For the past week or two, through out conversation about bridging the gap between emergents and traditionalists there has been a lot of talk of understanding orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is simply right belief. We are orthodox in the church if we believe the right things. The question of course is what are the right things and how do we determine them. Much of our conversation has revealed differing ideas of what is required to be orthodox and how it is determined. Well thankfully I just read one of the best blog posts I have ever encountered over at Parchment and Pent. Here is the link.
The content of the post is on the way orthodoxy develops as our understanding of God’s revelation matures and how we naturally divide ourselves through our different sources of orthodoxy. Very timely post for our conversation.
November 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm
You’ve got the truth noted correctly in your diagram. God is indeed Irish.
November 23, 2009 at 11:41 am
Hey Greg,
From the linked blog:
As you can see, revelation is completed in the New Testament when the complete truth of God’s revelation has been finalized in the coming of Christ and the writings of the Apostles.
But notice something important: “truth” is all in lower case below the dotted line, while above the dotted line it is in upper case. This refers to the revelation of truth in contrast to the understanding of truth. While God’s revelation was completed at the closing of the New Testament, the understanding of this truth as a canonical whole had just begun.
Many of the EC folk that I have talked to, or read, would disagree with the statement that revelation is completed and finalized in the coming of Christ and the writings of the Apostles. They seemingly take more of a RC position that revelation is still ocurring from the Holy Spirit through the Church.
If this is the EC position in regard to revelation, then the entire remaining discussion of Truth and orthodoxy, to me, is a waste of time.
November 23, 2009 at 11:53 am
To clarify, if they taken an RC position it is a waste of time or the above position you mentioned?
I would put myself in the progressive orthodoxy category.
November 24, 2009 at 9:39 am
Sorry, Greg. I didn’t understand your question.
November 24, 2009 at 12:44 pm
“If this is the EC position in regard to revelation, then the entire remaining discussion of Truth and orthodoxy, to me, is a waste of time.”
By this position did you mean the position as stated in the blog or as you said, the more RC position that you have noted.
November 24, 2009 at 9:58 am
I would put myself in the progressive orthodoxy category.
In the 2000 years since the formation of the Church, hasn’t orthodoxy matured? If not, why? If not, which portions of orthodoxy remain in some state of immaturity?
How does holding to this view of orthodoxy impact the establishment of a local church’s set orthodoxy and their doctrinal statement?
How would this view affect a Chrisian’s theological conversation with a Roman Catholic, or Mormon, or other non-believer?
November 24, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Orthodoxy has matured for the most part, but let’s say, hypothetically, that we are at the beginning of church age, not the end. Let’s say there is another 2000 or 5000 years of church age before the return of Christ. How would Orthodoxy change during that time?
For instance, I think that our understanding of God will only continue to grow as we move through out the church age. We believe that Christ is fully human and fully God, but as our understanding of what it means to be human changes and grows, so too will our understanding of what this might mean for our Christology.
I think that we do create a sense of “local orthodoxy” with our doctrinal statements and a local church’s set of beliefs. The key is weighing those against the larger church and making sure they are in line with our historical faith and certainly with scripture. I am just concerned when we create our own very specific form of orthodoxy and act as if it should be the standard for the rest of the church.
I am not sure about your last question about our conversation with RC’s or Mormons, can you expound?
November 25, 2009 at 9:26 am
I don’t think orthodoxy changes or will change in the next 3000 years. However, I think that our understanding of orthodoxy might become more full, more complete. I think that, at this point in the Church age, Christians mature and change and orthodoxy does not.
For example, Christ being fully God and being fully human is a scripturally established orthodox position…Over time, our understanding of this orthodox/Scriptural position becomes more complete/full, but that doesn’t mean orthodoxy changes or matures…it means that our understanding of established orthodoxy is becoming more complete.
In part, I see certain parts of orthodoxy being emphasized, at different times throughout history, in reaction to the prominent false teachings of the day.
The Church Universal has an established orthodoxy, which has been established via Scripture. Local churches should all have the same orthodoxy. You seem to want to throw the RCC, and possibly some other churches under the umbrella of the Church Universal, but they are clearly not churches with a biblical orthodoxy. Therefore, it is impossible to lump it/they with the Church (and they certainly won’t lump your church under the same category as theirs).