Smith writes:
Historically, the measure of "orthodox" Christianity has been conciliar; that is, orthodoxy was rooted in, and measured by, the ecumenical councils and creeds of the church (Nicea, Chalcedon) which were understood to have distilled the grammar of "right belief" (ortho, doxa) in the Scriptures.
In my STEM-educated (that's my excuse) ignorance I had to look up the word conciliar to learn (duh) it means related to a council.
I immediately thought of the creation debate. I often point out that the historic creeds (which, I can now say, are conciliar) didn't seem to find the details of the beginning times (or the end times for that matter) very important. What they cared about was a doctrine of God, the Atonement, and the nature of the Incarnation. For the bookends they were satisfied with "God created" and "Jesus will return."
But Smith uses the argument in a different domain:
Contrast this with most invocations of "orthodox Christianity" today. In some contexts, the use of the word "orthodox" seems to have nothing to do with these historic markers of Christian faith. Indeed, in many cases "orthodox Christianity" means only one thing: a particular view of sexuality and marriage.Smith is arguing that our modern usage of orthodox is different from the historic view. We use it, for example, to describe an "orthodox view of marriage" while the historic arbiters of orthodoxy don't mention such matters at all.
You could argue that they didn't need to expand the bounds of "orthodoxy" because they couldn't envision 21st century culture. "Unorthodox marriages" were not a hot topic in the fourth century. I think that is a strong argument. I have to grudgingly admit that such an argument could also be applied to the debates we have on creation. To counter that, the first thing that comes to mind is the biblical truth that there is nothing new under the sun. There is no immorality today that didn't exist before.
It is important to note that Smith is not arguing that what call, say, the orthodox view of marriage or sexual morality is not the historic teaching of the church. And he is not arguing (as far as I can tell) for the legitimacy of practices that are outside of the historic teachings of the church. He is questioning how we talk about such matters. Do we want to frame the discussions around words like "orthodox" or "heresy"?
I don't know what I think about his argument--I need to process. But it is definitely thought-provoking.
In Kevin Giles' book on the recent Trinity Debate, he uses the word "heresy" the way Smith does. Heresy is "a teaching that directly denies the ecumenical creeds and confessions of the church." Whereas most evangelicals would use the word "heresy" to be "the denial of what the Bible teaches." Some would consider Giles outside the bounds of orthodoxy because of his egalitarianism based on the 2nd definition. But "what the Bible teaches"can be problematic too because proof-texting is not enough.
ReplyDeleteGiles spends a chapter on how we "do" theology which is very helpful. Biblicism can lead us down the wrong path. We need to include history and reason. He focuses on the fall-out of the Trinity debate, but I bet his analysis would apply to other issues like creation.
Persis,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment. I think I will have to put Giles' book on my reading list.
You are welcome to borrow my copy after Ryan borrows it.
Delete*After* Ryan?? You always did like him better! (Seriously, that would be great. I have to keep my book budget under control.)
Delete