orthodoxy
noun ( pl. -doxies)
authorised or generally accepted theory, doctrine, or practice; the quality of conforming to such theories, doctrines, or practices.

heresy
noun ( pl. -sies)
belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine; opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted.

Systematic theology is a way of speaking about G-d which is never finished. Never can we close the Bible and write the last word, finally putting the last paragraph which puts the ultimate description of G-d onto paper, in such a way that we never need to do any more work. G-d is always bigger than the words/system we use to describe G-d, for at the end of the day the reality of G-d isn't contained in a system, but in a relationship.

If we tend to think of systematic theology as "orthodoxy", and then believe that our systematic theology grasps G-d fully, we've set up an ideology which the Bible would denounce as idolatrous. In this way our orthodoxy becomes heresy.

In much the same way, working in reverse, heresy can sometimes be a way of adding freshness to orthodoxy. If we track the progression of ideas sociologically, we can see the progression an idea follows for it to become the accepted idea, from starting in the margins, going through a process of fighting against the norm, and then becoming obviously self-evident. For instance, the fact that the earth is not the centre of the universe. This wasn't the "fact" "known" to be true not too long ago - everyone "knew" the earth was the centre of the universe. Then Galileo comes up with a heretical idea: things are not how we thought they were...and causes issues for the Church who attempt to stamp it out. Slowly this idea spread until it became the accepted, self-evident fact.

In much the same way, the Church has progressed through the issue of slavery. The Bible does not discourage slavery, only that slave masters treat their slaves well. I'm pretty sure that when some radical fringe thinkers started saying, "Slavery is wrong," their idea was seen as heresy. The same dynamic works with Apartheid - a system with theological underpinnings. For some supports of Apartheid, hearing others speak against it using (different) theological justification must have sounded heretical/not what G-d wants/unorthodox.

So we must always be open to heretical ideas, testing them against Scripture and bringing them before G-d, asking, "Have we got this right?" We need to return to our understanding of Jesus, in every age, asking the same question (otherwise we run the risk of re-creating Jesus in our own image). In this way we can embrace a heretical orthodoxy, holding on to orthodoxy and always allowing the possibility of the new, cunningly disguised as heresy, to push us further into G-d, knowing we'll never arrive completely.

Similarly, we need not be romantically attached to being heretical at all costs, attracted to the idea of being different merely for the sake of being different. There are truths we need to embrace, otherwise we only embrace the truth which claims that all other truths (except for itself, naturally) are suspect. We must allow ourselves to find common ground with those we differ with - especially those who hold views we think are "outdated" or "irrelevant" (I'm talking now specifically to myself, and to those in the emerging conversation who default to criticising the established Church). Heresy must only be embraced through prayer, through dialogue in community, and especially in applying the heresy to itself: are you so sure your heresy is correct that you will not be open to a heretical perspective on your heresy?

Those who would want to play with this dynamic, with embracing a heretical orthodoxy, must also allow themselves the freedom to say, "NO!" at any point, to other heresy. For, in embracing this, if we do not have the space to say, "Hold! What you are doing is wrong!" we have lost the essence of true relationship, which supersedes tolerance because it gets involved in the other.

--x-- Part of the Emerging Africa syncroblog on "emerging heresy":
Aratus - The Gender of the Creator and Face forward
Cobusvw - Conversing with the heretics
FakeExpressionsOfTheUnknown Who's Heresy
Liquid Light - Coming out a heretic emerges
Mike Smith - Emerging Heresy
Nic Paton - The Life Cycle of Heresy and The Blessings of Heresy
Roger Saner Towards a heretical orthodoxy
Ryan Peters - Calling the "H" word and dropping the "H" bomb
Steve Hayes Cult
Tim Victor - Confessions of a heretic

I'm so glad you took time to gather these thoughts, because this synopsis is really the starting point in the debate, getting up some general definitions and a brief overview of what they mean.

I'm pleased you mentioned Galileo, Slavery and Apartheid as three examples of heresy that has become accepted as what you term "orthodoxy".

I'm not quite there yet, you and Brian McLaren are way ahead in the subversion and reuse of the "O" word. I still have quite a few punches left before I get tired and say, OK, Orthodoxy is here to stay, let me make my peace with the fact.

At that point I shall head off to the sauna, aching but feeling good. Thankfully in this world we can do that, instead of being burned at the stake.

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 22 Apr, 2008 - 11:49:52

I wonder if we should conceptualize any sort of a heirarchy of categories regarding orthodoxy. Granted that slavery and the position of the earth were major paradigm shifts at the time but they didn't really change prevailing veiws about the personhood and nature of the trinity or certain aspects of how God relates to man in salvation. Apatheid was slightly different because it presented a picture of a God who displayed favouritism and changed the essential nature of God. I know some would argue that the Old Testament presents a God who displays favouritism - I'm not convinced - I see books like Deuteronomy clearly arguing to the contrary. So what's my point in all of this.

Well to me it would seem that if certain parts of orthodoxy are changed significantly enough then you no longer have orthodoxy. For example if someone sprouted a heresy that ultimately declared that Jesus was no more divine than you or me would you see that person simply as revising orthodoxy or as stepping outside of orthodoxy. Basically the question is: is it possible to step outside of orthodoxy?

reply to this comment

Posted by: Stephen 22 Apr, 2008 - 15:41:31

But Orthodoxy is relative, and continually, albeit slowly, evolving. To me it is an error to absolutise it. And the thing that causes that evolution is the heretical. These 2 forces are continuously engaged in a dialectic. Or maybe we should say, a Dance.

So to "step" outside of it suggests a solid threshold. I'd think of it more like a stepping from one iceberg to another - these things seem solid but they are in fact moving all the time.

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 22 Apr, 2008 - 16:39:07

Stephen,

It's clear that Orthodox Christians, like those supporting slavery, those engaged in Apartheid, those raping the earth, those oppressing women, those ruining the economy of other nations, those preventing spiritual seekers from seeking, etc. can hold to their doctrine and ignore their living. They can be quite orthodox but it means naught.

What Christ called for was an orthopraxis, a way of living in this world that was kingdom-oriented and Spirit-empowered.

What we have in evangelicalism is more often than not a lager mentality, the call to protect our doctrine at all costs. Our culture, our way of looking at and being in the world, has become synonymous with that doctrine.

The emerging church is culturally progressive <i>Christ oriented</i> and that looks "heretical", but is welcome and refreshing for some and truly liberating for others.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Tim Victor 22 Apr, 2008 - 16:58:48

So then it would seem that for some (like nic) the answer is 'no', in the broad scheme of things you can't actually step outside of orthodoxy you just change it. In which case we're almost talking in the realm of 'hard postmodernism' which is in fact a realm that many voices in the worldwide emerging church have wanted to distance themselves from and constantly deny that they subscribe to it. Yet it would seem from my dialogue with some of you guys before that 'hard postmodernism' is a alive and well in the EC contrary to the claims of others. I'd probably still think that the majority of people are still in the 'soft postmodernism' camp (I know you peeps don't like 'camps' but humour me) but I am concerned as an evangelical Christian with emerging leanings that 'hard postmodernism' is taking a bigger grip than it ought. My concern is Roger's final point: That the freedom to say 'NO' is actually slipping away and one gets ensnared in having to relativise everything.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Stephen 23 Apr, 2008 - 12:52:15

We need to move from "right belief" to "believing in the right way." Right belief allows us to hold all sorts of orthodox doctrines (like the sovereignty of G-d, the Trinity, atonement etc) and allow things like slavery and Apartheid. Believing in the right way is all about the way we hold our beliefs. Part of what this means is being aware of how we engage the rest of the world, and allows us to answer the question, "Thanks for telling me that Jesus takes away my sin, but I'm poor with no food or water and I live in a racist place. How does your gospel help me?"

I think that (necessarily) everything should be up for debate (including things like the divinity of Jesus). Sure, these are things we hold to as Christians, although I know there have been times when I've challenged some fairly basic doctrines - and this has been a process of (re)discovering them, yet knowing them for the first time.

People out there in the world *don't* hold to basic Christian doctrine which we can just assume all Christians in our own communities hold, therefore we never talk about them...and are lost when someone comes up with, say, a basic rebuttal to the existence of Jesus.

I'm not trying to find the "line" - how little you can hold to doctrinally before you're not a Christian any more (and yes, I affirm the Christian faith along with the historical creeds, specifically the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed). Equally, I'm not advocating an approach where "orthodoxy" is determined by which doctrines someone mentally assents to. Orthodoxy is about relationship...to self, G-d and others.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 23 Apr, 2008 - 12:59:28

@Stephen: Yes, I'd say it's possible (and dangerous) to step outside of orthodoxy. For instance, if we started saying paedophilia is ok and Christians should be ok with it, I'll be first in line saying, "WTF?!?! Stop that!"

At the same time, we know that "orthodoxy" in some senses is relative, because we can talk about Baptist orthodoxy, or what it means to be an orthodox Anglican, and what happens when those two orthodoxies conflict with each other on certain issues (like, say, infant baptism). Which orthodoxy is the orthodox orthodoxy? That's when it starts getting ridiculous.

--x--

Just a clarification question: by "hard postmodernism" do you mean that epistimelogical framework which claims that all truth is relative, and that there is no such thing as absolute truth?

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 23 Apr, 2008 - 13:05:27

Stephen and Nic: if Stephen were to make a list of what he considers orthodox beliefs that every Christian should hold to, regardless of culture, age or context, I suspect that Nic would agree with almost everything on the list...

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 23 Apr, 2008 - 13:08:11

Great Conversation fellas!

I think that what constitutes orthodoxy or heresy is a matter of degree. If life by definition evolves, therefore theology and ideology does too. If Orthodoxy changes, it does so slowly. And heresy is that which changes faster.

Fractals help understand this - from say 100Km up a coastline looks like its running north south. But from 1 km up we might see it actually runs east west, it just wasn't visible from the further perspective.

If we view church from say 1500 - 2000 CE we will see some broad sweeps. But at one particular point in time, details will emerge that were entirely glossed over in the big picture. So what appears heretical in 1750 looks decidedly orthodox by 1900.

It's sooo relative.

The shift from right belief to believing in the right way is profound, as is moving from orothodoxy to orthopraxis. Believing in the right way is from the realm of the poetic, while right belief, from science. And you know where I am on that score!

But regarding this "hard porn" thingy - whoa I don't even know what that is, how can I be guilty of it?

Even so, pastor Roger just warms my heart with his concilliatory tone. I take you up on the challenge, lemmme see those doctrines!

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 23 Apr, 2008 - 14:01:50

"Pastor Roger"?!?! Lol!

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 23 Apr, 2008 - 14:36:35

First some comments before I put down my doctrinal disctinctives. Nic - yes that's what I meant by 'hard postmodernism'. Your example of the anglican vs. the baptist though must also account for the massive amount of overlap between the two - in fact I'm living proof of that I moved from being a baptist to being an anglican with some important changes but I wouldn't call them fundamental changes. My interest is that 'overlap' - are there perimeters to that overlap?

Roger - we musn't forget the relationship between right belief and right practice. There is an important relationship between the two and distortion of the one will invariably lead to a distortion of the other. I find it interesting that God, in the Old Testament, on one occasion suggests that his people are perishing because of a lack of knowledge yet when you look at these people what you see are men behaving badly - its not necessarilly obvious that they're believing badly too withouth the divine commentary.

Now to my doctrines:
To start with God I would want to affirm his existence, that he is omniscient, omninpotent, transcendant but yet personal. He exists in three persons (I have no idea how that works out) all of whom are distinct yet equally God - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

I believe Jesus is both fully God and fully man and that he lived a historic, sinless life. I believed he died on the cross and rose again in a bodily resurrection three days later. I believe that his death satisfied the perfect justice of God and made atonement for sin thereby making the reversal of the fall possible.

I believe that mankind is alienated from God and rebellious towards him either passively or actively. I believe mankind, left to his own devices, is unable to provide a solution to this dilemma.

I believe that the only solution is through personal identification and trust in the atonement of Christ - forsaking all other solutions - including self.

I do not believe that you necessailly need to perfectly articulate all of the above to be saved - I simply believe that you need to cast yourself upon the mercy of Jesus and trust in him rather than yourself. However I do believe that blatant denial of any of the above affirmations is heresy.

Whether or not you can deny some of those tenets and still be a recipient of Christ's mercy is debatable. Based upon Paul's remarks in Galatians I would assume that he doesn't think you can.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Stephen 23 Apr, 2008 - 14:39:09

Stephen
I don't think I'd blatantly or baldly deny anything, although there are points I might state another way, and there are also quite a few "ommissions".

I'd not be quite as positivistic - I think that in addition to starkly "existing" G-d is also very hidden and ultimately mysterious.

I'd also favour a statement of a panentheist immanence (ie being part of, I can't spell that pesky word) in creation , not merely transcendance.

I'd want to tease out the difficult concept of "atonement" more, because I am not comfortable with the assumption that G-ds perfect justice is necessarily punative.

I'd want to affirm the co-creatorhood of the creature more (balanced by humility), and to let creation be a central mystery in salvation.

Lastly I think salvation and indeed the manifestation of Christ in the world is also a mystery, so I would be provisional about saying "the only solution is through personal identification and trust in the atonement of Christ - forsaking all other solutions" because I personally see G-d at work throughout the world.

I agree with most of your other points. In summary I think you omit certain things and emphasise others. But I don't expect anything else - we are all individuals, "working out our salvation".

It has to be said that while you specialise in matters of doctrine, I am a kitchen variety theologal speculator, a moshpit litugist, and a VJ. We all need each other.

So, I invite your judgement: Am I a heretic?

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 23 Apr, 2008 - 16:22:27

Nic to be honest I'm not sure. I suspect you and I would differ on the exclusivity of Christ (I can't remember if we're dialogued on this before but it sounds familiar). To me the forsaking all other solutions is crucial - I can't avoid it in Jesus and I can't avoid it in Paul. And so were you to clearly affirm that there is a way for people to be restored to God outside of the atoning work of Christ (in which I do see his perfect justic as punitive - if it were not punitive it would not be perfect justice. Plus I think the OT demonstrates that God's justice is punitive) then I would have to conclude that you are a heretic. Wow - I said it - that felt wierd. I think God gives us space to explore and be a bit 'heretical' - but I think there's a point where he says 'stop here, and go no further'. Have you gone beyond that point? In my reading of scripture you might have. And I mean no personal disrespect but I have to call it as I see it to maintain my own integrity.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Stephen 23 Apr, 2008 - 16:54:37

So when's the excommunication party?
[big heretical wink]

reply to this comment

Posted by: nic paton 23 Apr, 2008 - 17:02:58

Anybody familiar with the Catholic Theological concepts of baptism of desire and implicit faith. Christ does save everybody who is saved, he may just do it outside of the Christian church at times. I'm cool with that :)

reply to this comment

Posted by: Jacques 24 Apr, 2008 - 15:55:23

For me I think that the matter is completely about your faith in Jesus for salvation.

In other words, if you believe in Jesus for your salvation you are saved. End of story. WHAT you believe about Jesus and all of that is important, but not what the Scriptures say gets one saved. It's faith in Jesus plus nothing... and nothing really means nothing.

All the doctrine etc. is there to reveal Jesus more greatly to us, which (of course) is what increases our faith in Him. This avoids the 'all roads lead to heaven' issue while at the same time ensuring that we don't indulge in an idolatry that places our doctrine as god instead of Jesus.

The bottom line is that there are going to be a heck of a lot of heretics in heaven, some of them would have been right... some of them would have been wrong. Either way, if their faith was in Jesus they're OK by my book.

Seeing it this way has really helped me to explore and study and open my eyes out to the larger doctrinal world, and to really sink my teeth in and discover all these viewpoints and so grow closer to God. For this reason, I applaud Nic and Roger's efforts because I know that this is the one point (faith in Jesus) that we all don't waver on. I also applaud Stephen and all the others who contribute.

This is where we work out the details for the purpose of seeing Jesus more clearly, and figure out together how we can reveal him to the world through our LIVES. I like what Roger has to say about Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy here... for, after all, James exhorts us to be DOERS of the word...

reply to this comment

Posted by: Ryan Peter 29 Apr, 2008 - 00:07:56

Pete Rollins looks at orthodoxy as "right worship":

Well, that all depends on where you stand and how you define orthodoxy. The word today has taken on a rather unhelpful Enlightenment-influenced definition as “correct belief”—the ability to affirm a certain creedal formation. However, in the more ancient tradition the doxa of orthodoxy does not refer to belief but rather to praise. We see this in the word "doxology" which doesn’t mean belief, but rather worship. So orthodoxy actually means correct praise not correct belief. In that kind of a way, it becomes less about the affirmation of a theological approach—important as theology is—but a way of being like Jesus. We have to rediscover this idea that orthodoxy isn’t belief -oriented but praxis-oriented. In this way the approach I outline isn’t un-orthodox if it helps to bring people back to wonder and praise. Whether it does or not is of course open to question.

The task of being orthodox is to bring praise to God through one’s life. While people these days are asking the question, “Is Christianity true?,” the more fundamental question must be, “What does Christ mean when he uses the word truth?” The reason I am asking that question is that when Jesus talks about the truth, He talk about life. The truth is what brings life. My axiom for today is that Christianity at its core doesn’t explain life but it brings life. We must thus ask whether our beliefs and actions bring life, healing and love to the people in the world.

reply to this comment

Posted by: Roger Saner 03 May, 2008 - 19:18:52

Spam control

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture:

Name:
Email / URI:
Remember Me

Subscribe for email updates updates

Click here to manage subscription