Christian Theology - Orthodoxy

The first of several schools of thought (theological perspectives and positions) that we will consider in this essay is that of orthodoxy.  The word orthodoxy comes from two Greek words, "orthos," which means appropriate, correct, or right, and "doxy" which means doctrine or teaching.  In essence, orthodoxy is the summation of those doctrines and teachings which have been adhered to by the majority of Christians throughout the twenty-one centuries of the Church's existence.  In saying this, I will qualify by it adding that it is thought that the majority of Christians have held to these views since no official census or survey has been taken as far as I know, to determine what the average man or woman sitting in the pews actually believes.  In many instances, we will find members affiliated with certain churches or denominations that have an official doctrinal or theological position, who nevertheless are at variance with or have some modified disagreement with the position of their particular church or denomination.  In his book, "A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology," William Horden defines orthodox theology as that form of Christianity which won the support of the overwhelming majority of Christians, and which is expressed by most of the official proclamations or creeds of Christian groups.

One of the things that we will discover is that even within the various schools of thought, there is a lot of diversity on different issues.  By this I mean that not all Christians who subscribe to "orthodox" doctrine think exactly alike on all doctrinal issues.  The focus of this essay will be on those doctrines and teachings that Christians who consider to be "orthodox," have in common.

It is safe to say that since the beginning of Church history, the Church as a whole, has affirmed and held on to the following positions.

1.  Jesus as the incarnate Deity- The early Church believed in and proclaimed that Jesus was the God-human.  They believed that in Jesus, God had taken on a body of flesh, and become humanized.
This, of course, presented a problem for the Roman Empire, who believed that the Caesar was the ultimate authority, and felt threatened by the Church's affirmation that Jesus the Christ was the final authority for the world.  This affirmation and  belief had political implications, which led the Empire to launch persecutions against the Church.

2. Jesus the Risen Lord- The Church strongly affirmed its position that after being in the tomb for three days, Jesus arose from the dead.  The Apostle's Creed, a doctrinal statement written around the second or third century affirms that "the third day He arose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sits on the right hand of  God the Father Almighty."  Anyone who even thought of denying the resurrection could not be considered a member of the Church.

3. Salvation by faith and grace- The Christian faith grew out of Judaism.  In post-Babylonian Judaism, there was an emphasis by certain groups on having a right relationship with God on the basis of certain rules and regulations.  These rules and regulations stressed that one could have a relationship with God by complying with these rules and by what was called later on "works righteousness."  Even in early Christianity, there were certain groups who had these "legalistic" tendencies.  The leaders of the Church (especially Paul the Apostle) emphasized an anti-legalistic approach to Christianity and instead believed that we are "saved," not by good works or even religiosity, but rather by God's grace revealed in Jesus.  The concept of grace which emerged was that of unmerited favor, i.e. that humans could in and of themselves do nothing to earn "brownie points," with God, and that it was all God's initiative to bring us into a loving divine-human relationship.

4.  The Trinity- While the concept of a triune God was not fully developed until the fourth century, the early Christians believed that there was a distinction as to person between God and Jesus, and between Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  This distinction was not one of nature or substance, but one of separate individuals sharing the same nature.  In other words, the early Church believed that the Father was not Jesus, and that Jesus was not the Holy Spirit. But they did affirm, especially through the Nicene Creed, after 325 A.D. that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate individuals sharing the same divine nature and attributes.

5.  The Second Coming- The early Church believed that Jesus was returning to Earth at the end of history to set up His earthly reign.  According to this view, all human rule would come to an end and be replaced by divine rule forever.  This was really an extension of the Church's belief that evil would ultimately be vanquished and that good would rein in its place.

In later times, especially after the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, different views emerged as to what was considered to be sound doctrine, and what people were expected to adhere to and believe in order to be qualified to join the Church.  Most of the Church believed in the five points mentioned above, though with some variation.  Subsequently, the Church was torn asunder by some insisting on certain doctrines being considered "orthodox," and others insisting that their particular doctrinal stance was the true "orthodoxy."

In the twentieth century, we find that there was variation of view among Christians who believed in "orthodoxy."  In other words, "orthodoxy," as understood was not monolithic. Orthodoxy came to divided into the following two camps:

1.  Fundamentalist- The fundamentalists were those who in addition to believing in the five points mentioned above, also believed that for one to be considered a Christian, he/she should also accept the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus and the miracle stories of the New Testament, especially those stores which we find in the Gospel accounts.  They also required for church membership and for ordination into the ministry that people believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible. "Fundamentalism" gets its name from the idea that there was a minimal core of "fundamental" doctrines that one must believe and adhere to in order to be considered a Christian.  If one even had any questions about any of the "fundamentals" of the faith, that person's spirituality and relationship with God was called into question. Fundamentalism stresses to a large extent a literal and verbatim reading of the Bible without taking into consideration the cultural and historical context of "what the Bible says."  It is characterized by the "quick to verse" approach to Scripture, and also by using the Bible to "proof text."  Fundamentalism has been known to be hostile to the historical-critical approach to the Bible which requires one to deal with the issues of the original languages of Scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek), the authorship of the individual books of the Bible, the intended audience of the biblical writers, the reason or reasons for writing, the style of writing employed by the biblical authors, the literary genre of each book of the Bible, the sources of information that the biblical writers utilized for writing their books, and whether or not the biblical writers engaged in editing or revising their written materials.  Fundamentalism leaves no room whatsoever for the element of legend or myth in Scripture.  The attitude is "the Bible says so, therefore it must be so."  The notion of the divine inspiration of the Bible leans more towards a mechanical view, i.e. that the Holy Spirit dictated the word of Scripture to the writers, or, that at the very least, that the writers of Scripture were passive recipients of the divine message, without taking into consideration their cultural-social environment or their personality and style of writing.

2. Conservative (Evangelical) Like their fundamentalist sisters and brothers, conservative Christians believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible.  However, when they affirm the "inerrancy" of the Bible, they make it clear that they are only referring to the original autographs and not to the subsequent manuscripts and translations which were written and submitted much later on to the Church.  Furthermore, conservative Christians believe that the Holy Spirit made use of the writer's culture, language, personality, and style of writing in order to communicating the divine word. More so than their fundamentalist sisters and brothers, they are more prone to engage in the study of the biblical languages, history, philosophy, and all of the natural and social sciences. They are also more open to utilizing the historical-critical approach to the Bible, as well as the approach of "lower" or textual criticism, which involves comparing the existing manuscripts in order to make a determination as to which ones most accurately reflect what the original autographs said. Conservative Christians believe, for the most part, in the same basic doctrines that fundamentalist Christians adhere to with some variation.  However, they are not as rigid as fundamentalists are in requiring that Christians submit to the series of doctrines mentioned previously, though they do tend to be suspicious of those who do not adhere to them.  Some conservative Christians leave some room for the possibility of legend and myth in Scripture, without giving up their belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible.  Conservative Christians can be embraced by liberals for their willingness to engage in scholarship, and also be embraced by fundamentalists for their acceptance of the "fundamental" doctrines of the Bible.  However, conservative Christians might be considered border-line "heretical" by fundamentalists for their ready willingness to engage in biblical scholarship and taking the risk of abandoning "the faith which was once delivered to the saints."  On the other hand, conservatives can be considered "semi-obscurantists" by their liberal sisters and brothers for not allowing their scholarship to take them "out of the box" of fundamentalist darkness and ignorance, as reflected in their unwillingness to abandon the basic "orthodox" doctrines. Some may say that conservative Christianity is an "informed and scholarly" orthodoxy, as opposed to fundamentalism which is considered to be a "dogmatic," and "narrow-minded" definition of Scripture and the Christian tradition.

I now invite you the reader to do the following:

1.  Determine which of the two schools (if any) of orthodoxy you most identify with and why.

2.  Ask yourself if a person, in your opinion, can be considered a Christian and in a right relationship with God if he/she does not subscribe to any of the two forms of orthodoxy.

3.  Share with us whether or not you believe that "orthodoxy" (correct doctrine) is important at the end of the day, and why or why not.

Your input is important and will be appreciated.

Grace and peace,

Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona