This beginning story is important because it goes to my overall point even though I'm assuming anyone who bothers to read this, all 1.3 of you, already know it.
A professed Christian who works in the establishment next to mine was telling me about an inadvertent drive with a Muslim chauffer during which she was given a 30 minute sermon about how Christianity is a corruption of Islam, etc. The driver was considerate and persuasive and, although she was not ultimately convinced, he got her thinking. "Because," she said, "I only worship one God like Islam says, but I don't worship Jesus because he's not God ... right?"
To which I responded, "Weeeeellll ... how nerdy do you want me to get about this?" (I try to do this for people before I assault them with shit.) After receiving permission, I said something along the lines of a GREATLY stripped down Quicinque vult (Athanasian Creed):
Yes, Christians believe there is just one God.
But also that there are three Persons that are God.
But still just one God.
Except also three separate persons.
I know, it sounds crazy. But it gets worse.
One of those Persons was born as a man ... that's Jesus.
So Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man
and Christians do worship Him as God.
There was some other discussion and I left. Later, I came back with a roughly drawn Scutum Fidei (Shield of the Trinity) to show her a visual representation of what I was talking about. She said, "Ok ... so where's Jesus?" I pointed out where and used the phrase "pre-incarnate Word" at some point which meant absolutely nothing to her. So I explained that meant God the Son or the Word already exited before He was born as Jesus.
Then I said, "I know this seems insane, but it's in the Bible. The first verses of the Gospel of John say, 'In the beginning was the Word (or the Son) and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.' That's what this part of the Shield is showing. With God and also God."
After that exchange, I started thinking. The Trinity and the Incarnation are, I would say, the most basic, foundational, important Christian doctrines. But how many Christians (myself included) actually understand it? Even typing out my exchange from this morning, I am suddenly seized with terror that I explained it poorly because of either a) lack of ability or b) lack of understanding. For example, the image at the top of this post features the Shield of the Trinity, which I do find helpful. But the figure holding it is NOT. It reflects a Modalist view of the Trinity where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just faces that God presents to the world.
Which led me to think about my own doctrinal upbringing. Evangelicals don't say any creed. If they did, I know what the top three most important things would be.
1. The Bible is 100% inspired and factually true (except for the commie parts ... and James)
2. The world was created in 6 days.
3. Mankind is fallen and sinful from conception.
All of these are foundational, they think, to everything else. There is no need for Jesus if Mankind isn't fallen, Mankind isn't fallen if the Genesis account isn't true and the Genesis account isn't true if the entire Bible isn't 100% true. Jesus' Incarnation is contingent upon the Fall. Jesus Himself seems contingent upon the Old Testament.
As an aside, something that changed the way I saw the Bible was to see everything as flowing from the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus rather than Jesus needing to fulfil the OT. The priest is a pre-figuring of Jesus, Jesus isn't just trying to fulfil prophecy. The OT sacrifices were efficacious in the same way that the Mass is ... they all enter into the ONE sacrifice. Jesus didn't need to die because God needs innocent blood. We needed innocent blood to show what Jesus would one day be for us. Anyway ...
It's possible I'm being unfair but ... I don't think so. I think that a lot of the people I know who were raised Evangelical, especially those who have come out of it, would recognize what I'm saying.
I had three reactions to this.
First, the importance of Creeds!
The early Church didn't just work to figure out what books were to go in the New Testament. (I wish they had a standardized list of the Old Testament as well so I wouldn't have been robbed of the Prayer of Manasseh my entire young life.) They argued and debated and prayed about multiple theological issues which often were condensed into creeds, especially the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. It is near criminal that is not recited by every Christian church every Sunday and by every Christian every day.
Second, how important is correct belief?
Another Evangelical doctrine is that correct doctrine is needed for salvation. Specifically, the belief that man is born sinful, that Jesus died for your sins and that you believe in Him. But, for many, pretty much any doctrine is considered necessary for salvation. That the Bible is 100% true. Gays are evil. Pre-tribulation rapture. Eventually, everything becomes a salvation issue. But I never heard anyone really talking about the importance of correct doctrine relating to the Trinity or to the Incarnation. I bet, if you dug down into the Trinitarian belief of most Evangelicals, you'd find they were Modalists. There is one God who presents Himself to us in three ways, but they'd balk at the three Persons.
I've never considered doubting that someone who thinks they understand the Trinity and doesn't would be worthy of Hellfire and Damnation. So ... how many things can someone be "wrong" about, especially given that all of us are probably at least a little wrong about almost everything?
Also, although we are DEFINITELY saved by Grace ... James was right, too. Our faith AND our works are tied into it. There's these two stories from Orthodoxy (or at least from Russia) that I love. In one, a monk has climbed the ladder of righteousness, but is told there is one more righteous than him. He goes to find this man and it's a flute player (apparently a sordid job) in a kind of traveling circus. The guy lived a not-very-righteous life and the monk was confused. It finally comes out that, one time, the flute player purchased a slave woman and freed her with no strings attached just 'cuz. This selfless act was more righteous than all the prayers and fasting and correct belief of the monk.
In the other story, a similar monk, also trying to achieve holiness, hears of three monks living alone on an island who are more holy than him. He sails to the island and finds them there repeating the following prayer constantly, "You are Three. We are three. Have mercy on us." The monk quizzes them about their life and their theology and they know near nothing. He tries to teach them the Creed and expound upon the Scriptures and they listen humbly, but keep having to ask him to repeat himself because they can't understand what he's saying. Finally, exasperated, he decides they should at LEAST know the Lord's Prayer. So, with great effort, he teaches them that and leaves.
As he is sailing away, somewhat satisfied with himself, he hears them calling out to him. He turns and finds them walking on the water to his boat. They say, "We are sorry, but we forgot how the prayer begins. Can you tell us again?" Humbled, the monk says, "Return and say the prayer you have always said."
Finally, and weirdly, I thought about undecided voters.
There's a campaign sign I'd like to get. It says: Harris/Walz ... obviously. Not because they're that great but because, given the other option ... there's not a choice. For those who are not MAGAts and fully invested in Naranja's lies, I don't know how you could be undecided. I'm genuinely perplexed that, at least in the polls, this race is in any way close. I was equally perplexed in the 2020 election that it wasn't an absolute blowout landslide for Democrats.
But I think it's the same phenomenon as with basic Christian doctrine. Not everyone is nerdy about this shit. People BELIEVE the Traffic Cone of Treason is a good businessman because a) he's a great salesman of himself and b) the media, ESPECIALLY "The Apprentice," contributed to that fiction. People BELIEVE the economy is worse than it's ever been because of recency bias and they're paying a lot for milk or whatever. People BELIEVE a lot of things partially because of a generally uninformed impression that they have, partially because of deliberate misinformation efforts by certain bad actors and, being fully honest, at least sometimes because they want to.
I guess what I'm saying is that I shouldn't blame the undecided voter who just doesn't know just as I wouldn't condemn a 4th century Visigoth having been converted by Bishop Ulfilas for being Arian. Or condemn my teenage self for being Modalist because of Mike Warnke's comparing the Trinity to a cherry pie. Or, for that matter, believing anything else Mike Warnke said.
Comments
Post a Comment