by Adam Linton » July 14th, 2008, 1:45 am
May I rejoin the conversation?
On the discussion on “orthodoxy” (and like the rest of you, I’m not referring to the Eastern Orthodox Church but on the concept of orthodoxy as a body of doctrine and practice considered as normative by some body—specifically considered in relationship with “others”):
It seems to me that this is a debate that goes right back to the earliest Christian theologians. (I believe that there were analogous debates in Judaism—but I’d need someone’s help here with this.)
Citing the early Christian debate might possibly inform the reflections here. I’m going to give thumbnail sketches:
The church leader and author Tertullian (155—222) exemplifies one approach. Simply stated, this is, if you’re not “in,” fully in, all the way in, then you’re “out.” And there really aren’t degrees of being out. It’s light or dark, truth or falsehood, the heavenly or the demonic. Simple as that.
On the other hand, Justin Martyr (100-167), the earliest major Christian apologist, has a distinctly different take on the matter. For him it isn’t so simple. As he puts it, since Christ is the Truth, where ever there is some truthful expression, even in part, even if mixed with other stuff, even if its connection with Christ is not (yet) recognized—there, in fact, must be at least some expression of Christ. He writes of the logos spermatikos, the seminal Word, shed abroad throughout all the world [see Prologue to John’s Gospel], even as Justin of course sees it as coming to decisive, unique revelation in the Incarnation. Furthermore, however, the fullness of the Incarnation does not suddenly turn the “partial” expressions of Truth into falsehood.
Neither Justin nor Tertullian denies the concept of “orthodoxy”; neither are relativists—both stress the mandate of Christian mission. But I think that one can see that their dispositions do typify certain mindsets—or manners of approach—that both have continued throughout the following centuries of Christian faith and practice.
The different approaches do have their manifestations in how orthodoxy (of any kind) relates to otherness.
Some are much more comfortable (in full loyalty to their own faith and in candid awareness of difference) affirming common expressions of the good, the beautiful, and the true. Such folks obviously are able to be more comfortable with pluralism and pluralistic settings (and I stress here that pluralism does not have to equal relativism!). We might say that these are following in Justin’s theological heritage.
On the other hand, I’d say those following in Tertullian’s footsteps (whether they recognize him or not!) are characteristically driven to pursue more monolithic patterns of personal and social engagement. The segregated, pure enclave must, in the end, be ideal. “Others” really can’t engage one another at profound levels.
Needless to say, persons and groups can in some senses combine these approaches to one degree or another (with varying levels of consistency or success). But they do represent, in my view, certain dominant cognitive gravitational centers. Individuals or fellowships do reveal either a “Justinian” or “Tertullianite” tendency. Both tendencies can appeal to Scripture and Tradition.
By way of brief wrap up: Tertullian, in the end, left the Church he had defended for so long to join the Montanist sect—which appealed to his rigorist mindset. Eventually for him, “orthodoxy” itself was not good enough. He later formed his own sect, by the way—as the Montanists proved to fall short for him, too. For me, it’s a sad end to the story of a great Christian writer. In devotion to a “super-orthodoxy,” he ends up, in the formal estimation of both Christian West and East, a heretic.
Justin was martyred when Marcus Aurelius was Emperor of Rome. Justin is commemorated as a Saint among Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans/Episcopalians; his feast day, 1 June. So of the most prominent second century theologians in the west, it is Justin, the more “generous” one—the one more able to live and bear with some ambiguity—who comes to regarded as a Church Father.
I’m editorializing here of course, but for me, there’s a lesson in this—something perhaps to be applied to the discussions at hand.
Once again, I’m aware that there were some rabbinic debates of somewhat similar dynamics, but I’ll need some help here for specifics…
Best regards to all.
Last edited by
Adam Linton on July 14th, 2008, 2:24 am, edited 7 times in total.
we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream