T ONE TIME, As many readers know, I attempted to live out what I saw as Theological Orthodoxy within a “canonical” Orthodox Church. At the time this included traditional teachings on human sexuality: these are heteronomative assumptions of monogamy equated with divine revelations of morality – and to make that statement I do not need to claim the teachings, themselves, are “homophobic” etc. We’ll touch on that later, if you don’t mind. I’ve a more important first point, though: having decided that “Canonical” Eastern Orthodoxy was the way to go, I freely chose to take the path offered by the church.

During that time, I had a discussion on a blog… don’t remember where. I know there was a lot of converts and college students. Wherever you have the latter you’ll get a very wide spectrum. There was a gay person there, a gay political activist student person who struck me as very young. His beef with me was, having decided to live celebrate, I was “in the closet” and therefore the evil enemy – and oppressed at the same time. I was to be pitied and feared all at once. And no conversation with this person was possible without his pop-psychoanalysis of my “problems” being offered.

Those of you who were reading me at that time will find “in the closet” hard to believe: I was as “out” then as I am now. But I’d chosen not to act on my sexual urges in a way that we’ll call “Genitally Active”. Since running sexually amuck in the gay community was not the right answer for me, I opted to try finding a different way to express my sexual energy, instead. Sublimation is the psychological term here. I’d allow for “delayed gratification” as well, if you wanted to focus on “suffer now, be blessed in eternity”. But that wasn’t my own goal. Even today, in my relationship with Brodie, I can see the damage I did to myself in those “sexually run amuck” days. I still say that turning off everything for five years or so was probably the healthiest choice I made.

The key point: it was my choice. I chose to become Orthodox and, I was aware what the tradition expected of me. Unlike many persons raised in American religion, I knew that the only options were not legalism vrs libertinism. But most Americans seemingly can only understand that duality. Either you can do what you want when you want or you have to follow some rules. It’s not possible, in this mindset, to follow some-but-not-all rules and do some-but-not-all of what you want without causing damage either to yourself or the path you say you follow. Perfectly non-religious persons unschooled in theology or history will tell you point blank, you can’t be gay and Christian. They will also tell you you can’t be celibate and healthy.

Three weeks ago there was this interesting discussion on BoingBoing: Are Muslim Women Oppressed? Ask One.

As of this writing there are 380 comments. The last one is as typical of the conversation as any other one. The comment writers are terrified of the idea that someone could decide to follow a rule that say “no”. They’re ok with “spirituality” but any implication that there is something to do… something that goes against cultural values like nudity and sexuality… or the idea that these ideas might be passed on to children… just scares the living daylights out of ‘em all. Perfectly non-religious persons unschooled in theology or history will tell you point blank, you can’t be a woman and Muslim. They will also tell you you can’t be veiled and healthy.

In a phone chat with a friend last night we touched on the same issue. She is engaged in vocational discernment and her friends are telling her to do “What makes her happy” whilst she is insisting that her family obligations prevent her, at this time, from simply running away to engage in scholarly study. Her friends are horrified that she would say “no, I have a duty to XYZ before I can do this other thing.”

I share that to indicate it’s not just the non-religious who don’t get it. Pious and religious persons schooled in theology and history will tell you point blank, you can’t be dutiful and happy. I’ve run into these folks amid the uberfrum, I’ll admit: they think it their duty to be unhappy. Smiles and piety don’t mix for these folks, regardless of what Jesus said on that mountainside. But I’ve also seen this attitude from the mezzo-frum and the under-frum as well as the only-frum on Christmas & Easter crowds. Something about our American mindset says you can only be one or the other… legalism or libertinism. For what it’s worth I’ve found this in Canadians as well.

This was a discussion I had when I left ECUSA for orthodoxy: a river, without banks, doesn’t flow: it meanders into marshes and dies. I was told, point blank, that such a marshy swampy river is still a river. So, OK, I’ll revert to a metaphor I learned in paganism: you can’t boil water without a pot… and a lid helps as well. We need to confine things to raise power. How many people do you know who are scattered all over the spectrum and never seem to get anything done? It’s the folks who don’t dissipate their energy that do things. Focus. Make a choice to withdraw from some areas so that other areas may prosper more fully. No first-year business man can open seven businesses all at once. College students who pick multiple majors and never settle on one choice fail.

This is the problem with anti-gay rants in the Church: not the teaching of traditional sexuality. But rather those folks who act as if gay is the only sin left are the mirror image (in the sense of legalism vs libertinism) of those who are “gay affirming” with no questions asked. The traditional teaching that marriage is a monastery, a laboratory for salvation can, in fact, be as true in a same-sex marriage as in any other relationship. It needn’t be all drugs and circuit parties! In fact, most same-sex unions I know are as boring, as sexual, as bickerful, as simple as most heterosexual unions. What breaks down for people today is that’s the way it’s supposed to be. They go “looking for themselves” as if they could exist at all alone.

Responsibility, self-limiting choices, delayed gratification, postponed joy… these are the stuff of maturity.

To flee them is simply immaturity raising its ugly head. To flee them in the name of ego, self and “spirituality not religion” is sheer stupidity for it will mean the dissipation of self, ego and spirit. Eventually, lack of responsibility and self-imposed limits will lead to death.

Escaping from the choice between legalism and libertinism is, ironically, the purpose of fasting seasons, the Wednesday/Friday fast, the abstinence from feasting and the return to feasting. When you treat these things as “rules” you destroy them. When you treat them as spiritual tools designed for your salvation…

My favourite Father Victor story gets told one more time. Confused by the Advent Fasting calendar (fish some days, but not others, etc) I asked him what was up. He showed me a calendar with different colours on different days. And, flipping back and forth through the pages he said, “This is for monks… You…” (He knew that I was a writer) he said, “You, does reading the newspaper make you angry?” Yes, Father. “STOP READING THE NEWSPAPER!” He yelled. OK… “That is your Advent fast”.

If you take the fasts or other mysteries as legal requirements, (How often do you go to confession?) you’ll not find in them the grace you need. They are tools, choices to make – self-limiting, healthy and joy-delaying choices – for your own salvation. Like the pruning of a rose, they lead to better, bigger, healthier blooms. Like the banks of a river they lead to faster-flowing, cleaner water. Like the sides and top of a pot, they hold the heat in and make for a rapid boil.

I left my time in “canonical” Orthodoxy, but I’ve not left behind the tools I learned. And I pass them along to any child I meet.

I’m not worried about “destroying their minds”. THe culture has it’s preachers on every corner, on every television and radio and all over the internet. This fear of teaching religion to children is a fear of the power of the secular message. If one’s exposure to religion can destroy it despite all its “logic” and “scientific evidence” then is very weak indeed. Truth is always more attractive.