Deconstructing Doctrine 8: Justification

Sword of Justice / La Justice via photopin (license)

Apologetics

In 1519, a young monarch was furious with the German theologian, Martin Luther. He specifically felt it was his duty as a head of state to stand up to what he believed were the heresies of Luther's 95 Theses. He wrote a treatise in rebuttal of this work, entitled Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, or "Defense of the Seven Sacraments." To reward him for his diligence in defending the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Pope awarded him with the title, "Defender of the Faith," a title which all subsequent successors to his throne enjoy to this day.

The monarch was King Henry VIII of Great Britain, who himself would break away from the Catholic Church and start the Church of England, with himself as the head, in order to marry whom he wanted to marry.

Apologetics is this discipline that King Henry was exercising. Apologetics is the "branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity." In my opinion, it is one of the lowest forms of theology because I do not believe God nor Christianity need any defending.

Which brings us to the Eighth Doctrine of the Salvation Army:

We believe that we are justified by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.

Surprise!

I have virtually no issues with this doctrine.

My chief complaint would be the archaic language and the use of the King James Version.

This is perhaps my favorite doctrine. Basically, for me it seems that I do not have to defend myself as a Christian. I am "justified." In this sense, justification means being made righteous by God.

What's even better, this justification is found within us. This doctrine uses the King James translation of 1 John 5:10, which states in the Common English Bible:  "The one who believe's in God's Son has the testimony within."

Unfortunately, many people tend to make themselves God's Gatekeepers and "Defenders of the Faith," as if God needed to defend herself.

No True Scotsman . . .

There is an old adage that begins, "No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." It is used to justify many things. People tend to misquote Scripture and say that they are simply "discerning the fruits." They aren't trying to do that. They are more concerned with whether or not you belong to their tribe. So they use this false logic:

No true Christian would pray to Mary.

No true Christian would work on Sunday.

No true Christian would have an abortion.

No true Christian would support a "gay lifestyle" (whatever that means!).

Yet this wonderful doctrine states that I do not have to prove to you that I am a Christian. Many people try to figure out if someone is a Christian. They will try to use discerning questions, such as:  "If you were to die tonight, do you know that you would go to Heaven?" They will try to use a litmus test on you to discern whether or not you are a "member of their tribe."

"Are you saved?"

"What Church do you go to?"

"If you were to stand before God tonight and he asked you why he should let you into heaven, what would you tell him?"

This last question assumes the wrong things. First of all, it assumes that our lives as Christians is to make it into Heaven. Heaven is never my goal. When Jesus was ministering on Earth, he proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven here and now. He did not say, "do this and you will get into Heaven." The Kingdom of Heaven was a matter of serving the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and welcoming the stranger. The Kingdom of Heaven is a matter of loving God by showing that love to others.

There is an old song by Andrae Crouch. It states:

But if Heaven never was promised to me

Neither God's promise to live eternally

It's been worth just having the Lord in my life.

Living in a world of darkness

You came and brought me the life.

What now?

I want to live my life as if there is no Heaven and it's my responsibility to build it here on this planet. It is my duty to live in such a way that God's love is brought to everyone. I want to live in such a way that it is my duty to bring love and life into this world and to make Heaven a Place on Earth. (There you go, Belinda Carlisle fans.)

If I were to rework this Doctrine, I would say:

I believe my identity is found in God and I do not need to prove this to anyone. My life is my witness.

Deconstructing Doctrine 7: Salvation, Part 2

What changes you when you join a religion? Any religion? What is fundamentally different from the time you were not a member to the time you were a member? Perhaps more importantly:  what happens when you leave that faith community?

The Seventh Doctrine of The Salvation Army attempts to break down and explain what happens when one experiences salvation. It states:

We believe that repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary to salvation.

A Trinitarian Dilemma

When I first read this particular doctrine, even before I went through my deconstruction process, I thought this was somewhat of a forced statement. It seems as if the writer was try to force a Trinitarian view on salvation, attempting to state that one needs to be saved by all three aspects of the Trinity:  Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It reminds me of trying to do a family picture with my kids. Everyone is needed, but it seems forced and not everyone is happy with the result.

(My three sons in a failed attempt at a family portrait. It also happens to be my favorite.)

I really like the idea of the Trinity, but at the same time, I have a hard time trying to figure out just what each person of the Trinity has to do in this process of salvation. Also, why is it that the Father has to be the one to whom forgiveness is sought? Why can't it be the Holy Ghost or Jesus?

I've got to have faith . . .

What is this nebulous idea of "faith/belief" in Jesus? Believe what? That Jesus lived? Interesting fact:  In German, there is no differentiation between the words "faith" and "belief." It's the same word, "der Glaube." In English, we tend to put nuances on them, but in actuality, "faith" comes to us via the French/Latin route. "Belief" is Germanic and they both mean the same thing.

Once as a Salvation Army officer, I had some young people from the United States come to visit. When they arrived, I gave them a brief rundown of what to expect as far as trying to minister in Germany. There were important things to know, like:  You have to shake everyone's hand when entering a room, or else someone might be offended. Verses in a German Bible are numbered differently, especially in the Psalms, and certain books of the Bible are in totally different places than in English Bibles. I reminded them to never use plays on words or acronyms, because they rarely worked in translation and, most importantly:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN GERMAN BETWEEN FAITH AND BELIEF.

I think they broke every single guideline I gave them.

One sweet girl was speaking before our congregation. She couldn't speak German, so I translated for her. She wanted to talk about three things that were important in her spiritual life.  I don't remember what the first one was, but the second and third were "faith" and "belief." I sighed and explained to my congregation what she was trying to imply.

Regeneration?

What is being regenerated? It is our life? I can understand that this process involves the Holy Spirit, but is it something that I must participate in as well? How active do I need to be, if at all? If I am being regenerated, the word itself assumes that I am going back to a state I was previously in. If I am tainted by original sin since birth (which I don't believe in), how can I be regenerated? It's a bad word choice.

Are we like some lizard that loses its tail and then it's regenerated?

I just think this doctrine is badly worded.

What does salvation entail?

Maybe this is the more pertinent question.

Looking at the Bible, there was no one answer for that, either. The writer of Ephesians (who most likely wasn't Paul, but wrote in his style), said:  "You are saved by God's grace because of your faith. This salvation is God's gift. It's not something you possessed. It's not something you did that you can be proud of" (Ephesians 2:8,9 CEB).

However, in James 2:14, the writer states, "My brothers and sisters, what good is it if people say they have faith but do nothing to show it? Claiming to have faith can't save anyone, can it?" This seems to be in direct contradiction to the doctrine. Having faith by itself is no good. It won't save you.

Then Jesus said to his own disciples after his resurrection:  "If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven; if you don't forgive them, they aren't forgiven" (John 20:23 CEB). This seems to imply that salvation is dependent on us forgiving other people or other people forgiving us.

And, perhaps most controversial, it doesn't seem that we need to do anything for it, as long as someone else believes in Jesus. When Paul and Silas were in prison, the prison warden asked what he needed to do to be saved, they replied to him:  "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your entire household" (Act 16:31 CEB). The prison warden's family didn't need to do anything. They were saved by the faith of the warden.

At one point, we are told it's a free gift of God. (See the passage above from Ephesians.) In another part of the Bible, we are told to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).

It's enough to drive one crazy trying to figure it out.

What then?

Some people might assume that I am deliberately trying to confuse things. I'm not. I even had someone decry me as a "false teacher" due to my post from the previous doctrine. These are genuine questions I have and am nowhere nearer to an answer. Is salvation a process or a gift, or both? Am I saved by proxy, by faith, or by deeds?

What if the answer is "all of the above?"

It's the terminology that gets in the way. "Salvation." "Regeneration." "Faith/Belief."

We need a new language to describe what is going on here.

Jesus said that the greatest thing we could do was to love God by loving others. This "salvation" is then a healing process:  a process of love. Sometimes it's instantaneous.  Sometimes it takes repeated efforts, patience, and discretion.

Salvation is a healing of wrongs done to us and to others.

Some experience healing through faith. Some experience healing through penance. Some experience healing through the faith of others. What matters is that it involves love.

If I were to reword this doctrine, I would say:

I believe that I experience salvation through the love of God, expressed by my love and the love of others.

Deconstructing Doctrine 6: Salvation

photo credit: wuestenigel Night view of Antigua, Guatemala from "Cerro de la Cruz" via photopin (license)

I'm continuing in my personal deconstruction of the doctrines I grew up with:  The Eleven Doctrines of The Salvation Army. Please refer to my previous blogs for the first 5.

What's wrong with us? Christianity tries to answer this question. Most religions are concerned with this question, too:  How can we have a better life? The sixth doctrine of The Salvation Army addresses this, but requires tons of definitions with the Christianese it uses.

This is the sixth doctrine:

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.

in 1997 I went to Germany as part of a requirement of my Master's degree to serve overseas in a missionary setting. I was invited by one of my friends to go with him to Switzerland for a youth congress he was participating in. On the bus ride to Switzerland, there was a young man who wanted to practice his English on me. He asked me which denomination I attended, in German I replied, "Die Heilsarmee" (The Salvation Army). He stumbled a bit on that and asked me, "What type of army is that? What is a 'healing army?'" This young man literally translated the word "Heil" from the German word, "heilen," which means "to heal."

In some ways, I appreciate that better than the word, "Salvation." Language is an ever-evolving thing. The doctrine here states that there is wrong in this world and the healing of this world is made by Jesus because of his suffering and death.

I agree with the first part, that Jesus came to bring healing, but I disagree with the second part, that it was accomplished by his suffering and death.

Why did Jesus die? That's a very easy question to answer. Jesus was executed for treason:  for breaking the law, for being in direct opposition to Rome as a pretender to the throne. The fact that he was a descendant of David did not help matters. On a religious side, he made claims amounting to divinity, which got the religious community in an uproar.

Have you ever sought meaning in a tragedy that happened? Why did a love one die? Why did a child die? Why did a natural catastrophe happen? It's easy to impose our own meanings to tragedies after they have happened.

I am convinced that the Early Church was trying to bring meaning to the meaningless death of Jesus. In all honesty, there was nothing special about his death. Jesus died by crucifixion. It was so common that Josephus recorded roads being lined with people executed on a cross. Even the Bible stated that Jesus was crucified between two other criminals.

It only makes sense then that the Early Church sought to find meaning in an event that already occurred. Jesus' death was ignoble. It was intended to shame and humiliate his followers. In order to counteract such a despicable death, the Church began to invent its own story as to why Jesus died.

The writer of Hebrews compared Jesus' death to that of a Passover Lamb. That symbolism works just a little bit and would resonate with a Jewish audience, but have little to do with non-Jewish people. The symbolism doesn't work completely, though, because the Passover Lamb was not a lamb of atonement. In fact, the animal that was set aside for atonement wasn't a lamb at all:  It was a goat. The goat was the animal where the sins of the nation were set upon on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Even then, it wasn't sacrificed, but forced to be abandoned in the wilderness. (See Leviticus 16:7-10.)

In more recent soteriology, many Christians love the idea of "penal substitution," the theory that Jesus had to die to take away the sins of the world and without his death, we couldn't be saved. God's wrath demands a sacrifice and it is only appeased by blood.

I reject that notion. I reject the idea that God needs blood in order to satiate God's wrath.

So I reject outright the idea that Jesus even needed to die for my sins. He did not. Such a notion makes God into a bloodthirsty deity with no regard for grace and mercy. God's "wrath" does not need to be satisfied. Let us think about this rationally:  If all we needed to do was to sacrifice Jesus, logically, the quickest and easiest way (and the most barbaric way), would be to do it when Jesus was a baby. If God demanded a blood sacrifice from a human (which goes against the Torah) (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31), this would be the most expedient way. However, the idea that Jesus had to be sacrificed to appease God's wrath is illogical.

If that's the case, where does salvation come from? Where is healing in this world? Jesus gave it to us already. When Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God, it was something that was meant for this world, not some afterlife. God's kingdom was meant for now, not later. The examples given by Jesus of what the Kingdom of Heaven was like was something that we did. The Kingdom of God is how we treated each other. The Kingdom of God was showing love and mercy. The Kingdom of Heaven was found in the relationships we had with each other.

Salvation is not attained through a gruesome blood sacrifice.

Salvation came to us through the incarnation of the Christ.

This is the mystery that I am wrestling with now. If Jesus as the Christ, as the anointed one, was/is also divine, then our salvation comes through his incarnation.

Then what about his death? It was a tragedy, but I don't believe it was a necessity. It was definitely a sign of evil that we would put to death something that was so pure. We humans don't tend to learn, either. We continue to sacrifice pure things with no success. We sacrifice the children of Newtown, Connecticut. We sacrifice the Tutsis of Rwanda. We sacrifice the Jews of Europe.

Blood does not bring atonement. Blood does not bring salvation. I don't need a bath in blood to make me pure. I don't need to have my clothes washed in blood.

God is not a vampire. As the psalmist said, "You don't want sacrifices. If I gave an entirely burned offering, you wouldn't be pleased" (Psalm 51:16 CEB).

So, in rewording this doctrine, I might say:

I believe that Jesus brought healing into this world through his incarnation and life and is available for anyone who follows his teachings.

Deconstructing Doctrine 5: Original Sin

photo credit: Lawrence OP O Clavis David via photopin (license)
A depiction of Christ saving Adam and Eve.

I'm continuing in my series of deconstructing the doctrines of The Salvation Army. Please refer to my previous blogs for context if you are reading this post for the first time.

I love Star Trek. Despite the science fiction aspect of it, the shows tend to have an optimistic portrayal of humanity and the future. I recall a storyline where the Klingon character, Worf, is forced to answer for the supposed crimes of his father. His father had been accused of treason. Since he was dead, Worf had to answer for his father's crimes. This seemed to be a gross injustice. It made absolutely no sense. Why should anyone stand in judgment for the crimes of their parents? The whole storyline dealt with this injustice and how this character needed to prove his own innocence and the innocence of his parents.

Which is why I have so many problems with the Fifth Doctrine of The Salvation Army.

We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.

This doctrine attempts to tell why we are all facing bad things in life. The long and short of it:  It's our parents' fault. Because Adam and Eve sinned, we are all doomed and "totally depraved."

The language of this doctrine is also just cumbersome. I will give the author credit:  At least he said "first parents" and not Adam and Eve. However, using the patriarchal inclusive words of "all men have become sinners," leaves out anyone who is not male. At the same time, I can imagine most women and gender non-conforming people are quite happy that they are not included in this declaration.

The concept introduced in this doctrine is "Original Sin." Simply stated: Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, we are all sinners by birth. We already have a strike against us because of what our parents did. We are already damned for eternity, not because of what we did, but because of Adam and Eve. Some Christians even go so far as to say that because of their sin, disease, pestilence, etc. entered into this world. These people say that because of the sin of our parents, anything and everything that is evil in this world is their fault.

Hogwash.

That is not justice at all. This also certainly doesn't reflect the loving nature of God. Granted, one could find scriptural support for this concept. (One could find scriptural support for just about anything.) People often turn to Paul's discourse in Romans 5 as support that we are all born evil. However, I would rather turn to Jesus.

Jesus and his disciples once encountered a blind man. His disciples, curious of course, wanted to know why this man had been born blind. It is a common enough question. So many people are born into situations we don't understand and which are patently not fair. It's the question whose answer we are seldom satisfied with:  "Why do bad things happen to good people?" So the disciples asked Jesus:  "Rabbi, who sinned so that he was born blind, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2 CEB)

It's a legitimate question. Why did this bad thing happen to me? Why do I have this disease? Why was my child born with Down's Syndrome? Why did I have a miscarriage? Why did my father beat my mother up? Why was I abused?

Jesus had an answer in this case:  "Neither he nor his parents. This happened so that God's mighty works might be displayed in him. While it's daytime, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world," (John 9:3-5 CEB).

This answer, albeit somewhat cryptic, makes something clear:  this wrong done to this person was not his fault, nor was it his parents' fault.

The bad things that happen to us in this world are often not our fault; however, it is our duty to make things right again.

Because of this, I reject this doctrine outright. In fact, I find it somewhat interesting that The Salvation Army has no problem adopting a petal of Calvinism here:  Total Depravity. This is the idea that because of the sin of Adam and Eve, all humans are incapable of doing good and are born in a sinful nature.

I tend to stand more behind the idea of Pelagianism, a doctrine in direct opposition to Augustine of Hippo, which states we are not born in a state of sin, but we can through our own efforts still do good. This caused a bit of controversy back during Pelagius' day. To some people it seemed that if one thought this way, one doesn't need God at all. The teachings of Pelagius were declared a heresy and most of his writings were destroyed.

However, I tend to agree with Pelagius.  We are not born bad. We are born good. If God has declared the universe and us good, who are we to argue?

This whole idea of Original Sin is something I can understand. It's trying to give an answer as to why so many things in this world are messed up. Why is there disease? Why is there war? Why are people born in poverty while some are born in wealth? It is important to wrestle with these questions; however, I don't believe the answer lies with Original Sin.

While attending college, I visited a synagogue as part of a class on Worship I was taking. It was a reformed Jewish synagogue in Lexington. In speaking with the rabbi after the service, I suddenly discovered something:  Jews do not believe in Original Sin, either! They had the same stories that we do. They know the story of Adam and Eve, but they came to a different conclusion. I remember asking the rabbi, "It doesn't seem that you think it was a bad thing that Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." He replied, "No, because before that there was no sex!"

Well, that certainly has my vote for discounting the concept of Original Sin!

Perhaps it's not quite that simple. Perhaps we are born good. When God created us, God proclaimed that we are good. That is nothing anyone can take away but we ourselves. The deeds of our parents cannot make us evil or sinful.

If I were to rework this doctrine, I might say something like this:

I believe that we humans were created in a state of innocency. We are all born with the capability of doing good or evil. We are responsible for our own actions and it is our duty to right the wrongs of our ancestors.

Deconstructing Doctrine 4: Jesus

Arian Baptistry via photopin (license)

I am continuing in my deconstruction of the Salvation Army doctrines. Please see the first entries if this is your first foray into my blog!

Jesus:  Who was he?

Every time I think I get closer to an answer to this question, I get further away. Still, I try to examine what I know and what is verifiable. Then certain things collide with what I know to be scientifically true and these things clash hard with Scripture. That can lead to a crisis of faith for some. Others choose to ignore the science and focus solely on the faith, turning a blind eye to what they know is impossible.

So here is the Fourth Doctrine of The Salvation Army:

We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.

I do not dispute at all that Jesus lived on this Earth. He did. This extraordinary man started a movement and a way of life that reverberates to this day.

Was Jesus divine?

For most people, this is the crux of the question. They point to his virgin birth:  a birth that was based on a misinterpretation of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew (in Matthew 1:22-23) for some bizarre reason decides to quote from this scripture and say, "This was meant for Jesus," when, in its context, it clearly does not. If you look at the whole of Isaiah 7, Isaiah was speaking about a young woman (not a virgin) who was pregnant right then and there and the child was going to be a sign that King Ahaz's enemies would be destroyed. Matthew was more than likely quoting from the Septuagint, where this word (young woman) was rendered as virgin in Greek.

Let's go on with what we know about the ancients. Women were only viewed as the ground whereupon seed was sewn. That's why women were called "barren" when they weren't bearing children. Men had the "seed," the full human offspring. The Ancients didn't realize that the genetic material of both parents made up the offspring. So it only made sense, then, that Mary was "conceived by the Holy Spirit."

Even up until the Enlightenment, this view was called "preformationism."

Let's bring science into this. That just doesn't work. It's impossible. If there were no male genetic material to go into Mary's egg, then the baby would only have female genetic material. Would that make Jesus transgender?

So what do we have here?

Does being born of a virgin make someone divine? I don't think so, but then again that's probably missing the point of the story. Being born of a virgin wasn't even important at all to Mark or John. They ignore the birth of Jesus altogether.

If Jesus were truly divine, it had nothing to do with how he was conceived. In fact, perhaps we are taking the story too literally, as we often do in our culture, and we should be taking the story symbolically.

Was Jesus human?

This question might seem laughable, but one that early plagued Christians. It's easy to shoot off the answer, "yes," but are we prepared to accept those consequences of what it means for Jesus to be human?

Did Jesus eat? Sleep? Cry? Those are easy to answer. We know those answers. We see the Bible reporting about him eating, sleeping, crying.

Let's ask the harder questions.

Did Jesus make mistakes? After all, making mistakes is part of being human and more importantly is how we learn. I cannot learn how to walk without making mistakes. I cannot learn how to talk without making mistakes. 

If I may posit, even Jesus made mistakes. This one will be hard for most Christians to wrestle with. In fact, many will find some eisegetical reason to counter it. I think Jesus made a mistake when he first refused to heal the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman. Most people are uncomfortable with this story. First of all, it shows Jesus acting quite like a racist. I can understand that. It's always easier to identify with a group and to put people into an "other" category. We do it even in this day. Racism exists and is quite widespread. Is it any wonder that Jesus, a Jew, born in a society that hated non-Jews, especially Canaanites, would show contempt for this foreign woman?

However, Jesus learned from this mistake. He did the right thing. In so doing, he showed that his message was not meant only for the Jews, but for the whole world.

If Jesus were human, was he sexual? Absolutely he was! I'm not saying that he never had sex. The Bible is silent on that, but he was human and, in being human, was a sexual being. There is a possibility that he was Asexual, but I don't believe so. And if Jesus was truly human, then he experienced most human desires and feelings, which includes our sexual drive. So when Jesus hit puberty, he more than likely had the exact same emotions, hormones, and actions that most young men do his age.

That concept is so difficult for Christians to accept. In fact, there was an early movement of Christians who rejected this altogether, stating that Christ denied himself such pleasures. We call this Gnosticism. This thought basically denied everything pleasurable and states that only Spirit is good. The Early Church considered this a heresy, while still struggling with it to this day.

Are we ready to accept what it means for Jesus to have been human?

What did Jesus know about this?

Did Jesus believe he was divine? If he did? When? Did he know it from the moment of conception? If that were the case, how could a divine being ever be truly human? Paul in his letters to the Philippians states that Jesus emptied himself of all divinity (See Philippians 2:6-11.)

If Jesus emptied himself of all things divine, how could he be truly and properly God and truly and properly human when he was on Earth?

I think I'm coming up with more questions than answers.

And that's OK.

The fact is, I don't know for certainty that Jesus knew he was anything more than human. His preferred moniker for himself was "Son of Man," which is a euphemism for "Human One." He didn't call himself the Son of God. This praise came from other people. Friar Richard Rohr likes to postulate that Jesus did not know he was divine until his resurrection. I can accept that.

In the end, I probably have just as many questions as Andrew Lloyd Weber's portrayal of Judas Iscariot.

I believe that in the person of Jesus, his humanity and divinity are worthy mysteries to investigate.

Deconstructing Doctrine 3: The Trinity

For those encountering my blog for the first time, I would recommend reading the first installments on this series on Deconstructing Salvation Army Doctrines.

photo credit: byronv2 Schoenstatt 02 via photopin (license)

The Trinity

What could be more difficult than trying to explain or figure out the Trinity? That is not one of the easiest things to do. In 1999, I was in Albania during the Yugoslav War, helping with refugee camps with The Salvation Army. One time, I was able to talk with one of our Albanian translators about God. I was trying to find common ground with him in sharing my faith.

Then we talked about the Trinity. That was my first stumbling block.

"You worship three gods. Right? Father, Son, and Mother?"

That was an interesting way to look at it and not surprising for someone who was an outside observer of Christianity.

My inept explanation did little to convince my young friend.

The best explanation ever I have seen of the Trinity is from this hilarious video about two Irishmen talking to Saint Patrick about the Trinity.

So with that in mind, let us venture to read the Third Doctrine of The Salvation Army:

Doctrine Three

We believe that there are Three Persons in the Godhead - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.

What am I to do with this doctrine? I can imagine for most Christians, the idea of a Trinity is something they accept and just move on. Trying to explain the Trinity is another matter.

What is this trinitarian God? If God is undivided in essence, then how could Jesus have died? When Jesus was human, did he separate himself from God? Where is the idea of a Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures? It's not there at all. In all honesty, there is no statement in the New Testament either that God is a triune being.

The King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible has a corrupted translation and additions in 1 John 5:7,8:  "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

But you know what? This is a prime example of some overly zealous scholar adding to Scripture. The actual Scripture passage says only this:  "There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree." (1 John 5:7,8 NRSV)

It is so easy for us to infuse our own preconceived notions into Scripture, making them saying something that it never meant to say at all. Even if we are well intentioned, it is still wrong.

What is going on here?

This is perhaps the easiest thing to explain. Early Christians were trying to figure out something after the fact. Jesus never denied that there was only one God. He told his disciples about the Holy Spirit and he talked about God as a Father (which, in and of itself, was something new).

Who was Jesus, then, in relationship to God? Was he a prophet, or something more? Jesus rarely referred to himself in grandiose terms. Instead, he preferred the simple term of "Son of Man," which basically means "human one." God referred to Ezekiel as the Son of Man, too.

Then there is the Spirit of God, too. The Spirit of God came and went to prophets and kings in the Old Testament. This Spirit seemed to be similar, but also different:  staying, maintaining the Church, teaching, admonishing, bestowing supernatural gifts on people. The Spirit (who is a feminine being in Hebrew), is a relational aspect of God. She moves in us and binds humans together for common purpose.

"It's alright. She moves in mysterious ways." (Saint Bono of U2)

Early Christians didn't want to do away with the idea that there is only one God, but at the same time, they didn't want to say that Jesus was only a mere man. He was something more. Thus, the Trinity was born:  something that is never mentioned in Scripture, but at the same time, describes what Christians believe is the nature of God.

Mystery upon Mystery

Is that it then? Have we summarized God into a neat category? This Trinity? Three persons, but one?

It seems to be a paradox. It fails logic. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And I'm ok with that. 

Christianity is not some black and white religion. Christianity is a vibrant patchwork tapestry, filled with so many disparate views on God, nature, the universe, humanity, etc. Somehow I believe God is like this, too.

The Trinity begins to describe this nature of God, but it isn't the final description of God. That would be too limiting. If God is more than what I can imagine or describe, then I can find God everywhere.

I find God in Scripture. I find God in nature. I find God in my relationships with other people. I find God in science. I find God in Islam. I find God in Buddhism. I especially find God in agnosticism, where not knowing if God really is there is the beginning of wisdom.

It is sometimes hard for humans to sit with mystery. The Trinity is a type of mystery. It is nothing definite or certain. There is nothing clear about it. It is confusing, mind boggling, and people have so many ideas and concepts of it. The Trinity is both heretical and orthodox at the same time.

That can be frustrating for people who love certainty. These people enjoy singing "Blessed Assurance." They want to know for a fact that when they die they will go to Heaven, that God is there, and that there is meaning to this life.

Certainty tends to wipe out faith.

I don't know any of these things for certain. I don't know what happens when I die for certain. I don't know what will happen with my consciousness. I don't know for certain that there is a Heaven. I don't know for certain that God is there.

I have faith that God is there. I dwell within the mystery of the Trinity. I dwell within the paradox that there is something more to this existence that is measurable or knowable. In a more practical way, I practice this through meditation. Centering prayer is a great way to start, if you are unfamiliar with meditation. 

If I were to rework this doctrine, I would say something like:

I believe that God is a mystery, but one can start with the Trinity.

Deconstructing Doctrines: Doctrine 2

photo credit: profzucker House Altar wih Akhenaten, Nefertiti and Three Daughters, detail with via photopin (license)

The Reaction

If you are reading this blog for the first time, be sure to check out my previous article on Doctrine One.

I had quite a reaction to my last post. Lots of it was positive. Some was negative. It's funny how the negative ones tend to stick out more than the positive ones. I was called apostate and heretic. My first reaction was to burst out laughing. Then I remember all of the pain from my initial rejection. It was salt in the wound. I know this is part of the healing process, but sometimes the pain is intolerable, especially when it comes from friends.

My response to those who call me a heretic:  We are all heretics to someone else. No matter what we do or say, our beliefs will not align with everyone else's. How we treat that person who disagrees with us says perhaps more about our character than anything else. I also realize that when you challenge what used to be a shared belief, people often take it as a personal attack on themselves. It is not.

Also, I love the Bible. I think it is fascinating. I especially love the Old Testament, having learned Hebrew in college. It's how I read and interpret the Bible that seems to be causing issues.

To those who gave me the encouraging comments:  Thank you. The positivity outweighed the negativity. I especially want to thank those who are still in The Salvation Army who appreciated my look on their doctrines.

So on to the next doctrine:

Doctrine Two

We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship.

At face value, I really have nothing wrong with this doctrine. Surprise! Perhaps in its interpretation is where the conflict arises.

Let me tell you a story.

I was in 11th Grade and in my Advanced Placement History class. Right before class started, I noticed on the board a list of world religions. I calmly ticked them off as I read them:

Buddhism -- bad

Confucianism -- bad

Judaism -- bad

Christianity -- good

Hinduism -- bad

Islam -- bad

Shintoism -- bad

etc, etc, etc . . . 

What I didn't realize was that one of my fellow classmates was standing behind me. She was blunt and asked me, "So you're saying all of those religions are wrong?"

"Well, yeah."

"How can you be sure?"

Thus started a friendship that continues to this day. Eventually, I came to see her point.

If I had been born in Libya, I most likely would have grown up Muslim. If I had been born in Thailand, more than likely I would have grown up Buddhist. I cannot help where I was born. I was born in the United States and grew up Christian. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. It's just how life happened.

Most religions have a concept of the divine. It intersects and crosses over all cultures. In many ways, it unites us. For those who are agnostic, atheist, or non-theist, sometimes it helps to think of the universe, the unknown, etc.

The picture above is a relief of Pharaoh Akhenaten and Nefertiti and their children, worshiping God. Akhenaten did away with polytheism and established the first monotheistic religion, even before Judaism appeared. It failed miserably and died with his son, Tutankhaten, who became better known as Tutankhamen (King Tut). Unfortunately, the only way to appease this God was to have a special relationship with the Pharaoh. It was also a political move. Akhenaten stole the political power away from the priests of Amun.

The Problem

What I see as the problem is that our own individual concept of God, the universe, etc., conflicts with other people's perception of God. I once had a very pleasant conversation with another member of my last denomination, when he emphatically said, "You and I don't worship the same God." I had the impression that he thought I worshipped a god of my own design.

That was bizarre. We were both in The Salvation Army. We were both officers. What was different? Our view of God was different. Perhaps in this we see a critical issue.

Christians rail against Muslims, stating that Allah is not God (even though Arabic Christians use the word "Allah" when speaking about God). Muslims state that Christians worship 3 gods, thinking that Christians are not true monotheists. Wars have been fought over how we view and worship God.

The issue I see at hand is that we cannot look past each other's differences. Jesus expressed this in several ways.

There is a story in the Bible about Jesus' disciples complaining that other people were healing the sick and casting out demons in Jesus' name. The disciples wanted them to stop. I can imagine why. The attention was no longer on the disciples or on Jesus. It was on these other people. Jesus actually had no problem with it. He told them, "Don't stop him. No one who does powerful acts in why name can quickly turn around and curse me. Whoever isn't against us is for us." (Mark 9:39-40 CEB)

At the same time, it's not necessarily about what we believe, but we do that matters. Jesus himself said, "Not everybody who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter." (Matthew 7:21 CEB)

It's not so much orthodoxy (right thinking) that will help us, but orthopraxy (right doing). We can say that we believe all the right things, but if what we do doesn't match with what we believe, we are hypocrites.

Jesus tried to explain this when he told the story of the Good Samaritan:  Someone who believed all of the wrong things, but was still granted eternal life because he did the right thing.

Give me a Muslim any day who feeds the hungry and heals the sick than a white Christian who denounces Muslims on social media. The former is doing the will of God. The second is just blast of wind (flatulence), as Martin Luther so euphemistically said.

What then?

Is God infinitely perfect? What does that even mean? Is God a perfectionist? I don't believe so. If we are to believe the Bible's stories about the Flood and the Exodus, God regretted creating humans, as if we were a mistake.

However, if I understand that God is in all and with all, then it makes sense to me. There is a concept I love of God, which is called "panentheism." It's not "pantheism," which means God is everything. Rather, panentheism means that God is in everything and is also beyond everything.

If there are people who disagree with how you view God, so what? God calls on all of us to love each other. How about loving God by loving others? We have differences in opinion. Does that mean we need to tear each other down and fight with each other? Absolutely not.

If I could rewrite this doctrine, I would probably say,

I believe that God is in all and is beyond all. God is the Ground of Being. How I live and engage with God is how I worship.

For more information on God as the Ground of Being, see Rob Bell's excellent conversation with Peter Rollins on this subject.