Would the Real Emerging Please Stand Up? Part 2 - What is Orthodoxy?

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/about/c-michael-patton on 16 Feb 2008
Current Issues in Theology & Emerging Church & Evangelicalism & Orthodoxy

Comments (48)

Related Posts

• Would the Real Emerging Please Stand Up? Part 2 - What is Orthodoxy?
• Are You Orthodox or Heretic?
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” - Part 3: The Maturing of Orthodoxy
• Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 1
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” - Part 2: Six Views of Orthodoxy

48 Responses to “Would the Real Emerging Please Stand Up? Part 2 - What is Orthodoxy?”

1. Daniel Eaton on 16 Feb 2008 at 12:20 am #

   Great piece. I’m going to have to read it all a couple more times though for it all to sink in. I probably need to make a chart that shows where the three traditions agree and disagree.

2. JoanieD on 16 Feb 2008 at 6:53 am #

   Wonderful post, Michael. You do such a good job of clarifying matters. I can say I am an historically orthodox Christian no matter what some may think of some of some of my ideas or questions.

   Joanie D.

3. Truth Unites... and Divides on 16 Feb 2008 at 6:55 am #

   Historic Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy

   o The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith.

   Protestants implicitly or explicity acknowledge Sola Scriptura. That part is clear.

   Inferentially, yet still clearly, does your schema say that any Protestant/Evangelical who does not affirm the infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture is, by definition, heterodox?

   Simply put: If one does not subscribe to the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, then one is heterodox.

4. scott gray on 16 Feb 2008 at 7:02 am #

   why do i get the impression you folks think ‘heterodoxy’ is a bad thing?

5. Marcus Maher on 16 Feb 2008 at 9:27 am #

   I’m not sure that inerrancy is part of traditional Protestant/Evangelical orthodoxy unless all you really mean is Evangelical orthodoxy. John Calvin did not hold to inerrancy as defined in Protestant circles today. Many in Protestant circles cringe when people make inerrancy a litmus test of orthodoxy.

6. dac on 16 Feb 2008 at 9:59 am #

   CMP said:

   “I believe that historic evangelicalism, properly defined, represents the truth of Christianity most accurately, even if it does so imperfectly.”

   I agree completely

7. C Michael Patton on 16 Feb 2008 at 11:05 am #

   Truth,

   You said:
   “Inferentially, yet still clearly, does your schema say that any Protestant/Evangelical who does not affirm the infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture is, by definition, heterodox?”

   One would be outside the bounds of traditional Evangelical orthodoxy with regards to their bibliology. Yet, with regards to inerrancy, it would depend on how one would define it. Some closely associate inerrancy with a stilted hermeneutic that does not allow, among other things, ipsissima vox and accommodating language. When they see inerrancy as such, they will deny it based upon a misconception of what it means. Therefore, they may hold to the truthfulness of Scripture, but not affirm the doctrine of inerrancy as it has been defined in popular evangelicalism. If this is the case, they are not outside Evangelical orthodoxy.

   If one were convinced that the Bible has errors, historical or scientific, I think that they would be outside the bounds of Evangelical orthodoxy with regards to this issue, but I am not sure if this means that they are not Evangelical, just not with regards to this issue. Evangelicalism is not like Catholicism taking an all or nothing approach. There is some room for diversity, even with regards to these issues.

8. Eric W on 16 Feb 2008 at 11:29 am #

   TUAD wrote:

   Historic Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy

   o The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith.

   Protestants implicitly or explicity acknowledge Sola Scriptura. That part is clear.

   Inferentially, yet still clearly, does your schema say that any Protestant/Evangelical who does not affirm the infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture is, by definition, heterodox?

   Simply put: If one does not subscribe to the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, then one is heterodox.

   What is your definition of Scripture? Is it the same as the NT authors’ - i.e., the so-called Septuagint, as 90% of the NT quotes from the OT are from the LXX, not the Hebrew text (see Lee Martin McDonald The Biblical Canon)? That is apparently what the author of 2 Tim 3:15-16 was referring to when he used the word “Scripture” (and indeed his only OT quotes are from the LXX; in fact, he also quotes Sirach as Scripture, per Nestle-Aland, which raises the question of canon, not simply Scripture). Some NT teachings - e.g., Hebrews 10:5 and Matthew 1:23 - require the Greek text for their support.

   I.e., can one hold to the Septuagint text and some or all of the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture and still be a Protestant?

   And what is “Historic Protestant/Evangelical”? “Evangelical” hardly has a history at this point, and per D. G. Hart (Deconstructing Evangelicalism), may be an impossible-to-define/largely meaningless term. Surely most of its adherents don’t hold Luther’s and Calvin’s views of the sacraments or even Mary, so I don’t know how “historical” it can be said to be. But that’s probably another discussion for another day.

9. Dave Z on 16 Feb 2008 at 1:48 pm #

   While I accept inerrancy, it always bugs me that evangelical churches typically place it first in their statements of faith, while God is in second place. Does it bother anyone else that evangelicalism has placed the product above the source?

   On the other hand, the formalized creeds of the early church did not feel the need to address scripture in their statements of faith at all.

   I don’t think we can say that the early believers were too busy trying to stay alive to formalize their belief statements because to some extend they did - even very early (although basic) statements such as that in 1 Cor 15. By the time the Apostles and Nicene creeds were formalized, considerable debate went into what should be included in the creeds. Yet inerrancy was not included. In light of that, should inerrancy be listed as an essential element of historic orthodoxy?

   Dave

10. R. Scott Clark on 16 Feb 2008 at 1:51 pm #

    Hi Michael,

    This is interesting and helpful, but if D. G. Hart is correct, you’ve omitted an important category: Confessionalist Protestants. This broader category would include confessional Lutherans and confessional Reformed folk. I am a confessional Reformed minister and would identify with the historic “evangelical” faith as expressed in the Reformation. As a confessionalist, identifying with post-18th-century evangelicalism is more difficult. If Hart is correct (Deconstructing Evangelicalism) it might not even exist! At any rate, there are a number of folks who, while interacting with contemporary evangelicals (and -ism, to the degree it really exists) do not identify themselves either as evangelicals nor do they fit neatly on the “conservative-liberal” paradigm. Hart has challenged this paradigm for years. See The Lost Soul of American Protestantism. I sketched this argument here.

    Cheers,

    rsc

11. Alden on 16 Feb 2008 at 4:15 pm #

    RSC (#10), I agree. As a “Lutheran expatriate” I didn’t find myself in any of the above categories, either (which again seemed to try to fit things into evangelical-defined boxes). Now, to put things in a different perspective, from the standpoint of Luther, who saw the various anabaptists as being outside of orthodoxy (I’ll not use the “h” word…), perhaps all of contemporary evangelicalism would fall outside of orthodoxy. And, of course, for many Roman Catholics, good old Martin is still on the 1op 10 list of heretics.

    So, everything changes depending on your own vantage point. I mentioned him yesterday, but Robert Webber seems to do the best job of anyone I’ve see so far in putting the various “isms” into historical context.

12. C Michael Patton on 16 Feb 2008 at 5:39 pm #

    For Lutherans, you would further distinguish yourselves by “denominational” orthodoxy. It is hard to communicate much of this since I am speaking from a perspective of historic evangelicalism. To many “Evangelical” is the same thing as “Prostestant.” This is true today, but also historically. 20th century evangelicalism could have its own “denominational” distinction as well. Lutherans certianly should know this!

13. BLM on 16 Feb 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    I think any schema of Christian orthodoxy needs to include the idea of present and coming kingdom and the corresponding ethics of charity and justice.

14. Saint and Sinner on 16 Feb 2008 at 5:59 pm #

    Dave Z,

    “While I accept inerrancy, it always bugs me that evangelical churches typically place it first in their statements of faith, while God is in second place. Does it bother anyone else that evangelicalism has placed the product above the source?”

    Since the time of Calvin (and probably before that!) systematic theologies (and Protestant confessions) have usually begun with the Knowledge of God, how one comes to know who God is. So naturally, they are going to place Scripture first.

    Unless one believes that he can come up with the nature and attributes of God through a purely natural theology, then one must discuss Scripture first.

15. Alden on 16 Feb 2008 at 11:39 pm #

    Mr. Patton,

    In my prior comment I failed to mention I was referring to your 3 categories within “Traditional Orthodoxy.” I don’t think it’s merely a matter of “further distinguishing” Luther within the “Historic Protestant/ Evangelical Orthodoxy” category, which I presume is what you meant. If I’m misunderstanding your categories, then please disregard my comments.

    I understand that to some, evangelical has essentially the same meaning as protestant; in fact, Luther used “evangelical” to refer to his movement. However, that does not seem to be the popular use of the word, so I’ve given in to the popular usage, referring to the 20th Century Evangelicals.

16. BLM on 16 Feb 2008 at 11:56 pm #

    Saint And Sinner,

    “Since the time of Calvin (and probably before that!) systematic theologies (and Protestant confessions) have usually begun with the Knowledge of God, how one comes to know who God is. So naturally, they are going to place Scripture first.

    Unless one believes that he can come up with the nature and attributes of God through a purely natural theology, then one must discuss Scripture first.”

    What’s the hermenuetic by which we discern that Scripture is the starting place for the Knowledge of God? We need not leave it to natural theology per se, but we ought to be able to know God’s self through the real presence of the risen Christ in our communities, and we understand Scripture from there.

17. Saint and Sinner on 17 Feb 2008 at 1:39 am #

    “What’s the hermenuetic by which we discern that Scripture is the starting place for the Knowledge of God? We need not leave it to natural theology per se, but we ought to be able to know God’s self through the real presence of the risen Christ in our communities, and we understand Scripture from there.”

    If your group wants to stare at each other’s navels for information on God, then go right ahead.

    However, I know that the heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked.

    I also know that God is what He says He is despite what a group may think.

    God save us from POMOism!

18. Truth Unites... and Divides on 17 Feb 2008 at 2:25 am #

    why do i get the impression you folks think ‘heterodoxy’ is a bad thing? (Scott Gray)

    This is an authentic response that’s greatly appreciated.

    CMP writes under Historic Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy:

    o The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture + sola scriptura.

    For infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture, let’s use the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as a reasonable standard.. That’s the standard for the Evangelical Theological Society. And I believe that Dan Wallace, CMP, and Rob Bowman all affirm CSBI.

    Therefore, anyone who believes that the Bible is errant and fallible, please just have the intellectual and moral honesty to declare that you are heterodox. As Scott Gray says in his opinion, “heterodoxy” is not necessarily a bad thing.

    P.S. According to CMP’s classification scheme above, I happen to be orthodox.

    But if anyone holds that Scripture is errant, just have the moral integrity to declare that you’re heterodox.

19. scott gray on 17 Feb 2008 at 7:57 am #

    tu…ad–

    thanks for responding. as you can tell from my initial questions on all of these posts that i respond to, it is the presupposition that i ask about first. and in this case, it is the ‘virtue’ of orthodoxy, and the ’sin/error’ of heterodoxy; no one wants to be a heterodox believer and everyone wants to be an orthodox believer. this is the presupposition here.

    i have been dialoging with a few christians on line who have no direct experience of god. all they have are the explanations of the experience of god from the tales of others–other people, and other faith documents (hebrew and christian scriptures). the farther from these original tales of experience of god that the apologetics get, the less valuable they become to the ‘non-experiencer’ who wants to believe.

    the orthodox ‘creeds’ in the origanal post, and the variations, and the ’superiority of my position and inferiority of your position’ posture that some take about these variations, does not make the ‘non-experiencer’ more likely to stay engaged to the paradigm. quite the opposite, actually.

    if keeping people involved in the faith, especially people who have no first hand experience of god, is important to you, than the importance of belief in a single ‘orthodox creed’ needs to become a lower item on your richter scale, especially when interacting with non-experiencers. or else you will lose them.

    the shared experience is in the stories, not in the creeds. orthopraxy, in this instance, is in sharing the stories, not proclaiming what you believe.

    peace–

    scott

20. J. Michael Matkin on 17 Feb 2008 at 8:22 am #

    I get that you’re beginning from an evangelical perspective, but it would still be helpful to acknowledge the dependence of the Protestant form of orthodoxy upon the Roman Catholic. In other words, historically speaking, Protestantism is a subset of Catholicism, in much the same way that Evangelicals are a subset of Protestantism, primarily because both Catholics and Protestants have been formed by the religious currents in Western history (church/state struggles, papal authority vs. conciliar authority, the religious wars of the Reformed period, and the Enlightenment, to name a few), currents that have largely left Greek/Russian Orthodox, Coptic, Antiochian Syrian, and Nestorian/Persian Christians unaffected.

    To bring the discussion back to the emerging church for a moment, perhaps the problem with all of these attempts at taxonomy that I’m seeing recently is that they tend to try and group people based on the answers that they present, rather than on the questions that they are asking. The emerging conversation (as McClaren calls it, rightly so in many ways) began with Christian leaders asking, essentially, if the form of the church in the United States and Canada was faithful to the church’s appropriate, God-given function. Different leaders, in exploring that question, have expressed different, in some cases very divergent, answers, and the initial discussion has now blossomed into a very decentralized hullabaloo regarding a wide-ranging set of theological and ecclesiological questions. (In that, I submit, what we’re seeing is not unlike the Reformation, where the narrow question of indulgences, once broached publicly, shattered a logjam of theological seeking, some of it helpful and some not.)

    So maybe the solution to how, say, Driscoll and McClaren can both be considered ‘emerging’ is because, at least at the beginning, they were asking very similar questions. The project, then, becomes identifying the questions rather than categorizing the theologies that they have each developed in answer.

    Incidentally, this may also present a pathway towards retaining civility in the midst of our disagreements. C.S. Lewis, writing in The Four Loves, wisely points out, “The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer.” The point is not to suggest that theological commitments are meaningless, only to say that they aren’t everything. Gentleness and kindness are marks of Christianity every bit as much as belief in trinitarianism and substitutionary atonement.

    McClaren, to take a well-used example, may be wrong about some things but he gives every impression to me of a guy with his heart in the right place, of someone who seeks to follow Jesus as best he can, and that has to be worth something. If nothing else, it should engender some humility. It should mitigate the unalloyed glee that some folks take in letting the H-bomb fly, because nearly every branch of the Protestant tradition was initiated by someone who the then-contemporary church called a heretic. That doesn’t mean that ‘heresy’ is the path to truth, only that ‘orthodoxy’ is more a product of human definition - historically and culturally conditioned - than we care to admit.

21. A R on 17 Feb 2008 at 8:44 am #

    For infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture, let’s use the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as a reasonable standard.. That’s the standard for the Evangelical Theological Society. And I believe that Dan Wallace, CMP, and Rob Bowman all affirm CSBI.

    Despite efforts by some to include The Chicago Statement in ETS’s Doctrinal Statement, so far all that ETS says (in its bylaws) is:

    “For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). The case for biblical inerrancy rests on the absolute trustworthiness of God and Scripture’s testimony to itself. A proper understanding of inerrancy takes into account the language, genres, and intent of Scripture. We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.”

    And I know that some ETS members, including some well-known ones, regard The Chicago Statement as being very problematic such that were ETS to require adherence to it, they would resign from the Society.

    http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1case92.html

    As some have said, The Chicago Statement dies the death of a thousand qualifications, and seems at times to describe the Bible that the writers wish we had rather than the Bible we in fact do have.

22. JoanieD on 17 Feb 2008 at 11:37 am #

    J. Michael Matkin in #20 above writes, “…nearly every branch of the Protestant tradition was initiated by someone who the then-contemporary church called a heretic. That doesn’t mean that ‘heresy’ is the path to truth, only that ‘orthodoxy’ is more a product of human definition - historically and culturally conditioned - than we care to admit.”

    Very well-stated, and ditto to everything else you wrote in that post as well.

    Joanie D.

23. BLM on 17 Feb 2008 at 12:38 pm #

    Saint and Sinner,

    No need to presume anything about navel-gazing. The idea is to be more Christ-gazing than Bible-gazing. If God is who God says he is, I’ll trust that the work of the Holy Spirit in community and the presence of the Risen One will get us where we need to be. The Bible is a faithful witness of this timeless process and a faithful witness to this process.

    peace,

    BLM

24. Saint and Sinner on 17 Feb 2008 at 5:49 pm #

    BLM,

    “The idea is to be more Christ-gazing than Bible-gazing.”

    Since the New Testament is nothing more than the recording and exposition of Christological revelation, then I don’t think that your categories are accurate.

    “If God is who God says he is, I’ll trust that the work of the Holy Spirit in community and the presence of the Risen One will get us where we need to be.”

    As a Calvinist, I don’t deny providence, but I don’t think that’s what you mean. It seems (after having viewed your blog) that you are taking an existentialist approach to your view of God. Thus, God is whatever you experience Him to be.

    The Scriptures, on the other hand, testify that man often-times misinterprets his experiences, and so, the only way to know what God is like in His essence as well as in His condecension is for it to be revealed propositionally to man.

25. scott gray on 17 Feb 2008 at 7:21 pm #

    S&S–

    “god is whatever you you experience him to be.”

    well,

    yes.

    what else could god be to you, than what you experience god to be?

    S&S, i’m curious– have you ever had direct, first-hand experience of god?

    peace–

    scott

26. BLM on 17 Feb 2008 at 7:24 pm #

    Saint And Sinner,

    “The Scriptures, on the other hand, testify that man often-times misinterprets his experiences,” and so, the only way to know what God is like in His essence as well as in His condecension is for it to be revealed propositionally to man.”

    I think we actually agree about this. I would say, though, that the person of Jesus is God’s propositional (and incarnational) revelation to us. It’s not that God is whatever we experience him to be, it’s that we actually will experience God in Christian community. I like Barth’s idea of the Holy Spirit as God’s-self in us receiving God’s revelation, and I think the witness of community is essential in discerning Christ’s presence, nature, and so on. I wouldn’t advocate a hermitic existential for precisely some of the reasons you stress.

    “Since the New Testament is nothing more than the recording and exposition of Christological revelation,”

    Here I’d agree, and, as you might guess, I’d say that Christological revelation isn’t limited to the New Testament only. The New Testament witnesses with us, as does the Old.

    I’m appreciating this exchange.

27. Lisa R on 17 Feb 2008 at 9:52 pm #

    BLM and Scott, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. It is true that our experiences are a real component of our faith. But I would say they are only valid to the extent they are representative of God, and the validity is born out of what we know about God, which is defined by scripture.

    So while it is true that our faith is Christocentric rather than bibliocentric, it still requires validation based on the revelation of Christ, which is found in scripture. Otherwise, I think the danger would be scripture following experiences, which could end up invalidating scripture. In that case, all we would be left with is a bunch of experiences. Hope that makes sense.

28. BLM on 18 Feb 2008 at 2:40 am #

    Hi Lisa,

    I appreciate your take. A few thoughts:

    I’m not sure that scripture defines what we know about God…I think Jesus defines what we know about God. If the issue is “apart from scripture, how do we know about Jesus?,” my answer would be that it’s the same way the first Christians (who operated without a codified New Testament), knew about him: the Holy Spirit worked in them and they believed the good news that was told to them in community and they experienced Christ’s presence in community. So too ought we.

    I think it’s important to say that he Living Christ is with his people and always has been. That said, scripture can and does affirm our participation in God’s kingdom, but it doesn’t define it. Jesus does and always has.

29. scott gray on 18 Feb 2008 at 7:38 am #

    lisa–

    it’s all about experiencing god.

    certainly one of the richest, strongest traditions for experiencing god is through the scriptures. but where did they come from? from people writing about their experiences with god. you have to decide if reading about the experiences of others with god is your only source, your primary source, or one of many sources of experiencing god.

    there are theological traditions that experience god in speaking tongues.

    there are theological traditions that experience god in sacraments.

    there are theological traditions that experience god through relationships in community.

    there are theological traditions that experience god through good works in ministering to others.

    there are thological traditions that experience god through appreciation of the grandure of nature.

    there are even theological traditions that experience god through orderliness; through laws and orthodox creeds.

    i don’t mean how do you learn about god, i mean how do you experience god. some people learn about god, and live in community with believers and followers of god, but never directly experience god. the only way they experience god is through the experiences of others.

    and there’s nothing wrong with that, either.

    lisa, what is your most direct experience of god?

    peace–

    scott

30. JoanieD on 18 Feb 2008 at 8:23 am #

    I posted most of the below note on another thread about the emerging community, but in case you are not reading that one, I will repeat it here. (I hope that’s OK. If not, Michael, just delete this one.)

    We read at
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10663b.htm that,
    “St. Augustine teaches indeed that we know the essences of things in rationibus aeternis, but this knowledge has its starting point in the data of sense (cf. Quæstiones, LXXXIII, c. xlvi). ”

    We also read there, “To some souls, however, even in the present life, God gives a very special grace by which they are enabled to feel His sensible presence; this is true mystical contemplation. In this act, there is no annihilation or absorption of the creature into God, but God becomes intimately present to the created mind and this, enlightened by special illuminations, contemplates with ineffable joy the Divine essence.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Fathers
    “Many individuals who spent part of their lives in the Egyptian desert went on to become important figures in the Church and society of the fourth and fifth century, among them Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, John Cassian, and Augustine of Hippo. Through the work of these last two, the spirituality of the desert fathers, emphasizing an ascent to God through periods of purgation and illumination that led to unity with the Divine, deeply affected the spirituality of the Western Church. For this reason, the writings and spirituality of the desert fathers are still of interest to many people today.”

    In more recent times….Do you know the writings of Henri Norwen, Thomas Merton, Thomas Keating? I recommend them all.

    Even J. P. Moreland in _Kingdom Triangle:Recover the Christian Mind, Renovate the Soul, Restore the Spirit’s Power _
    http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Triangle-Recover-Christian-Renovate/dp/031027432X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203338938&sr=1-1
    / recommends a “practice” to help us to connect to God in a “feeling” way, an “experienced” way. On page 155 of his book, he writes, “Grounded in Scripture, from the Desert Fathers to Henri Nouwen and Richard Foster, we have available to us a treasure of deep, rich knowledge of the soul and its proper functioning before God.”

    He says the current evangelical community is one in which the visible leaders are white males with Type A personalities who struggle with being cut off from their emotions. He says on page 156 that it is “imperative” that we “develop an inner life with a flourishing emotionality” if we are to live for Jesus. On page 160-161 he gives actual steps for you to practice so that you are “not leaning on your own understanding.”

    http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/mystic.htm
    Near the bottom of that page, check out a huge list of “Famous Mystics Prior to the Nineteenth Century.”

    Also, I actually think some of the Eastern religions like Buddhism can indirectly lead a person to Jesus. I know I practiced some forms of Eastern religion for a while and it lead me right back to Jesus. I looked inside myself as you spoke about and saw there that I needed to make a leap of faith and ask Jesus to help me. That’s the best prayer I know of, “Jesus, help me.” I am not advocating that people be Buddhists. I am advocating that people rest in Jesus, learn from Jesus, love Jesus.

    Joanie D.

31. rick on 18 Feb 2008 at 8:43 am #

    JoanieD-
    Since you said you consider yourself orthodox, and clearly have an interest in the mystics, I would assume Erwin McManus would be more representative of your place on the chart.

32. Lisa R on 18 Feb 2008 at 9:11 am #

    Hi Scott,

    Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t want to get off topic so much with this chicken or egg dilemma. So I’ll say this and that’s it.

    I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not denying the need to experience God or know Him experientially. Yes, we need to experience God but there is a foundation to that experience. Consider II Peter 3:18, which says “But grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”. The word knowledge is epignosis. Unlike gnosis, which is an intellectual know about something, epignosis is knowing experientially. So this says that we need to have an experiential knowledge of Christ but it starts with knowing about Him.

    And I believe this is played out in our community, sharing and service. So I would argue that every experience that you list above still requires a foundation of knowing about it first. Otherwise, how is that experience validated? How would you ascertain which experiences are from God?

    In terms of my own personal encounters with God, well they are too vast and too personal to elaborate in this short blog response.

    Oh and just so you know, I speak about these things as a person who used to rely heavily on experiences as I was an adherent of teachings regarding new revelations of God.

    BLM,

    I think this is applicable as well to your statement about the early church and their experiences, which were in response to hearing the gospel first.

33. Eric W on 18 Feb 2008 at 9:41 am #

    Consider II Peter 3:18, which says “But grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ”. The word knowledge is epignosis. Unlike gnosis, which is an intellectual know about something, epignosis is knowing experientially. So this says that we need to have an experiential knowledge of Christ but it starts with knowing about Him.

    Actually, 2 Peter 3:18 uses γνωσις gnôsis (as γνωσει gnôsei - dative), not επιγνωσις epignôsis, and the only textual variant that NA-27 or Tischendorf lists for this is not επιγνωσις epignôsis, but πιστις pistis (as πιστει pistei - dative) - “faith.”

    Though BDAG gives γνωσις gnôsis an experiential, personally-acquainted-with meaning as part of definition 2, it is first defined (see definition 1) as the “comprehension or intellectual grasp of something.”

    Can we assert that there really is a sharp distinction between επιγνωσις epignôsis and γνωσις gnôsis?

    This is not to deny the validity and perhaps necessity of the Real Experience and Knowledge of God.

34. scott gray on 18 Feb 2008 at 11:39 am #

    lisa–

    you said:

    “I think this is applicable as well to your statement about the early church and their experiences, which were in response to hearing the gospel first.”

    which takes us round to the comment i made in #19:

    “the shared experience is in the stories, not in the creeds. orthopraxy, in this instance, is in sharing the stories, not proclaiming what you believe.”

    to paraphrase, one might say, the gospel is in the stories, not in the creeds. the list of orthodox beliefs is not, in my opinion, a good tool for helping others experience the gospel. the scriptures are a much better tool for helping others experience the gospel. but they are not the only tool for helping others experience the gospel.

    would you agree?

    scott

35. Truth Unites... and Divides on 18 Feb 2008 at 12:58 pm #

    J. Michael Matkin makes several excellent observations:

    o “In other words, historically speaking, Protestantism is a subset of Catholicism,…”

    o “… nearly every branch of the Protestant tradition was initiated by someone who the then-contemporary church called a heretic. That doesn’t mean that ‘heresy’ is the path to truth, only that ‘orthodoxy’ is more a product of human definition - historically and culturally conditioned - than we care to admit.”

    This is exactly correct. Let me now demonstrate intellectual humility and moral integrity. As an historically orthodox Protestant/Evangelical, I am nonetheless heterodox and a heretic by the standards of Roman Catholic orthodoxy. I firmly deny certain essential doctrines that are central to Roman Catholic belief. I am heretic and heterodox as a “separated brethren.”

    Similarly, I would ask that all those who declare Scripture to be errant and fallible to have the moral integrity to humbly declare to themselves, to others, and to God that Scripture is errant and fallible, and by CMP’s orthodoxy categorization/classification scheme, they are heterodox per historic orthodox Protestant/Evangelicalism.

    Per CMP’s classification/categorical definition scheme of historic orthodox Protestant/Evangelicalism, will there be a parade of folks declaring with moral integrity that they are heterodox in their view of Scripture?

    P.S. And if you maintain that you are orthodox while believing that Scripture is errant and fallible, can you do so without having the exaggerated and hyperbolic claim thrown at the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy that it “dies the death of a thousand qualifications” thrown right back at you?

36. A R on 18 Feb 2008 at 1:25 pm #

    Whether it’s thrown back at a person or not, The Chicago Statement when seriously examined does indeed die the death of a thousand qualifications, and as others have noted, neither Luther nor Calvin would have signed it or been able to sign it. If The Chicago Statement is the sine qua non and/or required creed of Protestant Evangelicalism, then Protestant Evangelicalism cannot call itself Historical Evangelicalism or Historical Christianity.

37. Alden on 18 Feb 2008 at 1:40 pm #

    It would seem that the The Chicago Statement was an attempt to re-center “Evangelical Orthodoxy” around a single issue. As AR said, it does not represent Protestant Orthodoxy. If it is held to be exclusivist, then it would seem that those who hold to the Statement have indeed removed themselves from orthodoxy. However, the Statement fails, I think, to have that kind of impact.

38. JoanieD on 18 Feb 2008 at 2:34 pm #

    Rick, thanks for your reply in #31. I had never heard of Erwin McManus so I did an internet search of course and saw his video at http://mosaicalliance.com and then went to a page at http://awaken2008.com/speakers/index.html#kimball and I see that Dan Kimball gets listed there as one of many people going to be at a three day conference in April this year. I see that Kimball and McManus get listed on Michael’s chart with N.T. Wright and I have read some short things of Wright’s online and I did like what he had to say and may order his latest book. So, you may be right…I may be thinking somewhat like this McManus fellow. But if all these guys are “putting down” the established church, I wouldn’t like that. There is much good that the established church does and if I had the “OK” of my husband, I would be attending one right now. But that’s another story.

    Actually, I know that N.T. Wright is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England so hopefully he is NOT putting down the established church. So maybe those of us in that group on the chart want to remain a part of the established church and also recommit the church to its roots of having a personal relationship with Jesus, with God. I really don’t know, having not read all these authors/leaders.

    I hope that the worldwide church is big enough to allow people with various opinions to be part of the church. Lots of people seem afraid of opinions, saying there is only ONE TRUTH. That may be so, but it is a person’s opinion that the person is practicing the best way to express that truth. Someone else may practice it differently, but feel just as strongly that they are attempting to be faithful to God’s will.

    Joanie D.

39. J. Michael Matkin on 18 Feb 2008 at 4:20 pm #

    Truth Unites…And Divides - that handle must make you a blast at parties ;*) - makes the point (#35) that, per CMP’s taxonomy, evangelicals who don’t subscribe to inerrancy are “heterodox per historic orthodox Protestant/Evangelicalism.”

    My only objection to that point is that, historically speaking, inerrancy has not been the position of all Protestants. For that matter, it has not even been the position of all Evangelicals, since it developed out of the liberal-modernist controversy of the later 19th/early 20th century. So it’s not right, I think, to ask people who don’t believe in inerrancy to excuse themselves from the evangelical tradition.

    I don’t know that Wesley or Edwards, to note two examples, would necessarily object to the intent of inerrancy - I don’t know either of them well enough to say - but if we’re historically honest we have to admit that the language of inerrancy was not an issue for them.

    Inerrancy is an answer to a question, really. “How can we trust the Bible if it contains historical inaccuracies?” The fundamentalist/evangelical answer was, “It has no historical inaccuracies.” (The same dynamic was behind the evolution/creation debate, to cite another example.) The answers that we have developed within evangelicalism to this question - in this case, inerrancy - were based on the conviction that absolute historical accuracy is a necessary component of truth-telling. That may have been an appropriate response to a modernist, scientific culture obsessed with the possibility of objective knowledge; let historians a thousand years from now decide if we were being missionally sensitive or just cowtowing to the culture.

    The real question is, outside of this specific cultural context (which seems to be breaking down now), is that answer still valid? If absolute historical accuracy is not a necessary component of truth-telling, if it is not a critical foundation for the authoritative role that Scripture plays in the Church, then inerrancy becomes a moot issue.

40. Truth Unites... and Divides on 19 Feb 2008 at 4:20 pm #

    “My only objection to that point is that, historically speaking, inerrancy has not been the position of all Protestants.”

    J. Michael Matkin, take your objection up with CMP. He created the taxonomy for Historic Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy.

    Within that taxonomy, CMP wrote: “The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith.”

    JMM, go ahead and lobby, pressure, badger, persuade, argue, and reason your case to CMP to remove “The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture” from his taxonomy. He might agree with you and remove it.
    ———-

    Also, I re-read the above post again. Let me declare with intellectual honesty and moral integrity that I’m heterodox with respect to Historic Eastern Orthodoxy. As a historically orthodox Protestant/Evangelical, I might even be regarded as a heretic by the Eastern Orthodox Church. I mentioned before that I was a heterodox heretic by the RCC, but for the sake of completeness and for the sake of spiritual honesty, I thought I should also mention that I’m heterodox too from the EO perspective.

    AR, Alden, J. Michael Matkin, et al with respect to CMP’s taxonomy, and assuming that you’re Protestant/Evangelicals, would you say that you are orthodox or heterodox, particularly with regards to his criteria: “The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith”???

41. Reclaiming the Mind Ministries » Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 1 on 21 Feb 2008 at 12:20 am #

    [...] Part 2 SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Would the Real Emerger Please Stand Up? Part 1″, url: “http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/02/15/would-the-real-emerger-please-stand-up/” }); [...]

42. Twenty Items of Interest (v.7) « Shane Vander Hart on 21 Feb 2008 at 3:40 am #

    [...] on February 21, 2008 by Shane Vander Hart 1.  C. Michael Patton answers the question - What is Orthodoxy?.  He outlines what is considered to be Historical Christian Orthodoxy, Historic [...]

43. Navigating the Emerging/ Emergent Landscape « SoCal Theologica: Theological Musings from the West Coast on 24 Feb 2008 at 2:00 am #

    [...] Would The Real Emerger Please Stand Up Part 2 [...]

44. donsands on 25 Feb 2008 at 3:58 pm #

    “Does it bother anyone else that evangelicalism has placed the product above the source? ” -Dave

    Psalm 138:2

45. spencer on 25 Feb 2008 at 11:22 pm #

    If we spent half as much energy solving poverty and real jesus issues…as we do defining ourselves…well you get the point (sigh of disbelief and frustration with 21st cent. Church)

46. relevintage - a blog by brad andrews on 10 Mar 2008 at 10:46 am #

    [...] out the series here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part [...]

47. Reclaiming the Mind Ministries » An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” (2): Six Views of Orthdoxy on 16 Mar 2008 at 2:04 am #

    [...] The distinction between the early established orthodoxy and the later developing tradition based orthodoxy must be refected upon. In the end, I believe we need to distinguish between consentual orthodoxy and the developed orthodoxy of our particular tration. I have argued such here. [...]

48. britphil on 04 Apr 2008 at 5:26 am #

    Thanks Michael, this has been really helpful.

    With regard to your three categories, here are my thoughts.

    I would sign up here and now to everyone of the categories contained in the “Historic Christian orthodoxy” category.

    I would sign up to nearly all contained in the Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy, although I have an aversion to the term Protestant as that is not how I prefer to define myself, I am much more comfortable with the term Evangelical but that is a discussion for another day.

    I say nearly all…the two I have some difficulty with are

    1. “The sinfulness of man in corrupt nature, imputed guilt, and personal sinfulness” not because I don’t believe it to be true, I just believe it is only partially true. I personally that a fuller theological definition of the state of man is required, namely that human beings were, and still are, and image of God but are fallen by nature etc…I do not hold to the view that we are totally corrupt in nature , we still have the image of God stamped in us which was not completely obliterated by the Fall. I think this leads to an overly gloomy and pessimistic view of humankind which Christians are sometimes rightly accused of holding. A positive and negative take on mankind to me is a more accurate reflection of what is contained in the whole counsel of God’s word and not just certain segments of it.

    2. The infallible, inerrant inspiration of Scripture alone with final authority on all matters of faith.

    This is interesting. When I was a student some 20 odd years , to become a fully fledged card-carrying Christian Union which I was later to serve as President. Prayer, Mission/Evangelism Secretary required to sign that I agreed with the CU’S Doctrinal Basis.

    I would still sign up now to most of what I did then. If my memory served me correctly, the one that casued most discussion was the need to sign up to the inspired word of God which was both inerrant and infallible. I would not sign that today.

    I feel much more comfortable, but not totally comfortable with your definition of “the infallible and inerrant inspiration behind Scripture, although that still raises many questions. Were those who were inspired infallible and inerrant? Or was merely the inspiration behind their writings inerrant and infallible? And what about translation. I refuse to buy into the belief that every single translator of the Bible down the ages (yes, guys, even those who so painstakingly translated the KJV into English ) were rendered incapable of mistranslation or error. I do purport to the belief that the God who inspired them is infallible and inerrant. What is amazing is that he was willing to entrust the translation to all those “naturally corrupt, imputedly guilty, and personally sinful” human beings. Thankfully He is less risk averse than we are!

    “Therefore, they may hold to the truthfulness of Scripture, but not affirm the doctrine of inerrancy as it has been defined in popular evangelicalism. If this is the case, they are not outside Evangelical orthodoxy.”

    This is where I place myself. If others feel that I am outside the bounds of Protestant/Evangelical Orthodoxy, that’s OK….I’m quite comfortable to live with that. My world is not exactly going to fall apart because of it. And if some people can’t accept my stance, then I would quote the guy you quoted yourself the other the other day “just deal with it!”, just as I am required deal with the stances that other people take in a mature fashion.

    The third category is the one that fills me with most concern and where I feel most people get really hung up on, namely denominational orthodoxy!

    “One can be heretical with regards to a particular traditional or denominational orthodoxy, but this does not necessarily make them a heretic in the proper sense. My thoughts are these: To be a heretic in the proper sense means that you deny a doctrine that has been held by all Christ

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail