Tuesday (Easter IV)
Today’s Assigned Readings:
Wisdom 3:1-9; Colossians 1:15-23; Luke 6:12-26
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers - all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.
Colossians 1:15 - 20
I’ve highlighted all the alls on purpose: to point out the provisio in verse 23: provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard.
The first half of this provisio has been one of my sticking points in my journey recently: what is “the faith” in which one hopes one is “established”?
I had a talk with an Episcopal priest recently. She’s a more conservative sort - one might go so far as to say evangelical. She considers herself an “ex-gay”, thinks the Episcopal Church is in grave error on matters of sexual morality, etc. I’ve known her for 20 years and, although we disagree at times, her opinion is one I highly respect. We were talking about my troubles in Orthodoxy, whence I ran to find “the Faith that never changes.” And I was reporting to her that I hadn’t: while the spectrum is not as large as it might be in other denominations, if I wanted to - and if i had the money/freedom to relocate, etc - I could find Orthodox churches in America that had gay couples active in the parish. I could find priest who supported women clergy (it hasn’t happened but it will). Laity and clergy who were more “liberal” on matters of morality, divorce, abortion, Bible, tradition, etc. You name it. They’re out there.
And she said, “well, certainly you all agree on the creed!” To which I replied, “well, how do we interpret that creed? Some would insist that the Church is item #4 - after Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They attribute divine infallibility to the Church on this premise and insist that such was the intention of the fathers gathered at Nicea. But others do not so believe. Clergy of these two minds will contact me and say so… and wonder what silliness the others were taught in seminary. The same is true on the other matters above.
And so I spent a year or more trying to figure out what was “the faith” to which I’d promised myself. Did it include fasting rules? Did it include sex? Did it include (or exclude, more to the point) women clergy? Do I need to make confession every time I take communion? Is the liturgy of divine inspiration? What do we do when the text says, “of St John Chrysostom” but its not really his work? Or when the hymns add material to the Gospel and then the music gets taken as equally inspired as the text? Does one need to abstain from even the emotional aspect of falling in love, if that love happens to be directed to a person of the same gender? Do I need to accept the definitions of Gregory Palamas as divine revelation? Are the saints and liturgies that write about “four elements of Creation” (earth, air, fire and water) to be taken literally or just as poetic formulae? What do I do with the oft-quoted line, “100% of the fathers are 85% Orthodox”? And, most importantly, who has the authority to answer these questions for me?
When it all boiled down… the answers were really all, “Maybe it’s not that important.”
It’s rather like the Gospel today which records “the Sermon on the Mount” like in Matthew 5, but uses slightly different words AND makes it 100% clear that this sermon happened while Jesus, “stood on a level place”. Yes, it’s possible that it’s merely a repeat performance. But this passage is slightly different - and has a different focus - than the Matthew text. Do we have to pick which one is more true? Or is it enough that we don’t have to choose, just listen?
When it all boiled down… the answers were really all, “Maybe it’s not that important.”
Which is a HUGE blessing to realise.
But then what do I do with St Paul’s line, provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith?
What is the faith?
Well, faith, translated from the Greek, πιστι, “pisti”, tends to mean, in other documents, “loyalty” or “trust”; not a list of doctrines to which one must assent. That makes sense in light of the second phrase (in light of which I think we must read the first one): without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel. “We must be steadfast in our loyalty to the hope we’ve been given.” Does that make sense?
I think so. Suddenly all the “Alls” make a lot more sense, no? All things are reconciled - including you: but you must remain steadfast in the hope this offers you.
Paul is talking to people who might easily decide they have to do something to make God happy with them. Paul is saying no: just remain confident in the hope we gave you. God was in Christ reconciling all things to himself - that all includes you, with your free will and ability to make choices - if you will but believe it. Stop stressing out. Fasting is good - but don’t worry: it won’t save you. Doctrines are nice - but don’t worry: they won’t save you. God was in Christ reconciling all things to himself. Do you need to know how that happened? What it was? Or only that it’s true?
With all the “Alls” making sense, this passage turns out not to be about “be careful, you may go to hell if you don’t match the proviso” but rather about the glory of God uniting to himself, “all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers - all things have been created through him and for him.”
Glory to God!
Now I have to confess I’ve not been very good at holdling on to that hope. Sometimes its rather like a lover: there is a fine line one must walk between “taking for granted” and “worrying too much”. If one can’t talk to one’s partner for 24 hours, one shouldn’t loose connection with the fact that the love is real. But we’re human, and one does - especially if one is prone to drama, like myself. So did I loose God in my doubt? Did I stumble so far away in trying to win his good favour that suddenly he can’t find me?
Those who trust in him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide with him in love, because grace and mercy are upon his holy ones, and he watches over his elect.
I can hold on to that. Like a lover who knows his beloved’s voice and presence - even when things are going poorly, communication wise - I can rest in God’s love and in the assurance of his mercy. Not because, to use an evangelicalism, “I’ve been saved” but because I’m part of that “all things” that have been reconciled to God in Christ.
It’s not a list of doctrines… but a simple resting in him.