The Struggle of Faith in a World of Beliefs: The Question of Orthodoxy

All Rights Reserved © 2000 by Henry F. Lazenby

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the publisher.

Published by Writers Club Press an imprint of iUniverse.com, Inc.

For information address:

iUniverse.com, Inc.

620 North 48th Street Suite 201

Lincoln, NE 68504-3467

www.iuniverse.com

ISBN: 0-595-09619-0

ISBN: 978-1-469-70121-9 (ebook)

Printed in the United States of America

To Lois, whose faith has been a constant source of encouragement

Contents

Preface

Defining the Church

Roles of the Church

in Society

Forms of the Church in Society

Unity in the Midst of Diversity

The Emergence of Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The Limitations of Doctrinal Orthodoxy

The Significance of Jesus of Nazareth

Faith and Belief in the Church

The Place of Dogma and Tradition

Orthodoxy as Anticipation

The Definition of Orthopraxis

The Praxis of Orthodoxy

Priorities of the Orthodox Church

Select Bibliography

Preface

Of all the reasons why unity has never characterized Christians as a religious group, it seems the most fundamental is their inability to agree on what it means to be a Christian. This lack of agreement has lead to lasting divisions in spite of all the attempts to realize even a token unity.

This propensity for disagreement and division has been nurtured by using a concept of orthodoxy that, ironically, was designed to define Christian faith and unify all Christians through assent to a set of common doctrinal beliefs. In using this concept, it was assumed that every professing Christian should hold the same views about various doctrines and maintain a similar life-style because of those views. Once the correct doctrines and practices for Christians were recognized, the true Christian would be apparent, and Christian unity would become a reality.

After nearly two thousand years of intense debate among Christians over which doctrines and practices should be considered orthodox, the inherent problem in the traditional concept of orthodoxy seems obvious. Instead of offering a starting point for identifying who is a Christian, the traditional concept only encourages further clashes and divisions over what it means to be a Christian. This is because the different cultural orientations among Christians cause different priorities to arise in the formulation of doctrine. These priorities influence the selection of what doctrines or practices are considered correct. As a result, total agreement on what is orthodox becomes a practical impossibility. Only a partial agreement on some doctrines and practices is even feasible. Often, this agreement turns out to be simply a similarity of terminology.

Today, the phrase one Lord, one Faith, one hope is more a cliche by which each Christian group affirms their exclusive status as the elect of God than a declaration of solidarity with other Christians. In confronting this situation, some key questions need to be asked: Is the traditional concept of orthodoxy a viable concept for Christians? Can doctrinal considerations alone define Christian identity and unity? Should orthodoxy be redefined in order to create an opportunity for Christians of different orientations to affirm a common identity as the disciples of Jesus?

The following chapters are meant to provide a context for a discussion of these questions. While this presentation will not offer a definitive list of orthodox doctrines for all Christians, it will examine the role that doctrinal formulations play within the framework of a Christian commitment that is religious in nature but social in expression. Until this role is understood, discussion of individual doctrines will only result in further quarrels among Christians.

These chapters are written for Christians of any theological orientation or ecclesiastical loyalty. For this reason, specific theological code words and phrases that are used by particular Christians groups to identity their orthodoxy are avoided as much as possible. This is meant to allow Christians of whatever background or orientation to consider the key issues that are involved in a discussion of this subject.

As a result of this study, perhaps a more realistic dialogue can begin among Christians concerning their purpose in the world and the basis for their unity in it. Without a viable concept of orthodoxy to guide them in developing this unity, Christians will be forced to perpetuate the divisions of the past and continue the animosity that is already present among them.

Defining the Church

One-fourth of the world’s population describe themselves as Christian. This simple declaration might mean something if it weren’t for the fact that over 20,000 denominations operate in the world, each presenting their own brand of Christianity and usually asserting competing denominations are inferior, if not actually wrong, in the presentation of their Christianity.

In the United States and Canada alone, over 124,000,000 people profess to be Christians, supposedly united by a common heritage but who divide themselves into more than 200 different ecclesiastical bodies. Some Christians are members of such mainline groups as the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, or the Roman Catholic Church while others belong to smaller bodies like the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Church of the Nazarene, the Old Order Amish Church, or the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America.¹ With such diversity present among those who claim to be Christian, it isn’t difficult to understand why there is uncertainty in how the church is to be defined, and to whom the name Christian rightfully belongs.

One way to resolve this uncertainty is to start with a definition of both terms that is based on the teachings of those who were first called Christians, and who identified themselves as the church. This has been the position taken by many groups who strive to legitimize their Christian identity. In essence, this has been the purpose of any concept of orthodoxy. Trying to be orthodox has been an attempt to remain faithful in some way to Jesus and his original disciples, in the context of one’s own culture, in order to preserve the Christian heritage for future generations. But this raises an obvious question: Who are the original disciples of Jesus to whom Christians today must be faithful? The band of Palestinian Jews who were actually taught by Jesus before his death? The Jewish disciples who proclaimed his resurrection from the dead and described him as both Lord and Christ? The Gentile disciples who were evangelized and taught by the apostle Paul? The later first-century disciples of Jesus located in Italy, Asia Minor, Syria, or Egypt?²

Even after a particular group has been designated as the most authentic disciples, additional questions follow: What does it mean to be faithful to these disciples? Can their first-century ideas really be used today to construct a twentieth-century Christianity? How does one determine that the lifestyle and ideas expressed by a person or group are consistent with the distinctives of Jesus himself? These are all questions that need to be addressed before any discussion of orthodoxy is possible.

It is possible to identify some central characteristics that would be true of any group of first-century disciples who claimed Jesus of Nazareth as their Christ. These characteristics are so basic that any group who claims a Christian identity today should be able to accept them as valid. This is not meant to reduce or undermine the significance of those historical, ideologically, or ecclesiastical elements that are held in esteem by a particular Christian group. Identifying only the central distinctives at this point prevents a premature debate on the authoritative significance of those other elements and helps to place the traditional concept of orthodoxy in perspective.

The particular characteristics of any group express the values, ideas, and priorities of that group. These values, ideas, and priorities define the precise orthodoxy that eventually excludes from consideration other elements that lessen or contradict the authoritative nature of a particular value, idea, or priority. Over time, different orthodoxies have developed in the Christian community, each with its own set of essential teachings. This situation has created a competition among the various groups as each contend for their own definitions to be adopted as the most legitimate in defining an authentic Christianity.

This analysis of orthodoxy does not intend to end the competition, only clarify the boundaries of the discussion. For this reason, it is useful to begin with a set of common distinctives that would be consistent with the earliest Christians, regardless of the more precise orthodoxy of a later group. This provides the source for identifying common values, ideas, and priorities among Christians that eventually might form the foundation for developing a unity in the midst of the continuing diversity.

From simply reading the New Testament, of course, it is apparent that the early Christians regarded the story of Jesus of Nazareth as the decisive reference point for understanding God, and the key to solving problems that confronted them in their world. These early followers of Jesus, whether located in Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, or Alexandria, regarded him as their primary authority in explaining their own identity and purpose in the world. In choosing to be his disciples, they pledged their loyalty to him and used the story of his life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension to shape their thoughts and guide their actions in the world.

In seeking to remain faithful to the heritage of these earliest of disciples, later Christians have been faced with the difficult task of how to interpret the ideas and values expressed about Jesus in their own historical and cultural contexts. In answering these questions, four main approaches are possible.

The first approach is to regard the historicity of the story of Jesus and his disciples with suspicion and conclude much of it is only an embellishment by later disciples. The story expresses their ideas about their own experiences of Jesus as the Christ but it is not necessary to adopt them as the defining ideas of an authentic Christianity today. It is necessary to interpret some of their original ideas or principles but in such a way that they are consistent with twentieth-century ideas and values. This approach respects the motivating ideas among these early disciples but allows for new ideas to replace or refine earlier ones.

Some Christians argue the exact opposite. They claim it is unrealistic to profess one’s beliefs and actions are Christian if these do not include an acceptance of the historicity of the New Testament events, and an agreement with the views of Jesus, and the views about him, that are presented in the New Testament writings. Without a firm adherence to the historicity of all the events presented in the New Testament, and to the accuracy of all the ideas about various subjects expressed by the writers, these Christians assert it is invalid to describe oneself as a Christian.

Just as emphatically, other Christians take a third approach and only affirm a religious value to the story of Jesus and his disciples. The events or ideas may or may not be true. But this is not the decisive issue. To them, the historicity of the accounts and the accuracy of the statements are not as crucial in determining a genuine Christian profession as the symbolic value these stories and ideas have as religious myths. It is a similar experience of God produced by the symbolism discovered in Jesus’ life and ministry as the Christ that is of critical significance.

Other Christians present a fourth approach. They contend that the essence of authentic Christianity is found essentially in preserving the doctrines and distinct ecclesiastical traditions that are handed down from one generation of Christians to another. The cardinal point for them is not to simply affirm a limited or unlimited historicity and accuracy to the New Testament writings or the symbolism that can be derived from the stories found in it. To insure that one’s Christianity is genuine, it is necessary to align oneself with the doctrines and traditions sanctioned by previous church councils and Christians in leadership positions. The doctrines and traditions of earlier Christians, in conjunction with those of the first-century church, form a set of distinctives necessary for the Christian heritage to remain viable and authentic in the present.

What should be apparent is that these four approaches in constructing an authentic Christianity are not mutually exclusive. They each relate to the other and are each essential in developing an intelligent response to the events and ideas surrounding Jesus and his early disciples. Any response will normally include historical elements, however minute or extensive; symbolic elements, however vague or specific; ecclesiastical elements, however primitive or elaborate; and certain refinements in ideas and values to insure some degree of relevancy. A preference expressed for a particular response demonstrates the degree of significance placed on the historicity of an event, the symbolism involved in an event or idea, the ecclesiastical background of the event, or the change that is necessary in relating these events or ideas to a later context. But prior to this expression of a preference is a decision to use the story of Jesus and his disciples as a way to define a Christian response to God and not a Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist response.

No matter how this story is interpreted historically, ideologically, existentially, or ecclesiastically, a decision has been made to use this as the starting point for defining a Christian trust in God and constructing a set of values, ideas, and priorities to express this trust. To this extent, the story of Jesus and his disciples should be central in any definition of the church and any description of a Christian that regards Christianity as a distinct religious tradition.

A commitment or trust in the significance of Jesus’ story for human beings makes it possible for Christians today to identify themselves in a general way with the original disciples of Jesus. Without this trust, there is no basis for such identification. Expressing an authentic Christianity is influenced by questions of historicity, ideology, symbols, and traditions, but not in terms of nullifying this personal commitment or trust. Answers to these questions may support and clarify this response but cannot be a substitute for it. The decision to trust develops out of a realization of the relevance that the story of Jesus has for an individual’s own life before God and other people. Through this story, a person finds the way to fulfill or satisfy a personal need with reference to God that is of urgent importance to the individual. This trust or commitment signifies that the New Testament story of Jesus has resolved or fulfilled this need, whether this need is experienced intellectually, morally, psychologically, or existentially. When the satisfaction of this need is expressed conceptually and related to the current social context of the individual, one of the previously mentioned approaches will be used to establish a framework for expressing this trust in a social context with others who profess a similar trust.

Based on this understanding, the story of Jesus of Nazareth and trust in the relevancy of this story to find some degree of love, hope, purpose and meaning before God is the starting point for defining anyone as a Christian, or any group as the church. Christians have disagreed, and will continue to disagree, on the most appropriate way to describe the other elements that constitute an authentic Christianity. In spite of these disagreements, however, what they have in common is a commitment to the story of Jesus and his relevance for human beings. This commitment is their incentive for speaking about God, identifying themselves with one another, and explaining the reason for their existence in the world. By this commitment to the significance of Jesus, Christians of any generation are able to establish their identification with first-century Christians, and claim a Christian identity for their beliefs and actions.

The reason, at this stage, for defining the church in such a broad but restricted manner is two-fold. First, it attempts to pinpoint the crucial difference between Christians and non-Christians, not between one group of Christians and another group of Christians. This helps to demonstrate what is unique about Christianity in comparison to other religious traditions such as Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism. It is not a holy book, a systematic theology, a specific political structure, a high moral code, a long history, or even distinct rituals of worship that makes Christianity unique among the world’s many religious traditions. What establishes its uniqueness as a religious tradition is the New Testament portrait of Jesus of Nazareth. A religious group or individual ought not to claim a Christian identity if there is not some type of affinity with this portrait. To do so would not be consistent with the commitment to Jesus displayed by his first-century disciples.

Second, this definition clarifies the underlying link that unites all Christians in spite of their ecclesiastical or doctrinal disagreements. Their common commitment to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ serves as the basis for this unity. As H. Richard Niebuhr pointed out, However great the variations among Christians in experiencing and describing the authority Jesus Christ has over them, they have this in common: that Jesus Christ is their authority, and that the one who exercises these various kinds of authority is the same Christ.³

In spite of their diversity, both theologically and organizationally, Christians have perpetuated a common culture for centuries. Christians have their own history, language, concepts, institutions, traditions, and lines of authority that are similar, despite the differences that may exist among particular groups. People who become members of the church affirm solidarity with a specific social heritage that begins with the decision of a few first-century Jews to become disciples of a former carpenter from Galilee turned itinerant Jewish preacher. Later, Gentile disciples joined these early Jewish disciples of Jesus. From that point on, they presented Jesus in a variety of ways: the Messiah or Christ who would have a kingdom someday on earth; the Lord who must be obeyed by everyone; the Logos who revealed the true God; or the Son of God who should be worshipped by all. Jewish and Gentile disciples may have disagreed on a number of issues related to liturgy, organization, and theology, but their devotion to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ united them as a religious group.

From this perspective, the church can be defined as a group of people whose trust in God is based on the significance of the story of Jesus of Nazareth to meet their essential human needs. But this does not exclude it from being influenced by the same social processes and pressures that govern any group of people who are united by a similar social or ideological heritage. These varied societal influences have served to create a multitude of subcultures within the church itself.

The denominational name of such groups as the Church of South India, the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Southern Baptist Convention, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Old German Baptist Brethren, the Polish National Catholic Church of America, or the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the U.S.A., illustrate, in a transparent manner, the ways in which national identity, ethnic background, or racial makeup have contributed to the rise of subcultures within the membership of the church. Whether this proliferation of subcultures represents the accommodation of religion to the caste system and the moral failure of Christianity is a debatable question.⁴ These subcultures could be pictured as only differing attempts to give visible expression to the life of church in the life of the world.⁵ Whatever the final verdict, this diversity does demonstrate how closely the church has been affected, for better or worse, by the social forces that shape any group of people into a distinct cultural form.

From a theological perspective, these various subcultures within the church today also delineate the final results of the intense doctrinal debates that have been conducted by Christians in the past. These previous debates have created an ecclesiastical climate today that causes the different groups of Christians to contend with one another for the right to be called the one and only true church of Christ.

This ongoing contest among Christians is encouraged by the use of a concept of orthodoxy defined exclusively in terms of doctrine. Orthodoxy, in this struggle, is equated with adherence to correct dogmas, whether formulated by ecumenical councils, individual theologians, or noted denominational leaders. Heresy is any deviation from these accepted dogmas. A variation on this theme is heterodoxy, which is more a disagreement in form with, rather than an explicit deviation in substance from, accepted dogmas. It can still serve, however, as a basis for censure and even excommunication. The true church in this theological drama is that group of Christians who preserve the correct dogmas in their purest form, while excommunicating heretics and condemning the heterodox for any tampering with these dogmas.

This definition of orthodoxy, along with its concept of the church, has its problems, as will be discussed in the following chapters. These problems become more obvious as the social structures that govern human behavior and discussion are uncovered and identified. All too often, however, these social structures are ignored and excluded from consideration in order to focus attention on a particular theological idea developed about the church. The church as the Body of Christ or the Elect of God is emphasized to such a degree that the people in it, or outside of it, are often treated as little more than abstract and impersonal stereotypes, defined and classified according to their relationship to the Holy Catholic Church.

While these types of classification are beneficial for theological discussions, they do not sufficiently deal with the humanity of people and the bearing this has on how they function now as individuals within a social group. This humanity needs to be acknowledged by Christians for the crucial role it plays in their own existence as a distinct social group in the world. This acknowledgment should also enable them to better express their Christian faith to other human beings.

An appreciation of the humanity of individuals begins with the realization of how interwoven it is with the social structures that govern an individual’s life and actions. As Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann have explained,

It is an ethnological commonplace that the ways of becoming and being human are as numerous as man’s cultures. Humanness is socio culturally variable. In other words, there is no human nature in the sense of a biologically fixed substratum determining the variability of socio cultural formations. There is only human nature in the sense of anthropological constants (for example, world-openness and plasticity of instinctual structure) that delimit and permit man’s socio-cultural formations. But the specific shape into which this humanness is molded is determined by those socio-cultural formations and is relative to their numerous variations. ⁶

These statements have enormous implications in understanding the church and its presence in the world. Specifically, it means Christians need to develop a view of themselves as human beings that takes seriously the variety and randomness of the social structures that exist in their world. They need to ask themselves what it means to be human in the midst of this diversity and randomness. Is being a Christian just another socio-cultural formation, another variation on humanness? Or, is there something unusual about being a Christian that causes one to find little value in clinging to a specific cultural heritage, but does enable one to experience the full impact of being human even in the midst of this cultural heritage? Answering these questions does not involve just offering a theological response based on past theological debates. It means dealing with the existential realities that confront an individual who lives in a world devoid of any meaning or purpose except what he or she has been taught to attach to it because of a particular cultural perspective.

A central concern in answering these questions is how humanity itself is to be defined and how different cultural perspectives are to be related to this foundational definition. There have been many definitions offered by various thinkers over the centuries. These definitions have usually failed to provide a balanced perspective on what it means to be human because of the religious, philosophical, or ideological assumptions of the definers. As Harold Titus pointed out, Interpretations of man in terms of ‘libido’ or sex striving, as with Freud, as a ‘beast of prey’ with Spengler, or in terms of economic processes, as with Marx, are not totally false but are extremely lopsided. This situation has often led to complex and sophisticated definitions that virtually ignore the simplicity of being human.

If the constants of being human lie in such attributes as world-openness and plasticity of instinctual structure and not in such characteristics as sexual identity, ethnic background, racial makeup, or political loyalties, then humanness can be defined rather simply in terms of the continual interplay of consciousness with environment, of freedom with necessity.⁸ What this implies is that the quality of being human is, first of all, rooted in a self-consciousness or self-awareness of one’s existence. It is this self-consciousness that encourages an exploration of the physical and social boundaries of one’s existence through critical thinking. This ability to critically think about the possibilities that may lie beyond those boundaries is indicative of an openness or openendedness in human existence itself. This openendedness or unprogrammed quality in being human creates the possibility and necessity for personal choice as well as the potential for changing the conceptual boundaries of one’s existence.

Self-consciousness, critical thought, and openness seem to be the most basic ingredients in defining what it means to be human. They enable an individual to express and enjoy the desires, emotions, and feelings of an instinctual structure within a context of meaning and purpose. In essence, What is specially and uniquely human is man’s capacity to combine a wide variety of animal propensities into an emergent cultural entity: a human personality.⁹ These elements of human existence not only give human beings some degree of control over their own destinies but also control over animals and plants. These qualities permit men and women to influence the course of nature in a variety of ways. In the case of infants or the mentally retarded, of course, these qualities are limited but may be present to some degree.

For an individual to have self-consciousness sufficient to develop a human personality there must be other human beings present so that human existence can be distinguished from the existence of animals or plants. This implies that self-consciousness is based on and grows from a prior social awareness that is formed in the context of relationships with other human beings. Social awareness leads to self-consciousness as an individual learns to distinguish his or her own sexual or racial identity, social status, or cultural background from those of other human beings. There is a tacit recognition of the differences between oneself and other human beings. This tacit recognition of essential differences is the initial step that is taken in order for an individual to engage in critical thinking about human existence. This type of critical thinking is what assists in the development of a distinct human personality.

The development of a human personality