Naming an idea can be risky. The newly-named “idea” takes on a life of its own and can then be accepted, rejected, modified, ignored, loved, or despised. Nevertheless, I’ve decided to finally name that cluster of ideas that has been gestating for some years now—about fifteen, to be precise. I actually think the child was born a few years ago, but he’s been awaiting an identity—something that will distinguish him from his look-alike siblings that came before him. So, the name I’ve given my course of thinking is RetroChristianity. I will explain exactly what this means and why I chose this particular name in due time. But to do this successfully, I first need to name and describe a few other concepts in contemporary Christian thinking. These terms include “Orthodoxy,” “Heterodoxy,” and “Heresy.” To these common labels I want to add two more: “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”
By “Orthodoxy” I signify the correct view on the central truths of the Christian faith and a proper practice of Christian works. As a rule of thumb, orthodoxy is that which has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. The “all” includes those who people who intend to be counted among orthodox Christians and who have generally been regarded as such by other orthodox Christians. Orthodoxy means holding the right opinion about crucial Christian truths and acts in keeping with what Christianity has always believed about these things. Some things that fit this general criteria are: 1) God created all things out of nothing; 2) God is Triune: one divine essence in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 3) The eternal Son of God became incarnate through the Virgin Mary and was born Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one unique Person; 4) Jesus Christ died to pay for our sins, rose from the dead victorious, and ascended into heaven, waiting to return from heaven to earth to act as Judge and King; 5) The Holy Spirit inspired the prophets and apostles to compose the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which are unerring norms for the Christian faith; 6) The Church is Christ’s body of redeemed, baptized saints who by faith partake of the life and communion with God through Jesus Christ in the new community of the Spirit. Some universal practices have included baptism as the rite of initiation, the Lord’s Supper (or communion, or eucharist) as the rite of continued fellowship, evangelism, missions, charity, worship, and Bible teaching. Many other things have been taught and practiced everywhere, always, and by all, but this sample list indicates the kind of central, crucial doctrines that mark one as “orthodox.”
Now this all sounds simpler than it actually is. Sometimes it requires a little bit of squinting in order to overlook minor blemishes on an otherwise hopeful history of orthodoxy. The reality is that without constant check-ups and regular cleaning, orthodoxy is subject to “truth decay.” This can happen to individuals, to churches, to vast communities, to entire generations. But don’t despair! One of the main functions of the Spirit of Truth is to guide the church into truth, to restore her to orthodoxy when she veers too far, and to breathe into her renewed vitality. The history of the church is filled with these revival movements that retrieve forgotten aspects of orthodoxy. So orthodoxy can never be taken for granted. It must be constantly re-received and re-taught. It is not passed down from one generation to another in the form of a creed or confession if that creed or confession is not faithfully and intentionally taught. Orthodoxy is not bestowed upon the next generation through the Bible if the Bible is not read and explained within the context of classic orthodoxy. There’s no such thing as orthodoxy by osmosis or trickle-down orthodoxy. It must be intentionally and clearly taught everywhere, at all times, and to all.
Moving on, I use the term “Heterodoxy” to mean, literally, “another opinion.” Heterodox teachings tend toward the margins of the received doctrines of the faith. And they sometimes teeter at the very edge. They still want to be part of the Christian tradition and still acknowledge the central Christian truths, but they also want to be unique, innovative, and clever in their theology and practice. They feel comfortable recasting traditional truths in nontraditional language. They sometimes want to rearrange, reinvent, reinvigorate, and reformulate the things that had been handed down to them. They like to surf the waves of the margins, buck the system, go against the grain—all within the community of orthodoxy. However, heterodoxy often results in an unintentional distancing from the normative center of Christian orthodoxy . . . and with a little push heterodox teachers run the risk of breaking free from orthodoxy’s gravitational pull and winding up in the bleak void of heresy. Heterodoxy is also often characterized by exaggerating a minor distinctive and trying to jam it into the center of orthodoxy. When a unique aspect of a person’s theology becomes the focal point, the true center of orthodoxy becomes marginalized and minimized. Thus, heterodoxy develops because of a failure to keep the primary orthodox truths front and center. Division, dissension, and destruction often ensue. Heterodoxy is cured by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.
I use the term “Heresy” to describe doctrine that challenges and destroys the central core of orthodoxy. As such, heresy alone is damnable doctrine. It often finds its origins as a radical heterodoxy, but not all heterodoxy ends up in denying basic fundamentals of the Christian faith. Heresy differs from heterodoxy in that the heretic knowingly (not ignorantly), willfully (not accidentally), and persistently (not momentarily) denies a key tenet of historic orthodox Christianity. He or she rejects certain truths that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For example, somebody who denies the full deity and humanity of Christ is a heretic. The belief that Jesus of Nazareth did not literally rise from the dead is heretical. And the view that the Holy Spirit is a created being and not a fully divine person is heresy. Heresy is defeated by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.
Orthodoxy. Heterodoxy. Heresy. I think these categories are clear. Now, floating among Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy I see two tendencies, especially in free church evangelicalism. I call these tendencies “Metrodoxy” and “Petridoxy.”
“Metrodoxy” is a term I coined to describe trendy, faddish, and “cool” doctrines and practices that tend to take over contemporary churches, especially “megachurches” and megachurch wannabes. If you want your church to have greater cultural “impact,” to draw media attention, and to place itself on the map of evangelical Christianity, you must accept and live by metrodox values. These include relationship, not religion . . . contemporary, not conventional . . . relevance, not ritual . . . innovative, not obsolete . . . fresh, not stale. Metrodoxy thrives in metropolitan areas, drawing from a pool of young, energetic men and women who have excess time and money. This group is often impressed by a clever lingo, advanced technology, and trendy buzz. Anything perceived as boring, belabored, or bogged down gets snuffed. But amidst the excitement, metrodox churches tend to be in a constant state of identity crisis, needing to reinvent or re-brand themselves every few years. After a few phoenix-like rebirths, these churches eventually find themselves adrift, unsure of what they’re supposed to be doing or why. Of course, we find all sorts of ready captains prepared to take over and steer the ship toward some new and trendy port . . . but these navigators are usually not going back to classic orthodox beliefs and practices as their guides to lead them on. The result of this constant identity crisis is often a failure to identify and pass on what has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all. So, extreme metrodoxy can be treated by intentionally and clearly teaching orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.
On the other extreme we find what I call “Petridoxy.” If the metrodox are too progressive and trendy, the petridox are frozen in time, unable and unwilling to change. They have been petrified. They tend to fear change as a great evil, not realizing that their own practices were themselves once quite new (and likely controversial). They often have a very myopic perspective on their own history, believing their way has stood the test of time. They have no desire to critically examine their narrow perception of so-called “orthodoxy” or to evaluate whether what they’re doing actually does help to preserve and promote central orthodox beliefs and practices. Petridox churches would just as soon die a slow and painful death than make major adjustments. Having lost sight of the fundamental goal of receiving, preserving, and passing on the faith once for all entrusted to the saints, petridoxy settles on one method of receiving, one manner of preserving, and one means of passing on the faith . . . and then it congeals in that particular form. Petridoxy therefore tends to be primitivistic, reactionary, ultra-conservative, and idealistically nostalgic. However, petridoxy can be softened by refocusing attention on the purpose of the church’s forms and structures: to intentionally and clearly teach orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all.
With this background on concepts of orthodoxy, heterodoxy, heresy, metrodoxy, and petridoxy, I’m ready to explain the concept of “RetroChristianity.” The prefix “retro” means “involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things past.” But in contemporary compound words, it indicates an attempt to bring the things of the past into the present, giving both the past and the present a new life.
First let me make it perfectly clear that RetroChristianity is not fundamentalism redivivus, a retreat back to Papal Rome, a pilgrimage to Eastern Orthodoxy, or a veiled attempt to promote a flaccid ecumenical faith. Rather it’s an honest attempt to more carefully navigate our received orthodox faith and practice through the precarious channel between metrodoxy and petridoxy, both of which can shipwreck the faith. Therefore, RetroChristianity wants to bridge the gap between the ancient and contemporary church without going to two extremes: 1) idealizing the ancient and condemning the modern, or 2) eschewing the ancient and seizing the contemporary. RetroChristianity has some things in common with the many “ancient-future” movements, while acknowledging that many forms of that trend can easily slip into just a new identity for metrodox churches . . . or drive headlong into the rocks of an out-of-touch primitivistic petridoxy. RetroChristianity tries to address the real practical questions of “how” we can intentionally and clearly teach orthodoxy everywhere, at all times, and to all. It also draws much of its inspiration from the concept of paleo-orthodoxy and thus explores the foundational work of the patristic period. But it also seeks to move, in concrete practical steps, from that pre-modern, pre-Christian cultural context to our post-modern, post-Christian context.
Ultimately RetroChristianity means carrying on a constant dialogue with the past, but it also requires an actual practical connection with the present and an orientation toward the future. Therefore, it asks how we can and ought to teach and practice orthodoxy everywhere (that is, in every kind of church and ministry around the world), always (in every ministry opportunity, outreach, or service), and to all (young and old, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, men and women). RetroChristianity demands that the past first be reckoned with on its own terms. It can not settle for picking over the past for relevant bits and pieces that will make us feel more “connected” to our roots. It can’t stand for politely consulting the ancient Christians to make us look sophisticated. And it can’t naively transplant the past into the present as if the preceding centuries of development never happened. As such, the dialogue is a complex, time-consuming, strenuous work that requires the input of many. This includes patristic, medieval, and reformation scholars; pastors, teachers, and laypeople; denominational and free churches, and numerous others interested in genuinely engaging in either real transformation . . . or unashamed preservation.
This is a post from Michael Svigel, assistant professor of theological studies, Dallas Theological Seminary. Visit his blog.
16 replies to "A Case for Retro Christianity"
Sweet!
This interesting essay nevertheless leaves me wondering about the retro; that term seems to emphasize the past at the expense of the present. In fact, I don’t see a great difference between just plain Orthodox Christianity, as explained in the essay, and RetroChristianity. Perhaps if you give an example of a specific doctrine and how it is handled in each.
Rayner, thanks for the comment. I suppose in my own thinking, I wouldn’t place the “metrodox” and “petridox” trends outside of orthodoxy (though some extreme expressions of each can be hurled into heterodox teachings). However, I think they are not the most effective way of receiving and passing on the tradition of orthodoxy because they have either no historical dimension in their thinking about “how to,” or they have a very narrow, myopic view of their own particular history.
I suppose if you want a concrete example worth discussing, I would bring up the free church practice of the sacraments (or “ordinances”). I’ve seen trends that want to downplay the sacraments to such a degree that they are mentioned in a church’s doctrinal statement but virtually ignored in practice. Some churches I know celebrate them almost never… and banish them to small evening services nobody attends. I wish this was an exaggeration. Technically, these churches are “orthodox” in that they are not denying central doctrines—but they sure have not intentionlaly integrated them into their overall approach to worship, their theology of sacraments, their ecclesiology, or their view of sanctification. RetroChristianity would seek to reevaluate these practices in light of the practice of Christian tradition throug the centuries, and perhaps seek to create a better integration of sacraments in worship and theology. I could discuss other issues, but this is just one example.
Check out my blog at http://www.svigel.com for a few other examples.
I too did not see the difference in retro-Christianity versus Orthodox Christianity. I understood what you were saying in your essay but do not understand the differences in ‘practice’ of retro-Christianity vs. orthodox Christianity. Is it a doctrinal difference or a matter of practice?
Sproul has a great article related to this post….it just doesn’t use the “names.” 🙂 http://www.ligonier.org/tabletalk/2009/5/1155_The_Perils_Facing_the_Evangelical_Church
The Internet Monk thinks your proposal has much in common with what he has been trying to articulate as “post-evangelical,” and he is encouraged by what you’re saying. Me, not so much 🙂
I will gladly admit, however, that renewal movements within evangelicalism, especially those that entail more theological reflection and communication among the laity, is a Good Thing. But developing such virtuous habits will tend, I predict, to cause individuals to gravitate toward established dogmatic faiths (also a Good Thing, imo).
I recently listen to Trinity class from theology program.
In that the instructors assert that it is at least interesting to think about sin nature coming from man’s seed and with seed coming from Holy Spirit in the case of the virgin birth and therefor Christ did not have sin nature. This kind of implies Mary supplied the egg. Does the Greek support this? May expectation (before this study ) was is that neither egg nor seed is provided by humanity(mary and Joseph). Christ seems like he could be fully human even if he had neither egg nor seed was from his earthly parents. Has anyone thought of this? Studied this?
Actually, your idea is not new. In fact, that belief was a hallmark of some forms of docetism in the first and second centuries… as well as a few people during the Reformation. The idea was that Mary didn’t contribute anything to Jesus—but that He just passed through Mary like water through a pipe. She was merely the carrier of Christ’s body. Docetists believed this mostly because they believed his “body” was of a different nature than physical matter. They believed in the fundamental evil of matter itself. But some other false teachers used the same belief to defend Jesus’s sinlessness—believing that the origin of Jesus’s material body from Mary (or Joseph, too, of course) would necessarily result in the guilt and sinfulness of Jesus.
So, historically, the view that an egg of Mary did not contribute to Jesus has always been regarded as a false teaching. Christians have always valued the essential physical connection of Jesus with humanity through His essential physical connection with Mary.
But there are also exegetical reasons for maintaining this that I find to be clear and compelling. We are told, for instance, in Romans 9:3–5, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever.” Here we see Paul aligning himself physically with Israelites, his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” emphasizing the fleshly relationship to that people group. Then he says that Jesus came from the fathers “according to the flesh,” indicating that He, too, had that same kind of physical relationship to them.
Similarly, Paul refers to Abraham as “our [the Hebrews’] forefather according to the flesh,” emphasizing their physical, genetic relationship to Abraham. Paul’s statement of the dual natures of Christ (human and divine) makes sense only if Paul himself was teaching that Jesus was truly physically related to humanity through Mary’s “egg.” In Romans 1:3 he says that the Gospel was regarding God’s Son, “who was a descendent of David with reference to the flesh” (NET). The Greek text uses the term spermatos, “seed,” for “descendent,” which emphasizes here the physical relationship. It does not necessarily mean male “seed,” but can refer to that which is descended physically from a woman, too (as in the prophecy of the “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15). In fact, Paul links this association of the physical (sperma) relationship with David’s line in 2 Timothy 2:8, when he writes, “Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant [sperma] of David, according to my gospel.” Again, the real, physical, genetic relationship with humanity in…
(continued)
This is vitally important for salvation. The eternal Son of God took on a human nature exactly like ours (except without the guilt of sin), in order to redeem it. And that which is not taken on in the incarnation is not saved. The nature of Christ’s humanity, though sinless, was still weak and susceptible to the limitations and conditions of the fall. If this were not true, then He could not have been harmed . . . nor could He have been crucified. By taking on the human nature contributed by Mary’s egg, Jesus truly took on the humanity that was under the curse in order to redeem it and raise it up out of the curse. If Jesus had been a specially-created human created out of nothing in the womb of Mary, He would not have been a descendent of Adam, or of David, and He would not have taken on the actual humanity that needed redemption. Rather, He would have been a completely different human creature with no relationship to humanity.
So, the Christian view has always been and will always be that Mary contributed her “seed” (egg) to the humanity of Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and fully human—of the same divine essence with the Father as far as is deity is concerned, and of the same human essence with us as far as His humanity is concerned, except without the guilt and stain of sin.
This was an interesting blog. I have only one problem with it, and that lies in the definition of “orthodoxy”. Much of our “orthodox” theology was set by early church councils that excluded all churches that did not reside within the Roman Empire. Further, some of the central doctrines were established by decree of the Roman state, not from the groundswell of the church, here I refer to the doctrine of the Trinity. Further, “heresy” originally implied only different, not dangerous, and if we review what has been declared heretical over the years we find ourselves unable to say much in theology without being heretics by the pronouncements of one church council or another.
William:
I think you’re confusing conciliar “dogma” with orthodox doctrine. Much of this overlaps, but they are not exactly the same. The example you choose—the doctrine of the trinity—was not establisehd by decree of the Roman state. I think you’ve been a bit misled by popular and uninformed treatments of this issue and recommend you read the primary sources yourself in chronological order, beginning with the Fathers of the second century and simply reading forward to the fourth, when the first ecumenical council of Nicaea (325) occurred. This is an illuminating study. It will take several months, if not years, but will give you a basis for critically engaging secondary sources that don’t always present the facts as they actually were. Let me clear up the confusion. The full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ is found variously expressed from the first century forward, and the concept of the “triados” of God is found already in the Fathers of the second century as they reflect on the implications of the confession of the deity of Christ within the presupposed monotheism of Judaism. The result—already seen in second century literature—is a simple, rudimentary, but fully intact doctrine of the trinity. In fact, by the year 200, Tertullian of Carthage is found using the terms “one nature, three persons” of the Christian Trinity, and “one person, two natures” of Christ—language later utilized in the councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) to more clearly and definitively articulate these doctrines. The ecumenical counsils did not invent doctrines; they re-articulated them using unambiguous terms (some of which they had to actually invent to communicate their theology). So, if we allow for certain basic ideas regarding the Trinity and Christology to be articulated in different ways, the basic ideas themselves had already been the common “catholic” view for centuries prior to the councils to which you refer.
So, with regard to the apostolic teachings regarding God and Christ, these had always been viewed as central, identity-founding doctrines of the Christian faith. And deviation from these basic confessions was always regarded as “heresy” or “false teaching.” You’re right that in its root “heresy” means “choice,” but as it was used among the earliest fathers, it meant far more than merely “different opinions.” That word was “heterodox” or “heterodidaskalos”—different opinions or different teachings. “Heresy” implied certain people separated themselves from the apostolic churches over the centeral doctrines of God and Christ.
As far as not being able to say much without becoming heretics, this is simply not true. When we focus on the primary councils I mentioned above, every Christian tradition—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant (even free church evangelical protestant) can find unity in these articulations, at least in the meaning if not…
[…] You’re right that later councils, and especially the endless councils and synods of the Western Roman Church eventually would become, in my opnion, so narrow and dogmatic that they would actually end up condemning themselves (e.g., medieval soteriology stands condemned by the forgotten pronouncements of the Synod of Orange II). But if we limit our examination to the period of the testing and maturing of early “catholic” theology in the patristic period (to about A.D. 500), we’ll see a period in which both the canon (Scripture) and creed (consensual doctrine that had been believed generally everywhere, always, and by all) come to maturity and become a functional standard for later definitions of “orthodoxy.” So, from this perspective, it is possible to identify an agreed-upon orthodoxy that is consistent with both the New Testament teachings, the early post-aposotolic proclamation, and the unbroken confession of the ancient church.
To be sure, there were other views about God and Christ that differed from those of the orthodox catholic communities of the first, second, and third centuries… but this doesn’t change that fact that the orthodoxy articulated at the councils represented the earliest, most widespread, and most foundational core of Christianity, which had enjoyed the what you call a “groundswell” of support for centuries.
Again, I encourage you to begin in the earliest post-New Testament writings and read through to the fourth century to see that in spite of their rich diversity (even disagreement!) on many issues, the early church fathers shared a basic Trinitarian theology and incarnation Christology as the heart of the Christian faith. You’ll quickly realize that the idea that Trinitarian doctrine was “established by decree of the Roman State” simply isn’t true. That’s a myth, birthed in a misunderstanding of the difference between formulating doctrine and enforcing dogma. The former isn’t true. The latter is, but only after the Roman Emperors themselves (beginning with Constantine!) had turned against the theology agreed upon at Nicaea and actually PERSECUTED and EXILED the orthodox bishops who had signed the formula of Nicaea.
—Svigel
Svigel,
Actually I have been engaged in a study of the doctrine of the trinity and other doctrines for years, and have gone back even further then you have, back to roughly 70 AD. It is about this time that there seems to be a watershed change in Christianity, with a distinctive move to ally with the Roman state, over against what appears to have been earlier Christianity. I hope to be able to present this evidence in my PhD thesis, assuming I can find a way to present a narrow enough topic with sufficient scholarly debate to get it approved. But it seems now that this might be delayed, as I have just this morning been advised that a measuring device that I proposed has its blueprints finished, and a prototype should be available within two weeks for field testing. I think it will verify that discernment of spirits is a scientifically possible ability, as the gift of healing has already been shown to be. Thus my time will be diverted in that direction for a while.
However, on the doctrine of the Trinity, if it was so widely accepted in the church of the 4th and 5th centuries, why did the Roman government feel the need to enforce this belief by decree? Further, why were so many mostly forgotten councils coming up with doctrines that would argue against it, especially since some of these councils were more representative then councils now accepted as authoritative?
Bill
Bill:
I have no idea what you’re talking about with the A.D. 70 date or what writings you could possibly refer to that would fall outside the NT and Apostolic Fathers. My own dissertation, “Second Century Incarnational Christology and Early Catholic Christianity” makes the argument of a high incarnational Christology that was early, widespread, and foundational in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Achaia, and Rome by A.D. 100. This distinctive incarnational narrative—the backbone of trinitarian reflection—could not have popped up overnight at the year 100, and must find its origins in the midst of the apostolic period (c. A.D. 50).
I also don’t know what you could possibly be referring to in an alliance with the Roman State in A.D. 70, especially the recent persecutions of Nero a few years earlier, the Jewishness of the Church in Judea and their need to flee from Jerusalem, the text of Barnabas and its discussion of Rome as the end-times confederacy, and the persecutions under Domitian at the end of the first century.
In any case, you say, “why did the Roman government feel the need to enforce this belief by decree?” I hope you’re aware that after Nicaea the ROman government actually turned AGAINST the trinitarian theology of Nicene Christians, and they were actually banished and their churches were given BY DECREE OF THE STATE to the Non-Trinitarian ARIANS! It wasn’t until A.D. 380 that Nicene Christians actually were able, against all odds, to demonstrate that their view of God and Christ really was the original and enduring doctrine of Christ. Only then did they regain their churches taken away by the Roman government. Where are you getting your information?
Sir,
I have no doubt that you are unaware of what I am referring to in regards to the change around 70 AD. I have gone through my logic with more then one scholar and noticed their jaws dropping in amazement. As for the roots of the Trinity, one need not look any further then the historic Indo-European belief system which held to a triune godhead. Especially since it is thought that one of the preferred offerings to the second person of this godhead was a human sacrifice.
As for writings that support my position, you are actually probably aware of them, but do not view them in the same light I am seeing them. However, additional, latter works that I would appeal to include Eusebius and Bede. Additionally there were several councils that firmly supported the Arian position, and further this position was well supported outside the Roman Empire. A final point would be that in even accepting the Council of Nicea, the anti-Arians conceeded some points to the Arians.
However, as I noted, I am currently engaged in research that would appear to lie outside the biblical/theoplogical realm. However, as the research is an outgrowth of my biblical/theological studies, I find it essential to give my attention to it. I regret that I do not have the proper time at present to pursue this discussion with you, but perhaps by late spring I will again be free. Of course there is also a distinct possibility that by this time you will be aware of just how radical, but sound, my ideas can be, as I hope to be rocking a portion of the scientific community.
Blessings,
Bill
Hi Prof Svigel,
Seems purveyors of orthodoxisms bring out the anti-orthodoxists; oh, well. I don’t mean to be argumentative, but wouldn’t it be better to promote scripture itself as THE Primary Source rather than recommending that someone “read the primary sources … in chronological order, beginning with the Fathers of the second century and simply reading forward to the fourth”? I may be over-interpreting, but there does seem to be a tendency to conflate or equate the two in the anxious pursuit of RetroChristianity (or Paleo-Orthodoxy??). I sense this inclination in your eagerness to affirm all things creedal as what “has been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all.” The implied presumptive perfection of creedal conceptions would also argue for us all to be Roman Catholic or possibly Eastern Orthodox rather than simply biblical Christians (tho those in either tradition may be the latter too) or Protestants. Theologically I think you are tilting at windmills.