A Question for Readers: How Do You Define Orthodoxy?
As the ELCA deals with the aftermath of CWA09, and Rome announces its opening its doors to disaffected Anglicans, the question that continues to weigh so heavily on my mind is that of orthodoxy. What exactly does it mean to be theologically orthodox? This question will be answered different nuances depending upon ecclesial community, but is it possible that Lutherans, Anglicans and Romans could at least come up with some basic guidelines? Methodists and Baptists and everyone are welcome to play as well, though I think we will see more divergence from those traditions.
What if I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God, but reject the creeds, can I be considered orthodox?
What if I believe in the creeds exactly as they were written, seeing them as the great distillation of the tradition, but think there may be wiggle room on topics like human sexuality, can I be considered orthodox?
What if I believe that God used evolution to bring our world into being, can I be considered orthodox?
If, as a Lutheran, I accept the Augsburg Confession and the Catechisms, but think the rest of the Book of Concord is absolute drek, can I be considered an orthodox Lutheran? (this one is tricky historically, huh?)
What if I am divorced and remarried and still serving a parish? Could I be seen as an orthodox pastor when Jesus says I may be guilty of adultery? Does this mean my children are bastards and my wife a whore? Is that how orthodoxy would see my family?
I can go on with examples…but you catch my drift…what REALLY makes one orthodox in belief and teaching? Where do we draw our lines and why?
October 21, 2009 at 10:40 am
Those without sin are orthodox and should therefore cast the first stone, or something like that. Or maybe it is those without the mote in the eye. Somehow it is about those who can point at others with their pointer finger without the other three fingers pointing back at themselves.
While I can appreciate why people get worked up about doctrine and orthodoxy, it can lead to a big sin, that is, thinking that it is our belief in certain concepts which saves us, rather than understanding that it is the work of Jesus that saves us.
October 21, 2009 at 11:03 am
Some off-the-cuff (Lutheran) orthodox essentials:
- Doctrine of the Holy Trinity (with a robust understanding of the Spirit), particularly as outlined in the historic creeds of the church
- The Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ
- The Bible is the manger in which the Christ child is laid (ie, we worship Christ, not the manger)
- Weekly practice of Word and Sacrament
- Book of Concord – the whole thing (with priority given to the CA if you need to “rank” them)
- some semblance of liturgical practice
October 21, 2009 at 12:35 pm
day-day-enu, day-day-enu, day-day-enu, day-enu dayenu! (if you get what I mean)
October 21, 2009 at 1:42 pm
This is really not that hard a question. Christianity is a revealed religion, and therefore is is of divine, not human, origin. To be orthodox is to be faithful to what God has revealed, without limiting that or correcting it by human ideas or reasonings. Thus for Christians, orthodoxy is being faithful to the good news of Jesus Christ proclaimed by the Apostles, handed down by them to the Church, and believed, taught, and confessed by the Church continuously from the Apostles’ time, to the present day, and until the Parousia.
Our faith was revealed by Jesus Christ, committed to the Apostles, and proclaimed by them to all the world. Therefore, if we teach and confess anything other than what the Apostles taught, it is really false advertising to call it “Christianity.” That is what heresy really is: a faith other than, or less than, Apostolic Christianity that is masquerading as the real thing.
What if I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inspired Word of God, but reject the creeds, can I be considered orthodox?
No. The Creeds encapsulate the Apostolic teaching. If you claim to believe the Bible but disbelieve the Creed, you are merely using the Bible as raw material to manufacture your own religion. The Creed is (among other things) a hermeneutical rule showing us how Scripture is to be understood. If you don’t bind yourself by the Church’s rule of faith, anything you come up with is only your opinion, not the Apostolic faith.
What if I believe in the creeds exactly as they were written, seeing them as the great distillation of the tradition, but think there may be wiggle room on topics like human sexuality, can I be considered orthodox?
No. The Creed does not go into any detail about what is, and is not, sin; it only says that baptism is for the remission of sin. But the background of that simple statement is the whole teaching of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, consistently articulated in the Church’s tradition. You can’t use the necessarily succinct language of the Creed as an excuse to throw out what you don’t like in Scripture and Tradition. Again the question is, do we teach what the Apostles taught? The suggestion that the Apostles countenanced anything other than sexual faithfulness within marriage, as the Law and the Prophets taught, is laughable. If you want to be orthodox, teach what the Apostles taught.
What if I believe that God used evolution to bring our world into being, can I be considered orthodox?
Of course. The early chapters of Genesis do not claim to be historical (i.e. it is not an eyewitness account and does not claim to be) and they certainly are not scientific. The purpose of the Law and the Prophets is to proclaim Christ, not to teach science.
If, as a Lutheran, I accept the Augsburg Confession and the Catechisms, but think the rest of the Book of Concord is absolute drek, can I be considered an orthodox Lutheran?
Here you are shifting the terms of the question somewhat, because at the outset you were asking what Lutherans, Anglicans, and Catholics could acknowledge as a common orthodoxy; but now you are asking specifically about Lutheran orthodoxy. What I would say about this is that the question doesn’t really make sense. If the Formula of Concord is “absolute dreck,” then how could the Augustana be true? The FC is largely an elaboration of the teachings of the Augustana. The only way to make the AC and the FC mean different things is to re-interpret everything in the AC so that it is not genuinely Lutheran anymore. And in that case I would have to say that no, you would no longer be an orthodox Lutheran.
What if I am divorced and remarried and still serving a parish?
That is really more a matter of discipline than of doctrine. Technically your preaching and practice might be entirely orthodox even though your personal situation was less than ideal. The difficulty is that your manner of living is itself sending a message about Christian marriage that is heterodox. On the other hand, the strict standards of the Church sometimes need to be relaxed a bit when that is what is best for the salvation of souls. If the bishop (or other ecclesiastical authority) sees your situation as one in which a certain economy can be exercised, I think your parishioners should defer to that authority rather than get their shorts in a wad about it. If, however, you not only live in such a less-than-ideal situation, but also give the message (implicitly or expicitly) that it is perfectly consistent with the Christian understanding of marriage, then you have gone beyond the bounds of orthodoxy.
The bottom line is that orthodoxy is teaching what the Apostles taught: the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed in the Old and New Testaments, understood according to the Church’s rule of faith which is given to us in the Creeds and the tradition of the Church.
October 21, 2009 at 3:26 pm
What if I am divorced and remarried and still serving a parish? Could I be seen as an orthodox pastor when Jesus says I may be guilty of adultery? Does this mean my children are bastards and my wife a whore? Is that how orthodoxy would see my family?
Now you sound like a southern baptist, unless you happen to have ’something’ that allows you to remain in the pulpit like ummm a certain man in the Atlanta area…
October 22, 2009 at 11:02 am
This may not answer the question directly, but sometimes I believe we “overthink” Christianity. Jesus was a carpenter’s kid, the twelve included several fishermen, and his most devoted followers included tax collectors and homemakers. Christian discipleship wasn’t meant to be a complicated cognitive or academic exercise, which too often is the case with “champions” of orthodoxy. And sometimes, trying to discern the “good news” from orthodox formulations seems forced and disingenuous.
That said, acting without thinking doesn’t seem like such a good idea either. Insofar as we claim to be heirs to the faith, teachings, and practices of the apostles, we certainly look to the apostolic witness of scripture as our guide and standard. The obvious challenge then is to discern and apply that witness in every generation in a way which speaks the good news of the nearness of God’s reign – and it’s implications vis-a-vis the Beatitudes, for example – and the lordship of Jesus of Nazareth. Because every generation, and every place, is unique in it’s circumstances, that witness must find words that are meaningful to each time and place. And so we find it useful to craft formulations of our faith and practices from time to time. Unfortunately, once the formulation has been crafted and written in stone – or in the Book of Concord – it “must” be eternally true and the very definition of “orthodoxy”.
I think a true orthodoxy is less concerned about orthodoxy and more determined to live in the Spirit of Christ. Witnesses from the past – scripture, creeds, confessions, etc. – help us to discern the Spirit and the works of the Spirit, but they are no substitute for living in Christ.
October 23, 2009 at 7:10 am
It’s early in the morning, so I’m not going to answer this now (way too early to write an extended apologetic), and I also suspect that for one of your writers I can in no way be considered orthodox (as can you, dear Robb), simply because of my gender and what I do.
Maybe I’ll be back…
October 23, 2009 at 7:10 am
which, by the way does not mean that I think he should be excluded from the conversation… just sayin’
October 23, 2009 at 7:43 am
Dear Pr Roth,
I also suspect that for one of your writers I can in no way be considered orthodox
Perhaps you should not assume that you know what thoughts may be found in other folks’ heads. If “one of the writers” has not actually said that it is impossible for a female pastor to be orthodox, then do not assume that that is what he thinks.
In any case I do not think that the ordination of women is the subject of this thread. I should have thought that, for your Church body (as for mine), it is a settled issue. I don’t comment here to argue about that, or about LCMS/ELCA differences in general. I comment here to engage Robb (and you, and the rest of the folks here) about our common heritage as Lutherans and as Catholic Christians.
When it is not so early in the morning I should very much like to know what you think of what I wrote in my first comment (as opposed to what you presume I think about your gender and vocation).
October 23, 2009 at 8:12 am
One more point …
As an old guy (56) sometimes there are figures of speech that younger people use that I don’t quite get. One of those is … just sayin’. However, these days we have the Internet and Google is your friend, so I think I have been able to figure out what it is that Pastor Roth is “just saying.” Apparently the expression is tacked on to the end of a sentence to highlight the clear implications of the sentence, without actually explicitly stating those conclusions.
Armed with that knowledge I have gone back and read Pastor Roth’s comments, and I think it is fair to say that what she really means is
Since Chris Jones does not believe in the ordination of women, therefore he is a sexist pig. While it would not be right to “exclude him from the conversation,” anything he says should be evaluated in light of his sexist pighood.”
I think I was better off not knowing what “just saying” means.
October 24, 2009 at 9:33 pm
sorry, I had a wedding. did intend to get back. don’t think you are a sexist pig.
October 24, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I don’t think saying you don’t believe in the ordination of women is the same as saying that you are a sexist pig.
October 24, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Robb, just wanted to answer your question, although won’t be totally. I’ve always thought of “orthodoxy” in terms of classic doctrines: original sin, two natures, simul justis et peccator, the incarnation, bodily resurrection, ascension. Also, law/gospel, the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. I don’t consider this an exhaustive list, but that’s the way I generally think about it.
October 26, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I think the first creed among Christians was “Jesus is Lord.” In the Small Catechism we keep coming across the phrase, “We are to fear, love, and trust God above all things.”
I don’t know if there’s a single Christian on earth for whom Jesus is ever and always the only Lord of their life. Ditto with fearing, loving, and trusting God above all things. Those might be the ultimate test of orthodoxy (right praise) and none of us can pass the test.
Do we define orthodoxy as subscription to some creeds, confessions, or rules? Then I think we all fail because at one time or another we’ll all have some doubts and failings.
Rather than some test of orthodoxy I’d prefer to try to measure up to some standard of faithfulness. Even then I’m a failure. So then, thank God St. Paul wrote Romans 3. And thank God for the footnote because of some Greek ambiguity.
“…the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ* for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift…”
*Or “through the faith of Jesus Christ”
In conclusion I’d say, don’t beat yourself up about it, preach the Good News, trust that God loves you no matter what.
October 28, 2009 at 10:57 am
Honestly, I know it’s a big question for you, Robb, but I’m with servetus and Tom in Ontario on this one.
I base my understanding off a combination of CA VII and some of the “generous orthodoxy” elements of Brian McLaren’s emergent theology (though the book itself, I think, started well but descended into a slap-dash commentary by the end). I’m definitely more fuzzy on this than Luther was, but it seems to me that any church that hopes to continue through the end of post-modernity into whatever comes next needs to focus more on fellowship, service and an intellectual, welcoming orthodoxy rather than a defining, separating orthodoxy.
Not accusing you of the latter, mind you – it’s just where I see the church headed.
November 1, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Like this. But you knew that.
November 2, 2009 at 8:09 pm
[...] 2, 2009 by Lee Pastor Robb (a.k.a. LutherPunk) recently asked how people defined orthodoxy. The question was raised in the context of the recent decisions of the [...]
December 5, 2009 at 10:30 am
My impression is that the very thought of “defining orthodoxy” would strike many ELCA clergyperson’s ears as “legalistic” and too “narrow.”
Let me put this on the table.
If you are an orthodox Lutheran, you hold to what is in this book: http://www.bookofconcord.org
If you do not, you are not.
December 7, 2009 at 9:00 am
Unfortunately, it often seems that some pastors hold the book high, as if that is the center. The book, small letters, ie book of concord, not the Book. Yet, the Book itself shouldn’t be worshiped. I said, “It seems” deliberately. I’ve read many blogs of some Lutheran pastors who seem to hold the book above all else. And some also seem to hold liturgy and old Lutheran hymns above all else. I don’t know how this actually plays out in their churches; I’m judging from the writing only.
December 7, 2009 at 10:02 am
PS,
Pr McCain doesn’t worship “the book” (or “the Book” either), nor did he offer either the book or the Book as something to be worshiped. But the question Robb posed was not “what or whom do we worship?” but “how do you define orthodoxy?”. That is precisely the question facing our Lutheran fathers when they put together the Book of Concord, and the Book of Concord was (and remains) the distinctively Lutheran answer to that question. That is all that Pr McCain was saying.
It seems to me that Pr McCain’s comment is entirely appropriate in a discussion of the contours of orthodoxy, among those who call themselves Lutherans. It is undeniable, as a matter of historical fact, that the Book of Concord has defined orthodoxy for Lutherans, and has therefore defined what it means to be “Lutheran” at all. So the Book of Concord has to be, at the very least, the starting point of a discussion of orthodoxy among Lutherans. If the Book of Concord is no longer a sufficient statement, or somehow no longer a correct statement, of orthodoxy for Lutherans, then we need to know why it is not. Are there issues on which the Confessors got it wrong, and how do we know that? (And, more importantly, if we truly believe they got things wrong, would it not be more honest to stop calling ourselves Lutheran?) Are there issues the Confessors did not have to face in their time, but which we must face, so that the Book of Concord is no longer a complete statement of Christian orthodoxy?
Such are the issues that Pr McCain’s comment raises. They are worthy of discussion, not of being dismissed with the statement that we do not worship “the book.”