Taking God's Mercy for Granted

I pride myself on my humility.

Did you catch the irony and oximoron there?

I have a ways to go before my ego is extinguished and I and God become one.

Different religions have different ways of articulating the basic point of the spiritual life: the extinction of the ego and thereby the uniting of ourselves to all others. Doing to others as you'd have them do to you.

At the same time, I take a very laisez fair attitude towards any and all religious doctrines, dogmas, and prohibitions, hiding behind Jesus's words in Matthew 22:37-40: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” So basically, live and let live.  That's how I've simplified it.

But doesn't that make me no different than the secular humanist who does nothing on account of their love of God, but merely what she herself has deemed (through her own intellect, reason, logic, ... ego) as in the best interest of society?

Yet I keep insisting that I love God, and that I want to draw near to Him.  How?  By doing my own thing?  Just like true peace is more than just the absence of war, true love of God is more than just the avoidance of evil.  I have been satisfied with being morally "good enough".  I have taken God's mercy for granted, feeling myself entitled to it on account of... simply being a daughter of God, made in His image.

I can do better than that.  I want to do better than that.  I am, I can, I ought, I will, said Charlotte Mason.

The seemingly arbitrary rules of ... say.... Orthodox Judaism.  Does anyone "have" to do all the mitzvot in order for God to love them?  No.  But shouldn't we WANT to please our Heavenly Father even if we know He'll love us without "works"?  If we happen to fail, ok, we know we have God's mercy on our side.  But take it for granted, that's the wrong attitude altogether.

I may need to come around to making a decision to do things not because I "have" to, but because I "get" to  - I get to please my Maker, I get to join countless others in pleasing our Maker, I get to reap the rewards of a community if I yoke myself to them in this way.  I do not have to.  I am not Jewish.  As a Gentile, I have 7 very basic commandments to abide by.  But th emore I choose to draw closer to God (via community, via affiliation, via mitzvot), the closer God will draw to me.

A Prayer to Jesus

Lord Jesus, lead me to Our Father!  Help me to understand what I need to understand, and to embrace the mystery of the things I cannot understand at this time. 

Lord Jesus, send me the Holy Spirit!  That I may truly be a temple of the Most High, gleaning the Almighty's wisdom and all the virtues.

Lord Jesus, allow me to follow You always, without distraction and doubt.

Churchianity vs Christianity

I came across a new word that perfectly describes what I've been trying to distance myself from: churchianity.  I made the mistake of mentioning to a couple of nondenominational Protestants my desire to distance  myself from some of the practices of Catholicism because they were distracting me from following Jesus.  I said that I thought they had value and the potential to lead people closer to Him, but for me where I'm at on my journey, they were having the opposite effect.

Now my Protestant friends, bless their hearts, must see me as ripe for the picking and are encouraging me to check out their church.  I've mentioned that I'm not looking to change churches (again), but rather that I'm looking for a more intimate gathering where we can discuss the faith without the lens of a denomination.  

I feel like I can't have these conversations with Catholics, who will warn me of my impending apostacy or at the very least hereticism, and I can't talk to Protestants, who will warn me that remaining affiliated with the Catholic church is demonic or at the very least idolatrous.  I probably could talk to Quakers or Unitarians, but we would quickly clash on social issues, as both of these groups lean left politically, which is why we aren't going to their Sunday worship services.

But luckily I came across a new website/ministry that is speaking to my heart: Home - School of Christ. As I began to explore the teachings here, I realized this is exactly what I've been looking.  And I can't say that I didn't know it, because I've been following similar teachings from Catholic priest, Father Richard Rohr: Daily Meditations — Center for Action and Contemplation (cac.org).  What both of these followers of Christ have in common is that they do not throw away the proverbial baby with the bathwater.  They recognize that there is much wisdom and peace to be gained from aligning one's life with the person of Jesus Christ, but so doing does not have to look like religiosity.

I'm reminded of two other philosophies I've studied in the past that really resonated with me but back then, I couldn't distinguish between the different aspects of my spirituality that needed to be fed, and I assumed there was only the one-stop-shop approach: I either aligned 100% with the teaching, or not at all, and the said teachings had to include a regular meeting place where we would gather with like-minded people (church).  The two philosophies I'm speaking of are Deism and Daoism.

Deism lacks a personal relationship with God.  Daoism lacks a personification of the Dao.  Finally, I hope and pray, I may be at a cross-roads where I'm ready to embrace the fact that I can continue to have my "social" needs met by continuing with Sunday Mass participation, while looking elsewhere for philosophical and spiritual conversations with like-minded people.  I used to worry about coming across as a hypocrite, but now I see religion for what it is, and I have no reason to feel any sort of loyalty to them.

Christian Deism takes their moral and ethical stance from the example of Jesus, but they deny His divinity.  Daoism, of course, does not believe in His divinity either, since Jesus doesn't factor into the original philosophy.  But looks like someone thankfully beat me to it with this Christian Daoist website: Process Worldview - Open Horizons .

The bottom line, and I've known this for a while but never had the courage to implement and internalize it, is that I hover near religiosity due to my need for external validation.  This is a disease, not a virtue.  I need to work my way through this in order to embrace the simple message of Jesus that does not threaten anyone with hell.

Looking for the Early Church in the New Testament

 Early Christianity - World History Encyclopedia

According to the above article...

1. Early Christianity broke from Judaism when...

"At a meeting in Jerusalem (ca. 49 CE, The Apostolic Council), it was decided that pagans could join without becoming Jews."

2. The papacy evolved in...

"There was no central authority, such as the Vatican, to validate various beliefs and practices. Numerous and diverse groups existed throughout the Empire. Bishops communicated with each other and their letters demonstrate often rancorous debates."

"Christians adopted the Greek system of political assemblies (ecclesia in Greek, English 'church') and the Roman system of an overseer (bishop) of a section of a province (a diocese). "

"When Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople in 330 CE, this created a temporary void in leadership in the West. By the 5th century CE, the bishop of Rome absorbed secular leadership as well, now with the title of 'Pope.' In the Eastern Empire (Byzantium), the Emperor remained the head of the state as well as the head of the Church until the conquest of Constantinople (Istanbul) by the Turks in 1453 CE."

3. Jesus came to be seen as deified...

"With the belief that Jesus was now in heaven [see Paul's letters in NT, Gospel of John - so within first century AD], Christ became an object of worship. Paul claimed that Christ had been present at creation, and that “every knee show bow” before him (Phil. 2). In the fourth gospel of John, Christ was identified as the philosophical principle of the logos, or the rational principle of the universe that became flesh (the doctrine of the Incarnation)."

4. Worship in the early church...

"We have very little information on how early Christians worshipped Christ. Worship in the ancient world consisted of sacrifices. For Jews (and then Christians), this element was removed with the destruction of their Temple in 70 CE. At the same time, ex-pagan Christians ceased the traditional sacrifices of the native cults."

"In the Acts of the Apostles, we have stories of Peter and John healing people “in the name of Jesus.” There was an initiation rite of baptism, hymns and prayers to Christ, and a meal known as the Last Supper, a memorial of Jesus' last teaching. Christians addressed Jesus as 'Lord,' which was also a Jewish title for god."

5. First universal religion, available to all regardless of what one was "born into".

"Christianity taught that ancestry and bloodlines were no longer relevant. According to Paul, faith (pistis, 'loyalty') in Christ was all that was needed for salvation. This new idea resulted in a religious movement no longer confined to a geographic area or an ethnic group. Christianity became a portable religion available to all."

6. When did the concept of "orthodox belief" originate?

"The Church Fathers of the 2nd century CE developed an innovation with the concept of orthodoxy, or the idea that there was only one “correct belief.” This was matched by its polar opposite, heresy (Greek, airesis, or 'choice,' as in a choice of a particular philosophy)."

7. When did the Catholic church develop?

"Constantine was interested in both unifying the Empire as well as the Church. He adopted the teachings of the Church Fathers as the core of Christian belief."

"In 325 CE, Constantine invited bishops to attend a meeting in Nicaea to define the relationship between God and Christ. The result was the Nicene Creed, a list of tenets that all Christians were to avow."

SEE PAPACY #2: "When Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople in 330 CE, this created a temporary void in leadership in the West. By the 5th century CE, the bishop of Rome absorbed secular leadership as well, now with the title of 'Pope.' In the Eastern Empire (Byzantium), the Emperor remained the head of the state as well as the head of the Church until the conquest of Constantinople (Istanbul) by the Turks in 1453 CE."

8. The Trinity became dogma in 325 with the Nicene Creed.

"God and Christ were of the “same essence,” both participated in creation, and therefore monotheism was maintained; God was one, with three manifestations. With the Holy Spirit of God as the manifestation of divinity on earth, this doctrine became known as the Trinity."

9. The Bible came to be canonical Scripture in...

"How did the books of the New Testament become canonized? The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. AD 115, and David Trobisch places Acts in the mid-to-late second century, contemporaneous with the publication of the first New Testament canon."

Which means that the first hundred or so years of the Early New Testament Church operated based primarily on oral tradition and Hebrew Scriptures.

There was Ancient Temple Judaism, there was Jesus, there was the Early Church of the New Testament, there was the development of Rabbinic Judaism, there was the transformation of Christ-followers from a persecuted sect among many in the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome taking over the role of both secular and church leadership in the Western Roman Empire once Constantine moved to Constantinople in 330 and becoming the Catholic Church.  

Meantime, the Orthodox Church developed from the Early Church of the New Testament in the East.  It did not espouse the idea of universal governance like the Western (Catholic) church did.  Because of this, Orthodox Christianity fossilized circa this time period.  It is more ancient than Catholicism, but still not the same as the Early New Testament Church.  

The Early New Testament Church did not have a creed and it did not articulate the nature of God as Trinitarian.  It did have a shared meal modeled on the Last Supper, hymns and prayers to Christ, and an initiation rite called baptism.  

If I want to find a modern church that most closely aligns itself with the Early New Testament Church, it would need to 1) have no top-down governance but rather local governance, 2) not insist on a creed, 3) not believe in the Trinity, 4) share a Last Supper meal, 5) sing hymns, 6) say prayers (to Christ), and 7) baptize initiates.

This eliminates Catholics, Orthodox, Evangelicals, and most other mainline Protestants. Possible contenders?  Christodelphians, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentacostals, Swedenborgianism... But these are actually modern denominations that have done what I'm doing - researched the Bible for what the early church looked like, and then built their beliefs around what they believe was true back then.  They are out of context, not considering the oral tradition that was part and parcel of the early church, since it operated without the benefit of the canon of New Testament Scripture.

Christian Truths vs Denominations

 

I don't believe any one denomination is "the" church Christ established.  I believe that all of them, working together, form "the" Truth of the Gospel of Jesus.

That said, here's what attracts me to the various denominations in which I've spent some time.

Catholicism - the faith tradition of my upbringing and the one in which I feel most comfortable, both to worship and to question.

I believe in the doctrine of Purgatory and I extend universalist principles to it, which is controversial but allowable within Catholicism.  In other words, I believe that God will save anyone who turns to Him, even after death, but that not everyone will.  So while I do believe Hell exists and is eternal separation from God, I do not believe that all non-Christians go there.

Orthodoxy-Catholicism - I believe the aesthetically most beautiful forms of worship exist within these two traditions.  The colors, stained glass, icons, incense, bells, vestments, architecture .... all lend themselves to lifting one's heart and mind to the Divine. 

I also believe bodily postures and gestures like the sign of the cross, metanoias, kneeling, genuflecting... also show reverence and awe before God.

Charismatic Christians, both Protestant and Catholic - they incorporate more lively gestures like hands upraised, eyes towards heaven, swaying in the Spirit, all to emotionally charged praise music.

Quaker and Catholic-Orthodox contemplation and meditation.  Being still in the presence of God.  Placing oneself in a state of awe before our Maker.  Waiting to have the Spirit lead us.

Evangelical Christians (primarily Protestants) - love the Word of God, are very familiar with it, and turn to it daily to familiarize themselves with the person of Jesus Christ and with His calling to us.

I'm noticing in this list that the Eucharist is no longer on my radar.  It used to be.  I was 100% convinced of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Catholic-Orthodox Eucharist.  I believed I was receiving the body and blood, soul and divinity of my Savior.  But the more I've searched for a church whose worship would support that, the more I became cognizant of the fact that this is actually meant as a microcosm of a bigger reality.

God became man in the incarnation.  Jesus becomes the Eucharist through transubstantiation.  But that doesn't mean that the Catholic clergy are meant to act as gate-keepers giving or preventing access to Our Lord in Holy Communion.  Jesus Himself made Himself available to the least liked, least respected, regardless of their actual belief in Him, regardless of their "worthiness".  The cult of the Eucharist is now bothering me.

I've questioned in the past if the Eucharist has not been turned into an idol that has been flying under my radar because it has been equated with Jesus.  But even Jesus Himself did not ask His followers to worship Him.  So by reverencing the Eucharist, even if we believe it to be Jesus Christ Himself, we are not worshipping God the way Jesus taught us.  Jesus taught us to turn to the Father.

Which brings me to Jesus as the model for our worship.  He spent daily silent alone time, generally in nature, communing with the Father.  Notice that word, "communing".  It is not accidental.  We refer to the Eucharist as holy "communion" because of what it represents and is intended to bring about: communion with God and with fellow believers.  It is a sacrament, which by definition is an outward sign of an inward grace (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church).  But how many Catholic Christians actually take that beyond the walls of the sanctuary?  Beyond the time allotted for Mass?  We are meant to LIVE that way!  Not to tap into it once a week and hope it gets us through the rest of the week until our next refill!  

So now the question becomes - can I in good conscience continue to participate in the Catholic Thanksgiving Meal (aka the Eucharist, aka Holy Communion)?  Well, if understood correctly, it has a lot of potential for good.  It has formed a lot of saints that way.  So I cannot knock it on the surface.  The question becomes, *how* ought I receive the Eucharist?  What should I be thinking when I do?  What should I be doing afterwards? Beforehand?

\

 Bottom line: is the Eucharist making me a better follower of Christ?  If no, then it needs to stop.  If yes, then it can stay.  But either way, it is not enough.  Mass is not enough.  Even daily Mass is not enough, because it is relying on riding on the coattails of experience of others, instead of having my own personal experience of the presence of God.  

Mass.

Prayer.

Bible Reading.

Spiritual Direction.

Small Group (Bible study/faith sharing).

I was hoping to find all at one church.  Now I'm seeing that may not happen.  

What's more, I was assuming that a reverent Mass experience = committed followers of Christ = families with similar values to ours in terms of parenting.  I was mistaken.  There is a lot of hoop-jumping by devout Catholic parents who mean well but are actually devoted to the Catholic Church and its version/interpretation of Jesus.  They have put their trust in the Church Organization, and not in the Holy Spirit.

I once heard a critique of Protestants that went like this: Every Protestant is their own Pope.  The point of course was that each Protestant Christian goes directly to the Scriptures and interprets them themselves.  But this is telling.  Does the Pope interpret Scripture?  Or is the Pope supposed to be in contact with the Holy Spirit, Who is to interpret Scripture, and then the Pope speaks these revelations *on behalf of the Holy Spirit*?  And if the Holy Spirit can speak to the Pope, the Holy Spirit can speak to each believer.

Truth is not monolithic.  It's not relative, exactly, but it is dynamic.  It is contextual.  It does depend on various factors.  Not everything we as Catholics believe to be set in stone necessarily is.  I don't believe every single thing the Magisterium of the Church teaches as dogma is actually an aspect of God's unchanging Truth with a capital T.  

One of the reasons I chose not to convert to Orthodoxy in spite of being enamored with our local Divine Liturgy is that I believe in continued revelation.  I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is done speaking to us.  The Catholic church believes this, too, but claims that it is the sole interpreter of the continued revelation of God.  I disagree.  

God chose to reveal Himself by questioning established religion in the person of Jesus Christ.  Yes, Jesus remained a religious, practicing Jew.  But He did not allow that religion to limit His understanding and application of Scripture.  He called us to do likewise.  To follow in His footsteps.  To look to the Scriptures, perhaps also to our religious traditions, but then discern how to apply each teaching to our unique circumstances.  

Indeed, I think we are meant to each be our own Pope, because Jesus is the true head of the Church, which is the body of all Christian believers and not a single denomination.  Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us to all truth, not a human representative like the Bishop of Rome.

I used to try to find the "right" denomination to belong to.  Today I know it doesn't exist, on the one hand, and on the other hand, they can all potentially be "the right one" for where I am in life.  But my denominational affiliation does not take the place of a relationship with God/Christ.

The question now is, where is the Lord leading me now?

Poverty Leads to...

Poverty à (In no particular order, though #1-9 are also common in the “developed West”, while #10-13 are especially problematic in sub-Saharan African countries, India, and Cambodia, among others.)

1.  Lack of education

2.    Lack of medical care

3.      Unemployment

4.      Homelessness

5.      Addiction

6.      Domestic violence

7.      Abortion

8.      Hopelessness, depression, & suicide

9.      Community Distrust & Discrimination

10.   Malnourishment

11.   Human trafficking

12.   Prostitution

13.   Bonded servitude

14.   When Left Unchecked for long enough…. Uprising & Civil War

First Visit to Anglican Ordinariate

Wow.  I've been down this road before and I don't want to get ahead of myself (again), but wow.  This church seems to have everything we were looking for.

1. The priest faces ad orientum. (TLM, Eastern Orthodoxy)

2. Altar railing for receiving Communion while kneeling. (TLM)

3. Everything in English. (Novus Ordo)

4. Kneelers available and utilized in the pews. (TLM, Novus Ordo)

5. Communion by Intinction (Maronites, which was a super nice surprise!)

6. Incense. (TLM, Eastern Orthodox)

7. Bells. (TLM)

8. No sign of peace between the faithful. (TLM)

9. No passing of collection plate. (TLM, Eastern Orthodox)

10. The homily was 17 minutes long (it was available on YouTube later), and it was engaging and relatable.

11. Many women wore head coverings. (TLM, Holy Cross)

12. Tons of kids! (Holy Cross)

13. Interior of the church was colorful and joyful.  Walls painted pinkish, stained glass, stations of the cross.  I also saw several Eastern-style icons throughout.

14. There was a luncheon afterwards downstairs! (Holy Cross, Maronites)

15. Only one Mass for the congregation on Sunday - really helps solidify sense of community, along with the gathering afterwards. (Holy Cross, Maronites)

16. The priest, Fr. Albert, is married with children and introduced me to his wife, Abigail.

17. The Mass was an hour and a half, but the kids did not seem to notice and didn't mention length as a negative during our debriefing in the car on the way home.  (Holy Cross)

18. The bulletin provided included all the prayers and music, so I was able to not only understand bc it was in English, but also follow along and sing along!  It felt sooo good to be able to fully participate in the Mass again!

19. The kids had their own little bulletins and crayons they could take to the pews.  

20. There was a large TV set up downstairs where the Mass was shown for anyone needing to take rowdy kids.

21. The Gospel was read from the middle of the center aisle.

22. At the end, we faced a little Marian "shrine" to recite the Angelus prayer.

23. There was a lot of kneeling!  More than I remember from the Novus Ordo.

23.  I noticed via my peripheral vision that people were bowing and crossing themselves at various points.  Felt like they were more engaged with the Mass.  (Holy Cross)

24. This particular church is about 15 minutes closer to our house than our current Maronite one.

25.  We knew several people there already, apparently.  Small world!

26. The kids got to make an Advent wreath to take home as a table centerpiece.

27. Parishioners were friendly and approached us to talk.

28. Fr. Albert actually knows Fr. Joshua from Holy Cross, and mentioned that the two churches are like informal sister parishes!  It's as if God is telling me - you wanted Holy Cross but for Catholics; there you go! 

29. I have a new appreciation for organ music.  It turns out that I associate it with my formative years in Polish Catholic churches, and organ music is church music for me.  It doesn't have to be concert-quality, but the cantor and choir were actually quite good. And the provided music and lyrics meant I was able to join in singing, which I have missed so much at the Maronites, since so much of their service is in Arabic or Syriac with no phonetic cheat sheet.

30.  I teared up at one point during the singing, which is always a good sign that the Spirit dwells there.

31.  There was so much singing and chanting!  Even the readings were chanted (Holy Cross), which didn't bother me as much as it did at Holy Cross - perhaps because the bulletin had the readings printed and I could follow along. 

32. I already signed up to join them for their Advent mini-retreat on Saturday!

I have the same feeling I had when we first found Holy Cross, and then again when we first found the Maronites - I don't want to leave!  I worry that I won't find another church like this if we move to Georgia.  But I also have to remember that God is in control and is leading us to where we need to be.

While the kids aren't thrilled about changing churches again since they've come to appreciate the Maronites, they are both willing and found things they each liked about the Mass at the Ordinariate.  My son also said he'd be ok with receiving his First Communion there, which is a big plus, bc he was adamant he did not want to receive it at our old Novus Ordo church!

The funny thing is, God was saving our discovery of this church until I worked through some idolatry I had going due to my autistic black-or-white thinking.  I had associated the host with the Real Presence of Jesus, and the mere thought of the Eucharist at an Eastern Rite or Orthodox church made me doubt I could ever get on board with being spoon-fed Communion.  But then a talk with Maru helped me see that the external elements can change, but the reality of Jesus remains thanks to our faith.  Once I was ok with trying an Eastern Rite church, communion and all, God gave me a church where I didn't even need to change what I am used to, and not only that, I can continue to receive under both forms, AND on the knees the way I believe is proper and just.

The explanation on the bulletin said that we kneel to pray, sit for instruction, and stand to praise God.  I really like that delineation.  Something was very missing at the Maronites when we couldn't kneel.  Even the Orthodox, too, but their chanting was so incredibly beautiful and we stayed standing the entire time, that I never felt that I was being disrespectful by just sitting there.

At any rate, looks like we have a new church home.  We will attend the Maronites twice more, as the kids just signed up to do the Nativity play, but then we will be shifting gears, and I can't wait.  I'm grateful for the experience of worship with the Maronites, as it has helped me tremendously in my walk with Christ, but mainly because it helped me realize what is truly a priority for me and us as a family.

The Anglican Ordinariate is both reverent and joyful.  There's music and kneeling.  Communion is in both forms.  The altar servers are all male (there were like 9 boys and men serving at the altar today!), which is something else that I appreciate as I look forward to an all-male place for my son to plug in soon.

At any rate, God is good, all the time.  Alleluja, Amen.