A Ramble Against Orthodoxy

"It is time for the Jedi to end."

Among many things which Star Wars fans found shocking about The Last Jedi, this statement ranks up there in the top ten. It was said by an aging Luke Skywalker to Rey, a young woman who had come to him to be trained as a Jedi. The statement was just as shocking to her as it was to the movie audience. The Jedi had been the good guys. They had been the guardians of the Galactic Republic, the wielders of the Light Side of the Force, and the protectors of the peace.

Why did Luke, arguably the last and most powerful Jedi Master at that point, say such a thing. He argued that, being the thing which was holding everything together in a balance of both Light and Dark, "the Force doesn't belong to either the Jedi or the Sith." The Force, in his mind, was greater than the limited understanding of either Jedi or Sith, and both sides had badly misunderstood and limited it. It wasn't just the selfish actions of the Sith which had brought down the Galactic Republic, but the pride and hubris of the Jedi which had blinded them to the threat. More than this, it was the rigid adherence of the Jedi Council to their own strict orthodoxy which had kept them from seeing what truly was.

The Church is not far different from the Jedi in this. In 325 CE, the Roman Emperor Constantine called the first general, ecumenical council of the Church, the Council of Nicea. Constantine was not himself a Christian by any factual account, but he saw that a large portion of his empire had become so, and they didn't all necessarily agree on everything. He saw what he perceived as this "disunity" as a political threat to the peace and stability of an empire which stretched from Spain to Syria and from Britain to Egypt, and took steps to prevent any arguments or infighting among the different bishops and local congregations from become fractures in the state. When the council was called, they were required by him to come to an agreement on Christian doctrine and theology. The bishops who attended referred to what the majority of the Church had always professed based on the writings of Scripture and the leaders and apologists of the Church from the previous three centuries. Whether Constantine had the best interests of the Church at heart might have been debatable, but that the bishops did shouldn't be. They came to an agreement and thus was born the beginning of the Nicene Creed (which was completed at the second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople about a hundred years later), the five patriarchates, the codified canon of Old and New Testament Scripture, and other procedures and regulations of the Church which are still held to this day as the standard of Christian Faith to this day to a greater or lesser degree by every Christian church and denomination on Earth. In other words, thus was born Christian orthodoxy. And this orthodoxy had the force of law within the Church that had Constantine's stamp on it. All those who disagreed in any way, whether that disagreement was benign or not, were branded as heretics and threatened with excommunication or worse. In all, there would be seven Great Ecumenical Councils of the Church, each one dealing with issues of theology about the nature of God, Christ, even the person of the Virgin Mary, liturigical rites and issues, as well as practical matters of governing what was now decreed to be the "Universal" or "Katholike" (Catholic) Church. All local congregations, bishops, and presbyters were expected to comply. The Church had become an extension of the Roman State and vice versa in the name of keeping the empire unified. Seventeen hundred years later however, that empire no longer exists in any meaningful political or geographical form except as a memory.

It's important to understand that the intentions were not malign on anyone's part. Constantine wanted peace in his empire. That's a responsible and admirable goal for a ruler. The bishops wanted to put to rest any future deviations from what had always been professed and believed, as well as wanting to put to rest any future persecutions against Christians in general. It began with good intentions, and an honest desire for peace.

As more questions were raised, and unity became the all encompassing rallying cry, more theological points and practices were either codified or anathematized (cursed and forbidden). Orthodoxy became the standard of whether or not someone was truly Christian, and, leaving behind Jesus Christ, it became an end unto itself controlled by bishops and church leaders who were increasingly minded politically and more concerned with secular affairs than remaining in Christ or doing anything He said or taught. This mindset carried over into the Reformation as well. The Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Arthur Zwingli, and others all saw adherence to their new individual versions of orthodox teaching apart from the Catholic Church as both necessary, and to be enforced by punishment up to and including death if need be. Christians of almost every denomination became the persecutors instead of the persecuted. To this day, even so-called "non-denominational" churches will excommunicate and rail against anyone who believes or preaches even the most minor point of theology or liturgical practice different from what they do and will state outright that those who believe differently are not in fact Christians. "Tongues" churches are adamant that those who do not or cannot speak in tongues are hell bound.

Like the aforementioned Jedi Master, it is my observation and belief that it is time for orthodoxy, and the idea of "orthodox Christianity" or an "orthodox Church" to end.

Jesus Christ doesn't belong to the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, the Baptist, the Lutheran, the Calvinist, the Non-Denominational, or even the Messianic Jewish. He isn't exclusive to any of these. The Mormon is just as capable of encountering Him as the most rigid Orthodox or Evangelical. Are they 100% correct in their theology and worldview? No, of course not, but that's the point. None of us are. Could we learn from each other's practices and theological frameworks? I believe so, but to do so would require that we set our insistence on purity of orthodoxy aside and leave it there.

That there is an understanding in the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers of "Who is Jesus and what does He do?" (as a professor of mine stated once as the defining point of Christian theology) is without question. But if you go back and read through them, you'll find not an emphasis on orthodoxy, or a strict theological outline, but an emphasis on practice of, imitation of, and submission to Jesus Christ with whom we are joined through our baptism into His death. The sum of what Jesus Himself taught was to remain in Him just like He remained in the Father, love everyone, and let go of and get rid of anything which obstructs this. The New Testament authors such as Paul, John, Peter expounded on these points, but little more than that if you really get down to the brass tacks. Even the writer to the Hebrews in the New Testament was concerned with the theology surrounding Jesus only insofar as to demonstrate that there was no legitimate return to Mosaic Judaism. A rejection of Jesus Christ is damning.

Paul's whole point in passages like Romans 14 was that we are not all going to agree on certain things, and that's okay. We don't have to answer to each other except in how we have compassion and mercy on those brothers and sister with whom we don't agree. We each of us answer to Jesus Christ. The brother or sister who may accept evolution, reincarnation, or even space aliens is no less a brother or sister in Christ for holding those beliefs if they are holding fast to Jesus Christ in the best way they know how. The homosexual who comes to Christ without renouncing his homosexuality, let Christ work on him and decide what he needs to give up and what he doesn't. You don't need to. The brother or sister who may hold a different view of the nature of Christ or of God, does that really mean they don't belong to Him because they differ from the decisions of a seventeen hundred year old council held for an empire which no longer exists? What is important is that they pursue Jesus Christ, and His death and resurrection. What is important is that they seek to imitate Him in His submission to the Father with whom He is joined. What is important is that they seek to be His disciples. God can sort out the misunderstandings along the way as He sees fit so to do. What cannot however be compromised, and what has been compromised repeatedly throughout history by the insistence on orthodoxy, is the practice of remaining in Christ, following the Way of Life, and loving one another as He taught. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. Without love, as Paul taught, we are nothing, and nothing we do is worth anything to anyone. Without love, we have truly missed the mark and no amount of orthodoxy will save us.

It is time to put orthodoxy away, and return to an embrace of following Jesus Christ.