Before my next post on what it means to be emerging, I thought it necessary to reiterate some issues about orthodoxy. I mentioned some in the Emergent strand of emergers that many would place outside “orthodoxy” and this seems to have upset some people because I, in their opinion, too closely associated “orthodoxy” with “evangelical” without qualification.
Well, this then becomes the question. What is “orthodoxy”? Let me offer you my thoughts so that you know where I am coming from and then tie to together with the emerging series the best I can.
The term orthodox can be defined in a few ways:
1. Historic Christian Orthodoxy: This refers to the sine qua non (the “without which not”) of Christian belief. This belief is held, to paraphrase Augustine, “by all Christians, of all time, everywhere.” In other words, it is not limited to time or geographical region. Therefore, it would be found very early in some sort of articulated fashion, though not necessarily in formal document, in the early church. Historic orthodoxy did take a few centuries to articulate in thought and word. It is unthinkable that in the first few centuries Christians would have developed in their understanding beyond a seed form of the basics below. They were too busy trying to stay alive, legitimize themselves to hostile Jews and Romans, and encourage the local congregations. These basics were handed down in tradition (the regula fide) and Scripture.
In this case, a historically orthodox Christian would be one that believed in these essential elements:
Deity of Christ
Doctrine of the Trinity
The Sovereignty of God
The historicity of the physical death, burial, and resurrection of ChristÂ
Hypostatic union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
The sinfulness of man
The necessity of the atonement
Salvation by grace through faith
The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal]Â Church)
The authority of the visible body of Christ
The inspiration of Scripture
The canon of Scripture made up of the Old and New Testaments
The future second coming
2. Traditional Orthodoxy: This focuses upon the further articulations and nuances of an individual tradition, implied or dogmatized. As the above doctrines developed in understanding, people began to part ways in their interpretation of these doctrines. Traditional orthodoxy takes time to develop since it comes primarily as a result of controversy and challenge. There is a Catholic orthodoxy, Protestant/Evangelical orthodoxy, and Eastern Orthodoxy traditional orthodoxy. I will list all three (although I could have missed something). Notice that the further articulations are inserted in bold.
Historic Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy
Deity of Christ
Doctrine of the Trinity
The Sovereignty of God
The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness
The necessity of the vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross
Salvation through grace alone by faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal]Â Church)
The authority of the visible local bod[ies] of Christ
The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith.
The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books) and New (27 books) Testaments
The future second coming
Historic Roman Catholic Orthodoxy
Deity of Christ
Doctrine of the Trinity
The Sovereignty of God
The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness
The necessity of the vicarious substitutionary atonement on the cross
Salvation by grace alone through faith as God works these out through our cooperation with Him
The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal]Â Church) which subsists only, explicitly and implicitly, in the one true Catholic Church that resides under the ultimate authority of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.
The infallible authority of the visible body of Christ as expressed by the Magisterial authority of Rome
The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture.
The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books + Deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha) and New (27 books) Testaments
The future second coming
Historic Eastern Orthodox Orthodoxy
Deity of Christ
Doctrine of the Trinity
The historicity of physical death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully God and fully man)
The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature and personal sinfulness
The necessity of the recapitulation found in Christ’s atonement in his life and on the Cross
Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him
The reality of the body of Christ (the catholic [universal] Church)
The infallible authority of the visible body of Christ as expressed by the first seven ecumenical creeds
The infallible inspiration of Scripture.
The canon of Scripture made up of the Old (39 books + the possible inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha) and New (27 books) Testaments
The future second coming
3. Denominational Orthodoxy: Finally, there is the further division that can be broken down as Protestants continue to further define each of these areas. Of course Calvinists would further define issues of salvation, election, security, and God’s meticulous sovereignty. Arminians would do the same emphasizing God’s universal atonement and God’s providential sovereignty. Baptists would add issues such as believers baptism and congregational style of leadership within the local church. As well, Catholics have continued to further define areas as well such as the Marian dogmas.
OK, so this is the question: What is Orthodoxy? It depends on what you mean. My thoughts are that we need to define our terms here and be careful with our pronouncement of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. One can be heretical with regards to a particular traditional or denominational orthodoxy, but this does not necessarily make them a heretic in the proper sense.
My thoughts are these: To be a heretic in the proper sense means that you deny a doctrine that has been held by all Christians of all time, everywhere. To be orthodox in a proper sense means that you affirm all the essential doctrines of historic Christianity.
My argument in the last post on the emerging church is that the emerging ethos does not necessarily give way to heterodoxy as some of my more conservative friends have been led to believe. It is a broader conversation that includes those that fall outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy and those who are well within its boarders. Yes, as we shall see, there is a common thread on the type of discussion and thought represented by emergers, but there are differences on where emergers land (or if they land at all).
From a historic evangelical perspective the assessment is the same. There is a comfortable overlap between emerging thought and evangelical belief. Yet, there is also a departure from historic evangelical orthodoxy. This, in-and-of-itself, does not make it right or wrong, nor does it make the questions or conversation invalid, it just helps to give us perspective when assessing the issue.
This chart was meant to represent the issue from an evangelical perspective. This is my main audience and, therefore, it is to whom I am primarily speaking. Yes, “evangelical” is very difficult to define these days—like emerging, but I believe that historic evangelicalism, properly defined, represents the truth of Christianity most accurately, even if it does so imperfectly. So for those of you who were surprised that I have the evangelical label so closely associated with “Orthodox Christianity” I have to ask you What did you expect? I am an evangelical. If I thought there were a better representative of truth then I would not be an Evangelical. Yet this does not mean that I am willing to exclude Catholics or Orthodox from historic orthodoxy. They are just not included in the subject I have been dealing with.
So I ask you to keep these distinctions in the term “Orthodoxy” in mind as we move forward in this series on emerging thought.
As to why the chart has the conservatives on the left and the liberals on the right, I can’t answer this. Two possibilities: 1) I am left handed, therefore everything is backward in my world. 2) I was thinking more in terms of a time line (fundamentalism—evangelicalism—emerging—emergent), but that does not explain the placement of “liberal.” Oh well . . . as Jack Baur would say, “Deal with it!”
