If we exclude the ancient Patriarchates of the East and what is historically called [Eastern] Orthodoxy, it will be easier to reflect upon the use of the words "orthodox" and "orthodoxy" in the Western Church and within Protestantism in particular.
I want to suggest that within the Anglican Communion today "orthodox" is a relative term and relates not to fixed dogma and principles but rather to a position that is at the conservative end of the spectrum of public doctrine in a given Province at any one time.
"Ortho" means straight, right or correct. Thus "orthodox" is the holding of right doctrines and principles.
Who defines what is right? The Church meeting in sacred ecumenical council or in lesser synods. In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope also defines dogma on rare occasions.
For Protestants such as Lutherans and Presbyterians orthodoxy has been seen as those dogmas/doctrines, based on the Bible, defined by ecumenical councils and confirmed by synods together with further doctrines defined by local synods and usually stated in confessions of faith.
For Anglicans orthodoxy has been seen as relating primarily to the holding of the dogmas and basic teaching set forth by the early Church from the Scriptures in the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils from Nicea (325) to Chalcedon (451), the teaching reiterated in the sixteenth century and made the foundation of the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles and the Ordinal, the classic Formularies.
In a true and proper sense, orthodoxy is what is held and taught by the Church or by a jurisdiction of the same. Orthodoxy is a mark or characteristic of the Church. However, in modern times, with the increase of diversity of opinions in society and churches, it is common to use "orthodox" of a person.
And the way it is used today is often not in an objective sense, that is measuring a denomination or parish or an individual clergyman against a known standard [e.g. the classic Anglican Formularies or the Book of Concord (Lutheran) or the Westminster Standards (Presbyterian)]; but, it is in comparison with the known teaching and opinions of those who are at the "left" of the ecclesiastical spectrum - the revisionist radicals or whatever we call them!
Thus in the Episcopal Church people claim to be orthodox even when they have abandoned much of the classic heritage of dogma, doctrine, worship and discipline that belongs to the historic Anglican way. If they oppose same-sex blessings and state that God's plan is for the union of male and female in marriage, and if they express the view that the Bible is the Word of God and authoritative, then they are "orthodox". And they are so even as and when they are committed to the full use of the 1979 prayer book and to its teaching (which was intended from its creation and first approval in 1976 to change the doctrine of the Protestant Episcopal Church in major ways).
To be orthodox as an Anglican even in 2003 surely means more than being opposed to the innovators and radicals who lead the ECUSA. It means embracing the One Canon of Scripture, with its Two Testaments, with its major doctrines set forth in Three Creeds, and its dogmatic Truth expressed by Four Ecumenical Councils, and its required discipline, polity, ministry, liturgy and moral order set forth in principle in Five Centuries of development. And embracing this foundation one also embraces the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way from the 16th century. Then one may humbly claim to be orthodox - but, at the same time, one also needs to live out daily in one's life this faith and have fellowship with those of like mind and together be witnesses to Christ, saving grace and divine truth and order.
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment