Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here.
In previous posts, we’ve seen the views of James Attebury and Bruce Charlton on the Trinity. I wrote those posts a while in advance of publication. Since I wrote them, Attebury posted a new article that juxtaposes the two positions (emphasis added):
I have already written about the eternality of the Son in John 1:1 and how he is the monogenēs Son of God. But now I would like to respond to more arguments from Bernard where he claims that the fourth Gospel does not support the Trinity.
I think the best thing that a Oneness Pentecostal could do is to carefully read through the entire Gospel of John in one sitting and pay attention to John’s language about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
This is extremely ironic. Why? Because Bruce Charlton has famously studied the fourth Gospel, almost to the complete exclusion of the rest of the Bible. In fact he wrote this mini-book on the topic. If there is anyone out there who would be convinced by carefully reading through the entire Gospel, it should be Charlton.
But Charlton didn’t come to the same conclusion that Attebury did. And, for that matter, neither did I. I’ve read all of these citations (note: links are added)…
John’ Gospel teaches that the Son existed before his incarnation:
John 1:1, 2, 3, 10, 14, 15, 30
John 3:13, 17, 31
John 6:37, 38, 39, 46, 51, 62
John 8:23, 38, 42, 58
John 12:41, 46
John 13:3
John 16:27, 28
John 17:5, 18, 24
1 John 1:1, 2
1 John 4:9
And John distinguishes between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:
John 1:1, 2, 3, 14, 18, 32
John 3:16, 17, 34, 35
John 4:34
John 5:17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 45
John 6:27, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 44, 45, 46, 57, 65
John 7:16, 18, 28, 29, 33
John 8:16, 17, 18, 28, 29, 38, 42, 50, 54
John 10:17, 18, 29, 36
John 11:41, 42
John 12:28, 44, 49, 50
John 13:1, 3, 32
John 14:1, 6, 10, 12, 16, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31
John 15:1, 9, 10, 15, 24, 26
John 16:3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28, 32
John 17:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26
John 20:17, 21, 31
1 John 1:1, 2, 3
1 John 2:1
1 John 4:9, 10, 14, 15
1 John 5:9, 10
2 John 1:3
…and also come to a different conclusion than Attebury has. So has Kermit Zarley and Sir Anthony Buzzard. I’ll remind my readers, once again, of what Roman Catholic John C. Wright has stated:
It’s a simple observation that the writer of the fourth Gospel would not recognize the incarnation or the Trinity. Without first having the doctrines of the incarnation and Trinity in mind prior to reading the fourth gospel, no reader would come up with either of those doctrines organically. It’s simply not something one could arrive at on the basis of natural reason alone.
This should be immediately obvious to readers, as there are so many different groups who respect the Bible, but understand the meaning of the Bible passages differently, for example in how they disagree on what John 1 means. If explaining the Prologue were so simple, people wouldn’t have such massive disagreements on what “the Word was God” means. The fact is, it is not clear and that’s why there are so many conflicting explanations.
The consequence—of being unable to rely on reason—is that without the traditional authority of Roman Catholicism (starting in the late 4th century), there would likely be no doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today. Attebury, a Protestant, mostly—but not entirely—owes his belief to the same Roman Catholicism he rejects. But instead of rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, he embraces it. If you’re not going to hold your beliefs in a holistically logical way, what’s the point of trying to prove the Trinity with reason? You’ve already demonstrated that you require blind faith, so what makes the Trinity any different?
Attebury—like James White and all the others who attempt to use reason to prove the doctrine of the Trinity—is deluding himself.
I could spend a few weeks going verse-by-verse showing why these verses do not, in fact, show what Attebury is claiming they show. But, unless I get some kind of meaningful engagement (which is highly unlikely as he censors contrary opinions from his site), I don’t think I will bother. His viewpoint—that a rational explanation of the Trinity exists—represents a tiny, fringe minority view. It’s probably even heretical.
It seems nearly impossible that after more than 16 centuries of various men trying and failing that Attebury has finally found a rational explanation for the Trinity. James White couldn’t do it, and he’s perhaps the foremost expert still living!
People can, and do, provide proofs that 2+2=5, but in every single instance their argument is invalid. No matter how hard they try, no matter how many centuries they do it for, 2+2 will always equal 4. Contrary to Attebury’s suggestion, no amount of reading or rereading can change what is plain to read. He can spend the rest of his life trying to make 2+2=5, but he’ll never succeed. Proving the Trinity is logically impossible. But believing you can prove it is not.
Consider, for example, consider Cyril’s position on the body and blood of Christ:
Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said,
They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.
In the Old Testament also there was show-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to our body, so is the Word appropriate to our soul.
Citation: Cyril of Jerusalem. “Catechetical Lecture 22.” ¶3-4 (350)
The Roman Catholic reads John 6:53 and says to himself “Jesus meant that we were supposed to eat his literal flesh” even though verse in the full context of that passage says the exact opposite (as Cyril explains). So convinced are they, that they will believe the exact opposite of reality. But doing so will always be wrong. Always. Forever and always.
If Attebury believes that I will read the Gospel of John and naturally arrive at precisely the wrong conclusion simply by rereading, he’s going to remain disappointed. He’s the one who needs to reread John, though I don’t suppose he’ll stop reading his own theology back into the text.
Search the 2 godheads in heaven lecture on YT by the late Dr Michael Heiser a biblical scholar. The trinity exists in the OT.
Junia,
“Search the 2 godheads in heaven lecture on YT by the late Dr Michael Heiser a biblical scholar.”
Thank you, but I’ve already done that. I’ll be discussing Heiser’s viewpoints in Part 9 next week. In the meantime, you might want to consider reading my articles on Heiser.
Since you’ve cited Heiser authoritatively, this means you are fine with working outside of the bounds of traditional Christianity (and thus comfortable dipping into heretical waters). I wonder, why do you embrace traditional Trinitarian theology when you cite someone who is a heretic to tradition? What is it about the Trinity that leads you to such devotion towards it?
This is all especially relevant, because Heiser taught that the doctrine of the Trinity—while he believed it to be true—was not essential to salvation.
The trinity exists in the OT.”
Not deductively, it doesn’t.
It’s an inductive inference, the conclusion of which is only drawn because people have already concluded that it must be there. That determination is what makes the conclusion that “the trinity exists in the OT” circular reasoning, rather than just a speculative inference.
Take the time to ponder why that is.
Peace,
DR
Agree with this.
And I would add that the difficulty is not reading “John” but reading on the basis that this was all we knew of Jesus, of temporarily ignoring the Synoptic gospels, epistles etc and seeing what the 4th gospel says on the basis that it (or, the first 20 chapters – 21 being added decades later by a different hand) is what it claims to be.
I needed also to understand why the Trinity doctrine arose when it did – what function did it serve in that time and place, and why it became a core dogma. Of course this can only be a theory. But I think there ate simple reasons, that seemed compelling at the time – mainly an absolute prior commitment to monotheism, plus the need to affirm Jeus as fully divine.
(For me, Jesus became fully divine, therefore there is more than one God – monotheism is false, although God is indeed the prime creator. Creation operated on already existing beings.)
…but reading on the basis that this was all we knew of Jesus…
I realized this problem back in 2016, when I performed this experiment similar to yours. Whereas you limited yourself to the fourth gospel, I limited myself only to those ~7 events which are shared by all four gospels. The idea was that I wanted to know what all four men collectively thought were the most important facets of Jesus’ life, as if that were all we knew of Jesus.
At the time I made this observation:
That Jesus was the Christ (or Messiah) is the essential point. This is troubling to the doctrine of the Trinity that relies on complex theologies about pre-existence and why the Son is God. Proponents of this theology insist that this is essential for salvation, yet another point Jesus himself never taught.
For something supposedly so essential, why didn’t the gospel writers find it as important as the Baptism of Jesus, the Feeding of the 5000, Peter’s Confession, and the events of the final week of Jesus’ life from the Anointing to the Resurrection?
It’s a curious omission.
Only much later did I realize how much many “traditional” Christians only pay lip service to the Trinity. An actual majority of professing Christians can’t describe the Trinity in non-heretical terms. This is rather astonishing, when you think about it. And many of the influential persons within Christianity do not hold traditional views on the Trinity.
I believe the Trinity is, in actual practice, a true minority viewpoint.
“I needed also to understand why the Trinity doctrine arose when it did”
One day in the future I hope to finish writing about the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the first four centuries. It will answer this question from the historical perspective. I’ll cover the Didache, 1 Clement, Ebionites and Nazarenes, Pliny the Younger, Ignatius, Papias, Aristides, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Polycarp, 2 Clement, Justin Martyr, and maybe a few dozen more. I expect it to be a very long series, and consequently will take me a long time to complete.
“For me, Jesus became fully divine, therefore there is more than one God – monotheism is false, although God is indeed the prime creator. Creation operated on already existing beings.”
I also tend to believe this is the most probable, straightforward answer, but I’m not willing to be dogmatic about it. My belief is simply that since the Bible does not say explicitly, so also will I not believe one way or the other explicitly.
I think the difference between us may be that I regard All scriptures, even the Fourth Gospel! – as ultimately means to an end. You *seem* to work from the Bible as if it is (properly understood) the bottom line, and highest authority.
(And I have also learned from some of the Mormon scriptures, and theology – indeed some of these are very important to me.)
It seems “obvious” to me that God and Jesus Christ would not set-up their creation such that a particular book, that requires to be read in a particular way, would be necessary for what they wanted to achieve for Men…
Any more than they would set-up the world such that people would require priests as intermediaries, or a particular church to be accessible to provide particular sacraments, teachings, etc.
Ultimately, what Jesus was about must be as contingency-proof as possible. Good scriptures, teachings, traditions, theology etc will be helpful, but I cannot see that God would make any of these essential .
He would surely want to provide the needful opportunities for salvation (and whatever else he intended) with only those things that he could guarantee to every Man.
So I approach the Bible in this spirit. I find the Fourth Gospel, over a period of many years, to be that which most consistently and deeply provides a sense of inner assurance of validity – far beyond any other scripture. But even within the Fourth Gospel, there are parts that seem (over several readings, over some years) more or less clearly wrong, alien, inauthentic.
Therefore, I am evaluating the Bible, even as I learn from it. I regard it as I would regard the teachers in a university – some much better than others (some stupid, in error, or actively mischievous) – but to none would I give unconditional obedience.
Discernment should never be set aside (except temporarily, deliberately), and that means that in practice I have regard to a higher authority than the Bible.
Which is that I assume the actuality of the divine within me and direct contact with the divine as the ultimate authority – which I interpret as the Holy Ghost (which I interpret as the living ascending Christ).
I must admit that I do not possess the answers to these questions. I’ve always said that I don’t like philosophy, in large part because I’m not intellectually equipped to be a philosopher. I tend towards acknowledging my limitations and admitting that I do not know how to resolve these difficulties. You are obviously much more capable when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics. I tend to prioritize logic and theology, for better or worse.
In general, I hold to the Bible (if properly understood) to be the highest authority as an axiomatic principle. But if you were to question me in depth to get my “real” answer, I would admit to this:
I assume the actuality of the divine within me and direct contact with the divine as the ultimate authority – which I interpret as the Holy Ghost (which I interpret as the living ascending Christ).
It is for this reason that I used to call myself a Christian mystic. After all, I’m an Anabaptist—of Mennonite and related stock in Lancaster County’s Amish Country—and the Anabaptists were influenced by the German mystics. The problem, as I discovered, is that the mysticism of the divine actuality within a Christian (by way of the Holy Spirit) is nothing like what is typically meant by mysticism in the East and in the West. If find the term “mysticism” to be misleading and unsatisfactory.
(I have a post in my drafts folder explaining this, but I have not been able to finish it.)
I hold strongly to the validity of discernment, however, I firmly believe that discernment cannot contradict with the Word of God found in scripture. The Bible forms the framework by which all mystical experience must conform. The Bible itself requires it, but beyond that fact, it is the only way to keep mysticism from being subjective (and ultimately irrational contradiction).
Perhaps you could say that I find the Bible to be limited, but absolute within those limits. As I wrote here, I strongly disagree with the notion that the Bible is a dead book.
Having read your blog for about a decade, I do well understand that your views diverge on that point. But I’ve always appreciated your perspective.
I’m not sure how much we actually disagree in practice. I genuinely think we may be approaching the same thing from two different angles.
That said, my biggest (and possibly sole) objection to your stance is that it leads to relativism, and I don’t know how you can get around that.
@Derek – “I’m not sure how much we actually disagree in practice.”
This may be because I am not – of course! – a relativist. I am sure there is a real reality, and that we can have direct knowledge of it.
It is more that I have become convinced that this knowledge – to be true – needs to be direct; and that mediated knowledge via words, pictures etc – via perceptions and the cognitive interpretations of perceptions – is intrinsically insufficient.
Knowledge via perceptions was pretty much objective, and shared, when our minds were groupish in nature; because people were spontaneously (and largely unconsciously) unified to some degree. Each individual’s consciousness was to some (diminishing) degree part of a group mind, such that it could not be detached from it.
There was therefore an automatically shared experience of perceptions, and a shared way of understanding them.
But now we are (almost fully) detached from that group mind – and the same perceptual “input” – eg reading the Bible – leads to very different, and often changing understandings.
This recognition led to all kinds of theories and reflections on signalling – and to “systems theory” which I used to work in, in the early 2000s (and before I was a Christian). This is a genuine relativism, all the way down. By this – Reality is not only unknowable, it cannot (of its nature) be known.
I am Not a relativist, because I regard knowable-reality as God’s creation, and we can know it because we are God’s children – that is, we are also (to an extent, but not fully) part of God’s creation.
i.e. the part of us that is not a part of God’s creation, our essential primordial selves – can know God’s creation because there is also part of us that is created by God.
Furthermore, we can know of God’s creation from God, by “direct knowing”, by sharing thoughts – in effect the same thought, being thought by God and by “me” simultaneously. However, because of “my” limited cognitive apparatus, my biases etc – the same thought will reach consciousness and self knowledge in a subjectively influenced form.
But there is also, I believe, an unknowable reality – which is that primal unorganized, uncreated “chaos” that was not the Beings – and came before God’s creation and still remains.
Anyway, I am certainly not a relativist. However, I think we are in a cultural-social phase when, because of the decline of the automatic group mind, there is an irreversible break down in the “objectivity” of perceptions, including all the inputs of Christianity that previously worked to unify Christians – church authority, traditional laws, scripture, theology… All have become overwhelmed by subjective differences in interpretation between the alienated consciousness’s of modern Men.
This may be because I am not – of course! – a relativist. I am sure there is a real reality, and that we can have direct knowledge of it.
Oh, I know. It isn’t that you hold an explicitly relativist philosophy—you obviously don’t—but that, IMO, the consequences of your beliefs lead to relativism, despite your intentions or stated beliefs.
Imagine there were 100 copies of you, scattered throughout the world. Each one would be gaining divine knowledge directly, but unless you were historically unprecedented, they’d all come to a set of (ultimately) mutually incompatible positions. Without any objective standard, there would be no way to determine what knowledge was correct and what was imagined.
This is ungrounded. Each one of you would think they were right. This is indistinguishable from relativism where truth, morality, and knowledge are not found in the absolute.
I don’t see how you avoid this problem.
Am I explaining myself well enough?
It is more that I have become convinced that this knowledge – to be true – needs to be direct; and that mediated knowledge via words, pictures etc – via perceptions and the cognitive interpretations of perceptions – is intrinsically insufficient.
This sounds like mysticism.
I would agree with this, but only if it were tempered by—grounded in—scripture, the objective standard.
But now we are (almost fully) detached from that group mind – and the same perceptual “input” – eg reading the Bible – leads to very different, and often changing understandings.
You’ll get no argument from me on that. It’s not like I have a great alternative to provide you. I can freely admit that. There is a reason I find such affinity with the things you’ve written over the years: what I believe is certainly not overly effective as the world understands effectiveness (no one would ever call me utilitarian).
But there is also, I believe, an unknowable reality – which is that primal unorganized, uncreated “chaos” that was not the Beings – and came before God’s creation and still remains.
For what it’s worth, this is a biblical concept (see Genesis 1). Or at least, the language of it was retained by the Hebrews from the pagan cultures by incorporation into the Hebrew texts.
This was carried over into the New Testament in the Greek concept of the “Abyss.” Some believe that this still corresponded to the Hebrew concept of the waters of creation.
there is an irreversible break down in the “objectivity” of perceptions, including all the inputs of Christianity that previously worked to unify Christians – church authority, traditional laws, scripture, theology… All have become overwhelmed by subjective differences in interpretation between the alienated consciousness’s of modern Men.
This sounds to me like the objection I am raising to you can be raised back at me. My “objective” approach provides seemingly subjective results.
I have no response to that. But I’ll give it some thought.
i’ve thought since i first found out about the history of Marcion back in the late 1990s that the Trinity doctrine was created mainly to refute his teachings and what would i guess be called the ”True gnostics”(with all the complex Aeon hierarchy and Sophia birthing the demiurge).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm
We must distinguish between the doctrine of Marcion himself and that of his followers. Marcion was no Gnostic dreamer. He wanted a Christianity untrammeled and undefiled by association with Judaism. Christianity was the New Covenant pure and simple. Abstract questions on the origin of evil or on the essence of the Godhead interested him little, but the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling-block to the refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty, and the Old Testament had to be set aside. The two great obstacles in his way he removed by drastic measures. He had to account for the existence of the Old Testament and he accounted for it by postulating a secondary deity, a demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The metaphysical relation between these two gods troubled Marcion little; of divine emanation, aeons, syzygies, eternally opposed principles of good and evil, he knows nothing. He may be almost a Manichee in practice, but in theory he has not reached absolute consistency as Mani did a hundred years later. Marcion had secondly to account for those passages in the New Testament which countenanced the Old. He resolutely cut out all texts that were contrary to his dogma; in fact, he created his own New Testament admitting but one gospel, a mutilation of St. Luke, and an Apostolicon containing ten epistles of St. Paul. The mantle of St. Paul had fallen on the shoulders of Marcion in his struggle with the Judaisers. The Catholics of his day were nothing but the Judaisers of the previous century. The pure Pauline Gospel had become corrupted and Marcion, not obscurely, hinted that even the pillar Apostles, Peter, James, and John had betrayed their trust. He loves to speak of “false apostles”, and lets his hearers infer who they were. Once the Old Testament has been completely got rid of, Marcion has no further desire for change. He makes his purely New Testament Church as like the Catholic Church as possible, consistent with his deep seated Puritanism. The first description of Marcion’s doctrine dates from St. Justin: “With the help of the devil Marcion has in every country contributed to blasphemy and the refusal to acknowledge the Creator of all the world as God”. He recognizes another god, who, because he is essentially greater (than the World maker or Demiurge) has done greater deeds than he (hos onta meizona ta meizona para touton pepikeni) The supreme God is hagathos, just and righteous. The good God is all love, the inferior god gives way to fierce anger. Though less than the good god, yet the just god, as world creator, has his independent sphere of activity. They are not opposed as Ormusz and Ahriman, though the good God interferes in favour of men, for he alone is all-wise and all-powerful and loves mercy more than punishment. All men are indeed created by the Demiurge, but by special choice he elected the Jewish people as his own and thus became the god of the Jews.
His theological outlook is limited to the Bible, his struggle with the Catholic Church seems a battle with texts and nothing more. The Old Testament is true enough, Moses and the Prophets are messengers of the Demiurge, the Jewish Messias is sure to come and found a millennial kingdom for the Jews on earth, but the Jewish messias has nothing whatever to do with the Christ of God. The Invisible, Indescribable, Good God (aoratos akatanomastos agathos theos), formerly unknown to the creator as well as to his creatures, has revealed Himself in Christ. How far Marcion admitted a Trinity of persons in the supreme Godhead is not known; Christ is indeed the Son of God, but he is also simply “God” without further qualification; in fact, Marcion’s gospel began with the words; “In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius God descended in Capharnaum and taught on the Sabbaths”. However daring and capricious this manipulation of the Gospel text, it is at least a splendid testimony that, in Christian circles of the first half of the second century the Divinity of Christ was a central dogma. To Marcion however Christ was God Manifest not God Incarnate. His Christology is that of the Docetae rejecting the inspired history of the Infancy, in fact, any childhood of Christ at all; Marcion’s Savior is a “Deus ex machina” of which Tertullian mockingly says: “Suddenly a Son, suddenly Sent, suddenly Christ!” Marcion admitted no prophecy of the Coming of Christ whatever; the Jewish prophets foretold a Jewish Messias only, and this Messias had not yet appeared. Marcion used the story of the three angels, who ate, walked, and conversed with Abraham and yet had no real human body, as an illustration of the life of Christ (Adv. Marc., III, ix). Tertullian says (ibid.) that when Apelles and seceders from Marcion began to believe that Christ had a real body indeed, not by birth but rather collected from the elements, Marcion would prefer to accept even a putative birth rather than a real body. Whether this is Tertullian’s mockery or a real change in Marcion’s sentiments we do not know. To Marcion matter and flesh are not indeed essentially evil, but are contemptible things, a mere production of the Demiurge, and it was inconceivable that God should really have made them His own. Christ’s life on earth was a continual contrast to the conduct of the Demiurge. Some of the contrasts are cleverly staged: the Demiurge sent bears to devour children for puerile merriment (Kings)– Christ bade children come to Him and He fondled and blessed them; the Demiurge in his law declared lepers unclean and banished them — but Christ touched and healed them. Christ’s putative passion and death was the work of the Demiurge, who, in revenge for Christ’s abolition of the Jewish law delivered Him up to hell. But even in hell Christ overcame the Demiurge by preaching to the spirits in Limbo, and by His Resurrection He founded the true Kingdom of the Good God. Epiphanius (Haer., xlii, 4) says that Marcionites believed that in Limbo Christ brought salvation to Cain, Core, Dathan and Abiron, Esau, and the Gentiles, but left in damnation all Old Testament saints. This may have been held by some Marcionites in the fourth century, but it was not the teaching of Marcion himself, who had no Antinomian tendencies. Marcion denied the resurrection of the body, “for flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God”, and denied the second coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead, for the good God, being all goodness, does not punish those who reject Him; He simply leaves them to the Demiurge, who will cast them into everlasting fire.
I assume the actuality of the divine within me and direct contact with the divine as the ultimate authority – which I interpret as the Holy Ghost (which I interpret as the living ascending Christ).
It should be self-evident to any Bible reader that the Holy Spirit is Jesus’s Eternal Spirit that transcended time and space(which sounds similar to a certain commenter/blogger that still remains the main ”RP” enigma almost 15 years onwards- huh?) according to St.Peter:
9 But you are not living the life of the flesh, you are living the life of the Spirit, if the [Holy] Spirit of God [really] dwells within you [directs and controls you]. But if anyone does not possess the [Holy] Spirit of Christ, he is none of His [he does not belong to Christ, is not truly a child of God].Romans 8:9-Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
&
10 The prophets, who prophesied of the grace (divine blessing) which was intended for you, searched and inquired earnestly about this salvation.
11 They sought [to find out] to whom or when this was to come which the Spirit of Christ working within them was indicating when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that should follow [them].1 Peter 10-11-Amplified Bible, Classic Edition
Pingback: Jesse Albrecht on the Trinity - Derek L. Ramsey
“This is ungrounded. Each one of you would think they were right. This is indistinguishable from relativism where truth, morality, and knowledge are not found in the absolute. I don’t see how you avoid this problem. Am I explaining myself well enough?”
Oh yes, I understand you perfectly – and I asked myself the same question. Recall that when I converted I did so because I thought Christian could be (and was the only hope of) the basis for a good (or at least good-seeking) society. That was my priority for a few years, and why I found it hard to find a church (either within, or outside, the CofE), changed direction a few times.
It’s a matter I have addressed in my blog scores of times; but my answer is not acceptable – nor even regarded as a real answer! My answer is invisible.
One is to consider the primacy of motivation. I believe that, insofar as people are honestly motivated, there will be sufficient convergence on the essence of truth to enable salvation at least, and probably a good deal more than that.
Another is that this line of questioning derives from a world view that seems the truth of Christianity, the truth that Jesus provided and taught, is bound up with social organization – that it is bound up with mechanisms for ensuring (or at least incentivizing) uniformity of beliefs.
In other words it seems Christianity as church primarily – then state. That sees Christianity as primarily social not individual. Like the Judaism of the OT – it’s tribal – the tribe is the nation. The Messiah was a tribal/ national leader. The individual’s spiritual job was merely to serve the tribe. Salvation was of-the-tribe.
And this role was forced upon Jesus during his life, and after (especially by the evangelist Matthew) – pretty successfully!
(The early Mormons were explicitly tribal in concept, a people. But tribe membership was voluntary and by supernaturally-binding ritual, not by birth. Joseph Smith’s concept of plural marriage was IMO originally intended to be a way of creating and binding families – a spiritual procedure. Men and women both had multiple “spouses”, not for sex or reproduction; but instead to make extended families and bind the whole tribe in a network of these. However this was changed to selective and usually sexual polygyny – one man, more than one woman – by Brigham Young.
This Mormon tribalism, groupishness, contradicted the radically individualistic theology, IMO.)
I do not believe that this is any longer possible, my evidence being – look around and consider the past couple of centuries! I also believe, more controversially, that the attempt to reintroduce mechanisms for unity of belief can only lead to evil – in other words, it is possible to enforce unity of belief (eg 2020) but this Will Be evil.
Good (the side of God) can no longer be enforced top-down.
I suspect that the only path to good (at least in The West, for you and me) is non-institutional, much more like a family than an organization or nation. This must develop bottom up, and from love.
What this would look like if it happened, I don’t think can be foreknown – because there can be no blueprint for it, just as there is no blueprint for a loving family.
Thank you for your response, it answered my question. I’m not sure how I missed that answer from all your writings. Perhaps simply because it wasn’t a direct answer to my direct question, I simply didn’t recognize it for what it was.
You’ve given me a lot to think about. I’ll ponder this for a while and afterwards post an article in response (rather than a comment). Hopefully I’ll be able to do this in the first half of February. But, I can make no promises. As I’ve explained in the past, I post articles when my intuition tells me it is the right thing to do. Sometimes that means my completed posts sit in my drafts folder for a year or two until I get the prompting to release them.
Pingback: Polytheists on the Trinity - Derek L. Ramsey