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?"

Sexual Abuse

Abuse - sexual, as in my case, or any other - will mess you up. I was probably in my late 30s when I was able to pinpoint the exact moment when my life changed forever. Though I do not know the exact age, I know the exact location, circumstance and people in the room as clear as I am writing this. That meant more 20 plus years of layer upon layer built upon that wound so that area of my life was underdeveloped, overcompensated for in other ways and a mythological creature was built upon that vortex.

The curious thing is that I remembered it and could talk about that moment but the disconnect was so great that I did not know that it was the source. I may have have noticed it when feelings of rage flared up around the person even though I didn't quite know why; I just thought that person was just a jerk and I justified the behaviour because of the abuse within his family. In hindsight, after this I would find myself amongst the company of outcasts, most, maybe even all, of whom had come from abusive or troubled environments.

I recall being at one of my friend's houses and having his stepfather threaten to whip all of us in the room, me included, with a belt because we were being too loud. And he most certainly meant it. My friend would later move on to the military and I lost touch with him though back at home he was seen in town behaving in a fashion that would lead one to believe he carried on the same manner of raising children. 

It was never a conscious thing. I just knew I did not belong in certain cliques and, though not antagonistic toward those cliques, I did not fit in. So I fell into the non-clique cliques and even hung with the 'hoods' loosely enough not to go down those paths which, I am well aware, were also symptomatic of abuse. Had I chosen to go down that path rather than soak up the vibes without actually entering, those addictions may have done more damage sooner.

It was then that the seeds of rebellion were planted. Though it would in time graduate beyond the suburbs it was comfortable, suburban rebellion. Sneaking out at night, alcohol - lots of alcohol - and rock music though, again, it was the obligatory classic rock and the rebellion that got a knowing smile from those who lived through it the first time and passed it on to us.

However, this was a linear progression. This was not a circular progression out of which people grow and conform into their expected role once they've shaken the 'teenage rebellion' rite of passage. No, this would grow differently than those within my family.  I was not alone in this as many from my class would follow similar trajectories and it always led me toward believing that there was some form of trauma underlying all of these people's lives.

I graduated beyond the classic rock of my youth and 'discovered' Motley Crue (now classic rock) and heavier, louder rock and roll, though comfortably from within my suburban bedroom. Alcohol was not frowned upon so it was easily accessible. In my case, it started before I became a teenager. It was all controlled, the parameters of our rebellion laid before us. And I think, when coupled with the abuse, because there was no relief for feelings of which I was not aware, I progressed. I wanted more, further, deeper, louder, angrier, self-inflicted as other than appearance and my internal dialogue I had learned to put on airs.

I kept clean cut rather than becoming a stoner cliche. I maintained, though this was a gradual slope, a job. From the upper echelons of my first job to working in a coffee shop, I cannot remain oblivious to the fact that my addictions were leading me to make some minimalist choices.

There was always 'something' there that kept me from going all in, some effort at restraint that kept me from doing heroin, that kept me from growing my hair long and living the cliche. But that 'something 'was slowly losing its grip and I was gradually on my way there. Addiction isn't always instant. Perhaps our level of security slows the journey and we can go a long time without going all the way there. But it was coming.

Before I left on my walkabout I met my now wife. It was she who kept me going and it was she who I turned to on the lonely journey across the country, even as I lived among and with people. She was my life line though I didn't know it at the time. And it was because of her I returned when the bottom was falling out and I somehow knew where I was heading. And it was through her that I was introduced to a faith that would ultimately reveal that moment in time when life changed, when my innocence was lost and I would spend my youth trying to destroy that innocence - and myself in the process - and my adulthood trying to reclaim it.

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.

The Appeal Of Christian 'Mysticism'

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

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

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

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

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

I continue coming back to these words:

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

Or another translation:

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

Or this one: 

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

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

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).

Vision

Why is it that we want to be heard? Ultimately, what is it we want to say?

As listener, where is it we wish to take the speaker, to guide that speaker?

Why is it that Jesus asked questions? He knew the answer, he wanted to take the person with whom he was speaking there on their own.

Limits...

If we are trying to be humble we will fail because our efforts are mixed in there. Philippians 2.

What is it we, as speaker, wish to share?

Jesus knows the thoughts of men...

Limits...

He who knows me best loves me most.

So if we talk in limits, extremes, we come to the Incarnation: God Himself (to be technical, the second Person of the Trinity) willingly chooses to become enfleshed, enhypostatized, and relinquishes claim to His divinity. Though He is the acting subject in this flesh, He operates with the human faculties, minus the sin. Do I fully grasp that? Kind of. Any questions about Him 'cheating' because He is divine leads us down the road of discussing various doctrines deemed heretical and this isn't the place for that. I take the statement as fact, as, to use Lossky's term (which resonates with me in the quality field) as datum.

So God, the ultimate we can conceive of, takes on human flesh, and empties himself (kenosis) to the lowest of low, to the utmost extreme: death. His (divine) will wills to utilize or work within the constraints and limits of a human will. But without sin. Is that cheating? Or is it that he accomplished what we are not only unable to but cannot even fathom due to the taint of sin? Is this belief? It stretches us because we still wish to conceive of it, to grasp it, to control it?

I think this is where such tired cliches as 'he came to die' and 'God send His Son to die' lose their impact. It sounds, recalling James' "One Of The Three" track, like a mere suicide mission. It may get those in the know excited, especially through interpretive and conditioned filters, but from the outside this is a statement that sound like Jesus was a good dude who became a martyr and nothing more. The lingering question, I suppose, is why everyone in the know gets so worked up over this.

But if we get radical, as the Fathers have said, and believe that God took 'into' His Being (or person or hypostasis, need to flesh that one out) something He did not previously 'have', i.e. the 'experience' of what it means to be a human being that has 'created' its own independence and has to live with the impassible barrier to God.

It is the 'person' of the Word that experiences this, that assumes this. His human will aligns with the divine will (sounds crazy, right?) in the single subject of the second Person of the Trinity, and His battle is with a human will to do the will of the Father. Whether or not He could have sinned was a debate tackled during the centuries of formulating doctrine.

He struggled with the human will and 'tamed' it to the point of death. We all die. So to say He came to die in and of itself doesn't mean much as a standalone statement. We all die. It is inherent in our nature. But He knew human nature and He knew about power and that the power men seek is in contrast to that of the Divine which is why many others before Him had been killed.

So again, taking this to a logical extreme, the ultimate power of men, from a human perspective, is to take life; in this case it is to kill God. Men want to be God so when their power in pursuit of that goal is interrupted it leads to violence which, ultimately, means death. That is the Power that men seek.

So God, Life, surrenders and ultimately sacrifices that Life in human flesh and dies. Yet 'death', as an absolute, finds in Him nothing and death dies. The limit has been reached. Death, man's ultimate fate, is rendered powerless, objectively, within time. It is not an abstract concept; a Person has accomplished this and we see it. We see what it means for there to be no death.

We die. That hasn't changed. And the 'eternal life' as some pie in the sky with us floating around in wings is silly and, arguably, minimally - if at all - what Scripture says. This is the version what makes faith seem like a fairy tale and is not sustaining. Once the initial 'fix' of my salvation is in, what then? Without substance we will go forward with an altar call every week.

I was in Church as my grandbabies graduated from pre-K to Victory Kidz. They were watching a movie and it was so simple and so sweet. Even in the children's cartoon there were efforts to make those seemingly conflicting stories between the four Gospel writers seamless. They did a good job and, cynicism aside, I felt the impact of such a great story. It is truly a great story.

And it dawned on me that it is a faith that is at once simple to grasp and, as happened over hundreds, even thousands, of years, has added layers in its encounter with the depths of the human mind. Even today it is wrestled with when encountering the various philosophies of men.

But for children it is simple.

During worship today with all the adoration given to Jesus it seemed to fit. We worship Him but, in truth, as we worship toward Him we are actually worshiping through Him as He, guided by the Spirit, takes our praises purified, so to speak, unto the Father. It is a symphony. He takes what we have and as a mirror, our Image, shows us who we truly are and that is what is rendered unto the Father. It isn't our mess that the Father 'sees' but our heart, in the Spirit directed through the Son, as if cutting through all the mess within us, to take that which is truly in His image, i.e. His Son, into His court.

And in reverse, the Father's will, through the Son, by the Spirit returns unto us to purify the perichoresis of us as a body, through the Son, to interact and relate to the Holy Trinity. 

Seeking To Believe

It dawned on me today that whenever I seek to understand another religious tradition or variant of my own it is usually because I am truly looking to believe it. In other words, convince me not as 'proof' that it is right in comparison to where I currently stand or in comparison to my own but seek to show me why you believe this on its own merits.

There is a subtle but significant difference in this approach. There is no ulterior motive to build up ammunition to attack. If I am sound in my own faith I will not be moved. If I am not, I will.

And, more importantly, if this leads to strengthening of my own faith or a conversion it ultimately should lead to respect and understanding. 

So as far as EO is concerned one sticking point (i.e. lack of understanding) is in regard to Mary as Theotokos. I've been hung up on the veneration of Mary and praying to Mary for intercession. I am, however, drawn to or curious about all the Mary statues I see in people's front yards. I'm drawn to asking homeowners why they are there and what the significance is of the effort to place a statue in front of the house. 

What I've come to understand is that the significance of venerating Mary is to prevent slippage back into the Nestorian heresy. That resonated with me as I have been immersed in this theology thing for quite some time now (have shifted attention now to the common belief that the cross did not finish the job and that Jesus' spirit had to go to hell, completely cut off from 'God' (aka the Father), to fight the devil and that after this he was 'born again' which at first glance sounds like a Nestorian understanding of his Whoness).

I wonder, however, did this aspect get lost over time and as there is a long distance from the pulpit to the pew does tor many, turn into worship or near worship of Mary for many?

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.

The Word

We all just want to be heard. Our whole life is expression. Whether it be music, writing, acting, even working, we all want to give expression to the life in us and we all want to be heard.

There is a 'voice' inside of each of us that wants to come out. 'Communication' is the word often used for this but that doesn't go deep enough. That just expresses the concept.

Instantly, Scriptures come to mind giving some semblance of voice to what it is I am struggling to put down in words (and I do the quote, comment, quote, comment thing which has always driven me crazy; irony indeed).

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9) (KJV)

Or:

"There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." (NASB)

Basically the same idea.

From Paul:

"...the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." (Romans 8:23)

From deep within us, something is trying to get out or, better, through. 'We' are trying to express ourselves, we are trying to be heard. But as the human person is an infinite mystery, there something deeper still, something in us we just can't get to, something we seek to understand, to give voice to.

All the religions point in this direction. Even philosophy and, arguably, science ends up here. The voice, eternal vibrations, energy always moving. Nothing is still. Perhaps our purpose is to allow "this" to move through us and not just "through" us but moving toward some final fulfillment, a purpose.

This isn't end times thinking nor is this purpose in the 'destiny' sense of the self-help and self-centered hope of much of the Church world today and endless self-help, motivational and cultish groups. No, purpose is much higher than that.

The unification of the body, recapitulation, the world as Eucharist, is the only thing I can immediately think of within the context of my studies. Buddhism has the Sangha, Islam has the umma, Christianity has the Body of Christ. I'm sure there are others. It's this sense of purpose, unity in diversity and diversity in unity, a common purpose and goal.

Much of the Christian world has lost this and the purpose has become individualistic which, ultimately, leads to a self-centered distortion of that purpose.

Jesus didn't come to save us so we could have more stuff.

Worship Songs and Theology...Again

Decided to listen to some worship songs this morning, the ones that we sing at the church we currently attend. And I listen, I wonder who the 'You' and 'the Lord' we are singing to is.

I follow the trail by typing in the artist name and 'Oneness' and find a link to a Oneness Pentecostal website and conference page with the artist.

To the best of my knowledge, our church subscribes to the AG statement of belief. However, we are singing a song rooted in Oneness theology. Is this 'In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty' and I'm splitting hairs or have we lost our way and are following strange gods? Are we within the 'bounds' of doctrine or are the naysayers correct about historical Church doctrine and this is truly a 'new' move of the Spirit unfettered from institutional control?

Maybe I'm getting old but...

Random quotes in need of synthesis...

This point is further developed by Clement: "In other words, in the human being the person is not identifiable with the body or the soul, or the spirit. It arises from another order of reality...The person, says Lossky, is 'the irreducibility of the individual to his human nature.'" (Ivana Noble, The Gift of Redemption, p. 54n14)

"While Anselm develops a theology of the expiating merit of the death of an innocent victim, Lossky turns to the notion of divine-human cooperation and what would seem from his passing comment as the destruction of nature (cosmic and human) is linked more closely to the rest of the Christian teaching." (p. 55)

"Furthermore, although this Pauline juridicial image dominated how the memory of redemption was passed on, it was never the only image of it. Lossky shows that in the Scriptures, as well as in the Fathers, we find the 'bucolic' image of a good shepherd, the military image of a strong man being overcome by an even stronger one, the biological image of triumph in nature corrupted by sin, the victory over hell, a diplomatic image, where divine wisdom deceives cunning evil, a medical image, where sickly nature is given salvation as an antidote to poison, These images co-exist. Each of them interprets a partial experience and offers a partial vision of renewed relationships with God and in them also with the rest of creation. But none of them is an exhaustive explanation of its mysterious nature." (p. 59, emphasis mine)

"Schwager goes back to Maximus the Confessor, according to whom Christ on the cross altered the 'use of death'. Instead of a punishment visited on human nature for sin, on the cross death becomes a means of salvation from sin." (p. 61)

“All these things, indeed, become clear by experience [τῇ πείρᾳ]” (Triads 2.2.9) ("Florovsky's 'Mind of the Fathers' and the Neo-Patristic Synthesis of Dumitru Staniloae," Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 69: 1-4 (2017) 32)

For example, Stăniloae says it “is not an apophaticism pure and simple” but “a positive vision and an experience in a reality superior to any knowledge” (SO 299, ET 350), not an ignorance “due to the absence of knowledge, but because of its superabundance” (SO 195, ET 236; commenting on Gregory Palamas, Triads 2.3.17). 

The problem was that the Basilian hypostasis, defined as the ousia with the idiomata, could not avoid two hypostases in Christ. This it had to be refined and expanded for usage in Christology: hypostasis was no longer understood only as the ousia with idiomata, but also as that which “exists by itself” (καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν). Hurtado notes that Paul’s use of κύριος for both God and Jesus is something he inherited from Aramaic speaking Christian circles, not Gentile ones. Thus Jesus’ divine status was already established before the very first New Testament writings, not later when it encountered the Gentile world, as Bousset claimed (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 108-118). 

"Just as the perichoresis of the Holy Trinity presupposes the unity of nature, so human perichoresis113 presupposes the re-establishment of the unity of human nature.114 The unity of human nature, however, necessitates asceticism, which removes the sinful inclinations (gnome) and egotism that have fragmented it.115 Once removed, human nature becomes “transparent” for interpersonal communion.116 Being consubstantial with us, the incarnate Son of God is a catalyst from within human nature itself for the reestablishment of its unity in many hypostases.117 

Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ, pp. 4, 7, 2) stresses the idea that “the origins of cultic veneration of Jesus have to be pushed back into the first two decades of the Christian movement” and that the high Christology implied by this early Christian binitarianism “began amazingly early”, “astonishingly early”, “phenomenally early”. 

The later difficulty of articulating a trinitarian monotheistic doctrine was therefore not the result of Hellenization, and not the fabrication of second-century writers like Justin; it was rather “forced upon them by the earnest convictions and devotional practice of believers from the earliest observable years of the Christian movement” (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p. 651).

"Does this account of the deification process imply, as Florovsky believed it did, that any personal relationship with Christ is negated, since his work is limited to the deification of human nature, but has to be achieved by the work of the Holy Spirit, on a personal level?...Florovsky is wrong when he supposes that according to Lossky, our relation to Christ is only a natural one through the sacraments...But this is not the Holy Spirit's role. He makes us personal beings, not super-individuals; and the person is not the completion of the individual, but her negation. Whereas the individual exists only for himself, and separated from others, the person is but a witness to someone else...

It is the Holy Spirit, not Jesus Christ, who allows us to be personal beings (while the Son allows us to be personal beings with a deified nature)...[According to] Lossky, being a person means precisely having a personal relationship with Christ. In other words, what the Holy Spirit adds is nothing but the personal relationship with Christ." (Anthony Feneuil, Becoming God Or Becoming Yourself: Vladimir Lossky on Deification and Personal Identity, p. 49)

Quotes

I cannot read self-help books (in general but this is a specific sub-topic from within that genre) that pull random quotes from wherever and use them not so much as reinforcement for but as a springboard toward their message. Eisegesis not exegesis. 

I struggle with the same when it comes to general Christian-y books that quote Scripture, comment, quote Scripture, comment as these too tend toward self-help books with a Jesus stamp and end up in the dustbins of your local Goodwill.

They arguably serve a purpose if they edify believers but they also lead to cultish followings and book after book after book being written about as many subjects as possible - heal the mind, lose weight, save your family, you name it by authors elevated to 'celebrity' status (when everyone knows good as good, this is not good...).

Recently, I came across one that was "Christian" based that pulled a quote from H.P. Lovecraft. That in and of itself is fine but I was curious if the author even knew who he was and/or had a specific reason for a quote from that particular author as the quote itself was nothing profound specific to that author. As I suspected, the quote fit, there was no context and he was not aware of Lovecraft's views. It reinforced my irritation with this method.

However, I have softened on this stance as lately I am realizing that in my pursuit there are statements, those 'aha' moments, that put into words clearly what it is I am trying to grasp mentally. When a statement is written that succinctly summarizes the gobbledygook in my head, I too have fallen prey to the same. So I have chilled on the stance. Won't be reading those books but I am working on being less judgmental (and arrogant) of the same.

Examples specific to my pursuit as of late:

As Florovsky wrote to Bulgakov in the mid-20's: “I believe in your case, too, Solov'ev long hindered you in your search for the main thing. For the road to discovering it lies through Christology, not through trinitology [sic], since only with Jesus Christ did the worship of the trinity become reality." («Theology Reasons» – in History: Neo-Patristic Synthesis and the Renewal of Theological Rationality, Matthew Baker, as quoted in Klimoff, 75).

Context: trying to get 'beyond' (or is it 'through') Jesus to the Trinity.  'Jesus' is so very much humanized that far too often he often feel more like a superhero or when we say 'God' we just think of Jesus (i.e. that empty statement 'Jesus is God'). This then leaves the question of what the Father and Holy Spirit are exactly and we head into the morass of non-Trinitarian variants: Oneness/Sabellian/Modalist, Binatarian or Arian/Unitarian. 

To quote another Matthew Baker article:

'Christians apprehend first the Person of Christ the Lord, the Son of God Incarnate, and behind the veil of His flesh they behold the Triune God." (The Eternal 'Spirit of the Son': Barth, Florovsky and Torrance on the Filioque, p. 403, quoting Florovsky)

It is this that I've been missing. My church stops at Jesus. It's truncated, the CliffsNotes version of the story. God sent His Son to die for you. What does that even mean? In essence, cynically perhaps, it is a guilt relieving mechanism (often referred to as the Holy Spirit) that gets someone through the door. But is that salvation? Is that really "the Gospel"?

I suppose a couple of Bible quotes would do the trick (John 3:16, for example). But God 'sending His Son' is intermixed with 'to die for you' (1 Corinthians 15:3). Unfortunately, the fuller part of the Corinthians passage, verse 4, is often left out of this pitch which makes 'God' (or the Father) sound so vindictive. So we run around conflating two separate passages into one 'pitch' and walk around thinking it is plain as can be.

For those of us who, for whatever reason, have made the leap and have staid the course, are we called to go 'further' with this or is our clarion call to recruit believers, er, share our story and introduce them to the goodness of God, or Jesus, or the Father or the baptism in/into/of/for/through the Holy Spirit? Forget about knowledge, save people?

I can't be the only 'believer' (or am I not really a believer?) who is totally confused (or just frustrated) with this. I suppose Sunday morning isn't really the time for high theology but I, perhaps naively, assume that throughout the year the more faithful in the EO or Catholic traditions have theology imparted into them in the liturgical cycle whereas in modern Protestantism it is up to us to pursue this in relative isolation.

So I am just as 'guilty' as those whom I accuse. We are all on the journey, all of us trying our best, let's be a part of the flow and not a dam.

Nesotrius Was Not Nestorian, Was Arius And Arian?

The deeper I dig in to this stuff, it seems as if many of these 'heretics' were but props, 'types' against which doctrine was defined and in the politics of the times I'd imagine persecutions over the years off and on put this in context in which we have little understanding as to the machinations used to ensure 'true' doctrine was entrenched.

I think we're seeing this played out on a different scale today when one person's text, tweet, whatever, is taken out of context (there is no time for context in our instant world) and blown to extremes whether or not the meaning is what it is said to have meant.

The logical extension of the 'worst' of Antiochene thought led to the accusations Cyril railed against Nestorius; it didn't necessarily matter whether or not he actually believed what was said. Ditto what was said about Cyril.

It is probably the same way with Arius. What is left of Arius' beliefs is found primarily in Athanasius. Not exactly an unbiased source of information. 

They became props against which doctrine was delineated and defined.

We do the same thing today with the various denominations when in reality we seem to have lost what the 'Trinity' actually means. Truthfully, when I read the Oneness arguments I think they are trying to say the same thing about the mystery. There are differences, obviously, such as the fact that the pre-existent 'Jesus' was in the mind of God and not a pre-existing Word that became man. Significant difference, certainly, from 'orthodox' thinking but in truth, when we drill down, we are trying to take the Biblical witness and put words to the mystery.

I will revisit this but I believe as Christians we are more united than we are divided and we spent more time infighting than we do trying to show people the beauty of the Christian faith.

I became a Christian spontaneously and it took me almost 20 years to want to be one.

Datums

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

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

Is there any common core?

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

Who decides? Who translates? Who interprets? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.