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

Datums

There is absolutely no way we will ever come to complete agreement on this Christian thing. Never.

Never have, at least not all the way (whatever that means), never will. Can we all agree to disagree? 

Is there any common core?

It's not the Bible. KJV? NASB? Douay? EOB? Apocrypha included or not?

Who decides? Who translates? Who interprets? 

Can we really say 'Jesus' is what we have in common? Divine? Man? God Man? Virgin Birth? Son of God? Pre-existent? After all, every split within the body of believers called church has been around him and who he is.

Even the term God is fraught with difficulty. Trinity? Father alone? Jesus is God. Jesus is 'divine' but not God?

The bigger question is this: can we live with this not knowing? 

So many questions, so few answers. Each answer has more questions. 

The more I think and the more I talk and the more I study, the more I want stillness. Silence. Having traversed high and low, the realization is that we come to a place where there is nothing but mystery. It is ok to not know. This is not denial or absence of understanding but the realization that words, concepts and intellectual frameworks ultimately will fail in the light of this mystery.

"Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice, not because he demands it or feels some need for it, but in order to carry out his own plan? Humanity had to be brought to life by the humanity of God ... we had to be called back to him by his Son ...Let the rest be adored in silence." (Clement, p.45, quoting Gregory of Nazianzus)

"To progress in thinking about creatures is painful and wearisome. The · contemplation of the Holy Trinity is ineffable peace and silence." (Clement, p. 232, quoting Evagrius) "How has he been begotten? I re-utter the question with loathing. God's begetting ought to have the tribute of our reverent silence." (Gregory of Nazianzu, Oration 29)

The power, I am being to learn, is that we can experience it. We can bathe in it, swim in it. We just can't contain it or define it or box it in. This 'unknowing' is something we come to through a tradition, not in denial of the same or picking and choosing whatever it is we want to accept which makes us then the absolute standard of Truth; it confirms what we believe, it does not transform us.

Even the tale of Laozi being a scholar and keeper of the archives before he walked away indicates that he went through it and came out on the other side; the Buddha did something similar. Jesus, theologically debatable of course, went through his tradition. To get "there" you must journey through. It is the journey that provides the framework which leads you ultimately to silence.

I suppose in some sense then the 'silence' at the end of the journey will be different at the end because of the ocean in which you swam. 

Christ - Oneness vs. Trinity

Sorry for the mad ramblings (and over generalizations) on this one, hashing out some of the deeper theology related to the 'person' of Christ. Deep into the Orthodox tradition reading the Church Fathers on the subject as well as more modern theologians such as Dumitru Staniloae and John Meyendorff. When reading the scholars of the Oneness tradition they pale in comparison to the deeper things of the Church.  Rather than entering the mystery, I have found that far too often they enter debate. 'Tradition' does not mean stale liturgy and high theological treatises, the teaching of men over the inspiration of the Spirit.

Even non-denominational churches and churches such as Oneness Pentecostals, though rooted firmly in the Bible, have 'traditions' which ultimately develop and rituals which are built around them. Wherever people are gathered there will be traditions and rituals.

Oneness theologians are strictly Bible only in their theology. While for some this may be seen as a weakness, for them it is a source of pride. As I spent many years in a Oneness church I learned, over time, the Bible only was not enough. Much of their theology came from either the pastor (or Bishop) or from 'inspiration' from the Holy Spirit. There were a lot of verbal and mental gymnastics required to make the theology stick. For as 'literal' as they claimed to be it was quite a leap to make the 'literal' meaning of the text say what it was they wanted it to say.

So as I progress on this journey, I am learning that the "Trinity", while certainly theologically dense and complex, once absorbed, becomes more readily experiential and provides a space through which the words of the Scripture enter and resonate more deeply. With the brain more settled I more easily enter the 'stream' toward the Divine.

"Nevertheless, Jesus' "I" - the ultimate subject - was not a human person, but the divine Logos, Second Person of the Trinity. It is not an expression or a manifestation of "natural" - divine, or created - existence, because the created, human existence of Jesus did not express itself in a human hypostasis, but rather in a divine one. It was assumed by the Son of God without ceasing to be fully human."

Oneness theology does not believe in a 'Son' prior to the Incarnation. The 'Son' had a beginning and that beginning was as a human being. God the Son has no meaning and is not revealed in Scripture. Through His humanity He has revealed Himself to be 'Jesus' and this name therefore is the name of God, i.e. the 'name' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No pre-existent Son, no Spirit as a third 'person' in the Godhead.

I get it. Kind of. Where I'm stuck is on the 'humanity' of Jesus. I tend to think of him as a 'person' in the sense of a specific, human identity. To say he 'assumed' this identity leads to a pre-existing human 'person' which he took over. That is not really an incarnation because it applies to a person, to a "man" in the sense of "us", already there for him to assume. 

However, when we try and contemplate what, exactly, was birthed in Mary we enter the mystery. What, or who, was that 'person' which was given flesh by the Holy Spirit? With no genealogy from mortal parents, what does it mean to say he was born as a human being? What is a human being? 

And, once we figure this out, can we see clearly which of the two theologies is real? Or are they both real and just a matter of how we look at it?

So, stepping back. What is our true nature? What did Christ 'become'? And if the divine Logos became a human being, what does that mean? As we are not the divine Logos what are we in essence?

If God the Son, i.e. the Logos, assumed human nature and yet remained the divine subject of this assumed nature, who are we? Are we too 'assuming' or borrowing or 'putting on' flesh as well?  Is it the human nature itself that is corrupt? Is 'sin' in this sense rooted in that very nature?

If this is the case is sin something external to our 'who-ness' and we simply give credence to this nature by our choices? And, going a step further, 'who' is doing the choosing? Who is the 'I' that is making the choice to bow to our tendency in our nature?

But if Jesus assumed this nature yet without sin, sin is not something fundamentally present within human nature. It is either external or it is directly connected to our 'persons' (i.e. the 'I'). It is not us; it is not human nature. What, then, is it?

Oneness doctrine does not believe in God the Son. The fullness of the divine then 'assumed' (do they say 'assumed'?) or 'became' flesh. The divine and the human were one in Jesus. But how? So God was God in heaven and Jesus was God on earth though in a human body (or being).

So even Oneness believers struggle with the explanation/understanding of what it means to say that God was in Christ, i.e. the dual nature. Trinitarians explain that it was the Second Person of the Trinity who assumed a body; Oneness believers believe - how seems not be understood - that the fullness of Deity took residence in Christ. Was his 'flesh' assumed? Was human nature 'assumed'? What does it mean when they say he was 'manifest' as a man?

Joseph Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI) - Jesus of Nazareth

If you tire of the self-help literature that is found under "Christian Inspiration" at your local chain bookstore, I recommend this book.

It's not an easy read. But it's an essential read.

The deeper I dig into Catholic tradition, the more treasures appear. If you are looking to deepen your faith and tire of the cheerleader Christianity so prevalent among churches today, the direction you need to go is to dig into the past.

Contrary to much popular opinion, the Bible is not a history book. To go back and try and figure out what the early church did simply by reading the New Testament is simply not enough.

The early church's history needs to be balanced out by the writings of the Church Fathers, the Second Temple literature and other pseudepigraphal works of the age along with some historical views of the culture in which Christianity emerged. Only then do we begin to get some semblance of what the early church was like.

The "Acts church" out of context has a tendency to look like an American church.

I consider myself to be fairly well studied when it comes to Christian history/theology (though obviously there is always much, much more to be learned). But within the first 50 pages of the book I've already been enlightened. It flows into a paradigm I already hold but the knowledge enhances this paradigm.

Consider:

"Both Evangelists designate Jesus' preaching with the Greek term evangelion - but what does that actuallymean?

The term has recently been translated as "good news." That sounds attractive, but it falls short of the order of magnitude of what is actually meant by the word evangelion. This term figures in the vocabulary of the Roman emperors, who understood themselves as lords, saviors, and redeemers of the world. The messages issued by the emperor were called in Latin evangelium, regardless of whether or not their content was particularly cheerful and pleasant. The idea was that what comes from the emperor is a saving message, that it is not just a piece of news, but a change of the world for the better.

When the Evangelists adopt this word, and it thereby becomes the generic name for their writings, what they mean to tell us is this: What the emperors, who pretend to be gods, illegitimately claim, really occurs here - a message endowed with plenary authority, a message that is not just talk, but reality. In the vocabulary of contemporary linguistic theory, we would say that the evangelium, the Gospel, is not just informative speech, but performative speech - not just the imparting of information, but action, efficacious power that enters into the world to save and transform." (pp. 46-47)

Adds a bit of power to the term.

Get this book. It is not a papal view nor is it a Catholic doctrinal work. It is the man Joseph Ratzinger's search for the face of the Lord.

The Last Temptation of Christ - Matthew and the Gospel

In another scene in the book (not shown in the film, at least not that I recall...), Kazantzakis lays out a possibility as to the composition of the Gospel. Jesus has not yet gone to the cross.

"Matthew kept his quill ready and his eyes and ears open. He did not allow even a single word to fall to the ground, but collected everything and placed it on paper. And thus little by little, day by day, the Gospel - the Good News - was copmosed....

Mathew knew the Scriptures by heart. He noticed how the teacher's sayings and deeds were exactly the same as the prophets, centuries earlier had proclaimed; and if once in a while the prophecies and Jesus' life did not quite match, it was because the mind of man was not eager to undersatnd the hidden meaning of the sacred text.

The word of God had seven levels of meaning, and Matthew struggled to find at which level the incompatible elements could find their mates. Even if he occasionally matched things by force, God forgives! Not only would he forgive, he desired this. Every time Matthew took up his quill, did not an angel come and bend over his ear to intone what he was to write?

Today was the first time Matthew clearly understood wehre to start and how the life and times of Jesus had to be taken in hand. First of all, where he was born and who is parents and grandparents were, for fourteen generations. He was born in Nazareth to poor parents - to Joseph the carpenter and Mary, daughter of Joachim and Anne...Matthew took up his quill and called silently upon God to enlighten his mind and give him strength.

But as he began to inscribe the first words on the paper in a beautiful hand, his finger stiffened. The angel had seized him. He heard wings beat angrily in the air and a voice trumpeted in his ear, "Not the son of Joseph! What says the prophet Isaiah: 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son'...Write: Mary was a virgin..."

More Scriptures are applied to Jesus' life.

"But Matthew grew angry. He turned toward the invisible wings at his right and growled softly, so that the sleeping disciples would not hear him: "It's not true. I don't want to write, and I won't!"

"Mocking laughter was heard in the air, and a voice: "How can you understand what truth is, you handful of dust? Truth has seven levels. On the highest is enthroned the truth of God, which bears not the slightest resemblance to the truth of men. It is the truth, Matthew Evangelist, that I entone in your ear..."

"The sweat gushed from Matthew's forehead. "I won't write! I won't write!" he cried, but his hand was running over the page, writing." (pp. 348-50)

Kazantzakis is not afraid of tackling Biblical criticism head on. It is obvious that he is familiar with it and, for those who have tackled the subject and the challenge to one's faith, this is a pivotal moment in the book. I remember reading it for the first time and nearly jumping with excitement when I had encountered this. Here is a book of devotion, of conviction, and yet here, in plain detail is a counter to the claims of those who dismiss the veracity of the Gospel accounts, an alternative, even "third" view, to consider.

A little further on in the book, Jesus asks to see what Matthew has written about him. The following dialogue takes place:

"Matthew," said Jesus, "bring your notebook here. What do you write?"

Matthew got up and handed Jesus his writings. He was very happy.

"Rabbi," he said, "here I recount your life and works, for men of the future."

Jesus knelt under a lamp and began to read....Jesus skimmed through the notebook and then, unable to control himself any longer, stood up straight and indignantly threw Matthew's Gospel down on the ground.

"What is this?" he screamed. "Lies! Lies! Lies! The Messiah doesn't need miracles. he is the miracle - no other is necessary!"

No wonder the book (and the film) caused such an uproar.

I haven't read the book in a while and am enjoying revisiting it. It really helped alleviate many of the struggles I had after first encountering Biblical criticism as I realized I was not alone in the struggles. I began to realize just how much religious faith differs from the faith men put in the reductionist worldview of our scientific age.

Fundamental reading for those who seek to foster growth in their conviction of the Christian faith. It may seem like a paradox but I have found that works such as these can be more advantageous than works that simply confirm what is already known or believed.

The Last Temptation of Christ - Jesus and Paul

If you've never seen the movie or read the book, this is perhaps one of the pivotal scenes in the movie. The whole shock over Jesus having sex is silly. This book is profound (and the movie does a good job at conveying the main message of the book though the book has juicy tidbits a film just can't convey).

Jesus, having been nailed to cross, is now approached by an old man in the form of an angel. The following dialogue takes place.

ANGEL

Your father is the God of Mercy, not punishment. He saw you and said, 'Aren't you his Guardian Angel? Well, go down and save him. He's suffered enough.' Remember when he told Abraham to sacrifice his son? Just as Abraham lifted his knife, God saved Isaac. If he saved Abraham's son, don't you think he'd want to save his own? He tested you, and he's pleased. He doesn't want your blood. He said, "Let him die in a dream. But let him have his life." Come with me.

JESUS

All this pain is a dream?

ANGEL

Just a dream.

Jesus is thus shown as alive having survived being crucified.

Years later in the film, wife and children in tow, he is seen living a normal life like the rest of humanity. In what is perhaps the pivotal scene in the film, Jesus (played by Wilem Dafoe...yea, I know...) encounters Paul (played by Harry Dean Stanton...yea, I know...) preaching. Jesus is horrified at the things he is saying. After a sharp exchange, Paul says the following:

Y'know, I'm glad I met you. My Jesus is much more important and much more powerful.

If you've not seen the film or read the book the dream is not the dream we think. It is vital to understand the context in which Paul's words are written. Without this context, Paul sounds exactly like those who believe he invented the whole thing. But, when understood having grasped the meaning of the title of the book/film, Paul's words are not so earth shattering. In fact, in light of the film's ending, Paul's words are put into proper context and light is shed on them.

Here is the clip from the film:

If we wish to consider the alternative view, that Jesus survived and married and had children, or that Paul invented the faith, this is a powerful medium through which to do it. In the book, there is greater, more nuanced, deatil. The end result of such a view is given clarity and is well worth pondering.

The book was written as "the confession of every man who struggles" (from the Prologue). I don't know the film well enough to review whether or not Scorcese brought this out in the film or gave it his own spin but it is not a blasphemous book. In fact, it is well worth reading for the challenge, for the believer to face with complete and total honesty the doubts and questions we all harbor within.

Where did the body of Jesus go?

This is a question that has always nagged at me. If Jesus had a physical body after his resurrection as we think of it and he ascended up (I assume) to heaven, this means his body defied every physical law and wherever heaven is "up there" he had to have moved faster than the speed of light to get there or he would have somehow hit warp speed and traveled to another universe or dimension. Pretty fantastical stuff, more like science fiction than faith.

So where did he go?

As we were standing in worship service at church one Sunday, the music struck a very hypnotic, trance inducing tone and it was as if the entire room was truly on one accord, hands lifted high, no song lyrics just a mantra-like phrase in the song. I looked around the room and had a striking and crystal clear thought: this is the body of Christ. This, I thought to myself, is Jesus.

Paul speaks of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27 et al). He also notes that the Lord is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17). This view is Biblical. It bears similarity to the Ummah in Islam and the Sangha of Buddhism only there is a more "mystical" flair to Paul's version as Muslims don't believe the Ummah is the body of Muhammad nor is the Sangha the body of Buddha.

Paul makes no mention of a physical ascension. He speaks of an exalted Jesus (cf. Philippians 2:9-11). Either the ascension was assumed or well known amongst the communities to whom he spoke or it was unimportant or even unknown to him. It isn't until we get to the Gospels that a "bodily" ascension comes into play.

Paul mentions (assuming these writings are actually his) those who believed the resurrection to have already happened, a spiritual not "factual" event, Gnosticism already beginning to show its roots. It seems pretty clear from this passage that Paul believed in a bodily resurrection of some kind. If this is true then we can safely assume that he believed that the "spiritual body" of Jesus was not a disembodied spirit floating ethereally in the atmosphere somewhere. What this body is certainly is far from clear. It's the same but it's different.

But again, where is this body? In heaven? Where is this heaven? Is it "up" as we all believe, Jesus' body ascending like a photon through space?

Or is the glorified body somehow different or transcendent of such physical limitations?

Or is the "right hand of the Father" something of a metaphor for retirement?

Or is his body the Church, i.e. you and I, Christ in us through the Spirit?

Where is this body?

By the way, Muslim tradition (though perhaps not universally accepted, especially by more critical scholars) teaches that instead of being crucified, Jesus was rescued at the last minute and was taken up to heaven bodily while a substitute (perhaps Judas, who must have looked like Jesus) was crucified in his stead, the Jews thus believing him to be crucified and spreading what was in effect a lie. No glorified body, no body transformed, no spirit body, just the real, physical body of Jesus.

Is Jesus the only way?

There are three principal texts (though there are also others) used to defend this notion. On the surface, they appear straightforward. But, like most things textual, they are not so cut and dry in context.

1) "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

It is possible to look at this one not as a universal declaration, which would be peculiar as Jesus (at least in the Synoptics) is addressing only Jews. In other words, he is not saying he is the only way, he is saying that he, as opposed to Jewish Law, is the way, the truth and the life.

2) "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

If we look at the context in which this was said, Peter is speaking to the Jews at Pentecost. He is not addressing Gentiles (though there may have been a few stray God-fearers in the midst or perhaps some Roman soldiers), he is speaking to the Jews as v. 8 states:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, 'Rulers and elders of the people...'"

In other words, there is no other name [i.e. as opposed to the Law] under heaven whereby we [i.e. Jews], can be saved.

3) "For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9-11)

This is a reference to Isaiah 45:22-23:

"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else.

I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

Notice that it is at the name of Jesus every knee will bow. But notice who it is to: God the Father. This is not saying that every knee will bow to Jesus but will bow in recognition of His lordship as it was bestowed upon him by his Father (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:28).

It is fairly clear that these interpretations, taken in their proper context specific within the book in which they fall (rather than conflating them with the New Testament as a whole), are not without merit.

This is actually not a dig at the truth claims of Christians. This is more to bring awareness to the simplistic method in which these Scriptures are often used. They are often a shortcut to any true dialogue. Consider also that many people do not accept the Bible as authoritative.

Worse, these passages are often used in place of the more difficult proof: one's life. This, more than anything, is the issue. The only real proof of the Christian message is found in the lives of those who claim to follow Jesus. It isn't about being right; it is about life.

Many a well-meaning Christian will quote these verses as if they somehow prove, in and of themselves, that only someone who believes in Jesus will reach heaven. I don't know that Jesus (or Paul) ever phrased it in such fashion. It seems to me that this "going to heaven" thing is of recent origins and has no appeal to me. If that is my motive for the whole shebang then send me to hell.

Rabiah of Basra, an early Muslim mystic/ascetic (see, the "spiritual mutt" thing is in the blood...) is quoted as saying:

"O God! if I worship Thee in fear of Hell, burn me in Hell; and if I worship Thee in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise; but if I worship Thee for Thine own sake, withhold not Thine everlasting beauty!"

My sentiments exactly.

The Believer, Shalom Spiegel and the Akedah

Based on a previous post on the Jewish roots of the origins of Paul's views on the death and resurrection of Jesus I was reminded of the film The Believer, about a Jew who is a skinhead struggling with his beliefs. It's a challenging film well worth watching. I saw this film after studying Vermes' article and subsequently reading The Last Trial.

While it is not widely accepted, the tradition that Isaac was actually killed is fairly well known. Spiegel's book on the Akedah is vital reading. Geza Vermes' article is rooted in it, though Spiegel is much harder on Paul than Vermes. Still, both provide rather interesting perspectives on a belief not commonly known and a different sourcing of Paul's view on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Here's a clip from the film:

Origen, Vladimir Lossky and Henry Corbin

The Kontakion (hymn) of the Feast of the Transfiguration in the Eastern Orthodox Church sings:

On the Mountain You were Transfigured, O Christ God,

And Your disciples beheld Your glory as far as they could see it;

So that when they would behold You crucified,

They would understand that Your suffering was voluntary,

And would proclaim to the world,

That You are truly the Radiance of the Father!

According to Vladimir Lossky, the disciples saw the divine glory "according to their capacity". That is a rather interesting choice of words as it corresponds to how Henry Corbin has translated several passages from the Acts of Peter and Acts of John.

Corbin points out the following from Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:

For when he has passed through the six days, as we have said, he will keep a new Sabbath, rejoicing in the lofty mountain, because he sees Jesus transfigured before him; for the Word has different forms, as He appears to each as is expedient for the beholder, and is manifested to no one beyond the capacity of the beholder. (Book XII, Chapter 36)

It would seem there are shades of familiarity with Origen in Lossky's translation as he references Origen more than a few times in his works.

What is striking is how differently such an idea is interpreted in each. Lossky is straight up orthodox (Eastern Orthodox in particular) in his thinking; Corbin's approach is of a Gnostic nature, following this idea of "capacity" not in the kenotic sense of Orthodox Christianity but to the idea of the Qa'im, the final Imam, in Shi'ite, and in particular Ismaili Shi'ite, Islam.

Though it is apparent that the Imam bears resemblance to a Christ-like "type" of figure, Corbin points out that the figure of the Imam bears resemblance not to the Jesus of historical Christianity but to the Ebionite variety in which, in Jesus, the True Prophet has found "the place of repose".

This also cracks open the shell of the idea of "influence" a bit further than the "causal reduction peculiar to historism" and the reductionism of a scientific worldview so popular today in which "before" equates to "influence" which is ultimately a superficial approach to how religious ideas develop. As Corbin notes, "the concrete spiritual fact of 'transformation' itself cannot be causally deduced" (Corbin, Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis, p. 66)

What kind of a Christian?

That's a really tough question. I guess I am "supposed" to be a Christian of the Trintarian variety. To a degree I am though sometimes I feel as if I hold to this as an objective categorization to keep it separate from the "other" variations of the Christian, defined more by what it is not than by what it is, the apophaticism of the mystics.

I do see how it developed and the need for it. Something was necessary to give a cohesive structure to the Church in order for it to survive as it has for 2,000 years. Given what we have in the Bible - Father, Son, Spirit - and their workings throughout the New Testament writings, it is sensible that the Trinitarian doctrine developed. It is not, as many claim, illogical, as it was logic that built the Trinitarian edifice. There is a limit to this logic, however, and there does come a point where logic is baffled because we recognize the limits of words and language to convey the deeper things of religious experience. This also is not illogical. All religious traditions agree that while words are necessary to take us "there" a point comes where words fail.

But there are times when I view Jesus as universal soul, the "celestial self" of whom Henry Corbin writes, the fravarti, the Daena we will meet on the road to the Cinvat Bridge. This vision is found in Manichaeism, Sufism and Pure Land Buddhism. But it is not foreign to Christianity. In Corbin's view, Jesus was viewed by some (e.g. in the Shepherd of Hermas) as an Angel along the same lines. And the more I understand the idea of the Imam in Shi'ite Islam the more it makes sense. There can be no doubt that there are parallel lines of "seeing" between this vision of Islam and the Christ who is "angelic" in this sense.

So which Jesus?

Then there is the cultural Jesus, the "substitute Jesus" of the cult of celebrity, whether musicians, movie stars, pro athletes, talk show hosts or any other "famous" person in whom we place our trust and allegiance, only to cruficy them when they fail. Why else are the tabloids so popular? It's because we want to know the dirt they do. We prop them up, support their lifestyles so that we can, in a sense, fund them the lives we wish to live, watch them as voyeurs, safely from a distance, and then thrive when they fall.

There is the Islamic Jesus, the Buddhist Jesus, the Jewish Jesus, the Jesus Seminar Jesus, the macho Jesus, the feminist Jesus, even the atheist Jesus. Lots of Jesuses out there. Which Jesus?

Isn't it quite possible that all these views of Jesus actually embrace him? Perhaps Jesus has become nothing more than a collective projection of an innate goodness onto a "figure" named Jesus, whose roots are found in the New Testament but who has become the repository of the collective human consciousness. Perhaps the "New Age" Jesus is in full effect.

I think any vision of Jesus will always develop and change over time. After all, this is theology plain and simple. There is really no theology proper in Islam. Theology implies an independent interpretation and, as such, has been controversial in Islamic history. Judaism also does not place great emphasis on theology. Theology, in these two faiths, are basically the equivalent of what is believed. But there are, in general, no disputations about the "nature" of God.

Theology really developed in answer to the question Jesus poses: "Who do you say that I am?" It is this, when analyzed through independent reason and the adoption of Greek philosophical methods and terms to a Christian paradigm, that drove Christian theology. So while every avenue of who Jesus was/is has been, throughout the great debates in Church history, analyzed and discussed and argued about, there is still a challenge on the individual level to wrestle with this question.

It is this wrestling, and a more independent streak in the post-Enlightenment world, that has led to all the divisions within Christendom and has given rise to the post-denominational world of the Church today. Add to this the Jesus of culture or of other religions and the mystery of who he really was/is increases.

As a Christian to not wrestle with this question requires blind allegiance to a teacher or pastor or blind allegiance to ignorance (i.e. fear). As a thinking Christian, wrestling with this question, while potentially dangerous, can be liberating. This does not mean leaving Christianity or abandoning Jesus or somehow failing God.

No, this means that you, as an individual, take responsibility for finding the answer on your own. Any visionary, anyone who has had an experience with the "risen Christ" has done so when he ventured beyond the confines of familiarity and contentment and journeyed out beyond into the realms of darkness where the soul is on its own, where the soul can find a true and genuine faith.

This is the realm where the "mystic" or the "visionary" who comes back with a tale to tell and a desire to help others. But this is also the realm in which, if not careful, the self-declared mystic and visionary comes back and leads eager and gullible souls to hell (think Jim Jones).

Self-definition is tough. I hate labels and categories. Labels and categories serve as a reference point, a leaping off point, but in the end they too need abandoned. Even the name of Jesus can become a hindrance as we creat an idol out of the imagery we attach to the name.

I am reminded, as is often the case, of the Dao De Jing:

"The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao.

The name that can be named, is not the eternal name." DDJ, 1, Feng translation

Yet the question remains: "Who do you say that I am?"

It comes down to choice...

It is a choice, certainly and I think that is the key. You might say it's a choice to choose. But then commitment to that choice is just as important. In my case, after the initial choice, my sincere desire to know the answers led me down many a winding path. But it always came back to Jesus. Always.

And the Jesus of Islam wasn't the answer (as I've noted in various places in my blog), nor was it the Jesus of the scholars, the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar, the Jesus of the New Age or the Jesus of historians. I gorged myself on these works, studying them in great depth and detail, trying to justify and prove that the whole thing was a myth, a charade, a lie. In the end I found, by and large, that the Jesus of these methods turned out to look a lot like the scholars the scholars themselves. In the end, ironically enough, it enhanced my faith.

I had some "visions" that were a turning point for me. I've written about them in the blog. We got away from the circus style church and found a place where true and genuine preaching was heard weekly. Practical, earthly, relevant stuff that, when applied, revealed the Truth greater than any studying could ever do.

And, lately, the healing of my soul. I sourced mine to events when I was around ten years old.

Strangely enough, this healing led to and coincided with intellectual rest and freedom. My intellect was a defense, protection of a wounded soul. Rather than be open and honest, I filtered it through analysis and intellect first. It was just another method of numbing the pain I was hiding. Once my soul began to heal, my intellect, though still on hyperdrive, was no longer my idol. It balanced my soul.

In hindsight, by hiding the pain, I learned that it was more painful to hide it than to feel the actual pain of the pain I was hiding...if that makes sense.

Make a choice and watch that party in your head come along and even support you in your choice. Rather than a cacophony make it a symphony. Start exploring the reasons for not being able to make a choice, to what degree addiction and depression are a front for selfishness and what part of the soul is in need of healing.

I'm not all the way there yet. Sometimes my writing is the conceptual grasp that I have yet to achieve but it's a goal. And I do slip back into depression and self-pity and addictive tendencies are always lurking. But I have a consistent hope these days.

But it's taken me over ten long and adventurous years after "accepting Christ" to begin to find it. I do believe, however, that the wisdom I found in diving into other traditions provided fertile soil and I cherish the wisdom and experiences. I remain open to listening to the whisper of the Spirit from wherever it may come.

Pornography is about power...

Pornography is not about sex. Sex is the means. It is about power whether it be about taking power or having power taken. There is no love in pornography. There is no relationship. There is base animal instinct. The only difference is the fetishization of it, the channeling of the power of the role playing into the varieties of human desire.

Plain and simple: it is about power. In many cases, the viewer can be both the powerful and the powerless. I suppose I hold a Daoist view, seeing in each role the seed of the other so in watching a man have sex with a woman the fantasy is not only that of the man "getting the girl" but, depending on the level of violation of the woman, part of the viewer can also be tapping into a place within where power is taken.

I have discovered that the many different fetishes, all compartmentalized, and categorized, are representative or symptomatic of some deep seeded issues and if the apparent separateness of them all can be rooted to an event or events it becomes possible to see the thread between them and it becomes possibly to allow a healing balm to stitch together the disconnectedness.

The ability of the human mind to disconnect and isolate based on a symbolic level and have it manifest is incredible. Whether it be vintage porn which takes me back to the beginning of this darkness or the other varieties that tap into other areas of my life which the rupture in my innocence had opened up there is really no limit as to how deep it can go.

Porn involving children has never been an interest and is not always the way such addiction leads. The theory that a traumatic event and the origins of addiction leave the person at that age in whatever area of trauma the event occurred. So for sexual abuse, the person remains sexually immature. I managed an apartment complex for the dually diagnosed, people with a mental illness and substance abuse, for about a year and a half and realized the truth of this. There were individuals there in their forties who had the emotional maturity of a very young person. The abuse and the addiction left that area of their life immature and though they were physically forty, emotionally they acted life children.

But addiction will always take you deeper. I had gotten to the place where the self-hatred was so intense, I began to see how sex and violence intermingle. And it affected my ability to relate to others. The deeper I went, the more the withdrawal, the greater the facade and role play.

But the image that has remained with me for all these years is that of having a trash can over my head when I speak. In my dreams, I frequently dreamed about pursuing something and would ask for help but the person to whom I spoke looked at me as if I was strange. They couldn't hear me, ignoring me, and the frustration was so bottled up I would often awake out of frustration at the inability to speak, my words mumbled and jumbled like the Peanuts characters' parents in the cartoons.

Something in me refrained from going all the way and whenever I would see images of porn involving physical violence and violation, whether actual striking, acts causing vomiting or other forms of violence under the guise of sex, I was at once appalled yet compelled to look, even if just a glance. But it is out there. And it is probably far worse than I can imagine. What was a glance and repulsive could, over time, desensitize and draw me in.

Fortunately, I found salvation. This isn't the cheap variety of salvation, a quick alter call, a thank you Jesus and thinking everything is cool. No, it is so much harder than that, so much more difficult. God shines the light into the darkness but He walks with you through the shadow of the valley of death. But you still have to walk it. But the difference is there is no fear; there is safety, even in the darkness. And when the wounds begin to heal, the healing is permanent as the ego detaches from the power of the wounds.

Don't ever be fooled into thinking it can't get any darker. There is no end to the darkness. The only limit are the safeguards in your life, whether love of family, moral principles or other "natural" means. But even these will break down over time and render the addict powerless. Only when healing truly occurs at the deepest level is there any hope. And, in my case, the healing only truly began with surrender to learning who God is through Jesus Christ.

I am not completely there as there are still issues to work out. But there is an openness, a clarity that has come lately that has been life changing. It isn't quite an objective look at where I've been and how it has affected me but it is quite clear. In fact, the initial incident to which I've traced this did not come back to my memory until a few years ago. I had blocked it out or had rendered it meaningless. But when it came to me after a period of some deep soul searching there was no doubt about it: this was the event.

All the Islam, all the Daoism, all the Zen, while helping me along the path, never did the trick. They paved the way, they opened my heart and mind and gave me a foundation upon which to build. Perhaps I never committed enough, never truly surrendered so this is not to cast judgment upon upon these faith traditions. In fact, I still find great value and wisdom in them. But they are good only in so far as they align with Jesus. But it was only after truly surrendering, and continuing to surrender, to following Jesus that the healing began and the light shone in the darkness of my past.

Of course I project this outward and generalize about viewers of porn. That is my limitation. I, like all of us, am subjective, limited in focus and range and willing to listen to other takes.

After thirty years of this living hell, I can "go there" and break it down if anyone would like. It isn't about sex; sex is the medium. It is about power. And both men and women, viewers and performers alike, suffer because of it.

Is Jesus God?

I've come to the conclusion that statement doesn't mean anything. Why? People, all people, have some notion of 'God'. However, the word 'God' is generic. It basically means deity or a 'higher power' or 'the big guy in the sky' or 'the Other'. So we all have some notion of God. It is formed in many ways, whether a childhood steeped in religion or learning about God from The Simpsons (a spot on caricature of all the stereotypes we tend to hold about God).

So we hear "Jesus is God" or ask whether or not Jesus is God. And we come to this statement/question with all of our beliefs about who or what God is and we say 'No.' We reject the notion. And, in my opinion, rightfully so. Though not as you may think.

Is he divine?

Again, what do we mean by divine? What exactly do we come with to the word 'divine'?

But this is the wrong approach, just as it is the wrong approach to indoctrinate people in the Christian tradition into the Trinity. We have no framework within which to comprehend these doctrines. No, the reality is that to come to terms with what these doctrines mean we must learn them, over time, walking in them, experiencing life through the Christian tradition, following the traditions of the Church, the teachings of the Bible and, yes, doctrine.

But the Trinity is a hedge, the end of the dialectic if you wish, the final say on all the other varieties of Christian response throughout the ages that seek to answer the question: who was Jesus?

Got an answer? There's a doctrine for you somewhere in Christian history. Oneness Pentecostals? Try Modalism. Jesus is not God but is the highest among God's creation? Try Arianism. Take your pick.

The Trinity is, by and large, the end result of all of this. Is this the 'core' of the Christian message? Is this what Jesus came to teach? Of course not. It is a framework through which to understand what he did teach.

Without a framework, what is the standard by which we measure our comprehension of his message? Are we, i.e. Man, the measure? Do we alone determine the validity of his message? If not us, who?

So is Jesus God? I would say we come to know who God is by coming to know who Jesus is. If we go through, say, Islam, we come to understand God in a different way. If we come to know God through our own interpretation, we see God differently. This may be obvious. But it is a critical point. The way we come to understand God is a determining factor of not only how we understand God but how we behave in the world.

And this means everything.

I believe it...

Not sure when this happened but I believe. It's the strangest thing. As I contine digesting The Roots of Christian Mysticism with highlighter in hand, I get it. And I believe it. And slowly, every so slowly, I am healing.

Where is the proof? In my life. The more I find myself immersed in it, the more I find the things of this world to be illusory and I am less and less attached. This is not hating the world. That's not it at all. More and more I begin to see the real value in it.

Life is relationship. And as I heal I am able to relate to people in ways I haven't been able to when locked up inside my shell. My hope is that as I come out of my shell what people see is not me but Christ in me.

A few years ago I would have thought such a sentence sounded fundamentalist, looney even. Now, as I say it, I get it.

Jesus died for you? Continued...

But now [are they] many members, yet but one body.
And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if {one} member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
(1 Corinthians 12:21, 26-27, NASB)

We are part of a whole. If one of us is ill, we are all ill.

This passage may be talking in context to a particular group of believers but if Jesus died for the sins of the whole world then the whole world is, in essence, his body. If one member suffers, all the members suffer. This is the heart of compassion. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...

The choice is ours as to whether or not to participate. The "mission" of the Christian is not to "get people saved" but to bring people back into the fold, to restore them to their rightful place as children of God.

When Jesus told those he healed to go show the priests it, the healing wasn't the point. The larger picture was that Jesus reintroduced those outcasts (and the list of those outcast was large) back into the community.

With this change of focus we realize that it really isn't about me. I am only a part. So it isn't about how much stuff I can accumulate, how spiritual I am, how cute and charming I am. The only thing that matters is others.

What a hard task! But Jesus emptied himself to the point of death on the cross. Even as he was being crucified he sought the forgiveness of those crucifying him.

What does it mean to say that Jesus died for you?

Jesus did not come to save you. Jesus came and restored fallen humanity, of which you are a part. This doesn't mean God isn't thinking of you, nor that He hasn't thought of you before you were formed.

But it takes the emphasis off of the great em ee, away from this "personal" salvation which Christianity has become. It's about me. I am saved, I am going to heaven, look what God has done for me. Me, me, me.

To say that Jesus has restored fallen humanity, of which we are a part, places his finished work in a greater context. It is about us only as much as it is about everyone else. We, as a whole, are his body. Not just you, not just me. All of us.

Found this in Olivier Clement's The Roots of Christian Mysticism:

...for it is not the isolated individual but humanity in communion, or rather, all human beings together, who truly constitute the image of God. (p. 81)

And, quoting, Gregory of Nyssa, from his On the Creation of Man:

"It is the whole of [human] nature, extending from the beginning to the end [of history], that constitutes the image of Him who is." (p. 82)

Christ thus provided human nature, as a whole, with what Gregory of Nyssa called "the capacity for resurrection..." In other words, the 'body of Christ' is not you and me but all of us, everyone, throughout history, whether or not they have participated or not. Clement again:

"He rose from the dead in secret, and is recognized only by those who love him. In the Holy Spirit, he walks at everyone's side, but he waits for the response of loving faith, that Yes like Mary's, by which our freedom is set free." (p. 57)

The work is done. Once and for all.

The Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

I have been captivated by the Trinity. It is not thinking about the Trinity but thinking in the Trinity.

Yes. I do believe.

How do you define success?

I was talking with a friend of mine today who is head of Catholic Charities Services, the agency I worked for while working with the homeless as an outreach coordinator. It was perhaps the pivotal period of time in my faith. I was a "new" Christian then, studying religion and Biblical criticism at the university level, my intellect outweighing my heart at the time until I began working with the homeless.

Anyhow, he has been involved with a group of local evangelical Christians who are business leaders/owners and the question in the title came up. All the men, though they struggled with the question, tended to answer it in terms of financial terms, i.e. their business is doing well, their needs and wants are filled, they have financial security, etc.

My friend point out Philippians 2:5-8:

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, {and} being made in the likeness of men.
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (NASB)

Now in many neo-Protestant circles, these passages are for one thing only: to prove that Jesus is God (never mind the Trinity, never mind theological subtles, just that Jesus is God). The finer point of the passage is glossed over.

"...but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, {and} being made in the likeness of men.
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (NASB)

In other words, how does blessed (i.e. success) translated in material terms line up with Jesus? It would seem to me to contradict his message. His message was radical.

"Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go {and} sell your possessions and give to {the} poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19:21, cf. Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22)

No getting around it. This is the ideal.

This doesn't mean we have to be poor. Just as being wealthy is not indicative of one's faith, neither is being poor. It's the other side of the coin. This is looking at the outside of the cup. It says nothing of what is in one's heart.

But any wealth is to be used for others. Give to the poor. We are vessels, stewards of what is God's.

"The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

It is God's. We are thus stewards. If it is given to us, it is for a purpose and just as Christ emptied himself, so too are we to empty ourselves and become a vessel through which God can reach others. We are to be the light of the world.

Sadly, our notions of "salvation" and "saved" and "blessing" have become self-centered, personal, me-oriented with material/financial overtones. In other words, we define success by the standards of the culture at large and not the other way. No wonder people can't distinguish a Christian from anyone else, other than the oddball culture that many Christianities have birthed.

The oddest preachers, the celebrities on television or viral videos (think of the Farting Preacher) and that is the closest Christianity comes to a "culture" of its own.

Yet too often Christians go the other route and try to be cool, hip and down with the culture at large.

C'mon. Bumper stickers, crosses on chains, the ubiquitous Jesus fish, pamphlets, leaflets, flyers, business cards, hats, Jesus on a motorcycle, Jesus playing hoops and on and on and on they go cluttering up the landscape.



They are trinkets. You can be cool and be a Christian. The culture drives the faith rather than other way around.

Attachment and desire...

"Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Mark 10:21, NASB)

"Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go {and} sell your possessions and give to {the} poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19:21, NASB)

"When Jesus heard {this,} He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Luke 18:22, NASB)

That is revolutionary.

Is this selling of all and giving to the poor a mandate in itself? Is Jesus calling this charity or simply a means to another end? Jesus says elsewhere that the poor will always be with us so he isn't calling for a form of communism to eliminate poverty. The scenes in Acts 2 and 4 show this played out but even there the call isn't to form a commune but to free one's self from the 'stuff' of the world.

Not only are we called to sell all our stuff, we are asked to give up ourselves in the process. This, it seems to me, is the second step in the process. First we must eliminate the stuff of the world, the possessions to which we attach ourselves, giving it power that is not there. The next step, then, is to deny ourselves.

"And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me." (Mark 8:34, NASB)

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew 16:24, NASB)

"And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Luke 19:34, NASB)

What has happened to the Christians?

How is it that Christianity has become a means to wealth creation?

Revolution...

Any longlasting and effective change has come when the people get together and speak up. Most recently we saw this in the U.S. elections. In 2004, the people spoke but everyone knows that election was basically stolen. That's ok, I'm not so sure Kerry would have been anything more than the not-Bush vote. Ditto 2000 with Al Gore.

Anyhow, in 2008 people actually voted for Obama. Sure there was a definite "we're sick of this Republican regime" sentiment but the people spoke and Obama was elected. The people spoke.

But the people cannot depend on government to effect change. This can only come from people.

But what is this revolution? What is it we want? There are so many revolutions to be fought that it renders them all ineffectual.

A spiritual revolution? We hear this in the Churches. But which Church? There are far too many denominations or non-denominational denominations, each with their own version of revolution, Catholic vs. Protestant, Oneness vs. Trinitarian, mainline vs. non-denomination, megachurch vs. storefront church, Christian vs. Christian.

An economic revolution? A green revolution? What is it we want?

I want less stuff. But it's not as easy as it appears as I type away on my computer, listening to my mp3 player with my special headphones, waiting to head for my house in my pickup truck where we are overflowing with stuff. We are not "into" stuff but when you live somewhere for a long time, stuff accumulates.

Perhaps that is my revolution. To make a move toward eliminating stuff. This would include my books. I've thinned out over the years but still have way too many books and way too many forms of media containing music. CDs, vinyl albums, cassettes, even the ethereal stuff of over 100 GBs of music on my computer.

No wonder Jesus says it's hard for the rich man to get into heaven. He's got too much baggage for the journey.

Sell everything we have to follow him?