As I’ve journeyed through my faith transition these past few years, I’ve pondered much on the importance of belief. Some things I no longer believe (e.g., polygamy was given by God), and some other things I believe differently from most orthodox Mormons (e.g., the Brethren get some important things wrong). And with most of my beliefs, my level of certainty is not anywhere near what it once was (e.g., I hope and long for a heaven that, in my darker moments, I fear does not exist). I feel this loss acutely, yet I do not regret who I have become.

I feel more peace now. I am not tormented by guilt, I don’t fret about my religious “to do list”, I no longer feel the corrosive sense of inadequacy that used to plague many of my waking moments, making me despair that I could ever be a son that God would delight in. Instead, I feel free to do my best and I’ve grown comfortable in the knowledge that I am flawed and at times will fail in my relationships.

In losing belief I have found grace–I feel divine acceptance and inner peace which I can better transmit to those around me–my family, my friends, and, in my best moments, even my enemies.

Though my beliefs have changed, in my outward behaviors I remain orthoprax. I still do most of the things that Mormons do. I go to church in my white(ish) shirt and striped tie, substitute as Primary chorister, holding up the Jane and Jim stick puppets to encourage the girls and boys to sing louder, stride to the pulpit, on occasion, to bear my unorthodox testimony, and don’t use profanity (except in anger 🙂 ). I value the goodness that my church involvement brings me and my family.

And yet my heterodoxy and orthopraxy create a tension within me and between me and my faith community. How the Church views and treats members like me is a difficult problem, but it is not a new problem.

In her book Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas, religion scholar Elaine Pagels writes of the 2nd century conflict among early Christians. According to Pagels, the early Church apologist Irenaeus championed the gospel of John with its thesis that salvation comes only in and through Jesus Christ–He is the light–while refuting what he considered the heresy found in the gospel of Thomas that the light of God is within us all–each of us is an authority for knowing (i.e., gnosis) the divine.

For Irenaeus, then, and for his successors, making a difference between true Christians and those he calls heretics–and choosing the path of “orthodox” faith and practice–is what ultimately makes the difference between heaven and hell.

Above all, in other words, we must have the correct beliefs to be saved.

From a historical perspective, Irenaeus was the winner. His focus on Jesus as God, the only way to divine truth and salvation, deeply influenced what was to become the Catholic Church, with its focus on correct beliefs that was enshrined in the Nicene Creed. And though at least some of Joseph Smith’s writing resisted the requirement for correct beliefs,

…Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine,

the modern LDS Church is more in line with Irenaeus than with Joseph Smith, to the extent that possessing the wrong beliefs can keep us out of the temple, the most holy place in Mormondom.

I understand why Irenaeus did what he did–he was trying to maintain the unity of early Christianity, intent on creating order and stability. No doubt the Church Correlation committee channeled Irenaeus in their efforts, avoiding worldwide chaos by simplifying, by pulling back exuberant diverse strands of Mormonism, laying down clear creeds that must be believed.

Such an approach seems to have worked in many ways for the latter 20th century Church. But I wonder: Do we need a different approach now? Has our relentless pursuit of conformity in correct beliefs caused us to lose something essential to true Christianity?

What was it that set the Christians apart in the centuries after Christ’s death but before a uniform set of beliefs was required of those within the church? According to Pagels, Christians in that time period stood out because they raised funds for orphans, cared for prisoners, dug graves for the poor, and alleviated the suffering of the sick.

…Christians believed that their God…actually loved the human race and evoked love in return…What God requires is that human beings love one another and offer help–even, or especially, to the neediest.

African convert Tertullian observed that the “peculiar Christian society” practiced these precepts often enough to attract public notice:

“What marks us in the eyes of our enemies is our practice of lovingkindness: ‘Only look,’ they say, ‘look how they love one another!'”

It is my fond hope that Mormonism in the 21st century can become remarkable in the same way that early Christians were remarkable. And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that these days we are often known by non-Mormons for our ideologies–beliefs enshrined in Church policy and practice–of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

I believe that the way we can change such perceptions is by changing ourselves as a Church, becoming less dogmatic, driven not by our hidebound ideology of white-bread, cookie cutter, Beaver Cleaver 1950’s family worship, but instead by our charity, the pure love of Christ for all God’s children that will cause our would-be critics to confess with awe: “Look how they love one another!”