I have found my self at times to be both too heretical and too Orthodox. This is perhaps a good assessment since I probably stand somewhere inside that spectrum. Many of us do even if we might think ourselves to be in the right on all the various spiritual subjects we ponder, I would venture that most of us are indeed quite off on many topics. Why? Because our collective "beliefs" are so divergent to start with. I would venture that the chance any of us have "right belief" in all things is almost as infinitesimally small as the proverbial monkeys typing up Shakespeare by chance at their little typewriters :)
I still consider myself a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Will do so until notified by an appropriate authority that I am not. The question came to me today when being interviewed for an upcoming medical procedure. A very benign on but they must ask none the less: closest relative to contact, allergies, religious affiliation.
First the more boring reasons I am Orthodox: I lost interest in the personality driven churches of Protestantism where the Pastor is the Church. When I was born I was baptized Roman Catholic but after my parent's move to the suburbs I was raised in a somewhat fundamentalist Pentecostal Church. For a time. Until, that is, my mother would decide that something the pastor had said was not in line with her beliefs. Then we would be packed off to the next congregation and abide there until the pattern would repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I also found it increasingly unlikely that "true Christianity" had died out after the second century AD and only returned to the world in force in the 1600s - or in the case of Pentecostals - the early 1900's. One of the most firmly held doctrines of the Protestant churches is their belief in "Sola Scriptura" - meaning that they will only accept a practice or a belief if it can be found in scripture. I have however, yet to meet a sola-scripturist who can tell me in any amount of detail how and when the books that would be in the New Testament were decided. Upon learning that these books were only decided upon by a council of the then united Roman/Greek/Etc church in the 300s and that this same church at the same council laid out a number of statements concerning Church practices, government, and beliefs that they would not recognize as valid I am usually met with a blank-ish stare. Why is it that we trust that the Holy Spirit spoke to the assembled Bishops and Priests of the 300's (and yes, that is what they called themselves) in a manner that is to be trusted to the N'th degree on the matter of what is and is not in the bible, but on the other hand all other utterances of theirs that are made at this same council, whose Holy Ghost inspired genius was sufficient for us to accept the Bible in it's current form, are to be disregarded as the mere "teachings of fallible men." Unfortunately there is not a sufficient answer to this question from the Protestant point of view.
This among a number of other questions, led me to one of the three directly historically and "apostolically" (each Bishop can trace a direct line back to one of the apostles) connected Churches that were present at the time of this council and who still exist today. They are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. I chose my church based on teachings as much as on worship - and this is true of the very word Orthodox, which means less "right teaching" than "right worship." It was by living through a complete liturgical cycle of lent thru Easter (Pascha) in the Orthodox Church that I arrived at the realization that spiritually and aesthetically this was a home I had somehow known all along.
That is probably the more boring part of this essay as now we get to read about how I might be considered heretical by many within my own communion:
I can with a clear conscience say the entire Nicene Creed. I believe this makes me a member in good standing as far as the most important doctrinal beliefs go, with the Orthodox Churches (Russian, Greek, Serbian, Albanian, Romanian, Georgian, Palestinian, Finish, Ukrainian, Macedonian, Czech, Polish, Japanese, American etc etc...)
Where my beliefs might disconnect from some other members of my body are perhaps numerous.
1: I accept that the scriptures are "true" and inspired in so much as it is a book about spiritual and moral subjects. I do not believe it is a text book for science or for history. I believe that Jesus (the same God who supposedly brought us the Old Testament) taught primarily in parables - meaning stories that are true in the sense that they illustrate a point about eternal truth but are not thought to be necessarily true in the sense of a work of non-fiction. Why should God change styles mid way through his career? I believe that many of the stories in the Old Testament are parables, allegories, instructive stories, if we are able to get beyond the literal surface material presented and look at the subtle meaning waiting just below that surface. I do not say that the following are impossible since all things are possible, but I do believe they are highly unlikely to be literally true: The earth was created in 6 days 6000+ years ago nor that Moses was able to fit 1000s or hundreds of 1000s of every land and air dwelling species into a boat smaller than many mid-size cruise ships - including every species of insect as well as both the flamingo and the penguin, and keep them all alive despite their very different needs and environments for 40 days and nights and that they were then able to spread across all the continents and cross all the seas (think Hawaii) and find their perfect ecosystems and exist only in those ecosystems
(think Galapagos) and nowhere else nor that Jonah lived inside the stomach of a fish for 3 days like some sort of biblical Pinocchio and was then regurgitated unharmed by both the digestive system of a fish as well as the complete lack of air. I believe these and many other stories are moral allegories and parables but not likely to be historically true in the sense that a history of the American Civil War might be considered true or untrue. There are several sites that examine apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the text of the Bible if taken literally - here are two:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions
2: I believe that the law is gone. Completely gone. There is much back and forth in the scriptures concerning this subject but I have found the simplest and most consistent position to be that it is indeed gone. That when Saint Peter had his dream about the forbidden non-kosher foods being lowered down in a net and God said "Eat" and he argued with God saying that the scriptures forbid it and God got frustrated after a bit and said to him simply "How dare you call unclean that which I have called clean?" Acts 10-11. God meant it for the dietary law but I do not see why he did not mean it as well for the sabbatical law, the menstrual laws etc just as much as he meant it for all the rest of the law. Not as something we could pick and choose from (so as to feel good in our ability to render judgment upon those whose practices we disagree with and justify our own disregard for the rest of the Old Testament.) It is commonly accepted among nearly all Christians that we find the following old testament teachings to be distasteful or overly restrictive based upon our current cultural norms: eating shellfish, shrimp, pork, wearing any clothing made of more than one fabric a menstruating woman appearing outside of her house Lev 12:2, 15:19-30 the loaning of money for interest, the stoning to death of adulterers or homosexuals, the taking of a hand for a hand or an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth and many more laws handed down to us by Moses from God himself. These among other things are all called an "Abomination" in the book of Leviticus and are likewise declared as worthy of death as a man sleeping with a man etc etc.
3:
I have come to believe in something very close to Universal Salvation - meaning that hell is more a state of mind/heart than anything else, that it results from our cutting ourselves off from the ultimate reality rather then the ultimate reality casting us into a literal eternal lake of fire. (I have posted on this topic twice before, one examining the position of some of the most respected early church fathers and one dealing with the same school of thought in modern American protestantism.) I think that all will be resurrected and "every knee shall bow and every mouth proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord." - PHILIPPIANS 2:11. And what else is that but to be "saved"? is it possible for one to eternally reject being fully re-integrated to the great what is - yes, but is it likely one would do so even after their death and resurrection? Even after all knees bow and all tongues confess? I do not know that answer.4: I believe Saint Paul's verse that "In Christ there is neither male nor female" and hence the entire current debate raging through the Churches of the world at this time concerning the role of gender and human sexuality in the Church is thereby rendered fairly mute. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, Greek nor Jew, Freeman nor slave but all are one." Why should that be such a difficult teaching to accept?
Well, that's enough for the moment - perhaps I will append a second chapter to this post soon.
To reiterate my current beliefs, I will say: I believe in a God. I believe that God is the ultimate reality and that the ultimate reality - that which is - is all part of God and that the sorrow one might experience in rejecting this ultimate reality is simply the pain that would result naturally from a refusal to accept what is - denial, delusion. I myself have experienced this God in the form of the Christian God the father son and holy ghost, and I do not see a need necessarily to reject this presentation of the ultimate reality. The Dali Lahma says that is better to stay in ones own tradition and find the truth contained therein than to repeatedly convert from one culture's teaching to another in search of "the truth." I have found that the most sensible and beautiful and meaningful expression of worship for me is that found in the eastern traditions of Christianity and I have been in communion with that Church and consider that to be the body of which I am a member. I do not accept the Bible as a literal work of history or science but as a book containing many parables that can each teach a truly everlasting moral lesson rather than a rendering of a series of human events that can and do often contradict themselves morally historically and scientifically if viewed simply as a text to be taken at face value. I do not believe that God is a respecter of persons nor do I see why I should not embrace the words "In Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, Male nor female, freeman nor slave" fully and therefore be willing to apply those words to my own particular sexual orientation as well as general human relations. I believe that Jesus' Sacrifice was sufficient to fulfil the law and that "all things are lawful, though not all all profitable" and that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" and that there is not an arbitrary deadline for salvation that is tied to ones moment of physical death nor am I willing to accept that everyone from the resurrection of Christ until sundry colonial forces were able to deliver the bible to them in their own tongue have all been condemned to everlasting fire, and likewise that even those of us who have heard the Gospel but have been unable to understand or integrate this or that part of the message into our lives will be condemned for being subject to the circumstances of our lives that God himself granted each of us as a part of "His plan for our lives." That is my confession of faith at this time.
I await objections based upon dualistic and or legalistic arguments that worry about what happens when there is no law. How can there be morality without a written spiritual legal code? I respond with the words of Saint Augustine - "Love, and do what thou will."
I also await objections in the form of scripture quotes that contradict those I have listed above.I can presently think of several Examples: MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17. A discussion limited to this approach to religion has led to the proliferation of 1000 schisms, churches and cults. This is not a mathematical experiment in which scripture 1+ and scripture 1- negate each other. It is not an exercise in which two wizards hurl magical spells at one another until one succumbs to the sheer volume of spells the winning wizard has up his sleeve. 1+ added to 1- in this situation equals nothing more than 2 out of context scriptural snippets. I am looking for a cohesive overall spiritual philosophy that compliments the spirit of the words and actions of Jesus Christ and is able to reconcile the style, words and actions of the old testament God with those of the God of the new testament in a way that does not leave a million unanswered questions. That does not leave us all in perpetual bondage to the fear of fire and brimstone if we simply happen to not be clever enough, or have enough ascetic self control, to pass the ultimate multiple choice exam before we breathe our last.
I await objections based upon my acceptance of the dominant western cultural understanding of God as personified in Jesus Christ - this is my tradition and I have experienced God in this capacity many time since my childhood and feel no compulsion to abandon this model simply because others have misused it. I do not make any assumptions concerning other traditions because I accept the words "the Holy Spirit blows where she wants to" and to confine God to any earthly organization is to tread quite close to - if not enter into - the realm of blasphemy
And not to destroy anyone's faith in God but to demonstrate that there is an argument for the Bible as allegory and not a historical or scientific record - here are a few of the biblical inconsistencies and contradictions i mentioned above:
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Which first--beasts or man?GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
Flying things, neither birds nor insects have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)
Whom did they see at the tomb?
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
MT 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where they stay until after Herod's death) in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughters all male infants two years old and under. (Note: John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, though under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.)
LK 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants.
MT 4:1-11, MK 1:12-13 Immediately following his Baptism, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness resisting temptation by the Devil.
JN 2:1-11 Three days after the Baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana.
MT 7:21 Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:21, RO 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:39 Those God calls to himself will be saved.
MT 28:6-8 The women ran from the tomb "with great joy."
JN 20:1-2 Mary told Peter and the other disciple that the body had been stolen.
MT 27:3-7 The chief priests bought the field.
AC 1:16-19 Judas bought the field.
MT 27:5 Judas threw down the pieces of silver, then departed.
AC 1:18 He used the coins to buy the field.
MT 27:5 Judas hanged himself.
AC 1:18 He fell headlong, burst open, and his bowels gushed out.
MT 28:1-2 The stone was still in place when they arrived. It was rolled away later.
MK 16:4, LK 24:2, JN 20:1 The stone had already been rolled (or taken) away.
MT 28:9 On his first appearance to them, Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and the other Mary hold him by his feet.
JN 20:17 On his first appearance to Mary, Jesus forbids her to touch him since he has not yet ascended to the Father.
0 comments:
Post a Comment