Friday, September 8, 2017

Jory Micah, Modalism, and a Bad Apple

Yesterday Jory Micah, a feminist/egalitarian, was attempting to explain her 2-tiered view of inspiration





Her understanding of a variance between the authority of Jesus' words and Paul's words is troubling (but beyond the scope of this present article). Her defense of it, however, brought a heresy to the surface. In a now deleted tweet she explains that her view on inspiration is based, in part, on a modalistic view of God.
This became the flash point of a call for clarification. Identifying the Holy Spirit with Jesus, the Son, is a tenant of modalism. Modalism views the Father, Son, and Spirit as three modes of expression that a unipersonal God switches between. The view is incompatible with the biblical doctrine of the trinity, which holds that God has eternally existed as three distinct persons. All three can rightly be called God, but the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. A blanket identification of Jesus as the Holy Spirit, with asterisks for emphasis, is an affirmation of modalism.

Damage control begins with an attempt to make a statement affirming a biblical view of God's nature.

Not bad, right? I personally would have said "distinct" instead of "unique." The distinction between persons is more relevant than their respective uniqueness. I could imagine a modalist affirming that each mode a unipersonal god expresses himself in is unique. But she did also note "persons" in the plural, so one may feel comfortable to relax on the matter.

But then there are those pesky dots. An ellipsis indicating more to come. What came has since been deleted by Mrs. Micah. One of my sources had fortunately taken a screenshot which I post here for posterity:

The two, now deleted, replies form a unit of thought you may not get by just seeing the first tweet. Note her claims:

My statement that Jesus is Holy Spirit is not at all heresy. Micah asserts the correctness of the phrase "Jesus is Holy Spirit." She would not be the first person to express modalism in this formula. Witness Lee, another modalist I have dealt with, subtitled a section of one of his books "The Son is the Father, and the Son is also the Spirit." I am not saying there is any connection between Micah and Lee other than their use of is as a term to identify the Son with the Holy Spirit. But is may be used in more than one way.

It would be heresy if I said that Jesus & the Holy Spirit have no distinction. In a discussion of the persons of the Trinity, maintaining distinction is key. Her clarification here is not sufficient because a modalist could affirm both parts of this tweet. They might say that there are distinctions when God takes off the Jesus-suit and puts on the Holy Spirit-suit (of course they wouldn't phrase it the way I do). In fact, if modalists thought there were no distinctions between Son and Spirit they wouldn't even think to speak of them as different modes.

We often say that Jesus is God. I personally would have gone with "The Bible states that Jesus is God" (link). Hopefully that is why we say it! We identify Jesus as God because the Bible repeatedly does.

This is no different than saying Jesus is Holy Spirit. Above I mentioned that is is an important word in this discussion. She advances her meaning here. In her view, saying "Jesus is Holy Spirit" is no different than saying "Jesus is God." Is speaks to identity as she used it (and as we shall see below).

They are one. The closest referent to they is at the end of the last sentence. Jesus and the Holy spirit are one in Micah's view. One what? If she means "one being" then we are orthodox. But the context of this whole drama has been over a discussion of persons, not being or essence. She is saying that the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one person, a modalist affirmation.

God is not offended by God's identity. This comment finally gets to the heart of the issue which has been somewhat implicit thus far. The is is an is of identity. Modalism identifies the person of the Son with the person of the Spirit with the person of the Father. To a modalist all are modes of one identical person.

No doubt she began to do some research and thinking as biblical concerns continued to come in. She admits to deleting earlier tweets (leaving others which, given their thread's original context, is dishonest) and finally addresses the question of whether Jesus is the same person as the Holy Spirit.


While this is nice to hear, it is still a cause for concern. The tweet identifying the Son and the Spirit wasn't admitted to be wrong, only misunderstood and poorly worded (even though she repeated it and made an even stronger case that she was speaking to the issue of identity).

But she said that Jesus and the Spirit are not the same person. Isn't that good enough? Well, setting aside the lackluster correction, the conversation continues. One of her followers asks for clarification and Jory procedes with what I will call The Apple Analogy.

In this analogy the apple is made of 3 parts: skin, seeds and the apple part. Since all 3 are apple parts they are different but they are still all part of the same apple. Right?

The Apple Analogy

In The Apple Analogy Micah demonstrates another aversion to sound doctrine. I realize that isn't something to be said lightly. But she touts a Master's degree on the subject. I would like to think that sets her expectations for biblical precision a notch or two higher on this matter.

As I was thinking of The Apple Analogy I made a short list of problems I believe Micah must deal with:

It teaches Partialism 

Partialism is heretical view of God where the Father, Son and Spirit are component parts of which the whole of God is comprised. Rather than all three persons sharing in the singular essence and attributes of God, the Father is a third of God, the Son another third, and the Spirit yet a separate third (I picked thirds for this explanation, however I could imagine a partialist assigning a larger portion to one person and a reduced portion to another). No one in this scheme is fully God, for the other two exist as parts of God of which the first is not.

Partialism is a departure from the Biblical presentation of the full deity of the Father, the full deity of the Son, and the full deity of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). One would laugh if the apple seeds said "whoever has seen me has seen the skin." Jesus also said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Are the seeds and the skin of an apple one?

It does not account for all of the parts of an apple

Search Google for "apple parts." I suspected that an apple had more than 3 parts and guess what...
This diagram offers an apple with 8 parts, not 3. Other diagrams offer 6 or 5 parts, regardless of which you select it is clear that more than 3 parts exist. One must question the usefulness of an analogy which ignores the bulk of data immediately relevant.

If you chopped open an apple seed and had the requisite scientific background you could designate a variety of distinct components. I certainly don't have that background, perhaps you don't either, but the wonder of the internet provides a glimpse into this matter:
I am limited here by not knowing what person of the trinity Micah likens to the apple seed. It would be interesting to understand who and why.

The seeds (plural)

Paul did it in Galatians 3:16 and I'm going to do it here (fully aware that the only connection is the distinction between plural and singular). I've never seen an apple core with only one seed. I've never seen only one seed in an apple. Of course I don't check every apple I eat but I've cut my fair share into slices and there are always multiple seeds.

Does the analogy carry to one person per seed regardless of how many? Or is there some kind of connection between the seeds that unites them in their seed-ness to only represent one person as a collective?

The seeds (place in apple)

Knowing this, one must ask (yet again) what person of the trinity is represented by the seeds and what is the significance of there being a plurality of seeds. Micah did not say, however it is relevant. While we are on the subject. If we assume the inaccurate 3-component model of an apple for a moment we must ask what is the significance of the seeds coming into contact with "the apple part" but not the skin. Why is "the apple part" the only one who gets contact with each of the other two? Why don't the skin and the seeds ever come into contact with one another? (Certainly this is a poor portrayal of the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit who are in constant communication and relationship with one another).

The seeds (reproductive function)

Apple seeds grow into apple trees and produce more apples. Dwell on The Apple Analogy long enough and you'll get there. If the apple represents Father, Son, and Spirit then which gets to replicate and grow new apples (new gods?)? While the seeds have a definite function in creating more apples, "the apple part" and the skin are edible and provide nutrients for us which the seeds do not. Is it then the case that 2 persons of the Godhead function to sustain us while the other functions to replicate?

How far do you take this analogy?

Aren't you taking The Apple Analogy too far? Perhaps. But go apple picking, hold an apple in your hand and think through the implications. You are holding a single piece of fruit from a tree which has other apples on it. That apple tree with many apples lives in a field of trees all of which produce many apples. How can you select one apple from one tree, hold it in your hand and say that this explains God? It is absolutely ridiculous.

God and Analogies

Isaiah 40:18 asks "To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?" The implicit answer is a negative: no one; no likeness. In verse 25 he reiterates the point "To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One." And yet again, in Isaiah 45:6, "To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike?" It is clear that God does not want to be compared to aspects of his creation.

The context of these is a polemic against idolatry. Of course Jory Micah is not saying that the apple is an idol. But she is doing what idolators do when they make statues and paintings of God. They are likening God to an aspect of his creation. Just as the 2nd Commandment tells  us not to "make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Ex. 20:4) we are not to dumb God down for worship or for our theology (which should be part of loving him - part of worship - with our mind, Matt. 22:37).

Trinity and Mystery

Well, it's all a mystery, right?
I have no idea what she means by "fully clothed comprehended" (I googled the phrase in quotes and it returned zero results).

Aside from what her phone likely assumed she was trying to say (predictive text suggestion after "fully" + no proofreading?), the issue of mystery is important. The trinity cannot be fully comprehended because it is a core aspect of God's nature. It isn't that God intended for his nature to be mysterious, it is that we are 1) finite creatures as well as 2) fallen creatures. We are not capable of a full and comprehensive understanding of God's triune existence beyond what he has revealed to us. Only God is qualified to reveal himself as he does in Scripture. We are also limited by the noetic effects of sin.

What the Bible says with respect to God's nature is true, even if it does not answer every question we may have. Engaging in exegesis and systematic theology helps us to fill in some of these blanks, but that can only take us so far. When we reach the end of revelation we are at the border of mystery.

The concept of God's mystery is not carte blanche for excusing denials of what has been revealed in Scripture. We are bound to believe God's self-revelation in the Bible. The Bible itself testifies to the reality of mystery beyond what is revealed (What other justification do we have to expect more truth exists than we are capable of discovering?)

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Charles Hodge Quote on God's Word

As He wills that men should study his works and discover their wonderful organic relation and harmonious combination, so it is his will tha...

Want to read more? Check these out!