Over at this outstanding blog, a really interesting discussion is shaping up. The issue is Orthodoxy versus orthopraxis.
Orthodoxy means “right beliefs”. For example, somebody might believe that the orthodox position is that Jesus is connected to God in some unique way.
Orthopraxis means “right actions” or “right practice”. It’s the actions undertaken by a person. For example, somebody might believe that to follow Christ means that we should be giving food to those who are hungry.
There are several unsurprising things about this distinction. These unsurprising things include:
#1) People debate about which is more important.
#2) This debate often comes down with old school traditionalists on one side and the post-modern emergent side on the other.
#3) It’s not really as complicated a debate as all these Latin (Or are they Greek?) terms make it appear.
It seems to me that this is just a dressed up version of the question “What’s more important to Jesus: that we have the right attitude about things or that we do the right things?” All the Catholic Vs. Protestant “Works vs faith” debates are really about this issue.
I know that often people say that our hearts are much more important than whatever things it is we do. I know that they’ve got lots to back this position up. But there’s two things that are worth considering before we jump to this conclusion.
The first is that we have a very different understanding of what it is to know something than Jesus contemporaries did. The modern era has made an idol of a certain type of understanding. The staggering successes of science have lead to us treating rational, logic based, intellectualized knowledge as the king. When scripture speaks about knowing or believing a thing, it’s not the same sort of knowledge that we think of when we think about, for example, knowing that 7 X 7 = 49.
The second is this quote from the Book of James.
“12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
Faith and Deeds
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.”
It seems to me that almost any time the emergents are on one side and the traditionalists are on the other, it’s wise to assume that the truth is probably somewhere between them. There’s some debates where both sides are equally right.
But there are some cases that you can’t have one side without the other. There are some times that one side taken to far becomes an extreme that is wrong. One of my favorite things about Jesus is when he steps outside of an either/or and looks at the big picture. James seems to be following this tradition.
There are some things that we could have orthodox beliefs about which would change our actions. If it turns out that the “right belief” about the nature of the atom is that it’s composed of quarks, this might be interesting. But really, whether it’s quarks or strings or whatever, this isn’t going to change the ways I live my life.
I submit that orthodox beliefs about the nature of Jesus aren’t this kind of beliefs, though. They aren’t abstract. We couldn’t possibly hold orthodox beliefs without engaging in orthopraxy. On the other hand, it seems clear to me that we won’t be able to identify the right practices if we don’t have the right beliefs in the first place.
I love the way that James expresses this. I wonder if he had a sarcastic smirk on his face as he challenged someone to show them their faith without deeds. Because it’s pretty much impossible to do this. We can’t show anybody our faith except by their deeds.
And I love how he uses the story of Isaac. Even thousands of years ago, it was a temptation to sit around and intellectualize these things. (Probably, if they’d had the technology, the people that James was talking to would have had blogs that read distressingly like my blog.) It seems to me the whole point is this: stating beliefs is easy. Acting on them, that’s where we’ll seperate the adults from the children.
5 responses so far ↓
Steve Blumer // June 29, 2008 at 11:34 pm |
well put my dear friend. It does seems crazy that people would make such a split between fighting for beliefs versus fighting for actions considering it really is some belief that people believe in that drives what they do. And people do things based upon some belief whether or not they consciously recognize the belief. That same debate is seen in seminary from the “theology” courses like christology or harmarteology and the “practical” courses like counseling, preaching, church growth, evangelism, missions, etc. Some of the practical people don’t get the theology folks because they seem so bookish and think they are wasting their time discussing whether or not Jesus was able to sin. The theology folks make fun so to speak of the practical people for thinking they could ever talk about Jesus and what he has done without understanding the vicarious repentance of his atoning death.
Without both we can become irrelevant and impractical or we can become heretical and loose the real meaning of why Jesus came.
Jane // June 30, 2008 at 1:03 am |
There are very few instances where it is so black and white, where Right is Right, and Wrong is Wrong… very few, but they are there. In the rest of everything else, it seems to come to “doing” what Jesus would have “done”. Works…but Faith also. Like Mr. Blumer stated, whether or not you conciously acknowledge it, works are mostly based on belief. What is so tricky is not debating which is of more value, but deciding whether to act (Martha) or think (Mary). Free will… curse or blessing? Interesting to see how some people get so caught up in thinking about doing something that they never actually do it, and also how some people do so much without ever thinking about it that it practically nullifys the act of doing. bleh, makes such sense inside my skull… so little sense in print.
VanceH // July 1, 2008 at 4:21 am |
Thanks for the tag, Jeff.
When I think about orthodoxy I usually have visions of 4th century bishops duking it out over the Trinity, or Luther tangling with the Catholic Church in the 1500s. I suspect there was an assumption back then that we don’t have today–that the scriptures are inspired and inerrant. Without that point of agreement, it seems that theological discussions have an even tougher time coming to any resolution.
I am drawn to think about orthodoxy, but I have to admit that doing the ordinary dumb things we do without thinking through the consequences is probably much more a threat to most Christians than a heresy here or there.
jeffsdeepthoughts // July 1, 2008 at 12:15 pm |
Steve:
That’s interesting, about seminary. I remember hearing Lonnie mention a similiar idea about seminary and finding it interesting. It reminds me a bit of scientists: on the one hand there are highly abstract theoretical scientists… on the other hand, there are very practical egineerish scientists. They don’t always seem to understand how much they both need each other.
Jane:
That’s an outstanding point: Jesus was both full of faith and works.
“Bleh” is a great word. I think I’ll steal it and start using it.
I think you did make sense, by the way.
Vance:
When you say “we” don’t believe the scriptures are inspired and innerant, do you mean “We” including you? In other words, I’m curious if you believe that the scriptures are inspired and innerant.
Even if you personally do, your point still stands: It’s not the overall world view of the culture we live in, so the discourse becomes quite different.
I’m contemplating your last paragraph. Specifically, I find myself wondering if there actually is a distinction between the ordinary dumb things we do without thinking through the consequences and heresy itself. Clearly people have acted like there is, but I can’t come up with any clear criteria off the top of my head.
Heresy seems like the middle age’s version of modern Christianity’s tendency to focus on a couple hot button issues at the expense of the whole gospel.
VanceH // July 2, 2008 at 3:54 am |
My “we” wasn’t clear. What I meant to say was that inspiration and inerrancy are not universally held today amongst Christians.
With regard to my beliefs, I don’t agree with many elements of the Chicago Statement of inerrancy. For example: “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”
If they had convened a couple of hundred of years earlier I’m sure geocentrism would have been on the list too…
I do believe in the inspiration of scripture but I am comfortable with the possibilities that the Bible contains myth, material borrowed/modified from extant literature, is not a science textbook, has gaps (e.g. I Samuel 13:1),inconsistencies, cultural rules that are no longer relevant, and even outright fabrications.
However, I want to believe the Bible is inerrant in the sense that it is exactly as God intended. Perhaps an analogy would be Jesus selecting Judas as one of the 12–a devil. (John 6:70) The initial group of 12 had a serious inconsistency–but it was as Jesus intended.
I don’t like what I see as my remaining choices: some portions of scripture, but not all are inspired, or the Bible as a collection of non-inspired religious writings.
With regards to heresy, I agree that it seems like today’s heresy are hot button issues that don’t seem to do much to further the Gospel. Perhaps “Sound Teaching” (2 Tim 4:3) fits into orthodoxy too–and it would likely address the dumb things we do without thinking.