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
No comments:
Post a Comment