Joe Stigora offers the following excellent definitions of what humble orthodoxy is not. I'm guilty of some and one wouldn't have to read many books/blogs to find Christedom is replete with all of these.
1. Proud Non-orthodoxy - This is irreverent and bold. Titling your book "God is not Good". Calling people names on your radio show just because you disagree with them. It makes opinions more important than people and everyone looks like a bunch of high-schoolers in a big insult fight.
2. Humble Non-orthodoxy - This is pretty popular these days. It claims to be open minded, inclusive and willing to question itself. How can you go wrong? But, is this really humility or simply someone who lacks the courage to make a decision, take a stand and believe something?
3. Proud Orthodoxy - For me this is the hardest to avoid. I tend to feel that I see the truth clearly and so everyone should just agree with me. If they don't, I can argue them in, write them off or just disassociate. God have mercy on me for my pride! Too often I have a head full of knowledge about God and fail to allow it to humble me.
2 comments:
I get what he is saying. But the word "orthodox" has a connotation of truth, it assumes the implication that orthodox beliefs are those that have been fleshed out over the centuries and should be embraced because they are true.
These should always accompany a Christian, regardless of their "orthodxy".
1. Humility - tangible and sacrificial, esteeming others better than ourselves.
2. A continual journey to seek His face. You can be pristine in orthodoxy and not be seeking Hin.
3. Patient toward those who do not espouse your particular brand of "orthodxy".
4. A healthy "less than 100%" uncertanty about non salvidic issues.
5. A graciousness in communicating your beliefs with others that both retains your conviction and is spoken with words of grace and salt.
All of these can be difficult because even the flesh desires to be right and let everyone else know that in no uncertain terms. But what seems odd to me is that some who teach baptismal salvation, transubstantiation, and other Romanesque doctrines are considered orthodox. Who is the arbiter of just what doctrines are and are not orthodox?
It seems orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. One man's orthodoxy is another man's heresy. In the immortal words of the Wicked Witch of the West, "What a world, what a world...".
It seems good to question. It seems one should be extremely careful if the answers are unorthodox.
Mindlessly following orthodoxy or unorthodoxy is not good.
I'd think however that if my challenging results in rejecting unorthodoxy, I would be quickly satisfied.
If my challenging resulted in rejecting orthodoxy, it may be that I have found some baggage that some have confused as a core belief in orthodoxy - that would be good - but I would be slow to draw that conclusion.
Post a Comment