A Comment Addressed
There has been a nonny moose running around my blog lately. Today I found a comment from... we'll use the oft-forgotten gender-neutral here... him, sections of which I shall now attempt to answer.
That is entirely true. I still wonder how some of those people got to their places of authority. Most of my friends growing up have walked away from Christianity because of people like that. You and I and others like us recognize that "going to church doesn't make you a Christian, any more than being in a garage makes you a car." I never said in my post that I "held Christianity suspect on their account." I did say that I recognized that they were especially bad examples, and that recognition prevented me from leaving.
The other day I was shopping for juice. I really wanted real juice, but most of what was available was flavored sugar water with a mess of chemicals meant to resemble fruit. Yuck. That's not going to keep me healthy! And what is this business of calling something "white grape-peach" when one of the main ingredients is apple? Eventually, I found orange juice which actually used to be oranges and hadn't been processed to death between the tree and the carton. It had calcium added, and it had some other things to keep it from being rancid the next day, but it was honest-to-goodness oj.
If I thought Christianity was fallacious, I would have become something else. Buddhist or something. I was not looking for something to replace what I was being taught. I simply had the sense that there was a disconnect between what I was learning and what actually was. I never doubted the truth of Christianity. I knew that what I was seeing and hearing was not necessarily representative of the teachings of Christ. However, I also knew that somewhere there was an undiluted, not-from-concentrate Christianity that was not hopped up with infusions from pop culture and had not been robbed of its pulp. More on this in a future post.
I don't know how to answer this in its entirety. I can say that the Protestant understanding does lack the profundity that is present in the Orthodox understanding. Beyond that, I don't know.
*******************************
Here's what Patrick of the Mountain has to say.
...[E]choes so much of what I experienced as well. I remember being a sophomore in college reading the church fathers for the first time and getting bitterly angry. Not at them, not at all, but at the church I grew up in for not showing me the depths of the faith. Though I can't blame them either. They didn't know the depths.
*******************************
I do not mean to downplay the emotional or spiritual impact of these past experiences, but I must ask how this specifically discredits Evangelical Christianity.It doesn't. It is simply one part of the story. Yes, it played a role in leading me to where I am, but perhaps not in the way you're thinking. Were this about Evangelical Christianity being discredited, I would have bolted a long time ago, and it would not have been to go to the Orthodox Church.
It seems with this post that you have listed several "Christian" role models that have failed to paint a clear, whole, or accurate picture of what it means to follow Christ. It is possible many should not have ever been in positions of leadership. On the other hand, if their actions and teachings contradict the teachings of Christ, then Christianity should not be held suspect on their account.
That is entirely true. I still wonder how some of those people got to their places of authority. Most of my friends growing up have walked away from Christianity because of people like that. You and I and others like us recognize that "going to church doesn't make you a Christian, any more than being in a garage makes you a car." I never said in my post that I "held Christianity suspect on their account." I did say that I recognized that they were especially bad examples, and that recognition prevented me from leaving.
You have pointed out the emptiness, inaccuracy or insufficiency of media intended for Christian education, but not that Christianity itself is fallacious in any way. It explains your distaste for the mainstream, lazy Sunday School lesson, but these are also not necessarily representative of the teachings of Christ.
The other day I was shopping for juice. I really wanted real juice, but most of what was available was flavored sugar water with a mess of chemicals meant to resemble fruit. Yuck. That's not going to keep me healthy! And what is this business of calling something "white grape-peach" when one of the main ingredients is apple? Eventually, I found orange juice which actually used to be oranges and hadn't been processed to death between the tree and the carton. It had calcium added, and it had some other things to keep it from being rancid the next day, but it was honest-to-goodness oj.
If I thought Christianity was fallacious, I would have become something else. Buddhist or something. I was not looking for something to replace what I was being taught. I simply had the sense that there was a disconnect between what I was learning and what actually was. I never doubted the truth of Christianity. I knew that what I was seeing and hearing was not necessarily representative of the teachings of Christ. However, I also knew that somewhere there was an undiluted, not-from-concentrate Christianity that was not hopped up with infusions from pop culture and had not been robbed of its pulp. More on this in a future post.
In the last post regarding your road to orthodoxy, you mentioned briefly the terms deification and theosis. You found they were roughly equivalent to sanctification, only "deeper and richer". What does that mean? Is there something insufficient in the idea of sanctification? Is it that Evangelical Christians simply don't understand its full profundity, or are the terms truly different? If so, how?
I don't know how to answer this in its entirety. I can say that the Protestant understanding does lack the profundity that is present in the Orthodox understanding. Beyond that, I don't know.
Are the terms deification and theosis used in the teachings of the Orthodox church, or simply the early, early church?I did come across this concept while I was a catechumen.
*******************************
Here's what Patrick of the Mountain has to say.
...[E]choes so much of what I experienced as well. I remember being a sophomore in college reading the church fathers for the first time and getting bitterly angry. Not at them, not at all, but at the church I grew up in for not showing me the depths of the faith. Though I can't blame them either. They didn't know the depths.
Labels: Becoming Orthodox
posted by Sam Gamgee at
1:01 PM
2 Comments:
The moose, while remaining nonny, has been temporarily satiated. It (because gender-neutrality is unnecessary for animalia) eagerly awaits the next course of the narrative feast.
I was thinking about this on my long commute this morning. seems to me that one way the idea of "theosis" just FEELS different from "sanctification" is the difference in their linguistic roots. Theosis sounds Johannine, mystical, metaphysical to me; sanctification is Latin, Pauline, and has in my experience been used more like a term from law or accounting. Grace or justice. P or J.
Can you tell which language I prefer?
Post a Comment
<< Home