Two sides of the same coin…
5 October 2007 - 24 תשרי 5768 by Huw
Over at ePiscoSours, the writer asks “How Useful is Theology?” My Orthodox readers will have a strong answer to that question (with the caveat that it must be the “right theology”).
In a parallel post, Jendi Reiter wonders “To Whom does the Church Belong?” She hits the right answer, “Jesus, of course…” but then asks us to “be more specific.”
I see these as parallel posts because of the comments on the first one which draw in comparisons with which my readers will be familiar: Rabbinic Debate and the idea that “Truth” is not a book or a code but a person - that is, Jesus.
Jendi writes:
The divinity of Christ, salvation by faith, the Resurrection, belief in miracles — these, by contrast, seemed to me like non-negotiables during my estrangement from my Episcopal church. Now, I can make a nice case for why I was “right” but that’s not what this post is about. It’s about, how can we live together, when one person’s core doctrine is another’s “things indifferent”? I suspect that for many liberal Episcopalians, the words of the Creed involve faraway matters about which no one can be certain, whereas political rights and wrongs are personal, immediate and clear as day.
And Anonymous Sours responds:
Every so often my Jewish and apatheistic past bubbles up again, and I just get the urge to scream, “Who cares?” Doubly so when I feel like correct opinions about God are used as shibboleths between Christians to separate the sheep from the goats. Interestingly, one always believes oneself to be with the sheep. Isn’t that funny?
And the entire discussion calls to mind this prayer, traditional among Roman Catholics:
An Act of Faith
O my God, I firmly believe that thou art one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I believe that thy Son became man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, who canst neither deceived nor be deceived.
It all begs the question - which can only be answered by circular reasoning - what is the “Holy Catholic Church” and where is it now? No… you can’t just draw a line in history and answer the question. The reason is:
A) You have to assume “the church” some how is not in error.
B) You have to assume you know - or can find out - what “not in error” means.
C) The multiple and various organisations claiming to be “not in error” are, collectively, contradictory.
It requires a circle of logic - or else a leap of faith.
It’s rather like ePiscoSours says, “Interestingly, one always believes oneself to be with the sheep.”
It took Judaism several thousand years to develop the idea of “heresy” outside of what we would call “Social Justice Issues.” Generally, if the poor were not fed and the debts were collected with interest something was horribly wrong - no matter how many Yom Kippurs your High Priest celebrated. Only much later - 10th century CE - did Maimonides come up with something that could be called a definition of heresy and orthodoxy in Judaism. Yet, even now - after 1000 years - the statement’s validity is debated. There is no canonical text, even. This is a 3000 year old religion.
Christians? We leapt to definitions of Orthodoxy in only 300 years or so - and we did so under the pressure of secular politics, claiming that God was inspiring the politicians to press us so. The process is highly suspect, if you ask me - even if I agree with some of the creedal points thus generated.
What do you do when (e.g.) a group splits into A and B. Both A and B claim to be right. From outside, until the split, they were alike. At the split their only difference is one point… But after the split differences multiply beyond count. Which one is right?
What do you do when (e.g.) a group splits into A and B. Both A and B claim to be right. From outside, until the split, they were near enough as to be the same on what seems important, but there were differences. From inside both see the growing differences as terribly important. When they split, how do you pick who is right?
Your answers are more important than theirs: when you pick between the two groups in either example, how and why you pick tells us more about you than about the groups. And having picked we’re left with the theological baggage of the choice. A or B - in either example - has, today, a host of political and doctrinal issues all of which you must swallow in order to be a Good One. At which point do you give up swallowing and just say, “ah, the hell with it”? Never, if you wish to remain a Good One.
I rather like Jendi’s statement - “The divinity of Christ, salvation by faith, the Resurrection, belief in miracles” - but it seems quite clear to me that’s not the totality of following God in the way of Jesus. And somehow, despite his occasional seeming lapses into what we might call “theology”, I get the sense that Jesus was more interested in what we Do, not what we Credo.
I could be wrong, of course.
Jendi ties it in to our current debates about sexuality, yet I don’t think we can get off the hook so easily. Our ideas of sexuality effect/affect our theological ideas. What you say about sexuality loops into what you say about men and women. What you say about men and women loops into what you say about Jesus. What you say about Jesus loops into what you say about God. What you say about sex ties into Morality. Morality ties into God.
*Shrug*
Does talking about God equate with knowing?
Does even claiming to know equate with God’s being?
Does an eternally present and incarnational deity ever change?
Does a loving God allow for disagreement?
Does praying to God in all humility allow one to know who God is?
Does God have a say in the matter?
At which point(s) do you wrestle with history and politics instead of God’s person?
These are not rhetorical questions. I just don’t think we need the answers as fast as we seem to want them.
In the world of fast food, it seems that we are no longer able to live with paradox or ambiguity any longer. Societally we belive that all is knowable, that all is attainable.
That may not be so.
The Jews still operate in various sects to this day.
In essence, so do the Christians, we just believe that we are called to be unified, and I believe this is where the real power struggle comes in: if we are all to be one, then “correct” belief becomes paramount. In order to be “one”, you must all believe the same thing.
I don’t particularly believe this is true or useful.
For me, it is enough to be with people who care enough to wrestle with their spiritual beliefs and morality - I have no need to quiz the members of my church.
Where I do have a problem, and this could certainly be the log in my own eye, is with any dogma or doctrine that is stupidly exclusionary (exclusion based on race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.) - I think that is humanity trying to overthrow the divine.
Otherwise, I’m pretty much live and let live. It’s enough for me that the people around me get fed in a similar way to me.
(Came via Pisco’s site)
Hi Eileen - thanks for stopping in!
In order to be “one”, you must all believe the same thing.
When I was Eastern Orthodox, I hit a new twist on this theory. There are some - and they generally no longer comment here - who seem to believe that in order to be one you must actually all *do* the same thing at the same time. Take that literally. I have an Orthodox prayer book (a very popular one, actually) that lists the proper times that one should make the sign of the cross or bow during divine liturgy. The list opens up with a bit of a rant on not having the freedom to do whatever we might want. And since the body is tied to prayer and prayer to God… well…
OK. I follow the argument.
The problem is, assuming the argument is offered in good faith, we should engage it. When I said “I don’t think we need the answers as fast as we seem to want them” I meant not that we shouldn’t keep working to find them!
It’s the struggle to find the answers that, I think, is the process of faith. Dogma can be exclusion, yes, but I don’t think we get off the hook by just dismissing it.
We need a positive theological reply.
Thanks for the thoughtful reaction to my blog post. I’m wary of playing off orthodoxy against orthopraxy. I care about Christology only because I do think it effects how we live, a connection that the liberal church has all but forgotten how to make. Do we need to be reconciled to God? (Yes.) Can we do that on our own? (No.) The creedal statements (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, atonement) are a shorthand reminder of how God makes us righteous, all on His own. That’s not a substitute for Christian ethics, but it’s the best antidote I know for caring about our own correctness (in belief or behavior) instead of loving one another.