Orthodoxy, or the Adventurous Heresy gone horribly right

"I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy." -G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

I feel as though I am a "spiritual descendant" of G.K. Chesterton. I question, I quibble, I am never satisfied until I get to the heart of the matter, and I end up affirming what thousands upon thousands of people have affirmed as true hundreds of years before me, and even end up learning from their tradition.
I've written about not being an Evangelical (or a Protestant), and thinking of the "New Humanity" as my religious alignment rather than Christianity.
To be honest with you, the closest thing to what I am is an orthodox Christian. It's unreasonable to call me anything else, and I will tell you why.
I believe first and foremost in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the incarnate Logos, the mystical "Word" proceeding from the mouth of God, the extension of Himself. I am a follower of Christ because I believe him to be a divine manifestation of the infinite Yhwh, whose true name we do not even know yet. The transcendent God, that somehow became personal and interacted with us. Because He just loves us that much.
I believe these things are true because I trust the Bible as a reliable source. That trust is somewhat blind, but it does not make sense for me not to believe in the Bible's reliability. Though my research in that area is lacking more than I'd like, I've ceased to look to a purely intellectual decision regarding the Bible.

Mr. Chesterton once again communicates my thoughts quite well:
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."

This is why my decision to believe in the Logos, the Trinity, and the Bible are not purely logical in nature. They're logically defendable under certain presuppositions, but those presuppositions, by their very nature, do not come from a logical construct.
It is this recognition that makes apologetics a useful tool to me less than 1% of the time. There is no need for me to logically defend my faith in the invisible. The small amount of the time I would use an apologetic argument, it would be with a purpose besides trying to convince someone I am right.
Because this is really about that. What people speak about on the surface is rarely what is in their heart. Their questions and hostility sometimes communicate fear, anger, curiosity, joy, rage, bliss, skepticism, cynicism or all of the above, no matter what they may tell you their goal is.
And so we come back to the Word. I've never doubted the Father's existence, as evidenced from the TaNaK, nor have I doubted the Spirit's existence, and his manifestation could be called a person just from his apparent purpose creating a drastically different personality from the Father.
The Son has been my struggle, as has the Bible. Who would have thought that those two sourced from the same thing?
The Word. What does it mean?
In the ancient near east, the Greeks referenced "the Word" as the primal meaning of the universe. Not just the logic, not just some kind of undercurrent...everything exists because of the Word. Where'd this "Word" come from? Who knows.
John takes this a step farther and says that in the beginning was the Word. He even goes so far as to equate that with Yhwh, the Hebrew God. The mystics looked in Genesis 1, and saw that God spoke the world into existence, and began to formulate the Logos as going forth from the "mouth" of God, and through it came creation. So God simultaneously spoke and "begat" His pre-existent "son," and through it came this universe. What a creative and glorious God this is!
And so it was, that people decided to break it. Literally or not, we ate from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and were cut off from the Tree of Life. Death entered the world, and we became subject to it, as did everything that proceeded from the mouth of God. Only God himself, including the Word, and his messengers that did not fall were not affected by this, and yet it seems that even the angels had something happen to them. A third of their number "fell from heaven" with Lucifer, the Devil.
Regardless, God, by his very nature, planned to redeem the things he had created. And so the Word took on flesh, and became the man we call Jesus. But was that the first way God communicated Himself to us since the corruption of His creation?
No. Creation did not just decay for God knows how long while He remained silent. He interacted with humanity, and after the Great Flood, He gave them the Law, choosing a people to be His own, to show His love for us.
And we still perverted that. The Jews were continually unfaithful, demonstrating what a mess we are. But, they preserved the way God communicated Himself in written form, and even began to worship it.
Then Jesus came. He told them that everything that is communicated regarding the Messiah was about him, and they tried to kill him for it, eventually succeeding. But there was a bigger plan at work. Jesus came, took on a broken state and bringing it to perfection all to tell us that there is more. The religious leaders, while having part of the "Word," didn't have it all together as they appeared to. Righteousness did not lie in merely being obedient, that was only the reductionism of where it came from, which is straight from God. He told us that when we saw him, we saw the Father. His love for us was so great that He came here, choosing to empty himself and be born of a woman, the one we call Theotokos, or Mother of God.
Jesus came and said there is more, and he was killed for it. But death could not hold him. Though the "people of God" killed him, he came back anyway, and the apostles bore witness to it, writing down some of what Jesus did. Luke even continued to write about what the people that knew him continued to do, and Paul was called to write even more. They wrote in human terms, in human language, and it was translated multiple times. There are apparent errors, language-made flaws, and we've put together the ancient documents from manuscripts, having never seen the originals. There are additions, subtractions, and we are merely guessing at what the books the Church has agreed are in the canon are even saying.
But alas, how I translate to modernity! What follows is a mess of conflict and misunderstood definitions. Some say that these reasons are enough to say that the Bible is not only not inspired, but invalid for every day living, having caused more harm than good.
Indeed, it has in a lot of cases. We've used it to justify whatever we want, from slavery to outright murder, and we've screwed things up. But since when is that a surprise to God? The religious have been screwing up the Law for a long time with their reductionism and/or complete disregard for it.
Some say that the Bible must simply be accepted, because they're too afraid to think of another option. It is the Word of God, and their self-interpreted theology that comes from the same book they are talking about is proof of that. It must be accepted, or there is no faith present.
But since when has there been faith present where people choose to avoid questioning and reduce a few portions of the Law to confirm their own way of living?
However, in light of this mess Modern criticism and reaction has created, is it possible that God still chose to communicate himself, and inspired by that communication, the Scriptures were written and preserved just enough to still contain God's character in it?
It is at least possible.
What is the Word? The Word proceeds from the mouth of God, and since the mouth is figurative (God is a spirit) so must be the Word. The Word is not a bunch of words, it is God's raw communication of Himself.
Does Christ fit the bill? Absolutely.
Does the Bible? It's a little shakier, but I think it does. What do we see, even in those portions where the author has decided to error? God communicating himself and humans not understanding. The prophet Daniel was told things he didn't get, and was disturbed to the point of being physically ill. Sure, not everything in the Bible are the words of God. But they do not have to be for inspiration to exist to the point of it being a manifestation of the Word.
In the case of both Christ and the Scriptures, God breathed Himself, and it combined with a human element. Like in the creation of man, the dust of the Earth is animated by God's breath.
The only difference is that human consciousness is involved in creation and the Bible, and only God's consciousness is involved in Christ. That's why Christ is the best answer for what the Word of God is. Because though he took on flesh and the corporeal plane with a mere 3 dimensions of space and half a dimension of time, though he emptied himself of power, his essence was and is still God. That's the joy of Christ in the incarnation. God chose to be one of us, because He loves us that much. His Word came and entered the world through the Blessed Virgin, and the world was never the same.
Is it possible that I too, in questioning and inventing my own heresies, have stumbled across orthodoxy? Is it possible that in discovering the Word, and how it transcends the Bible yet is present in it, I have found the answer to my struggle? And is it possible that I will still remain the same person because of it?
The answer, I think, is yes.
I don't know if I'm willing to say I affirm inerrancy yet, or in what way. I still am disturbed by the term "Word of God," because I hate Bibliolatry with a passion. I can't give anyone certainty of what I believe. Though I think I'd say the Bible is inerrant insomuch as it communicates who God is, and I think I'd call it the Word of God because of that, I'm still not sure, and it's still a struggle.
The only thing I know is that there's more.