Notes Written in Class

So, I’m—God willing—being confirmed at my Church next month and I believe that in combination with doing a deep dive on the Bohemian Reformation for my history course at school has given me time to reflect, again, as to why I am continuing to swim the Thames and commit myself to the Anglican Communion.

Admittedly, I have had a flair up with the old Orthodox bone which has given me reason to look into doctrinal differences between Holy Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. I gave this plenty of thought last year, so there is no reason for concern that I may be embracing the Orthodox tradition, but in fact, this has given me much to think about in relation to my own tradition and its professed faith.

I want to continue reviewing my spiritual autobiography; however, the time has come to be with the present and continue the journey rather than looking back. Currently, I’m swamped with schoolwork, so the next few pieces will be apropos of nothing, notes I’ve made in my religious studies class while ruminating on the magisterial Protestant approach to the Christian mystical pursuit of θέωσις (Theosis).

θέωσις, without talking about it like I am not always talking about it, is the reason we are Christian, however as I have continued my theological education through reading, writing, and prayer I have realized that Θέωσις only works if the other parts are strengthening, or facilitating, our participation of God. That is, right doctrine must be affirmed. This is one of the things that has emerged from my going back and talking about high magic the way that I understand it, with God being simply a name of a thing, not the thing itself.

We cannot, as Christians, fall for similar levels of perennial thought that high magic holds, because there is a risk that we might end up doing someone else’s religion instead of basking in the beauty of our own. When we unnecessarily participate in another’s religious observances, we are turning our back on our own rich tradition.

This notion, in particular, has set me back to appreciating Holy Orthodoxy as it makes no compromises on what it is: it is Christian, through and through. So, instead of washing our hands of our tradition which, at times, feels lost trying to be Christian and friends with the world, I feel it is best to dust the shelves and remove the veil over my own eyes to see the rich beauty underneath all the confusion and distraction of this most present moment in our Anglican tradition.

The Anglican and Episcopal traditions have a lovely impact on their society, helping feed the homeless, sheltering those in need, and embodying a true Christian spirit of charity and grace. This is nice. This does not mean we are Christian, though. We may be doing things out of this Christian spirit, and I hope we are, but if we are not then what is the difference between our Church and a rotary club? I am not speaking facetiously, either.

We must be sure that we are not going out into the world with charity via our status as Christians; we must be going out into the world to fulfill our Christian duties. These may sound similar, but they are not. What I mean is, when we do things to glory God it is different than doing things to show the world how good we are.

Both approaches may wear the cross, but only one carries it.

Through my ongoing research I have discovered that Lutherans claim they are the true Western Catholic Church. I have made the informed decision to believe that Anglicans, in the same way, are the true Western Orthodox Church.

This may come as some surprise to some, upsetting for others, and confusing for the rest, but it is something that I feel we need to embrace rather than running further West. By doing this, I see our tradition running aground and marooning itself on an island it did not chart a course anywhere near.

My interest in Orthodoxy was a rejection of the West in all the ways one can reject the West which ironically means Christianity in some sense; Orthodox Christians have held the Christian West in an implicit anathema since the Filioque controversy, which I will be talking about, briefly, in another note from religious studies.

My rejection of the West was based on my own appraisal of the spiritual materialism found in religious groups, atheists, and even the New Age zealots who are being led astray by even an occultist’s view. Spiritual materialism has seeped into this culture and sent us looking far and wide for meaning and purpose and has been for decades—since the end of WWII at the earliest when Gurus were coming to America to sell their wares and set up communes in communities mostly on the West Coast.

This thirst for meaning drove the Westerner to foreign lands where all of these paradigms eventually were consumed by the chaos magicians of the eighties and nineties. These magicians would find no Truth in their search, because by then the West was no longer seeking Truth; by the seventies the West was engaged in a spiritual search of self through embodiment of their own personal truth.

It is unfortunate that these generations of Westerners found solace in knowing themselves this little, but it is a sign of the shallowness of our societies’ spiritual apprehension. There is no truth within us without God, without Truth.

I digress.

My study of the Anglican tradition brought me, surprising even me, to a Lutheran pastor, Dr. Jordan B. Cooper, who conducted a theological exploration of Θέωσις within Lutheranism… which I was incredibly interested as well as frustrated to not find similar lines of thought within Anglicanism (there are, just few and far between).

It is not worth lamenting this unfortunate circumstance of our current theological stance; I may need to run by some ideas with people first because I believe our institutions are quite capable of holding space for the study and preaching of Θέωσις, but there does not seem to be an emphasis on that from the pulpit which may refer to an overlooking in education.

The Lutheran pastor begins his treatise on the Lutheran understanding of Θέωσις by refuting polemics offered by the Orthodox Church who, of course, declare the West heretical. However, the main lifting off point is that Holy Orthodoxy does not own the Church Fathers, they are better about using and relying on their writing to understand their tradition and the Bible, whereas the West does not put as much emphasis on this, though we should. They are our Holy Fathers just the same as they are in the East. Orthodoxy does not have a claim on Θέωσις, though the West would almost beg to differ due to the association between Θέωσις and the Orthodox Church that we make in the Christian West.

Lutherans have Θέωσις, though, and by all right, we do, too. The Lutheran pastor differentiated between the Orthodox Θέωσις and their own understanding by calling it “Christification,” because he sees the two as being very similar where they do not necessarily try to do the same thing. This is where Anglicanism came into sharp focus for me, as he laid out the ideas behind them both and showing their differences.

Anglicanism, our most hallowed tradition, must follow in similar theological footsteps of the Lutheran approach, due in no small part as it enlarges human’s ability to partake in the nature of God, rather than theoretically putting a ceiling of sorts on this mystical attainment.

One which, I believe, the Orthodox would agree with.

The pastor made the point of difference being the Western legalistic (or forensic) justification with the East rejecting this notion by omission. The East has a different view of justification than the West does, one which informs their view of atonement which we will cover toward the end.

The Orthodox Church does not come out and say it rejects forensic justification, but it only every talk about it using points made by Western theologians, usually in a form of dismissal. However, rejecting legalistic justification is also rejecting the Patristics, because they use this language in their work, as well. St. Athanasius in particular, whom the Orthodox view as a Holy Father of the Church.

Furthermore, the pastor refutes the polemics of Orthodoxy by showing there is not just room, but a need for both viewpoints talking about justification.

The Orthodox view of justification is κάθαρσις (catharsis/purification) and one’s own effort coupled with God’s grace, that the Christian cooperates with. It is a form of obedience that cannot be equated to simply “Do this, do that,” which is a form of moralistic legalism, following a code of conduct in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is a Puritanical belief and has nothing to do with Christianity proper.

This obedience is more in line with becoming like Christ; forensic justification posits that the righteousness of Christ is credited to us through His sacrifice, which is the underlying basis of the belief that faith, not works, saves.

This theological model applies divine pardon to everyone based solely on faith, alone, in Christ, Who was obedient unto death, even death on a cross, and because of His sacrifice we are all saved from being liable to sin and its punishment.

This theological concept is known as imputed righteousness.

The Book of Common Prayer has this read aloud by the priest during the consecration of the Holy Eucharist, “Unite us to your Son in his sacrifice, that we may be acceptable through him, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

This is incredibly important relationally to salvation because this being read during Liturgy implies the salvific nature of the Sacraments and being united to the Body of Christ: that is, Holy Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. What the above also does is shows a theological agreement between the Anglican tradition and the Methodist expression, thru John Wesley’s work.

John Wesley was an Anglican priest who wrote extensively on participating in God, his approach, using the Church of England as a lens, to Θέωσις. John Wesley taught imparted righteousness which is what the Book of Common Prayer is showing through the words of our priest and celebrant: the grace of God is imparted to a Christian through their baptism, giving them the ability to strive for spiritual perfection and salvation.

This is, in no small way, reflected in the theological doctrines of the Orthodox Church. Wesley coupled imputed justification with this theology by saying that the Christian is able to strive for spiritual perfection by means of the righteousness of Christ being credited to the Christian who, once justified by way of imputation, can realize salvation by way of imparted righteousness.

It is κάθαρσις coupled with self-effort cooperating with God’s grace that was given through Christ’s sacrifice.

Our most beautiful Anglicanism is Orthodox.

To be concluded…

Si comprehendis, non est Deus