Random Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ - Oneness vs. Trinity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Do I Believe?

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

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

Festal Orations (Cont.)

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

Compare this.

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

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

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

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