Scot McKnight posts briefly about Orthopathy, Orthodoxy, and Orthopraxy (right motive, right doctrine, right practice) to suggest a hierarchy of importance starting with orthopathy. I don't know how to think about importance - all three strike me as equally important but I'm not set on that thought.
More interesting to me however is the question of sequence. To my understanding, orthopathy starts it all. God first changes a man's heart. Without that, we cannot hear right doctrine and live right practice. We might bump into them from time to time but without the internal change, failure is ultimate. Now once I have an initial right motive/heart, then I can hear right doctrine. With that I can (should) live rightly. And of course both right doctrine and right living reinforce right motives which lead to more right doctrine and living. At the same time, right doctrine and living fuel each other. Net, we see a symbiotic relationship in all three but I think the start point is the Holy Spirit changing a heart.
If by important McKnight meant sequence, we are fully aligned. If not, then just add this to his good points. What do you think?
1 comment:
What I got out of the article was this:
McKnight's definition of orthopathy includes the salvation experience, without which orthodoxy and orthopraxy are skubala. So I think, given that definition, he can use the word "importance" in the most traditional sense and be accurate.
I don't know that one can place othrodoxy over orthopraxy in importance or sequence, as long as it is preceeded with and accompanied by orthopathy. I almost have to wonder if there's a false dichotomy set up (by folks on both sides) between orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
You're right in that all three should feed off each other. But then I think that eventually, even the sequence gets muddled, anyway.
Post a Comment