Autistic Spirituality

 How does my autism affect my spirituality and religiosity?

1. The clear boundaries of the Catholic (and now Orthodox) liturgical service help orient me in a time and place reserved for a sense of worship.  

2. However, my sense of justice does not let me rest knowing that there are things the church I "belong" to teaches that are contrary to what I consider right and just.  (women in leadership, LGBTQ, pro-life)

3. Also, my sense of integrity keeps nagging at me when I try to participate in a church with which I know I do not fully agree even on matters of basic theology.

What is the solution?  Where focus goes, energy flows.  I can keep focusing on how I can't find what I'm looking for, because I keep hoping I can find all I'm looking for in a single place of worship.  Or I can focus on the needs that ARE being met in various avenues.

1. Saturday Vespers at Holy Cross Orthodox church (and for the time being, the Intro to Orthodoxy class and reading the book).  Whatever is beautiful is of God, and this liturgical service is beautiful.  It's colorful murals and vestments, candle-lit, acapella chanting, incense, bells, standing for attention, bowing and crossing self for an embodied sense of participation, feeling comfortable wearing a prayer shawl.

2. Joining a Meditation Sangha to establish a daily ritual of meditation, of going inward to really get in touch with that of God that my soul is a part of, realizing the true nature of who "I" am, and therefore being able to prioritize what matters and visualize what is important to me.

3. Tai Chi - daily practice and monthly class at Full Circle with Shifu Mike.

4. Daily meditation incorporated with Yoga poses.

5. Daily reading of Scripture and Tao Te Ching, journaling

6. Quarterly Overnight Retreats

7. Church with the family where Oscar wants to go.

The Good News is that God is Good All the Time (And to Everyone!)

What is the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  I have asked this of my Christian friends over and over throughout the years, and their answers have never satisfied me.

First, it seems I have to buy into the idea of some version of total depravity, or even a less extreme world-view that is marred by an acceptance of "original sin".  Once I "realize" that I am just a worthless wretch deserving of hell, THEN here comes the supposed Good News - there's a way out!  Just put your faith in Jesus, and now you no longer have to dwell in your sinfulness.

Except that I have never accepted that I am anything less than a child of God, fearfully and wonderfully made in God's image.  Do I sin?  Yes.  Do I feel guilty when I do sin?  Yes.  Do I dwell on it?  Not really.  Because when I have "tried to be more religious", I have ended up scrupulous about every little thing and focuses all my attention on how I am failing as a human being, leaving myself no room to actually envision a future where I am serving God.  To serve God, one must first see oneself as worthy of such a high calling! 

But let's say that I acquiesce and "admit" to being nothing but a sinner in need of God's mercy and forgiveness (which I do need, of course, but that is not "all" that I am).  The next hurdle of the supposed Gospel was that in spite of being a sinful nobody, not worthy of eternal happiness in the presence of my Maker, God has agreed to accept Jesus's innocent suffering on the cross in place for what would've "rightfully" been my consequence for my sins.  Do I really want to spend eternity with a God who would even entertain the idea of a scapegoat?  Where is the justice in that?  I thought God was just?  Where is the love in that?  I thought God is love?

Even framing the idea of salvation as retaliatory (I know there's a better phrase for this but it escapes me; the idea that we can only be saved if God's wrath is appeased.) from the perspective of the "willingness" of Jesus to "offer" Himself on our behalf, rather than for the Father to "demand" that He do so... is still not the image of an unconditionally loving Creator-God.

Finally, even if I could get past these first two hurdles, the last remains: I cannot possibly bask in the knowledge of being "saved" by a "loving God" if other people are not.  I believe in universal salvation.  I believe God does not create people with whom God does not intend to spend eternity.

Ok, so I've covered what I do not think the good news is.  So what is it?  Universal salvation - that sounds like good news.  But salvation from what?

Comparisons and judgment and guilt. Religion and the bondage of the uphill battle of trying to merit paradise.  When  Eve and Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin was born.  The Tao Te Ching says that when morality enters the picture, people start sinning, though that's not the terminology they use.

At any rate, God is good.  All the time!

The Irony of Inquiring into Christian Orthodoxy

After my first Intro to Orthodoxy class, I realized I wasn't going to be converting to Orthodoxy even though I am still very attracted to it for various reasons.  I still plan to worship there for Vespers whenever I can, and thankfully this community (and this faith in general) is open to my presence there without necessarily a conversion in the works.  

I saw that there was an expectation to commit to only Orthodoxy as my one "religion", which made me realize two things: 1) I am a religion connoisseur, so I do not see myself promising to never set foot in another place of worship other than an Orthodox church.  Also, 2) I realized that Orthodoxy was all about a particular approach to Jesus Christ, and that I hadn't come to a relationship with Jesus, but rather was trying to get into the Kingdom of God by a back door (a religion), as it were, riding in on the coattails of the religion as a whole.

Ironically, I started out that realization by asking myself, am I trying to be a Christian?  What does that even mean?  Is there one right way to follow Jesus?  If so, is Orthodoxy the best way to do so?  What I came up with was that, given the alternatives, yes - I am trying to be a Christian.  I want to follow the teachings and example of Jesus.  That's when I realized that since almost every denomination teaches that it has the correct interpretation of how to do so, none of them can actually be relied upon more so than the Scriptures themselves.   

When I started reading the Acts of the Apostles, I first noticed that the idea of a pope as Christ's representative was concocted after the fact to force Matthew 16:18 to mean that Jesus made Peter "the first pope".  In fact, Jesus is saying that He will build His church on Peter's confession in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God.  Faith in Jesus is the "rock" of His church.  Jesus refers to Himself as "the rock" upon which we are to build our lives.  There is no vicar on Earth that takes Jesus's place.  So that was the first thing I noticed, that the papacy is not original to the early Christian church.

The next thing I noticed to confirm this but also refute the polar opposite of papal Chritianity is the presence of bishops that worked together in spreading the faith, selecting others to the ministry, and teaching the Gospel.  They did indeed work together, much like Orthodox Patriarchs are supposed to today.

But then I had to face the elephant in the room, which was the acceptance or marginalization of people who identify with the LGBTQ community.  Orthodoxy, along with Catholicism and several of the more conservative Protestant denominations, do not condone homosexual relationships.  They claim to support those "struggling with same-sex attraction", but the only reason they struggle is because society makes it a problem for them.  In itself, mutually consensual love is not problematic to grown ups.

As I read the New Testament, especially the first council in Jerusalem (in Acts), I see the early Christian leaders decided not to "burden" Gentile converts to the way of Jesus by imposing on them Jewish rules like circumcision or dietary laws. In Acts 15:10-11, we read, "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”  Did you catch that?  Peter says that they're trying to impose on the Gentile converts something that even they as Jewish observers of the law often fail at.  Plus, he points out that the gospel of Jesus is about faith in Jesus and His message, not works.  Works is part of the Old Covenant, one that did not work on its own.

Anyway, I'll write more in the future about this, but suffice it to say that the above only highlights what I already realized about the fundamental message of Jesus, which was always about inclusion of people who were looked down on by society.  Yes, some of them were sinners, but most were just struggling to survive and do the best they could with what they were given.  And while indeed Jesus told people to repent of their sinful ways and then follow Him, it was His followers who started to read into what He meant by sinfulness and started applying it with excessive fervor to sexuality.  

Indeed, I agree that there is no place for promiscuity or even premarital sex for a follower of Jesus.  But romantic relationships between consensual adults? To tell someone they MUST be celibate when in fact they have found someone they can spend their life with?  Are we seriously to believe that God is "calling" ALL homosexual people to the same level of asceticism as monks, nuns, hermits, Catholic priests, etc?  This seems highly unlikely and unnecessary.  Besides, being called to religious life is one thing - being denied romance with a willing partner because it makes others uncomfortable?  No one ever talks about the people who perhaps ARE being called to religious life but refuse to follow that calling.  They get married and raise children instead of living a celibate life.  But because they are not gay, no one blinks an eye.  Are we seriously arrogant enough to believe that we know what God is calling every single gay person to?  Come on!

Anyway, long story short - I came to believe that the gospel of Jesus MUST by definition extend to everyone on the periphery of society, and that in order to be a living tradition, it must take into account the society of our own day.  We do not scoff so much at lepers as we did 2,000 years ago, but we do scoff at lesbians or gay men wanting to be left alone to spend their lives with someone they love.  Jesus taught us not to scoff but to accept and to love.  Now, if they are being promiscuous and immodest, as is sadly often the case in Pride parade events, then yes, those behaviors ought to be condemned as un-Christian.  But those are no more representative of everyday homosexuals as are prostitutes and johns representative of heterosexuals.

If Jesus taught inclusion, then neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy teaches what Jesus taught.  They become more self-referential than instrumental in leading people to Christ.  For this reason, I realized I could not commit to Orthodoxy if I wanted to commit to Christ.

And so, I am tethering myself to Christ, and building my relationship with Him as the center of my spirituality, using religiosity here and there to supplement but not to inform my faith.

Spoiler alert - as it stands, I'm looking into the Episcopal church now as a faith community to call home - but not a religion to convert to (since there is no need to "convert" to TEC as a Catholic Christian).

The 5 Pillars of My Faith

1. Omnist - I believe that there is truth to be found in all world religions.  No single religion has it all figured out, but there is goodness, and beauty, and truth to be found to some degree in each one.  God did not create religion; it's a human invention.  God does not care which religion we belong to, as long as we live up to God's expectations of us.  And if a given religion helps us become a better version of ourselves, then so be it.  Different religions are a good fit for different people.  It's all good.

2. Panentheist - I believe that God is not separate from God's creation.  Rather, God is within all that God has created, in addition to transcending it all.  The Bible talks about the in-dwelling spirit of God, how there is no where we can go to escape God, et cetera. This becomes relevant in point # 3.

3a. Trinitarian - strict monotheism does not jive with panentheism.  Rather, it's like Deism in that God is separate from creation, which is not Biblical, nor my experience.  God is everywhere, the Bible even says that there is no where one can go to escape the presence of God.  Therefore, God cannot be just like a person, only without a material body and much more powerful.  God cannot be made in our image.  God is not just someONE, but also someTHING that is beyond our comprehension.  The Trinity speaks to this.  God is the Source or all-potential, God is the Logos or active force through which all things are made, and God is Spirit - that which animates and inspires creation.  The Logos manifested in the incarnation of Jesus, in order to sanctify both creation and humanity in particular.  God touches us directly, to show us that God is deeply involved with Creation, and not merely running the show from afar.  

3b. Western Trinitarian - the filioque that is present in Western Christianity is a positive development of theology.  The potential and kinetic energies of God (Father & Son) interact to create/love, and the result is an emanating Spirit through which each of us can reach God.  It is the Spirit that dwells within us.  It is the Logos/Jesus who models a good life for us.  It is the Father who makes us.  All three are the same One God.  God is not "a person".  I personally don't think God is "three persons" any more than I think God is "one person".  I think the word "person" is misguided.  But I digress.  

4. Universalist - salvation, whatever that means exactly,  is inevitable for all but the most ardently spiteful human beings.  I have to reserve a small spot for those who would insist on choosing their free will over the presence of God even at the moment of death, even when face to face with their Maker.  I know God would not force them into an eternity they do not want.  Yet I also believe (again) there is no place where God is not, so those who choose to stay "distant" from God after death are in a psychological hell, if you will, completely in their own minds.  Everyone will be in the presence of God just like we all are now and always.  Salvation speaks to how we experience God's presence, and I do not think it begins only after death.  The Evangelical threats of hellfire and brimstone are nonsense and fear tactics are not of God.  No one should turn to God or follow Jesus because they got scared into it by the thread of eternal damnation.  That's not at all "salvation", that's avoidance at best. Salvation is about being saved from the pitfalls of false thinking and the resultant negative actions and behaviors and emotions.  Salvation absolutely can and should begin before death!  I think if we don't come to Christ before death, we just don't have the benefit of already living in God's presence to the same degree as we could've.  We do not get punished for it, nor is there a "natural consequence" extending into eternity.  We come to Christ after death.  Life and death are just phases of eternity.  God is on both sides.

5. Follower of Jesus - I want to follow Jesus's example and teachings.  I want to understand the motivation behind His teaching.  I want to study the Gospels to glean insights that I can apply in my own life.  I want to praise God with others who follow Jesus.  I want to keep Jesus, and not a religion or certain church affiliation, at the center of my spiritual life. I need to study the Bible, pray, listen to Christian music, attend worship services that make me feel the presence of God (Orthodox Vespers, Catholic Lent/Holy Week), and fellowship with other believers at a reverent but more modern denomination where the liturgy is still there, but the old fashioned limitations on people's personal lives are not.  Where care for creation is a value.  Where both poor and otherwise marginalized people are ministered to, including LGBTQ people. Where women are on an equal footing with men when it comes to positions of leadership and decision making in the public sphere.  I want to be a Follower of Jesus in the Episcopal church!

Why not these religions?

 Why I'm not settling on the following faith traditions:

1. Judaism (Reform)

a.  very cliquey, ethno-focused, and I don't believe God chose the Jews above other people. 

b.  politically lean very liberal in the Reform group that I would have taken into consideration.

c.  fixation with male foreskin. 

d.  I cannot reconcile the apparent discrepancy between atheists still being considered Jews, while Jews who accept Christ no longer being considered Jews.  It's either a faith or a nation or both, but this seems to pick and choose based on some ulterior motive.  It's a nation for atheists, but it's a faith for followers of Christ.  I don't do hypocrisy, and this is exactly what it sounds like to me.  Going back to (a), it seems that Judaism is much more about maintaining group identity than about worshipping or following God.

e. dietary restrictions seem arbitrary (based on OT/HB say-so, not health or animal welfare)

f. requires complete commitment to only this spiritual path.

g. The idea of "strict monotheism" basically means that God is a person outside of Creation.  It actually sounds very simplistic and indeed, as if humanity created God in our own image - a person like us, only more powerful and without a corporal body.  I think this is an oversimplification of what and who God really is.

2. Islam

a.  dietary restrictions seem extreme and arbitrary (see (e) above), plus no alcohol ever, plus very extreme fasting regime.

b. prayer times are very imposing and designed to keep God "in your face" and not in a lovingkindness kind of way.

c. fixation with male foreskin.

d. weird beliefs about Jesus that seem to have developed as a reaction to Christianity and not at all as part of some revelation from God.

e. the creation/writing of the Qu'ran does not sound inspired to me.

f. no LGBTQ inclusion

g. requires complete commitment to only this spiritual path.

h. The idea of "strict monotheism" basically means that God is a person outside of Creation.  It actually sounds very simplistic and indeed, as if humanity created God in our own image - a person like us, only more powerful and without a corporal body.  I think this is an oversimplification of what and who God really is.

3. Buddhism

a. no belief in God.

b. the belief that life is suffering and that our goal should be to prevent future incarnations.

c. lack of gathering in my area.

d. definitely good points but incomplete for my needs.

4. Taoism

a. no belief in personified God.

b. no clear moral boundaries.

c. lack of gathering in my area.

d. definitely good points but incomplete for my needs.

5. Deism

a. lack of gathering in my area.

b. God seems distant and uninterested in us.

c. no worship of God.

d. definitely good points but incomplete for my needs.

6. Hindusim

a. way too many avatars for me to keep track of.

7. Catholicism

a. I don't believe in the supremacy or infallibility of the pope.

b. I don't believe in the more recent additions to Marian dogmas (immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption, coronation, near co-redemptrix status)

c. I don't agree with the restrictions on birth control, divorce, IVF.

d. too much focus on a guilty conscience.  Encouraged to constantly look for things I'm doing wrong to take to confession.  I could always be doing better.  Never focus on how far I've come or what I'm doing well that I can continue doing.

e. the reverence of the Mass has been replaced but the strict approach to sexuality has not.

f. no female or married priests.

g. no LGBTQ inclusion, something I believe Jesus would not approve (their exclusion)

h. even though "Real Presence of Jesus" is taught, it is confusing to have two tabernacles in one building, or when "Jesus" is being distributed both at the front and back of the church.  Genuflecting or prostrating towards "God" in multiple places misses the point of embracing God's all-encompassing presence throughout.  (This was much better felt in an Orthodox church with lots of oil lamps alerting to the Real Presence, which appears during Communion to be consumed, not to be stared at and adored.)

8. Eastern Orthodoxy

a. no female priests.

b. no LGBTQ inclusion, something I believe Jesus would not approve (their exclusion)

c. requirement to stay away from other places of worship.  For an omnist universalist, this was a deal-breaker.

d. their communion is actually not very hygienic, I do not like the idea of using a shared spoon, or being spoon-fed in the first place - Jesus did not use a spoon at the Last Supper.

9. Quakers

a. no beauty in their simple, empty meeting-houses.

b. no music.

c. basically, a gathering for group meditation with occasional sharing.

d. very liberal leaning politically

10. Unitarian Universalists

a. no sense of actually worshipping God, more like a lecture or gathering

b.  too liberal leaning politically

11. Paganism

a. not monotheistic, not believable

b. too much focus on self and not enough focus on God

c. The Deity is not seen as the object of worship but more like a buddy to hit up for special powers.

d. no clear moral guildelines

12. LDS/Mormon

a. I don't believe that John Smith discovered any special tablets.

b. tithing is a bit too big of a focus.

c. going door to door is not going to happen for me.

d. weird, sexist view of future life on a planet owned by men, not much room for women or POCs to experience Theosis

13. Jehova's Witnesses

a. going door to door

b. blood restrictions in medical care taken out of context

c. the practice of shunning

***

What about The Episcopal Church?

a. high church has potential of beautiful liturgy

b. communion may be kneeling at railing! might even use real bread!

c. female/married priests

d. LGBTQ inclusion

e. moderate politically (liberal leaning, but still over 40% of Episcopalians are conservative and 10% independent)

f.  based on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason

g. seems to have the best of both worlds if I can find a high church liturgy place - familiar Catholic worship style but without the tethering to the Vatican. I thought the only truly liturgical churches were Catholic and Orthodox, but no! They're not the only ones that consider the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist either, but at this point this is a moot point for me, as I think it is better for God's presence to be felt throughout a space, and not isolated in one physical object or location (monstrance, tabernacle, host/chalice).

h. Trinitarian God is not merely a SuperHuman with no corporeal body and more power than the rest of us.  Trinitarian God is THE Christian Koan.  It points to the unspeakability about God.  It "defines" God as essentially mystery.  It reminds us that God is not meant to be "understood" because God is beyond human understanding.  God is several "things" at once: Source/potential energy/Creator-Father; and also God is contained within God's own creation (panentheism), every molecule contains God's presence.  The Bible itself speaks about how there is no where that God is not.  As such, God is found within material matter.  So, God is also the manifestation of the potential energy in kinetic energy, including material creation, and has manifest most poignantly in the historical person of Jesus.  Christ is not just Jesus, though.  Christ is the Logos, the kinetic energy that has always been in movement from all time, together with potential energy/Father/Source.  And the interaction of the two - potential and kinetic energy, gives off a third way of being for God/Holy Spirit, and that's spirituality.  Some call it love.  Love is the desire of good things for another.  God desires good things for all of God's creation.  That's why God creates.  God did not "create" in the past; God continues to create.  And so, the Holy Spirit continues to work through us, through God's existent creation, to bring about more creation.  That's the three-way dance between the so-called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Said another way, potential and kinetic energy together manifest in Spirit.  

Not only does this help me "grasp" (as far as that is even the goal) that Trinity is actually the better description of who and what God is than so-called "strict monotheism", but it further touches on the filioque clause of the Nicene creed over which the Eastern Orthodox Christians remain separated from Western Christianity.  They claim that both the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father only.  But then, what is the interaction of the Son and the Holy Spirit with each other then?  That set up actually seems closer to polytheism in that the Father is the autotheos God, while the Son and the Spirit are subservient to the Father and depend on the Father for their existence.  Rather, the Spirit is not "left out" by being said to proceed from both the Father and the Son.  Instead, the Spirit is that which exists directly as a result of the interaction between the Father and the Son, both eternal, and hence, the Spirit likewise being eternal.  The potential and the kinetic together give us spirituality/spirit.  Spirit is what animates us.  Spirit is what inspires us.  Spirit is what motivates us.  Spirit is what comforts us.  Jesus said He would send us "the Comforter" even!  

Already in Genesis, God speaks about Godself in the plural, and it is not the so-called "royal we", because then God would always speak about Godself in the plural, but God does not do this.  God says, "Let US make man in OUR image."  It takes potential energy, but it also takes kinetic energy, and what emanates from the interplay of the two is the spirit world - all that which animates the material world. Later, speaking to Moses, God says "I AM".  God doesn't say "[royal] WE ARE".  God goes back and forth between singular and plural precisely because God cannot be contained by human language nor reason.  God is a Koan!

And so, I had to turn to the East to grasp the concept and need of a koan.

I had to feel the pull to Judaism and Islam and repeatedly feel it let me down to realize that God cannot be made in our image as a mere singularity, personality, just like us only without a body and more powerful.  This is not God.

I had to be forced back to Christianity over and over again to wrestle with the idea of the Trinity and WHY Trinity is supposed to equate to monotheism.  Trinity is not three gods.  Trinity is, at best, three manifestations or aspects of God.  I do not thing personifying each as a person is doing the concept any justice, really.  I think there is One Person underneath the "roles" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  We can address God as Father, or as Lord Jesus, or as Holy Spirit, but we are always addressing the same One God.  Calling the three "persons" is what makes it sound like polytheism to Jews and Muslims.  I would rather say that God is a Spirit, God is the potential Source of all, and God is also manifest in humanity, most perfectly and succinctly visible in the PERSON of Jesus.  Imagine looking through a clear pyramid.  One face of it is the face of Jesus.  But even as you look towards the center of the pyramid from the other two sides, you nonetheless "see" the face of Jesus and can therefore tap into the "personhood" of God when speaking to the Source as Father, or the Spirit.  Of course a pyramid has four triangular sides. I believe one side is our Universe, and as we look up, we can turn to either of the so-called "persons" or avatars of the One Person of God - "Father/Source/Potential", "Son Jesus/Logos-Christ/Kinetic", and "Holy Spirit/Manifestation of the Interaction between the Other Two/Love".  And if we look straight up, we see where the three come to a point - that singularity is "God", but so is each of the triangular sides, and really, by extension, the square surface from which we are looking as well.  This is why I believe God is Panentheistic.  It cannot be any other way.  God is in all.  God cannot be separated from God's own creation.  We are living "in Christ", or "in God".  The Bible speaks about this over and over.  

Being forced to think through Trinity also forced me to deal with the Filioque clause in the creed, and I actually agree with the Western inclusion of it!

That said, I also have to make one final decision regarding the arguments of the ancient churches that sola scriptura cannot be the basis of our faith because we wouldn't have the Scriptures if it weren't for the Oral Tradition of the early church.  This is true.  But that doesn't mean that the early oral tradition is the same thing that has continued through the generations with ongoing interpretations being housed in one specific organization (Catholic or Orthodox).  Rather, what I think it points to is that just like we had to look to oral traditions of the day to decide on the codex of the New Testament, so too we have to continue to do so today.  We look to both, the written words now that we have them, the Oral Traditions that have come down to us from early Church Fathers, various Saints, Theologians, and Christian Philosophers, and even modern day Prophets - because the point is that God still speaks to God's people!  And that means that "oral Tradition" cannot be limited to a select few academics.  God speaks to the humble among us.  God gives us all reasoning faculties.  So yes, we reference the words on the page, and yes, we consult with the interpretations of those words by others who have been well versed in them, but then we also must maintain a personal relationship with God, directly between us and God.  And so, we take into consideration what the Bible says, we take into consideration what Tradition says, and then we bring it all to prayer and meditation, especially meditation, and allow God to directly inform our conscience.  Because every situation is unique.  God speaks directly to each of our conditions.

Scripture, Tradition, and Reason - the three legged stool of the Episcopal Church.  The best of both worlds - sola scriptura of the Protestants which always brings the already agreed upon Scriptures to mind, and Tradition of the early Church Fathers who helped iron out the details of what following Jesus really meant.  After all, initially the Way of Jesus was a movement within Judaism.  But as the whole of Judaism did not embrace the interpretations of Jesus, those who did were forced to part ways.  And thank God they did, because Christianity became a world religion thanks to the missionary spirit of the message.  Other ancient religions before that were satisfied with everyone having their own little pet gods, ethnic religions, and nothing available to unite across the divides.  Of course, unfortunately, many missionaries turned their zeal into power-hunger and forced conversions by violence or intimidation.  Certainly not how it should've happened.  But 

Orthodoxy, here I come :)

In recent weeks, I have returned to the research of Christian Orthodoxy.  My rigid thinking has constantly stood in my way of pursuing what I feel God is calling me towards.  Finally, I realized that the goal, much like the title of this blog, is not perfection but holiness, and that I believe Orthodoxy can help me on that precise journey. 

I once told a therapist that I could not imagine finding the will to live if I did not believe in God.  I often wondered about the details of God's nature or will for me, but the idea of God's nonexistence was pretty nonsensical to me.  I finally distinguished between God and religion, spirituality and religion, and started down the path of finding the best place to be in the presence of God.  Previously on my spiritual journey, when I equated religion with God, I thought I was looking for "the perfect religion".  Inevitably, once I got a little into the research, I would find things I saw as imperfections and abandoned my pursuit.  I always defaulted back to the faith tradition of my upbringing, figuring that it was better than nothing.

But now, since I already know religions are human attempts to respond to God, and therefore are bound to have imperfections in their approach or interpretation, I'm looking for something else.  I'm looking for a place to belong where I can experience God's presence, where I can be challenged to grow in virtue and become a better version of myself, and where I can experience the embodied worship that I so crave.

In the past, I found myself agreeing theologically with Quakers and Unitarian Universalists, but considering how they have no creed or dogma and are quite liberal in their theology, pretty much anyone could find themselves agreeing with them.  What I found lacking in both was worship, and worship in the sense that I understand it - embodied.  I do not just believe in God.  That would make me a Deist, and I already tried that and found it wanting.  I want to worship God. I believe that God deserves it, and that acts of worship help me position myself in a proper relationship with God, my Maker.  Worship allows me to rest in the knowledge that there is Someone bigger than me who is in charge, and the weight of the world is not on my shoulders.

Long story short, I seem to have found that proper worship I so crave in the Orthodox church.  Now, it's a matter of learning all I can about the different types of Orthodoxy, visiting the different Orthodox churches in my area, and finding a place where both my children, my husband, and I all feel God's presence.  I want this to be a family adventure.  I need to get my children into a church that they adore as much as I do, because my almost 8 year old daughter is already tepid in her faith, after finally having received her First Reconciliation and First Communion sacraments earlier this year!  

Right now, my almost 5 year old son is enrolled in a very nice Sunday school at our current Catholic church, based on Motessori methods.  Since it's a great chance for him to be around other children and work with Montessori works (because we homeschool, and so have to be intentional in the activities the kids participate in), we are committed to attending church at the time and place of his Sunday school.

But on the days where he doesn't have Sunday school, we are free to go where we feel led, and right now that is the Greek Orthodox church we have visited a few weeks ago.  I've also gone to Vespers one Saturday at an American Orthodox church.  I'm only getting my feet wet and the idea of joining the Antioch Orthodox church thrills me - Antioch is the place where the Apostles of Jesus were first called Christians!  Talk about returning to the roots of the faith!

The bottom line is that I am choosing to express my faith in God according to a certain organized religion.  It is not a comment on that religion's "factual truth" over all others.  That is not up to me.  Staying so wrapped up in my head is what got me away from God in the first place.  Rather, I am choosing the religion/church/interpretation/application that resonates with ME, where I believe God is calling ME, and that is the Orthodox Church.

I feel as though leaving Catholicism behind this time will be a slow transition, but one made not in anger but rather with a sense of accomplishment.  Catholicism has offered me everything it could, and I am grateful for it.  I am grateful for Catholicism having instilled in me a love of liturgy, a desire for reverence, the idea of a domestic church.... but I am happy to let go of those aspects of Catholicism that I was no longer convinced about, and replace them with ideas and traditions more ancient than those in my local catholic church, but which feel more fresh and exciting to me as a newcomer.  In a sense, it's like I'm returning home after a long journey.  The labels have changed.  A few other details, too.  But all in all, I have found "the house of God" yet again.

What about Monotheistic Taoists?

I'm not the kind of Catholic you want me to be.  I'm Catholic by virtue of the location of my birth, the religion of my family, and the reception of the Sacraments when I was a child.  I cannot opt out of being Catholic, according to the Catholic church, yet fellow Catholics who pride (sic) themselves on being pious, by the book Catholics, argue that I'm not a real Catholic if I don't fully believe in everything the Catholic church teaches.  Well, which is it?  Am I in or am I out?  Because this one foot in and one foot out business is not working for me.  Either let me sever my ties, or leave my conscience between God and me.  But do not forever tell me that I have to be Catholic because I already am, and at the same time, that I'm not a good enough Catholic because I don't actually ascribe to everything that comes with that label.  I am a cradle Catholic, not a convert, which means that I am Catholic by default.  I did not seek out Catholicism, and so there is no reason why I should be held to the standards of Catholics by choice.  Interestingly, this is why I recently realized I couldn't convert to Christian Orthodoxy.  Because if I convert, I knowingly take on the faith as a whole, even if I may not fully understand it, but I at least desire to make the faith my own of my own free will.  Anything less than that would be dishonest, and that goes against my personal ethic, which does not depend on a religion telling me what is integrity, since that has been written directly on my heart, directly by God.

So in a way, I'm the kind of Catholic that has the best of both worlds.  I can claim Catholicism as my identity without feeling pressured or shamed into accepting everything taught by the Vatican, precisely because I did not ask to be Catholic, and there isn't a way for me to withdraw my membership.  Sort of like being a secular Jew.  Except Jews as a whole don't tend to bully each other about their personal beliefs.  First, because they acknowledge this idea that being Jewish is about more than just a religion.  Second, because their religion is about more doing and less believing.  It's about peoplehood and community.  And apparently, this very reason is why I ended up not converting to Judaism when I began to think about it.  To do so would imply that I am joining a group that sets itself apart from the rest.  Jews vs Gentiles.  I would continue to be an ethnic gentile, but a religious Jew.  Essentially, I would not be fully either any more.

Interestingly, Muslims believe everyone is born a Muslim, so any converts are more like reverts.  But this is in theory.  In practice, Islam is so interwoven with culture (as most religions are), that unless one grows up with it, marries into it, or otherwise is able to move into an immersion experience of it, one will feel like "being Muslim" is something one "does" rather than "is".  Well, I can only speak for myself, really.  This is how I would feel.  

The Bahai seem to be on to something by leaning towards omnism, but they nonetheless have a prophet and do not accept same sex relationships on an equal footing with heterosexual couples.  I've often run into this sort of dilemma.  Many religions seem to "progress" in the very areas I would leave well enough alone, while holding fast to tradition precisely where I think progress is needed.  The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic church is an example.  The beauty and mystery of the Mass was done away with, while the priesthood remains closed to women, and marriage remains off the table for same sex couples.  I'd much rather see a woman at the altar and families with two moms or two dads, but with all the pomp and circumstance of the ancient aesthetics that the Eastern Orthodox church has retained.

Then again, there have been modern off-shoots of both Catholic and Orthodox churches where they do just this - keep the external rituals but open up ministry to everyone.  And my upbringing doesn't allow me to feel fully comfortable in that setting.  I know it's illogical.  I'm not even comfortable with a woman priest, much less openly nonbinary ministers.  

Like I said, no matter who you are, I am no the kind of Catholic you want me to be.  I don't even know if I'd want to shed that identity if I could.  I feel like I'd need to replace it with something else.  I've tried on "Jesus follower" in the past, but I think that was more hype.  I don't have a personal relationship with Jesus, and the stock "apologetics" I hear from supposedly well-meaning evangelicals wanting to "save my soul" are nothing if not off-putting.

You know what my ideal worship space would look like?  A group of Tao cultivators who openly personify the Tao with "God" and direct some of their energy to this God.  No moralizing, no creeds or dogmas, but also no denial of God's existence, no avoidance of expressing gratitude to Our Maker.  Perhaps these Tao cultivators could travel as a group to different places of worship to experience spirituality with others, and gather afterwards to discuss their experiences from the point of view of Taoism?

Narrowing Down Beliefs Isn't Going to Help

 In seeking "the perfect religion" for myself, it was recently suggested I start by figuring out what I believe.  I already know this isn't the issue, but if I were to follow this rabbit trail....

Do I believe in God?  What kind of god?

Yes, I believe in a personified, transcendent, panentheistic Creator-God, the Source of that Exists, That Which Sustains the Universe and Life in It.  No other details can really be known.  I don't like the idea of the Trinity, as it is a Western Koan to try to show the unexplainability of God precisely by trying to explain God.  In that regard, I guess I am a Unitarian.

Do I believe that God reveals Godself to humanity?  If so, how?  

Hm. I believe in universal revelation in nature, and I believe in personal revelation directly to an individual's heart and mind.  I don't know about prophets in the traditional religious sense of the word.  I believe that those things that God wants everyone to know, God reveals to everyone through nature, which is assessible to everyone equally.  I also believe that God may have different missions for different people, and therefore reveal Godself differently to different people.  Perhaps the problem is with some of those people taking it upon themselves to act as prophets and try to convince others of the revelations that were given to them personally?  I don't think any personal revelation will be contradicted through universal revelation.  

In this regard, I'm not really a Deist, because I do believe God communicates with us and is involved in our lives, not just through nature. But I'm not a Trinitarian Christian, Muslim, or Jew either.  Each of them believes in representative revelation, where God supposedly speaks directly to select prophets who are then tasked with passing on the message to others. 

What do I believe about the nature of God?  

Other than what I mentioned under the first question, in that God is a mystery and cannot be explained nor defined but only experienced, I also believe that God is love (all-good) and omniscient (all-knowing).  I do not, however, believe that God is "all-powerful", as this would create a logical impossibility with the other two factors and the fact that there is undeserved suffering in the world.  I do not need God to be "all" powerful.  If God is powerful enough to create the universe, set it in motion with natural laws and principles, and sustain life, that is plenty powerful for me.  That is sufficient power for me to believe that such a God is worthy of worship.

Does God expect to be worshipped?  How?

This is I think where we start to unravel, because I do not think that God "expects" it, but I personally desire to worship God.  But I need to back up a minute and define what I mean by "worship". 

To worship God is to remind myself of my relationship to God; in other words, to humble myself before God.  It is to recognize that God is God and I am not God.  It is to express gratitude for my life and all the many blessings God has given me.  It is to express remorse for disregarding Who God ought to be in my life (priority), and for failing to strive to be the best version of myself that I can reasonably be at any given point in time.  Worship is to praise God, which in turn helps me feel safe and secure in a world governed by a powerful, loving, wise God.  I worship because of how it makes me feel, and what it reminds me of, not because I think God will get angry if I don't worship God.  Worship is for my own benefit.  For this reason, I do not believe God "punishes" people who do not worship God "in the right way" because there is no one right way, nor is there even an expectation to worship.  People suffer the natural consequences of not worshipping God by lacking direction in their lives, or by failing to improve themselves, or by harboring resentments against others.  We create our own little hells, in that regard.  We have no one to blame but ourselves.  Worshipping God, or not, does not change the fact that God's arms are always open to welcome us.  We either come to God in our lifetime and soften the harshness of earthly reality for ourselves, or we suffer through to the end, and finally come to God after death.  Better late than never, but why wait if you can experience God's presence sooner?

Religion for me is not about God, ultimately.  I am happy with my understanding of God without the input of religions or other people's experiences of God because I have my own experiences of God.  Religion for me is about belonging.  I don't have a place where I fully belong, and I assumed a place that gathers to worship God ought to feel like a place of belonging.  Only it doesn't.

Awe, Pure Joy, Gratitude, Beautiful Aesthetics, Character Formation, (and Service)

When it comes right down to it, these 5/6 elements are what draws me (again and again) to religion.  To all kinds of different religions.  Because I can see some - or all - of these elements in many different religions.  "Objective Truth" is not a marker for me, as I do not believe that it can be defined, much less described within the limitations of human language.  I think it can be experienced to a degree, but that experience lives outside the confines of organized religion.

And so, with these 5/6 elements in mind, I embark on a renewed spiritual journey - not towards some outward goal located in a conversion to another religion, but in an inward stillness that, after surrounding myself with the various elements, I can truly experience the freedom that Jesus taught and that others since him have called "salvation".

Nature - awe, gratitude, beautiful aesthetics, pure joy, and to a degree, character formation.

Ancient liturgy - beautiful aesthetics, pure joy, gratitude, character formation.

Music - awe, pure joy, beautiful aesthetics, gratitude.

Spiritual reading - character formation, gratitude, pure joy, and possibly beautiful aesthetic (especially in poetry)

Movement (yoga, tai chi) - gratitude, beautiful aesthetics, character formation

I originally started with five elements of religion, and went back to add service after looking over the above experiences.  Though I can find at least several of the elements that draw me to "religion" in the above examples, I am saddened and ashamed to notice that there isn't anything about service to others.  It's all about me and my personal experience, how it makes me feel.  Even when character formation is an element, it's a matter of piety or virtue signalling, making myself feel good about how "good" I am.  Yet when I think about service, something I've long felt a tugging on my heart but have had the hardest time plugging into, I think of human interactions and the difficulties I have in that area. So perhaps that is one area I need to add:

Service - character formation, gratitude.

Or, rather, should service be in the list of religious elements instead?

Litter pick-up - service, gratitude, character formation.  

Look at that, I found an example of a service project that does not involve human interaction.  I need to both focus on it, and look for similar ones.

External Validation, Religion/Spirituality, and... homeschooling?

 Is beauty enough?  Does all beauty necessarily contain goodness and truth?  Does all truth across as beautiful and good?  Is all goodness true and beautiful?  Or is God found at the intersection of all three?

The Orthodox liturgy, as well as the Catholic liturgy *as I remember it* (from Poland, where there hadn't been as many post-Vatican 2 changes implemented), and the Eastern Rite Catholic liturgies all feel about the same to me from an aesthetic point of view: beautiful and inspiring.  Since I do not fixate any longer on isolating the literal truth of any one given dogmatic teaching, that argument is completely besides the point for me on my quest.

In my personal spirituality, I tend to veer towards scrupulosity, and so this is a concern for me.  I feel safety in anchoring my faith on a pre-existing organized religion, where I can have freedom within established boundaries.  Of course, the problem is that my freedom of thought actually crosses these boundaries, but nonetheless I long for them.  It's as if I went to have them to fight against.  

There are churches (denominations/religions) where those boundaries are a lot more flexible, and so you'd think I would be much more comfortable there, but their worship experience simply does not compare to the ancient liturgical style I grew up with and long for.

And so the story of my (spiritual) life is a catch-22.  I simply cannot belong to a religion fully with my heart and mind.  Either one will be lacking or the other.  There isn't a way for me to feel completely whole within the bounds of religion, nor outside of it.

I'm reminded of my time in the Army when my chaplain gave me the Myers Briggs assessment and told me that I was equally happy within the structures of military life as I was unhappy with the lack of flexible freedom.

This should come as no surprise to me.  In other areas of my life, like in homeschooling, after researching the various different philosophies, I am definitely attracted mainly to Charlotte Mason, but I simply cannot commit to being a purist.  So in the end, I am eclectic, which works in the home, but not so much when I'm trying to plug into homeschooling groups.

Perhaps the whole problem is my fixation with external validation.

Spiritual and Religious, but not like you think

Religion need not be a one-stop reality center.  Traditional roles of religion can be replaced by non-religious practices and spaces.  

Morality needs to be an inner conviction.  

Charity needs to be tied to the general community, both local and global, that surrounds us. 

Fellowship can be found in both, religious and non-religious circles.  

Beauty and inspiration and the experience of God’s presence can likewise be found in a sacred space set aside for the purpose, and in nature.  However, there is something to be said about a space specially prepared by humans.  There is a balance to be had between Nature – God’s speaking to us, and Sacred Space - our response to God.  We make an effort to likewise return the favor of beauty and inspiration by creating sacred spaces where we gather with others wanting to commune with God.  

Agreement between the faithful is impossible on all matters, so it’s pointless to use this as a litmus test of where we ought to worship.  

But worship we must.  That is something I feel deeply, the need to worship.  Not just stand outside and take in with awe the beauty of God’s creation, but also to DO something about it. And not just to gather together and talk intellectually about generic faith application.  Worship, to me, means getting lost in the presence of God.  Living the way God intended, in the present moment, with God at the center of the experience.

And when I think of the experience of worship, when I think of how worship should feel, I think of beauty, awe, inspiration, being transported to a timeless space where the mundane falls away and I begin to sense a merging with the people around me, all reaching spiritually for our greater sense of self, all being united in God on a plane invisible to the naked eye.

Truth becomes something that cannot be explained or understood within the confines of language.  Therefore, no doctrine, no theology, no dogma even comes close to the Gospel of the Real Presence of God, which can only be attained through direct experience.  In the end, we cannot come to God, to a relationship with God, vicariously.  

We cannot merely read about it in Scriptures and think we have arrived.  We cannot merely take the word of prophets on their personal experiences of God and think our reading about their experiences is the same thing as us experiencing what they experienced.  We cannot ever use what worked for others and try to force ourselves into it, for the minute we do, we fail to look to God and instead look to mere messengers.  In lieu of observing the moon through the telescope, we gaze longingly at the telescope, thinking we have seen the moon.

When we say we are people of faith, faith in what or whom?  Faith in a religion?  A human organization fraught with imperfections?  Faith in others? If we believe their experiences, why not our own?  Do we believe God has favorites?  I don't! 

When I say I have faith, that I am a person of faith, I mean that I have faith in God.  That God exists, though I cannot tell you what this God is like, other than that God is beyond anything I could come up with in my human imagination.  I can draw comparisons, like God is Ultimate Reality, or God is Truth, or God is Life, or God is Love.  But I like what God is purported to have said about Godself in Exodus 3:14; "I AM that I AM."  In other words, all we need to know about God is that God exists.  That's it.  Who God is, or even WHAT God is, is not at all the point.  We get lost bickering about the details of something none of us will ever fully comprehend within the limits of our minds, yet we insist on using our intellect to try to "prove" a reality that is beyond us in every way.  

The faith that I have is linked with trust as well.  I trust that all I need to know about God IS that God exists.  I trust that God does not try to hide Godself from anyone, myself included.  Therefore, I trust that God is always present to me, and all I need to do is turn my attention to God's presence and I am in communion with God.  I can do so without the aid of others, without the aid of specially "trained" or ordained ministers who claim "authority" that is withheld from others.  I can do so without the sanctions of a special organization (religion), outside the walls of special buildings (church or other "place of worship"), and using my own words or no words at all to arrive "at the gates of heaven".  

My faith tells me that God loves me and guides me and meets me where I am.  My faith tells me that I don't have to have anything figured out in order to enjoy God's presence.  My faith tells me that death, like everything else in life and nature, is a mere transition, and there is no reason to fear what's on the other side, because no matter what, God will still be "there" with me.  My faith tells me that each of us is working on different parts of ourselves at different times, and there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all spirituality.  Judgment is a sure sign of falling away from communion with God, so I am learning not to judge - others or myself.  

But I also recognize that God made us for community with each other.  And perhaps the imperfections of my fellow humans are necessary in a well-balanced spiritual life, to keep me honest and humble, to expand my horizons of spiritual experiences, and to allow me the chance to recognize God's presence in others, so I don't fall into the delusion of thinking that *I* "am" God.  God dwells in me, this is true.  But *I* am merely an incarnation of a small spark of the Divine Spirit.  That one spark (me) is not equal to the whole from which I come and in which I belong.  So long as I am in this human, earthly body, I must maintain a sense of separation between where I end and where God begins, without losing the crucial component of us being intimately connected at all times.  It's a fine line, a nuanced dance, and it is called the art of life.

Therefore, I am both spiritual and religious.  I do not take religion at face value.  I do not "believe" in the teachings of religion as "facts".  Perhaps some of the features of the religion I choose to affiliate with are helpful to others, even if they are not helpful to me.  I cannot judge where others are on their journey.  I can let them be on their journey and stay on my own journey and we can come together in the sacred space and during sacred time of Divine Liturgy, where we gather to worship God and commune in God's presence.

Imagine a God worthy of worship!

 In a Great Course on Philosophy, I encountered the problem of trying to settle the notion that God is all three: omniscient, omnibenevolent, and all-powerful.  If God is all loving, then God does not want us to suffer.  If God is all-knowing, then God knows how to prevent us from suffering.  And if God is all-powerful, than God can prevent us from suffering.  But experience in reality tells us that this is not the case.  Sure, there are a lot of self-imposed sufferings in our lives, for which we cannot in all honesty fault God.  We make bad choices and then suffer the consequences.  But there is also undeserved suffering, forced on us by malevolent individuals or systems or even the "bad luck" of natural disasters.  These, we cannot be held responsible for even a little bit.  So either we have a God worthy of worship who oversees all of this and feels compassion towards us, or we have a distant God who either ignores us or takes some sort of pleasure from watching us "figure it out" on our own.  Or, as many religionists like to say, seeing the compassion of fellow humans coming together for the good of those who have been wronged in some way pleases God.  Yes, but this is GOD, who supposedly should not have to make the victims suffer just so others can prove their worthiness!

After a lot of combinations and thought experiments, I have decided that if I am to worship God in any way, then said God must be all-loving.  Anything less than that is not worthy of worship.  And likewise, God must be all-knowing, for otherwise, God is in no way different from us, only perhaps without the physical limitations of earthly life and a material body.  But I do not see a disconnect in worshipping and loving and serving a God who is more powerful than us mere mortals but nonetheless not "all" powerful to the point of being able to prevent all disasters and suffering and injustice.  In that regard, God does the best God can, by being "with" us in our misery.  Hence, the image of Jesus on the cross as the epitome of compassion - "suffering with".

It irks me to hear Christian traditionalists insist that God absolutely IS all-powerful, and that rather than acknowledging the lack of logic that follows (then God cannot be all-loving, or if God is, then God cannot be all-knowing), they whip out something about God working in "mysterious ways" and reference Isaiah 55:8, where we are told that God's ways are not our ways.  

Ok, but if we are made in God's image, and we experience unjust suffering, then our experience of suffering is not "our way" and therefore a misunderstanding of God's way.  We suffer when things go horribly wrong.  Just like pain in the material body serves a physical purpose of helping to alert us to serious danger, so too should suffering alert us to something having gone terribly awry.  It should "not" be seen as a mere "test of God".  Any god who would test us knowing full well our limitations (remember, God is also all-knowing) is a god that is playing games with us as mere pawns.  In such a scenario, we are no longer children of God but this god's playthings, avatars, puppets with life.

As I think back to some of the more trying experiences of my life, I certainly see an element of how I may have contributed to the experience being a bad one for me.  I also see ways in which God took the lemons of my life and made me some lemonade.  But some experiences cannot be said to fall under this category.  What, pray tell, was the "greater good" of the Holocaust during World War II?  In what ways did the concentration camp victims "grow in character" due to their undeserved suffering?  What about those left behind, having to grapple with the knowledge of the suffering their loves ones went through?  Do you think they appreciate that their loved ones' suffering helped them, the survivors, somehow "be better people"?  Or would such an attitude precisely prove that they are not better people, because what constitutes "good people" first and foremost calls for an unequivocal stance against violence of any kind. And if you disagree with me on the point of violence, then we most likely serve different gods.

Why should I judge My Maker for not being "as powerful" as *I*, a mere mortal, have imagined that God ought to be?  Isn't God nonetheless lightyears more powerful than me anyway?  Isn't God the source of my very being?  What more do I want from God's power?  That is plenty of power for me to respect, reverence, and worship God.

And, not expecting God to be "all-powerful" allows me to rest in God's embrace when things get tough and I cannot find a way out, even through intense prayer.  I do not fault God for not giving me what I asked for.  I do not question God's love or wisdom.  Rather, I rest in knowing that God, too, knows what it is to suffer and be disappointed and feel all alone.  Believing in a compassionate God is what gets people through their suffering.  Insisting that God is all-powerful yet chooses not to rescue us for some mysterious "greater plan" is saying that God is not good-enough as-is.  And by extension, we God's creation are not good enough as we are.  And so we start talking about sin and punishment and forgiveness and merit as if we could ever even begin to approach perfection.  Matthew 5:48 does us no favors when it says, "be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect."  What is perfection?  Lack of blemish, lack of irregularities, lack of any mark of mortality, really.  

In Romans 6:23 we are told that "the wages of sin is death", implying that death is some sort of imperfection, some sort of abnormality that was never part of God's original plan.  But does that mean that everything in the universe is all wrong because Adam and Eve had the wrong snack?  Plant life grows, reproduces, and dies, but in its death it does not cease to exist; it is transformed into something else, something useful, that in turn helps other life grow.  The same is true for animal life.  

How much more so (to use a popular Christian attitude) is human life and death a part of God's great circle of life.  We do not cease to exist at death.  We are transformed.  Even if we believe that we are somehow "higher" than other animal life by having a spiritual component to our being, our death is the birth of something new.  Automatically.  There is no need to "earn" eternal life.  Eternal life is ours by nature of us being spiritual beings.  Nothing on earth (or in the cosmos, for that matter) dies without being transformed into something else.  Recycling is not a hippie sentiment but part of the very design of God!

And so I struggle to find my place in religious spaces that fail to see this magnificent beauty of the real good news, the gospel of God that Jesus taught: "Fear not for I have overcome this world!" (James 1:12).  You know what we can do if we're not busy feeling guilty about our shortcomings?  When we're not kept busy with "penances" and artificial acts of piety that we hope will win our way "into heaven"?  When we feel whole as a complete child of The Divine?  We can live our lives fully for the love of others.  We can be truly humble - without boasting and without groveling. We can actually put to good use the many skills and talents that have been granted us by our Creator for the sake of doing our part to build up the "kingdom" of God.  

Imagine a place of worship where no one feels guilty.  Not because they are ignorant of their shortcomings, but because they do not doubt God's unconditional love.  Imagine a place of worship where everyone gathers for the sake of building each other up, improving their own unique talents, and brainstorming ways to go out into the world to help others do the same.  Imagine a place of worship where everyone comes to be reminded how to be joyful and at peace, so that they can then take that attitude and spread it around everywhere they go!  

Does such a place have a need for a hierarchy?  For rules and rituals?  For an ordained priesthood? Maybe. But only very limited, and certainly with no life-time commitments, so that everyone can have a turn at leadership, at different roles, and "so no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:9).  Imagine a place of worship where everyone gathers because they woke up that day and felt the desire to be in the company of others who share their love of God and humanity.  Imagine a place of worship where ....

Maybe we don't have to imagine such a place of worship.  Maybe we need to "reimagine" our relationship to such a place?  Maybe we need to stop identifying our very souls with such places of worship, and instead make our rounds at different places of worship, each reaching a different need in our souls?  Maybe we go to be inspired and remember to take everything we hear with a grain of salt, since we are listening to fellow human beings.  Ordination is not divination.  We need to stop giving away our God-given power to transform our own lives and those of others!  

Imagine!

Eastern Orthodoxy may have reintroduced me to God

 I used to think that being religious was about following the truth.  In a sense, it is, but not the way I previously thought.  I thought that the dogma, practices, and traditions of the church were what was "true" about it.  In fact, the truth is that which arises in our hearts and minds when we allow ourselves to feel the presence of God.  The liturgy of the church is meant to help us feel God's presence.  It is by no means the only place where we can do so. 

In the same way, I no longer think that one "must" be religious in order to "please" God.  That view of God is based on God being made in our human image, not the other way around.  God simply is.  God simply loves.  God simply forgives and moves on.  God simply allows natural consequences of our actions and the actions of others.  God simply is.  There is nothing we can do to get away from God.  But there are things we can do to become more aware of God's presence.

To that end, I am now reframing my understanding of the purpose of religion.  I thrive spiritually when I am around other people who take their spirituality seriously.  I thrive spiritually when I witness others demonstrating their awareness of God's presence.  I thrive spiritually when I am encouraged to do the same, in public, without drawing undue attention to myself.  What better place to do so than in the Divine Liturgy?  Everyone gathered there is there to pray and worship God, and each is focused on their own relationship with God.  So no one will look at me side-eyed that I am praising God with my body's posture, or with gestures; it is expected.  In that regard, I am free.  At the same time, the ongoing vocal and otherwise material worship rituals that surround me for an extended period of time serve to continuously bring my focus back to God.

I have shown my hand a little already by using the phrase "Divine Liturgy", as this is Eastern Orthodox terminology.  So I'll cut right to it.  Today, my family and I attended our first Divine Liturgy, and it was magnificent.  It was like balm on my weary heart.  I wanted to personify God again.  I wanted to follow Jesus again.  I wanted to forget all the logic and reasoning and just allow myself, my spirit, to be embraced by the Spirit of God.  

The sanctuary was small, with minimal natural light peeking in through a few stained glass inserts here and there.  Otherwise, we were sort of closed off from the outside world.  It was like a little portal to the other side.  The walls were a golden yellow, and a large chandelier and recess lighting throughout kept the space bright.  The large icons all around us gave my daughter something to focus on so she wouldn't be bored, as I found out afterwards.  

The cantors were prominently situated at the front near the altar, and the beauty of their voices was like listening to angel choirs.  It was amazing to have the entire hour and a half set to the soundtrack of their alternating female/male voices, Greek/English lyrics, at times overlapping with the vocal prayers of the priest.  There was never a dull moment throughout the liturgy.  If we didn't hear the priest, we heard the cantors.  It was truly sacred music, as if they were giving us a glimpse of what we'll hear in heaven.

And the iconoclast that set the altar apart was a piece of art.  The detailed engraving designs that surrounded the icons drew my sight to it over and over again.  Such depth, the shadows of the light hiding in the little nooks and crannies of the design.  Four hanging votive candle holders hung above the icons, and two secret doors (as my daughter called them) were opened and closed several times as people privy to access to the altar went in and out.  One of the main icons at the front was creepy as it was holding a severed head (I later found out it was an icon of John the Baptist holding his own head, though not sure why he was portrayed as an angel, with wings).  But even as I retreated from it visually, I immediately made a spiritual association with it.  I thought of husbands as "the head of the family" and Christ as "the head of the Church" and how those heads without the bodies they represent are grotesque, incomplete, and not "the whole person" (for lack of a better term).  I thought of how this translates to God not being something, or even someone, "out there", severed from God's creation, but rather merely that which crowns creation, which brought it into being and rules over it for its own good but which does not exist without it.  But I digress.

As holy communion begun, the priest paraded the elements down one aisle (luckily for us, it was the aisle where we were seated) and up the main aisle back to the altar. People made various gestures of veneration towards the elements, much like Catholics do in Eucharistic Adoration.  But there was no Tabernacle where "Jesus lives".  Jesus lives outside of place and time.  Jesus appears to us in the elements during Divine Liturgy, is consumed by the faithful, and goes out into the world through us.  The lack of a Tabernacle was actually a good thing, in that the focus was on the real meaning of the Real Presence of Jesus, and not on creating an idol out of the physical elements themselves.

The procession of the eucharistic elements and the prominent role of the cantors were two of the ways that the experience was also reminiscent of our visit to a Conservative Jewish synagogue service.  There, the Torah is paraded around the sanctuary and the faithful reach out to touch it.  There, it is the cantor who leads the service, while the rabbi actually seems to take a much less prominent role by comparison, and certainly not the role of a Catholic priest or Protestant pastor.

The Orthodox priest and the cantors (for there were two, sometimes three) seem to share in collaborating the smooth choreography of the Divine Liturgy.  What's more, at the end when the priest addressed those of us gathered in the short (though bilingual) sermon, the cantors finally sat down, and I noticed the female cantor was sitting on a throne, while the male cantor was seated next to her on a much less elaborate chair.  It was then that I also realized the priest had not sat down once during the entire Divine Liturgy.  He had been busy with one ritual act or another for the entirety of the service, and from what I read, he was already doing so before we arrived for the posted 10:15 Divine Liturgy, which lasted an hour and a half.

I liked pretty much everything about the experience.  I shed tears on several occasions.  I knew I wanted to go back pretty early on in the service, and I only prayed that the Spirit was working in the rest of my family, especially my husband, so that they too would be happy to return again.

While I am not a fan of the manner in which Communion is received, especially during a global pandemic (with a spoon, the same spoon for everyone), looking past that, there were other elements of Communion that gave me positive pause.  As people came up to receive the elements, they told the priest their name, so the priest could present the Real Presence to them by name.  They adjusted their height and brought the red cloth (which the priest was holding with the cup of wine and bread) to their chin so as not to spill any of the sacred elements. They then grabbed a piece of decent sized bread and brought it back to the pews.  (We had pews as apparently this used to be a Protestant church - no kneelers, and the book racks had little holes for storing Protestant-style communion cups.)  

Furthermore, at the end, after the sermon, we were all invited to come up and partake of a piece of the blessed bread, from which the consecrated morsels were placed in the consecrated wine for communion earlier.  Real bread!  And if you follow the pious tradition of fasting from midnight, what a meaningful and welcome way to break your fast! What's more, not everyone went up for communion.  (Maybe because of the COVID/shared spoon situation, but still.)

I could go on but I'll stop here.  The point is that I know the Orthodox church doesn't check off all of my boxes for what I wish a church would teach.  I don't know how literal most Orthodox are about Biblical figures, heaven and hell, and similar Christian markers.  But for the first time, that doesn't matter.  I know I am not looking for "a perfect fit".  There is no such thing.  I am looking for a place where I can easily feel God's presence.  Where, interestingly as the priest talked about in his sermon, I can be inspired to do God's will.  He said to remember these words: inspiration, comprehension, transformation, and action.  We come to church to be inspired, to comprehend the Word of God (Bible, but I also believe the words written on our heart (Romans 2:18)), to allow ourselves to be transformed by this inspiration and comprehension, so that we may act in the world, be God's hands and feet, do the work of the Gospel.  

I want to go to church.  I want to go not because I have to, but because it feeds my spirit.  I want to go to be inspired, to learn, to be transformed, and to leave ready to live in accordance with the faith of Jesus (not to be confused with the faith "about" Jesus).  I want to surround myself with beauty.  I want to go to a place that feels sacred and special, where I know others will respect my desire to be in uninterrupted prayer.  Where fellowship will not take over worship.  Where we are there to reconnect with God, not with each other.  (Reconnecting with others apparently happens afterward during "coffee hour" downstairs.)

Let me not jump to conclusions here.  I do not need to convert.  Not right now, anyway.  And without conversion, I do not have to worry about receiving communion with a shared spoon or without fasting, nor do I need to worry about missing Divine Liturgy on some Sundays (though I can't imagine not wanting to do so of my own free will and joyfully!).  With time, if God wills it, I can see that I may indeed convert someday.  Maybe my whole little family of four will.  But not now.  Now, I just want to marvel in this jewel we found and I look forward to our next visit.  

Perhaps it won't be Divine Liturgy, as my son begins Sunday School at our Catholic church next week, and I want him to have that experience as it is a very good opportunity to be around other kids, especially since this time it will be without his sister, and I love the Montessori approach to the lessons. After that, he will begin his two years of preparation for his First Communion in the Catholic church - something I feel the need to do for him because 1) his sister just received her First Communion this year, and I want them to have similar experiences and she does not like the idea of him being allowed to receive communion at a younger age than she was allowed (as Orthodox, they could both receive right after reception into the church), and 2) because First Communion is one of the last Polish/Catholic traditions that we will be keeping in our family, and it allows us time to think about where we will make our permanent spiritual home in three years' time.

To conclude, I suppose I can say this: Eastern Orthodoxy may not be everything I wanted, but perhaps it can be everything I need at this time on my spiritual journey. I do miss a personified God, and maybe Orthodoxy can help me reclaim Him once again, but without the baggage of my "obligatory religion". To God be the glory, whatever that means to a Taoist cultivator! (also me!)

I must be autistic!

If there were such a thing as "coming out" as autistic, I would probably say that is what this post is all about.  I have been suspecting ASD for several years now, off and on.  Most recently, it came to the point where I finally decided to get evaluated and as I waited for my evaluation, I joined an online group for autistic women and mothers of autistic girls.  I learned so much through that group and the various resources they referred me to! Chief among the things I learned was that there are so many different ways to "present" as autistic!  

[Reminds me of the gender conversation being had in society today; there are many different ways to be a woman or a man.  Even outside of transgender/nonbinary presentation.  There are so many different ways that cis women, for instance, present their femininity to the world.  Some are stereotypical based on the culture under whose influence they live.  Others are more androgenous to varying degrees.  Women come in all different shapes, sizes, colors, personalities, with different talents, interests, and struggles in life.  What's another dimension (in the form of transwomen)?  But I digress.]

The line I kept reading about finally got internalized: "if you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person."  What this means to me today is that I cannot compare myself to other autistics in an effort to gauge if I am somehow "autistic enough" to warrant the label.  

Somene in my online group broke it down for me like this: "Lack of eye contact, anxiety based stimming, speech difficulties are not 'traits' of autism.  They are symptoms of autistics who are overwhelmed." Whoa!  

What this means is that while yes, for some autistics, they will visibly struggle with eye contact, anxiety, communication, etc, this isn't what makes them autistic.  There is something underneath, the way their brains are wired, that leads to this manner of expression when the person is under excessive stress.  Now, excessive stress is a relative term, and different people have different thresholds for stress, so it would be too simplistic to simply say that if we remove all possible stressors from an autistic's life, they will no longer present with the more stereotypical behaviors that we associate with autism.  Rather, it means that we need to look beyond the external presentation and acknowledge that there is a differen neurology going on that will in effect have different results from those of a neurotypical brain.  For better or for worse.

So, what does it mean to have an autistically wired brain?  Not, "what does it look like", but "what does it mean"?  It means that we experience the world through a different lense than those with a neurotypical wiring.  And our inner experiences are going to manifest in external behaviors in one way or another, some more socially acceptable than others.  

For instance, we all experience pain through our various senses.  However, what is considered a painful trigger will differ between a neurotypical person and a neurodivergent person.  Neurotypical people would respond to a stimuli as painful if it were something the majority of people accept as "obviously" painful - a blow with a hard item, or a cut of the skin, or boiling hot water, etc.  We would not, however, describe more "mundane" experiences as painful: an annoying tag in a t-shirt, the thudding of bass from a neighbor's radio, a puff of air from the covers being pulled down quickly around one's face.  But for those of us with hypersensitivities, these can be experienced in the same way (painfully) as the more obvious stimulii. 

Likewise, we all go through moments of insecurity, self-consciousness, or anxiety.  Maybe when we're handing the keys to the car to our teenager for the first time, or before doing kareoke on a dare, or after a questionable haircut.  But generally speaking, neurotypical people can get through it, and even laugh about it afterwards.  Neurodivergent people, on the other hand, may go straight into panic mode if a random stranger asks them for the time at the bus stop, or if they have to make a phone call to inquire about something, or when a well-meaning group wants to welcome you as the newcomer by asking you to stand up and introduce yourself.  We may feel like we're about to jump off a cliff, and freeze, unable to think, much less say anything.

We all have days when we feel like we have "two left feet" or like we "woke up on the wrong side of the bed".  We want a do-over because things aren't going as planned.  For neurotypical people, they are generally able to do just that - hit the metaphorical reset button, and try again.  But for a neurodivergent person, realizing that they can't figure out how to combine the ingredients in their refrigerator, freezer, and pantry into a meal can bring them to tears.  Being forced to work a new update on their email address can feel like the world is out to get them and they "can't do anything right."  

No one likes to be disappointed when they were looking forward to something.  Neurotypical people may sigh, roll their eyes, and make a sarcastic comment as they recalibrate what they were doing to accomodate the change.  Neurodivergent people may completely lose their train of thought and be unable to pick up where they left off without starting all over again, if at all.

Neurotypical people often tap their pencil on the desk during a test, or shake their leg when they're sitting waiting for something.  Neurodivergent people may flap their hands or rock instead.

I could go on but will stop here.  If it's a matter of describing the quirky ways that my brain is wired, then there isn't a better explanation than this: I must be autistic.

How I Experience God

How I Experience God

1. doing good/making a difference in the world (causes: environment, immigration, poverty, health, education)

2. singing/music

3. being surrounded by Creation in nature

4. being inspired or motivated to grow and become a better version of myself (cultivating virtues, self-help with healthy boundaries and self-esteem, working on my body via exercise and nutrition)

5. learning about the world around us (science, history, anthropology, languages...)

6. feeling a sense of connection to people in other times and places (tradition and ritual, though my two homebirths did the same thing)

It seems that the only one of the above that I would need conventional organized religion for is #6.  And since I have experienced that sense most acutely outside of the context of religion (by giving birth at home and having a keen sense of connection to the countless women who likewise gave birth before me and who continue to give birth around the world), then there must be other ways that I can find a sense of connection to other people.  Perhaps through tradition and ritual that isn't tied to religion.  National traditions? Universally human "traditions"? (What do most people tend to do?  What have they tended to do throughout history?  Romantic love, parental love, coming of age, experiencing beauty, practicing goodness via altruism, challenging ourselves physically/mentally, laughter, pursuit of truth/knowledge/wisdom...)

What would my own religion look like?

 If I were to start my own alternative-to-religion group, what would it look like?

For starters, while it would be an alternative to religion, it wouldn't be an alternative to "belief-in-Godism."  We wouldn't demand a belief in God, but we would not try to hide it, either.  We would assume God's existence, and this would come across in some of the wording of our talks and songs, perhaps.

We would include music.  Classical, chant, drumming, select Gospel and Christian rock, global folk music, etc.

We would read from Wisdom books for inspiration.  Wisdom books would include selections such as the Psalms and Proverbs and Isaiah from the Hebrew Bible, selections from the New Testament, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, the Greco-Roman clasical literature, great thinkers of the Renaisance, Indigenous Lore, etc.

We would pick a theme and focus our reading, music, and talk on it.  We would tie the theme to some practical application in our daily lives. Sometimes these applications would focus on self-improvement, other times they would focus on serving the community.

We would break into small groups based on more specific interests and goals.  Perhaps there is a need for a group that brings prolifers and prochoicers together to struggle in a spirit of wanting to reach a common goal - decreasing the number of abortions being saught.

I have to stop here and point out that as I was writing the above paragraphs, the ideas started to sound familiar and then I realized there already exists a place like this, and it's called the Unitarian Universalist Church!

I've struggled with UU because they are quite liberal in their approach to social justice, and I am much more moderate.  I especially struggle with the issue of abortion.  I have never been able to bring myself to join a place that officially supports abortion on demand, no questions asked.  But below are the UU principles (as opposed to a creed) that serve to unify UUs.

1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations; 

3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

4th Principle: A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

5th Principle: The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;  (*I imagine this is where the abortion issue breaks down for me.  I'm still struggling here, because I know it's not as simple as "make it illegal" and voila! The problem goes away.  I'd have to say the problem isn't abortion.  The problem is unplanned and difficult pregnancies. I think there's some common ground that can be had here between prolifers and prochoicers, but so far I see the two sides yelling past each other.)u

6th Principle: The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Right now, the liberal left is pro-BLM and pro-choice in abortion without limitations, as well as pro-transgender umbrella issues, which are varied in themselves.  So I worry about the perfect fit, but I think I'm ready to try something different, bc my current situation in a Catholic environment isn't a perfect fit either.  And while I may disagree with them on the literal nature of our common Scriptures, various church laws that limit personal freedom (all male celibate priesthood, no birth control, divorce frowned upon, etc.), I do seem to agree that chastity has a place in a healthy society.  However, even that I'm currently trying to unpack.  (See post on Chastity and Modesty, forthcoming.)

But when I think about which environment I'd prefer to raise my children in.... I want my kids to see women in positions of leadership, including the priesthood/pastorship.  I want them to see same sex couples with children, people who do not conform to gendered stereotypes, people from various walks of life.  In a Catholic setting, that diversity would most likely be in the form of ethnicity and income, if just the right church is found.  In a UU setting, most likely that diversity would instead come in the form of a variety of though and belief, and alternative lifestyles.  We'll probably need to alternate Sundays to get the full effect of what I'm going for here.  A piece-meal effort, in a way.  A hodgepodge approach.  Certainly no such thing as a one-size-fits-all.