The Fight for Orthodoxy
March 19, 2007
Dear Friends,
One of my favorite cartoons of all time was a cartoon in Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller. In this cartoon, two well-dressed dinosaur-looking creatures start a discussion. We can’t hear what is being said, but the mother of a little creature observing says to her little child in her pouch, “Cover your ears, Joey.†The big creatures start getting more and more animated and heated in their discussion until the larger of the two beasts reaches over and eats the other beast whole. The baby then asks, “What are they fighting about, Mommy.†The mother responds, “Whose faith in a merciful and loving God is the one true religion.â€
The Apostle Paul warns the Galatians concerning these nasty tendencies:
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. (Gal. 5:13–15)
Why all the fussing and fighting? It comes down to one word—orthodoxy. The definition of orthodox is “pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology.†In other words, most of the fussing and fighting is about somebody wanting to define what is the one true faith and then, through some means, conforming the rest of us to their idea. If you know the end game, watching the fight for the definition of what is orthodox is much more interesting to observe than any World Cup, NCAA tournament or Stanley Cup (and probably more dirty).
Any student of church history knows that this has been going on for a long, long time. When the Gnostics came into being in the early part of the second century, the church felt the need to combat this heresy through several means which would enforce orthodoxy. They began creating statements of faith. They formalized the canon of Scripture. Probably the most important means by which orthodoxy was established was the establishment of the clergy class. The Gnostics did not recognize the authority of the Scriptures, so the leaders felt that they needed a group which could speak authoritatively about who and what was orthodox. This ultimately resulted in the establishment of the papacy when orthodoxy rested in the hands of a single individual who could speak ex cathedra. The term “ex cathedra”, according to the Catholic Dictionary, means:
Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
Even with these extreme measures of conferring infallibility on an individual, the Catholic Church has not solved the problem of orthodoxy. Bring up any of a dozen or more controversial subjects in a diverse room of Catholics and you will find out quickly how far from being solved this problem is.
This series is not about Catholicism, however; this is about my own faith system, Christadelphia. It is readily apparent though that this issue applies to any faith. Someone or some group always seeks to define what is or is not orthodox. We might like to think that these matters would be solved in some loving, Biblically dignified manner, but this is hardly ever the case. All too often, these issues are solved through backroom dealings, strong arm tactics and propaganda. Again, one only need consult history to see this point regardless of the religious institution involved. The flesh is proved to be the flesh again and again without religious labels.
How do we determine what is orthodox? What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of each method? How do we react when others try to force their sense of orthodoxy on us? These are the questions we hope to delve into over the next few weeks.
Have a great week,
Comments»
No comments yet.