On behalf of
The Right Reverend Ronald H. Haines, Bishop of Washington
Lent 2000
Introduction
As time passes and the dust settles in the aftermath of Lambeth 1998, attention is gradually turning to a number of significant resolutions passed at the conference that were otherwise silenced by the overriding rancor regarding sexuality. Of some stunning potential impact, is a set of resolutions which asks the world-wide Communion to consider substantial changes in the following ways:
Everyone who takes seriously her or his faith can remember a conversation about what it means to be "orthodox." The word is used both positively and negatively in debates around the church. In both contexts, orthodoxy is often identified with a body of doctrines, complete in its outline, fully understood in its content, and available once-and-for-all beginning at some point in the past. Some people cite the New Testament church, others the New Testament itself, and still others one or more of the great creeds.
We differ at times over the content. At other times we differ over whether orthodoxy is a "good" or a "bad" thing. Some identify orthodox faith as a preeminent good, a sign of one's devotion to God, and the only way to describe our faith. Those who view it as a "bad" thing describe orthodoxy as a body of ancient and outmoded convictions, the dead weight of a dead past. But we rarely ask whether the word can be used in either way.
The History of Orthodoxy And, yet, historically a fixed view of orthodoxy is difficult to defend. The changing shape of the early church's religious consciousness is an excellent case in point.
The early church was not a church at all, but a sect-within-a-sect, a subset of first century Judaism. Its notions of orthodoxy were broadly shaped by a Jewish religious consciousness, amended as it were, by its encounter with Jesus. In rapid succession, the fledgling community passed through a series of changes that defies identifying a particular stage of that process as the early church. Moving from sect-within-a-sect, to sect-in-its- own-right, and finally to institution, the church grappled with its movement out into the mainstream of the Mediterranean world and struggled to make sense of both the influx of Gentiles and its diminishing voice in the synagogue. The literature of the New Testament preserves fragmentary evidence of the entire process, but it does not represent a single, codification of what it means to be a Christian. Indeed, the New Testament makes it clear that even the process was anything but linear, nor did it take shape in the same way, at the same time, across the church.
It is also clear that the great doctrines of the church did not take shape in the way in which our unexamined assumptions about the nature of orthodoxy seem to suggest. Christology, for example, took shape slowly and even something as basic as the dual nature of Christ does not receive the kind of unequivocal expression in the New Testament that one might expect, given our assumptions. Even the intense debates that later forged the great creeds, left the church with a great deal to debate about this and other subjects.
Dynamic Orthodoxy
The unresolved questions that faced the church then and now are not the evidence of a failed effort to capture the truth. Nor is a candid look at the history of the process an attempt to denigrate, or undermine the church's faith. The changes and unresolved issues are the inevitable by-product of the church's efforts to address the gospel to the changing world in which it lives and the church's own prayerful struggle to comprehend and embrace the redemptive work of God.
In short, we need to recapture a definition of orthodoxy that is as lively and dynamic as its history. If we do, then:
The Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion is poised to serve as a voice for just this kind of dynamic orthodoxy, provided it is not muzzled by a new curia. Its approach to thinking theologically; the breadth of its resources for that task; its willingness to grant the significance of Scripture, tradition, and reason are all strengths that have not only served us well in the past, but will serve us well into God's future. The shape of our polity allows us room to acknowledge the larger call of God in our lives and, yet, at the same time gives us the latitude to respond to the different ways in which that call is and should be heard. Revelation is to be had in and through the community of faith as it seeks to be a witness to the broader culture. The church changes culture and our cultures change the church.
In an increasingly complex world we will always be tempted to substitute certainties of our own making for dependence on God's grace. Dogma and dictums have always masqueraded as orthodoxy, subverting our ability to respond in a faithful fashion to the fresh demands of the gospel. In mutual respect for one another and in sensitivity to the diverse ways in which we hear those demands, let us celebrate the shape of life together that God has given us as the best hope of keeping the faith.
In order to review the resolutions passed at Lambeth see: http://www.lambethconference.org
For further Information on this "Call To Dynamic Orthodoxy" contact:
Please sign my guestbook and
view it.
Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.