Sarx

erge  » made a comment on a recent post and I think I need to reply in full to it…

I know you’re angry at the Catholic (Orthodox) Church for not changing to accommodate your desires - I think you really didn’t want to leave but were honest enough to admit the church can’t change that way…

I came on everyone’s radar when I wrote “I was in hell“. It was a good essay. I earned 30 pieces of silver $200 for it from a Republican magazine and I know it’s been around the net more times than some of my happier pieces. That’s what propaganda does.

But it’s not enough of the story for people to understand what I’m doing… There was a lot before that.

As I’ve said in several places, my problems with ECUSA arose over Creedal Chaos.

This is what I wrote to Fr Victor when he asked me what I was rejecting:

…I can say that I do (or do not) reject the doctrine X but even as I say it, I know it’s only a doctrine in some places - not in others. Do I reject the ordination of women? While, I say yes, I reject it, Anglicans fall on both sides of that. There are dioceses that will accommodate me no matter how I answer. Do I reject the teachings of Bishop Jack Spong? Yes, I do, but there are many supportive places to go, either way. Do I believe in a celibate clergy, transubstantiation and veneration of the BVM on Saturdays? I can make a list of parishes longer than your arm that would welcome me. Do I reject all of that as sinful “papistry” and instead want praise and worship music, with nothing harder to understand than “we worship you, Lord; bring us before your glory”? There are many parishes, dioceses and clergy that really fear the use of liturgical worship and instead want more-Protestant style services. Do I reject the ideas that the scriptures are inspired, that Jesus rose from the dead, that there is a personal God out there? There are many clergy and teachers like that. Do I think communion should be given to everyone who comes as a sign of God’s love because to require them to be baptized and convert is just too hard? Do I think all religions are equal and there’s no reason to be anything other than “spiritual”? Do I support or reject the blessing of gay unions? Anglicans have both sides of any of these discussions.

It doesn’t matter how I answer any of these questions: I can still be an Anglican. It gets really vague after a while! It seems one needn’t be a Christian to be an Anglican. It can be like liturgical Unitarian Universalism.

And that, I think, is what I reject: the fact that there is no canon, no ability to tell when you’ve strayed. How can I ask the Good Shepherd to bring me back inside the fold when all the fences are invisible and porous? I remember the old joke about “Anglican Vague”: “All things in moderation, especially moderation.”

Six years ago, with Episcopal Church canons and General Convention resolutions laying before them, a court of bishops said that it found no reason to rule that resolutions were the mind of the church and so binding on everyone. So the resolutions of the church are non-binding on Bishops who want to break them. The result of that ruling was three years of Bishops doing whatever they wanted, noting that the resolutions were non-binding. The second result of that ruling has been proliferation of New Canons as new rules can’t just be resolutions, they have to be canons.

So bishops that won’t ordain women are having their power to rule their dioceses removed (after being promised for 20+ years that they would be left alone because of their scruples), bishops who stand at odds with their clergy are being sued by the clergy. Conservative Bishops who disagree with the teachings of a large, liberal majority are consecrating their own bishops so that they can get a majority again. And every time there was a meeting, I held my breath waiting for a schism that never came, and I confess I would be hard pressed to tell you in advance which side I would have taken.

I look to Orthodoxy for boundaries, borders, clear guidance on the way to Salvation. I’m seeking unity in the Body of Christ, and I realized that one can not have all the vagaries of doctrine and still imagine that we are “one”. Father, I remember your sermon on the Sunday before Pentecost, speaking of Our Lord’s High Priestly Prayer that we all “may be one”. And I just didn’t find any hope for unity outside of the Church - and I looked (even outside of Christianity for a while). I was seeking a way of life that was the Gospel…

I think that’s important: please notice I never said anything there about gay. I never said anything there about my sexuality or confusion about the same. As I wrote at another time, maybe the same liberalism that allowed churches to welcome gays was what caused them to forget the virgin birth. So I went looking for a Church that had the virgin birth (etc) and I was also honest: I knew what the Church taught about sexuality and it was my decision that if the Church was what it said it was, then she must be right about sex too.

What I found was something rather different from the advertising…

From the get-go, I found parishes that had gay couples in them: Antiochian, GOA and OCA. From the get-go, I found people who had very interesting ideas about what it all means. From the get go I realised there was a disconnect between the hype about a church that never changes and the reality of liturgy and theology that evolves - certainly more slowly than in other places… but look at the difference between the Roman church’s understanding of divorce and the Orthodox churches’ teaching on the same. Things change. And not just liturgically, but also theologically, morally and ethically.

To ask questions of the clergy (in the pages of this blog or in person) was to learn more about the *clergy* than about the faith. Priest 1 says the church is infallible - it’s in the creed. His friend, Priest 2 says otherwise. But both say, “ask your priest and do what he says…” Local option is the only thing going.

Ask what the central tenants of Orthodoxy are and you will be told any number of things that seem perfectly wonderful - until you realise that the parish up the road is slightly different. Or until you see that the Western Right is also different - only more so. What one parish/ priest/ bishop/ jurisdiction says is vitally important to one’s salvation is exactly what is ignored next door. Creationism? Evolution? Sexuality? Calendars? Doors open or closed? Non-Orthodox getting the Antidoron? Music? Women in pants? Liturgical Language? For some parties anyone of these issues can make or break the “rightness” of a given parish. And while “obey your priest” is intended to imply “he’s your doctor and knows what your soul needs”, what usually comes out is “Orthodoxy, the Disorganised Religion”.

And to ask questions of the laity (in the pages of this blog or in person) was to learn that, lo… Orthodoxy has just as many opinions as Anglicanism does with one difference

Orthodoxy is dysfunctional about them: she is in denial.

Rome, too, has all these opinions, but she has Level Bosses at ever turn to squash anything different from the prevailing pontifical fashion. Orthodoxy hasn’t such authority. She has only the ability to pretend everything is ok. But the internet changes all that (as Anglicanism has discovered): it is possible to see into the liberalism of the parish next door when someone blogs. (Discover attitudes of the Orthodox towards each other to see what I mean. It’s not pretty.)

What I discovered was a denomination rather like any other - fallible, filled with humans and quite wonderful. Special - like every other church is special. Like the Methodists and Episcopalians, Orthodoxy has some things on paper in a room - and no one even pretends to follow them unless someone is looking.

Having discovered that: there was nothing to keep me there, as such. A straight, married, ex-Anglican clergyman may find a lot to keep him busy. But there was nothing there for a gay man who was playing by the rules… when there was no need to. Why stay in a corner of the church where one is asked to go in denial… I could have been like the other gay couples I knew (or knew of) and just not hold hands at Church: but I’m an adult. I don’t need to play games like that, plus I blog - and honestly so. I’d no desire to cause a scandal. Just to move on.

She is, today, where Anglicanism was 50 years ago. It may take Orthodoxy 200 or 300 years to move the same distance that Anglicanism did in 50… but she is moving. I think Orthodoxy could be quite awesome if it would only step into the light of honesty. But when Orthodox (0r Romans or Anglicans) start acting like there’s something there that is not… then I get angry.

And I say so - quite loudly.

I’m not angry at “the Church” but rather angry at people who are unable to be honest about what the Church is. Yes, there is a part of me that is angry at being sold one thing only to find another when I got home and opened the box. But that still is people, people in denial about what they have. My Protestant brain kicks in there, “the Church” is the people. There is no mystical, invisible “real church” behind the scenes. What we see is the church. It’s happening now. It’s connected to everything else, yes - living and dead - but it’s local in time and space.

I love the eastern liturgy - and I miss it muchly: the music, the chanting, the beauty. I love the theology - and I spend a lot of time convincing western friends that they need to look Eastward before they go all post-modern.

Creedal Chaos seems to be SNAFU in all of the Church - in every denomination. Where the Rubber meets the road, the creed is only a roadmap - and not always used by the drivers (and nearly never read the same way anyway).

Remember the first part of “Snafu” is “Situation Normal”. The church is AFU always - because she has humans. After years of not being ok with that, am I.