What Is Christian Orthodoxy?

[Antlerman]

Those that are seeing it in largely symbolic ways typically have a hard to having how they operate be appreciated by those still functioning in a concrete-operational way. They simply don't have it in them to think in abstractions that way. They are literal truths, rather than symbolic truths......

....They take that whole artificial group-truth and treat it as binding and authoritative over all individuals! Including those in their own group! Thus, religion is born and spirituality is suppressed.

 

Yes, that is what I would call the problem with Orthodoxy. It's not just an agreement of what they share in beliefs, but it's the usage of beliefs that makes them rigid, confining, and authoritarian.

That's its conundrum as well. How do you maintain a certain group cohesion with individuals of like mind and not create an oppressive system? To me, just off the top of my head, you have to start with a higher-order view that can accommodate genuine diversity, not just all the same order wearing different colored clothes and calling that diversity. The unity cannot be in beliefs. That unity has to be in Spirit. I will have to qualify what that means.

 

End touched on that when he spoke of being filled and overflowing. When someone decentralizes their own ideas of "truth", into a Truth that sees diversity of perspectives and methods and means in a whole collective mind, call it a Big Mind, it is no longer fixed rigidly in the ground, but freed for growth and the realization of all those individual truths in the greater whole. The order, is unity. Not correct thinking. In fact that unity does not, nor can come though 'thinking'. It is not a unity of external beliefs, but a unity of spirit, of soul, of heart, of that Big Mind, not just mental ideas and beliefs which are merely mind-objects.

 

Orthodoxy is all external. It is looking to a set of beliefs and then justifying ourselves by 'being true' to them. That is entirely external. And as such, no genuine Unity will ever occur. It is a marriage to an idea, not to the spirit of true being itself which through that can harmonize all sets of eyes into itself, freed from notions of dogmatic truth, into Truth itself above them all.

 

The problem is particularly amplified in our post-Enlightenment West that glorifies scientific rationality as the anchor of truth. That's all good and fine for studying the external world, but not good at all for understanding ourselves from the inside! So modern, particularly Protestant notions of 'orthodox' approach their beliefs through that same mentality - looking to external facts, ie, the "reliability of the Bible in historical and scientific contexts", or in adhering to approved religious beliefs. All of it is external. None of it will move individuals or groups into genuine unity in spirit. There is only unity on the surface levels that dies the moment you have a different thought! That's a false-unity.

[R. S. Martin]

What happened to the topic? Are we talking about that anymore? I was hoping to get back to my response and engage our Christian participant with the questions I intended now that I have some time, but has this thread fizzled? We were talking about what is orthodoxy, and just began exposing the meaning that most of the Ex-C'er and the Evangelicals take it to mean as 'correct belief', or truth. I was really interested in going there as it is more than pertinent to this topic. I really hate to start up another topic on the same subject.

 

With due respect, Antlerman, for LL and me, the religious way of life lived on a daily basis complete with all the rules of the church constitutes "correct belief." The reason: These rules are solidly based on the Bible, either an interpretation of its commands or on biblical traditions themselves. That being the case, our lengthy posts describing our respective communities and their rules were on topic and nothing "happened to the topic." I see that as a major sociological difference between our backgrounds and that of former evangelicals.

 

Evangelicals are more into talking, stating beliefs, discussing inner experiences, and spreading the gospel via all available medias and technology. My people had a saying that "Light makes no noise." With their rules and traditions for the religious life they believed that they lived by Jesus' saying to "Be a light to the world." Evangelicals are always talking--making a lot of noise--what with their testimonies, evangelizing, and missionizing, etc.

 

The similarities I see are that all of us believed in some form of the historical creeds. I have not yet heard how you establish "correct belief" if you divorce orthodoxy from the ancient creeds. My people believed that if individuals all went by "what the Holy Spirit told them," there would soon be social chaos because everyone would have their own private interpretations. There is scripture against private interpretation. That is why they believed so strongly in the need for a church with a central authority.

 

As an aside, possibly this is why we see so many more deconverts from evangelical churches on these forums than from Mennonite, Catholic, or Lutheran churches--these other churches have a much stronger central authority.

 

Rightly or wrongly, that is my argument for:

1. We were very much on-topic for your definition of the word orthodoxy.
    
    
   
2. There is a significant difference between the definitions of orthodox as simply correct belief (Definition 4) and as adherence to the ancient creeds (Definition 5).
   

[Antlerman]

Evangelicals are more into talking, stating beliefs, discussing inner experiences, and spreading the gospel via all available medias and technology. My people had a saying that "Light makes no noise." With their rules and traditions for the religious life they believed that they lived by Jesus' saying to "Be a light to the world." Evangelicals are always talking--making a lot of noise--what with their testimonies, evangelizing, and missionizing, etc.

Fair enough. Yes communal living and its internal rules (citing the Bible or not) constitutes part of what would be considered orthodoxy, along with creeds. Evangelical do lack those strictures, such as being a Jew would impose all manner of daily activity codes. The more orthodox one is, the more they follow those rules.

 

The similarities I see are that all of us believed in some form of the historical creeds. I have not yet heard how you establish "correct belief" if you divorce orthodoxy from the ancient creeds. My people believed that if individuals all went by "what the Holy Spirit told them," there would soon be social chaos because everyone would have their own private interpretations. There is scripture against private interpretation. That is why they believed so strongly in the need for a church with a central authority.

If chaos and disorder followed, then it couldn't possibly be by 'what the Holy Spirit told them'. What this betrays is that they are unable to maintain independent contributions to the group. That sounds terrible, unless someone prefers to have their thinking done for them. So much for insight and growth for individuals and the group. If a static life is what they seek...

 

As far as how a group can allow for diversity without chaos, that would be another topic itself. It clearly is possible to have ones own subjective views and maintain some group cohesion - so long as the group is designed to function with diversity. If not, then the subjective will fail. It's not that chaos happens because of that, but a group designed around a central authority will in fact be threatened. Then it's not about freedom and growth, it's about a single idea only.

 

Rightly or wrongly, that is my argument for:

1. We were very much on-topic for your definition of the word orthodoxy.
    
    
    
    
    
   
2. There is a significant difference between the definitions of orthodox as simply correct belief (Definition 4) and as adherence to the ancient creeds (Definition 5).
   

 

 

Actually I think the definitions are closer to definition 1, as how use it, and definition 2 as you use it. There is definitely overlap in meaning too, so when someone is referencing ancient creeds, they are also suggesting that is the truth to be adheard to. Words when spoken are full of rich polyvalences (one reason why I balk at those who cite dictionaries as limiting meaning to what written in them - words are full of connotations that sing and dance. They key is to parsing out meaning through discussions in contexts. They are hardly math equations).

[asanerman]

Those that are seeing it in largely symbolic ways typically have a hard to having how they operate be appreciated by those still functioning in a concrete-operational way. They simply don't have it in them to think in abstractions that way. They are literal truths, rather than symbolic truths...... ....They take that whole artificial group-truth and treat it as binding and authoritative over all individuals! Including those in their own group! Thus, religion is born and spirituality is suppressed.

Yes, that is what I would call the problem with Orthodoxy. It's not just an agreement of what they share in beliefs, but it's the usage of beliefs that makes them rigid, confining, and authoritarian.

 

That's its conundrum as well. How do you maintain a certain group cohesion with individuals of like mind and not create an oppressive system? To me, just off the top of my head, you have to start with a higher-order view that can accommodate genuine diversity, not just all the same order wearing different colored clothes and calling that diversity. The unity cannot be in beliefs. That unity has to be in Spirit. I will have to qualify what that means. End touched on that when he spoke of being filled and overflowing. When someone decentralizes their own ideas of "truth", into a Truth that sees diversity of perspectives and methods and means in a whole collective mind, call it a Big Mind, it is no longer fixed rigidly in the ground, but freed for growth and the realization of all those individual truths in the greater whole. The order, is unity. Not correct thinking. In fact that unity does not, nor can come though 'thinking'. It is not a unity of external beliefs, but a unity of spirit, of soul, of heart, of that Big Mind, not just mental ideas and beliefs which are merely mind-objects. Orthodoxy is all external. It is looking to a set of beliefs and then justifying ourselves by 'being true' to them. That is entirely external. And as such, no genuine Unity will ever occur. It is a marriage to an idea, not to the spirit of true being itself which through that can harmonize all sets of eyes into itself, freed from notions of dogmatic truth, into Truth itself above them all. The problem is particularly amplified in our post-Enlightenment West that glorifies scientific rationality as the anchor of truth. That's all good and fine for studying the external world, but not good at all for understanding ourselves from the inside! So modern, particularly Protestant notions of 'orthodox' approach their beliefs through that same mentality - looking to external facts, ie, the "reliability of the Bible in historical and scientific contexts", or in adhering to approved religious beliefs. All of it is external. None of it will move individuals or groups into genuine unity in spirit. There is only unity on the surface levels that dies the moment you have a different thought! That's a false-unity.

 

 

An excellent integral approach; blending perennial philosophy/psychology and Western post-Enlightenment, Aman!

 

Consider that the West has been--at least since the seventeenth century--almost completely bereft to even the least conception of the perennial philosophy, and hence, when the study of psychology began to develop in this metaphysical vacuum, Western scientists had no choice but to seek out the roots of neuroses and psychoses" in the(a) spectrum of consciousness.

 

And, "that perennial psychology (Eastern) gave little, if any, attention to the pathologies that could develop on the blended levels of along the spectrum of consciousness. This is understandable, for the perennial psychology maintains that all pathology stems form ignorance of the Mind, and although they mapped them in detail, they felt that "curing" a pathology on any level of consciousness was not much more than a waste of time, for the root ignorance of the subject-object dualism would still remain." ~Psychologia Perennis: The Spectrum of Consciousness K.Wilber

 

It has been my experience that much of the "resistance" one encounters with any (East/West) integral approach is the results of this.

[Guest end3]

Orthodoxy is defined individually as the Spirit fills our form and subsequently overflows.

 

I'm not charging for insights like this, but donations are welcome. : )

This is good. I think I'll try to put it in other words. Obviously orthodoxy can be understood externally as in an accepted common standard for the sake of the benefit of group cohesion, but it obviously cannot be some external standard imposed upon individual, internal truth. Meaning and shape and form will change as the individual inhabits their own religious experience subjectively. The form it takes will be unique to the individual, and subsequently with others in a common setting there will be overlaps. The external points of intersection are hardly anything that can be taken as an absolute, as that would necessitate ridding the individual contribution into the whole. In other words "orthodoxy" is a sort of truth created in that space of overlap by individuals subjective truth.

 

So to your point that orthodoxy is defined individually that would be true, but it is an external creation of individuals. And this comes to my point that I really wanted to get at. That orthodoxy will be a product of individuals operating at a certain level of their own personal spiritual development. The fact that these standards of belief are products of individual in a certain common community indicates they are largely at the same level! They 'fellowship' with each other because they see the world in basically the same general ways. Those that are seeing it in largely symbolic ways typically have a hard to having how they operate be appreciated by those still functioning in a concrete-operational way. They simply don't have it in them to think in abstractions that way. They are literal truths, rather than symbolic truths. Enter here group politics. Those in leadership roles in that "average-mode" consciousness will codify those beliefs of there group participating in that average-mode consciousness level. They will push out those operating at 'higher levels'. Branding them as 'wrong', or 'unorthodox', or 'heretic', casting them out of participation in the group they wish to control.

 

To say their interpretations are binding to all everyone, and then to push that point in driving out all other 'heresies', shows one thing. They take that whole artificial group-truth and treat it as binding and authoritative over all individuals! Including those in their own group! Thus, religion is born and spirituality is suppressed.

 

I was just reading this this morning in looking at the various differing understandings of transcendence, and just read this that pertains to what you said (spoken of in Christian terms). It is under the category of Religiousless Transcendence. It is a quote from the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer,

 

"Jesus’s “being-for-others” [

Für-andere-dasein

] is the experience of transcendence! Only through this liberation from self, through this “being-for-others” unto death, do omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence come into being. Faith is participating in this being of Jesus. (Becoming human [

Menschwerdung

], cross, resurrection.) Our relationship to God is no “religious” relationship to some highest, most powerful, and best being imaginable—that is no genuine transcendence. Instead, our relationship to God is a new life in “being there for others” [

Dasein-für-andere

], through participation in the being of Jesus. The transcendent is not the infinite, unattainable tasks, but the neighbor within reach in any given situation. God in human form! Not as in oriental religions in animal forms as the monstrous, the chaotic, the remote, the terrifying, but also not in the conceptual forms of the absolute, the metaphysical, the infinite, and so on, either, nor again the Greek god—human form of the “God-human form of the human being in itself.” But rather “the human being for others”! therefore the Crucified One. The human being living out of the transcendent."

 

 

 

I think this is a quote you may relate to End. I'm looking forward to hearing from the other Christian participant to these thoughts. I'll hopefully make it clearer if its not at this point.

 

I think your comments were right on. I believe the Bible addresses this in the fulfillment of the OT law being fulfilled by Christ before Grace enters. I really agree that there can be religion(s) formed as "economies" within the larger spiritual development. I used the word economy trying to remind you the times I have tried to express these thoughts, although less precise, before. It would be interesting to present these ideas to my church and see what response they elicit. Good stuff.

[R. S. Martin]

For interested parties, I found an interesting article by Kenny Pearce, "Tradition as the 'Platonic Form' of Christian Faith and Practice in Orthodoxy." (This link opens in pdf format.)

 

In the closing statements he says:

These traditions, manifested in the lives of Orthodox believers, are always new, and yet always the same, just as the church on earth is always new as it progresses through history, and yet always identical with itself and with the true and spiritual Church which exists outside history. In this way, the Orthodox understanding of Tradition can best be understood as a sort of 'Platonic Form' of Christian faith and practice.

 

 

For a his description of how "Platonic Forms" relates to Tradition (capital "T" versus lower-case "t"), read the entire article.

 

Note how he says the church progresses through history while at the same time existing outside history. As you read the entire article, you can see that he draws a close relationship between the physical or mundane life and the spiritual.

 

Earlier in this thread, reference was made to spiritual development, and that orthodoxy or "right belief" should involve the development of the self and spirit, without reference to historical beliefs. I thought there had to be reference to historical beliefs. I see this article as pulling together the two views and integrating them into one.

 

Antlerman, if you have time and inclination, I'd be interested to know how you understand it.

[Antlerman]

For interested parties, I found an interesting article by Kenny Pearce, "Tradition as the 'Platonic Form' of Christian Faith and Practice in Orthodoxy." (This link opens in pdf format.)

 

In the closing statements he says:

These traditions, manifested in the lives of Orthodox believers, are always new, and yet always the same, just as the church on earth is always new as it progresses through history, and yet always identical with itself and with the true and spiritual Church which exists outside history. In this way, the Orthodox understanding of Tradition can best be understood as a sort of 'Platonic Form' of Christian faith and practice.

 

 

 

 

 

For a his description of how "Platonic Forms" relates to Tradition (capital "T" versus lower-case "t"), read the entire article.

 

Note how he says the church progresses through history while at the same time existing outside history. As you read the entire article, you can see that he draws a close relationship between the physical or mundane life and the spiritual.

 

Earlier in this thread, reference was made to spiritual development, and that orthodoxy or "right belief" should involve the development of the self and spirit, without reference to historical beliefs. I thought there had to be reference to historical beliefs. I see this article as pulling together the two views and integrating them into one.

 

Antlerman, if you have time and inclination, I'd be interested to know how you understand it.

Interesting. I'm not sure how to put my thoughts together here. I see the point of keeping a sense of historical identification with adapting forms of traditions to meet a changing world. This makes a degree of sense from the perspective of identifying yourself with a particular belief system, while maintaining a dynamic living faith. The use of Platonic ideals, that various traditions are forms of that eternal Tradition, seems a way to create a sort of Perennial view of all of them. Of course the challenge is once again, who are the arbiters of what is consistent with that eternal Tradition? It presumes that the Christian Tradition itself is somehow not itself just one tradition amongst all the traditions of all the world in pursuit of God. But more specifically, it must make mental judgments what traditions reflect actual Christian belief, which comes back to the very origins of those beliefs, and those who created them

 

The author of that essay pointed out how that the earliest examples of tradition being cited as claims to proper or orthodox beliefs began with the early church fathers. It was of course the early church fathers who created the myth of apostolic succession in order to drive out all other competitive views of Christian traditions, placing their own traditions and themselves as the recipients of them as the ones who were the correct heirs of the apostles. The entire myth of Jesus training disciples who trained them was created by them, and solidified in their rejection of any other Christian writings that contradicted their own favored beliefs and views of themselves. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts which escaped their fire burning crusades of other Christian writings, betray many other early traditions which contradict their own. Tradition as a Platonic ideal is set alongside scripture to validate their own beliefs and valid, and reject all others as heresy and against the Truth itself.

 

Again, from a philosophical point of view this is all about securing fidelity to a group identification, and as such any views that threaten that order must of course be driven out of the village or burned tied to a stake in the center of town, in God's mercy, of course. It is in fact not about an actual pursuit of Truth, in that very Platonic sense which seeks that formless archetype of which all types are but expression of that. If it were, it would of necessity see all expressions of religious traditions as expressions of Tradition, not just their own.

[R. S. Martin]

Thank you, Antlerman.