Blog
I want to invite you into a conversation around exploring ideas with me.

Brian McLaren On Orthodoxy

Posted Mar 11 2010 by Jonathan Brink in Christianity with View 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: Category: Christianity

Jonathan Brink - I am an author, coach, speaker and consultant. I work with communities and networks looking to engage God's mission in the Way of Jesus.

  • 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.
  • 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.
blog comments powered by Disqus