Is the Trinity biblical?

Certainly.  

As is Unitarianism, Oneness Pentecostalism and every other denomination under the sun. 

Those who developed the doctrine were highly intelligent (arguably too intelligent perhaps), it was not invented during the Council of Nicaea, it finds it origins in the earliest strata of the Church (though non-Trinitarians claim the same) and it is most certainly rooted in Scripture as the primary source (as any and all who call themselves Christian in some fashion or other claim). 

Are Oneness Pentecostals biblical? Unitarians? Christadelphians? Worldwide Church of God? Jehovah’s Witnesses? 

In other words, whether one agrees with it or not, the Trinity is biblical. 

A better framing of the question might be: in what way does the Trinity doctrine find roots in the Bible?

There is a lot of discussion, online anyhow, about doctrine. Volumes and volumes of books are published on the same subject. I don't know how much this applies in the day to day lives of most who call themselves Christians.

But it dawned on me as I continue my journey into Orthodoxy that I see why people criticize the Orthodox Church (though often lumped in with Catholicism). It is one of the oldest expressions of the faith for certain. Yet in its current form it really dates to the 4th century.

This isn't to deny that it may be traceable back to the Apostles and that the worship the developed in the 4th century reflects truly the earliest church.  But I get it. With the complex doctrines and the formality and 'ritual' that is the church by going Sola Scriptura (understood in a way different than Luther's original intent) the current church only looks for roots in the Bible.

The irony, if I am using that word properly, is a written reflection of the tradition that was passed on and the same church that is criticized is the same church who canonized what we call the New Testament and who also developed doctrine.

Next step, after cutting themselves off from the larger body of the church, is to do some self-reflection and reject the doctrines of the church. This is already happening today. Doctrines are given lip service and half-hearted apologetic but changes are happening on a large scale. 

Oneness Pentecostals, for example, are a growing body of believers who reject the Trinity. There are some who are seeking to do away with the part in the Creed about Jesus going to hell. It's being dismantled, slowly but surely. What will be left? Hard to say.

But all of them go back to the Bible as their source.

So is the Trinity biblical? It most certainly is.

I think what appeals to be about Orthodoxy is twofold:

1) Its embrace of the mystery

This does not mean throw up your hands because it is not understood. It means that doctrine is a hedge, it is a limit. Over hundreds (yes, hundreds, longer than the United States is a country) of years it has been unpacked, all the mental and intellectual limits of how to understand what has been presented in the text we now have we call 'the Bible', and the Trinity is what resulted. However, within (and this is the operative word) those limits is an unfathomable richness. It is this that is mysterious. Doctrine (the Trinity and the God-Man) is both the end and the entry into the divine.

I have found that the end result of all questioning yields to the Trinity.

2) Its doctrinal framework.

It makes sense. It makes sense of the disparate elements between all the books of the New Testament in their presentation of Jesus as well as the Father, Son and Spirit. Certainly there's belief involved. After all, Three-In-One sounds absurd, especially when contrasted with the Judaism out of which it arose.

In the eastern tradition it wasn't until the 7th century that everything was 'settled'. And yet over time there is still more to discover, more nuances, more exploration into what it means. It never really ceased.

And this is where 'new' revelations come in such as Oneness Pentecostals. They say they have it right, that 2,000 years of church history was a power grab. God is speaking afresh and new. Revival! The end times! Jesus is coming soon! It's certainly an interesting time to be alive.

And yet, all are biblical.

My point of all this? Pick one and go with it. Seek to live it, not debate about it.

Evangelicalism vs Orthodox?

The title applies to my perceptions which are, in terms of EO, limited and, in terms of Evangelicalism, not universal. These are my observations. 

In church today it dawned on me that there is quite a difference between the preaching at churches such as mine (nominally allegiant to a denomination) and what I perceive to be the essence of the liturgical approach. The liturgy seems to be about Him; we are small in comparison. It is 'awe' inspiring in that regard.

Modern churches seem to be about His impact on our lives. What has He done for us. Things such as 'victory' and other such sentiments are specific to His action in our lives to encourage others and build up faith. I suppose that is the 'Protestant' ethic of applying that to 'earthy' concerns and building a better future. This isn't to say that it is self-ish necessarily. It is less awe inspiring and more centered on feeling. Generalizing, certainly, but there is a difference.

To many in these churches, the EO church and its liturgy is 'dead' because it isn't bumping and jumping and exciting. But I don't want enthusiasm and jumping and similar expressions to represent 'praising' God as if by sitting and meditating upon Him I'm not praising Him. Praise is too often associated with clapping, shouting, dancing and other such expressions which, if not careful, rules out anything else as 'dead' worship.

I get more of a thrill when my mind locks in on something about Him, even during such 'worship' and I'm carried away in it whether or not my body is moving an inch. Some of the most substantial intuitions (revelations? move of the Spirit?) about Him come during these times. I'm either focused on a particular lyric or trying to interpret a cloudy or sketchy lyric through my filter and it leads me to clarity. 

I've lately begun wearing earplugs whether due to age or because I'm comfortable saying it's too loud and distracting. Actually, at an oratorio a few years ago I had earplugs in and people thought it was rude. When I put the earplugs in their ears and they could hear the singing and the music with discrimination and clarity that accusation vanished. Not only did it save my ears, I could enjoy the music. Loud = praise. 

A few years later during an ordination for a minister I walked out because it was so loud. I was not alone on this met others in the hallway who shared similar sentiments and eventually someone older and wiser had them turn down the mics so people could actually hear.

"If I hear one more Chris Tomlin song..." (Sorry Chris but 'God's Dance Floor' jumped the shark, fun as it may be)

Does that mean I am not that into God or that I have become ungrateful or lost sight of what He's done or Who He is? Perhaps. But the deeper I go, the more silent I become. Isn't that what the hesychasts and monks say is the epitome of true worship? 

I feel no obligation to imitate, to do what others are doing. If I am so moved I will; if I'm not, I won't.

But I appreciate the Gospel background of my journey and the acoustic driven sounds of the CCM sound in my journey along with the chant of orthodoxy and all the other influences in the stream as they have carried me this far, deeper and more grounded in my faith than ever, restless and unsettled as I often am in my pursuit of more of Him.

We are all at different places in the journey and we are all on the same team if we're focused on Jesus as the access to 'God'. It seems, though, that the EO (and, for others, the Catholic Church) provides a repository for those who are longing for something deeper.

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

Cyrillian Christian

As of this moment, I am a Cyrillian Christian. In reading his actual writings, this is the closest I have come to a clear understanding of the mysteries of the faith. Mysteries, not in the sense of not being able to understand, but in the sense of being able to 'intuit' that certain something about what is revealed through the Bible and, as I am continuing to understand, the Tradition of the Church about Jesus Christ.

I understand that this is he interpretation or attempt to explain what the Scriptures reveal. I also understand that if the Gospel of John or Hebrews was removed from what we have in the New Testament these interpretation or 'doctrines' might look a lot different, especially if the Gospel of John were removed.

As with the last post it comes down to choices. There are certain premises that must be accepted (Apocrypha included or not, Tradition seen in a good or bad light, etc.) in order to move forward but, based on those premises, a certain understanding unfolds. 

There is also having to come to terms with the 'ugly' side of how these doctrines came to be and that hearkening back to the Acts Church is fraught with a paradox as the very same 'Tradition' often knocked in modern day Churches is the very same 'Tradition' that put these books of the New Testament together.

It's a battleground but the true test of one's faith should be one's witness and the best witness of this isn't being able to be right but being able to reflect Christ to a world that desperately needs light.

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.

Hank Haanegraaf & Eastern Orthodoxy

Fascinated by Hank's journey. Used to listen to him, often annoyingly so, when he was the "Bible Answer Man" so when I saw he was confirmed into the EO Church I was quite amazed. Jarislav Pelikan as well. 

So of course there are debates and attacks and defenses as to his move and the arguments against EO. One that stood out, however, was from the daughter of Walter Martin. She stated that the EO do not look to the Bible as the final authority.

If you've spent any time studying what it is the EO believe you'll find that is not accurate. What they do believe is that the interpretation of the Bible is what is key and that interpretation is through the lived and share experience of The Church.

I tend toward the EO idea that as the Bible itself was formed within Tradition then the common idea of 'Bible alone' as sole authority loses its footing. The books chosen were developed within Tradition and the writings within those books were developed orally within a Tradition and the use of these books even today occur within Traditions. Even outside of the RC and EO church, mainstream denominations develop a Tradition and beyond this the non-traditional churches all develop their own tradition within which to support a body of believers.

So if the 'Bible only' is all that matters, the challenge is understanding why so many denominations and why it is that there are so many different interpretations of the same book.

I think the strength of Tradition isn't so much that it is on equal weight as the Bible (I think that is a false dichotomy) but that the Bible is the anchor against which Tradition is based. If a Tradition is in conflict with Scripture I don't believe that Tradition will stand without 'Tradition' to safeguard Biblical interpretation the risk is ever present for the individual to become the interpreter which, taken to a logical conclusion, makes the individual god.

As for those who criticize the bureaucratic nature of the Church (usually stereotyped as the Catholic Church), the non-denominational variety running amok today will inevitably become institutionalized. It is the natural trajectory of the doings of men. What was once liberating and free ultimately becomes structured and this structure is bureaucratic in nature or it is a free-for-all. We are not the Spirit and therefore must lean on the Spirit to guide us which means that in order to do this boundaries are needed. Those boundaries are the structure(s) of the Church.

It's already been done once, though obviously we are fallible men so our history of said Church is a testament to this, and anyone who thinks we are free from it happening again are missing the larger historical picture of how it developed in the first place. The debates going on about 'doctrine' today, though in a new cultural context, are little different than those of the first few centuries. 

Bulgakov, Corbin and Sophia

I am dabbling, and I mean dabbling, in Bulgakov. While I am transfixed by Corbin's writing and its 'eastern' bent it seems to me in many ways that he is trying to find a substitute for the Incarnation. While it seems that Bulgakov did not intend for Sophia to replace the Incarnation, as Corbin's metaphysics does, it does, if I understand Lossky, give a sense of 'substance' to God's essence making the hypostases of the Son and Spirit 'draw' not from the Father's ousia as Source but making all three of the hypostases drawing on a singular Source which, at first glance, seems to make this 'outside' or 'other' than the ousia of the Father.

I may be reading that all wrong but wanted to put that down in writing to help clarify what it is I am reading.

If Sophia is the bridge between God and Man, what place the Spirit?

And then I find this in the comments section of my favorite theological blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy:

The figure of Sophia, admittedly, arouses more than a little suspicion among even Solovyov’s more indulgent Christian readers, and some would prefer to write her off as a figment of the young Solovyov’s dreamier moods, or as a sentimental souvenir of his youthful dalliance with the Gnostics. To his less indulgent readers, she is something rather more sinister. And indeed it is difficult to know what exactly to make of the two visions of Sophia that Solovyov had in 1875–the first in the British Museum, the second in the Egyptian desert–or the earlier vision he had at the age of nine. 

But it is important to note that, in Solovyov’s developed reflections upon this figure (and in those of his successor “Sophiologists,” Pavel Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov), she was most definitely not an occult, or pagan, or Gnostic goddess, nor was she a fugitive from some Chaldean mystery cult, nor was she a speculative perversion of the Christian doctrine of God. She was not a fourth hypostasis in the Godhead, nor a fallen fragment of God, nor a literal world-soul, nor an eternal hypostasis who became incarnate as the Mother of God, nor most certainly the “feminine aspect of deity.” 

Solovyov possessed too refined a mind to fall prey to the lure of cultic mythologies or childish anthropomorphisms, despite his interest in Gnosticism (or at least in its special pathos); and all such characterizations of the figure of Sophia are the result of misreadings (though, one must grant, misreadings partly occasioned by the young Solovyov’s penchant for poetic hyperbole).

Chicken & Waffles

My wife has a habit of calling me out on what I've learned: 'how does that help you love me more?' is her usually question when I throw out titles such as "Florovksy's 'Mind Of The Fathers' and the Neo-Patristic Synthesis Of Dumitru Stăniloae."

Valid point. In my head it all makes sense but in the real world is often leads to an absence; the more I'm in my head, the more likely it is I'm not fully present in what's going on around me which, of course, is the opposite of what my faith is supposed to do.

But this battle, this struggle, is significant in that unless I am fully grounded in my faith - and this includes a mental ascent toward that ever elusive truth just beyond my grasp - I am not living an authentic life. Or, my authenticity is my searching, my questions, my doubt. But then there is this 'other' side of me that struggles with that, this 'other' thing inside of me challenge me with a notion of something I am supposed to be: expectations, real or imagined; of my parents, my spouse, my boss, society, me. I don't know where these expectations come from but they drive me either to compliance or rebellion. But I am being driven by something that is often rooted in imagination and not reality.

When the ground of my being changes, when I am rooted, I can move forward rather than trying to overcome.

The faith, that seed, is there, I'm trying to flesh it out (John Chapter 1 puts a whole new spin on that phrase).

We are an infinite mystery. This does not imply that when we get to the bottom of us we find we are Divine. We ourselves are fathomless and the danger of going inwards is that there is no bottom, only darkness. We often confuse this realization as if it is the truth. I now know, I have arrived. But it is only then that the questions, and the confusion, start. What does it mean?

I had that revelation on the top of Yosemite. And my life took a downward spiral. I was not suddenly liberated. I had an 'experience' which changed everything but I - the true 'I', the person - was not free. Even today as I write this, I am still working out what that means.

The datum of faith, of revelation, of the Word, is what stops us from sinking into nothingness. Daoism didn't do it; Islam didn't do it; Henry Corbin didn't do it. However, all of these paths - and there is an 'eastern' bent to all of them - have led me here, the scenic route, if you will, to where I now find myself: swimming in the Church Fathers and the Orthodox faith. It is only lately that the 'Christian' path in its fullness through time has given me proper orientation.

We can go deep into "God" with that leap of faith; we now have new ground (ontological hypostasis, to use Zizioulas' term) on which to stand. From the history of the Church this came through baptism; in today's Church it is a mental ascent ('accept Jesus into your heart'). Did the early Church view baptism as 'mandatory' (as Oneness Pentecostals emphasize) or was it an accept rite of passage, the commitment and the act one and the same, not a commitment and a 'mandatory' act but the act as the commitment?

Or is the baptism itself the re-orienting, even when babies are baptized?

Marriage advice:

1) You don't know how selfish you are until you get married.

2) If marriage is to reflect Christ and the Church and Christ gave his life we are to do the same. That means humility - not forced, faked or efforted (is that a word?) - but true humility, kenosis.

3) And without a third, like the perichoresis of the Trinity, marriage has a limit. 

Thus started a long conversation about the emptying of the Son.

Communication is important, yes, but it led to a discussion about the Word, the creative power of the universe, seeking to give birth through us which led us on the tangent of listening and what listening really means.

We don't usually listen because we are not open, we are not a vessel to receive and transform. We block the perichoresis. We should be Eucharist, to receive, transform and give back. 

There should be nothing anyone can say that fears us as we are an unlimited reservoir to the Divine. In other words, where we end therein lies the Spirit and in the Spirit through the Son to the Father we have been given access. 

While other religious traditions speak of the Divine I have not, in all my experience, found anything so clear as this. We touch the heart of the Father and the presence of the Son in the Spirit is in us and it is this Life that transforms.

Where I'm Stuck

This theology stuff is, dare I say, fun. I like where it takes me and how it moves me. But is it true?

I recently stumbled across one of the more thorough and detailed anti-Trinitarian websites and was quite mesmerized but the content. All the arguments are ultimately grounded in the Bible and the logic is quite sound.

However, it left me wondering:

1) The very same Bible that is being questioned is the very same Bible being used to prove that it is not what the Church, by and large, has historically said it says. Is that not a tautology?

2) If in fact that what he says is true, I am left puzzled as to what the big deal is about the Jesus he presents. Sure I may have my 'theological' lenses on and can't see what he sees but I don't know how this Jesus would have survived for 2,000 years or, at the very least, how this Jesus would have been more than just one option among many and may even have potentially just fizzled out our became amalgamated into some other religious stew.

3) When he says not to call him a Modalist, an Arian or a Unitarian I am left with the question (and I too hate labels, cf. Dao De Jing 32 for reference) what is it we are left with? How is he not a denomination of one amongst the hundreds, even thousands, of other denominations? Or is his point that that is the point: work out your own salvation? Otherwise, his denomination is a denomination albeit an apophatic 'anti-Trinity' version (rather than a cataphatic theology such as Oneness or Unitarian).

He is coming from being immersed in the Trinitarian universe for most of his life and he has come out of it and is sharing his discovery. I'm in the opposite boat; I've fought it for most of my life and have come to 'rest' in it at this point though of course I am still wrestling with it. Obviously.

However, as I've come to learn in my studies from an EO perspective, the Trinity tends to be more experiential than it does rational or intellectual and it is in this that some of the difference resides.

Perhaps I'm looking for the high of such a 'mystical' approach but this overly rational approach leaves me a bit cold and wondering what the big deal is should it be the truth.

Still on the road to discovery. 

Modern Worship and Catholic Theology...

I'm sitting here listening to a 2010 version of the Wow Worship series, that never ending bestseller (reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman decides the way to selling a million albums is to become a Christian artist...).

Sarcastic undertone aside, many of these songs have a powerful effect on me as these are songs I hear every Sunday at the church I attend played by the in-house musicians (of which my wife is one...). I think that the reason for their power is context. I don't know that they would mean as much outside of the worship service.

In fact, listening to many of these "versions" I feel my age as they are a bit too reminiscent of the rock and roll out of which I have grown, i.e. they are too loud. This isn't a criticism, it's just not my thing.

Anyhow, at the same time I am reading the Rerum Novarum, a Catholic Encylical on capital and labor. This was prompted by a recent article that ran in Mother Jones (and picked up, in brief, by cnn.com).

It was further driven by a conversation on the subject with a co-worker. He went on a diatribe about how if they are rich and getting richer, all the power to them. His perspective (aside from being a member of the system in which he is one of the privilged ones) was the traditional "Protestant" work ethic that you have what you have because you (must have) worked for it. He is a Christian but it was the regurgitated nature of his response that miffed me. It sounded a bit too, well, Americanized.

It is a very, very difficult thing for those who have been raised systemically within privilege (which includes me) to understand those outside of this system. As the black sheep in the family, my life has taken many turns outside the expected norm and this has guided me to have tasted life outside of this privilege. Doesn't make me an expert but having ruptured that insulated bubble, there is no going back.

It is especially difficult for those who have found a Christianity that caters to this suburban kind of theology where the idea of "mission" often borders on a vacation of the urban slumming variety which becomes show and tell.

Of course this is a bit cynical. As someone who is a bit schizo in my dialectic between difference and structure, I find there is a tendency in much of the modern church, frequently of the "non-denominational" variety, a formulaic throwback to the very same ritual so often criticized. There is a rhythm to the service that is familiar yet it can easily become predictable, dull, repetitive and easy to relegate to nothing more than weekly comfort food.

So I am at once enjoying the music but struggle sometimes with the "popular" Christianity and continually long for something deeper in the vein of the Catholic/Orthodox theology on which, ironically, perhaps, today's Christianity is founded.

There is a double irony in that I am listening to this music while at work having, uh, borrowed it from the Web while I listen to it on a not-so-cheap pair of headphones. I have investments that earn interest. I am far, far from any Gospel ideal. And I supposed that's the point. None of us are there; we are called to be holy, not perfect. We are called to judge our relationship with God on our own, not compared to others.

I constantly have to remind myself of this as quite often my judgments, cynicism, sarcasm and other negative forms of speech have less to do with some kind of objective truth then they do a mirror reflecting back to me issues I am not seeing.

The very same Church so often criticized that has carried the Gospel through the centuries. So no matter what the Church looks like today, the Truth is there where it has always been. And in this there is rest. But it can be a challenge to strip away all those accretions that simply don't matter.

I think that this is seen most clearly when we are better able to understand what life is like on the outside of this system. This isn't really a race, economic, social or even religious thing. It all comes down to power. The Prophets (Jesus included) are a wellspring of insight into the nature of this beast.

And on that note, I am going to go back to listening to my dub techno...Deepchord anyone?

Vladimir Lossky, Henry Corbin and "Eastern" spirituality

Over the past several years, "Western" Christianity has left me a bit hungry, and jaded, seeming to be something of an amalgam of Christianity conflated with the "American" spirit, as if the two are directly connected, that God somehow favors America.  I won't go there but let me just say that God does not play favorites - God isn't interested in nation building.

Anyhow, this, along with the often baffling theology of Christianity, caused me to search out Islam as a viable path.  It's an old story on this blog but it led me to Henry Corbin's writings.  It also led me to the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition.  It was through reading Vladimir Lossky's works, specifically The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, that I began to get a good grasp on the Eastern church's theological perspective.  I find, in many ways, my Christian thought life aligning with this view.

While not radically different than that of the Christian West, specifically the American West, it is different.  More intellectual, more reasoned and less emotionally driven than the Christianity I am familiar with, it provides a solid foundation and helps me to understand more deeply Christianity as it evolved.

Henry Corbin, on the other hand, while not denouncing Christianity, as such, providse a more 'gnostic' view, giving approval to the "docetic" view of Christ (though understanding his definition of docetic is key to understanding what this means).  Yet in reading his writings and those of Vladimir Lossky I have come to realize that there is common ground here, there are similarities, even if certain theological constructs are different.

Though I have only begun to research this, there is a similar approach to God's communication in the world in Lossky's dissection of God's "essence and energies" and Corbin's fascination with the "emanation" and "angelology" present in 'gnostic' Christianity as well as in the Shi'ite/Isma'ili variations within Islam.

This isn't to elevate Corbin or Lossky's writings to authoratative.  Accepting the basic premise of "People of the Book" no one's writings achieve this status.  However, it does reveal to me that there is something similar in Eastern Christianity and that of the Islam that evolved in the lands of the Eastern Church.  To what extent one influenced the other is difficult to say and it's quite possible that "causality" is an oversimplification of a worldview that is inherent in the people who populated this region.

I don't know that Corbin rejected Christianity wholesale or embraced Islam or if he just lived out his own faith that he had carved.  But it's interesting that in trying to present an alternative "Christian" spirituality via Islam, Corbin has stepped writing into the spiritual universe of the Orthodox Church.  It seems, in preliminary thoughts, that the two would find much to talk about were they to have ever met.

Modern day theology and Orthodoxy...

By Orthodoxy, I am referring to Eastern Orthodoxy and not 'orthodoxy' as describing theological correctness.

I have dabbled in the writings of the Eastern Fathers before, even obtaining a volume of the Philokalia. I enjoyed what I read but don't think it was time to truly appreciate their writings. Coming from the emotionalism of Pentecostalism their writings, though intellectually stimulating, seemed dry. Yet in the course of this wandering I have stumbled back into Orthodoxy and, more specifically, the 'mystical' theology of Orthodoxy.

I have just picked up Olivier Clement's The Roots of Christian Mysticism and feel like I am at home. It feels as if I have bypassed the 'pop' theology of so much of modern neo-Protestantism and have found roots.

I seem to have narrowed down the problem to several things.

1) One is the dependence on the intellect, a safeguard I have always leaned upon at the expense of emotion/feeling. But too much intellect is a dry, arid wasteland.

2) Lack of or undisciplined (or misaligned) prayer.

These two are tied together in one of the first pages I opened to:

"Prayer and theology are inseparable. True theology is adoration offered by the intellect. The intellect clarifies the movement of prayer, but only prayer can give it the fervour of the Spirit. Theology is light, prayer is fire...But it is the intellect that must 'repose' in the heart, and theology must transcend it in love." (p. 183)

Transcending the intellect. Bringing it to a place where it can let go. This does not mean ignoring the intellect, dumbing it down or laying aside its abilities. No. For where the intellect is not satisfied, trouble arises. However, the intellect does not have the final say. It is when love enters that the place of the intellect is put into perspective. Pure intellect is cold; the intellect in the service of love is, as noted above, light, warmth, sustaining.

"When the intellect is filled with love towards God, it tears this world of death apart, it breaks away from images, passions, reasoning, in order to be no longer anything but gratitude and joy." (p. 184)

My problem, as always, comes down to philautia, self-centeredness. This results in a lack of gratitude and, by extension, joy.

And the fruit of this gratitude is prayer:

"When your intellect, an an ardent love for God, sets itself gradually to transcend, so to speak, created things and rejects all thinking...at the same time filling itself with gratitude and joy, then you may consider yourself approaching the borders of prayer." (p. 184, quoting Evagrius of Pontus)

If the intellect is laid aside, it is only to make room for gratitude and joy caused by the love for God. The more we love, the more we come to be grateful and joyful; the intellect sheds light on this (as I am doing now). But it comes after the fact.

"Prayer is the fruit of joy and gratitude..."(p. 182, quoting Evagrius of Pontus)

There is so much more in this little book that it has become a must-own in my library, the kind of book that is underlined, highlighted, creased and weathered over time due to use.