Why I Am Not Trinitarian

Let's address the elephant in the room: If you've been in the church (or in Christian scholarship) for more than a year, you already have a preconceived notion of me as a Christian and a theologian.  You got that preconception the moment you read "I am not Trinitarian".  Even if you are not inclined to join the voices of the historical Trinity-defenders crying, "Burn her at the stake!", you suppose that I cannot possibly be a conservative Christian, with a high view of scripture and a high Christology.  In fact, my view of scripture is remarkably high for a scholar - a point that's gotten me into more than one heated debate - and my Christology is as high as it comes.  As a Christian, I'm fully engrossed in my walk with God and as a scholar, I'm dead set on finding the truth of Scripture (not, for the record, the "kernel of truth").  What you're seeing in me, and what causes your immediate feelings of disgust (or simply disregard) is nothing more or less than a low ecclesiology, particularly when it comes to the first 500 years of Christianity.  Simply put, I think the Early Church Fathers had a right to be wrong.

Debating (or even discussing) Trinitarianism is horribly frustrating for me.  Let's be honest: How many people got their best example of "How to Explain the Trinity" ready when you saw my title?  Maybe you've got a great example, or maybe I could pick your example apart.  It doesn't really matter, because any time someone says, "I am not Trinitarian," the first thought is, "They must not understand the Trinity."  I saw this never more obviously than when I invited my Trinitarian professor to a debate during my Master's degree at Oral Roberts University, and he answered that I must first take his Doctrine of God class because I would surely embrace Trinitarianism once it was adequately explained.  (He did fully explain it, by the way, but I could not embrace it even when I tried.  We went on to have exceptionally good debate and discussion that served to further convince me that I'm not now, nor will I ever be, Trinitarian.)

It seems any example I give a well-schooled Trinitarian of my own position is usually met with the response, “Well, no, it’s not like that because the three are ONE and the one is THREE persons… but really just one.”  This is followed by a lengthy repeat of theology with lots of meaningless and nonsensical mumbo jumbo from the first few centuries of Christianity.  The recitation of dogma will be sealed with a wistful, “God’s ways are so much higher than ours! He understands all this perfectly even though it makes no sense to us…”  Twenty minutes later, when I can finally get a word in edgewise, I may or may not be permitted to speak because the stage has already been set: Which heresy am I going to propose today?  Is it Arianism?  Is it Modalism?  One of those labels MUST fit, because the Early Church has already refuted them all.  There cannot possibly be any interpretation they overlooked.  HOW they refuted them is another argument altogether: Is it okay to refute sense with nonsense?  

My answer to that question should seem obvious.  Sense cannot be refuted with nonsense, even that which we believe "by faith."  I have to state that not as a derogatory comment, that faith is somehow foolishness in Christian disguise, but because there are Trinitarians who really do KNOW their stuff and aren't just reciting it without any understanding of what they're saying.  My Trinitarian professor was one of those people: he fully understood the arguments of Trinitarianism and was fully convinced of their validity.  My position is patently NOT that Trinitarians are stupid.  But it's also pretty clear that they do not think their theology makes sense.  It is only those who have never thought too hard about it that have no trouble with the "always safe" answer to give in Sunday school: "Jesus and God".  The more you study Trinitarianism, the more you are forced to admit it makes no sense, and you choose to accept it because it is well-substantiated (even if on nonsense), intelligently argued by men who used really big Greek words, and well-established as "truth" through the process of Church Councils.  Every question has been asked and answered and considered, and Trinitarianism is still the predominant view.  There must be a reason for that; it must be God-given and endorsed.  After all, isn't the core of our belief as Christians based on nonsense?  Jesus was crucified and then he got up and walked out of his tomb!  What kind of nonsense is that? 

I do not believe sense can be refuted with nonsense, but it can be refuted with truth.  And in fact, that Jesus didn't stay dead may be contrary to scientific understanding but it's not contrary to sense.  In fact, it follows a well-established pattern of reason - If Jesus remained dead, what happened to his body and why were the earliest Christians so convinced of his resurrection that they were willing to be horrifically martyred for proclaiming it?  Now THAT would be nonsense. The Bible gives us the alternative to this nonsense: the truth of his resurrection.

Who, then, (or what) establishes truth?  The answer to that question should (naturally) be the object of our faith.  For the Christian, God establishes truth, obviously, but how?  Does he use scripture to establish truth?  Most Christians would say yes.  But how do you interpret it when it is difficult and seems contradictory?  What about later additions - the things we can prove Paul (or John…) didn't write?  Was there someone standing there with an audio recorder every time Jesus spoke?  Because if not, how can we know for sure what he said even if we DO believe he was actually God and the ultimate bearer of truth?  Who decided what scripture actually WAS anyway, and which books would get put in?  Ultimately, it is very difficult to have faith in scripture (or, indeed, in Christ) without having faith in the early church.  We see scripture through the lens of the Early Church - a closed canon, clearly defined, and prescribed interpretations to tint our glasses.  But this is not the only set of "glasses" with which to read the Bible.

I see scripture through the complex lens of my personal relationship with God (pneumatology), the wealth of information available about how that scripture was written and interpreted (reason), and the MODERN church (where my ecclesiology fits in).  With few exceptions, I interpret in that order.  The early church thus informs my reason, but it does not actually inform my ecclesiology.  It certainly doesn't singlehandedly establish what is truth for me, even if there exists dogma on the subject at hand.  Does this make my interpretations subjective because they're based first and foremost on what God reveals to me in scripture?  Perhaps.  But better to put my faith in my own subjectivity (well-informed by the Holy Spirit, history, reason, and the relevance of God to modern man) than in the subjectivity of men who lived two thousand years ago with either the exact same resources or outdated versions of them.

So let us be clear on what I see as my diversion from Trinitarianism: The Father is God BECAUSE of his one-not-one relationship with the Son, who is God BECAUSE of his one-not-one relationship with the Father and then there’s a Holy Spirit.  We really don't know what to do with him (not "it") when you get right down to the core of the discussion - so much so that the Eastern Church SPLIT over creedal wording that suggested the Holy Spirit had some form of independent personal existence.  But in the end, orthodoxy determined He is one-not-one with the other two-not-two God(s), too.  It doesn't make any sense, it's self-contradictory, and it's SUPPOSED to be, because God's ways are higher than our ways and we have faith.  But I have no such faith (in the early church).  My faith is in scripture, just as theirs was - but my interpretation not subject to theirs and I see no Trinitarianism. 

Don't get me wrong, I see a lot of things that are as confusing to me as they are to all the other non-Trinitarians throughout history.  And yes, I see plenty of "Father-Son" language.  I do know my Scripture and I'm not a complete idiot.  I also know quite a bit about heresies and the scriptures used to refute them.  So please allow me to further define what I am not:

I am not Trinitarian: I do not believe the three-not-three are one-not-one.

I am not adoptionist: I do not believe that Jesus was a human son adopted by God who then became a G/god, regardless of whether that means he became one-of-two or two-not-two who are one-not-one.

I am not modalist: I do not believe God used masks, switching them back and forth in a way that leaves heaven "empty" while Jesus is on earth and makes him look like a complete fool every time he talks to his "Father".

I could tell you what I believe, but to put it in the context of historical development, you have to go back to a theology (monarchianism) BEFORE it split into two other theologies (adoptionism and modalism) which were then refuted by the church.  We cannot fully know what the earliest Monarchians believed because these men (and their ideas) did not survive the conquest of orthodoxy.  Furthermore, what we do know of what they believed is only preserved in the writings of their opponents.  (My assessment of monarchianism, by the way, can be found here: What Happened to Monarchianism?)  And even if we could see all the details of what they believed and why, I don't think the Monarchians had it all figured out.  How could they? Trinitarians certainly didn't have their theology figured out in the first hundred years!  I do, however, think we could've figured out a great deal more about who God is by now if we hadn't been tumbling down the rabbit hole of Trinitarianism for the past two thousand years, making the same arguments over and over while crying out to God for new revelation.  God is forever revealing new truths about himself that challenge our old perceptions.  And isn't that the point?  Why is God not allowed to reveal truths now - IN scripture and validated by reason, experience, AND community within a modern church that has progressively complex needs - if new revelation challenges the perceptions of the early church?  I have yet to receive a convincing answer to this question.

This is why I remain firmly non-Trinitarian.