The Measure of "orthodox" Christianity

[Shane R]

I have several thoughts on Steve's OP. First, the rise of the American Evangelical as the missionary to the world (in their own minds at least) has led to a dumbing down of the faith. They are typically anti-intellectual and anti-creedal. They work on emotion to create that moment of crisis and vulnerability when they can jump in with their life-boat of the 'sinner's prayer' and tell the poor soul, "Now you are a Christian" - when they are really talking out of both sides of their mouth and will quickly remove that designation from anyone who does not promptly conform to whatever next step they are expecting to see.

Because they have lost touch with the historical Gospel message typified by the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds (and, yes, the Athanasian Creed as well) they are especially susceptible to substituting the zeitgeist of their politics for real religion. Allowing them to call this 'orthodox' is yet another example of traditional Christians allowing the lexicon to be rewritten by those who don't speak the language fluently. They cannot really envision the scene in Acts 17 when Paul is strolling through Athens, observing temple prostitutes, probably homosexual orgies, chemically induced religious experience, grotesque idols and so on - it is all anathema to them to think that a brother in Christ (for they fear the term 'saint') could cast his holy eyes on such sights. They have managed to scrub it all from their vision of society and do not have the depth of faith to encounter it in another.

This probably all sounds very pessimistic but it all stems from real life encounters with people who are as described. I have been disrespected more in ministry by this type of 'Christian' than by most Atheists.

 

[archer75]

Hmmm

I've been away from this board for awhile.

I've always been taught (and taught) that orthodoxy is defined by the Creeds of the Church. Yes, it is belief in the father, son, and Holy Spirit. However, that belief has been spelled out for us in the Creed(s). After all, there was much debate in the early centuries. For example, for me, I cannot see that it would make sense to exclude the resurrection from any definition of orthodoxy.

Personally, to define orthodox Christianity in terms of current arguments and debates about moral conduct seems (to me) to be far, far from the core of the faith, or what it means to be Christian.

That sounds right to me. But there are people who will say / post that a church without their preferred set of rules about X "isn't preaching the Gospel."

 

[archer75]

Hmmm

I've been away from this board for awhile.

I've always been taught (and taught) that orthodoxy is defined by the Creeds of the Church. Yes, it is belief in the father, son, and Holy Spirit. However, that belief has been spelled out for us in the Creed(s). After all, there was much debate in the early centuries. For example, for me, I cannot see that it would make sense to exclude the resurrection from any definition of orthodoxy.

Personally, to define orthodox Christianity in terms of current arguments and debates about moral conduct seems (to me) to be far, far from the core of the faith, or what it means to be Christian.

That sounds right to me. But there are people who will say / post that a church without their preferred set of rules about X "isn't preaching the Gospel."

 

[dzheremi]

Hmmm

I've been away from this board for awhile.

It's good to have you back, Mark.

I've always been taught (and taught) that orthodoxy is defined by the Creeds of the Church. Yes, it is belief in the father, son, and Holy Spirit. However, that belief has been spelled out for us in the Creed(s). After all, there was much debate in the early centuries. For example, for me, I cannot see that it would make sense to exclude the resurrection from any definition of orthodoxy.

Well, this too is a creedal belief: "...and He is coming again in His glory to judge the living and the dead", "We look for the resurrection of the dead..." (I don't know what may also be present in the Apostles or the Ps.-Athanasian creeds, as those are not used in Oriental Orthodoxy, but I trust there are similar statements in them, too.)

Personally, to define orthodox Christianity in terms of current arguments and debates about moral conduct seems (to me) to be far, far from the core of the faith, or what it means to be Christian.

Is it too simple to say that all required belief is in the Creed, while basically all other things are a matter of canon? After all, it's not like no church should have anything to say about marriage when that is traditionally ritually and sacramentally very much tied to and governed by the Church, as of course the scriptures themselves likewise discuss it. And yet the particular (canonical) guidelines concerning it may vary greatly, such that traditional churches can either allow for divorce and remarriage or not allow it (EO vs. Coptic Orthodox), or allow marriage to those of other communions or not allow it (EO, RC, and Armenian Apostolic vs. Coptic Orthodox), etc. These are all matters of canon and the particular interpretation of canonical guidance found in a given Church, not of 'morality' (read: it's not immoral that the EO allow up to two divorces and remarriages, or that the Armenians may marry mainstream Trinitarian Christians who are not OO; it's entirely their business as autocephalous churches to have their own canons and interpret them in accordance with their own traditions).

 

[mark46]

Is it too simple to say that all required belief is in the Creed, while basically all other things are a matter of canon? After all, it's not like no church should have anything to say about marriage when that is traditionally ritually and sacramentally very much tied to and governed by the Church, as of course the scriptures themselves likewise discuss it.

It is not too simple. I would include more than the Creed agreed to at Constantinople. However, I think that we might recognize that there may be clarifications that may be a matter of dogma that is unclear among various groups.

In the first few centuries, we used councils to settle such issues. We now seem not to have such a mechanism. For example, many believe in double predestination (that all men are wither born to heaven or to hell). I suspect that a Council could clarify such an issue. The role of first patriarch among equals is being worked through by the use of meeting, now almost 50 years of them. A Council might work much better. And yes, the resulting clarifications would be required. Of course, there would NO CHANGE in doctrine, simply a clarification.

And yes, I do believe that the definition and working of many sacraments (marriage, holy orders) is NOT required to be a Christian; it is indeed governed by canon law.

 

[Paidiske]

Is it too simple to say that all required belief is in the Creed, while basically all other things are a matter of canon? After all, it's not like no church should have anything to say about marriage when that is traditionally ritually and sacramentally very much tied to and governed by the Church, as of course the scriptures themselves likewise discuss it. And yet the particular (canonical) guidelines concerning it may vary greatly, such that traditional churches can either allow for divorce and remarriage or not allow it (EO vs. Coptic Orthodox), or allow marriage to those of other communions or not allow it (EO, RC, and Armenian Apostolic vs. Coptic Orthodox), etc. These are all matters of canon and the particular interpretation of canonical guidance found in a given Church, not of 'morality' (read: it's not immoral that the EO allow up to two divorces and remarriages, or that the Armenians may marry mainstream Trinitarian Christians who are not OO; it's entirely their business as autocephalous churches to have their own canons and interpret them in accordance with their own traditions).

I think it might be too simple for Anglicans, who after all, also need to integrate our Reformation heritage into our identity. Where would a Creed-and-canon approach leave the 39 Articles?

We also have to deal with the history of having been an Established church, and parts of our communion still being Established. For Anglicans, the question of whether marriage belongs properly to the church or the state to govern is not so straightforward (and I would actually say that it belongs to the state, and we simply bless what the state governs).

 

[mark46]

I think it might be too simple for Anglicans, who after all, also need to integrate our Reformation heritage into our identity. Where would a Creed-and-canon approach leave the 39 Articles?

We also have to deal with the history of having been an Established church, and parts of our communion still being Established. For Anglicans, the question of whether marriage belongs properly to the church or the state to govern is not so straightforward (and I would actually say that it belongs to the state, and we simply bless what the state governs).

There are many on the Anglican board that indicate that Anglicans are guided by the Creeds and the Councils, with some disagreement on the number of Councils. The status of the 39 Articles is not at all clear. They certainly are not creedal for most 21st century Anglicans. I believe the TEC indicates that they are of historical use. In any case, they are not at the same level as the creeds.

As as aside, the Articles don't treat the sacraments as equal. Eucharist and baptism are critical, the others less so.

 

[Paidiske]

In any case, they are not at the same level as the creeds.

I agree. But nor are they irrelevant.

As as aside, the Articles don't treat the sacraments as equal. Eucharist and baptism are critical, the others less so.

The others are not sacraments at all, according to the Articles.

 

[gordonhooker]

I think it might be too simple for Anglicans, who after all, also need to integrate our Reformation heritage into our identity. Where would a Creed-and-canon approach leave the 39 Articles?

We also have to deal with the history of having been an Established church, and parts of our communion still being Established. For Anglicans, the question of whether marriage belongs properly to the church or the state to govern is not so straightforward (and I would actually say that it belongs to the state, and we simply bless what the state governs).

I would suggest they be left in the back of the prayer book as an historical document containing the thinking of those involved in the Anglican reformation. In my opinion the Creeds, the 7 ecumenical councils, and canon trump the 39 Articles any day.

 

[Paidiske]

And yet we're required (as clergy) to assent on oath to the Articles, but not to the councils...

 

[gordonhooker]

I agree. But nor are they irrelevant.



The others are not sacraments at all, according to the Articles.

Actually that is not what is says in the 39 Articles - it says that the other 5 sacraments confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction are not to be counted as Gospel sacraments as they were instigated through tradition not by God through Jesus in the Gospels.

 

[gordonhooker]

And yet we're required (as clergy) to assent on oath to the Articles, but not to the councils...

baggage carried forward from a hiccup and a stumble in Christian history I would suspect and obviously one would not openly oppose them in a liturgical setting.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Actually that is not what is says in the 39 Articles - it says that the other 5 sacraments confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction are not to be counted as Gospel sacraments as they were instigated through tradition not be God through Jesus in the Gospels.

Bit of a sound bite, don't you think?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I really don't get this Article bashing. When we've had discussions in this place on individual Articles, there really hasn't been any dissent at all.

 

[gordonhooker]

Bit of a sound bite, don't you think?

Sorry I have no idea what you mean... I was quoting a section of article 25 of the 39 Articles.

 

[gordonhooker]

I really don't get this Article bashing. When we've had discussions in this place on individual Articles, there really hasn't been any dissent at all.

I am sure I have not read anywhere in this part of the forum that states that a Anglican cannot have an opinion on something that relates directly to Anglicanism. I am quite happy for you to simply ignore what I post if you don't agree with it.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

Sorry I have no idea what you mean... I was quoting a section of article 25 of the 39 Articles.

Part of the article. The sentence that follows clarifies why they are not sacraments.


The sacraments instituted by Christ are not only badges or tokens of the profession of Christians but are also sure witnesses and effectual signs of God's grace and good will towards us. Through them he works invisibly within us, both bringing to life and also strengthening and confirming our faith in him.
There are two sacraments instituted by Christ our Lord in the Gospel - baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The five that are commonly called sacraments (confirmation, penance, ordination, marriage and extreme unction) are not to be regarded as gospel sacraments. This is because they are either a corruption of apostolic practice or states of life as allowed in the Scriptures. They are not of the same nature as the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper since they do not have any visible sign or ceremony instituted by God.
The sacraments were not instituted by Christ to be gazed at or carried about but to be used properly. It is only in those who receive them worthily that they have a beneficial effect or operation. As Paul the apostle says, those who receive them in an unworthy manner bring condemnation upon themselves.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

I am sure I have not read anywhere in this part of the forum that states that a Anglican cannot have an opinion on something that relates directly to Anglicanism. I am quite happy for you to simply ignore what I post if you don't agree with it.

And I'm allowed to debate!

 

[gordonhooker]

Part of the article. The sentence that follows clarifies why they are not sacraments.


The sacraments instituted by Christ are not only badges or tokens of the profession of Christians but are also sure witnesses and effectual signs of God's grace and good will towards us. Through them he works invisibly within us, both bringing to life and also strengthening and confirming our faith in him.
There are two sacraments instituted by Christ our Lord in the Gospel - baptism and the Lord's Supper.
The five that are commonly called sacraments (confirmation, penance, ordination, marriage and extreme unction) are not to be regarded as gospel sacraments. This is because they are either a corruption of apostolic practice or states of life as allowed in the Scriptures. They are not of the same nature as the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper since they do not have any visible sign or ceremony instituted by God.
The sacraments were not instituted by Christ to be gazed at or carried about but to be used properly. It is only in those who receive them worthily that they have a beneficial effect or operation. As Paul the apostle says, those who receive them in an unworthy manner bring condemnation upon themselves.

You are correct the article goes onto describe what a Gospel sacrament is and why the other lesser 5 sacraments are not Gospel sacraments. No where in the article does it say the lesser 5 are not to be referred to as sacraments.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

You are correct the article goes onto describe what a Gospel sacrament is and why the other lesser 5 sacraments are not Gospel sacraments. No where in the article does it say the lesser 5 are not to be referred to as sacraments.

Referred to are the key words.