Blog

Business development and communications for growing businesses.

Brian McLaren On Orthodoxy

Posted Mar 11 2010 by Jonathan Brink in  with 9 Comments

Is there really a historical orthodoxy or is there simply our impression of what we think is historical orthodoxy?

“I am deeply committed to doctrinal orthodoxy, meaning I want to be faithful to the truth and to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even if that puts me at odds at certain points with what this or that group has determined as doctrinal orthodoxy. For example, my Calvinist friends who claim orthodoxy need to remember that to the Eastern Orthodox, Calvinists are heterodox from the get-go, because they’re not submitted to the patriarchs and bishops of the One True Church. And my many Wesleyan and Quaker and Anabaptist friends who consider themselves doctrinally orthodox are only questionably so from the perspective of some of my Calvinist friends. And my Dispensationalist friends often speak of “historic orthodoxy” without noticing the irony that before 1835, their approach to the faith had never even been dreamed of. The same could be said in slightly altered ways for Adventists and Pentecostals.”

Brian McLaren, interviewed by Melvin Bray

Love him or hate him, Brian has a way of speaking what is one of the primary tensions in Christianity.  There is so much orthodoxy, can we really say there is a historical orthodoxy?

Tags:  Categories: 

About the Author

Jonathan BrinkI am an business development and communications consultant. I am also the senior editor and publisher for Civitas Press. I recently published, Discovering The God Imagination: Reconstructing A Whole, New Christianity. (Civitas, 2011)View all posts by Jonathan Brink →

  • http://openmindedconversations.blogspot.com/ jshmueller

    I know that some would counter by simply going back further in time and pointing to the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed as the ones most commonly shared (the whole “Rule of Faith” idea that Jeremy Bouma keeps bringing up).

    There are two problems with that: first of all, most of the contentious issues currently debated aren't clarified by these creeds at all. And secondly the more crucial question how the “ortho” in orthodoxy (biblically understood!) can be addressed without taking into account the emphasis on personal trust (“I know WHOM I have believed …”) and the right WAY of believing as opposed to mere propositional statements (“the demons believe too and shudder” / “not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord …”) isn't even on the horizon.

  • http://openmindedconversations.blogspot.com/ jshmueller

    I know that some would counter by simply going back further in time and pointing to the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed as the ones most commonly shared (the whole “Rule of Faith” idea that Jeremy Bouma keeps bringing up).

    There are two problems with that: first of all, most of the contentious issues currently debated aren't clarified by these creeds at all. And secondly the more crucial question how the “ortho” in orthodoxy (biblically understood!) can be addressed without taking into account the emphasis on personal trust (“I know WHOM I have believed …”) and the right WAY of believing as opposed to mere propositional statements (“the demons believe too and shudder” / “not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord …”) isn't even on the horizon.

  • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

    I agree with you on both counts Josh. I would add that if the creeds were true and final accounts of orthodoxy we wouldn't need clarification. So the the continual need suggests they are incomplete, which means they are not full orthodoxy. The are simply expressions of what we think is true.

  • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

    I agree with you on both counts Josh. I would add that if the creeds were true and final accounts of orthodoxy we wouldn't need clarification. So the the continual need suggests they are incomplete, which means they are not full orthodoxy. The are simply expressions of what we think is true.

  • http://jonathanbrink.com Jonathan Brink

    I agree with you on both counts Josh. I would add that if the creeds were true and final accounts of orthodoxy we wouldn’t need clarification. So the the continual need suggests they are incomplete, which means they are not full orthodoxy. The are simply expressions of what we think is true.

  • Pingback: Hereritic vs Orthodoxy II « Christianity – the New Covenant

  • Annie

    The creeds are not intended to be propositional statements, though. They’re a grammar for theological conversations–the limits/boundaries of what we can say on the understanding that everything we say is insufficient to encompass God.nnI do think there’s a historical orthodoxy embedded in those things the church has done consistently through her history. In my mind, any notion of orthodoxy needs a strong concurrent ecclessiology. And this would include practice–here I would include historic spiritualities, especially monastic spirituality (here you can tell how strongly I lean Eastern).nn But to be frank, protestants in general and evangelicals in particular are so far from these things, I don’t even know what orthodoxy means in this context.

    • http://openmindedconversations.blogspot.com/ jshmueller

      I don’t know if it’s true that they weren’t intended to be propositional. I would say that they arose from a situational need to address particular teachings that were seen as in conflict with core beliefs about God and salvation and therefore were meant as a standard from which orthodoxy and heresy could be judged. So rather than calling them “grammar” of theological conversation, I’d call them contemporary protective measures against toxic expressions that would undermine trust in God or diminish the work of Christ.nnNow the irony for me in the current heresy charges against McLaren and Bell is that they are portrayed as those who challenge core beliefs contained in the Creeds when their actual intent is to rescue the church from the same kind of toxic effects of a misled faith that the Creeds were written against. I think it would be very difficult to show that McLaren or Bell endanger trust in God or diminish the work of Christ in actuality, unless someone comes from a perspective that emphasizes believing right content over the actual act of trusting itself.

    • http://openmindedconversations.blogspot.com/ jshmueller

      And just to add one more thought: I don’t mean to say that the content of belief is irrelevant. Obviously there is a connection between objective truth and our need to see enough of it in order to be able to have a relationship of love and trust with God. But I would ask the heresy hunters the following question: what do we actually NEED to know in these practical terms to be connected in a meaningful way with God and to follow Christ beyond the knowledge that He’s for us and not against us? Why would it be necessary to know exactly HOW He’s for us and embrace one model of explaining the cross (i.e. as the need for God to appease His own wrath against us) in order to experience what the Bble calls salvation? This I just don’t get.

Business development and communications for growing businesses.