Transcending the Orthodox Kingdom of God?

or this, that and the other

Orthodox Christian thought initiated some nearly nineteen hundred years ago. I say nearly nineteen hundred (1900) years rather than two thousand (2000) because as the message was originally taught by Christ, heard by the original disciples and Apostles and recorded in their various means and understanding, transmitted to their subsequent disciples, in the various form and testimony as perceived relevant, numerous interpretations and implementations of the original message began to evolve. Some of these perceptions of the original message appeared to be in conflict and out right contradictory to other perceptions claiming the same resources as their foundation of thought and doctrine. For me, the question coming to mind is, Were these varying, differing perceptions, in actuality contrary and in conflict with each other, each mutually exclusive of the other? Or, were these alternative perceptions different sides of the same coin? Why is it that the western Church evolved the way it did and in embrace of an assumed orthodox doctrine, and the Church as established and realized in other parts of the world evolved embracing other forms of doctrine and even more in the way of accepted recorded Scripture dating as far back as any recognized by the western Church. Now, when I say western church, what do I mean? The western church was that portion of the Church that was founded in and grew in its evolution, in and out of relation to the Roman Empire, essentially, all the cultures of Europe, and particularly Western Europe. Coming out of this foundation of an evolved culture, we, western civilization, have difficulty perceiving and realizing that the Church, as developed in our cultural context, is not - and was not - the full and complete expression of what constitutes the Church and in an even broader scope, the Kingdom of God. We, the west, and our ancestral predecessors, for the most part, have been kept ignorant of the fact that there were, and remain in their isolated circumstance, expressions of Christian practice, dating back to first century apostolic influence. These Christian communities can be found in areas of India, Iran, and Iraq, as well as the Coptic Church which can be found in Egypt, Ethiopia and North Africa. Most of us are aware of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but this is not the broader church at issue here. Eastern Orthodoxy is in reality, the result of the subsequent split of the Roman Empire into eastern and western spheres. In the second century, doctrinal schisms were becoming apparent. What is the nature of Christianity? What was or who was Christ? And more. Now - in our evolved orthodoxy - with two thousand years of academic exercise and assumption of absolutes (deemed heretical to be challenged or assumed otherwise) - these

are simple answers to us. Christ IS this - that - and the other and the Church is those who believe and do this, that and the other. But what is all this . . . this, that, and the other? THIS - THAT - and THE OTHER - is what church fathers, in decisions made in response to particular issues, in a particular time and context, determined was the best, as they had oversight of what the church had evolved to at the time. By church fathers, we are not referring to the original Apostles. Church fathers were church leaders and theologians growing in influence, subsequent to apostolic mission. Not all these church fathers were in agreement on all issues. Prior to the general acceptance of the Church and Christianity as the accepted state (Imperial) religion, there were doctrinal divisions, and none too cordial, where upon the Constantinian paradigm shift, Constantine realized the necessity of a universality of Christian religious thought and doctrine. One Emperor - One Church - One Doctrine. Consequently, convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine, Bishops gathered at Nicaea. With the Nicene Creed a precedent was established for subsequent 'general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church. In years to follow, more councils occurred, to define what was to constitute orthodoxy of the Christian faith, including establishing what scriptures are acceptable and has become our Bible. What is significant in this entire emergence and developing of western Church doctrine and orthodoxy is that the secular political dimension has always had a substantial influence in the working out of the presumed Spiritual outcome. This has been true throughout the history of the western orthodox church whether initially Roman Catholic or Protestant. In all this, whatever, and whoever, may have constituted the formally acknowledged leadership of the politically recognized church, have been redefining and perfecting what is the this, that , and the other, that we, the uninformed, ignorant masses of the church must embrace and adhere to in order to be acceptable in the Kingdom of God. Or, maybe it would be better stated the kingdom of their god? Looking back in twenty-twenty hind sight, tracing the history of the western Church, one cannot help but wonder, to consider, Has there been something of the true Christ nature that the Church - in our political game playing, and accommodating of the ruling powers of this world - has lost? Is our western concept of what is Christian - our orthodoxy our doctrine - our ruling over and dominating each other and ultimately the world through economic and political/military fear mongering, really of God, or evidence that the god we serve is no god at all, but only the imitation, the usurper, the ruler of this world, a substitute progressively embraced and endorsed as a matter of religious political expediency.

Beyond western Christian religion there is (albeit not politically correct - or dominant by an stretch of the imagination) Apostolic Christian influence - in corners of the world that could never be imagined as regions such faith would be found - and survived over so many centuries surrounded by cultures so aggressively antagonistic. These expressions of the faith do not adhere to western Christian values - or orthodoxy. Neither do they have such a tainted history of apparent un-Christian violence. These Christian expressions realize something recorded in scriptures foreign to western orthodoxy. Per chance, maybe we threw the baby out with the bath water?