We follow Bishop Greg Brewer on Twitter and yesterday he had this to say:
An important addition to the Episcopal Church and/or ACNA/AMIA,etc controversies. https://t.co/KA8qKMS6K8
— Greg Brewer (@revgregbrewer) August 4, 2017
Intrigued, we followed the link:
— Cameron & Surplice (@Cameron_Nations) August 4, 2017
The post is by James K.A. Smith and Professor of Philosophy, Calvin College and Editor of Comment magazine. Here are some of his observations on “orthodox Christianity” –
Contrast this with most invocations of “orthodox Christianity” today. In some contexts, the use of the word “orthodox” seems to have nothing to do with these historic markers of Christian faith. Indeed, in many cases “orthodox Christianity” means only one thing: a particular view of sexuality and marriage. Indeed, in some books of late, the adjective “orthodox” is only invoked when talking about morality, and sexual morality in particular. In fact, in some of those books the historic markers of orthodox Christianity as summarized in the creeds make no appearance and almost seem irrelevant to the analysis. So when people are said to suffer for their “orthodox” beliefs, or when we are told that “orthodox” Christians will be hounded from public life and persecuted in their professions, a closer reading shows that it is not their beliefs in the Trinity, Incarnation, Virgin Birth, or Resurrection that occasion these problems, but rather their beliefs about morality, and sexual morality in particular. There don’t seem to be any bakers refusing to bake cakes for atheists, and I’ve yet to hear of Silicon Valley CEOs being fired because they affirm the Incarnation of the Son or the resurrection of the dead.
I note this only to observe that this deployment of the term “orthodox” is recent, innovative, and narrow. Ironically, it reflects a trait of modernity that those who use it would abhor: a tendency to reduce Christianity to a morality (see: Kant). One could forgive Martian anthropologists who, parachuting into contemporary debates, concluded that “orthodox Christianity” just is a sexual ethic.
But it is surely also worth pointing out that conciliar standards of orthodoxy do not articulate such standards. If the adjective “orthodox” is untethered from such ecumenical standards, it quickly becomes a cheap epithet we idiosyncratically attach to views and positions in order to write off those we disagree with as “heretics” and unbelievers. If “orthodox” becomes an adjective that is unhooked from these conciliar canons, then it becomes a word we use to make sacrosanct the things that matter to “us” in order to exclude “them.” And then you can start folding all kinds of things into “orthodoxy” like mode of baptism or pre-tribulation rapture or opposition to the ordination of women–which then entails writing off swaths of Christians who affirm conciliar orthodoxy.
Read it all.
Added: Giving Smith the last word,
— James K.A. Smith (@james_ka_smith) August 5, 2017
wherein he retweets this tweet,
Apparently I'm a progressive liberal. Could someone please tell the progressive liberals tho?
— James K.A. Smith (@james_ka_smith) March 15, 2017