An attempt to provoke helpful thinking, resolutions and actions
Speaking of American churches, we are all familiar with the contrasts made between:
Liberal and Conservative (whatever that means in any given context – e.g., within Roman Catholicism or Lutheranism; or within Protestantism in general!)
Progressive and Orthodox (whatever that means in any given context –e.g. in Episcopalianism or Methodism; or in Roman Catholicism or Protestantism in general!);
And also between: Catholic and Protestant; Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic;
Eastern Orthodox and Protestant; emerging churches and churches; and so on.
In this context,
Let us consider the general use of “orthodox” rather than its unique use by the ancient hierarchical and liturgical Churches attached to the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople & Moscow.
Usually in popular speech & in reporting by journalists, “orthodox” is contrasted with “progressive” or “liberal” and refers to those in any given denomination or tradition who actually seek to preserve intact some or all of the foundational positions and doctrines of that particular grouping. So orthodoxy becomes in any given denominational context not only the basic doctrines of Christianity which all conservative Christians hold in common, but also the extra denominational distinctives (e.g., a doctrine of the Lord’s Supper or of Baptism or of Spiritual Gifts) which make that grouping unique or at least different from others.
Furthermore, for the sake of clarity in communication orthodoxy refers only to dogmas, doctrines and positions held and professed, rather than to exemplary or right behavior (for which ortho-praxis or other like words are used).
Experience teaches that it is often difficult for any given grouping internally to make a distinction in value and importance between the doctrines that they hold in common with others (e.g., that Jesus is the Christ and Savior) and what are called their [denominational] distinctives (e.g., their doctrine of how Jesus is present in the Lord’s Supper).
Would it be a great advance towards Christian charity and unity if the so-called “orthodox” of the churches could agree on what they all actually hold in common, and believe to be essentials, call this common doctrine orthodoxy, and then recognize their own distinctives as being important to them but not of the same ultimate importance and thus ought never to be a barrier to fellowship between them? Yes, it would, but in many cases this “advance” would prove impossible because some would not be able to separate in value or importance what they hold in common (e.g. that God is Holy Trinity) with what they hold in difference (e.g., that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ on earth; or that the local congregation is sovereign and autonomous).
We may observe that it is probably impossible to create a local church, even a house church, that is founded only and simply upon an orthodoxy which is simply basic Christianity (e.g. the Apostles’ Creed), for in the necessary acts of worship, of organization, of mission and evangelism, distinctives are adopted and developed by the congregation. These arise not out of ill-will but in the reality of being a Christian congregation. Once they arise it is then difficult to prize them apart from what was originally thought to be basic Christianity.
Each of us, as an enfleshed human being, needs to belong to a congregation which has form and is embodied in cultural expressions (we cannot just belong to an idea)! Yet also we need to realize that there is difference between true orthodox doctrines, or essential doctrines, on the one side and, on the other, the local distinctives, be they ways of expressing the essentials in worship or behavior, or means of being Christians as a group which does things together. The differences will often be a fine line which requires spiritual discernment to see.
Now this task of discernment and differentiation, when taken on by those who see themselves as orthodox, is made the more difficult for not only is there within American Christianity a massive variety of groupings and thus also of distinctives, but there is a “progressive” or “liberal” camp which is often near to the “orthodox” camp and thus its agenda (e.g., blessing of same-sex couples) deeply affects the “orthodox” in one way or another. [And of course, and this is a big topic, there is the general influence of politics and culture, economics and social settings, upon churches and their teachings and agendas.]
The more one thinks about these things, the more one may be inclined the more intensely to pray for the Parousia, “Lord Jesus come quickly,” for one senses one lives in a big mess and that the unity of the Church of God will never be a visible unity this side of the Second Coming.
Or, one may take comfort from the American doctrines of capitalism, freedom, competition and individualism and savor the great variety as a true reflection of the American way and the best way for the churches to be this side of the Final Judgment.
Or perhaps one may be attracted away from the variety and confusion to either or both of those two Churches, the Orthodox and the Roman, which have been around since the apostolic age and who claim to be the real and true Church of Jesus Christ!
Or one may go off to read G.K. Chesterton’s book, Orthodoxy, and then try to forget all the problems.
Or one may live and serve humbly and faithfully within one of the “streams” (e.g., Lutheran or Anglican) recognizing that all baptized believers, who are united by the Holy Spirit in faith and love to the Lord Jesus and thus to the Father, are actually children of God and members of the Body of Christ, the Household of God.
Well motivated people of sound mind continue to respond differently to the search for Orthodoxy in the USA! One cannot, unless one is God himself, be sure as to which of the alternatives is even best, let alone right! Or can one?
November 8, 2005 The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon MA., D.Phil (Oxford)
No comments:
Post a Comment