And putting away childish things

With All Apologies to the Filioque: an Addendum.

The Trinity of Christianity is the most essential part of our faith; it is what makes our tradition our tradition, even if one is Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc. there may be aesthetic and theological distinctions made between these expressions of the faith the one thing holding them together is the concept of the Trinity. The Trinity is what makes us Christians and what delineates Christianity from a different religion, entirely. This is, in a word, a mandatory concept of belief that makes one Christian.

There are religious sects within Christianity that do not ascribe to the Trinity, it is important that we understand this is not Christianity. There is nothing wrong in ascribing to a different belief system, but there is something wrong in falsely claiming that a belief is Christian when it is not. There are defined boundaries between religious systems that, if we were to dissolve them through a perennial lens, then meaning dissolves along with it. Perennialism is an orientation that faces nihilism.  

Asserting that one’s religion is Christian when it is not (Mormonism, JW, Unitarianism) is false advertising at best and purposefully misleading at worst. 

The concept of the Trinity, or Tri-unity, is a theological border defining Christian belief: God is three in one. He is three distinct persons with one will, one nature, one mind. 

These are divine properties. 

God, God’s nature, the divine properties that make God God are omnipresence and omniscience, and eternality. 

The three persons of the Trinity are defined by their hypostatic properties in relation to the other persons of the Trinity. The Father’s hypostatic property is that He creates, the Son’s hypostatic property is that He redeems, and the Spirit’s hypostatic property is that He changes us. The Spirit of God does not create, He changes; the Son does not change us, He redeems. These are distinct characteristics of the hypostases of the Trinity that work in tandem without being conflated.  

The hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son are not conflated by the confession of the filioque. It is, in fact, a way in which we associate the three hypostases of the Trinity as distinct persons united by their shared divine properties rather than the Son and the Spirit interrelated ontologically solely through their begottenness and procession from the Father which would imply a Sonship shared between both persons which heretically conflates their hypostatic properties similarly to the Orthodox polemics against the filioque. 

Biblically, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth; the holy Spirit, proceeds from the Father through the Son by the latter’s ascension, which precedes the procession of the Spirit. This procession exemplifies the divine properties of the Spirit in its shared condescension with the Father and the Son, while emphasizing the Spirit’s inter-relationality with the Trinity because of the distinct persons defined by the other persons of the Trinity, modeling a social Trinitarianism as espoused by the Cappadocian Fathers.

Furthermore, historically the amendment of the Nicene Creed, which was instituted by the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE, amending the previous creed as espoused by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, is an amendment that both the East and West used! The filioque was not the only part of the creed that was updated, and it seems surreptitious to claim otherwise. Unless someone wants to make the claim that only the original creed, as stated above is Orthodox, and evidentially that is not the case.

That’d be too much like embodying the hipster asshole at the show, condescendingly saying that they liked the band’s older stuff better. Commence with eye roll and asskicking, please.

The Council of Constantinople and the resulting amendment to the Creed, all of them, not simply the filioque, were an evolution of the Church’s theology formalizing the Trinitarian model by combating the heretical Macedonians who professed Pneumatomachianism.  

The Pneumatomachi were a sect of semi-Arians in the 4th century. Arianism is the theological concept stating that Christ was not always in existence and was created later by the Father–denying the consubstantial relationship between Father and Son. The Pneumatomachi denied the consubstantial relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They went further than the Arian claim that the Son and Spirit derive their divinity from the Father, rejecting the divinity of the Spirit, entirely. 

The original creed, as established by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, was concerned with the consubstantial nature between Father and Son–this Council was defending a different, but similar, heresy when this creed was developed. This sect of the Pneumatomachi saw the creeds’ inclusion of the Spirit, “We believe in the Holy Ghost” as a vague enough theological detail to argue against the Spirit’s divinity, thus a council was necessary to rectify the situation. The filioque is not heretical, it is Biblical, and its qualifying statement regarding the Holy Spirit was defending the Church’s faith from heretics.   

Not to mention that the Council of Constantinople is affirmed by the Orthodox Churches, along with the other branches of Christianity. 

Finally, it feels like there are a lot of beliefs in the Orthodox tradition that are held primarily because they demarcate the East from the West. As if they are followed or practiced solely to separate the Orthodox from what they term the heterodox. 

Which is everyone who is not Orthodox.

Fun tidbit and one that the Orthodox Church is not so open about, but the heterodox are all anathematized. All of them. All of us. So, when the Orthodox say that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church, they mean it. Regardless of that opening up in recent decades where they are a little more open to not knowing, the heterodox have all been anathematized. This anathema was executed in 867 at another Council of Constantinople in which Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, anathematized the West by excommunicating the Pope because of the doctrine of papal infallibility and the filioque.

This is rather important and I feel an unnecessary addition to a believer’s anxiety in which choosing the right Church is a matter of eternal salvation or damnation. It’s a bit greasy. 

In good faith, my experience with the Orthodox Church (in real life*) has been pleasant and I am certainly not the only person has been somewhat smacked back into reality by an Orthodox priest who calmly explains that this level of anxiety is not necessary and to simply be the best Orthodox Christian in the tradition that calls you home.

The Orthodox have adopted practices and metaphysics that are decisively not Western by that merit. Palamite theology was only accepted by the East, gradually, because it was so starkly not Western and it would absolutely shape the Eastern Church’s theology. This strikes me as odd due to the Orthodox Church’s own opposition to Platonic models due to there being strong influence in St. Gregory of Palamas’ treatise on energies/essences that was developed by his reading of the Cappadocian Fathers and Pseudo-Dionysius’ works that were heavily influenced by Neoplatonism. 

I don’t think Neoplatonism is a problem, in fact, mystically neoplatonic writings are invaluable especially among Christian thinkers and mystics, but the Orthodox Church seems to only deny neoplatonic influence because it might be seen as Western influence. The Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation is a clear example of the Orthodox Church denying this doctrine on the grounds that it is Aristotelian. Anglicanism denies transubstantiation for the reasons that it is a mystery, not because the Catholic Church applied Aristotelian metaphysics to the Eucharist. It is quite interesting because the rejection of the filioque was in part, due to St. Gregory of Palamas’ work developing energies and essence theology in the 14th century which is directly consequential to the practice of θέωσις in the East. 

It is a similar issue to the Orthodox approach to atonement, which is similar to the Christus Victor atonement theory, which is a part of the entire story of atonement, but not the essentials. If anything, Christus Victor is a consequence of the crucifixion, not the focal point—which makes Christ’s death and resurrection even more badass, by the way. This is pointing at another essential item omitted by Orthodox practice or doctrinal thought which is a weak doctrine of sin.

A doctrine of sin is essential to understanding salvation and the Incarnation, as well as our relationship to God. The Orthodox have ancestral sin rather than original, and while I appreciate ancestral sin as an alternative doctrine, I am concerned that its application implicitly rejects penal substitution theory. And it does. Explicitly so, where the Orthodox deny the propitiation theory of atonement in which Christ takes on the punishment for our sins, dying in our place, satisfying the demands of divine justice. Whereby we are all justified in the eyes of God beginning with our baptism.

The Orthodox do not have this relationship with the cross and atonement, and it is possibly why they lack assurance regarding salvation. I have no issue with those of us working out our salvation with fear and trembling, in fact, we all could do a little bit more of that, however this is the type of mentality that comes out of a weak doctrine of sin and a different take on atonement theory. The Orthodox believe that faith alone saves, but the way that faith is expressed or manifested is through a reliance on asceticism which almost substitutes faith. 

I utilize asceticism in my Christian practice, because it helps me feel closer and drawn to God. That, and remembering the sacrifice God made for us–for me–in forgiveness of sins, but it is a relational asceticism, not an imperative to my salvation. 

It is done for love. Without assurance one might think that this might add to the believer’s anxiety (again) in terms of their relationship with God. There are many things that draw us close to God and there are many ways those same things might draw us closer to ourselves, through enfoldment. 

Regardless, the energies/essences, ancestral sin, atonement theory—these are only some of the ways in which the Orthodox reject the West and deem it heterodox. And when we look closely at these doctrinal disputes, they do start to feel arbitrary, the grounds in which they are practiced feels intentionally divisive rather than honest doctrinal arguments or exegetical disagreements. 

It’s like listening to Big L because everyone listens to Nas. 

Historically, Orthodoxy has been an evolving tradition and the iteration in which we see it now has been a formalizing of practices, beliefs, and metaphysics that has only been recorded in the past few centuries due to persecution. But to ask an Orthodox they might say that this is the way it has always been done, even when that is not evident in the least. Perhaps I am skeptical of any Church that makes the claim that they are the one, true Church and everyone else is either damned or, maybe not damned, but probably are so… I grew up with the Church of Christ whispering in my ear all their solo scriptura and ludicrous declaration that they are the one, true Church that was started on the day of Pentecost. 

Really? 

This church was started in 33 CE? This church that meets in a strip mall is the same church that was recognized by the disciples in the first century? This church? This church that is being led and preached to by a guy who can quote Scripture really well, but doesn’t know the date that the Bible was codified? 

This is the church that Christ left us? 

I think not. I call bullshit.

At least Protestants have the cojones to admit that they have faults, and their traditions have faults, too. I’ll listen to anyone who casts the first stone at themselves and would rather not build a church out of glass.  

Holy Tradition, like θέωσις, is a process. Religion is a process. Faith is a process. 

The Church that was established in 33 CE is found within us all who are baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

To cut people off from the invisible Church is rude as all hell. 

God willing, I’ll be confirmed into the Episcopal Church next weekend which is why I wanted to leave this behind before officializing my baptism and becoming a member of the Episcopal tradition where I will be the best Orthodox Episcopalian I can be. I love Orthodoxy, don’t get me wrong, but I want to leave these polemics and arguments on the other side of the Sacrament. It’s interesting learning all this to better defend the faith, but what I’m interested in is embodying faith. 

“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see only a reflection, as in a mirror, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:11-13).

Hope y’all enjoy the next couple posts before Samhain and All Saints’ Day. I’ll leave you with the latest podcast with Jody Bufkin, interviewing his yoga instructor about Daoism and sobriety. Selah. 

Si comprehendis, non est Deus 

* Do not try to learn about Orthodoxy online. It is a cesspool of polemics and superiority espoused by catechumens who know nothing of the reality of Orthodoxy. Go to your local parish and talk to a priest, if you continue having questions take them to a priest and read the Church Fathers.