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.

Comments

[Ches]

David,

Thanks for the kind attention you've paid to my comments and questions. I always appreciate civil discussion of difficult theological matters, as it is exceptionally easy for passions to flare when talking about personal beliefs and religious choices.

I certainly am not one to play into the hands of the hijackers of the term "orthodoxy" in order to malign GLBT relationships, and I only use the term to mean "correctness of belief," so no worries there. I also will freely admit my personal bias as one who is highly UNorthodox in his beliefs, with a strong tendency toward non-institutional expressions of spirituality and occasional bouts of iconoclastic criticism.

I think what concerns me the most with the issue of orthodoxy, even generous orthodoxy, is the matter of spiritual constraint that extends beyond the individual via notions of "correctness". This statement from the above post,

"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."

has in it something that truly confuses me, if we are trying to establish iconic and representative tension to describe or point toward the nature of the divine. By defining "certain distinct boundaries," it still seems to me that we are putting the divine into a box, however "spacious" it might be, and thereby removing its essential vitality.

Please don't misunderstand me, as I don't adhere to an "anything goes" take on moral behavior or religious practice. I do, however, have a hard time seeing how the fact of an institution placing limitations or notions of correctness upon individual experience and interaction with the divine preserves the vitality of faith and the ability of each person to freely express their spirituality. Build our institutions out of the overlapping experiences of many, if we will, but in fixing permanent boundaries of acceptable spiritual experience and practice we still end up excluding and dismissing the validity of the beliefs of an individual who experiences divine revelation in ways different from our own.

I am not particularly anti-insitutional in matters of spirituality, as I think that it is perfectly acceptable for groups of people to join in common worship that respects and celebrates their cultural traditions, religious history and shared spiritual experiences. My difficulty comes when those shared experiences and group norms become the basis for denying the validity of the specific divine revelation of the individual (or even portions of such experiences), or enforcing uniformity of belief and practice and thereby failing to recognize the intensely personal and specific individual nature of each person's encounter with the divine.

I've never been able to think or pray myself out of this position. Defining boundaries, erecting tents, building frameworks (namely permanent and "correct" ones or ones that extend beyond the individual, ie. religious institutional orthodoxy)--all of these seem to be placing limits on God, so to speak, something that I'm not comfortable doing. It seems to be the most insidious pride, a mass hubris that says that we as humans are able to fully and absolutely comprehend something about the divine--making the whole affair a matter of reason and knowledge rather than faith and spiritual experience. The very notion of heresy never even occurs to me because it feels like a betrayal of the fundamental humilty inherent in my spiritual experience to establish my own beliefs and ideas as correct and castigate someone else for not conforming to something that is so personal, not to mention seeming to say that the divine can't reveal itself in different ways to different people.

Right. As if repeating myself weren't bad enough, I'm reaching the ends of my vocabulary that I can use to discuss this kind of thing. It's a matter of faith, not reason, and trying to twist something rational like language to suit it is an exercise in futility, I suppose.

Does this just come down to our definition(s?) of orthodoxy? Our spiritual experiences being at odds? Or have I missed something in there somewhere? I try to work with as few assumptions as possible, but don't always succeed.

In any case, thanks for the read, and I always appreciate hearing different viewpoints on things like this.

[FrSimmons]

Ches,

Good discussion. I think the fundamental difference here is that in your writing you seem to conceive of boundaries as limiting, while I conceive them as liberating. In science, we make a lot of assumptions that we don’t individually test. i.e. the speed of light, the value of Pi, the Theory of Relativity. It would be impossible for scientific progress to be made if scientists all were required to re-prove everything before they moved forward. The inherited formulae and constants of previous generations of scientists provide a common parlance from which further discovery can be made. I see it much the same in faith. The basics of a generous orthodoxy give us a language and framework to speak in when talking about the divine, but it is only a starting point. Accepted boundaries establish “basics” so that higher-level work can be done. As I mentioned earlier, I see orthodoxy as more of a gravitic mass than actual boundaries.

There is also the sociological component. For a social group to survive, it needs some set of standards and boundaries. The amazing thing about orthodox Christianity is that is has transcended so many boundaries that used to be impassible - race, gender, etc. The debate these days is about the boundary-crossing of GLBT individuals who believe that their sexuality does not impair their orthodoxy. The meta-narrative of Christianity has managed to make these crossings due to its inherent flexibility, no matter how inflexible some Christians make it out to be. ‘For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt. 11:30)

Furthermore, defining ourselves as orthodox DOES NOT necessarily imply that other faiths or even non-orthodox Christians are not in relationship with God or that they are outside salvation. “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.” (John 10:16) The truth claim of orthodox Christianity is this – we believe our way to be one that leads to renewed relationship with God. That does not mean that others do not have a relationship, and it certainly does not mean that salvation cannot take place outside orthodoxy. Salvation takes place at God’s will, not ours, and to try to set the boundaries inside which it would take place would be pure hubris.

So therefore, the function of a generous orthodoxy is not to squelch debate at any level. It is to provide a common language, create a social framework that transgresses traditional social boundaries, and define a way of entering into relationship with God that is positive, but leaves room for God’s work outside the church.

David+

[Enviniumn]

VI:
A hungry dog hunts best.
A hungrier dog hunts even better.
VII:
Decreased business base increases overhead.
So does increased business base.
VIII:
The most unsuccessful four years in the education of a cost-estimator
is fifth grade arithmetic.
IX:
Acronyms and abbreviations should be used to the maximum extent
possible to make trivial ideas profound. Q.E.D.
X:
Bulls do not win bull fights; people do.
People do not win people fights; lawyers do.
-- Norman Augustine

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://annabellecaldwelljq.easyjournal.com