Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here.

Back in “Bruce Charlton on the Trinity,” I made this statement:

After I wrote that, Charlton answered this, saying:

Something fundamental has changed in recent times with the way people think, with their consciousness. Something unprecedented. Where previously there was no real harm with individuals or churchs asserting such things, now it is proving deadly.

Since Charlton is a polytheist, it occurred to me to ask how how polytheist mystics view the Trinity. But, I had written about their beliefs before.

Back in September of last year, in “The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 3,” we discussed how three notable figures—John Mark Comer, Michael Heiser, and Ed Hurst (of Radix Fidem)—all expressed polytheistic views. They differed somewhat in how (un)comfortable each was with acknowledging their polytheism, but all nonetheless unambiguously attested to the existence of more than one god.

Interestingly, I’m not the only one who desired this:

A lot of the logical problems with the Trinity disappear if you give up orthodoxy and assume that there can be more than one god. After all, this is exactly what the Mormons teach. We have to ask if these Christians—Comer, Heiser, and Hurst—are also espousing mainstream beliefs on the Trinity while simultaneously asserting polytheism.

John Mark Comer

John Mark Comer is not your typical Trinitarian. He tends to view the Trinity from the perspective of a community or society, reflecting the virtues of hospitality and love. In this, he reflects non-traditional, progressive, social-justice focused Christianity. In “Practicing the Way” he calls the Trinity “a community of self-giving love.” His mysticism is based in this Trinitarian understanding, where, like the Trinity, people should become rooted in the inner life of God to allows them to experience or feel like God.

In short, Comer’s view of the Trinity is focused more on inclusivity and love than on logic.

Comer’s views on the Trinity are not systematic theological expositions. They are strongly influenced by Ronald Rolheiser—a Roman Catholic priest—and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Comer—a polytheist—is concerned with the spirituality of the doctrine of the Trinity and not concerned at all with its logical consistency.

Reviewer Wyatt Graham writes:

In summary, Comer seems to subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, but only to the extent that it provides a mode or analogy for social or community action among Christians and the world. But, in general, the Trinity is just not  an important doctrine for John Mark Comer.

Michael Heiser

Like Comer, Heiser is another polytheist whose views on the Trinity are not quite mainstream.

Heiser cites Exodus 33 here where Yahweh proclaims the name of Yahweh. He argues that this is one of a number of examples where the Old Testament describes two Yahwehs. He calls this the Jewish “Two Powers in Heaven” doctrine and claims that it was well-established prior to the 2nd century AD, when it was declared a heresy in Judaism. He claims that:

Michael Heiser explicitly disagrees with “Bart Erhman on the Trinity” here by asserting that the Trinity is a doctrine described by the Old Testament. He notes that the Holy Spirit and God are interchangeable in the Old Testament (Isaiah 63:10; Psalm 78:35-41) and that Jesus’ spirit is equated with the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

Heiser’s views are complex and deviate from the traditional view on a few points, as well as being largely missing from the early, non-Gnostic writers of the church. He does claim to believe in the traditional Trinitarian view, but he describes Yahweh as multiple “elohim” and the Divine Council as made up of different other multiple “elohim.” Only God—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is one in three. In this way, he holds to a “monotheistic” One God, but is a polytheist because his divine council is made up of multiple gods.

Heiser does not provide a logical argument in favor of the Trinity, specifically stating that his approach is not proof-texting. He also states that denying three-in-one is an error, but it is not a matter of salvation. For example, he notes that the Arians were called “Brothers” despite holding an “aberrant” belief.

Heiser cites the Gnostics to claim a continuity of belief in the divinity of Christ between the ancient Jews, the Christians, and the Gnostics by using the Gnostic texts as evidence. He understands the description of Jesus from the Gnostic Silvanus as being utterly compatible with scripture, suggesting that specific quotations could be inserted into the Bible without any problems. He does not see the Gnostic view as a corruption of the non-Trinitarian view, but an agreement with it.

Heiser explicitly rejects Adoptionism.

Radix Fidem

Ed Hurst of Radix Fidem declares this about the Trinity:

This is similar—but not precisely the same—to my own view:

Both of us assert that Jesus is divine. The key difference is that I am not a polytheist.

In any case, considering that Radix Fidem is polytheistic, it is unsurprising that it does not feel the need to assert a Trinitarian viewpoint which attempts to maintain a monotheistic viewpoint. The polytheist is not obligated to believe in the Trinity.

Summary

Among the polytheists—who are related to the mystical approaches—there is a rather wide range of understandings on the Trinity. Radix Fidem views the Trinity as non-essential. Heiser views the Trinity as true, but not essential for salvation. Comer views the Trinity as real, but recasts it in terms of theological language of community, spirituality, and community action. All of these men hold views that are alterations of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.

All three believe in a polytheistic council of gods, but this has not produced a uniformity of belief on the Trinity. Indeed, if anything, the polytheistic view has caused the divergence on the doctrine of the Trinity. This makes sense, as the Trinity is ultimately a compromise between polytheism and monotheism, an attempt to have it both ways at once: three gods (polytheism) in one god (monotheism). If one simply believes in polytheism, there remains no reason to be dogmatic on monotheism. Asserting that more than one god exists is one possible way to resolve the inherent contradiction in the Trinitarian doctrine, and some have chosen to take this path.

However, in our next post, we’ll see what happens when one rationalist polytheist attempts to keep the Trinitarian doctrine as-is.