Translate

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

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).

No comments:

Post a Comment