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