Trini-, Bini-, Uni-, huh?

Amazing what one learns in a history course. Especially if it's at a scholarly level, and it's the first time one has delved into the subject matter critically. Most of the history I've learned has been presented - analysis, opinions and all - without comment, as if the version of history being taught is the only one in existence.

This is more true for church history, I guess, than for political history, although as they say history is written by the victors. I'm sure if the Axis powers had prevailed in WW2, the history books of today would read quite differently.

And the same is true of Christian theological history, as I learned a year or two ago in both Systematic Theology and Church History classes. The parties who prevailed during doctrinal debate at the various Ecumenical Councils in the first 500 years of the church were the ones who had the right to call an alternative viewpoint "heresy". They also determined who got excommunicated (and sometimes executed). And this pattern continues.

I find it especially true now of Trinitarians, who are by far the dominant view in the church today, although not the only view. Because Trinitarians are dominant, they can claim to be orthodox, and accuse all others of heresy, including Unitarians, Deists, Binitarians, Adventists, Mormons, some Eastern Christians, etc., etc. The ancient creeds were written by Trinitarians, right after all those *not* holding to "God in three persons, blessed Trinity" were banished from the church.

The same old difference of opinion (or debate, or faction, or heresy, depending on your viewpoint) from those early centuries, came 'round again in America in the late 1700s, when the Unitarian church became dominant in Boston (and at Harvard) around the time of the Revolution. There's more similarity than difference between Deism and Unitarianism, and so the Founding Fathers who were Deists (like Jefferson & Franklin) could make common cause with Unitarians. Keep in mind, though, that at that time Unitarians were not joined with Universalists. In fact, they held to the miraculous in the Bible where the Deists did not, including the resurrection of Christ, and all His miracles.

And so, today, if one holds a position like St. Augustine (one of the early influencers of John Calvin) did, namely that what we know as the Holy Spirit is a binding and animating force of Love rather than a "person", or... if one holds that the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth had, yes, both a Divine and Human nature unique among humans, and yes, was the only begotten son of God, but was NOT in existence as the Son of God prior to the Incarnation... one would not be a Trinitarian, definitely not orthodox, but a heretic.

Hm.

Does it really matter, you ask? Well, yes. At least if you plan on signing a doctrinal statement in good conscience, in order to join a Christian church or teach at a Christian school. (Oh, and to avoid being burned at the stake, metaphorically at least.)