Skin-n-Bone Trinitarianism

Peter Leithart in highlighting parts of the historical work of Philip Dixon (Nice and Hot Disputes), observes that beginning with the English Enlightenment critical writers began launching “moralistic and rationalistic attacks on the doctrine [of the Trinity].  It didn't make sense, and, besides, it made no difference.  A doctrine so rationally absurd couldn't be the cornerstone of religion; a doctrine so practically insignificant wasn't worth believing.”

“Dixon argues that the more fateful dynamic came not from outside the church but from within, not from detractors of Trinitarian theology, but from defenders.  In responding to attacks, orthodox Christians turned the Trinity into a polemical doctrine, and the rich speculations that characterized the earlier part of the seventeenth century dried up.  The Trinity becomes a sheer, irrational datum of revelation, to be believed and defended but not a source of intellectual and spiritual delight...”

Here I Stand: Disney's Frozen vs. Martin Luther

In the cresendo moment of the Oscar-winning best original song “Let it Go” in Disney's 2013 film Frozen the character and hero of the story repeats resoundingly “Here I stand!”

Martin Luther in his famous defense before the Holy Roman Emperor used the same phrase: “Here I stand.”

But as Tim Keller and others have pointed out, the meaning behind these two identical phrases are vastly different.  Right before making this pronouncement, the character Elsa in Frozen sings:  “It is time to see what I can do, to test the limits and break through.  No right, no wrong, no rules for me.  I'm free.”  Right before making the same pronouncement, Martin Luther says “...my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”  Notice the difference.

Keller says, “Luther meant he was free from fear and from other authorities because he was bound by the Word of God and its norms.  Elsa speaks for contemporary culture by saying she can be free only if there are no boundaries at all.”

Jaded and Confused

A viral wedding video is now hitting mainstream news after getting almost 2 million views in less than a week.  It is a New Zealand video of family and friends performing a traditional Maori war dance called the Haka to honor the bride and groom.  The video is filled passion, zeal, tears, and joy to the point where the bride and groom themselves are overcome with the same feelings.

Here is the video

The response to the video is what interests me the most.  We're not too familiar with these powerful emotions in our culture.  Or at least the first two I mentioned.  And it was quite evident in the massive response to this video that our culture doesn't even have a category for this level of zeal and passion for anything really.  We grind through our day at the office, we try not to stir the pot too much at home, we chuckle a little watching our favorite TV show, and then we do it all again the next day.  Were also incredibly jaded.  Americans are the most entertained culture in human history. But also the most bored culture in human history.  Is there anything more ironic?  We've seen it all –usually in chunks of about 30 second sound bites (because we don't really have a much longer attention span).  And because we don't have a category for this level of pure passion, we shovel it off as craziness, backwardness, etc to make ourselves feel better.  

Do you have anything in your life worth getting this passionate about?  Is there an aspect to your life that would ever stir you like this?  I'm convinced that the popularity of this video is primarily because we are stunned by such a rare picture of passion and zeal.  It is the rarity that leaves us confused; and hopefully leaves us thinking there might be more to human passion and the objects worthy of such, than the self-induced numbness we often find ourselves under.

The Rise of Nationalism

“Among the ideas that the Middle East imported from the West, none has been more popular and durable than nationalism,” says Goldschmidt and Davidson in their Concise History of the Middle East.  “Often called the religion of the modern world... we define nationalism as the desire of a large group of people to create or maintain a common statehood, to have their own rulers, laws, and other governmental institutions.  This desired political community, or nation, is the object of that group's supreme loyalty.”

It might seem strange to American ears, but having a nation-state that governs according to the interests of its people is a relatively new phenomena in history.  It started in Europe and toward the end of the 19th century began to reverberate around the world and into the Middle East.  They go on to say: “[Middle Easterners] learned that bad governments did not have to be endured (indeed, many earlier Muslims had defied tyrannical rulers), that individuals had rights and freedoms that should be protected against official coercion, and that people could belong to political communities based on race, language, culture, and shared historical experience -in short they formed nations.”

But of course creating political borders of defined groups of people based on language, ethnicity, and culture can create a charged atmosphere that often tends toward uniformity and not diversity.  It can tend toward exclusion and monolithic communities, not inclusive ones.  So for example in South Asia, a place where Hindus and Muslims lived side by side for centuries, two new nations were created in 1947 (ostensibly to serve the unique interests of each people) and what happened?  Immediate population exchange.  Hindus left Pakistan.  Muslims left India.  The opposite of diversity, inclusion, and peaceful co-existence.  A natural segregation based on race and especially religion became the real product of nationalism and its nation-creating solutions.  The same happened at the creation of the modern nations of Greece and Turkey.  Population exchange.  There are dozens of similar cases, especially in Africa.  The fact is that unless checked nation-states naturally create an atmosphere that tends toward homogeneous communities of the same race, culture, religion, and language.

Nevertheless, western European and North American countries have historically and quite uniquely maintained checks built into the political system that have kept much of these trends at bay.  Of course America was created with these types of checks built right into the constitution (e.g. 1st and 15th amendments).  But for many reasons the collective feelings have begun to shift.  The migrant crisis for example has forced many in Europe to rethink why they should continue to allow influxes of diverse communities into their country.  America even has a politician publicly promoting the exclusion of people based solely on their religion.  And his popularity has not waned in its wake.  The checks put in place are beginning to erode and I wonder if the natural trend will carry the West along the same trajectory of so many others.

But there is more to reflect on here.  There is a value at the core of nationalism that is pulling these trends.  And these two historians have defined it perfectly: “This desired political community, or nation, is the object of that group's supreme loyalty.”  The key word is supreme.  Individuals are to subordinate any other loyalties underneath their supreme loyalty to the nation.  The trends mentioned above are simply symptoms of this underlying value.  It still surprises me that such a vast swath of Christendom continues to live under this vision of loyalty and allegiance.

Joy to the World (Unedited)

Unless you are pulling out a traditional hymn book in church you are unlikely to sing the richest part of the Christmas song: Joy to the World.  Most of the versions on the radio, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, even Veggie Tales omit this incredible verse of this song.  It reads: "No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns invest the ground, He comes to make his blessings flow, far as the curse is found..."

And strangely this verse stands at the very center of the biblical reason why this baby is actually bringing joy to the world.  It gets me every time I sing it.

Owen on Godly Affections

The 17th century Puritan John Owen had a few things to say that weren't very Puritan-ish, or at least the stereotypes often placed on them.  Tim Keller gives a very interesting summary of his Meditations and Discourses on the Glory of Christ.  Of course like every puritan Owen believed in the centrality of biblical doctrine and the light (as he often called it) of the word of God.  But beyond this, he never hesitated to emphasize the indispensability of the affections, the feelings of the heart, religious passions.

“Where light [right doctrine] leaves the affections behind, it ends in formality and or atheism; where affections outrun light they sink into the bog of superstition, doting images and pictures or the like.”

This gives a picture of an interesting balance that Owen says is required for healthy spiritual life.  But if you had to error on one side of the spectrum or the other, which would it be?  Feelings or doctrine?  Love or Truth?  Genuine affections or true beliefs?  What do you think Owen would say?

“In your thoughts of Christ, be very careful that they are conceived and directed according to the rule of the word, lest you deceive your own souls, and give up the conduct of your affections unto vain imaginations... Yet I must say that I had rather be among them who, in the actings of their love and affection unto Christ, do fall into some irregularities and excesses in the manner of expressing it... than among those who disavow their having any thoughts of or affection unto the person of Christ... It is better that our affections exceed our light [right doctrine] from the defect of our understanding, than that our light exceed our affections from the corruption of our wills.”

For someone who cared more about doctrine than probably any of our modern churches, this a remarkable thing to say.

An Alternative Nativity Scene

Ken Bailey in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes asks some interesting questions regarding the traditional nativity story which we're accustomed to seeing every year in displays, figurines, and Christmas pageants...

1. Why was there no one in Bethlehem (their own hometown) that could provide Joseph and Mary lodging for the birth of Jesus?  Hospitality isn't a nice gesture in the middle east.  A family's honor, not to mention the honor of an entire village, is often at stake.  Surely being Joseph's hometown it seems to hard to believe he and his wife would have been left out in a barn/stable/cave to stay, says Bailey.

2. Bailey continues, “simple rural communities the world over always assist one of their own women in childbirth regardless of the circumstances.  Are we to imagine that Bethlehem was an exception?  Was there no sense of honor in Bethlehem?... [It would have been] an unspeakable shame on the entire village.”

3. According to the traditional story, why would the shepherds, after visiting the baby Jesus in a animal stable or cave, have not invited them into one of their homes?  Are we to believe that they rejoiced and praised God that they had seen the birth of the new king and then left this family in an animal pin?

4. Bailey also points out interestingly, “Joseph had time to make adequate arrangements.  Luke 2:4 says that Joseph and Mary ‘went up from Galilee to Judea,’ and verse 6 states, ‘while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.’  The average Christian thinks that Jesus was born the same night the holy family arrived –hence Joseph's haste and willingness to accept any shelter, even the shelter of a stable.”

These problems get resolved, says Bailey, by getting a better answer to two questions:  Where was the manger?  And what was the “inn”?  He uses a background study to make the case that mangers were traditionally held in the homes of the average villager and uses a word study to make the case that “inn” is better translated “guestroom.” –not a commercial inn.  It is the same word translated  “upper room” in Luke 22:10-12.  In sum, he argues it is far more likely Jesus was born in an average villager's home, not outdoors in a stable or cave.  Very interesting.  Worth reading even just the first chapter.

It reminds me of how much I still read the scriptures through my own interpretive lens.