Comments on Christians in Context: from orthodoxy to orthopraxy.: A Follow Up on Matt's Response to Tony Jones

Sue, I definitely sympathize with you and Nick on ...

2008-02-26T23:59:00.000-05:00

Sue, I definitely sympathize with you and Nick on the issue of orthopraxy and being in the church because of one's love for Christ; Christ has change my life dramatically and I am thankful. Ultimately, I am in the church for that same reason myself. In addition, since having the opportunity to get to know you personally, I have always regarded your opinion highly.

I guess that all I can say is that unfortunately, we have to deal with ideas at some point- we have to find a way to discuss important issues for the sake of the church. Now does it get ugly, and at times superfluous?-yes, certainly!.....but that can't be a justification for ignoring the ideas that are asserted. Ideas have ramifications, and I know you already know this, but we can't forget this, becuase the beliefs of the church are impacted by those who seek to lead and teach. Unfortunately, not all things are healthy for the church, and in order to discern when that is the case, we must have vigorous debate at times.

Respectfully- Norm

"This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to ...

2008-02-26T14:26:00.000-05:00

"This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themsleves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone. But avoid foolish controversies and geneologies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless." Titus 3:8-9 Too many words and arguments over definitions and lines of demarcation for me. I'm with Nick. I am in church because I love Christ. I believe there is so much turning and turning in the discussion...people finally run into one another. Maybe that's good. Thanks, Sue R.

Thanks for your comment Nick. Let me see if I can ...

2008-02-25T19:15:00.000-05:00

Thanks for your comment Nick. Let me see if I can help you see what the "rub" is here for myself and many others. First, it is not simply that Tony Jones is not a foundationalist; while much of the problem is related to what his epistemology seems to be, it is, more importantly, a question of the implications that result. This is also the case with the definition of heretical versus orthodox (or however else you might phrasae this dichotomy); the point is not simply that we have a means of labeling one another, but that we have a stable point form which to assess theological assertions within the church. And remember, this is an important check and balance; it protects the course and life of the church. This is not to say that I want to simply maintain the status quo- in fact, the one thing I do appreciate the Emergent church's willingness to ask questions and try new things to reach culture, but the problem is that these questions must not destroy the moorings of the church in the process.

Secondly, and I say this with all due respect, I am not convinced that you do not understand the problem we have raised. You seem to know enough about epistemology to make reference to Foundationalism, and secondly, you also posted in Matt's thread where you say:

"Another point I would assert with as much humility I can muster, is that I would agree with Tony that orthodoxy does not exist in and of itself. If we judge orthodoxy, what is the guide? Which creed would you use to judge it. The apostles, the nicene, chalcedon, Westminster Confession. I think this is what tony is getting at. Each of these statements that defined Orthodoxy were situated in historical debates within christian communities."

Quite frankly Nick, this tells me that you do understand the "rub", and your problem is more about the fact that you disgree with my assertions, and you embrace postmodern epistemology.

Also, while it is clear that reformed theology is present on this blog, it cannot be said that the site offers a blanket endorsement of the Reformed theological perspective. In fact, if you read my post on 'In-bred theology', you will find that I criticize Reformed theological circles for not being willing to listen to what anyone else has to offer within the church. Beyond that, my education is also not from a Reformed school; in fact, my education deals primarily with historical criticism, albeit from a relatively conservative perspective.

Returning to the question of orthodoxy itself, you say,

"But my thoughts on heretical is that one can be heretical dissagreing with one creed- nicene- and orthodox on another- the apostles. Which one is the standard. Where do you stop. I can not accept the Westminster confession, does that make me heretical."

I have two thoughts here: first, lets just say that we do base orthodoxy on the creeds- perhaps the creeds of the seven ecumenical councils. Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty certain that they do not contradict one another, nor do I think that the Westminster confession stands in contradiction. With that said, the main point is that your caracature of the problems that come when you talk about the creeds is not well founded because there is no major disparity.

Ultimately, the point is that under Tony's and the Emergent church's view, 'epistemological prolegomena' is now a major factor that must be addressed prior to making any theological assertions. If we ultimately adopt a postmodern epistemological position, then there is no basis for a stable set of Christian beliefs, and we have then have no reliable means for maintaining the health of the church, should some unhealthy influence permeate its ranks. In fact, we then have no basis for calling anything within the church unhealthy or problematic. That is a problem.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, Tony Jones' challenge for anyone to cite an example where he moves beyond the bounds of historic, classic orthodoxy is either evidence that he knows that a stable orthodoxy exists, or that he has spoken disingenuously because he does not believe that orthodoxy exists.

I think Matt's quote of Tony makes the correct option obvious. I also do not think that a philosophical redefintion of orthodoxy is a satisfying way to keep oneself within the bounds of orthodox Christianity.

Norman, Thank you for your clarification of Matt's...

2008-02-25T03:49:00.000-05:00

Norman, Thank you for your clarification of Matt's blog. First I would like to say that I am not sure what the real rub is here. Is it that Tony is a non-foundationalist. Your site seems to betray a particular bent toward Reformed theology. As someone that does not embrace Emergent but rather a historic Anabaptist mindset I have always seemed annoyed by those seeking only to ensure that others are Orthodox, heretical. What does it mean to heretical? Can a heretic enjoy eternal life in the Kingdom of God? I am not an expert at Theology, I am a pastor that likes to read theology lite. I read Calvin, Luther, Barth, Rahner, Moltmann, and a host of others in college and seminary but now I read more lite fare. But my thoughts on heretical is that one can be heretical dissagreing with one creed- nicene- and orthodox on another- the apostles. Which one is the standard. Where do you stop. I can not accept the Westminster confession, does that make me heretical. I knew to many people in seminary that answered that question "Yes." They have left serving God's church and I serve still, not because I am orthodox or heretical, but rather because I love Christ. I want to serve him. The better question to ask is not about someone's orthodoxy, but rather are they serving the Church of God. Orthopraxy is a great term. Thank you again for your post and your thoughts, I shall continue to look for your blogs. Blessings Nick Works