Immigration journey...

I posted this on Quora but it seemed fitting to post it here. Future posts will add some detail to this series of events. It is enlightening and will shed light onto the current immigration debates taking place in the media.

What has been your most expensive travel mistake and what did you learn from it?

Arthur Ort, 20 years wrestling with religious truth, voracious reader

Updated Wed

The chain of events started when we arrived at the gate in Heathrow after an 8 hour red-eye from Boston in February of 2015.

“Can I see your UK Visa?” we were asked after the customs agent looked at my wife’s Jamaican passport.

“We don’t have one,” I replied.

“I’m afraid I can’t let you in,” was the reply.

Our worst fears were realized.

As a US Passport holder this wasn’t an issue. I was good to go. For my wife, a Jamaican citizen and US Green Card holder, this was not to be. We had the Schengen Visa which had taken us on some late night, rapid fire trips to New York, Washington DC, Cleveland and Chicago to obtain. With the Schengen Visa arriving the Wednesday before our departure, we thought we were finally good to go.

The following night while surfing the Web I found a site that mentioned the need for a UK Visa as the UK is not a part of the Schengen countries.

Curiously, my wife overheard a conversation about the need for a UK Visa as she was filling out papers for the Schengen Visa while we were in Chicago as I drove around the block several dozen times waiting for her. One was not needed was the consensus on the subject.

That was apparently not true. I had a meltdown. We were were flying out early that Saturday.

I called my wife’s sister-in-law who is a British citizen who had worked for Customs twenty plus years ago when she lived there and she said that sometimes the agents have latitude as to who they’ll let in.

With airline tickets, train tickets and a two-week itinerary planned canceling just didn’t seem like an option. With the feeble hope of her words we decided to brave it.

We got through Boston without incident so thought maybe, just maybe, we’d be ok.

At 7 a.m. in the morning (2 a.m. eastern US time) in Customs at Heathrow my wife was denied and escorted away. I went out to face my wife’s sister and her husband and tried to explain what had just unfolded.

Several hours later, a canceled Euro Pass and the purchase of a pair of plane tickets to France (hundreds of dollars on such short notice) our stay was extended.

We were able to experience the vacation of a lifetime through England, Wales, Belgium and northern France with her sister in Bristol and a good friend in Lille, France.

On the last leg of the journey, a p.m. return trip from Charles de Gaulle to Heathrow after our two weeks were up we were met with words that sounded very familiar when we presented our tickets to board:

‘We can’t let you board,” said the gate agent.

Denied again, this time at the gate. The transit visa through Heathrow expired at midnight on the day of travel, not 24 hours upon landing. The flight was held, our luggage removed. Add a hotel room to the bill.

So very grateful for Isabella from Air France who booked the hotel for us and changed our flight times to the next morning or we would have had to book new tickets as well.

After a whirlwind night, an early flight from CDG to Heathrow and a scramble and last minute decision to avoid having to go through security and missing a flight, we ditched our luggage at Heathrow and headed back overseas, elated at being free.

Upon arrival in Boston, we were once again met with words that were becoming hauntingly familiar:

“Please come with us,” my wife was told by two individuals who approached her at the booth where her passport and biometrics were scanned.

I was left dumbfounded. She was, once again, detained. You’d think my wife was a universally wanted criminal.

Hours later we learned that immigration law is different than US law and ‘did the crime, did the time’ does not apply. Petty crimes from thirty years ago in the moral purity of immigration law as it applies to those deemed worthy to be in the US are still relevant today and have the potential to make a green card holder inadmissible and, ultimately, removable.

Four years and thousands of dollars later (and still accumulating) we are still dealing with the trip with an immigration court date looming in January of 2020.

What have we learned? Aside from the particular ‘how not to travel' advice of that trip and more about immigration law than I can ever have imagined, we have felt at a deeper level than the media narrative at least one of the ways in which immigration law is broken.

We met incredible people through this journey, from the initial customs agent to those customs agents at Heathrow we talked with, to Isabella at Air France at CDG, to all the people we met through our doing it wrong travels and through all the people we’ve met navigating immigration law.

Though it is not easy, we have learned to find joy, hope and celebration in the midst of trials.

Systems fail and bad decisions are often made but people remain awesome.

P.S. Our luggage that we assumed was lost forever showed up at Pittsburgh the Tuesday after our return.

Sometimes when you (think you) hit bottom...

The day after my last post, I made a decision to change my mindset. It wasn't instant and it wasn't some pep talk that did it (I'm an INTJ, I'm just not wired that way). But I decided, with a sprinkle of faith, that I would pause before allowing my thoughts to run away with me. That was the decision.

It was conscious and it was intentional and it actually brought me some peace I haven't felt in quite some time.

Without going into the details of my work (which I may, over time, do but that will turn into a book), I walked in to one of our facilities and ran into the one of the ownership's family who I've grown to know a little bit. For some reason she thinks I am positive and always cheerful. I can't say I always feel that way but sometimes God will allow people to see you a certain way.

We talked for a while and ended up on the subject of gratefulness and she proceeded to remind me how fortunate (religious folk would say 'blessed') we are to be employed and employed at a company where management cares about people. And it hit me hard. She wasn't trying to push this on me, it was just conversation, but I was instantly convicted. For all my complaints about work are, in the end, my issue and my attitude, though perhaps not visibly displayed, has been ungrateful.

Later that day, another high ranking management team member gave a leadership presentation at a local community development agency using John Maxwell's 15 Invaluable Law of Growth. Our pastor is a certified Maxwell Life Coach and it's good stuff by my 'self help fatigue' often sets in and I struggle to listen to more of it as after a while it's easy to miss the good stuff in the midst of the sameness of it all.

But today, I was open. I have much respect for him and was excited to hear his presentation. He touched on two of the laws and they too hit hard.

Good management of bad experiences leads to great growth. I have not been managing bad experiences lately and have not been growing. In fact, I have been allowing the pain to control me and dictate my mood, my decisions and my overall well-being.

And like a punch to the gut, gently, was the law of the rubber band. A rubber band only works when it is stretched and it is right at the point of tension where growth, where stretching, occurs. I have not been allowing myself to stretch; I have been an old, worn rubber band ready to break.

And then...as if that wasn't enough.

On Quora, where I frequently find myself lately, I voiced an opinion about a Biblical topic of which I have a surface level understanding and was met with an incredible exposition and, after some banter in the comments section, words of cool refreshment poured straight out of Scripture that reminded me without Him I can do nothing.

It was the coup de grâs, the trifect, the three pointer at the buzzer. It was the Holy Trinity giving me a nudge. 

I am in His embrace even in the midst of my struggles laid out over the past few months and years here and He is letting me know that it's ok and to let go, to surrender. Because when we do, we find Him there and, as Scripture says, His yoke is easy and His burden is light.

Circumstances don't necessarily change; we do and our circumstances look different.

New Directions

Today is Monday, May 20, 2019. I'm taking this blog in a different direction, we'll see where it goes.

As much as I wax philosophical about religion and matters of faith, even life in general, the reality is that we are struggling. Not without hope but struggling. This is the reality that all of us are either facing or running from or some combination of both.

But even though it is rough right now, there is good and we are grateful when we get outside of ourselves and see the sun above the clouds.

And comparatively our struggles pale in comparison to the struggle of others. And this too is a struggle because of our limited view. I struggle because even though my struggle is what we might called a 'privileged struggle' it is still a struggle nonetheless and comparative guilt doesn't help.

So how to get out of the mud? How to reach out and help others? This is the challenge.

I think I have a limited view of helping others. I have a monetary view in mind because our struggles are monetary and we are unable to help others this way without putting ourselves in a bind which will further exacerbate the problem.

So when we have 'gift offerings' at church I feel shame and guilt because I do not feel we can afford it yet there is the warped sense of 'if you do this, God will bless you' as if it is a formula. Yet God also wants us to be responsible, no?

Are we not debtors (our current situation due to some poor choices made a while back) slave to the lender? Should our focus be on responsibly managing what he gives us in the way of finances rather than looking for a 'formula' that equates giving to freedom from debt?

Always questions. I don't think I understand the obsession with finances in the church. And perhaps it is a flaw in me, a sore spot, rubbing salt in the very same wound of the fear I have of everything falling apart.

I put on video exactly what our situation is as a document as we progress. Our house is falling apart, our budget, while we are sustaining, is in a vulnerable even volatile spot, my wife's immigration hearing is on the horizon (which has cost us our tax refunds for the past four years), daughter has a third child on the way in a less than ideal situation, suffering from an impinged shoulder (getting better but still limiting), cars are in need of 'stuff' and in terms of a future we are not well prepared.

So, at 50 years old it feels as if we are starting over and the way my attitude has been lately it appears that 20 years of faith has come up short. And perhaps that's as it should be. Perhaps I have not yet really learned what it means to surrender and I am still self-reliant.

Top 5 (Or More) Before/After Books

The Bible almost goes without saying as the influential book of my life. That being said, below are my Top 5.

• Dao De Jing (Cleary translation; Henricks translation) - this is the one that started it all. I became fascinated with this one when I started seeking. Can't recall when I actually picked this up but pretty sure it was some book of the month club. It seemed 'mystical' and I was already 'facing East' by this time as I had perceived all things Christian as power mongering, manipulative and fearful. God was seen as an abusive task master and the whole 'Jesus saves' thing creeped me out in the worst TBN televangelist stereotyping kind of way. The Cleary version was the version I was reading when I was at a Youth Hostel in Idaho and it all became clear in an instant, just before my peak moment at the top of Yosemite Falls.

• Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - this is the book that saved my sanity. I had tried to read it in college because it was one of those books that seems to be a rite of passage. I tried and it didn't sink in. I was more interested in drinking. So while this in some sense pre-dates the Dao De Jing, it was not until years later in the midst of what was becoming a mid-life crisis in my twenties with alcoholism on the doorstep that I picked it up to read it. I literally took two days off of work to finish it. One reading. It didn't fix me; it made me realize that I was not alone.

• Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis - I discovered Henry Corbin through the book Sacred Drift (which enlightened me to the joyous and wild world of ‘heretical’ Islam). This book challenged me and puzzled me and pushed me and frustrated me but it also provided me with an opening to a more ‘mystical’ tradition to be found in Christianity. I always want to see what the author is seeing and without trying to bend it to my beliefs and this book pushed me in ways unfathomable as it introduced an entire universe that was new to me and gave me a 'pro' view of the 'Gnostic' texts of the New Testament. ‘Heretical’? Absolutely. Here was an alternate view to the Incarnation with full embrace of the mystery rather than rejecting it on historical or other grounds. I can’t even begin to tell you how deep this goes. I still revisit this from time to time as I see in Corbin a very 'Eastern' view and have since learned how he was influenced by the Eastern Church, especially Russian authors.

• The Roots Of Christian Mysticism - second only to the Bible in influence, this introduced me to the Church Fathers and literally saved my Christian faith. This book sent me down the path of where I am now and my leanings toward a more 'Eastern' view. Interesting that I was drawn to the Eastern religious traditions yet could never abandon my faith in Christ and here is the meeting of the two. Other than the Bible, this book is the most underlined, rabbit-eared, worn and taped up book I own.

• Mystical Theology Of The Eastern Church - an intellectual sojourn through a tradition foreign to me but one that fit with what I had discovered in reading the Bible. This was a fit; the 'West' view wasn't (and still isn't). It gave concrete language and an intellectual framework around what I had discovered within my own studies and what I found wanting within the ‘western’ tradition in which I was raised.

The books below are up there and a major part of the journey but fell just shy of having the impact the books above have had.

1. The Power of Myth - this one may have been in the mix of the two books noted above, can't recall. This was the book that put words to thinking 'mythically' as the literalism with which I was supposed to take the Bible wasn't happening. At first, 'mythically' meant the whole thing was made up, fiction, a myth. I began the quest into the eastern religions as, it seems, is a rite of passage for many who rebel, drawn to the exotic, the opposite, the mystical flavor of things foreign. I outgrew this when I learned, over time, that he was as fundamentalist as any fundie and I realized he missed an entire tradition within Christianity of the 'charismatic' variety. 
2. Sacred Drift - this one put the 'fun' in fundamentalism as his stories through the world of Islam opened my eyes to the variety contained within it. Anarchy of the religious sort was appealing. Picked this up on a whim at Twice Loved Books in Youngstown. This was my guide of sorts as I began my journey into the world of Islam. It remained a personal favorite until the secrets of the author were revealed via the Web and, true or not, it made me realize that anarchy only goes so far and, taken to its extreme, can be a dangerous weapon that will take us further than we want, or should, go. 
3. Qur'an - Pickthall translation. My intro to Islam which started on the Beliefnet forum. I would eventually 'graduate' to Muhammad Asad's translation which, unfortunately, appears to be wishful thinking from a convert from the West, no matter how educated. This was a seven year journey that would take me to and through 9/11.
4. Theology and the Church - the latest addition. Adding intellectual depth to the Trinity.
5. Christ In Eastern Christian Thought - the latest addition to the book and an entirely new path. I had no idea how deep and how long debates about Who Christ is went on and it through this I've gone much deeper into the Eastern Orthodox tradition and it has brought a bright light into my search.

Is the Trinity biblical?

Certainly.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So is the Trinity biblical? It most certainly is.

I think what appeals to be about Orthodoxy is twofold:

1) Its embrace of the mystery

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

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

2) Its doctrinal framework.

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

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

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

And yet, all are biblical.

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

Evangelicalism vs Orthodox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doubt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.