The Trinity - what it is and is not

I love these diagrams because they demonstrate the absurdity of the Trinity. These diagrams put God in a three sided box and we Lutherans know that God cannot be put in a box. To be relevant in the 21st century, we have to be clear about what the Trinity is and what it is not.

What it is. The Trinity is a non-scriptural concoction of the 4th century church fathers who were looking for a statement about the nature of God. They came up with this convoluted concept and agreed to agree but not debate the nature of God any more. We have been stuck with it ever since. Lutherans accept three creedal statements about the Trinity - The Nicene, the Apostles, and the Athanasian. Fortunately the Athanasian Creed has been removed from our latest hymnal. This creed is absolutely irrelevant in the 21st century and we should say so, not just remove it from our hymnal.. 

The church has a much better term for God - the magnum mysterium or great mystery. God is unknowable. In one of our sacred stories, God was asked "who are you?" God's response? YHWH - "I am" or "I will be who I will be."

The Trinity is a metaphor for helping us realize that God cannot be put in a neat box. God is a mystery and we can only talk about God using the language of the unknowable - mythology. 

Follow this link to see a modern artist's interpretation of the great mystery.

What it is not. The Trinity is not a definitive statement about the nature of God. If we accept that God is unknowable, we cannot then turn around and declare that we know who God is. 

The Trinity makes no claim about the gender of God. Lutherans in the 21st century know that the men who created the concept of the Trinity were constrained by the world view of people in the 4th century. We look really silly when our modern "theologians" jump through twisted hoops of reason and logic to defend the masculine language of the Trinity. 

Theology of Nature and Grace must augment Theology of the Cross

Lutherans in the 21st century must leave the playing field of theological irrelevancy. The theology of the cross is a term coined by Martin Luther  Follow the link if you want to read more about Theologica Crucis. Properly understood, the theology of the cross picks up on the Buddha's Four Noble Truths. (See "The Feeling Buddha" by David Brazier for more on what follows.)

1. Dukkah - affliction (suffering) is part of an authentic life. It cannot be avoided
2. Samudaya - this suffering results in passions in us. These passions are noble but they can be inflamed by the ego traits of greed, hate, or oblivion.
3. Niroda - this is the way passions can be controlled and be directed to servoce to others.
4. Nirvana - a state of enlightenment by those who choose the way to direct passions to a fruitful happy life. Jesus calls the the Kingdom of heaven.


If we Lutherans want to be relevant in the 21st century, I believe we must talk about the theology of nature and grace  - with non violence as the keystone. The link will take you to a 30 minute interview with Joseph Sittler, recorded at Pacific Lutheran Seminary, Berkeley, in 1981. Sittler talked about environmentalism  his whole life. Care of the earth and nature is central to this Debonaire Giant.

Three creation stories - which one do we embrace?

Two creation stories appear in Genesis and one is from ancient Babylonian mythology. Walter Wink makes the case that the western church ignores the two biblical stories but embraces the story of creation  found in the mythology of Tiamet and Marduk. 

Our sacred stories are high religion, as Joseph Sittler says in the post below. Joseph Campbell says that a story (myth) is that which can never be yet ever is. All human civilizations are defined by their sacred stories. 

The first biblical account of creation describes a creator that is good and the creation is good. The second creation story about Adam and Eve reveals how this good creation was corrupted by humanity with the introduction of violence - Cain and Abel. Humanity created violence, not God.

A very strong case can be made that if we embraced these stories, we would take better care of creation and ourselves. If we worshiped the God of the bible we would care for the earth and its people and resources because God's creation is good. If we worshiped the God of the bible, we would reject violence because violence is not what God intended for the world that God created.

Clearly, the church has not embraced these stories. The fundies reduce the creation myths to stories of history,   or science, or geology that require that you believe that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church on Sunday. By focusing on the literal facts of the myths, they suck the life out of our sacred stories.

Tiamet was a great Goddess who mistreated the lesser gods. Marduk made a deal with the other gods that if he killed Tiamet, he would be rewarded. The universe was created when Marduk filled Tiamet with a great wind and impaled her on his sword (think Jaws) so that Tiamet's entrails became the components of the universe. The essence of this myth is that violence is redemptive.

Look at our popular culture and you can see the story of Tiamet and Marduk played out over and over. Most children know the Popeye story. A bully beats up the hero for most of the story until the hero eats his spinach and defeats the bully in a terrible act of violence. Have you ever seen a Popeye episode where he and Bluto sit down and talk about their differences over OliveOyl? Is non-violence ever a factor?

The hollywood movies that follow the Tiamet and Marduk are too numerous to list but they include the Terminator movies, Zorro, Superman, Rambo, and on and on. Violence is always redemptive.

When we were attacked by 17 Saudis and two Pakistani's on 911 our response was extreme violence. A trillion dollar war that we still wage.

Please see the op-ed I wrote after 911 ( on the page bar at the top of this blog) which offers a non-violent response to that attack.

The church of Jesus Christ was virtually silent on the build up to the invasion of Iraq. For sure, all of the Christian denominations - except the Missouri Synod Lutherans and the Southern Baptists - took positions opposing the invasion, but these statements were toothless because the pastors preaching from the thousands of pulpits in the church were afraid to go against the thirst for retribution that was motivating the people in the pews. 

If we Lutherans want to be relevant in the 21st century, we must return to the roots of the church. Non-violence. We must not equivocate on this issue.

Antelopes or Cantaloupes

"On the first page of the Bible there is an instance of how literalism is but an invitation to transcend the image to which literalism points. That first page is not geology, biology, or paleontology; it is high religion. For there we are told who we are in terms of our constitutive context. And if we could understand that, we would cease worrying about whether the antelopes or the cantaloupes came in a certain order."

Joseph Sittler

Gravity and Grace

Angry white men

OR

The biggest problem facing the ELCA

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) of which I am a member, was created out of a merger of 3 other Lutheran bodies in the late 80's. At that time, I would guess that over 95% of the leadership was white men. In our wisdom, or lack thereof, we decided to make the leadership of this new ELCA look like America.

The problem was that Lutherans are lily white and we had no women at that time in leadership positions. But we forged ahead and ended up placing all of the competent women and minorities in top slots but that wasn't enough to fill all of the positions, so we used all of the below average women and minorities and when that wasn't enough we placed incompetent people as leaders in the new church. Note: now that we are 20 years old, we have plenty of competent women pastors but we still have a ways to go with our minority population.

Guess what? We created an Army of angry white pastors. Most of them are now about my age (64), or older,  so they will go away, but not soon enough in my opinion.

Their reaction was hateful, vile and vulgar. Because they could not be open about their disdain for women and minorities, they had to pick another issue to rally around. They chose the new ELCA's attempt to use inclusive language as the focal point of their rage.

Unless  "father, son, and holy ghost" was used to invoke the Trinity, they would use words like apostasy, invalid, and heresy to attack the speaker. They appointed themselves protectors of "confessional Lutheranism." Lutherans are, by definition, confessional we because subscribe to certain confessions of the church.  These supercilious twits failed to see that they were being redundant.

These angry white guys even formed their own society, the STS or Societas Trinitatis Sanctae.  A pastor friend of mine went to one of their weekend seances (retreats) and told me that it was a bunch of angry guys (a few women) playing dress up (black robes) and wallowing in their hatred of the ELCA all the while "contemplating" and "praying." They say we live in a time of "doctrinal confusion and moral uncertainty." How arrogant to define a problem that only they can solve. Just who is confused by our doctrines? Are they suggesting that they can bring "certainty" to this morally ambiguous world that we Lutherans embrace?


You can imagine which team this angry mob plays on in the ordination of gays issue. To date the ELCA has lost about 200 congregations - out of 10,000 - to this faction. Enough said about this very noisy but inconsequential "pimple on the butt" of the church, to use a metaphor from Paul. 

Constantine's Faustian Deal

Before Constantine converted to Christianity, pictured above, Christians could not serve in the Army because everyone knew that Christians were nonviolent.

Seeking to expand his power, Constantine approached the church leaders and offer them a deal. If the church would support him and yield to all of his earthly powers, Constantine would grant to the Church all power and authority over Heaven. 

After this deal was consummated, ONLY Christians were allowed to serve in the Army.

In one fell swoop, the keystone of the Church of Jesus Christ, nonviolence, was ripped away. We have suffered ever since. 

Lutherans in the 21st century should not fall for the lie that Jesus in any way, shape, or form, supported violence. In the long run, violence always fails. Nonviolence always prevails.  

Why is theology complicated?

To make a point, I will ask you a very simple arithmetic question which you will not be able to answer. The reason you won't be able to answer it is because you have been encumbered with mathematical knowledge. I have won many beers in bars with this question for many years. Only two people ever got it right and both had a PhD in physics - not math.

Ready?

I have a magic box. You put two numbers in this box and something happens inside the box and one number comes out. Remember, this is very simple, do not over complicate. For example, I put a 2 and a 2 in the box and out comes a 4. There are at least three possible answers.

Addition took place in the box.
Multiplication took place in the box.
One number was raised to the power of the other number in the box.

Got it? Remember, keep it simple. Now here is the problem you will not be able to answer.

I put a 3 in the box and a 5 in the box and out comes a 5. What happened to the two numbers in the box?

Put away your pencil and paper. This is way too simple for that. Don't read ahead. I'll give the answer below.

The reason you can't answer this question is because there is no mathematical symbol for this "operation" and like I said, you have been encumbered with mathematical knowledge which makes the simple complicated. Mathematical operators are, plus, minus, multiply, square root and so forth. Some of you are struggling with the "logical operators" like equal to, less than , greater than and so forth. The logical operators yield a true or false answer, in math language, it's a one or a zero.

Theology is like this. We have been encumbered with a lifetime of theological knowledge through hymnody, liturgy, sermons, scriptural interpretation and so on. We may know one theory of the atonement and we build a structure around that one theory. We bend and twist scripture to fit that structure. You may have been told that faith is something you have to conjure up and your world view is shaped by that "knowledge."

My comparing and contrasting mathematics and theology, admittedly, only goes so far. Unlike theology, mathematics has to stand up to rigorous logical tests. Theology can build a superstructure out of thin air and still be credible for the believers.

My point is that theology changes with the times and we cannot be limited by thinking which is constrained by tradition or doctrine. I have been quoting Luther a lot, but Luther believed that fairies lived in the forest so we have to be careful when reading 16th century, or 4th century texts and making a leap to applying them to the 21st century.

Back to the math question. I will ask it a different way and the answer will be obvious. So easy even a child can get it right. Instead of a magic box, I put three pieces of candy in one hand and five pieces of candy in the other and ask a child which one she wants.

What happened in the box is that it selected the largest number. Because there exists no operator for this most basic operation, you failed to get the answer right.

The Lutheran Doctrine of Free Will

If you ask someone here in the Bible belt, what is free will, they will tell you that you have the free will to accept Jesus or reject him. This is baloney and we Lutherans know it. We can no more "accept" Jesus than we can "will" the sun to rise tomorrow. We have our own doctrine of free will.

Actually, this doctrine was first spelled out by Augustine in the 4th century and Brother Melanchthon lifted it and inserted it as Article 18 of our Augsburg Confession.

But try asking your average Lutheran, or Lutheran pastor for that matter, to tell you what our doctrine of free will is and you will get a blank stare or they will give you the Bible belt version. I do not understand this because our doctrine is so liberating. Our doctrine frees us to serve others and to live authentic lives, unconstrained  by the con of eternal life.

You want me to tell you what our doctrine is don't you?  Ok.

We Lutherans believe that we have free will regarding all things earthly, like how will we love and serve the poor, who will we marry and so forth. We have no free will regarding things heavenly - like salvation.

 Why do we keep this a secret?

Faith or Superstition

If you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior you will go to heaven. If you refuse to do this you will fry in the lake of fire known as hell.

If you look in a broken mirror or walk under a ladder you will have bad luck.

Both of the statements above are superstitions. Lutherans know this. Yet in our age, we keep it to ourselves. Here in the Bible belt, the Jesus superstition is used as a club to whack people over the head into submission. This is a con which has been used for centuries and the people of the church of Jesus Christ must say it is wrong.

My late friend, Wes Seeliger, wrote an essay that put this con in the terms of the mafia's protection racket. The way the protection racket works, a gumbah and a thug walk into a store and declare to the owner that that he lives in a very dangerous neighborhood. Glancing at the thug standing next to him, the gumbah tells the store owner that someone might break his kneecaps for no reason at all. 

Then comes the con. The gumbah says, "but we have the solution." Again glancing at the thug, he tells the store owner that his friend here will protect him. And he will do it for a "small" fee.

The con of eternal life is no different.  The pastor tell the congregation, "you have a problem," glancing at the picture of a stern Jesus (very white in white clothes). You are going to hell. BUT we have the solution, again glancing at Jesus. Accept everything we have to say about this monster and you will go to heaven.

Is there a difference between the mafia's protection racket and the "accept Jesus and get a ticket to heaven" racket? 

I think not.

We Lutherans know this. We should say so. 

It is interesting that the muslims run this con by promising 72 virgins in the sweet bye and bye. They use the carrot as opposed to the Jesus stick.  

What is the church

Luther had a wonderful definition of the church. He said the church is like a great big lake which is very shallow and frothy on top, blown by the winds of change. But this lake is fed by a very deep source.

I am sure you know when you are near the source.

For six years, I was honored and privileged to serve on the board of directors of Bread for the World. The membership of Bread is pan Christian but when I was in their presence I knew I was near the deep source that feeds not only the hungry, the poor and oppressed, but also the church.

At a national gathering at American University in Washington DC, I was sitting in a student lounge killing time along with other Bread members. A clown walked into the room and offered me a small cup of lemonade and I thought nothing of it. Then the clown returned and offered me popcorn. I noticed that the room had gone silent and I looked up and saw that all of us realized that we were participating in the Eucharist.

Because Bread is pan Christian, we could not celebrate the Eucharist in our worship, so using the ancient art of clowning we got around the petty differences which separate us and experienced a magical moment. I still get goose bumps thinking about it. Now that is the church.

My home church, Christ the King in Houston. Our daughter Issabella and husband Ted are members of University Lutheran Chapel, Berkeley.  Both churches give me that feeling of being near the source. Their members and former members are scattered all over the world. Ask one of them.

The genius of the Small Catechism

Luther used his explanation of the Ten Commandments in his Small Catechism to change the commandments into definitions of a Christian by making the "thou shalt not's" into definitions with his "yeahbuts."

Garrison Keillor frequently makes fun of us Lutherans, especially those from Minnesota. One of his schticks is about "yeahbuts", as in one Lutheran will say, "It's a beautiful day today," and the other Lutheran will say, "yeahbut, its gonna rain soon."

Luther's "yeahbuts" take the form


You shall not steal.

What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not take our neighbour’s money or possessions, or get them in any dishonest way, but help him to improve and protect his possessions and income.


or

You shall not murder.

What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need.

For each commandment, Luther was saying, "of course Christians don't do those things which are prohibited, but we actively do those things which serve God and neighbor."

What is a Christian?

This is a good place to start.

When I can get people talking about religion, I ask this question. Here in the bible belt, the answers are centered around words like belief, acceptance, personal Lord and Savior, and so forth.

Roland Bainton, in his seminal biography of Luther, "Here I Stand," said that in Luther's mind, the essence of Christianity is to be like a little Christ to your neighbor. I agree.

Christianity is that simple and that profound at the same time.

The Calvinists want a rule book (scripture) to define how to love your neighbor.

Luther had a tart reply, "no one needs to tell lovers how to love each other."

Using this definition, not all Christians call themselves Christian. When Ghandi was alive, people would say that the greatest living Christian is a Hindu.