Orthodoxy AND Orthopraxy
Ben Tobias made some tremendously insightful comments on the "McLaren's Quotes" post. Ben, I believe your point is absolutely brilliant. I have put some snipets of what he said below, but to be fair to Ben, it may be good to read his entire comment on that post. Here are the snipets:
"Adopting a Phil. 4:8 ("whatever is true, whatever is honorable ...") perspective is necessary at all times, but we also need to be "wise as serpents, innocent as doves." Love vs. suspicion is not a helpful dichotomy."
"I believe that "speaking the truth in love" helps us understand the essential link between orthodoxy and orthopraxy."
Now (this is George talking again), we all know what "orthodoxy" is. For all of you "plain folk" out there like me that haven't a clue what "orthopraxy" is, Ben describes "orthopraxy" as "neighbor love." (Ben, please correct me if I am not representing your ideas correctly). " I suppose that modern people lean heavily towards orthodoxy. I also suppose that postmoderns lean towards orthopraxy. This may be painting things with a fairly wide brush, but I believe this is fairly accurate.
My questions are as follows: 1) Why can't we have both? 2) Why shouldn't we have both? Why can't we follow the Great Commandment AND "teach, rebuke, correct..." etc.? What do you think?
-Pastor George Jensen
Enola First Church of God
posted by Anonymous at 5:37 PM
14 Comments:
You might be surprised to find that McLaren agrees with you about the need for both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. In fact, he sees the latter as the point of the former. In A Generous Orthodoxy (pp. 30-31) he says:
"To link orthodoxy with a practice further makes this book seem ridiculous because many orthodoxies have always and everywhere assumed that orthodoxy (right thinking and opinion about the gospel) and orthopraxy (right practice of the gospel) could and should be separated, so that one could at least be proud of getting an A in orthodoxy even when one earned a D in orthopraxy, which is only an elective class anyway. In fact, one could even get into a good graduate school based on high orthodoxy grades alone. In that traditional setting, orthodoxy could be articulated and debated by scholars or officials who had little responsibility to actually live by or live out the orthodoxy they defended. Defenders of orthodoxy where seen more like referees than basketball players; nobody cared if they could pass, dribble, or shoot, as long as they could blow a whistle and name an infraction in their black-and-white striped shirts.
In contrast, this book assumes that we're all on the court, so to speak. Since we're all players, this book can rightly be accused of blurring that distinction between the orthodoxy of the referees and the orthopraxy of the players. Absurdly (to some at least) this book seems to approach orthodoxy as a tool or means to achieve orthopraxy. You want to know the rules, not so you can blow whistles as a referee, but so you can have a lot of glorious good clean fun as a player, throwing passes and making assists and sinking three-pointers and layups without fouling out. In sum, this book sees orthopraxy as the point of orthodoxy."
If orthopraxy is the point of orthodoxy, then isn't orthodoxy the best means of achieving orthopraxy? To put this another way, can we have right actions without right beliefs?
perhaps to use the analogy, how can we play the game if we don't know the rules?
Well, let's look at real life: do you sometimes see people who don't have right beliefs (perhaps who aren't even "Christians") still loving their neighbors, doing good, feeding the poor, showing compassion, fighting for justice, etc? If they don't have orthodoxy, how are they still able to have orthopraxy?
Or look at scripture. What does Paul say about Gentiles still following the commands of the Law?
Does it seem reasonable to claim that only Christians can really do good?
Not attempting to answer, just asking the questions...
I appreciate what McLaren is saying here about everyone being "on the court." Apparently he doesn't see any role for referees, though. I know many shirk at the idea of "enforcers" (a la the Spanish Inquisition), but we do need to remember Paul's admonishment in Acts 20:29-31, i.e. to watch out for the savage wolves in our midst who will distort the truth. Orthodoxy as a means to orthopraxy? I can go along with that, at least in reference to scriptures like Gal. 5:6 -- "... the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" or "faith without works is dead." Nevertheless, I am very concerned about the future of any church or pastor who avoids establishing boundaries of belief. Non-creedal denominations like the CGGC are going to have a very hard time defending statements like "the Bible is our creed," in a culture where groups like the JWs say the same thing. As religious views get murkier, it behooves us to adher to historic statements of faith rather than having to reinvent the wheel.
So ... orthodoxy AND orthopraxy. Don't oppose them, and don't ignore either.
Blessings!
Ben
Is the CGGC non-creedal? I thought that was the Churches of Christ and other Restorationist style churches. The "What We Believe" statement seems pretty creedal to me.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paul suggests that Gentiles who do what is right have the law written in their hearts. That sounds like orthopraxy informing orthodoxy unless I completely misunderstand the meanings.
And just to throw an idea out there, is it bad to have orthopraxy inform doctrine? If we can't practice something, doesn't that suggest maybe something is wrong with the doctrine?
The example that is coming to my mind is marriage. If Barna is right and evangelical christians actually have worse divorce statistics than other christians and non-christians, wouldn't that suggest that maybe something we are teaching about marriage is messing them up rather than knitting them together?
Two Scriptures come to mind. "Love the Lord Your God with all... and love your neighbor as Yourself. All the law and the prophets hinge on these two commands."
And the story of the Good Samaritan. I told the story in a sermon the other day as the Good Mormon. The Samaritan's beliefs were wrong, but he was the one God used as a model for the others. The Pharisees were sticklers on Orthodoxy but Jesus called them vipers.
Certainly you don't throw out orthodoxy, but I would put a lover of God and a lover of people ahead of a studied orthodoxy.
Charlotte I was looking for an email address to invite you to be on the bloggin team. At various times, I try to see who is posting and invite them.
An unbeliever may be able to love his neighbor as himself, but can he love the Lord with all his heart mind soul and strength if he does not believe in Him?
-dusty
In regards to the creedal issue: Do our churches require pastors to vow to uphold Scripture, or the 'We Believe' statement, or both?
-dusty
An unbeliever may be able to love his neighbor as himself, but can he love the Lord with all his heart mind soul and strength if he does not believe in Him?
No, I would suppose not... though I think it might be possible for someone to love God without necessarily having a clear idea of what he is like or even necessarily knowing who Jesus is. Take Cornelius in Acts 10 for example.
And then I sometimes wonder, if Jesus said "whatever you have done for the least of these brothers of mine, you have done for me" then is is possible to love God by loving others? And is it therefore possible that some "unbelievers" have loved God without even knowing it?
Again, just asking the questions...
-Mike
I found an AP story today touching on right belief and good works. (Forgive me I don't know how to create a link for you.) "Christians pray that Muslims find Jesus."
Here's a quote,
Yet, for many Muslims, no amount of sensitivity can excuse what they see as a challenge to their religion during one of its most sacred periods.
Imam Yahya Hendi, Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University, said he believes that true followers of Jesus would not pray for conversion, but would instead demonstrate their faith through good works.
Any thoughts?
-dusty
Post a Comment
<< Home