ORTHODOXY AND MINIDOXY, AS WELL AS
AUTODOXY AND RELATIVISM

© 2002-2003 by Orchid Land Publications
[updated 20020709, 20021010, 20030424]]

     The minidoxy (microdoxy or anticredalism) that polls show to have  ravaged the religious left (Evangelicalism and Liberalism) and well as many circles of Papalism also affects Orthodoxy, where many favor the idea of a sentimental experientialism's overriding belief and truth.  You see it everywhere--even on Orthodox internet lists.  As history shows, minidoxy can hardly avoid ending up as an isodoxy or scheticodoxy (relativism, Greek schetikismós) in which the highest calling of the highest part of a rational human being--reason--gets parked outside of the temple door.   Truth matters not . . . and there's no way left to distinguish idolatry (worshiping a passion, revering experience or $$, . . .  whatever) from the worship of Christ, Who is the Way and the Truth (John 14:6) and in fact the all-holy Trinity.  This approach rejects the idea that it is the truth that sets us free (John 8:32) and gives little regard to St. Paul' commendation  (2 Tim. 2:15) of rightly discerning the logos ("rationale") of truth—which is the converse of pretending that opposites are compatible.  Despite 2 Pet. 1:20 (which forbids self-invented interpretations of Scripture) and Col. 2:23 (which condemns self-invented worship or piety), every self-invented cacodoxy is all right.      

     Microdoxy usually grows out of an autodoxy--a self-invented Worship or piety--the ethelothresk(e)ía condemned in Col. 2:23.  The Orthodox often use cacodoxy ("bad belief") for heresy, since it has fewer obnoxious undertones.  Another possibility is pseudoxy "false belief."  The whole gamut of otherdoxies can be summed up:

     Those subscribing to any of the preceding approaches, especially relativism or experientialism,  while claiming to be Orthodox are in worse case than those who've never heard our Savior and His Apostles' saving Gospel.  Spreading things contrary to the revealed truth and what holy people have, after much study, divined from it is no doubt a very grave undertaking.

      I have read recent letters online that advocate "reconciling" beliefs or instituting "intercommunion" among the various kinds of Christians as a means to achieve certain practical political goals.  I omit the writers' names in order to avoid  being personal and to avoid seeming to be interested in anything beyond the ideas themselves.  (An earlier series of letters promoted experience--apparently over belief, though not necessarily contrry to belief.)  What these approaches have in common warrants comment.  If I contest the logic or any other aspect of these statements, I am not contesting the right to say what one supposes to be true--a right I am also claiming for myself.  It is, however, fair to contest the propriety of proposing what on the face of it appears to be impossible--at least when no attempt is made to show how to get around the obvious difficulties.
     In addition to being or existing, humans have two potentials and the two corresponding energies of Grace that actualize those dynameis according to which humans have been created and without which we would be animals--and not very good ones at that:  (i) Cognitive or mental; and (ii) will or moral.  The first has to do with belief, doctrine; the latter has to do with politics and, if you will, experience.  They are often related.  In fact, will without reason is bound to go astray according to the Fathers; nevertheless the Reformers (and the whole via moderna tradition Luther adhered to) exalted will above reason.  "Being related" does not mean being confused with one another.  To confuse co-operation with communion is simply unacceptable in the real world, not to speak of the world of logic and commonsense.  This is because co-operation is on the level of will and love, whereas communion is on the level of belief, without which communion can only be a superficial Lord's Supper.  (See on the meanings of "Unity with God" below.)
    What does Scripture say?  My concordance lists three and a third long columns of passages (by far the most being from the New Testament) containing "belief" and "believe(r)."  They are too many to quote here, but if one reads the NT, one will know them already; otherwise, why be Orthodox?  What did the Protomartyr, St. Laurence, SS. Blandina and her companions, as well as thousands of  other holy Martyrs say?  If the reader doesn't know, why is one Orthodox at all?
     To put a human-oriented, political agenda above the holy Faith seems intolerable to me.  (I don't deny that one can cite plenty of ethnic and other agendas--like teaching modern instead of New Testament Greek in church schools or calling colleges by names of foreign cultures--as though any of them were superior to our own in the non-religious aspects intended.  When the GOA charter speaks of the Church's first task as being to promote Hellenic culture, it's not speaking of the ancient culture on which Western civilization is based--since that kind of Greek is not what is taught in parish schools--whose pupils cannot read the NT.)
    What did St. Peter the Aleut (the first Orthodox native-American Martyr) say when given the choice of having his hands, etc., cut off if he failed to become a Latin Catholic?  He said, "We have been baptized" and he refused to save his life or escape other tortures for the sake of relativizing the Faith he had accepted.  Should we recommend others to do less? 
    What is problematic for the proposals under scrutiny, viz. proposals to subject beliefs to politics?  The main problem in saying (the Pope says it too), "Let's get together!" is that writers unfailingly stop short of revealing HOW--i.e. how to "reconcile" antinomies without abandoning honest beliefs.   (I'm not talking about politics--reconciling the papacy with Orthodoxy and all of that.)  Never do we find a concrete proposal for reconciling incompatible views of Grace or Unity with God (see below); yet, these two beliefs are basic enough.  But unless the way is shown, the whole idea comes down to abandoning beliefs as not worth exalting above political good will--a position that (like the idea that love can overcome all differences) in the end levels all religious differences as not being worth the time of day.  There's NO THIRD WAY OUT; or, if there is, let's be shown!  It is proper either to show how to do it or to stop advocating such an idea.
        To show what I mean, let the authors of the letters in question rise to the following challenge.  Take a basic belief--Grace, which all agree is unearned and necessary to Salvation--or Unity with God as our final destiny.  Please reveal how to reconcile the following differences  in an HONEST way if you think you should continue advocating what is unthinkable by those who follow the criteria of honest discussion.  

Orthodox GRACE:  UNCREATED ENERGY.
Latin Sanctifying GRACE:  created NON-ENERGETIC (non-operativa) HABIT (an    
     enduring QUALITY) of a believer's soul
Reformation (Protestant) GRACE:  God's BENIGNITY . . . not "something."

Orthodox UNITY with GOD:  ONTOLOGICAL, through the uncreated ENERGIES
      in uncreated Light.
Latin UNITY with GOD:  VIRTUAL Unity with the imparticipable divine ESSENCE--an 
     intentional or conceptual Unity. 
Protestant UNITY with GOD:  VIRTUAL Unity with the imparticipable divine 
     ESSENCE--covenantal,  will-based.  

How can Grace be both energetic and non-energetic, both uncreated and created?
Please don't duck the issue, all who advocate reconciling these views.  Or do we just
tolerate all of them side-by-side (which is relativism, effectively non-belief) and put political goals ahead of TRUTH?  Would any Orthodox subscribe to Calvin's opinion?:  He said to Hobbes, his pet tiger:  "But who likes originality and truth?!  Nobody!  Life's hard enough without it!  Only an idiot would pay for it!" 
     If you think that  intercommunion as the only way to have worthwhile religious cooperation--which to mind  confuses the energy of believing with the energy of will . . . and for a politic end--please show us how!  Please show us a concrete example involving the fundamental concepts just laid out!  Let's be grown-up about it.  Let's not turn Orthodoxy into one more relativistic religion--there are plenty of those around to choose from, and the Internet will offer you some that even call themselves "Orthodox."  You can have your cake and eat it too in one of those.
     Why propose something that, unless you can show otherwise, is not possible to achieve in an above-board way?  I'm not saying you can't, just that I think it cannot be done.  Unless one can show how it is possible to bring any two of the three views (except the two Western views about virtual unity)  together in an honest way, it is hardly proper to go around advocating what is on the face of it not possible.  Now I'm not denying that some people ignorant of our beliefs and the beliefs of others could honestly think that they can be combined or relativistic ally tolerated.  But those who know what we and others believe cannot, I claim, logically show how they can be honestly (with integrity on all sides) combined.  To show I'm wrong, be my guest; if you cannot or won't, why advocate it?  It is hardly a proper way-out to say, "Someone with good will can combine them!"  If even the Pope cannot show how, can that be an workable or convincing approach?  Note that I am not (for purposes of this discussion) saying that the beliefs cannot be combined; I'm saying, "Till you show how to do it, it must be considered an airy-fairy proposal from never-never-land."
     Far better would it be to put beliefs above expedience and die for them, as the Saints have done!  Or don't the Saints count as guides for us Orthodox any more?  I defend everyone's right to have one's say (so long as it's not harmful to others), but I am simply asking whether an Orthodox list is really the most appropriate place to promote doctrinal relativism for the sake of achieving the stated political goals?  (Am I wrong in thinking that one letter seems to think that abandoning Orthodox beliefs is less of an evil than letting the Muslims wreak havoc on the world . . . that if this goal could be achieved through relativism, it's okay.)  For my part, I think that one would be advised to read all of the NT passages that speak of belief and believing, and then--BEFORE assuring us that reconciliation of Orthodox, Latins, Lutherans, etc. can be done--SHOW HOW to reconcile what is not amenable to being reconciled.  Otherwise, one is just waving hands at the matter.  If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and if this describes all past (but not all thinkable) ecumenist game plans, I'd recommend another adage--if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!  I don't see how conflicting beliefs belong to different thought worlds (axiomatic paradigms) can be reconciled in an honest way . . . nor do I see how that strategy can be reconciled with the examples of St. Athanasios the Great, St. Vasil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, the many Martyrs who suffered for our Faith that we honor, etc.  Recall that more Orthodox martyrs died under the Turks and Communist in the last century than in all past centuries in all forms of Christianity.  Was that all wasted, and is the Blood of Martyrs who have died for Orthodox beliefs not the seed of the Church? 
     Everything comes down to this:  What does it accomplish to advocate something that one cannot show to be doable in an acceptable manner?