In Defence of Orthodoxy
Is Creedal Christianity a Relic Unfit for the Modern World?
I read a thread on the internet by someone claiming that Christianity does not have a doctrinal core, rather, it generates a plurality of socio-political projects that simply find their language, form, and networks varyingly shaped by the Christian tradition.
In addition, it was added that while the ecumenical creeds are useful to some degree, blind adherence to them constitutes intergenerational imperialism, and orthodox Christianity is incapable of theological growth and moral revision.
I have some notes!
Tradition is the Flame of Faith Passed on Afresh
A rejection of historical orthodox Christianity is something ironically shared by both Christian fundamentalists and progressives.
Both have a disdain for ancient Christianity and utilize Christianity merely to provide religious capital for their socio-political ambitions.
I’d aver that the opposite of intergenerational imperialism is hermeneutical narcissism as if the entire tradition should be judged by your novelties, outrages, and tantrums.
I’d insist too that biblicism is an impoverished approach to the Bible as one cannot understand the Bible if one only has a Bible.
Traditional orthodox Christianity is more coherent, compelling, durable, and translatable than the incessant fads and fragmentation that characterize progressive and consumerist types of Christianity.
Tradition is finding out which mushrooms are poisonous without having to learn the hard way. So while you, a theological toddler in a garden of theological berries and poisonous mushrooms, might start munching on a Marcionite mushroom because it shows how Christianity can make itself relevant to the Greco-Roman world, don’t be surprised if your Nanna (historical Christianity) chastizes you, “Don’t be eating that!” If you turn around and say, “Okay boomer,” and proceed to munch away on the mushroom, well, that’s a trip to the emergency room because you were too stupid or arrogant to listen to anyone besides yourself.
As Augustine said:
“If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”
Historical Orthodox Christianity Has a Self-Correcting Tool
Historical Christianity is not “curatorial Christianity” nor a cold, ossified fossil of faith long since buried beneath two thousand years of history, wars, scientific revolutions, rise and fall of civilization, that cannot be reformed.
The 11th-century reformatio and the 16th-century reformation demonstrate that historical Christianity is capable of convulsive changes while remaining unchanged in its creedal commitments. Even the Catholic Church is no longer the Tridentine (anti-Protestant) and native Papalist (defending the Papal states) organization it once was, but is now more globalized and internally pluralistic.
While Vincent of Lerins famously said that, “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” Yet Vincent also knew that there was the possibility of the “improvement of our religion,” which I think explains developments and refinements to the doctrines of the Trinity, Christology, the eventual and inevitable opposition to slavery, and support of women’s ordination. These developments are, I would argue, organic to Christianity, rather than foreign and invasive ideas violently plunged into them.
Christianity has the internal tools and resources to think through new challenges, to engage in self-critique, and to bring itself to a more coherent and consensual account of its own faith. It is possible to integrate creeds, consequences, and contexts according to metrics given by the Lord Jesus.
As Augustine said:
“So anyone who thinks he has understood the divine scriptures or any part of them, but cannot by his understanding build up this double love of God and neighbour, has not yet succeeded in understanding them.”
NB: I have a big discussion and defence of tradition and explanation of the development of doctrine in my book Evangelical Theology.
Otherwise, check out Trevin Wax’s book The Thrill of Orthodoxy!
It is good to posit that Christianity has the tools for self-critique and resources to think through new challenges but many, even in evangelical spaces, believe that the Christian faith must remain a specific way with a specific hermeneutic. What the SBC convention showed me is how this creedal Christianity is not understood because there’s this notion that today’s Christianity is the superior brand. The more I read the more I’m convinced that, like Bavinck, we can be orthodox yet modern and bring afresh to the faith, new things and new ways of thinking especially as our scholarship improves.
Great post in defence of Creedal Christianity! I will never forget the mushroom illustration...
However, let us not forget that there are significant numbers of Christians in our world who have no access to historical, orthodox Christianity. I'm referring to many Majority World Christ followers who do not yet have Scripture in their language, have not had access to formal education, and who do not know any of the major world languages where they would hear about such historical traditions. Or, they have only the Bible, or portions thereof, in their language. We have spent decades among people(s) in West Africa who, having come to faith amidst great challenges and opposition, are, in many cases, oral learners awaiting the translation of Scripture into their heart language. Their geneology of faith is just beginning, precarious as it is. Let us not forget these faithful ones who walk by the Spirit without the trappings of Christian tradition, or access to it. At the same time, for those of us who have such access, let us be deeply humbled and thankful.