The Holy Trinity - Beneath the Surface of Belief

Hello AMCrenshaw,

Did you hope to get some feedback/opinions on this or did you intend to share it without want of comment?

Sincerely,
Gehanna

Hmm...

Interesting, if --ah-- a bit confusing. The whole thing strikes me as somewhat Gnostic. My overall sense is one of the depersonalization of the Divine in this scheme. God doesn't desire that we relate to Him as a Proposition, but as a Person.

Preliminary observations: In Proof 4 of your Posit statement, you say, "Nothing in Reality is better than anything else." This implies a standard of comparison. Better than, worse than, etc. Do you intend to articulate this standard? Which sort of comparison is it? More real? Less real? More moral? Less moral?

Proof 6: "We cannot describe Reality, so we cannot speak Truth. This is because we are finite beings and thus can only speak truths about realities*." Isn't this exactly what you are attempting to do? Describe Reality? Speak Truth? If we cannot say anything but "truths about realities," then in what sense can we say anything meaningful at all? Which then brings up the question: why write this book?

* Subpoint 1: "Attachments are desires, being in-time**, engagements in delusion, sin (breaking covenant with The Holy Trinity that is God), etc." Question: are desires therefore wrong? Or are there good desires as well as bad? Can God desire? This sounds more like Buddhism than Christianity.

And finally: Jesus knew logos. He expressed and embodied the nature of the Holy Spirit (which realizes the nature of Reality [nothing can be removed nor added; nothing is higher or lower; many are one; it is Nowhere] and the consequence of this realization is Love) in the flesh. Love is our savior if, of course, we want harmony. If, of course, we choose to Love God and Creation. This seems like more Buddhism, again, with the suggestion of pushing toward Nirvana - the state of non-being where all illusions are gone.

You might want to check out Os Guinness' recent book The Call. The first chapter addresses the differences between the Eastern, Secular and Christian outlooks on meaning and purpose for life.

Thank God He doesn't require me to understand all this, but just participate in His love. I think I'm maybe somewhat stupid, but all this to me is secondary to relationship. Talk about the relationship between Christ and the believer, and I won't feel so dumb. Otherwise it all feels like trying to tie up sand with a rope.

AMCrenshaw said:

Mods, if this doesn't fit here, please let me know! This is the framework for my newest project, Kommein: A Gospel of Our Age.

Posit

Through metonymy, we can see that humans are finite versions of the God. I may be being particularly stupid but I don't see where the metonymy comes in. And even if it does, it still remains to be proven. Metonymy is the naming of a whole by a part or vice versa. Which do you think is being employed here? And by whom? And what on earth do you mean by 'finite versions of God'? If you mean something like the imago Dei then say so. They are microcosms of God, of the universe, and of Reality.

[GOD] The Father, Son, Holy Spirit =

[Jesus] Godhead (logos, The Word), Avatar, Christ Consciousness
[Human] Mind, Body, Spirit
[Reality] Observation, Observed, Observer

Hmm. Do you mean each of these sets of three to match the others? Because you're really becoming heretical here if you do. The eternal Son of the triune God is not eternally corporeal. And all three persons of the trinity have 'mind'-like functions.

The symbol of Christ crucified [ + ] is the symbol of time and space intersecting. Right, now you're confusing the incarnation with the crucifixion. Why? Christ's sacrifice was being in the flesh to begin with. No, it wasn't. Christ's sacrifice was being hung on a cross to die. This really is Christianity 101. I.e., He could not have been The Son of Man without being in the flesh. Well no, but that's a different point. Son of Man is a title of majesty and glory, not sacrifice. Jesus, as the Christ (with the Christ consciousness), revealed to us the nature of the Holy Spirit. He did so by working through the Laws, given to us by (existing because of) God. The Law expressed most clearly is the Law of Love. It is by Love that we shall know harmony. The Godhead, logos, is the descriptor of Reality-- the laws, in other words. It is the description of the way things are. Since Christ was One, he knew logos (he is The Word, after all) and knew that by realizing logos and accepting it, that we would Love. So Jesus has expressed to us His consciousness, The Christ consciousness, which is the realization of the nature of spirit. Um, I hope you understand this and communicate it more clearly in your book.

Proof 1: I think it's very foolish to use the language of proof in this kind of discussion. Language is based on Order, Hierarchy, and Difference.

Proof 2: The engagement of language is like the engagement of belief. I hope you have some arguments to explain why this might be so.

Proof 3: Neither language nor belief have an effect on Reality. "Reality exists whether or not we believe in it." Hmm. You've not heard of speech-act theory then? Language has a huge effect on reality. And so, I'd argue, does belief.

Proof 4: No language can properly describe Reality, because language relies on difference and hierarchy when, in Reality, there is no difference*. Nothing in Reality is better than anything else. Huge assumptions here, all of which are strictly speaking, heretical. Orthodox Christianity asserts that language can and does properly describe reality because both language and reality have their origin in the one creator God. The God who made the universe, gave us the language to describe it, and himself. Not fully but truly. And second, the very fact of the trinity emphasises that at the heart of the universe lies difference. One-ness as well, but difference within that one-ness. And, therefore, hierarchy.

*Subpoint 1: Reality is such-ness. Reality is Now/here. Reality is no-thing-ness. **

** But what are these descriptors? Good question!

Proof 5: Hierarchy is a tool and can be used to its own abandon. That is, if we are given a specific context, hierarchies will always apply. For example, in choosing the life of Love, it is better to help than to hurt. In this example, the life of Love will be a life of unconditional Love; thus choosing love over hate will lead to non-hierarchical outlook.

Proof 6: We cannot describe Reality, so we cannot speak Truth. This is because we are finite beings and thus can only speak truths about realities*. See above.

*Hierarchy:

Objective Reality
Subjective reality

Proof 7: Hierarchies (which are always of realities) can always, endlessly be deconstructed and undermined.

Objective Reality becomes Subjective reality
Subjective reality Objective Reality
I'm sorry - there aren't enough words here for me to guess what you're trying to say.
Proof 8: Because these hierarchies can be undermined endlessly, doing so is not satisfying (dis-ease, dukka).

Proof 9: In Reality, all things are equal** attributes created by God.

* Objective Reality - subject reality
** Have we created another hierarchy (hierarchy/non-hierarchy)?

Proof 10: Yes and no. Hierarchy and non-hierarchy are equal.

Proof 11: In order to rid of hierarchy, I repeat, we must work through it.*

Click to expand...

I give up.

I think this is probably the wrong place for this discussion. The problem isn't your writing but your theology. There isn't enough here for me to understand all of what you're trying to say. I think you need to go and find some philosophical theologians who will help you to sharpen your arguments and show you the weaknesses in them. As it stands, I'd say this pretty clearly falls outside the bounds of traditional orthodoxy. And I think there are some fundamental flaws that systematic theologians would be able to show you pretty quickly. But, as I say, I'm not sure that this is the place for that conversation.

I suspect that much of the reason Jesus spoke in parables had to do with Genesis 11.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

This didn't do much for me. This type of reasoning (this must be true and therefore this must also be true, meaning that...) works well in geometry, but kinda falls apart when it comes to God. He is above and beyond our understanding. Logic won't produce faith, if it did everyone would believe in God instead of Darwin.

I turn you to:

"Proof 11b: In order to attain the experience of Reality we must work through"

Well, no. I turn you to a better, more excellent Way: John 14:6, in which the only One who understands all this says: "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through Me."

Let go of what you know and let His love find you. In Revelation 3:20, He says: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with Me."

He made it simple because we're simple people and we need to understand how easy it is.

My take on a Book I love.

Hello again AMCrenshaw,

Before I continue, I want you to know that it is not my intention to belittle you or purposely offend you in anyway. Sometimes, what I write does not come across very well. For this reason, I want you to know that my intentions are not to create conflict.

I have a question about the following comment you wrote:

It's obviously a different approach to the same thing.

Click to expand...

My question is to ask why you feel a different approach is needed? This I ask to help me gain insight into your point of view.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

Thank you for helping me understand your point of view. I have a bit of a different take on some points. One example would be that Paul's message is more relevant today than ever. In my opinion, his message is a call to action for men. As a woman, I am not offended by Paul's words. If I were a spiritually careless man, I'd be resentful.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

AMCrenshaw said:

I will begin with American Christianity, by which I refer to Evangelical and Fundamental institutions.



AMC

Click to expand...

Although this post was not a reply to me, I would like to point out, FYI, that if it were, you would have lost me with this sentence and the assumption that "Ameican Christianity" is ONLY Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.

AMCrenshaw said:

"I will begin with American Christianity, by which I refer to Evangelical and Fundamental institutions. The first and, in my opinion, worst problem with their approach to reading the Bible is that it is literalistic-- The Bible contains the literal words of God. What this does is create the ethical issue of interpreting scripture that seems to have no relationship to our current, modern society. For example, Leviticus 18:22, in which we are exhorted that this sort of behavior (being gay) defiles The Nation. Am I to believe that God said this, and not some person? Or in 1 Timothy, when "Paul" says that women should worship in silence and in submission because they were the one that caused MAN to fall? It's unreasonable and not helpful. I think I've made the point, anyway, but I will put it another (Eastern) way: We too often mistake the lens we look through for the thing we are looking for.

The other problem stems from this, which is the problem of Biblical Authority. It's easy enough to understand that if something was written by God Himself that we ought to listen to it. Yet I think it's obvious that humans constructed a book to civilize a nation.... More so, the church becomes a nation unto itself. That is, it has its own laws (called doctrine, I think) and within its "borders," followers cannot transgress these laws without risking Hell.]

Click to expand...

"Obvious that humans constructed a book to civilize a nation..." Obvious to whom?

There are some subtleties of the teachings of inspiration and inerrancy which I fear you may be missing. Literal, for instance, does not imply that every word of scripture should be interpreted just like every other - though some fundamentalists take it that way.

Inspiration does not necessarily mean plenary inspiration (meaning God dictated the actual words).

But you are at least correct in associating the inspiration of Scripture with its authority. For if indeed these words are God's words, then they ought to be paid attention to. And if they are not, you are free to deconstruct them any way you wish. My only question is this: if these words are not God's words, then why bother?

As for the Leviticus passage, there is a philosophical reconciliation for that statement - directly related to every other practice called abominable that is cited within the five books of Moses. You may not agree that an individual's private sexual behavior can influence an entire nation, but many people will disagree with you (ie: Henry VIII, Bill Clinton, etc.).

As for Paul's words in 1 Timothy (and there is no value in putting Paul in quotes, as practically all scholars agree he wrote the letter in question. Those who do not are not applying any sort of solid hermeneutic or bibliographical approach), there is a reconciliation there, too. Greek does not always translate well into English. Gyne, for instance, can mean wife or woman. Aner can mean both husband and man. The verse may well simply be saying, "I do not permit a wife to teach or exercise authority over her husband." Still, I suspect there are a number who will continue to chaff at his words regardless.

As for "followers cannot transgress these laws without risking Hell", this statement tells me you may have missed the entire point of Christianity. It isn't to create a set of rules by which you can then measure whether or not you are "safe" or "unsafe."

Christianity is given to reveal that a) we're all bastards, and b) God loves us anyway.

You make some excellent points, Michael--esp. concerning the inspiration of scripture. That quality doesn't negate the very real influence of human thought and culture. This is from The Inspiration of The Bible [SIZE=+2]by A.A. Hodge [/SIZE][SIZE=-1](a Reformation writer, 1823-1886):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Originally published in 1860, A.A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology is still regarded as a great introduction to classical Protestant theology. [/SIZE]

"Every part of Scripture alike bears evidence of a human origin. the writers of all the books were men, and the process of composition through which they originated was characteristically human. The personal characteristics of thought and feeling of these writers have acted spontaneously in their literary activity, and have given character to their writings in a manner precisely similar to the effect of character upon writing in the case of other men. They wrote from human impulses, on special occasions, with definite design. Each views his subject from an individual standpoint. They gather their material from all sources--personal experience and observation, ancient documents, and contemporary testimony. They arrange their material with reference to their special purpose, and draw inferences from principles and facts according to the more or less logical habits of their own minds. Their emotions and imaginations are spontaneously exercised, and follow as co-factors with their reasoning into their compositions. The limitations of their personal knowledge and general mental condition, and the defects of their habits of thought and style, are as obvious in their writings as any other personal characteristics. They use the language and idiom proper to their nation and class. They adopt the usus loquendi of terms current among their people, without committing themselves to the philosophical ideas in which the usage originated. Their mental habits and methods were those of their nation and generation. They were for the most part Orientals, and hence their writings abound with metaphor and symbol; and although always reliable in statement as far as required for their purpose they never aimed at the definiteness of enumeration, or chronological or circumstantial narration, which characterizes the statistics of modern western nations. Like all purely literary men of every age, they describe the order and the facts of nature according to their appearances, and not as related to their abstract law or cause.
Some of these facts have, by many careless thinkers, been supposed to be inconsistent with the asserted fact of divine guidance. But it is evident, upon reflection, that if God is to reveal himself at all, it must be under all the limits of human modes of thought and speech. And if he inspires human agents to communicate his revelation in writing, he must use them in a manner consistent with their nature as rational and spontaneous agents. And it is evident that all the distinctions between the different degrees of perfection in human knowledge, and elegance in human dialect and style, are nothing when viewed in the light of the common relations of man to God. He obviously could as well reveal himself through a peasant as through a philosopher; and all the better when the personal characteristics of the peasant were providentially and graciously preadjusted to the special end designed."

AMCrenshaw said:

Lastly, I am not going to pretend that a non-literal view of the Bible is a new or different one. Nor is looking at it through an Eastern lens. But I will continue to contend that Eastern thought has more to offer us now than ever - especially when we consider how Buddhism, for example, does not believe in any book as the literal word of Buddha-God. Nor do they have claim to possess Truth.

To do is, by definition, grotesque. Which is not my initial response to Christianity and what it has to offer.

All of this is, in fact, a way to see the Bible with new eyes, opened to the reality of Now and Here.

AMC

Click to expand...

If you want to see the bible with new eyes, may I recommend 'Through New Eyes' by James Jordan. Perhaps that will also help you to see that evangelical Christianity isn't uniformly committed to the ludicrous kinds of literalistic reading you cite as your examples.

Pat~ said:

This is from The Inspiration of The Bible [SIZE=+2]by A.A. Hodge [/SIZE][SIZE=-1](a Reformation writer, 1823-1886):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Originally published in 1860, A.A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology is still regarded as a great introduction to classical Protestant theology. [/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Completely off topic but I noticed your mention of Hodge. I have an original copy of his Outlines of Theology dated 1863. It was in my father's library and I inherited the book when he passed away. Cool, eh?
Linnea

AMC,

If you've by chance read the post that I just deleted, I hope you will understand that I am as human as anyone else and have just as many issues with sin and arrogance as the next person. I'm sorry for the confrontational manner of my deleted post.


I'm also sorry for whatever problems you might have had with American Christianity. But just so you know, most of the horrible things that have been done in God's Name, have been through misinterpreting Scripture.

I've learned a few things over the years about interpreting Scripture, and I hope that they might benefit you:

1) You don't make a doctrine out of one verse. Plain and simple, that is one of the worst things any person can do. One verse is generally in the middle of a paragraph, and thus when taken as one command or saying, is generally taken out of context and its original meaning.

2) You don't just assume that one Bible is the only right Bible, and therefore everything else is of the Devil. One Bible is great, if you understand that an English translation is not the original language. There is no way you can properly interpret the Bible using only the English words. To understand the Bible better, you can learn from either learning the original language, or barring that, you can compare several different English translations. There are Bibles out there called 'Parallel Bibles,' which have several different translations paralleling each other in one volume. This might be of help to you in figuring out what the Bible actually means when you can't figure out based on one English translation.

3) Judging from your posts, it seems to me you've had experience with one particular Fundamentalist denomination. I have no way of knowing which one, or any such thing, but I do know that I myself have experienced such churches and the ones I went to had the Pastor decide what Scripture says or means. Don't let another human being read the Bible for you. What the Spirit of God says to you through those words is not always going to be what He says to the Pastor.

And finally,

4) Understand that the lens you look through is not the Bible, but the Spirit of God. He is the One Who helps those who love God and His Son, to understand exactly what He means when He says thus, and He helps us to see thus in the light of God's own understanding.


AMC, it is not the Bible's fault that you went through whatever it is you went through. But it looks to me like you feel that way, so let me just assure you that not all Christians look at the Bible the way you've so far expounded to us. The beauty of the Bible is that it's not just the property of Fundamentalist Christians in the United States. It's the property of God. Therefore, to best understand His Property, you need to let His Spirit guide you into the truth it holds.


Best wishes to you.

AMC, everything that is read IS interpreted, true. But the Bible has a distinct advantage of being translated by groups of scholars rather than one individual, to provide a system of checks and balances against that problem of a skewed or limited individual interpretation. So that when the translations of John 14:6/Acts 4:12 state that there is only one Way, that there is no other Name under heaven by which we can be saved, one can rest assured that that is what scripture says and means. Of course, that's a moot point, because without believing it's God's Word, you can only consider it "valid" as you say, but not authoritatively True. It becomes just one philosophical book among others.

The books you've listed, by the way, illustrate the problem of approaching a book relying on just one interpretation (eg. your own). I've read several of those books on your list, and do not agree that all of those authors had only "a theology in which Christ exists." Some on your list did; Christ was like a side dish in the smorgasbord of religious thought. But some of the others, if you didn't see Christ pre-eminent, it would have to be because of your bringing an individual lens of pluralism to your reading. In my reading of them, I saw something quite different--Christ was the central feature, and the sole basis for saving faith. In other words, there would be no 'theology' without Him, and they would likely consider your description of their theology ludicrous.

Thomas Merton - I have a library of well over a dozen of his books, plus another half-dozen about him. Generally it helps to understand his theology the more books you read of his (just like you get a better picture of Biblical theology by reading the whole collection), but even in Seven Storey Mountain he states it clearly (despite his love for an abundance of words). Merton was deeply committed to social justice and studied Zen Buddhism as a methodology to assist him in prayer, but his conversion experience had Christ, and a faith in His atoning grace, as the central feature--as well as the focus of his subsequent life of faith. His Seven Storey Mountain clearly supports this. Merton's pivotal conversion experience recounted in that book does not mention good works, nor does it mention a life of devotion to meditation Zen-style. It is completely, unequivocally centered in Christ.

"And now for the first time in my life, I began to find out something of Who this person was that men called Christ. It was obscure, but it was a true knowledge of Him, in some sense, truer than I knew and truer than I would admit. But it was in Rome that my conception of Christ was formed. It was there I first saw Him, whom I now serve, as my God and King, and who rules my life. It is the Christ of the Apocalypse, the Christ of the martyrs, the Christ of the fathers. It is the Christ of St. John and of St. Paul and of St. Augustine and St. Jerome, and all the Fathers--and of the Desert Fathers. It is Christ-God, Christ-King, "for in Him dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead corporally, and you are filled in Him, who is the head of all principality and power...For in Him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers, all things were created by Him and in Him. And He is before all, and by Him all things consist...because in Him it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell...Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature...The first-begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth, who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us a kingdom and priests to God His Father" (p. 120-121).

Kierkegaard - His Purity of Heart stresses the importance of the individual's response to God--that salvation is not a social or group thing. He was calling 'the Church' into radical discipleship. Just because one 'ascribes to Christianity' or considers himself a Christian (in the sense of the organized church) does not mean that one IS a Christian. In Fear & Trembling, he shows that Christianity is a subjective experience that the individual must go through, and a personal relationship with God through grace/faith is stressed (p.23-36). This stress on individual responsibility is entirely in keeping with scripture. We are individually going to be held accountable to God. This is stated again in his Stages on Life's Way: "all that remains is only the individual himself—this particular individual placed in his relationship with God under the qualification: guilty/not guilty" (p. 444, 462). Kierkegaard is so ranging in his writing that sometimes his theology seems obscure, but it has scripture as its basis; he was a theologian, and his theology formed his beliefs as a philosopher. You might find this book review (and book) interesting:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3664/is_200001/ai_n8900963

I think this comment is a good one:

"Kierkegaard's thought has been cropped and co-opted by the philosophers, reduced and abused by psychologists, poeticized by the literati, fictionalized by the fanciful, and misunderstood or held at arms length by theologians-all of whom do what Kierekgaard predicted. He knew ahead of time that his thought would be made, in multiple modalities, an object of study that would permit the professional thinker to hide from the existential claims of the Incarnation behind cultural constructions of his or her own making, yet all the while calling those constructs 'Kierkegaardian.' "

There is an excellent journal that I think would interest you, particularly this article comparing Kierkegaard's theology with Buddhism:

http://www.quodlibet.net/johnson-experience.shtml

An excerpt:

Contrast of the Bodhisattva and the Knight of Faith
One of the main differences in Kierkegaard and the Bodhisattva is the goal toward which one aims. For Kierkegaard, in the Christian tradition, the goal is salvation. One needs to be saved from something, in this case sin, in order to arrive at the desired goal. Also, in Kierkegaard, we see much ambiguity and "fear and trembling" as the individual seeks to work out his own salvation. On the other hand, the Bodhisattva's goal is self-perfection leading to enlightenment for the benefit of all other living beings. The goal is personal but universal in scope and benefits.

The knight of faith and the Bodhisattva are different in their view of the human condition. While both would agree about the existence of suffering in the world, they differ on the cause of that suffering. Kierkegaard, as a Christian, believes that humanity is in a spiritually fallen state, whereas, the Bodhisattva, with a distinctly Buddhist conception of the world, believes the world itself is the source of suffering, not the spiritual state of an individual's soul. The Bodhisattva believes there is no soul to be corrupted but only ignorance to be overcome through an enlightened mind.

Another site you might be interested in is this one, which concerns "house-church" Christianity for those who want to be Christians but who, like Kierkegaard, are disillusioned completely with organized religions:

http://www.hccentral.com/index.html

Augustine - In his autobiographical work, The Confessions, he recounts the story of his conversion to Christianity. While it is more a spiritual journal than theological treatise, again there is no doubt at all that Christ is the path to salvation--not A way but THE way. If there is any doubt about this, one only needs to note that Augustine is today considered the 'Father' of Christianity--his many theological writings, based on scripture ('en sola scriptura'), were written in response to the earliest heresies cropping up in the early Christian church, and they laid the framework for the doctrinal theology of Western Christianity today. He also gave full approval to the early creeds that were drawn up by the Church in response to the need to distinguish truth from heresy. If you look at the Nicene Creed, which he gave full approval to, saying that each tenet was 'founded on scripture,' you'll see again that same theme: salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

His theology of grace can be clearly seen in this passage from City of God:

"The proofs, then, of this last judgment of God which I propose to adduce shall be drawn first from the New Testament, and then from the Old. For although the Old Testament is prior in point of time, the New has the precedence in intrinsic value; for the Old acts the part of herald to the New. We shall therefore first cite passages from the New Testament, and confirm them by quotations from the Old Testament. The Old contains the law and the prophets, the New the gospel and the apostolic epistles. Now the apostle says “By the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; now the righteousness of God is by faith of Jesus Christ upon all them that believe.” (Rom. iii. 20–22). (XXI, 4.)

"For after saying, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father: he that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him;” He immediately adds, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death to life.” (John v. 22–24). Here He said that believers on Him should not come into judgment. How, then, shall they be separated from the wicked by judgment, and be set at His right hand, unless judgment be in this passage used for condemnation? For into judgment, in this sense, they shall not come who hear His word, and believe on Him that sent Him." (XXI, 5.)

Pat.

Lol, Lily. (Now go read and memorize Acts 14:15 .)