Ego death
Or, the debate theological
Ego death was the title for the section on my cult page on my own religious deconstruction. This page is adapted from that, to begin with.
The original: While talking with my favorite cowboy the other day, I realized I do not believe most of the things that you'd think someone who calls themself Episcopalian would. If this is your first introduction to my religion, welcome; I generally identify as Episcopalian; I attend Episcopal church services and have gone to one (1) Shabbat. I am pretty active, Episcopalianism-wise, I participate in diocesan conventions & más; I am a big fan of ritual and service and ministry. I like to thurifer and I like to preach. / That being said, I frankly do not think it matters much what happens when we die, and I am heavily inclined to say that Eve's biting of the apple was a general good. I fall heavily into the camp of God-is-not-good (he is not entirely comprehensible to us) and that we are all going to be returned to God when we die, although the form that takes I'm not sure. When Jesus returns, for sure we will all be headed back to God (we will be saved from our sins---that is, from our separation with god [tangent: the catechism defines sin as choosing our own will over God's will and that Jesus' saving returns us to harmony with God and our neighbors ... that pretty well requires humanity]); the Kingdom of God's coming transcends us as humans and highkey will bring us probably into a different form of existence. I think Jesus is God and while I need to confirm my New-vs-Old Covenant, I'm so far pretty sure it's a Faith Vs. Acts thing. It is not necessary to Participate In Worship in order to be close to God. Doing Good brings you close to God. I believe that church helps you get that, it holds you accountable, it provides you with this way to view the world; it is how many of us feel close to God. But you do not need church. The Episcopal Catechism says Christ commanded that you keep his commandments and believe in him. But given how many folks didn't ... I don't know. That goes back to Faith v. Acts all over again.
On Faith v. Acts: Let's be clear: you do not need to be Christian to know God. God moves through the entire world in mysterious ways. As far as the Christian idea of "salvation" extends, it extends to everyone. I am entirely on the Acts side of Faith v. Acts. And therefore I am not Protestant, for I violate sola fide, «faith alone».
On the historic episcopacy: The main problem I have with Christianity at the moment is the hierarchy present in Episcopalianism that is inherited from the Catholics. Setting aside the spiritual and mystical problems of universal salvation and real presence, the main problem is that of the hierarchy: why are we trusting people? From where do our priests & bishops get authority? The laying of hands. Becoming a part of the historic episcopacy. I am not a huge fan of this---right---we are pointing our tradition back to that of the Catholics, which really my opinion on that is that it isn't scripturally founded. The point of church should be to hold people accountable to their relationship with God in the world around them. Instead we have this weird hierarchy thing. Apostolic is another word that Episcopals (et al) use which is weird to me --- why must we trace our faith and beliefs back to that of the apostles? Why can't there be new radical conclusions? These feel like they're begging to be used as tools to decide what is and is not heresy. These are things that we consider when we consider whether or not to join other churches in communion! The Methodists have a lay ministry wherein appointed laity can consecrate the Eucharist!!! That is amazing! Why can't we do that?? Even though we can't, because they're episcopal (through the Lutherans I guess) and apostolic they can be Good In Our Eyes. This is not what ecumenism says, but it is how it feels. Sad face. Back on this idea of the laity though: how do we decide who can and can't consecrate the Eucharist? Through our canons, our BCP, the system of electing that is supposed to be democratic but does not provide room for open interpretation by the priest. Our BCP is old and frankly outdated; our worship takes from all over the world now but it is not included in the book; what's more, having only one approved way to worship (the Only Way) while reasonable for formulaity/recognition frankly is an outdated concept, too. Check out what the Peninei Halakhah has to say about this for our Jewish siblings, and come back to me. I feel as though it limits our priests. While it is wonderful for standardization, to keep things recognizable, our priests are supposed to be educated and well-read and pastoral. They should be able to make the mass what suits their congregation! On some level this is possible, of course; the BCP offers plenty of customizations. But the top-down approval process is frankly quite strange. I don't know. Why do we need those governing bodies, again? Obviously to coordinate ministry. But coordinating ministry can happen secularly. Am I crazy...
On spirituality: I have a few problems relating to Jesus and with the idea of universal salvation. How does that track? What about real presence? I am a big Marian and this is the saddest part to me. I love thurifer-ing, the smell of incense, the robes; I love language and magic words; I love readings and analysis of scripture. The deep digging into history. But it is so difficult to be high-church and reform, to be high-church and non-denominational.
An important thing to remember: A cowboy told me the following parable. Once two travelers were coming to a city where everyone within was vegetarian. The travelers had decided that they could not stay there forever; one a woman said she would be vegetarian if not for hamburgers; the other, empathizing, said he would be vegetarian if not for chicken. Not that they hadn't liked vegetarianism, they just loved certain meats too much. Hearing this, a teacher in the city said the following: Be vegetarian except for hamburgers! Be vegetarian except for chicken! It is better to be so principled than to consume all meats. It is better for everyone to do part than for no one to anything. And thus the two were transformed.
An account of the classicist's rebuttal: as regards to liturgy, we find different liturgy from Christian to Christian. If you are dissatisfied with the BCP, go to Catholic mass, go to Lutheran. There is the diversity of thought. (To this I say: each one says they are right. There cannot be so many rights.) The why of the church is celebration, to help interpret, to reassure, to remind, you are held accountable to your relationship with God. Salvation itself is a return to God. Look at the solae (which I have violated, see above), find sola gratia. «Grace alone». You are not saved (that is, returned to God) through actions, only through the Grace of God. (I find this easier to believe. It is soothing. But then faith is an identifier, not requirement.)
On the continuance: there will, then, be more to come.
take me home