4, AV and RV. See DISPUTE, IMAGINATION, REASONING.

διαπορέω doubt, be perplexed, be much perplexed, be in doubt, dia, "asunder" (intensive), and No. 1, signifies "to be thoroughly perplexed," with a perplexity amounting to despair, Act 2:12; 5:24; 10:17, AV, "were in doubt," "doubted," RV, "were (was) perplexed." See also Luk 9:7 (some mss. have it in Luk 24:4, where the most authentic have No. 1). See PERPLEX.

διστάζω doubt, "to stand in two ways" (dis, "double," stasis, "a standing"), implying "uncertainty which way to take," is used in Mat 14:31; 28:17; said of believers whose faith is small. Cp. No. 5.

μετεωρίζομαι be of a doubtful mind, from meteoros (Eng., "meteor"), signifying "in mid air, raised on high," was primarily used of putting a ship out to sea, or of "raising" fortifications, or of the "rising" of the wind. In the Sept., it is used, e.g., in Mic 4:1, of the "exaltation" of the Lord's house; in Eze 10:16, of the "lifting" up of the wings of the cherubim; in Oba 1:4, of the "mounting" up of the eagle; in the NT metaphorically, of "being anxious," through a "distracted" state of mind, of "wavering" between hope and fear, Luk 12:29, "neither be ye of doubtful mind" (AV, marg., "live not in careful suspense"), addressed to those who have little faith. Cp. No. 4. The interpretation "do not exalt yourselves" is not in keeping with the context.

ψυχή doubt (be in, make to), doubtful, doubting: lit., "to raise the breath, or to lift the soul," signifies "to hold in suspense," RV of Jhn 10:24 (AV, "make us to doubt"), suggestive of "an objective suspense due to lack of light" (Warfield), through a failure of their expectations, rather than, subjectively, through unbelief. The meaning may thus be, "How long dost Thou raise our expectations without satisfying them?"

Oneness Pentecostalism And Experiential Trinitarianism

Pretty heady title. It's the stuff my wife makes fun of me for reading lovingly referred to as 'light reading'. My challenge is always to translate that into the real world. In her words: 'how does that help you love me more?' Fair enough. Having been raised Oneness Pentecostal, it is her frame of reference. I was immersed in it for several years but have since moved on as I found the gymnastics required to make Scripture 'fit' was not much different than the same gymnastics Trinitarians are accused of using.

I have found that experientially that the Trinitarian view makes more 'sense' than does the Oneness view which just seems, ironically perhaps, more heady than the Trinitarian view. As 'simple' as it appears there is something about it that just comes up short. It seems to me that it leaves no room for the 'Person' of Jesus. Without the Personhood of the Godhead what do we have? We have an essence, a deity that remains distant, unknowable.

Perhaps this is why the emphasis on the Spirit as it too remains unknowable yet when we are so moved, or filled, that unknowable essence 'manifests' itself. We are not focusing on reflecting on the character of Christ as a 'Person' His behaviour appears as something 'to do' not something to know which is perhaps why holiness is often so emphasized. I never felt as if I was getting to know 'Jesus' as a 'Person' as the emphasis was on His Godhead often as if the sole purpose of the Church was to debate and convince those without the revelation that this is the Truth. But once in the camp, I struggled to figure out what the purpose was beyond getting filled with the Holy Ghost and debating those on the outside of the camp to get them to come in to get filled. There was something missing.

Again, my experience, not an 'eternal' truth of all believers and all Oneness doctrine.

The cult of the Bishop was another troubling element. Often those in the church were stunted and couldn't make a move without permission or a blessing from the Bishop. When we wanted to get married we couldn't even talk to an elder. We were basically blocked even though we had been there for more than five years.

We walked just before we got married. No animosity just tired of the silly. For as 'free' as the church claimed to be in the Spirit it was just as institutional as any other church made of men with power.

Moved on to a non-denominational church loosely affiliated with Aimee Semple McPherson's denomination (which is another bizzaro tale) where it was basically the opposite. We learned here about freedom and love. When there was a change of leadership it went back into the very same atmosphere that led us to this church in the first place and we were out.

We went several weeks, maybe even months, without a church home. One morning I asked if she wanted to go to a church on the outskirts of town, one I had attended once for a Bible study 20 years prior (with an ex-girlfriend). We went and were home and have been there since.

And yet...

Something is missing. It could be age but the 'worship' flows like a rock concert (or, in my case, a rave) where one's enthusiasm reflects how grateful we are and how much we love God. I have lately started wearing earplugs and generally have to spend time translating the shaky 'theology' of the lyrics through my interpretive filter.

It's a powerhouse of a Church but lately I have begun longing for the deeper things of God. It seems that in place of liturgy there are 'small groups' to go deeper into the church as Sunday mornings are mostly refresher courses with an emphasis on 'saving' those in need. I don't knock this as introducing someone to the love of Christ is a life changer.

However, I have been longing for the deeper things of God. This is not on a strictly intellectual level although the intellect is essential to harnessing the mind in the pursuit. And this is where the readings of the Church Fathers has brought me into the light of the Trinity. It doesn't make 'rational' sense; it takes what we consider to be 'rational' and aligns it, gives it stability and opens it up to something beyond it, something mysterious.

And it is this mystery that has brought me to the doors of Eastern Orthodoxy. From what I read - and it is only reading at this point aside from one visit to a local church 20 years ago and a scene from Baraka - it bathes in this mystery. This is not mystery in the sense of rejecting explanation. It is mystery in the sense of the Dao in that the deeper you go the deeper you go. And the deeper you go the more it makes sense experientially in the light of what Scripture unfolds. It is a framework, a repository, through which the mystery of Scripture enlightens every man that comes into the world.

And here is where I am. It overshadows everything, drawing me in. The writings of the early Fathers is at once liberating and enraging as I wish I would have discovered them years ago as it may have brought me time and saved me from the other divergent paths. But these paths serve a purpose and are reflective of many in the world at large and somewhat parallel as those who bounce from tradition to tradition yet within the Christian faith such as we ourselves have done.

Protestant Reductionism?

As I've been leaning more and more, at least through books and online videos, toward Eastern Orthodoxy, I continue to have those 'Yes!' moment encountering those thoughts and statements that encapsulate what I have yet to verbalize. One of those crossed my sight yesterday on the Orthodox Bridge blog. I post it here only because I haven't fully digested it and the counterarguments against it to make it mine, so to speak.

But it struck a nerve as I've felt that the emphasis on PSA and the soundbites accompanying it such as 'we serve a living Savior' to account for the resurrection (and it's suspect theologies that are found in modern worship where Jesus dukes it out with the devil like a South Park episode) leaving more sorely wanting for the more. It gives me warm fuzzies some days and I enjoy the people at church but... I often feel as if my intellectual pursuit does not have room.

It isn't that I'm better than anyone, it just needs room to run and I haven't found that the non-denominational (or other) circles in which I run have that 'room' to allow it to roam and bring it back in. I've found this through the Church Fathers. I've found the edge of the hedge. In my 20 years or so running in 'other' worlds I did not find that 'great cloud of witnesses' to bring it into subjection. Like a wild stallion, it bucks against those things that are cliche, tired or off.

So it is that the term 'reductionist' hit me as an 'Yes, that's it!' moment. It isn't that it's there but the challenge is that to put it all together requires picking, choosing and building on my own when in fact, at least from what I have in theory found, it already exists. Granted, some of the things are new, or odd, to me such as the icons and the veneration of Mary but at the moment those aren't deal breakers as I 'get' wht is behind them on their own rather than contrasted with Protestant (generalizing, of course, as the breadth of Protestant is reflected in its countless denominations and non-denominations) theology. I have not been so moved as I have by the readings of the Fathers. I fully understand that as persons they are challenging, especially 1,500 years removed, but they aren't perfect, even as saints. But as a whole reflecting the accumulated tradition (understanding again the power plays at work as the Church and the State collided even cohabitated) the theology we claim to cling to today originates there. Chuck that and we may as well start over which, if you step back for a moment, is in fact happening. So for your reading pleasure with link to the original:

The great problem with Protestant teaching on salvation is its thorough-going reductionism. In the Holy Scripture and in the writings of the Holy Fathers salvation is a grand accomplishment with innumerable facets, a great and expansive deliverance of humanity from all its enemies: sin, condemnation, the wrath of God, the devil and his demons, the world, and ultimately death. In Protestant teaching and practice, salvation is essentially a deliverance from the wrath of God. (p. 288; emphasis added)

The traditional Christian teaching expressed in the New Testament and the writings of the Fathers on the subject of the atonement of our Savior is the Cross saved us in three essential ways: on the Cross Jesus conquered death; on the Cross Jesus triumphed over the principalities and power of this evil age; on the Cross Jesus made atonement for human sins by His blood. Because the Protestants were working out of a soteriological framework of a courtroom and declarative justification, they read the teaching about the Cross through these lenses and as a result articulated a reductionistic theology of the atonement, which ignored the traditional emphasis on the conquering of death and the triumph of the demons. Everything for Protestantism becomes satisfaction of God’s justice, and by making one image the whole, even that image became distorted in Protestant articulation. (p. 294)

. . . the greatest reductionism is found in the immense neglect of emphasis upon the heart of the New Testament teaching on salvation as union with Jesus Christ . . . . The theology of the Church bears witness to the fact that the mystery of salvation is accomplished not just on the Cross, but from the very moment of Incarnation when the Only-Begotten and Co-Eternal Son united Himself forever with humanity in the womb of the Virgin Mary, his Most Pure Mother. Salvation as union and communion between God and Man drips from every page of the new Testament and in the writings of Holy fathers. (p. 296; emphasis added)

Link

It's All About Choices

As you may know, I have never been one to commit, truly commit, to anything organizational, especially when it comes to matters of faith. Quite often this lack of commitment is a principled rebellion against being swayed by people. The more I am pressured to believe something the more I am going to question it because too often this type of pressure amounts to that person overcompensating and convincing themselves about questions or doubts they may have.

So, raised nominal Presbyterian thought with a strong conviction of the idea of 'God' though distorted through a lens of guilt and shame triggered by a traumatic event I only uncovered thirty years after it happened. Dabbled in the 'eastern' religions, mostly Daoism and its intuitive sense of paradox (still find this a 'natural' way of thinking). Found myself immersed in the fundamentalist world of Oneness Pentecostalism (it's about a girl) but that was instrumental in forcing me to confront my unwillingness to commit and believe and it challenged me enough to pursue positively what it is I believe rather than what it is I don't believe.

Drifted from that to a 'softer' version of charismatic Christianity. This fell apart when there was a change in leadership and a drift back to a more 'fundamentalist' approach we had grown out of and could no longer participate in. We drifted to a church with similar DNA, one I had visited one time 20 years prior (it too was about a girl) and we stayed. Soft enough yet strong enough, earthy enough with a mind toward things of the spirit, it was a good fit. 

However, with a mind always seeking to answer the question 'Who do you say that I am?' I remained intellectually restless. I could 'feel' the things of the spirit but my mind was not aligned. It got close but over time I realized that I need theology. I cannot not focus on theology and bring my mind in alignment with what I 'feel' as too often after the feeling passes I remain annoyed at the lack of clarity. This isn't purely an intellectual, reasoning pursuit in a scientific vein. It is more a longing to answer that question for myself.

Oneness Pentecostalism wasn't it. That left far too many questions and there were to many mental gymnastics required to make it sound as if it made sense. I understand the critique from those who opposite it and realize also that its difference from true Modalism or Sabellianism is its reliance solely upon the text of the Bible and - this is key - the scientific scientific method, Bible as science book, into which we have all been indoctrinated (whether believing or fighting it).

Along with the question was the sheer irritation at 'one more Chris Tomlin' song with Bible quotes devoid of context and various terms - Father, Lord, Jesus - all lumped together in one homogenous stew. Thus began the pursuit of Trinitarianism and it would lead me to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Tired of the 'God sent His Son to die for me' approach to the faith (something that never made sense to me and is not well explained from the pulpit, as if that statement alone somehow explains something) I sought the roots of this approach to the faith. Turns out, though it is certainly in the Bible, this seemingly single and sole emphasis is a recent development. We're sinners and we deserve the wrath of God and God kicked Jesus' a** for us  to justify us in His eyes. Still doesn't make sense or, at the very least, it seems like its truncated, like something is missing. I'm saved from hell. Now what? Convert the masses. The ultimate MLM. I'm not sure that is the Good News.

So EO and the Church Fathers. I began to find a language that made sense. "What is not assumed is not saved." And my world changed. There are those who argue against this approach but I am not buying the arguments against as they are trying to sell the 'juridicial only' approach to salvation. I believe that is embedded in there but is only a part, not the whole story.

And the beauty of this, it's my choice. I'm over the need to be right or the need to 'prove' something to someone (myself maybe?) or the need to that my way is the only way. This whole need to be right is no longer something I have an interest in. I'm interested in what is means to be saved as a process, not as a one time event.

The Appeal Of Christian 'Mysticism'

For as skeptical as I am, my inclination is and always has been toward a more 'mystical' bent. There is something natural about this, paradoxical as it may seem. When we come up against the limits of our knowledge it is a mystery yet it is the mystery that continues us pushing to understand and expand. This isn't escapist in nature as much as it is experiential. It could be my temperament (and me projecting) but so much of the 'modern' Church seems to be more interested in being right than reflecting the experience of Who Christ is or, worse, it conflates material prosperity with being blessed.

I suppose that's why the emphasis on the Holy Spirit and the miraculous, from healings to the electric bill being paid on time, that a 'dead' church is one in which this type of activity does not go on so we tend to equate a 'living' Church with one that is, for lack of a better term, entertaining.

Perhaps it is my skeptical nature (skeptical more of our own perceptions than the propositions of truth being expressed in the faith) but this to me does not seem to be a faith that sustains and, if not careful, could be a faith that leaves us looking for the next big thing. For every healing there are many who are not healed; for every miraculous financial blessing there are multitudes who are not financially 'blessed' in such a fashion. Lack of faith? Not yet time? What of those who die waiting for such a miracle or have lost their faith because God didn't come through? 

NDEs? Why do they tend toward the same experience? Are they culturally framed? In many ways, they sound like a psychedelic experience, tapping into the limits of our brains. They cause me to question more than they excite me. We all want certainty, surety that there is a God and that death does not have the final say.

So the mysticism focus is a different kind of knowing. It is not, or is more than, intellectual knowledge or certainty. That is a part of it but that has more to do with bringing the mind into submission and allowing it to be a vehicle - or at least not in the way - to 'experience' the divine mysteries, when we are silent and our interior is able to expand to embrace said mystery.

I continue coming back to these words:

"I have hardly begun to think of the Unity before the Trinity bathes me in its splendour: I have hardly begun to think of the Trinity before the Unity seizes hold of me again. When one of the Three presents himself to me, I think it is the whole, so full to overflowing is my vision, so far beyond me does he reach. There is no room left in my mind, it is too limited to understand even one. When I combine the Three in one single thought, I see only one great flame without being able to subdivide or analyse the single light. Gregory Nazianzen, (On Baptism, 41, from The Roots Of Christian Mysticism, p. 66)"

Or another translation:

"When I first know the one I am also illumined from all sides by the three; when I first distinguish the three I am also carried back to the one. When I picture one of the three i consider this the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part has escaped me. I cannot grasp the greatness of that one so as to grant something greater than the rest. When i bring the three together in contemplation, I see one torch and am unable to divide or measure the united light." Gregory Nazianzen, On Baptism, 41, from Festal Orations, p. 137)

Or this one: 

"When I speak of God, be struck from all sides by the lightning flash of one light and also three; three in regard to the individualities, that is hypostases, if one prefers to call them this, or persons...but if one speaks of the essence, that is the divinity. For they are divided undividedly, if i may speak thus, and united in division. For the divinity is one in three, and the three are one, in whom divinity is, or, to speak more precisely, who are the divinity." Gregory Nazianzen, On The Baptism of Christ, 11, from Festal Orations, p. 87) 

Eyes glaze over, mind becomes annoyed or enraged. That makes no sense is the initial response to such intellectual gymnastics. But I find rest in this dance. It is active and alive, not a static intellectual category or mental construct in which we find comfort or control. It is living, like energy, and is never still. If it were still, it would be an idol, we'd own it and sell it and it would not change us.