Who am I and why did I write The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy?

Recently I received an email from one of my readers who asked about my personal spiritual journey. He wanted to know why I became Eastern Orthodox even though I seem to be so critical of it. To be honest, I hadn't considered that anyone would ever be interested in my spiritual path. Why would they? I've simply written a book which, though contains my views, has very little to do with me.. I saw myself as a voice of dialogue and education. I saw myself as a way of communicating topics people are often unaware of in great part because the Church doesn't want them to know. Little did I realize that even a few people would want to know about me, but apparently they do. And so I feel compelled to post a bit about me and my spiritual journey. Not because I want to, but because I'm sure I'll be asked these questions again. So about me. . . .

My blog's bio says that I was raised nominally Roman Catholic. This is true, and yet nominally is the key word. I was baptized Roman Catholic, and that was pretty much it. My parents wanted me to decide what faith I belonged to on my own, so any “Church stuff” we did was very limited. I was raised as a believer in God and Jesus, but we weren't Church goers per se. Did I know much about my Catholicism? Very little. I was raised in Vandalia, a suburb of Dayton Ohio, which many may already know is a very Catholic city. Yet southern Ohio in general is also quite Protestant. I don't recall any of my childhood friends or their families making a huge deal out of their faith though. Some of them did what they did, others didn't do much, but in both cases it was more about living faith, than proclaiming it. To be truthful, with but one exception, I can't even recall what denomination ANY of my friends growing up actually were. In that way I was fortunate to grow up in a melting pot of faith. Some of the devout my find this way of life “un-Christian” or too “secular” but I feel fortunate to have been raised in such a manner. 

Jumping a head about twenty years, my first devout communal experience as a Christian was within the Evangelical world. I was “born again” at 19, and funneled through several different belief systems within the Evangelical world, but I always considered myself a “non-denominational, born again, Bible believing, Christian.” I was very devout, tried to convert my friends and at least one of my parents and I learned, via Televangelists, popular authors, and Christian study Bible to hate the Catholic Church. I loved John Hagee, Jack Van Impe, as well as the more moderate voices like Billy Graham (of course), Charles Stanley and Jack Hayford (I still have my “Spirit Filled Life Bible”).

During my early twenties, I became interested, even obsessed with Church history, the history of the Bible, and 2^nd Temple Judaism. I became intrigued by the “Jewish roots of Christianity” and like many Evangelical Protestants, longed to be a part of the “One True Church.” I also began reading Biblical scholarship for the first time about 12 years ago. I started with the Evangelical scholars (yes they do exist) but began reading more and more so called radical (or so I thought at the time) Bible scholars like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. At first I was offended – terribly offended, but as the years went on I realized I loved Biblical scholarship and the critical study of Church history and that there was nothing radical about what they said -- they were simply scholars. In fact, it was Church history and my personal study of Biblical scholarship which first introduced me to Eastern Orthodoxy. I began reading everything I could get my hands on about Church history, the history of doctrines, and the Anti-Nicene Fathers (Christian writers pre-325 A.D.).

What ultimately drew me to Orthodoxy? What was the clincher? No one thing – the ancient worship of the Church was a biggie though, and still is. I like stability, Liturgy, and it's history going back into antiquity. I had a couple of amazing examples of Orthodox Christians, and they were a big influence on me; however, I cannot pin point it down to one or two things. I did become convinced that it was the “One True Church” that I had so longed for, though this was not an easy journey. It was an emotional hell because everything I had been taught was being overturned. (The early Church did have Sacraments, did have Confession, etc). In fact, I think that may be the biggest stumbling block for people who read this book – everything you thought you knew about “the holy Canons” will be overturned.

As my “journey east” continued, I began attending my “local” Eastern Orthodox parish, which at the time was 120 miles away. Yes, I drove 120 miles one way, every Sunday. I eventually joined the Eastern Orthodox Church in early 2003, and have had some great experiences. Unfortunately things aren't always greener on the other side. As my zeal from my conversion began to wane over the years, I began to realize that Eastern Orthodoxy has it's flaws just like every other Church. There is nothing “one” or united about Orthodoxy – no single person or group is in control. No single belief (short of the Nicene Creed) is a “test” of one's Orthodoxy. As a popular joke goes, “I'm not part of an organized religion . . . I'm Eastern Orthodox.” :)

I find this disorganization both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it prevents the Church from getting too much power, as in the “good old days” when we had Roman Emperors controlling the Church, and dictating Church Councils – and yes, this did happen! It is also a curse because it's hard to reign in fringe movements which call for the adherence of every ancient Church tradition and law in the modern world. The belief that Canon law is somehow “inspired” or written by God ala the Bible is, in my opinion, an Evangelical Protestantizing trend within the Church. I'm actually not anti-Protestant as I was when I first became Orthodox. (Triumphalism among Eastern Orthodox converts is very real and I was a good (or bad) example of that.

I did everything I could to debate Protestants (and Catholics) and wanted them to “convert” to the “true faith.” I became a Church apologist on the internet and thought I knew everything. I also believed that Orthodoxy should remain unchanged. We should add nothing to, or remove anything from our Church's Faith. Orthodoxy was pure – not the people, not the organization, but the Faith was perfect. I had faith in “The Faith” of Orthodoxy. All converts to any new religious expression go through this early enthusiasm of converts. Yet it eventually moderates and people grow out of their childhood and begin to see that they don't know everything they thought they knew. I know realize not only did I not know everything, but even what I think I might have known, I didn't know.

For me, this realization began in early 2006 when I began to struggle with a serious illness – actually, several serious illnesses. Several undiagnosed to this day (though I know how to manage them), food allergies (or intolerance) that developed out of thin air, and two years of fighting DVTs or deep vein blood clots in my left leg. This period of poor health – not to mention facing what I surely thought was going to be my death on two separate occasions gave me a new perspective on life. No, not the “I'm alive, Hallelujah!” kind, but a new perspective on my faith – not just with my Church, but also with my Christian faith altogether. Without dredging on and on (I know, too late, right?) or getting too personal, let me say that over the last five years I've gone from a “devout” Traditionalist leaning Orthodox believer who thought all of ancient Church tradition was “holy” and inspired by God, to someone who isn't even sure there is a God. Big change? You bet!

Through all of my health issues I continued to read, read, and read even more. I read all the New Atheists. I read many of the “rebuttals” from what I term the “New Apologists” and everything in between. I've read more Church history than many people will ever read and from many different perspectives. I've also researched other religions, not from the Christian POV, but from the the POV of adherents of those religions. I've read extensively on Hinduism, Judaism, some Buddhism, Taoism, and Paganism. I've listened to thousands of debates and lectures on the history of religion, atheism, belief, unbelief, agnosticism, skepticism, creationism, and apologetics. I've “graduated” in my personal Biblical scholarship from Crossan Borg, and Ehrman, to Paul Tillich, Rudolph Bultmann, F.C. Baur, Friedrich Schleiermacher, GA Wells, Robert M. Price, and Margaret Barker (though Crossan remains my personal favorite.)

Thankfully I am no longer anti-Protestant (or anti-Catholic) either. In fact, I have many Protestant friends and have found a new respect for the original tenants of the Reformation and attend a Lutheran Bible Study every week. Why do I do this? Well, besides the fact my Orthodox parish is 35 miles away and the Lutheran Church is 3 blocks away, I see nothing wrong with attending a group of people who love God, the Bible and like all the rest of us, do their best in a confusing world. I also no longer thing that Orthodoxy is perfect, and I especially take issue with the idea that Orthodox Canon law was written or inspired by God. It is not changeless, not eternal, and Canon law did not help create the universe. The problem of course is that most people think Canon law merely consists of issues related to Liturgical functions or Christian piety: fasting, priests wearing robes (which I actually think should be the norm, but not because “the Canons say so”), or how many candles should sit upon the Altar.

Yes, these sorts of things do make up Canon law and holy tradition, yet as the book illustrates, it also consist of laws which call for the excommunication of women for having a miscarriage! Did God write that? Or the Canon which forbids Christians from having Jewish doctors or even eating Matzoh bread. Does God think debating Canons about who sits at the head a table at a Church Synod is more important that following Jesus Christ? I don't think so, and I actually don't think most people think so – they're just unaware that the Church contains this “crazy” stuff as well. That's the intention of my book – to bring to light what has for so long remained in darkness. How do I know this about Canon law? Because I've been researching it for over two years – that's how. Not only that, but Canon law in the Eastern Church is far more straight forward than in the Western Church – which is why the term “law” is rarely applied to it, but rather “the tradition of the holy Canons” or some other similarly styled expression is used.

Of course I've been told that the Canons have an “historical context.” Yes, I know. One doesn't go about writing a book of this nature without realizing that! I address many of these so called “contexts” in my book and I try to do so fairly, albeit in a humorous style. I find humor to be a moderating force as well as a coping mechanism when dealing with difficult subjects. The book is a critique from within and if there is one “theme” of the book it is that the Church does make mistakes, sometimes terrible, immoral mistakes, and we must admit this, and admitting to this is okay. It seems to me, that claiming that something is “divine” because it is old is untenable. If it was, we'd still be having 5 hour Liturgies every Sunday.

Allow me to give a brief excerpt from near the end of Chapter Four (which looks at the Canon calling for the excommunication of women for having a miscarriage):

“The Christian Church learns and grows in knowledge because human beings, which make up the Christian Church, learn and grow in knowledge. Does God want His people to be stupid? There should be no shame in admitting that the Church makes mistakes, because it is we human beings who make those mistakes, not God.

Of course some people just cannot bring themselves to admit that the Church can and does make mistakes. They fear that by admitting that a particular Council, Father, or decision was wrong on a single point such as this, leaves the proverbial door open for all of the Church’s decisions to be questioned. They may be right. But questioning is a risk worth taking because Truth is more important than tradition. Or put it this way: do we worship a book or books if you include the Canons, or God?”

In the book I admit I'm harsh on the Canons, but all for a reason which I explain in the final two chapters. This book took two years of research and has in great part influenced my opinions. I didn't become Mr. “anti-Tradition” and then find Canons to support my views. I researched what the Canons say which then forced me to alter my views. My spiritual journey over the last few years has been – interesting to say the least. Even in this lengthy blog post, I've left out of LOT stuff that people who know me will be aware of very quickly. However, for some reason, a number of people (Orthodox Christians) seem to want to know why I wrote this book and why it seems too critical. Essentially it's the same reason anyone would criticize their own country, town, city, or family – because I care. I would not have written this book if I didn't love my Church and feared for some of the things going on within it. I realize that not everyone has come across the “Traditionalists” many of us have, but that's the point. People need to know what is going on. (BTW in Chapter one I distinguish between Old Calendar Traditionalists like ROCOR, and the Traditionalists which the book addresses, because they are not the same.)

I don't know if this adequately answers the question “who am I?” and “why this book?” Perhaps it doesn't. However this is really the best that I can do on a blog and in public. If you want to know more about my views, get the book and read it. Or get to know me for me. I have only posted this because several people have contacted me and wanted to know about me and why I wrote the book. This I felt was the best method in which to answer those questions. If, like those who have emailed me, you still want to know about me, feel free to email me. I encourage it. So far, most of emails have been civil and polite and I greatly appreciate that for those who have done so. In fact, I want to heard from my readers. I want feed back. I'm not afraid of feedback or dialogue or passionate debate. However for the sake of not having to repeat myself in subsequent conversations I'm blogging this post and I hope it will give a glimpse into my life and the purpose of The Crazy Side of Orthodoxy.