Redefining Orthodoxy

My new series, Redefining Orthodoxy, is a personal attempt to explain how my beliefs–though perhaps atypical–fit within orthodox Christianity. My Statement of Faith explains further how I understand God, the world and myself.

Redefining Orthodoxy: The Causal God

One of the first ideas that I deconstructed about Christianity is the idea that God is a causal being. By that, I mean that I don’t believe that God interacts with or in any way directs the course of human history. God does not have a will or plan.

I often hear people attribute inexplicable circumstances to the will of God. When a job opportunity falls through, it’s because God has a different one in mind. When rent money unexpectedly appears from an unknown source, it is God’s blessing. When a child dies in a tragic accident, it’s part of God’s plan to teach us something even more amazing. When a situation is hopeless beyond any imaginable redeeming quality, it is because God works in mysterious ways. A causal God is reassuring, giving us strength to persevere in the face of overwhelmingly difficult situations. A causal God answers the prayers of the righteous. A causal God has a benevolent plan, will and purpose for everything, even if we cannot discern it. Such a God reassures us because ultimately, responsibility is not in our hands.

However, upon closer evaluation, I find that such notions lose credibility. For example, one individual recounted a story of how he couldn’t find his eraser in class one day. He prayed to God that he would find it. He looked in his backpack, and there it was. God had seemingly answered his prayer. For some reason, my mind immediately jumped to those suffering in extreme poverty. I thought about the HIV+ mother in Africa who is praying for the life of her child who is dying of malaria. Despite her fervent prayer, her child dies. Instead of answering her prayer, God worked in mysterious ways, probably to bless her in the future in ways that we can’t imagine now.

The question that formed in my mind was this: Why is it that God answered the prayer of the kid who lost his eraser, yet chose to “work in mysterious ways” for the woman whose child was dying? Furthermore, why does God frequently answer frivolous prayers of privileged people, while frequently choosing to “work in mysterious ways” for oppressed and marginalized people?

By that assessment, the causal God is racist, classist, sexist, heterosexist, and in all other ways prejudiced against anyone who our society discriminates against. The causal God is predominantly concerned with the whims of the societal elite, identifying with and reinforcing their positions of power. The causal God commits all forms of societal sin which Jesus preached so adamantly against. In fact, the causal God is the greatest perpetrator of societal sin.

The causal God is dead to. It was a scary thought at first. Our perceived safety net is gone. However, I believe the safety net has always only been wishful thinking; ultimately, we’re better off dismantling this myth.

If God does not interact with, direct and orchestrate human history, then who does? You. Me. Everyone. Everything. To the extent that we make our own decisions, we control our own destiny. To the extent that forces beyond our control affect us, we must learn to accept and adapt to what happens to us. Rather than being instruments of a divine puppet master, we control our own actions.

Such an idea can be liberating. Collectively, all of creation dictates its own fate. Yet, this liberation is coupled with an onus of stewardship. In that we dictate our fate, we are responsible for it. This responsibility should not make us feel guilty for our shortcomings, but motivate us to overcome them. For if we created them, we can also reverse or overcome them.

Redefining Orthodoxy: The Bible and Scripture.

I had originally planned to wait to address the topic of Scripture and the Bible in Redefining Orthodoxy. However, most orthodox Christians won’t consider any of my following perspectives unless I first address the issue of the nature of scripture, the Bible, and its inerrancy.

Conservative perspectives vary on their positions concerning the nature of the Bible. However, most profess that the Bible was divinely inspired/written by God, and that it is inerrant/literal. Scripture and the Bible are interchangeable terms. Being divinely inspired or written by God means that God either literally wrote the Bible, as God did in the Biblical account of the 10 Commandments, or God inspired humans to write it (in which case, it was only physically written by humans. Through God’s spirit possessed the writer through mental incarnation. Humans physically produced a verbatim manuscript of the message that God wished to impart). Since the Bible is the verbatim word of an infallible god, it must be inerrant and literal (although many who believe this in theory often contradict themselves in practice).

The problem with such a perspective is that it blurs distinctions between God and the Bible. The Bible becomes an idol, placed on the same level as God. Any challenge to the inerrancy of the Bible is an assault on the infallibility of God. The Bible isn’t truth, it is absolute Truth.

Science, logic and even the Bible itself demonstrate clearly that the Bible is neither inerrant nor meant to be taken literally. A number of contradictions exist within the text itself. Some passages were never intended to be taken literally. Demanding that such passages be taken literally requires one to discard of all rationality and logic.

I would like to distinguish between the Bible and scripture. Scripture reveals Truth. The Bible reveals truth, and therefore, is scripture. However, the Bible is not the only source for scripture. If we define scripture as anything that reveals Truth, then other writings or even personal revelation may be described as scripture. Furthermore, revealing Truth is not the same as being Truth. Although the Bible reveals Truth, it is not Truth.

I think most people who believe that the Bible is literal and inerrant are unwilling to consider alternatives because they fear that such viewpoints will diminish the value of this piece of scripture. A common response to such challenges to Biblical inerrancy is, “Well, if the Bible is wrong or made up, why even bother with it? Either throw the whole thing out, or accept it all as Truth.” I find such polarizing views unhelpful. In the words of one of my former professors, “Just because a story isn’t factual, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.” Even if the Bible isn’t an accurate historical account, that doesn’t mean it fails to reveal beautiful insights into the nature of God. In fact, relinquishing strict adherence to a literal, inerrant Bible has opens the possibility for new, refreshing perspectives and deeply profound insights into the text and its message.

Put simply, a logical, rational, academic consideration of the text contradicts perspectives that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word dictated by God. The Bible is a reflection on a spiritual experience; therefore, it is divinely inspired. It offers insight into the nature of God, and therefore, is scripture. The longevity and degree of its significance makes it the most important piece of scripture in the Christian tradition.

Why Redefine Orthodoxy?

On the first “Redefining Orthodoxy” post, a series of questions was posed to me: “Why is it so important to you to label yourself as ‘Christian’? You said yourself that your beliefs are atypical, so why the desire to label yourself with a label that means, and has meant, something other than what you believe for 2000 years? Why not just call yourself something different so there is no confusion?” Basically: Why redefine orthodoxy?

These are good questions. I felt the answers are important enough to have their own post. There are actually a number of reasons why I feel that this project is important, and why I continue to identify myself as Christian.

One reason has to do with personal history. I was raised in the Christian tradition. Historically, I identify with and relate to the concepts and values of Christianity. I also have a personal aversion to giving up or quitting just because things get hard. I’ve watched many friends do this. They began questioning Christianity. When an issue arose that they were unable to reconcile, they eventually turned their backs and rejected it. I didn’t want to do this. Christianity still has value and meaning to me. While I wasn’t always able to express this well, many of the principles never lost their significance, only their relevance, to my life. Basically, I didn’t want to get a divorce because we had a big fight. This is why I still label myself as Christian instead of abandoning the label in favor of another.

This brings me to my second point. Because I still identify with Christianity, yet my beliefs seem to conflict with popular understanding, I feel it is necessary to redefine Christian orthodoxy for my context. Reconciliation is perhaps the essential theme in Christianity. For me, the process of redefining orthodoxy is a process of reconciliation. I feel I am reconnecting with the tradition that has meant so much to me historically. I am rediscovering old precepts in new and exciting ways. In essence, the faith, once stagnant and dead, has been resurrected in my life. It has meaning, substance and purpose once again.

Lastly, I would debate whether Christianity has indeed meant the same thing for 2000 years. I would argue that it hasn’t. Our understanding and even basic definition of Christianity has evolved and changed over the past two millennia–shaped as much by history and culture as it has shaped history and culture. I don’t think that any of the previous understandings were incorrect. However, I think Christianity is a living faith. It grows, changes and reacts. This is a good thing, in my opinion. Christianity is not dead, stagnant or dormant. It is an interaction with an undefinable God, and as such, can never remain the same because our knowledge and experience of God continually grows.

For such reasons, I am seeking to redefine orthodoxy as an act of reconciliation and resurrection in my life. It’s been beautiful so far. I’m loving it.

Redefining Orthodoxy

I’ve decided to take my blog in a new direction for the next few weeks. I’m going to be doing a series called “Redefining Orthodoxy.” In this series I will examine traditional, orthodox Christian beliefs, and explain how my understanding–though perhaps atypical–fits within orthodox Christianity.  I’ve started by creating a Statement of Faith, a living document that essentially outlines my perspective on life.

For those who have know me or have been following my blog for the past few years, you know that I’ve undergone a process of spiritual deconstruction. I grew up in a theologically conservative Christian tradition. Beginning three or four years ago, I began deconstructing my faith with the support and help of many loved ones. Piece by piece, I pulled apart the faith that I learned growing up, until all that was left was a pile of spiritual detritus. But chaos is not humanity’s preferential state. I began trying to make sense of the pieces that remained. After much studying, thinking and discussing, I began to form my own ideas and opinions about the nature of God and the human experience. The result looked nothing like the concepts that I had learned as a kid. From the conservative Christian perspective of my youth, I am most likely an atheist or Buddhist and most certainly a heretic.

Yet, I still deeply appreciate and value the stories of the Bible. I still find many of the truths found within it to be beautiful and inspiring. I love the metaphors of the incarnation, communion, crucifixion and resurrection. I never could let go of these ideas, even though I struggled to understand how they apply to my beliefs. I never could disregard the religious tradition that I grew up in. I still identified myself as a Christian.

So this project, Redefining Orthodoxy, will be a personal endeavor to reclaim my faith practice. I will attempt to explain how my atypical beliefs still fit within orthodox Christian beliefs like the incarnation, communion, crucifixion and resurrection.

As I reinterpret fundamental Christian beliefs and illuminate a new perspective on an ancient faith, I have two hopes for my readers. For anyone undergoing a similar process of deconstruction, I hope to encourage you to look for and cherish the beautiful, redeemable aspects in their own faith practice. For those who profess popularly accepted orthodox beliefs, I hope that this new perspective will challenge you to ask critical questions about your beliefs.

In the process, I invite dialogue. If you feel I am being inconsistent, please respectfully bring the inconsistency to my attention. If there are specific issues which you would like me to address, please let me know. The topics which I discuss often evoke strong emotional responses; please be respectful. Remember that the purpose of communication is to understand one another, not prove oneself right.

Monasticism and the Wilderness

“There is a very interesting relationship between wilderness and sacredness. All the great monastic traditions, whether that’s Christianity, Buddhism, or Taoist, all find their roots in an experience of their founders going into the desert, into the wilderness, onto the mountains, and finding there something that civilization cannot give them, a realization about themselves, about nature, about the divine. …It’s that sense that you are in front of something greater than yourself.”

~Martin Palmer, Chief Executive, Alliance of Religions and Conservation