Where Do You Stand?
Christians come to theology with different starting points—presuppositions that shape how we define faithfulness. That doesn’t make those presuppositions inherently right or wrong, but it does mean we need to be honest about them. As Socrates might have said, the unexamined presupposition isn’t worth having.
This is especially true when it comes to our view of history. What we believe about the authority and development of the Church’s tradition shapes how we answer the question: What does it mean to be orthodox?
Over the years, I’ve come to identify six major views of Christian orthodoxy that are active in the church today. Each of these approaches the question from a different angle, with different strengths, weaknesses, and implications.
Let’s walk through them.
1. aOrthodoxy
This view holds that there’s really no such thing as “orthodoxy” in any meaningful or binding sense—or, at the very least, that Christianity should not be defined primarily by doctrinal belief. Instead, it emphasizes orthopraxy (“right practice”) and often rejects efforts to draw doctrinal boundaries. Defining who’s in and who’s out is seen as a divisive power play that does more harm than good. From this perspective, orthodoxy is a subjective, context-based “moving target.”
Primary Adherents:
Liberal and Progressive Christianity (for a very short time, known as the Emerging Church)
Strengths:
- Emphasizes the importance of how we live, not just what we believe
- Acknowledges the difficulty of defining orthodoxy in a divided Church
Weaknesses:
- Christianity risks losing all meaningful distinctiveness
- Ironically establishes its own minimalistic orthodoxy
- Commits a guilt-by-association fallacy: just because orthodoxy has been abused doesn’t mean defining it is inherently oppressive
2. Bibledoxy
This view insists that Scripture alone defines orthodoxy, without appeal to tradition, creeds, or the historical Church. It’s not simply sola Scriptura (Scripture as final authority), but a more radical solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura—Scripture as only authority. The historic Church has no interpretive authority, not even a fallible one. The phrase “No creed but the Bible” fits well here.
Primary Adherents:
Fundamentalist Protestants
Strengths:
- Affirms the Bible as the only infallible authority
- Pushes people back to the primary source (ad fontes)
Weaknesses:
- Ignores the Church as a Spirit-guided interpreter of Scripture
- Leads to fragmented, subjective interpretations and many “orthodoxies”
- Can result in heresies or cults that reject historic Christian essentials
- Fails to appreciate the cumulative wisdom of Church history
3. Paleo-Orthodoxy
This view looks to the early Church—especially the first five centuries—for consensus on core doctrines. It follows the rule of Saint Vincent of Lérins: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus (“what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”). Thomas Oden, who coined the term “paleo-orthodoxy,” believed the early Church—before medieval scholasticism—represents the best source for Christian truth.
Primary Adherents:
Eastern Orthodoxy, some Evangelicals, and some who align with Progressive Orthodoxy
Strengths:
- Honors the early Church as a Spirit-guided community of belief
- Emphasizes God’s providential care over the Church’s early development
Weaknesses:
- Can elevate the early Church above Scripture itself
- Difficult to justify why theology cannot mature beyond the first five centuries
4. Dynamic Orthodoxy
This view sees orthodoxy as something in motion—developing through time and responding to new information, discoveries, and cultural shifts. It tends to welcome radical rethinking of traditional beliefs and often defines faithfulness more in terms of contemporary relevance than historical continuity. Doctrines can change in meaning or even reverse under this model, depending on what is deemed credible in a given era.
Primary Adherents:
Liberal Theology
Strengths:
- Willing to adapt to new contexts and knowledge
- Open to theological growth and engagement with modern questions
- Hegelian dialectic
Weaknesses:
- Hegelian dialectic (!)
- Too open to change; can lose all historical rootedness
- Often places more trust in human progress than in scriptural or historical stability
Listen to the longest running theological podcast
est 2005
5. Magisterial Orthodoxy
This Roman Catholic view sees orthodoxy as something that grows organically through the Church’s Magisterium. The deposit of faith was given in full to the apostles, but not all doctrines were articulated immediately. As new challenges arise, the Church defines dogma more precisely. While the truth was always there, it becomes clearer over time through authoritative interpretation.
Primary Adherents:
Roman Catholics
Strengths:
- Provides a clear authority for doctrinal development
- Contextualizes truth while remaining historically grounded
- Values both Scripture and Church tradition
Weaknesses:
- Relies heavily on Magisterial authority, which lacks internal checks
- Some later doctrines lack strong historical precedent
- Can result in excluding earlier Christians who didn’t hold to doctrines later defined as essential
Join us and go through the Church Fathers every day with a community
6. Developmental or Scriptural Orthodoxy
This view holds to sola Scriptura—that Scripture is the final authority—but also contends that the Church’s understanding of Scripture can grow over time. The DNA of Christian truth comes preprogrammed in the initial deposit, the Bible. Doctrines mature as exegetical insights and historical challenges bring clarity. This isn’t a rejection of the early Church’s authority; it builds upon it. The history of the church acts as the nourishment that the DNA needs to develop. Once orthodoxy is defined, its antithesis is rejected—but refinement is still possible.
Primary Adherents:
Most Historic Evangelicals and the Protestant Reformers
Strengths:
- Anchored in the Bible while deeply respectful of tradition
- Allows for maturation in the Church’s understanding over time
- Seeks a consensus-driven definition of orthodoxy
- Distinguishes between essential and non-essential doctrines
Weaknesses:
- Difficult to distinguish between “maturation” and “change”
- Unclear who decides when a doctrine has matured or settled
So Where Do I Land?
Of the six views, I believe Paleo-Orthodoxy and Progressive Orthodoxy are the most credible. Both are rooted in Scripture and trust that God has guided the Church throughout history. I especially appreciate the consensual nature of paleo-orthodoxy. At the same time, I believe progressive orthodoxy offers a better way of acknowledging how the Church has grown in its understanding.
I believe all essential doctrines were established early on, but that they matured over time—some more quickly than others. For instance, the Trinity gained early consensus, while doctrines like sola fide took longer to develop and crystallize (though I believe they existed in seed form in the early Church).
The distinction between early, foundational orthodoxy and later doctrinal development must be made—and reflected on.
Where do you stand?
Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus.
