12.14.2008

Orthodoxy

I have been thinking for awhile that I would like to do some posts about basic theology. The main reason is because I no longer write papers for school. I think sometimes that causes my brain to get a little soft. I would like to sharpen it up a bit more. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of getting some feedback on my beliefs. I will try to write in a balanced way, but of course I will support what I believe the best I can. I also am not writing this for a grade, so it isn't going to be as polished as some would prefer. I probably won't go to the trouble of supporting everything I write with specific scripture. So, feel free to stumble through my thoughts with me, feel free to comment, I have begun to moderate comments for awhile to hopefully eliminate ridiculousness. Its ok to disagree with me, its not ok to believe that you are the final authority on what is scriptural and what is not.

So, all that to say, this first post will be sort of introductory. Again, I don't think I am teaching a class or anything like that, but really trying to get my own thoughts together.

So, I was trying to think of where to go with all of this, where to begin and whatnot, and I think the best place to start is to consider "orthodoxy." Now, typically that word means something like "right thinking" or "correct doctrine" or something along those lines. There are a lot of different ways people define orthodoxy, and there are a lot of different doctrines that become a part of it. There is no singular set of beliefs that all of Christendom has agreed on, in fact, there is a good deal of disagreement among Christians about what is orthodox and what is not. Of course, a large contingent here in the United States (and I would guess abroad too, but can't say because I don't live there) that believes that they alone are orthodox.

This can become problematic, however, because nearly everyone disagrees on certain aspects of theology. Even if a person hasn't clearly thought through all of their own theology, they might be full of inner contradictions. So what should we do? Just continually split churches and denominations until we are all alone in our "orthodox" single person churches? I think not. So what is the answer? Where do we go when we disagree on important aspects of theology?

I think scripturally, and throughout church history, we see one prevailing thing about orthodoxy, it is less important than "orthopraxy." I think, here I should explain a little more what orthopraxy is. Orthopraxy is simply right practice, or doing the right thing. There are a few disagreements on what is permissible and what is not among Christians, but for the most part, all Christians agree on the major aspects of living a right lifestyle. Things like being generous, helping the poor, love, fidelity, faithfulness, kindness are all things that are clearly good. So, I think when we look at the Christian church, orthodoxy should take a backseat to orthopraxy.

Jesus talks a lot more about what things a person ought to do, what things they ought not to do, how they should live etc, than he talks about right belief. Of course, we should strive for both, but I think our entrance into the kingdom of God is much more contingent upon our orthopraxy than our orthodoxy. God knows himself exhaustively, and since we are very finite, we can only know him in part. He does not expect us to have a perfect and correct knowledge of him, he does expect us to live in obedience. This all relates to faith really. Faith is not so much believing the right thing, but trusting in it and doing something about it.

Of course, to those who wrote the bible and those who originally read it, there could have been no distinction. They did not acknowledge something with their minds and deny it with their lives. Theology to the early Christians was first about practice and second about belief. But they were intertwined, they were inextricable. To many today, we acknowledge God with our minds and mouths, but our hands and feet deny him.

I don't know how well I put my thoughts out here, but I don't feel like rewriting it all right now. Feel free to blog, I will publish it unless it is rude or something like that.

2 comments:

Grant said...

It's tough to put one in front of the other, practice and teaching. It is like a chicken and the egg conversation. "How can you really have right beliefs if your practice isn't consistent" is the common critique, as you illustrated, but I think the question really being asked today is the converse. What about when our actions acknowledge the reality of Christ but not our thoughts? I feel like the trajectory of placing orthopraxy over orthodoxy is pragmatism. But if we are being pragmatic, we face the problem of trying to establish which set of values qualifies whether the end result was good or not without giving primacy to doctrine. It seems like an impossible task, giving one priority to the other.

Chris said...

Hmmm. Yeah, I think definitely the danger is running into pragmatism. I think what I am thinking is that if we are going to consider who is Christian and who is not Christian, the main priority should not be theology as it has been, but faith. I think we have thought of faith as "orthodoxy" whereas I think biblically faith is probably closer to "orthopraxy."

I do agree though, for the most part you can't have one without the other,but I also think that some beliefs have nothing to do with whether a person is a "Christian" or not. For instance, I think a person can disbelieve in the virgin birth and still be a Christian, but they wouldn't be orthodox. I think the burden is more on what their life looks like. I don't want to go so far as to say a person does certain works to earn salvation, but some on the other side are perfectly content saying that a person must have all the right beliefs to be saved. I think that is works salvation too.

Anyway, I guess what I want to get at is that though we should strive to get the right beliefs, it is much more likely that we will at least know what actions and practices are right. But I agree, if taken all the way, pragmatism isn't good either.