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

Violence begets violence: Fort Hood

The tragedy at Fort Hood should absolutely be condemned. It was absolutely wrong.

According to the system of morality adopted by the military-industrial complex–and perhaps our culture at large–the actions of Major Nidal Malik Hasan were morally acceptable.

I realize that this statement sounds preposterous. Allow me to explain.

The system of morality embraced by the military-industrial complex upholds that when one cannot imagine any other way to resolve a conflict, it is appropriate to respond by asserting one’s way forcibly and violently over others.

When Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with our demands, we responded in violence. When Osama bin Laden orchestrated attacks on innocent civilians, we responded in violence. When Timonthy McVeigh bombed a government building in Oklahoma City, we responded in violence. When we are attacked, threatened, or simply challenged, we respond in violence. Our culture does not condemn violence. In fact, our culture glorifies violence. Examples of the glorification of “moral violence” can be seen in action movies, yellow ribbons on car bumpers and capital punishment in our ‘justice” system.

Leviticus 24 states, “If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”

“An eye for an eye.” In the case of our culture, an eye for a potential eye–or perhaps even a dirty glance.

If we believe that violence may be justified, glorious, even moral–as it is with the military–then we cannot condemn Major Hasan. He was acting according to the moral code espoused by the armed forces.

In 2006 in Pennsylvania Carl Roberts killed six people including himself in an Amish school shooting. The Amish response to this tragedy was strikingly beautiful. They reached out to Roberts’ family, offering forgiveness and comfort. Amish families visited Roberts’ family, comforted them and even set up a charitable fund for his family.

It’s a bold statement, but one that I believe our culture desperately needs to hear. As long as violence is permitted as a solution to problems, events like the tragedy at Fort Hood will persist. Reconciliation, not retaliation, must be our ultimate goal.

Redefining Orthodoxy prequel: What is essential to Christianity?

Recently, I’ve been writing a series of posts that I plan on releasing in the next few weeks. I’m titling the series, “Redefining Orthodoxy.” I will be examining traditional, orthodox Christian beliefs, and explaining how my understanding, though perhaps atypical, fits within orthodox Christianity.

I plan on addressing a number of topics, including:

• The incarnation
• Communion
• The crucifixion
• The resurrection
• Scripture

However, I want to be thorough, and address as many issues of essential Christianity as I can. So I’m asking everyone:

What are the essential components of the Christian faith?

What are the pillars of orthodoxy? What differentiates Christianity from other religions and philosophies? What beliefs, if deleted from Christianity, would change the fundamentals of the religion? What sacraments and ordinances are key to Christianity?

“The Origin of Satan” conclusion

Today, I finished The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels. Here’s an excerpt from the conclusion.

To pray for one’s enemies suggests that one believes that whatever harm they may have done, they are capable of being reconciled to God and to oneself. Paul, writing about twenty years before the evangelists, holds a still more traditionally Jewish perception that Satan acts as God’s agent not to corrupt people but to test them; at one point he suggests that a Christian group “deliver to Satan” one of its errant members, not in order to consign him to hell, but in the hope that he will repent and change. Paul also hopes and longs for reconciliation between his “brothers,” “fellow Israelites,” and Gentile believers.

Many Christians, then, from the first century through Francis of Assisi in the fifteenth century and Martin Luther King, Jr., in the twentieth, have believed that they stood on God’s side without demonizing their opponents. Their religious vision inspired them to oppose policies and powers they regarded as evil, often risking their well-being and their lives, while praying for the reconciliation–not the damnation–of those who opposed them.

Pagels suggests that the traditional Jewish view, prevalent throughout most of the OT and much of the NT, holds that Satan is not the arch-rival nemesis of YHWH, engaged in an epic, dualistic battle. Rather, Satan is an agent or servant of God, an antagonist sent to test God’s subjects, as in the case of Job.

Today’s popular views of Satan as the ultimate rival of God, embodiment of evil, became popularized in the couple centuries before the life of Christ with the Essenes. In the face of persecution during the early centuries of the Christian movement, many Christians adopted this perspective. Married to such beliefs is the systematic identification of one’s enemies as agents of or embodiment of Satan and his foes.

Jesus’ teaching of nonviolence and love for neighbor radically challenges the Christian dualistic beliefs. Our foe should not be one whom we demonize and seek to eradicate. We should not accept or permit violence and oppression. We should not under any circumstances, wish damnation on our enemies. Rather, we should, above all else, seek reconciliation.