When describing themselves, renewal groups in the old-line denominations quite frequently use the word "orthodox". What do they mean by that?
Well, "orthodox" comes from old Greek, where orthodoxia means something like "right opinion". Later the early Church used it to mean "having right belief", as when St Augustine (354-430) wrote, "Religion is to be sought . . . only among those who are called . . . orthodox Christians, that is, guardians of truth and followers of right." Over the centuries, the Church hammered out agreement on at least the core essentials, most notably in the great ecumenical creeds and derivative statements, and this became "orthodoxy".
So, what's the opposite of orthodox? - Unorthodox? That would fit if we were talking about some optimistic soul trying to sharpen pencils with an axe, but in religious terms, the opposite of orthodoxy is "heresy" - a good but now unpopular word, thanks to connotations of the Spanish Inquisition, and people being tortured and burned at the stake. A red-button word. A word most gentle-spirited folk try to avoid using nowadays.
So on one hand there's our squeamishness over this word, but there's another consideration. In the West we're also regularly told that all truth is relative. If that's actually so, and, if that's actually so, then heresy is an impossibility. After all, the argument is that whatever you believe (no matter how absurd to others) is a perfectly good truth, because it is true for you. Denominations like mine (the United Church of Canada) are heavily invested in that sort of thinking. They assure us it's OK, even as Christians, to believe (or dis-believe) almost anything. So right off the bat (so to speak) there are two strikes against "heresy" - the term itself makes us uncomfortable, and as a concept it's redundant, out of date.
That leaves one strike, and here it comes, whistling across the plate. Now the assertion is that to pronounce anything heretical is to be judgemental, and surely we're not to be that, and wasn't it Jesus himself who said "Do not judge, or you too will be judged"? (Matt 7:1) (One problem though is that Jesus was speaking of judging people, not their ideas.) Still, to some self-appointed umpires it certainly looks like three strikes, and so heresy is therefore OUT!
How does all that play out in practice? Well, take the UCC's recently approved "A Song of Faith", the new statement about where the denomination stands regarding its beliefs. An earlier draft of "Song" received some trenchant criticism, which prompted significant changes, but the final version still has quite a bit to startle the orthodox Christian. For instance, it names God "Mother". Some will say, "So what in heaven's name is wrong with that?"
The response to that is, "It's wrong because it's un-Biblical. In the Old and New Testaments, female gods are false gods. And, tellingly, Jesus never speaks of God as "Mother"; he specifically directs us to call him "Father". You might think that the scriptural record would clinch the matter, but some highly influential nominal Christians, look at that evidence pretty skeptically. Why? Because, while they concede the Bible is important, they still regard it as no more than the product of sincere and thoughtful (but error-prone) people struggling to put down their best insights about God. Produced by fallible humans, it itself is inevitably fallible.
The opposing view is that the Bible is not a human artifact at all. It is a gift, from God, his revelation of who he is and what he intends. Through it he speaks to us directly, through the medium of inspired (i.e. Spirit-filled) writers. This is his book, not the writers' - and not ours, for that matter.
Moreover, God's book is not intended to be simplistic. Its senior Writer specifically warns us not to try to understand him too thoroughly (Isa 55:8), so there's no surprise in finding that any but a superficial approach stretches our minds to the breaking point. St John says as much in Rev 10:10, where he describes trying to absorb ("to eat") the scriptural text handed him. At first it tastes sweet, but then, as he digests it, it gives him huge indigestion.
If what was true for St John is true for us, how can we handle the discomfort? Do we take antacids? Limit ourselves to just the nice bits? Change our diet completely and fill up on "comfort foods" from elsewhere? Or, do we put our heads down and doggedly munch away, putting up with the prospect of stomach ache?
Very few of us choose the last option. The others are more attractive - relying on commentators who provide soothing explanations, limiting ourselves to what is understandable and enjoyable, or turning away completely to study writings that are less challenging, more easily absorbed.
It would be nice to think that not many within the Church, the Body of Christ, would take that last option. Still, there are a number who think it's just fine to blend in comforting elements from New Ageism, Buddhism, or whatever. In doing so, they're opening a can of worms, and our "Mother" language is one example. Consider just one problem:
If we are intended to call God "Mother", why would Jesus avoid doing so? Possible Answer #1: Because he didn't want to offend the people around him. -- Come on, he was in the business of offending people. It got him crucified! Possible Answer #2: Because he'd been brainwashed by the social attitudes of the day? -- Come on! You're saying Jesus, God incarnate, was hamstrung by the conventions of his day?
In general terms, those who argue along those lines have two main arguments for discounting the truth of Jesus' teaching: (1) Knowingly or not, the New Testament writers (or later revisionists) falsified the record, or (2) Jesus wasn't who he said he was. He was just a man, and a deluded man at that - or a liar!
If the first of those two choices is correct, Christianity has no secure foundation. Its whole structure rests on sand. There's nothing here to go to the mat about. If the second is correct, Jesus wasn't who he said he was - God doesn't go around making mistakes or lying. So God didn't come to live among us, and the person who died on the cross wasn't God. He didn't take our sins on himself, and, if all of that is true, there's no hope for us in this or any other life.
There are, of course, all sorts of nominal Christians who say yes to both of those dismal assertions. If I were one, what comfort could I take from those positions? Well, if the Bible is fallible in any respect, then I can pick and choose and order my life as I see fit. Or, if Jesus was just a Palestinian peasant with some excellent teachings (but was capable of getting things wrong), that gives me room to disagree with him for all sorts of reasons that seem OK to me.
There's no way the true Church could consider any of that "Orthodox". It is in fact "Heretical".
Broadly speaking, the old-liner's renewal groups stand in what is sometimes called The Great Tradition, that is in the Christianity of the great creeds and of the faith statements that flow from them.
Jeremiah passes along some pertinent advice. Writing at a time of great danger for Israel, he told the people, "This is what the Lord says: 'Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.' " (6:16)
Looks to me like the instruction is to go with Orthodoxy.
God bless -- Geoff
Recent Comments