Monday, March 13, 2006
The Heresy Of Orthodoxy
This may meander a bit, but I hope you'll stick with me, the pay-off should be worth it.
It's a weakness, I know, but I approach pretty much everything like a scientist - after all, it's my education. In science we move from hypothesis (idea) to theory (suppported idea) to "law" (as close as we can get to truth in science, it certainly qualifies as orthodoxy). Now, these distinctions are not so strictly adhered to anymore, evolution being the classic example - it is still really a hypothesis on the cusp of being a theory, but it many regard it as orthodoxy.
Now because Darwin has been elevated to law well before the evidence is sufficient to justify it, the support for that elevation is often quite specious, the most common being the dismissal of those that insist it is still a hypothetical on ad hominum grounds - "irrational," "non-thinking" and the like. Usually such arguement springs from the fact that those making them feel attacked on levels far more than just the idea. The idea they defend has become more than idea, but a part of their very identity.
Which brings me to Acts 17, in which Paul pays his first visit to Thessalonica where he is shortly driven out by the resident Jewish authority.
Being of the reformed tradition, we need to have a vey jaundiced view of the idea of orthodoxy. We owe our very existence to the fact that orthodoxy can become a stale and even corrupt thing. When we hold fast to the idea of "always reforming" our relationship to orthodoxy must be a careful one indeed.
What sent me thinking about all this? Well, there is this post I wrote last Friday and this post Adrian Warnock put up a few hours before. My post looks at the two different approaches to the subject of heresy, validates each, but looks for guidance as to when each approach is the correct one - one of my examples is one of the Pyromaniacs. Adrian's post is a much more direct strike at the matter - the continuing, if softening, dust-up between iMonk/BHT and Johnson/Pyros. Adrian says some very wise things
To understand that last sentence, let's go back to my opening paragraphs on science. Way back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, and I learned about hypothesis, theory and law, I was taught that a "law" was never absolute, everything remained on some level a theory because you just never knew when new data would arise to challenge the law. The classic example was Newton which had certainly risen to the level of "law" but Einstien eventually came along and redefined everything.
Now when it comes to the world of words we can never have the certainty of orthodoxy that we enjoy in physics - words never have the precision that mathematics does and the interrelationships are not nearly so mechanical. So if physical law is subject to new data, certainly orthodoxy in other areas of thought must be subject to examination from time-to-time as well. Confident orthodoxy should in fact welcome such scrutiny.
Christian orthodoxy has an added burden - its essential truth is measured not in eloquence, logic, or persuasion, but in the changed and redeemed lives of its adherents. It is not enough to proclaim orthodoxy, the proclamation itself must bear witness to that which it speaks. That's what Adrian is saying in the pull quote above.
So here's what I don't understand. When things get as rancourous as they have in the blogoshpere, what institution or territory is the orthodoxy supporting and what threats are the proponents feeling with their strongly emotional defenses? It doesn't make any sense to me - the blogosphere is not an institution and it has, literally infinite territory all of it equally accessible. That says to me the only thing possibly at stake is egos.
Now I have a very definite idea about who has the most fragile ego in all of this, but I'm not going to say, I'm going to let you the reader follow the links at Adrian's post and figure it out for yourself.
What I am going to say is this, when it is our egos we are defending, we are standing on indefensible territory. I've been there. God has a really funny way of demonstrating to us just how indefensible that territory is - in my case He did it by absolutely pulling the rug out from under me. In that experience I learned that most essential truth that Adrian proclaims in the pull quote above, but I would not wish that lesson taught in that way on anyone else, there has got to be an easier way to get the point.
I would really like to see the Christian blogosphere learn that lesson without God having to bring the whole thing crashing down on our heads. We have here a fledgling tool for communication. We can learn to use it to advance God's agenda, or we can declare it territory to carve up and argue over. We may not agree on all of God's agenda, but somehow I cannot help but think we agree on enough to act on it.
Related Tags: blogging, blogosphere, Godblogging, egos, orhtodoxy, truth
It's a weakness, I know, but I approach pretty much everything like a scientist - after all, it's my education. In science we move from hypothesis (idea) to theory (suppported idea) to "law" (as close as we can get to truth in science, it certainly qualifies as orthodoxy). Now, these distinctions are not so strictly adhered to anymore, evolution being the classic example - it is still really a hypothesis on the cusp of being a theory, but it many regard it as orthodoxy.
Now because Darwin has been elevated to law well before the evidence is sufficient to justify it, the support for that elevation is often quite specious, the most common being the dismissal of those that insist it is still a hypothetical on ad hominum grounds - "irrational," "non-thinking" and the like. Usually such arguement springs from the fact that those making them feel attacked on levels far more than just the idea. The idea they defend has become more than idea, but a part of their very identity.
Which brings me to Acts 17, in which Paul pays his first visit to Thessalonica where he is shortly driven out by the resident Jewish authority.
Acts 17:5 - But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men from the market place, formed a mob and set the city in an uproar; and coming upon the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them out to the people.So threatened by Paul are these Jews that after he leaves Thessalonica, they chase him to Berea to where he has fled and where his preaching is far more effective. Clearly, Paul's departure from Jewish orthodoxy affects these men as more than just a wrong-headed idea - scripture itself describes it as "jealousy."
Being of the reformed tradition, we need to have a vey jaundiced view of the idea of orthodoxy. We owe our very existence to the fact that orthodoxy can become a stale and even corrupt thing. When we hold fast to the idea of "always reforming" our relationship to orthodoxy must be a careful one indeed.
What sent me thinking about all this? Well, there is this post I wrote last Friday and this post Adrian Warnock put up a few hours before. My post looks at the two different approaches to the subject of heresy, validates each, but looks for guidance as to when each approach is the correct one - one of my examples is one of the Pyromaniacs. Adrian's post is a much more direct strike at the matter - the continuing, if softening, dust-up between iMonk/BHT and Johnson/Pyros. Adrian says some very wise things
It strikes me that we should be more sensitive to the fact that our job is not to win arguments but to win people. That is our job is not to merely persuade people of the intellectual truth of our theology but to help people get to know the person Jesus more and more.To me, the key idea is that the blogosphere is not the church. For orthodoxy to have meaning, it must be attached to some defining instituion. Orthodoxy is part of defining and preserving that institution, but that is really the only purpose it serves.
There is another power struggle going on in the hidden realm that directly impacts on our theological conversations. This battle is between the blindness that the devil would seek to bring to all of us and the light that the Spirit would shine upon us. It really is down to God to grant both unbelievers and believers who think differently repentance - unless this happens we can argue till we are blue in the face and no change will occur.
To understand that last sentence, let's go back to my opening paragraphs on science. Way back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, and I learned about hypothesis, theory and law, I was taught that a "law" was never absolute, everything remained on some level a theory because you just never knew when new data would arise to challenge the law. The classic example was Newton which had certainly risen to the level of "law" but Einstien eventually came along and redefined everything.
Now when it comes to the world of words we can never have the certainty of orthodoxy that we enjoy in physics - words never have the precision that mathematics does and the interrelationships are not nearly so mechanical. So if physical law is subject to new data, certainly orthodoxy in other areas of thought must be subject to examination from time-to-time as well. Confident orthodoxy should in fact welcome such scrutiny.
Christian orthodoxy has an added burden - its essential truth is measured not in eloquence, logic, or persuasion, but in the changed and redeemed lives of its adherents. It is not enough to proclaim orthodoxy, the proclamation itself must bear witness to that which it speaks. That's what Adrian is saying in the pull quote above.
So here's what I don't understand. When things get as rancourous as they have in the blogoshpere, what institution or territory is the orthodoxy supporting and what threats are the proponents feeling with their strongly emotional defenses? It doesn't make any sense to me - the blogosphere is not an institution and it has, literally infinite territory all of it equally accessible. That says to me the only thing possibly at stake is egos.
Now I have a very definite idea about who has the most fragile ego in all of this, but I'm not going to say, I'm going to let you the reader follow the links at Adrian's post and figure it out for yourself.
What I am going to say is this, when it is our egos we are defending, we are standing on indefensible territory. I've been there. God has a really funny way of demonstrating to us just how indefensible that territory is - in my case He did it by absolutely pulling the rug out from under me. In that experience I learned that most essential truth that Adrian proclaims in the pull quote above, but I would not wish that lesson taught in that way on anyone else, there has got to be an easier way to get the point.
I would really like to see the Christian blogosphere learn that lesson without God having to bring the whole thing crashing down on our heads. We have here a fledgling tool for communication. We can learn to use it to advance God's agenda, or we can declare it territory to carve up and argue over. We may not agree on all of God's agenda, but somehow I cannot help but think we agree on enough to act on it.
Related Tags: blogging, blogosphere, Godblogging, egos, orhtodoxy, truth
