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. 

Breakthrough...

So I'm (is it annoying to start a sentence with 'So I...'?) listening to Kari Jobe's Majestic album (with DVD version of 'Forever' inserted which I'll get back to in a minute) and the issue I have with modern worship songs hit me.

I have frequently questioned, even called into question, their theology. This album is no exception. In fact, from the song above when I heard the line 'Heaven looked away' it was like a record (yes, a record, showing my age) scratching. There is a theology out there that the Father turned His back on Jesus when He was on the cross, that He couldn't look. That always sounded to me a bit schizophrenic. Still does. So this verse troubled me. I was able to somewhat temper this by noting that the verse says 'Heaven' and not 'the Father' and so, I suppose, there could be something in that. But I haven't considered what heaven looking away actually means.

The album, along with Jobe's modern Christian voice pattern, resonates well on an emotional core. It 'feels' really powerful. And then I realized: that's it, that's what both bothers me and moves me. It is the emotional content. 

I'm currently reading about a particular Orthodox view of the Spirit and they clearly link the Spirit and the Son together inseparably. One without the other is just not possible. A critique by some of Western theology is that the Spirit and the Son are often parsed and pursued separately and several of the songs on this album sing to the Spirit. Yet in those same songs they throw 'God' in there and talk about His (God's? The Spirit's?) presence. Here is the verse in question:

"Holy Spirit You are welcome here
 Come flood this place and fill the atmosphere
 Your Glory God is what our hearts long for
 To be overcome by Your Presence Lord."

Spirit, God and Lord are all throw in there in what sound to me like a convoluted stew. Is this a Trinitarian verse? We are often so 'Jesus' focused that the theological language such as those in the song above veer either into a quantum type of theology where we are asked to hold any such questions in a superposition of unknowing or we veer rapidly toward a Oneness theology where it's all Jesus.

But the songs 'feel' really good. And our experiences, whether individually or corporately, are often projected into these songs and their emotional import and we conflate the 'spirit' with 'emotion' and when these emotional highs happen, especially when they occur collectively, there is a 'move of the Spirit' in the church.

I'm an old raver so understand the fever pitch of when a club is lit and the DJ builds that story into the perfect crescendo and you 'feel' it and the energy is unmistakable. And this is often the high we (or is it me?) seek when there. I cannot say this is necessarily a bad thing as it can unify and bring people together. Jesus is quoted as saying that where two or three are gathered in His name there He is in the midst. So in that regard, is it really so bad? 

After all, these are some musicians - not theologians - who wrote a worship song.

In the context of the argument that the Western churches often separate the Spirit from the Son, there is some validity to that argument. Many songs cry out to the Holy Spirit. Is it worship to the Spirit or is it a rallying cry to the church for focus and sensitivity to the fact that if we are calling on Jesus as Lord the Spirit is already in our midst? 

"From the filioque Protestantism has at times deduced a separation of the Spirit from Christ and, consequently, having preserved the idea of the transcendence of Christ, it has substituted the presence of the Spirit for the presence of Christ." (Theology and the Church, p. 108)

On the flip side, these churches are actively seeking the Spirit so the critique about the Magisterium - primarily Catholic though often in the more staid Protest Churches as well - being set up in place of the Spirit it throws some cold water on that argument as many in the non-denominational (or post-denominational) church would agree about the 'dead' churches for whom the Spirit has been stifled and this pursuit of experience, pursuit of the Spirit, is a response to that longing.

This is where Tradition has become a caricature and is a negative word equated to being spiritually cold and dead. If it is an emotional high that is sought then absolutely this appears dead. But if willing to absorb the 'Tradition', not in a negative way, but as passed on for hundreds, even thousands, of years because it is a carrier of Truth than perhaps we're all missing the mark.

We all have the same vision, no matter how splintered we are as a human community and no matter how much the language we use is different and no matter how much we struggle to communicate this truth and no matter how much our selfish desires to be 'right' interfere. 

Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something like that...

On a personal note...

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

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

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

Retirement? What is that?

Grandchildren's education?

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

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

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

Sounds great, right? 

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

Heresy

Pretty much...

Giving Voice to The Word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The madness continues...

At church Sunday and the message is proclaimed early:

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is not enough. At least for me. 

Still at it...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday

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

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

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

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

So, this Orthodox thing...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Orthodoxy...

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

Verse Of The Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or these?

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

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

Do I Believe It?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rumi - Again

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

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

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

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

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

Quotes Out Of Context

Is it me or is this a horrible thing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Erasure of Islam from the Poetry of Rumi

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

The Web Of The Web

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

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

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

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

Oneness Theology

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

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

Just putting that out there...

The Nicene Creed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PSA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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