Generous Orthodoxy

A reader has posted a very good comment to "Unmovability of God."  I thought it deserved re-posting as a main entry...

He writes,

"I certainly agree with and am interested in many of the things you are saying here about holding in tension the various symbols and icons that we use to represent the divine. My question to you is in regards to that last paragraph and the role of orthodoxy in the kind of tension you describe.

Are you advocating that, when we encounter new symbolic representation of the divine (or rediscover old ones), we take an inclusive stance toward them all, adding their tension to our spiritual ruminations? Or do you believe that there is a litmus-test for icons and symbols for the divine that, when applied, will mark out definitive "wrongs" even if it is unable to give us specific "rights" due to the narrowness of our human capacities when attempting to behold the enormity of the divine? Or have you thought of another route through the issue?

It seems to me that in the case of the first, by taking the expansive and inclusive path, one is charging headlong away from orthodoxy and traditional practices of exclusivity, including "No one comes to the Father except through me." In the second case, by establishing an orthodox litmus-test that works toward the exclusionary, it seems that the ensuing sifting of symbols becomes exactly the kind of fixation you describe that leads toward its own brand of heresy. The orthodoxy itself becomes the icon and the focus on correctness boxes up the divine, destroying all notions of tension.

To me, the first seems more altruistic and vital, if perhaps over-simplified and potentially (if not explicitly) anti-institutional. The second seems more stable and respectful of tradition, although it carries a heavy potential slant toward heresy (itself a concept born of orthodoxy) and a strong bent toward exclusivity at the expense of humanity."

To me, I think it comes down to a question of how you define the word, "Orthodoxy."  In the Episcopal Church, this has become  for some a code word for "Those who are opposed to same-sex blessings and GLBT ordinations."  This is, IMHO, a hijacking of the term and a dangerous one at that, because it elevates questions of sexuality to the level of Dogma such as Trinity and Incarnation.  Questions of sexuality and marriage have never been dogma - marriage was not even thought of sacramentally until the 300s.

"Orthodoxy" means "Correct Belief," and to identify what is central to it, you have to look at the beliefs that have been held in common by a majority of the world's Christians for most of our history. (That means ALL Christians - Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, etc.)  If we require that it be held by everyone, everywhere, we end up with no belief at all - since nothing, not even the divinity of Christ, holds up to that test.

By that definition, I think we end up with certain beliefs that are contained within the tent of orthodoxy, although they do not DEFINE orthodoxy.  The authority of the Old and New Testament as the Word of God (although what that means varies widely), the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds, the two great Sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist, and the Apostolic tradition of teaching.  The dogmas would be those of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection. 

This does not give us a "Salvation test."  Only God decides who is saved.  We simply say that we trust that the church is within God's salvific plan.  It does not even create a "Litmus test" as to who is acceptable in the church and who is not.  It provides a basic, expansive, and elegant framework within which theological speculation can occur.  It does not so much set definite outer limits to speculation as it sets a gravitic mass which draws speculation towards itself.

There have been several movements that have tried to recover this definition of orthodoxy which many of us believe is the original point.  Karl Barth had his "Neo-Orthodoxy."  More recently, the "Radical Orthodoxy" movement has emerged.  Even more recently, and of great interest to me is the emergence of the "Generous Orthodoxy" or "Emergent Church" approach led by Brian McLaren.  To quote:

"Because generous orthodoxy is aware of the need to keep listening and learning in openness to the Spirit and the world for the sake of the Gospel, it seeks to keep conversations going and not to end them.  Generous orthodoxy does not so much specify a particular point or positions as it establishes a spacious territory defined by certain distinct boundaries in which there is space to live, move and breathe while exploring the wonders and mysteries of the faith." (A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 13 - 14)

Despite the hoopla and rhetoric, heretics are not bad for the church.  There would be no doctrine to call orthodox if there was not heresy to define them.  The problem has been how the church has reacted to heresy.  The church, like many other human institutions, is frightened of change.  It is much easier to call someone a heretic and disown them (or worse) than to take the risk of listening and discerning.  We would often rather split than listen and risk changing our minds.  Bp. Mark Dyer, one of my professors at seminary, often said something to the effect that schism was worse than heresy, because heresy eventually dies out but schism is usually permanent.

Part of the problem is a lack of humility and patience.  We often assume that heresy is OUR problem, and that it is OUR job to stamp it out RIGHT NOW.  I believe that heresy is part of the process of doing theology, and that the work of the Holy Spirit will, over time, show us the direction we are meant to go.  If we believe that Jesus instituted the church, and that when we pray the Holy Spirit will come and inspire us, then we need to accept that it really is not all up to us.  In theological matters prayer, serious debate, humility, mutual love and time will give us the answers we seek.  However, those answers will always lead us to further questions.  Despite impressions from the press, historical Christianity is not a place to go to get all your questions answered, and neither is orthodoxy.  It is a framework for a community of those asking the questions.

So for me, a generous orthodoxy is neither about a narrow set of beliefs that end speculation and exclude, nor is it an "everything goes" attitude that says everything is right.  It is a process, defined by scriptural, theological and historical markers, that brings us closer to God. 

David+

---

This blog entry is available as an audio item on the AskThePriest Podcast.