16 June 2023
Note: I'm aware that Catholics are officially somewhat ecumenical. However, the way the church operates still reflects the underlying assumption that everyone not a Catholic is a heretic. The Orthodox are even less forgiving.
In order to understand the East-West Schism in Church History, you need to understand the nature of all the other controversies leading up to that schism. It often turned on some of the most basic questions. I'll pick out two.
How do you define "sin"? The human definition focuses on the action, and to some degree, the state of mind of the sinner. The Hebrew focus is on the relationship with God. In the Bible, sin is disappointing God, betraying the relationship you have with Him -- or rather, the relationship you should have with Him.
It's quite personal in nature. Truth is a reflection of God's Person. You cannot make the question objective; the notion of "propositional truth" depersonalizes Him. Thus, while the Bible outlines behavioral generalities for the sake of community boundaries, the final details are between you and Him, and He speaks most clearly and consistently in your convictions. You are supposed to have a tough time verbalizing the driving passion He puts in your soul.
God has made it clear that He operates only through covenants. If you are outside the pertinent covenants He offers, then it won't matter what you do or don't do; you are incapable of pleasing Him. Sin is transgressing the covenant relationship with Him.
For example: Paul says he does not allow women to lead men. If you have read the Old Testament, you are not surprised at all. In the Hebrew culture, women were subsidiary to men. To be specific, every woman was obliged to submit to the moral and spiritual covering of one man closest to her (normally father or husband), and a general covering from other men in the community. It was the men's duty to provide the moral guidance for the women. Paul says women are missing something in that department. In some other context outside a covenant community, a godly woman will seek to cultivate that covering any way she can. Furthermore, she should cultivate a womanly way of going about that task, and it bears precious little resemblance to how women in America do things.
You can call it what you like, but that subsidiary position is God's requirement, and it hasn't changed since the Garden of Eden, nor will it change. It's not an iron rule, but a reflection of God's personality and character. He is untouched by the passage of time in our world. Yes, there are priorities, and in those rare contexts wherein it's okay for a woman to take the lead on something, her goal must be gaining moral covering from a male headship. It's a fundamental mission of being a woman.
A second example: Who is the Jesus Christ? Seeking to intellectually nail down the nature of Jesus as man and God is the wrong question. In the Hebrew tradition, the issue points to His authority to speak for His Father, while fully empathizing with our situation.
The moment you try to pin down what it means to be "the Son of God" you have already blasphemed. It's a functional title. We cannot possibly understand, much less delineate the meaning in human terms. It's not meant to be understood; it's meant to be obeyed.
How is it possible for someone to be both man and God? You cannot know, much less say. The whole thing was meant to be intellectually fuzzy. You either love and obey, or you are outside of His Covenant. The numerous disputes about the nature of Christ and what we should make of His various titles and roles all share the same basic error: They are asking the wrong question. You cannot pin it down, and it's a sin to try.
The only righteous answer is that Jesus is Lord right now and into the foreseeable future. What does He demand of us?
This document is public domain; spread the message.