{"id":3922,"date":"2017-05-05T13:40:18","date_gmt":"2017-05-05T17:40:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/?p=3922"},"modified":"2017-05-09T17:06:22","modified_gmt":"2017-05-09T21:06:22","slug":"bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/","title":{"rendered":"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nP<\/span>ublic Orthodoxy<\/i>\u2019s recent post by Giacomo Sanfilippo on \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d<\/a> claimed to take a postmodern approach to sacramental conjugality in Orthodox Christianity, but ended up falling into ethnophyletic and gnostic heresies from an Orthodox standpoint.<\/p>\n

The article raises outdated questions of modernist sexual identity in the name of postmodernity. It then answers them wrongly from the standpoint of Holy Tradition:<\/p>\n

\u201cTo the question, \u2018Can two persons of the same gender \u2018have sex\u2019 with each other?\u2019 we hear from Holy Tradition a resounding no,\u2019\u201d it states. \u201cYet if we ask, \u201cCan two persons of the same gender form a bond in which \u2018the two become one?\u2019\u201d the scales begin to fall from our eyes.\u201d<\/p>\n

The scaly eyes seem part of a straw man view of the Body of Christ, however. For the Orthodox Church does not call it impossible for two persons of the same gender to engage in sex with each other. Recognizing that possibility in her teachings on love and anthropology, she does not equate secular Western definitions of gender and sex in her response to any forms of sexual activity in fallen human nature. Nor does Orthodoxy privilege Western individualism by identifying a certain definition of gender with personhood. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos notes that Holy Tradition sees Personhood (Hypostasis) in the mystery of the All Holy Trinity, not in individual will of a fallen human nature open to transfiguration by God\u2019s grace. In the Personhood of Christ we are made, according to Genesis 1, not as persons making ourselves.<\/p>\n

The piece casts itself as a postmodern query but leaves unasked the postmodern question that would deconstruct through queer theory its own bourgeois sexual identity politics. The better question to have started with from that standpoint would have been as follows:<\/p>\n

Question: What does sexual orientation (of any kind as understood in 21st-century identity politics) have to do with marriage in the Orthodox Church?<\/p>\n

Answer: Nothing.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Any view of essentialist identity is not part of Orthodox Christian teaching on the purpose of man as theosis<\/i>. Theosis<\/i> is achieved through unity with the uncreated energies of God, not in any essentialist view of human beings or Creation. That\u2019s not through heterosexual, homosexual, intersexual, transgender, or other categories.<\/p>\n

To the contrary, secular essentialist views of human beings have led to the categorizations of identity in modern totalitarianisms, in the \u201cdeath wish\u201d inherent in modernist materialisms, and their destruction of human beings and the environment on an unprecedented scale.<\/p>\n

So any effort to find a sacramental Orthodox basis for conjugal same-sex relations, or any essentialized view of marriage based on an objectified view of identity, whether heterosexual or homosexual or any other category, runs counter to Orthodoxy as a living tradition.<\/p>\n

Instead, the \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d piece reflects what the late Jaroslav Pelikan called traditionalism\u2014an effort to find the self within a construct of Church based in ritual without theosis<\/i>, in institutional organization without noetic transfiguration. It would try to force the noetic life of the Church\u2019s living tradition into an individualistic model of the self in accord with American ethnophyletism, an emphasis on individual or tribal identities rather than ecclesial communion.<\/p>\n

The mystery and beauty of Orthodox Christian marriage is a living and transfigurative symbolism–not an empty rite to be filled by individualistic desires in the style of neoliberal consumerism, an ethnophyletic heresy of the West.<\/p>\n

Orthodox Tradition of marriage involves a profound encounter with the other iconographically in biological sex, a Christian fulfillment of the Daoist yin-yang. Its living symbolism links the story of Creation in Genesis to the marriage of the Lamb and the Bride in Revelation. The marriage of the Lamb and the Bride involves the community of the Church as the Body of Christ, her holy living Tradition, and not just an atomized will individuated from His Body.<\/p>\n

In this sense, Holy Orthodox Tradition involves neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality, and approves neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality as an identity to be expressed in marriage. Rather, it is the two who are gathered in His name with whom He is in the midst, the complementarity of male and female from Genesis through Revelation in Scripture as realized by the Incarnation and the Church.<\/p>\n

Kathryn Ringrose in her study of \u201cthe social construction of gender in Byzantium\u201d found in Byzantine Orthodox society simultaneously a \u201csingle-sex\u201d structure of complementarity (the \u201cone flesh\u201d of marriage) based on performativity of the two biological sexes, thus with a \u201ctwo-sex\u201d model as well, and in addition a \u201cthree-sex\u201d model in which the third sex included both ascetics and eunuchs and the intersexed and asexual. St. Maximus the Confessor in his Ambigua<\/i> put this in the context of spiritual anthropology as the \u201cextreme\u201d of Genesis 1:25 (made in one image, Christ) and St. Paul\u2019s writings, and the \u201cmean\u201d of Genesis 1:26 (male and female).<\/p>\n

The simultaneity in Orthodox anthropology of a one-, two-, and three-sex model is based both in the performative ascetic chastity of marriage and monasticism, and in a performative manliness and womanliness that in Christ are one but not erased even in the afterlife (signified by the Ascension of Christ and the Dormition of the Theotokos). This is an iconographic and not a gnostic anthropology, a performative iconography based in Orthodox terms on embodied physical forms and not in gnostic disembodied individual will and desire, except inasmuch as they participate ascetically, hesychastically, and liturgically in the divine energies through theosis<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The \u201cconjugal friendship\u201d article draws on notions of adelphopoiesis<\/i> developed by the Blessed Martyr Pavel Florensky in his book The Pillar and the Ground of Truth<\/i>. Yet the article\u2019s interpretation of adelphopoiesis<\/i> involves an appropriative Western neocolonial view of it based in the late twentieth-century scholarship of John Boswell. Boswell\u2019s scholarship on that tradition has been shown to be seriously flawed by both secular scholars and the Church (see the article on \u201cAdelphopoiesis\u201d on the Orthodox Wiki<\/a>, which offers a brief survey).<\/p>\n

Fr. Florensky\u2019s 20th-century view of this early form of spiritual brotherhood stressed the spiritual brotherhood aspect and not any non-canonical sense of sexual incest in opposition to Church Tradition of the chaste nature of spiritual kinship lines. For him this was chaste brotherhood, and his life story shows his performativity of sex within Orthodox Tradition, contrary to implications in the article. Fr. Florensky\u2019s whole explication of identity in his book is relational and not essentialist, in keeping with Orthodox Tradition. He rejects the Fichtean Western philosophical basis of identity, I=I, for a sense of mystical identity, in which A=Not-A. This articulates a traditional understanding of Orthodox marriage as well.<\/p>\n

Thus in some ways Orthodox anthropology is closer to today\u2019s queer theory than to identity politics, though culturally and experientially it involves a very different experience from the ultimately atheistic grounds of both. Secular Western sexual theories today find their basis in anthropologies of atheistic socialist-communism, with their longstanding historical goal of subverting non-materialistic anthropologies of sex, evident in efforts of cultural genocide against Orthodox communities by both Nazism and Leninism, and in subtler but perhaps even more dangerous forms of neocolonial and neoliberal consumerism since.<\/p>\n

Orthodoxy can draw a limited typology for marriage from Foucault\u2019s idea that pre-modern sexual behavior did not involve essentialized sexual identity. In this Orthodox anthropology draws on a sense of natural law in Orthodox theology that the bioethicist Dr. Herman Engelhardt describes as a transformative sparkle rather than a static matrix of identity, an energeia entis<\/i> rather than an analogia entis<\/i>. The mix of apophatic and cataphatic approaches to God in Orthodox Tradition includes a dynamic sense of identity being transformed neptically in theosis<\/i>, yet always also in an embodied way because of the Incarnation.<\/p>\n

In the Orthodox Tradition of marriage\u2019s own playful yet ascetic performativity, such \u201cqueer Christianity\u201d (to paraphrase C.S. Lewis), identity is relational and not essential. Marriage is a holy living symbol of the relational synergy of theosis<\/i>, involving both askesis<\/i> and koinonia<\/i> participating in the uncreated energies of God through the marriage of Christ and His Church. It is \u201cqueer\u201d in the sense of sensual but ascetic monogamy, union of different biological sexes, reproductiveness in commitment to transgenerationality, living embodied iconography of Scriptural typology involving Christ and His Church, and in its shaping of a \u201clittle church\u201d and \u201clittle kingdom\u201d of the household in resistant to materialistic society. This is the Orthodox realization of queerness, which includes the Tradition\u2019s expression of sustainability and social justice in the mystery of marriage and commitment to the transgenerationality of the Church and her incarnational otherworldliness in the world.<\/p>\n

The \u201cBill Nye Saves the World\u201d show recently sought to celebrate the \u201cqueerness\u201d of human sexuality in its fallen state by a cartoon showing scoops of different-colored ice cream learning to blend together in a bowl. Bill Nye, trained in engineering and not biology, in celebrating secular sexual materialisms did not address biological aspects of male and female sex and reproduction. Even so, the silly melding of the ice creams could in a very limited sense be transformed in the Orthodox context of embodied chastity into a type of non-essential sexuality and transfiguration of identity in the Body of Christ. Yet how much more beautiful is the Church\u2019s mystery of marriage as iconographic performance, an incarnational participation in the God Who is Love and the Church\u2019s Bridegroom, than Western secular-bourgeois \u201cconjugal friendship\u201d of all kinds reduced to slurping up melting ice cream.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Public Orthodoxy\u2019s recent post by Giacomo Sanfilippo on \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d claimed to take a postmodern approach to sacramental conjugality in Orthodox Christianity, but ended up falling into ethnophyletic and gnostic heresies from an Orthodox standpoint.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":3925,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,14],"tags":[451,180,312,450],"class_list":["post-3922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-culture","category-gay-marriage","tag-alfred-siewers","tag-homosexuality","tag-same-sex-marriage","tag-sex"],"yoast_head":"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A supposedly postmodern approach to sacramental conjugality in Orthodox Christianity instead falls into ethnophyletic and gnostic heresies.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A supposedly postmodern approach to sacramental conjugality in Orthodox Christianity instead falls into ethnophyletic and gnostic heresies.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OrthodoxyHeterodoxy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-05-05T17:40:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-09T21:06:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"815\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Guest Author\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Guest Author\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/\",\"name\":\"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-05-05T17:40:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-09T21:06:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#\/schema\/person\/3ecbe82ce1dae9639c40c0b241906e6d\"},\"description\":\"A supposedly postmodern approach to sacramental conjugality in Orthodox Christianity instead falls into ethnophyletic and gnostic heresies.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg\",\"width\":1280,\"height\":815},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/\",\"name\":\"Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy\",\"description\":\"Doctrine Matters\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#\/schema\/person\/3ecbe82ce1dae9639c40c0b241906e6d\",\"name\":\"Guest Author\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/08\/o-and-h-150x150.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/08\/o-and-h-150x150.png\",\"caption\":\"Guest Author\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/author\/orthodoxyheterodoxy\/\"}]}<\/script>","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy","description":"A supposedly postmodern approach to sacramental conjugality in Orthodox Christianity instead falls into ethnophyletic and gnostic heresies.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy","og_description":"A supposedly postmodern approach to sacramental conjugality in Orthodox Christianity instead falls into ethnophyletic and gnostic heresies.","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/","og_site_name":"Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/OrthodoxyHeterodoxy","article_published_time":"2017-05-05T17:40:18+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-09T21:06:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1280,"height":815,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Guest Author","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Guest Author","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/","name":"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg","datePublished":"2017-05-05T17:40:18+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-09T21:06:22+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#\/schema\/person\/3ecbe82ce1dae9639c40c0b241906e6d"},"description":"A supposedly postmodern approach to sacramental conjugality in Orthodox Christianity instead falls into ethnophyletic and gnostic heresies.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg","width":1280,"height":815},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/2017\/05\/05\/bourgeois-conjugal-friendship-american-ethnophyletism\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bourgeois \u201cConjugal Friendship\u201d and American Ethnophyletism"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/","name":"Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy","description":"Doctrine Matters","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#\/schema\/person\/3ecbe82ce1dae9639c40c0b241906e6d","name":"Guest Author","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/08\/o-and-h-150x150.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/08\/o-and-h-150x150.png","caption":"Guest Author"},"url":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/author\/orthodoxyheterodoxy\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2017\/05\/adelphopoiesis.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3922","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3922"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3922\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3933,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3922\/revisions\/3933"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ancientfaith.com\/orthodoxyandheterodoxy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}