Christianity, in fact the majority of monotheistic religions, view God as a being, a person, an entity. Essential qualities and characteristics of God vary from religion to religion and sect to sect; however, to my knowledge every single one views God as a spiritual person, usually (although not exclusively) a man.

I believe that this view of God severely limits our ability to understand God. Worse than that, we create God in our own image. God becomes denigrated from an limitless Divine Mystery, to a character limited to our own understanding of ourselves. In a number of religions, Christianity included, God often takes on the primary role of judge, further relegating God to an automaton, devoid of free will.

Limiting God in this way crucifies God. God is hung on a cross, relegated to a certain role, and summarily executed. God no longer becomes a divine being of infinite quality, but a bleeding, impotent mess.

Deconstructing this view of God allows a greater understanding of the potential of God. God is no longer relegated to a specific role. Furthermore, God has the ability to reveal Godself in new and unique ways that God the person would be able to.

So what is God? In my understanding, God is the sum of all things which we do not understand–the Divine Mystery. To the extent that we do not fully understand ourselves, God is at work within us. To the extent that we do not and may never fully understand the processes of the natural world, God is at work. To the extent that we do not understand the origins of the universe, the intricacies of the human body, or the matter and energy which make up subatomic particles, God is at work.

Any practice which helps us reach new levels of understanding becomes an act of worship. Science, education, meditation, seeking solitude, hospitality and communion all help us better understand that which is a mystery to us. They help us understand 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 me. 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.

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.

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.

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.

“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

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.

Scotteriology had a post on How to Ruin Halloween. It was so ridiculous, I thought I’d keep it going.

Chick tracts describes how to make Halloween a soul-winning event. You may remember Chick from the best tract ever. May God save you from hellish boredom if you’ve ever been handed one of Chick’s tracts by a badly-dressed, over-enthusiastic street preacher. They’re hard to avoid on Michigan Ave. The Statement of Faith on Chick’s website opens by declaring that the KJV is the only source of absolute Truth. Their theology degenerates from there (as if that weren’t low enough) to decry such heretical institutions as: Catholicism, Masonry, the odious NIV.

I digress. Back to soul-winning on Halloween. Chick.com says, “Let’s be honest. How many of us have hidden in the back of the house, with the porch light off, hoping the kids will leave us alone? We don’t like Halloween and its occultic history, and we don’t celebrate it. So we hide our light, instead of letting it shine. Is that what Jesus called us to do?” Apparently real Christians don’t go trick-or-treating. I forgot. So, how do they suggest we let our light shine, instead of hiding it? Check it out:

Let Trick-or-Treaters pick from a tray stocked with different Chick tracts.

Pass out Chick tracts at Haunted Houses.

Put a Chick tract under windshield wipers at adult Halloween parties.

Leave tracts in the candy section of stores.

Set up a table and give Trick-or-Treaters Chick tracts as they pass by your church.

Go house to house saying, “Trick or Tract,” then hand the person a Chick tract.

Share Halloween tracts at school.

Leave Chick tracts at Costume shops.

Hit the streets, shouting, “Free comic books!” You’ll be swarmed with requests.

Won’t be home? Leave a box of Chick tracts at your front door with instructions.

Give some of your tracts to your Christian friends to get them involved.

Organize a church-wide Chick tract distribution project.

Hand out tracts at places where they sell Halloween pumpkins.

I would just like to highlight number 6 on that list, “Go house to house saying, ‘Trick or Tract,’ then hand the person a Chick tract.” Disclaimer: if you say “Trick or Tract” to me at the door this year, I will throw a bowl of rotty oatmeal on your face.

Or how about number 9, “Hit the streets, shouting, ‘Free comic books!’ You’ll be swarmed with requests,” … until everyone realizes your passing out Chick tracts, at which point you will likely be pushed into a stagnant body of water, stripped naked and dropped miles from home, or mercilessly pummeled.  All of these are appropriate responses to the situation.

Please, kids. Stick to candy. It may rot your teeth, but it won’t rot your mind.

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?

Last night the wife and I made homemade saffron ricotta ravioli. Saffron consists of “threads”–stigmas of a crocus flower. Each crocus contains 3 stigmas, which must be picked out by hand. It takes approximately 80,000 crocuses to make one pound of saffron, making it the most costly spice in the world by weight. My Herbs and Spices book describes its aroma as: “rich, pungent, musky, floral, honeyed and tenacious,” and it’s taste as: “delicate yet penetrating, warm, earthy, musky, bitter and lingering.” Saffron’s bright color also make it an excellent dye. I’ve heard that it was traditionally used to dye the robes of Buddhist monks.

Pasta:
400g flour
4 eggs
1T olive oil
1t salt

Ricotta filling:
1/2 t saffron
1 T milk
1 1/2 c ricotta
Zest of 1/2 orange
1 egg
Pepper to taste

Sauce:
2 cloves garlic
3 small tomatoes
1 sprig of fresh sage
4 T olive oil

Make the pasta dough:

Sift flour onto clean counter top.

Make a volcano out of the flour. Break eggs into the crater.

Add olive oil and salt. Using your fingers, mix eggs, oil and salt. Begin working flour into the egg mixture, being careful not to rupture the edge of the volcano.

Work into a dough, and knead for 3-5 minutes. One finished, wrap and let sit for an hour.

Make the ricotta filling:

Crush the saffron and let it soak in the milk for 20 minutes.

Zest the orange.

Mix the zest, egg, pepper and saffron/milk into the ricotta.

Make the ravioli:

Step 1: Keep all cats away from the pasta machine.

Break off a fist-sized chunk of pasta dough, and run it through the machine to the thinnest setting. (If you don’t have a pasta machine, roll the dough out on a floured surface until about as thick as a postcard).

Lay the dough over a ravioli tray. Carefully stretch the dough into the pockets of the tray.

Beat an egg with 1T of water. Paint the edges of the ravioli pockets (acts as a glue). Scoop a heaping teaspoon of filling into the pockets.

Lay another sheet of pasta dough over tray to cover the pockets. Roll the tray to perforate the edges of the ravioli.

Dump them out, separate them, and let them dry for an hour.

Finish:

In olive oil, lightly fry two cloves of minced garlic. Reduce heat to lowest possible setting. Add diced tomatoes (seeds removed), chopped thyme and pepper to taste.

In another pot bring water to a boil. Add ravioli, and let them cook 4 or 5 minutes until puffy and floating.