WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?
MORE TO THE POINT, WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Anti-Jesus supervillain Pontius Pilate famously asked, “What is truth?” Of course, it wasn’t a real question, and he didn’t really want an answer. This faux-question was an attempt to undermine the whole concept of truth, as Pilate sought to dodge any accountability for his part in an evil deed.
“What is truth?” could be the question of our time. As people seek to dodge accountability for various deeds, it is desirable to cast doubt on the truth of one’s part. Maybe I don’t want to change my behavior in the fight against climate change, so won’t it be convenient for me to question the very truth of climate change? “Who can say if these horrific weather patterns are part of cyclical variance or signs of damage from climate change?” When I ask a question like that, it’s not a real question, and I don’t want an answer.
The church version of truth is, of course, orthodoxy. So it shouldn’t surprise us that in a post-truth era, there are those who would assert that the church is in a post-orthodoxy era. “What is orthodoxy?” Indeed.
So even though it’s not a real question seeking a real answer, allow me to play my part and provide the answer to the question that’s been asked. Orthodoxy is, literally, right belief. Or, somewhat more precisely, right opinion. To pursue orthodoxy is to pursue the truth.
It may be obvious to state for the Earth & Altar audience, but the assertion that there is Christian truth should not be controversial in any way, shape, or form. Jesus himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Ephesians teaches us that “speaking the truth in love” is essential to the health of Christ’s body, the church.
And, yet, there are those who would ask, “What is orthodoxy?” despite Biblical claims about the importance of truth or the centuries-long near-universal centrality of creeds.
To be fair, the boundaries of what is encompassed within orthodoxy are not always crystal clear. We can with certainty say at the Holy Spirit is the Lord and giver of life because it’s in the Nicene Creed. For most Christians over most of Christian history, the claims of the historic creeds are regarded as unquestionably orthodox. Conversely, whether one should use blue or violet vestments in the season of Advent is clearly outside the realm of what would label as heterodoxy or orthodoxy.
It is commonplace in the church these days to let straightforward conversations get waylaid by the “hard cases.” And so, one might be tempted to surrender claims that orthodoxy matters because a hard case is identified in which case it isn’t quite clear whether the issue in question can be labeled as an orthodoxy-defining issue. ‘Tis a pity.
Most of the time it’s quite clear where the bounds of orthodoxy lie, and we would do well to assert positive claims about orthodoxy when it comes to, say, the creeds. In addition to the creeds, for those of us who are Episcopalians, our canons define doctrine as consisting of certain sections of the Book of Common Prayer. And so on.
When someone comes along and wonders if Jesus was divine only from the moment of his birth or of his baptism, or whether he was God from the moment of creation, we don’t have to speculate about what is orthodox. This is clearly laid out in the creeds, in our prayer book liturgy, and, not least of all, in the prologue of the Gospel of John.
Who gets to decide where we find the boundaries of orthodoxy? Certainly, there are those who yell loudly about this or that issue and say that it is orthodoxy-defining. But shouting something repeatedly does not make it true.
If I have a dispute over the fence line with my next-door neighbor, that doesn’t mean either of us is conceding our claim to the rest of our land. Yet too often, we allow a debate over the bounds of what is orthodox lull us into thinking that it’s not fair to make any truth claims whatsoever. In other words, the fact that people might debate whether marriage practices are markers of orthodoxy should not keep us from defending the creeds as markers of orthodoxy.
It is not uncommon for orthodoxy to be dismissed as unimportant when there are “real concerns” the church should be worrying about. But apprehending truth is essential to the Christian life, to following Jesus.
Take, for example, the doctrine of creation. If I understand that people are made in the image and likeness of God, I understand that people reflect the glory of God. That makes it morally unacceptable for me to disregard or diminish any person. Truth leads practice.
Grasping the basics of the Holy Trinity can help me understand how God the Father loves us so much that Jesus Christ has dwelled among us, human in every way except for freedom from sin; Jesus is also no mere teacher, but is the Son of God, fully divine. Jesus Christ has promised the Holy Spirit’s abiding presence to lead us into truth. God has not abandoned us, but is still very active in our lives and in our church if we but open our hearts and our minds. The Holy Trinity is not a pointless abstraction.
The word orthodoxy comes with baggage. Some have abused the word, attempting to use it as a blunt instrument to diminish people. But the misuse of a word by others cannot prevent us from reclaiming it. This is why I am writing this little essay: I want the church to reclaim the pursuit of orthodoxy both from radicals who want to define pastoral disciplines as markers of orthodoxy and from radicals who want to reject the very idea of orthodoxy as somehow irrelevant.
“What is truth?” Some time spent with the scriptures can enliven our hearts to answer this question. Jesus is the truth. He is the exact imprint of God’s very being. To know Jesus is to know the truth. And to know the truth is to know Jesus.
