Discuss

1) There is a right way to do Christianity and a wrong way to do it.

2) This right and wrong has little to do with “doctrine” per se (debatable, iota-sized technicalities about begetting and essence and accident and que) and much to do with practice (do justice, love mercy, pray for enemies, forgive, etc).

3) Christianity is judgmental in the first-person only. I am the only sinner I’ll ever know, all others are to be Christ to me. I’m not going to get it right.

4) Christianity is communal. None of the above is possible without a community: iron sharpens iron, rocks tumble in the river, sharpened edges grind down and we are saved together or not at all. We call this community Church. Church happens – even in places where the name isn’t used or is anathema. I’m not going to get it right on my own.

5) “Saved” has to do with all of the above. “Heaven” or “Afterlife” or “Pie in the Sky” is unimportant in this equation: if you think there is a “Heaven” why not make that lifestyle present here, now, always. If it’s around in the sky, that’s just a cool bonus.

6) Right worship is found in a community that is “doing it right” (see #2) and – at the same time – Traditional, “high church”, etc. Montesorri Grade School silliness is not church, not worship: it is me-oriented, not God-oriented. It prevents “Doing it right” because being me-oriented in worship results in being me-oriented in the world. Being God-oriented in worship results in being God-oriented (ie, my neighbour) in the world.

Traditional does not mean static: saying/doing the same things, over and over, whilst the meanings change is not “keeping the traditions”. It’s possible to be Traditional whilst singing kirtans or dancing the hora or wearing dashikis.

7) Numbers 1 through 6 need the traditional icons of Christianity to work. Trinity, Church and Eucharist are the only ways this unity-in-diversity works at all. Salvation only happens that way – making unity in diversity. Making Humanity an here-and-now reflection of the Holy Trinity is salvation. It only happens in the Church. But see #4.

8) Persons who can be called *doctrinally* devout Christians (define doctrine as you will) have come to differing conclusions on the issue of human sexuality. My experience has been that persons who agree on Trinity, Church and Eucharist – not the doctrines, but the icons – can actually worship together in peace.

Icons not doctrines: Trinity as the image humanity strives to be; Church as the image of that being. Eucharist as the proof, context and creation of that being. Icons not doctrines: sometimes the names are different.

9) We can debate doctrines all we want. We can even argue and painfully disagree. But when we stand before God (before Whom all our differences are merely like familial genetics) we prostrate in peace, feed each other in love and dance together in joy. That – unity-in-diversity, worshipping together in peace – is the Kingdom of God on earth, taking over the world, destroying the systems of evil that man puts up and replacing it with Love.

10) The only proof of getting it right is when all of us are together. And most of the time “us” is defined in too-small a way to be right.

7 Responses to “Discuss”

david
December 12th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

#9 – reminded me of c.s. lewis’ book “the great divorce”.
in that book, lewis talks about there being only one way in heaven – His way. the fact that someone is a critic that wants to use his skills in heaven, doesn’t matter. a mother who wants the right to see her son, is told she can’t have that as a goal. a man who is outraged that “some sinner” is let into heaven, is told to submit to His will. they all seem to be told the same thing. everyone is told when they get off the bus that to live in heaven, you have to understand one thing – it’s not about you, it’s about Him.

so it struck me that perhaps there is no real diversity in heaven at all.

Fr. Orthoduck
December 14th, 2009 at 5:06 pm

I can buy your emphasis on community, but are you not in danger of making the first Seven Ecumenical Councils impossible, since there was never full agreement? Therefore, one could always argue that since all were not together (point 10) therefore there is no proof that we got it right.

I know what you are trying to say and agree with much of it, but, uhm, you may be going too far in the other direction from fundamentalist over-definition.

Huw
December 14th, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Not “impossible” just not normative. Descriptive rather than prescriptive. The following question gets VERY quickly into circular logic… I say that as a warning…

Does the Church have the authority to divide the wheat from the tares – and if so, does she have that authority from Jesus or from Caesar?

If the Gospels are literal history “as it happened” then, at best all we can say is “maybe Jesus might have suggested something of the kind… sometimes.”

If the Gospels are retroactive – more descriptive of the communities for which they were written than of historical events – then at best all we can say is some communities thought they had that power and some did not.

But it’s important to note that we don’t see wholesale heretic bashing until after the Roman state takes over and needs a unified church as a social tool for secular unity. (I don’t buy this argument 100% because certainly the emperor would have liked the Arian universe a bit more than the Trinitarian one.)

The point is not to provide a 100% locked up answer to the question but to cast a reasonable doubt upon our usual assumptions.

Fr. Orthoduck
December 15th, 2009 at 9:35 am

In other words, you are like the flagman on a construction crew raising a caution flag to oncoming traffic. GRIN.

But, I see your point. It is true that until Christianity became part of the State, the arguments were purely vocal, since there was no legal means of enforcement by the State. However, Marcion and others were excommunicated though not persecuted.

Part of the danger is that each one of us has a list of whom we would throw out and whom we would allow to stay even though they are mistaken on some issues. And, you are right, it is not always easy to decide.

Huw
December 16th, 2009 at 7:34 am

Part of the difference is prior to empire…

The theologies of Marcion and the Church are radically different – like the hypothetical JW mentioned above. If one of them showed up, wanted to be there, wanted to pray without disruption… would you know the difference? AN iconoclast would destroy the building. But if he was able to pray quietly and take communion and leave… would you have known he was there?

Stand up. Teach the truth. Feed those who come.

I’m not suggesting that Church needs to change her teaching on anything. I’m not suggesting a liturgy devoid of content, or a sermon with only warm fuzzies.

Preach it. But recognise there are respectable differences.

If someone who denies the resurrection is willing to sit through a 3 hour Paschal VIgil, singing, dancing, shouting, laughing, and joyously being present. Is that not all that matters? Or, better, isn’t everything else only between her and God? Later in Sunday School she may even say “I don’t believe that”. And you may ask, “then why do you come?” and she may say… “Community. Good music. Fun.” and we should rejoice that God has drawn her that way and let him work on her mind.

If someone who denies the trinity is willing to sit through any Sunday service from “Blessed is the kingdom…” right up to “and the blessing of God…” and doesn’t interrupt every time “Father Son Spirit God” comes up… let his issue be with God, rather than with us. If at coffee hour he says, “How is that possible” and you say “mystery” and he snorts… but comes back next Sunday… rejoice that God has drawn him thus and let God work on his mind.

Not using doctrines as litmus tests is not the same thing as not teaching them at all, although I will say God might be working on your mind as well and one day the Church might let go of something hitherto thought to be terribly important. The problem comes not when we think and wrestle with God about God, but rather when we wrestle with other people…. today’s tares might be tomorrow’s wheat. But either way – let God sort them out.

An-Sionnach
December 18th, 2009 at 3:40 am

Pretty much have been spiritually DEAD for some time until I read this. Although still caught in the political BS of mainstream religion, you have once again, my friend, shown that the philosophy of it still remains true.

?????
arigat?

peter
December 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

Huw, I’m glad I viewed this set of comments. (Or maybe I just missed an update in the other discussion.) Anyway, I really like the way you’ve explained it in your Dec. 16 reply. As Fr. Stephen Freeman often says, “90% of Orthodoxy is just showing up.” Being there doesn’t require believing or agreeing with everything that is said and done. But being present with others, that is where the blessing begins.