I am about to start Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy, and already I am starting to anticipate some of the issues I expect him to address.
Foremost in my mind is this question: How do we determine orthodoxy? I suggest that there are two primary ways:
- Linguistic similarity
- Historical continuity
Of these methods, the first is more commonly preferred but, I think, inferior to the second.
A major criticism of the emergent phenomenon is that orthodoxy has gone out the window in a capitulation to postmodernism, religious tolerance, and theological pluralism. While some people who identify themselves as emergent have always thrown orthodoxy out the window, and are now doing it under the emergent banner, among most of us there is a deep-rooted desire to be faithful to the faith we have received,while at the same time not being jerks to those whose beliefs are slightly different from our own.
The question has always been, how different from me can you be and still be a Christian? Perhaps this is not the right question, but it is ultimately the only way we can ask this question as finite human beings. The primary way we determine how close other people are to us is by linguistic similarity.
This trend is the strongest among our Reformed brethren. Hank Hanegraaff is the king of orthodoxy-by-linguistic-similarity. If you have sound doctrine, are ready to give an answer for your faith, or have ever studied to shew yourself approved, you are probably deemed orthodox under this rubric.
But we run the risk of using the same words as our forebears in the faith, but with entirely different meanings. This is the ultimate exercise in theological futility, and I’m sure we all want to avoid making this mistake. The alternative is historical continuity.
Our Orthodox brethren point us again and again to the importance of carrying on what our spiritual ancestors believed and practiced. The modernist in me wants to chop off the “practiced” part, since we can surely come up with better practices (right?), but that hasn’t exactly panned out as we’d hoped. So we are again looking at what fourth-century monks did in the desert to find ways forward in spirituality and life.
Within the historical continuity approach, we can either use church councils as legal authority, or we can take the more authentically Orthodox approach and remember, as Karl says, that “100% of the Fathers were 85% Orthodox.” In other words, we look for trends and continuity. It is an American mistake to treat church history like the US Circuit Court’s history of rulings. It’s not about theological precedent and law, but about consensus forged over long periods of time.
interestingly enough i just worked through my own blog on this subject . . . from a little different approach but nevertheless similar . . . i would be interested to get your feedback on what i wrote . . . peace : : :
It seems ironic that postmodernism, with its emphasis on language and narrative, would not prefer the linguistic method of determining orthodoxy over the historical.
My first exposure to the concept of orthodox protestant Christianity was from Hank Hanegraaf and people like him, so I really don?t see orthodoxy as something that can be associated with ?generosity? as McLaren might. I understand the value of the historical aspect, but hundreds of years of practice does not necessarily equal truth?it may simply be the traditions of men. On the other hand, using similar words with different (and more accurate) meanings may in fact be a more valid approach in some cases.
I?m glad that you posted on this, and I can see that it?s similar to the ?Source Code? post on theology as open source. Orthodoxy seems a bit less ?open? to me, though. I appreciate the effort that postmodernism/emergent is putting into its search, and I?m sure it won?t be without benefit. It would be ironic, however, if the search for ?consensus formed over long periods of time? leads ultimately back to the realization that Hanegraaf is basically correct. (Do we really need to reinvent the wheel?)
Also, where do we draw the line between being a jerk to someone who?s beliefs are slightly different than ours and trying to warn someone away from the edge of the Abyss?
Ted -
“I understand the value of the historical aspect, but hundreds of years of practice does not necessarily equal truth?it may simply be the traditions of men.”
It may be, but how do we objectively determine if they are or aren’t? It is entirely possible that the Emergent movement is emerging from a truly unorthodox Protestantism - a case of error compounded on top of error. I think we have to grapple seriously with the historic witness of the church and ask some pretty hard questions. After all, it is the historic church that determined the canon, promulgated the doctrine of the Trinity and set up the right boundaries of the faith - boundaries Protestantism still largely holds today.
“On the other hand, using similar words with different (and more accurate) meanings may in fact be a more valid approach in some cases.”
Can you give an example or two of what you are thinking about here? I’m not sure I see how this can work, or how we determine which definition is more accurate.
Nathan-
I?d have to ask Justin for an example of ?the same words with different meanings,? since he started the analogy. I?m just thinking loosely about terms that may have been redefined over time by developing theological reasoning based on older and more reliable manuscripts as well as newer archaeological findings, but I don?t know if Justin has something else in mind.
Do you really think that Protestantism developed from ?error compounded on top of error,? or are you just posing a hypothetical? Although I do see benefit from examining the historical witness and regaining truths and disciplines?and perhaps even beneficial traditions?that we?ve forgotten, I think it?s poppycock to declare that it?s remotely possible that Protestantism is an unorthodox compounding of error (not to mention that it?s insensitive and disrespectful). It?s very un-pomo of you, but I forgive you ;).
I?m kind of seeing the definition of orthodoxy as the place were we ?place our stake in the ground? and declare the truths we?ve found in our struggles with theology. For me, there is much less wiggle room (or ?generosity?) in orthodoxy than in theology. As I said in the ?Source Code? comments, a lot of truths in both these areas are self evident and don?t require much reinvention, struggle, or creativity on our part, but are accepted as a matter of faith. The ones that aren?t are declared in the same way you mentioned in the Source Code comments on theology, and are developed from them.
Perhaps you?re as big a stickler for the truth as I am, but have a totally different view of it. If so, that?s also refreshingly un-pomo of you
I don?t think it?s possible to reinvent orthodoxy, and it seems a foolish waste of time to even try. We can pick Eastern, Roman, or Protestant orthodoxy?or blend them?but we?re not going to come up with anything new. When we eventually come to find that there are basic truths at the core of each of them, we?ll be right back where we started. But perhaps that?s the point of the process, and in my jaded fatigue, I?m rushing it.
Some examples of words we use that have different meanings to us than they did to early Christians:
Discipleship
Kingdom of God
Sacrifice
Holiness
Eternal life
Worship
Could you please clarify these words for me? I understand their current meanings, but I don’t really see how the early Christians would have defined them so differently.
I?d like to know how our definitions of those words are different, too. Perhaps the emergent church will either regain lost definitions and/or create more accurate ones.
Any ideas?
Are all of these words key to orthodoxy?
Another big one is “salvation.” And “church.”
Lesley, I see from your blog that you’re reading The Divine Conspiracy, so I’m sure you’ve seen plenty from Willard about how we’ve understood both the Kingdom and discipleship.
Eternal life is taken by many people to mean a spiritual, bodyless existence that we experience after death if we are “saved.” First-century people had a much more present-day understanding of salvation that included rescue from imminent physical harm and political oppression.
Obviously, I cannot justify any of these statements with a few lines in a blog comment. The Divine Conspiracy is a great place to start. N.T. Wright has also done some great work on providing the historical context of Jesus’ teaching; much of his work is under serious discussion over at Open Source Theology.
I asked Amy and she listed three things:
1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Personal experience and insight
I think these are in the correct order. The only problem with leaving tradition ahead of personal experience (which is generally a wise thing to do) is that we run the risk of incorrectly assuming that our spiritual ancestors had it right. We’re probably more likely to make the opposite mistake, though, so it’s probably best to say that scripture > tradition > personal experience.
Justin –
I appreciate the complexity of these matters, and I’m sure that a true justification of the use of these terms could fill volumes. It would be nice, though, to be able to explain them to someone who either couldn’t read or couldn’t afford the book. Without a nutshell version, the conversation sort of grinds to a halt.
Sorry if I’m being too reductionistic. I realize that this is more than “been there, done that, read the book, saw the movie, and got the T-shirt.” But right now, it seems like the emergent church movement is more like “bought the stack of books, and there’s no way any of it would fit on a T-shirt.”
Ted-
Fair enough - I said that because Lesley did buy the book and said on her blog that she got a lot out of it.
As for NT Wright, he’s a lot less accessible. I have read and highly recommend his The Challenge of Jesus, one of his most accessible books. I just got the first three completed volumes (and I do mean volumes) of his Christian Origins and the Question of God series, which is expected to be is magnum opus.
What I meant was that others have done a better job of summarizing what these authors have said, and I didn’t have a chance to take a stab at it last night. Maybe I can try on some of those words, but again, I don’t expect to do them justice.
If you would like to take a stab at defining some of these words, head over to Good Gnus where you can edit them on the UrbanMonastery Wiki.
Ted -
“Do you really think that Protestantism developed from ‘error compounded on top of error,’ or are you just posing a hypothetical?”
The “error on error” thing was referring to the emergent church, which is departing from Protestantism, which, if it is an error itself, only makes things worse for the emergent folk. As to what I think, I remain in a state of flux at present. I think Protestantism is inherently flawed and is certainly a departure from the consensus of the traditional churches (Catholic & Orthodox), but I’m not yet at the point where I am willing to abandon it.
“…I think it?s poppycock to declare that it?s remotely possible that Protestantism is an unorthodox compounding of error (not to mention that it?s insensitive and disrespectful). It?s very un-pomo of you, but I forgive you ;).”
I’m not sure why its disrespectful, but I definitely do not fall into the pomo camp. However, it is definitely possible - I would recommend a series of posts over on Pontifications for some good reading on this - especially some of the older posts under the “authority” section.
“We can pick Eastern, Roman, or Protestant orthodoxy?or blend them?but we?re not going to come up with anything new. When we eventually come to find that there are basic truths at the core of each of them, we?ll be right back where we started.”
I’m honestly not sure how well this “basic truth” idea really holds up under close examination. The very way we think about these things is influenced by any number of factors, so a Catholic will think differently about the Incarnation than either an Orthodox or Protestant, much less possibly define it differently.
“And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
- John Henry Cardinal Newman (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine)