Options

Watched the Carlton Pearson movie 'Come Sunday' last night. Interesting story although the film itself was quite dry. If I didn't have an interest in the material I would've checked out early and went right online to get the story.

Without giving away the ending, the choice he ultimately made and the 'trauma' he experienced, the voice of God, was not new. New to him maybe and, considering his position and prominence, a threat to the world in which he lived, but the subject matter, the controversy, was not new. Perhaps in the time in which we live it is in a different context as is all history but the 'shocking' conclusion he drew was not new in the annals of church history.

It is our lack of awareness of this history that is so detrimental to so many, especially those in leadership, who 'feel' as if somehow they are special, have a special relationship with the Creator, and this far too often leads not to humility but to a heightened sense of self and celebrity follows.

The beauty of being human, and the beauty of church history, is that none of us know for certain. This is not the relativistic believe what you want but an understanding that while there is a 'core' of the faith there is a point at which we cannot be absolutely 100% certain that the expression of faith or our understanding of it is right.

Using, weakly, the speed of light as a metaphor:

Starting with the Bible and the history of the Church's interpretation and/or understanding of the same as 'X' and our collective body of believers as 'Y' there comes a point where we start to splinter. Jesus is more or less the '0' point where X and Y meet and the attempt to explain, understand and live out after '0' unfolds along the curve.

Diversity, critical mass, enters the picture as the 'X' gets larger and at some point there is not enough energy, mental power, to make the leap to the speed of light. The speed of light, i.e. faith, exists but to cross the threshold requires us to accept faith as the datum and the rest of our pursuit is trying to understand the 'how' of that datum.

But the point is this: we have choices. I am moving away from the punitive understanding of the atonement and gravitating toward the more Eastern Orthodox emphasis of which atonement, and substitution, is wrapped up in a larger perspective and is not a 'pharmaceutical' approach to the faith.

Those who hold such a few can, and do, judge EO as wrong, heretical even, as the EO do to Protestants. There are divisions, obviously, within Protestantism as we well as within EO itself (the churches in Africa, for example). But there is no one body who can say 'this is wrong' and bring all into the fold.

The closest we have as I see it is Catholicism and the hierarchical structure from the Pope down. It is institutional. But we still have choices. I don't have to be Catholic. Or even as a Catholic, I would assume, there are various options within the Church which don't require fully leaving or being considered as having left the faith.

Something like that...

On a personal note...

While I theologize all day long, preoccupied as my mind is with this stuff, my personal life is a wreck. Don't get me wrong, comparatively I've got it pretty good so this may sound like whining (and it is probably a sign of being ungrateful) but it is my reality.

Choices made years ago - literally - are still impacting in a very real way our lives today. Drowning in debt. Ok, maybe not drowning, but debt enough that home repairs are a luxury and we are in the hoping (as in 'the house doesn't cave in') to be able to afford to do so in the future.

School loans looming larger than the amount owed on our home.

Retirement? What is that?

Grandchildren's education?

While we are sustaining that is what it is: we are sustaining and in that regard have it good.

So while this theology is a pursuit of truth whether it is wrestling with to overcome lack of belief or if it is trying to find a voice for that which I believe my hope is that while this pursuit is happening it is impact, in a greater way, the reality in which I live.

This is where hope comes in, not in the sense of a 'future heaven' (which, by and large, is a cartoon version of the Biblical witness for most) where all our problems will be gone but in the sense of a get out of self and do for others mode, allowing the cares of this world, self-created or other, to be secondary on our minds, to cease worrying and to allow our heavenly Father to provide these things for us as He does for the birds of the field.

Sounds great, right? 

And if in my head I am finding peace, am I finding peace in my heart? Or have I, as has been my historical record, safeguarded my heart with an intellectual block, protecting rather than surrendering it?

Heresy

Pretty much...

Giving Voice to The Word

Sometimes revelation comes in subtle ways as if what I've been digesting is slowly burrowing its way through the muck and it finally finds Me there. At that point I realize that what I'm after is allowing the Word that has been planted there to be free and find expression.

That can be in the form of kindness, compassion, a hug or even just a smile.

But my struggle is giving Voice to that Word. It longs to be free. This is why we quote Scripture. It expresses what we wish to say in a fashion much better than we can ever formulate. From the outside, however, it may not mean the same thing as when we speak the Word it is packed with experience, with spiritual struggles, with our relationship with the text. For us there is a context and when we use that verse, that passage, that term, we are packing it full of meaning.

The flip side of that is the struggle to understand and then, once tasting of that understanding, we seek to give expression to what we've found and, ultimately, to get it out not only for our understanding but to share with others what we've found.

"Our food, whether fish or bread or any other kind of nourishment, is changed into human blood, into the person who consumes it. But in this case quite the opposite happens. The bread of life Himself changes the person who feeds on Him, transforms him and assimilates him to Himself." Cabasilas, The Life of Christ, 597.

These words hit home and tapped into that which I feel I am missing. Church, lately, feels like showtime and while enjoyable it is not enough. Something has been missing. It is not the church's fault. It is my hunger and it is my duty to seek out how to fill this hunger with real food so that when I do attend church I am not coming to get but, having already gotten, to give back, to share.

The other thing that hit me while reading this text is that Christ bore all things human unto Himself, we too are to do the same. We are to absorb, to carry one another, and to bring it into ourselves to lay it before Him Who is in us to transform it as He Himself transformed what he assumed. 

The madness continues...

At church Sunday and the message is proclaimed early:

"God has a Son Who He sent to Earth 2000 years ago to die on a criminal's cross for sinners like you and me to give us the opportunity to have right standing with a holy and just God whose holiness and whose righteousness demanded punishment to your sin and mine but through His Son Jesus dying on that cross he became sin for us and died not only for us but as us but made it possible for us to have peace with God."

While I cannot necessarily argue that this is wrong, as such, I can state that it is this emphasis, distortion even, that so troubles me. This is the message proclaimed in the non-denominational word, that truncated 'essence' of what the Church as a whole established in its formative years of the 4th and 5th century.

'But...' one may argue. That was the emperor's doing and not really what Jesus was saying. What was He saying? We, in the 20th century, think we know better because we have the Bible and the Holy Spirit. So too did the early Church.

'But...' one may argue. The lay congregation was not able to read and so the 'educated' elite interpreted in a fashion in which they hoarded power, eliminated women from the mix and got into bed with the political powers that be.

While that is certainly part of the story, is it that much different than today? After all, the 'revival' mentality of the Church today, at least in America, is roughly the same age as the time frame in which the early creeds were established. Are we not headed down the same path? Are not 'denominations' formed out of the non-denominations among us? How else do we explain the plethora of different churches competing for one another, cannibalizing each other over the minutiae of the very same fetters of tradition and doctrinal debate from which they claim to be free?

And, I would imagine, it is this mess, this 'truncated' explanation of the Gospel, that troubles unbelievers and falls on deaf ears or leads to further rebellion. Not because they are sinners and don't get it but because it does little to explain how this is Good News other than it taps into the guilt and shame and gives us an apparent out, an easy fix to assuage those feelings.

But it is not enough. At least for me. 

Still at it...

My God, this doctrine thing gets heady. Many churches today dance around the topic, or pay it lip service, and proclaim it's all about Jesus. But which Jesus? I cannot get away from this nagging question. And the less it's talked about the more troubled I become because where there are questions, there in infiltration from the outside to fill those voids.

I grasp the basic substance of the faith - the Logos, the Word was the 'subject' of the human we refer to as Jesus. That humanity - everything except an independent 'I' - was assumed by the Word. The will is part of our human nature but the subject (the person?) using the will was not like us. We have what Maximum the Confessor called the 'gnomic' will, i.e. the ability to choose contrary to God's will.

Because the Word was the subject with the human will this was not an option. That Word had to 'fight' through our humanity with a pure will and wrestle that human nature into obedience, realigning its original design into submission. Something like that...

The difficulty at this stage is the 'who' of the humanity of Jesus. We are used to a 'who' in the sense of an individual, isolated being free to make his/her own decisions, the captain of our own ship. But it is sin, the Fall, that has separated us and makes us into such independent beings.

Jesus, on the other hand, is a unique person in that there is no separation. His person, his hypostatsis, has no such separation. It is a union of the divine and the human and it is that union that is the person. Our 'person' is the separated individual that is cut off from our original design.

So His flesh is everything that makes us human except for sin, except for that separation. His will, his questioning, his doubts even (I'm sure there is some council where this was debated that I haven't stumbled across yet) are all those things that make us human. All of it had to be brought into submission. Doubt does not mean lack of faith; it means questions which means our nature is pulling on us. The perfect subject will bring such doubts into alignment and purifying them, redeeming them.

Sunday

Sunday. Church. Love my church, really do. Made up of some awesome people. New pastor overseeing the whole enterprise and he's brought a fresh wind into the place.

So why do I feel like a fish out of water?  There is 'something' troubling me and I'm not quite sure what it is. Obviously, it's me. Is it the doctrine thing? Is that it? There is 'Jesus' preached from the pulpit and the 'Spirit' moves in the place but what does that actually mean?

Am I, as my father in law used to say, backed up and need to go to the bathroom? In other words, am I consuming only?

Or is it that I am still jaded that my beloved politicized Jesus this past election and I now know that it is made up of 'those' people who cannot separate faith, politics and country?

So, this Orthodox thing...

Talking with my wife yesterday and it slowly dawned on me what it is that I (think I) have found within Orthodoxy. From books anyhow...

As a non-denominational, Bible believing, spirit filled Christian, what next? Recruit others to come to church? Save others? Bring in more souls to the Kingdom? Is that the next step?

I ask because I don't know. Could very well be my own fault.

However, when I look around at the non-denominational world (or plethora of denominations throughout the world) I realize that it is very much dependent on the 'human' factor. We flock to various churches and leaders and pastors and are looking for a church that is 'alive' with the Spirit. What this usually means is high energy, like a rock concert. God forbid if during 'worship' you don't shout and throw your arms up in the air as it would appear that you aren't grateful, you aren't worshiping, you really don't love God.

Where does it end? To me, all of this is longing for something, toward something, looking for completion. Heaven isn't it. The Rapture isn't it. Or maybe it is but there is a huge gap between getting 'saved' and the End Times. How are we to live? 

Now it could very well be me but this fussing over doctrine or avoidance of the same for the sake of 'unity' or even proclaiming 'true doctrine' sounds very much like the early origins of the Church.

The first Great Awakening in the US occurred circa 1730 - 288 years ago. And we are still fighting over 'true doctrine'. Just like the early Church which, by and large, found closure in 325 at the Council of Nicaea (with refinements due to the subtleties of language and continued fighting over 'true doctrine' lasting up until the 7th century.

The parallels are striking. The infighting is leading us somewhere and, to me, it is leading us where the church already ended up. The same battles, the same fight over language, the same battle over strong personalities runs parallel to the early church. All roads lead to theology and all roads lead to the same doctrines - though perhaps better documented now - that were resolved and fought through for centuries.

All we need now is a Constantine to pave the way for Christians to reclaim political power and we will have, in many ways, relived the first four centuries of the early Church.

So Orthodoxy...

The end game of Orthodoxy is deification, the never ending quest for divine participation, unification, with our Maker.

Verse Of The Day

I have two Bible apps and get a Scripture of the day on each. Over time I have begun to notice that the same verses begin to appear over and over again, especially around the major holidays. Is this to keep the calendar cyclical, a reminder of the time and the seasons and their relation in time to things higher? Perhaps.

But it is starting to feel akin to Top 40 radio (mind you, it's been 25 years or more since I've listened to Top 40 radio) when you would hear the same song cycle over and over again, often with in the same day. The same Scriptures, the Top 40 if you will, repeats on each app (though I've never seen the same Scripture on both apps at the same time).

It's sort of the softball version and probably isn't the place to go deeper. But after a while they start to 'feel' like a pop song. Catchy melody, soft lyrics, light and airy. I suppose that's the point, those little moments of encouragement, those little reminders. 

But what about some of these verses? Wouldn't these throw us for a loop and really cause us to pause?

“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

"Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."

Or these?

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing."

"Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men. [18] But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves."

Do I Believe It?

It dawned on me during corporate worship Sunday that I'm not fully sure why, or what, I am worshiping. This isn't to say I don't understand just that I'm not sure, when listening to the lyrics, what it is I am, or supposed to be, so excited about. Is it me seeking emotional release or is the event itself meant to inspire or invoke a heightened emotional response? So I become ambivalent and allow my thoughts to wander as worship, in this context, seems to be, dare I say, a ritual. 

So I type 'what's the big deal about Jesus' into a search engine and get a link to a Billy Graham web page where I read:

But what took place that day was truly good, because it was the most important event in human history (along with Jesus’ resurrection). The reason is because by His death Jesus paid the price for our sins. He was without sin, but on the cross all our sins were placed on Him, and He died in our place. As the Bible says, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7).

I don't know why but it seems to me that at a certain point we need to move beyond this. This is like the Cliff Notes version where far too many of us (or is it just me?) stay. Is the point to recruit and bring others into the fold on this selling point like a giant pyramid scheme or is the point to develop our personal relationship with God?

'Paid the price' and 'died in our place' have almost become cliches and as of late trouble me. There has to be more. Right? Either I am forgetting from whence I came and am puffed up or, perhaps, something is drawing me deeper. Sin? The Spirit? Am I just trying to get out of something that makes me uncomfortable?

It just feels, and I may be off here, that we are living at the cross. Our 'joy' comes from remembering the cross but what of the resurrection? It feels like a sidebar. Rather than striving toward a glorious day to be with Christ we look forward to the Rapture and all its entertainment value theatrics embedded in its various theologies. Trib, post-trib, pre-trib? Who cares?

The danger in living at the cross with the air of the Rapture overhead is the polarity of such an approach whereby it become a 'me' centered focus. I am grateful for what God has done for me. I am saved. Not denying these things but it bears a striking parallel to the celebration of sobriety. I understand that it is significant, I understand that it is a life changing moment and a life changing commitment and that we wish to tell our story to everyone, but is that the point? If we continue to call ourselves 'alcoholics' sober for X# of years the alcohol tag is still our root. Is our root the cross? 'A hell deserving sinner saved by grace' is my identity? I'm saved now I tell everyone so they too can be saved? 

If we are not careful, the focus on Jesus makes him little more than a superhuman, one of us but better, with 'Son of God' tossed around without context. This is where I am when listening to most songs. Who is this 'God' being sung about? Is Jesus this God? Do we sign to Jesus only? What of the Father and the Spirit? Where do they fit in? Or are we just getting to a point where we are so in the moment, so enraptured, that we speak in tongues? Is the goal of worship an experience? 

It feels as if we are chucking the Trinity or losing focus on the 'after' of the cross that led to this as the theological bedrock of the Church. This is what 'allows' for such recent doctrines as Oneness along with all the other theologies - Arian, Nestorian, etc. - that has been with us for thousands of years.

Or are multiple theologies ok as long as they all preach Jesus and the cross?

Is it really Jesus and Jesus only, the Trinity an addendum to an otherwise simple faith? Jesus is God, pray to Jesus, the name of God is Jesus? Sounds simple, no? Should the Church just chuck the Trinity and stop focusing so much on doctrine and theology? Is 'Jesus only' with the 'experience' of the Spirit all we need?

Forgive me, not sure where this is going, just trying to flesh out (hint: it ends in Orthodoxy).

Rumi - Again

So I'm doing a Beachbody yoga video and it's feeling a bit New-Agey but I'm trucking along trying to push past what my brain is telling me and in pops a "I read this great quote from Rumi" statement from the teacher and my interest in the video just vanishes. Quoting Rumi is fine and all but when it is done in the context of a Beachbody yoga class my awareness of the fact this is quoted out of any context - or, more realistically, within the context of what is in fact a luxury and outside of the original context of Rumi - I become irked. 

Working on it as this is my ego flaring up. Why can't I just let it go? People have been quoting things out of context for centuries. Some might argue the Bible quotes things from elsewhere and re-contextualizes them so who am I to say? Fair point.

My wife and I were watching a 'Christian' marriage videos and in pops a quote from H.P. Lovecraft. Seriously? They provide no context for the quote and just throw it in there. Perhaps behind the scenes they are fully aware of this quote's use and it was intentional but I'm not sure Lovecraft is exactly a purveyor of the views being espoused in the videos and I'm pretty sure that his views on race disqualify him as someone 

If there's one thing that drives me crazy it's authors and videos that just pull quotes at random to support views where in reality the quotes are often decontextualized or actually conflict (within context) with the overall views attempting to be supported.

I'm not saying not to read Lovecraft or not to watch such videos should a random quote appear, not at all. I'm saying that we must be wise and know our sources. 

Quotes Out Of Context

Is it me or is this a horrible thing?

When quotes are taken out of context far too often they are stripped of their meaning and re-contextualized in the context of ME, perhaps the true religion of the world and thus the true cause of all 'religious' wars.

I recently tried taking a marriage counseling course and on about slide three appears a quote from H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft is fine when taken in context but after emailing the team behind these videos I learned exactly what I feared: they had no idea who he was and chose his words based on their meaning in the context of their videos. Doesn't matter that he was an atheist and, more significantly, 'nativist' (i.e. racist) and that my wife and I are a mixed couple.

When I emailed him about this the response I got beyond was 'I don't know who he is' was 'I can't guarantee this won't happen again so you're probably better served elsewhere.' Disappointing from a Ph. D. I supposed I was hoping for some kind of dialogue, perhaps a deeper probe into why this was so upsetting, but I got the boot. Reinforced exactly what it was that trouble me about the use of the quote and the fact that this happens all the time.

Self-help gurus do it all the time, take a hodgepodge of quotes from wherever it is that suits their purpose and frame it around their own ideology that making a religion of ME. I think it is the fact there is no center of truth in this approach; this is how people find themselves enslaved in a cult led by a charismatic leader. That person becomes the center of truth through which everything is filtered. 

It is a shortcut and is the same thing far too many do with the Bible and other holy texts. I will fit the meaning, whatever it is (don't care, really) to fit what I'm trying to say whether or not it's right and I'm assuming that just referring to said author of the quote will have power enough to meaning something. Thump.

I've written about Rumi being Americanized before and stumbled across a similar article from The New Yorker:

The Erasure of Islam from the Poetry of Rumi

May as well just chuck the Bible and quote Hollywood or rock music and call it church.

The Web Of The Web

I often will start browsing the Web for one reason or other and it does not take me long to go down the rabbit hole of 'conspiracy theories' and sites where someone states as "the" truth what the vast majority are missing. Oftentimes, these sites are 'religious' or 'spiritual' in nature. I always start to read them, unless the graphics are bad or loud (for some reason, these sites always have terrible graphics), but it does not take me long to realize that the overly combative or self-assured nature of them cause my eyes to cross and my interest to rapidly wane. 

Irony, I suppose, as I am on the Web and quite possibly doing the same thing. I try and retain my sense of wonder and willingness to learn rather than holding fast to holding "the" truth, other than within my own understanding, that no one else has. It is for my gain, to make myself better, so that I in turn may try and make the lives of others just a little better.  

Freedom of speech, absolutely, yet freedom also to reject the same. 

The tolerant must be tolerant of the intolerant or they expose the deception of use of the idea of 'tolerant' as it is glamorized and glorified as a cardinal virtue.

Oneness Theology

Finally realized that Oneness theology teaches there was no "Son of God" prior to the Incarnation. There is no "Second Person" in the Godhead. There is the Father. Period. And the Spirit in some way, shape or form. If the "Son of God" existed it was in the mind of God.

I used to think that about John 8:58 though I still don't think he is saying "I am God" in that statement. None of the early Church Fathers seems to have thought that; that is a result of our 'scientific' and 'literal' approach to Scripture, specifically the KJV. The early Church Fathers believed it was a claim about pre-existence.

Just putting that out there...

The Nicene Creed

How is it that I am 49 years old and do not know the Nicene Creed? I'm sure I said it as a kid but not since that time. In my search through various faith traditions, from no religion to "eastern" religion to Oneness Pentecostalism to Islam to the non-denominational variety, I am now gravitating toward the "Eastern Orthodox" tradition, at least through books and study of the Word.

Will I make the leap? Hank Hanegraaf's leap really caused me to pause as I would imagine he found the same thing I am discovering. It seems for the studious ones there is a sort of homecoming, a tradition that embraces, not shuns, things of the intellect and, paradoxically, through it opens up a deeper mystery.

So I have found myself immersed in the Nicene Creed, not as rote memorization but as having come in to it as the Fathers must have done back in the day as it evolved from their experience. From the study of the Word and its inherent mystery I have come to discover the Trinity as 'experiential' and from this have come to the Creed from the inside, if you will. 

My studies have opened up to the Trinity, to the Incarnation, to the Nicene Creed and, in reverse, the Scriptures are much more clear, at least through that filter. Sure we can debate the Scriptures and Tradition and I'm sure this will never end. But I've found a relative level of peace in where I stand that has, again, opened up the Mystery.

My struggle has been not merely "finding" what I believe but uncovering it. It has always been there underneath the accretions over the years and it feels like it is finally being brought to light, i.e. to my understanding. I am finally finding a way to give voice to what it is that I believe. And it must be this that Paul talks about:

"For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:16)"

I cannot help but quote the Scriptures. What I am trying to say has already been said. However, it is only because I have come to the point where I have walked into the text. The seed, the Word, has been planted but it is really only over time that those words take root and grow and have a life of their own and our experiences and the reflections from the world around us mirror the reality of what it is the Word expresses.

It is at once ecstatic but also filled with a certain sense of madness, as if it all makes sense all at once yet makes no sense at all. Similar to my experience on Yosemite, this is an awakening, a deepening, an enlarging of my being. It is what all of these readings talk about, the being 'open' to participation in the divine. The Trinity takes us "into" the mystery.

PSA

Just putting some more notes out there as I try to 'congeal' this into something that resembles my understanding.

So the idea of 'penal' substitution is inherent within the Scriptures. However, is the term 'penal' based on our understanding based on our culture, our upbringing, our worldview? Or are we conforming to the idea as laid out in the text?

When I hear the term 'penal' I think 'deserved it'. "Jesus got what we deserve." The problem with this, as I see it anyhow, is that the focus is still us, as if God's sole focus is to get us, to give us what we deserve? I can't shake that and it clouds my idea of how a 'loving' (of course, my understanding of what that means) God could be so, well, vindictive.

I understand that from a law point of view, the punishment would fit the crime of sin = death. But isn't that punishment enough? We sin, we die. What if there is more to this than that? 

Did Jesus come to conquer sin or conquer death? After all, if He defeated death is sin not vanquished? In other words, if He came to conquer the 'sin' problem wouldn't death still be unresolved? He made us 'righteous' with God but then there is still the death thing. Without the resurrection, death still remains an issue.

Where am I going with this? I was talking to someone about this and the response to Jesus sacrifice was this: I deserved it, He took on my punishment and I owe Him my life because of it. While I do not disagree with this necessarily there is something missing. Or maybe it is just that simple and I need to chill.

But it sounds like a mere swap, a straight legal transaction, balancing the equation. And I believe this is the claim often leveled against PSA in its basic, or base, understanding. 

The questions, for me, still remain: paid the price. To whom? Ransom. From what? Bore my infirmities. And did what with them?

Random Notes

Jesus. Do we create Him? Yes. In us. The question, though, is whether or not there is an objective, or at least unified, reality behind this creation. We bring our humanity to Him, to this 'image' of Him and through 'Him' to the Father. But are we taking what is already within us and projecting it, if you will, onto this Jesus, creating an image? I think that's always a risk. The question is what is projected back to us, as in a mirror. Is there anything there? 

Or is it all just wishful thinking, a creation of our own making, a group delusion and manifestation, the power of the crowd to manufacture a mythology that is therefore able to be taught back to a group? Or is the fact of its existence a sign that it is in fact independent of us, something to discover, something already present that we, in a sense, stumble across? Is it truly something that is revealed to us? This requires humility, continually, to lay it down and surrender, 'sacrifice', it before Him. It is through Him we find out who we are as He infuses our humanity with His deified Humanity. 

My life is not that extraordinary. There is nothing shocking about it, nothing radical, nothing ridiculous, nothing extreme. What is perhaps most extraordinary is how ordinary it is. I think I spent most of my youth trying to create something extraordinary, an expression of self-identity, a rebelliousness, a protective sheath around my wounded youth. But it was a reaction out of pain out of uncertainty out of hurt rather than a true assertion of self-identity based on a Clear Vision. 

The Word, creator of all, is present in everything, including intimations within all religious traditions, all music and all expressions from the soul. It is this 'voice' that wishes to burst forth and we are its instrument. Nature and creation all 'sing' but it is from within and through our humanity that this 'voice' is most true. Theology is not a bad word. Dissociate theology from religion. Passage about Trinity as a hedge and other similar verses about theology as a bridge. Thinker? Always questioning? God. Word. Father. Son. Spirit. Jesus. Lord. Trinity. Apophatic approach. Comfortable enough to listen, not to debate to win or be right. To allow others the room to explore on their own, to question. 

Bad or confusing/ambiguous theology in worship songs. Theology is not a bad word and is, in fact, where the mind naturally gravitates to when contemplating the mystery of God. The church has, in its history, paved the way toward answering any and all questions we may have. 

There is nothing new under the sun. It may be new to us but the church protects us from thinking we are unique in the course of history which can, in its worst manifestation, lead to a cult-like dictatorship and following.

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?

But Do I Believe?

In all this pursuit of getting knowledge the question hit me: do I believe it?

Or am I just fascinated, thrilled and intoxicated by the fact that I understand?

Festal Orations (Cont.)

"Let us become like Christ, since Christ also became like us; let us become gods because of him, since he also became human. He assumed what is worse that he might give that which is better. He became poor that we through his poverty might become rich. He took the form of a slave, that we might regain freedom. He descended that we might be lifted up, he was tempted that we might be victorious, he was dishonored to glorify us, he died to save us, he ascended to draw to himself us who lay below in the Fall of sin. Let us give everything, offer everything, to the one who gave himself as a ransom and an exchange for us. But one can give nothing comparable to oneself, understanding the mystery and becoming because of him everything that he became because of us." (Oration 1.5: On Pascha and on His Slowness)

Compare this.

Perhaps it just makes me old. I'm good with that.

I find it fascinating that what I lived through in the 90s with electronic music bubbling up from the underground is now totally and completely mainstream and it has made its inroads into the church. For folks in church this is a "new" feeling; for those of us that have been there it is old school. Retro, brings a smile of times past, but is not something that I care to relive in the context of church, somehow 'sanctifying' it and giving it a Christian stamp.

This isn't to say these are bad or somehow inherently "wrong" as quite often the songs are quite enjoyable. They've got a good beat, a catchy hook and feel good lyrics. However, these songs come and go as time rolls on. I've got good memories of church songs that were popular five even ten years ago and they have no current relevance, a time capsule and snapshot of where I was at that point in my journey. 

I am moving deeper in my walk and prefer something with more substance, something that speaks deeper into the nature of this walk and something that resonates in the very core of my being rather than tickling my emotions and giving me a slight buzz.