So, while I have a fairly "high" view of orthodoxy, I do believe that God calls us to constantly evaluate and, if necessary, adjust our beliefs and practices in order to realign ourselves with His will.
But how is this done?
When it is simply a matter of an individual changing his/her beliefs/actions that is one thing... but what about when it is the/an entire church that needs to change their "orthodoxy?" What then?
This is where a number of passages (ie. Matt 16 & 18), but particularly Acts 15, come into play.
I would encourage you to take the time to read this chapter (here). If you have time, reading chapter 14 is also helpful for context.
The gist of what's going on in this chapter is that while Paul & Peter have been proclaiming the Gospel to everyone (including Gentiles) they clearly have not been requiring them to, upon conversion and baptism, begin adhering to the Mosaic Law (particularly after the whole Acts 10 deal: here).
Obviously this is a HUGE break in orthodoxy. Those Pharisees who have become Christians can't handle the idea that God wouldn't require Gentiles to follow the "Old" Covenant and begin debating with Paul and Barnabas on the matter.
The "orthodoxy" at issue: the practice of circumcision and adherence to the Law of Moses (15:5)
Due process is followed including:
- a gathering of the leaders of the Church (vs. 6)
- debate (vs. 7)
- reports of God's work as pertaining to the issue at hand (Peter, vs. 7-11; Paul & Barnabas, vs. 12)
- The leader of the Church (in this case, James) proclaims the judgement as reached in the council (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, vs.28).
In this case the answer is, No!, Gentile Christians do not need to be circumcised (the sign of the Old Covenant) nor do they need adhere to the Mosaic Law save on several points (vs. 29).
The precedent set by this situation is an excellent one, especially as far as changing orthodoxy goes. In my reading of this passage (and other key texts) I would say that no one person has any right or authority to change what orthodoxy is.
It is only when God's people gather together under the proper leadership that God has put in place and, led by the Spirit, they discuss, debate, and ultimately decide what orthodoxy is that orthodoxy can amended.
And, as we can see in this situation in Acts, this sort of orthodoxy making has the definite ring of authority.
Obviously, as I said above, the implications of all this are huge.
What sort of implications does this have?
What do you make of this? Why?
13 comments:
Acts 15:20 gives a perfect example of where the value of orthodoxy has been placed (far) above scripture. "...hold back from the pollutions of idols.." (Acts 15:20)
And yet (all?) christian churches continue to participate in the pagan celebrations of "Easter", "Christmas", "Valentines Day", "Halloween", without even getting into the rituals of the catholic church!
What we call orthodoxy now is the result of several hundred years of "Acts 15'ing" after the new Testament was written. They determined what was cannon and what was truth and what was heresy.
The reformation was all about attempting to get back to orthodoxy from a church that had been corrupted by power for generations and whose doctrine and practice rarely resembled New Testament teaching and action.
So, it seems to me that you are saying that it may be time again to return to the table to get back to New Testament practice and teaching? If so- that would then mean that we have strayed from orthodoxy--.
There are denominations already doing this, but as they do it- it seems that they stray farther from NT beliefs and practices and more towards an "enlightened" interpretation and application based on modern day commonly held beliefs.
So is the "new reformation" based on how we can revive early church doctrine and practice- or how we can reinterpret and re apply it based on new knowledge that we have today?
Personally, I believe that the Western Church could use a renewal in doctrine and practice so that we are less like the World around us and more like the Jesus in us. But I believe that can be done by returning to orthodoxy-- not necessarily changing it.
If I understand Mike correctly, I agree...I think. There are quite a few people, that I've noticed, who are trying to get back to the basics of the Bible, and in doing so are (for lack of better term) reverting completely back to the Mosaic Covenant and not the the New Covenant that Jesus put in place. In many aspects of the Christian church, that I see, we haven't strayed extremely far from where we should be, but an internal "revival" would be beneficial. On the other hand, a complete axing of the NT and stepping back into the laws of the OT seems to be rather Pharasitical, if that's a word, and not really what we're going for either. It seems we're learning a balancing act between where we are as a church today, and where the Israelites used to be, and that seems very much balancing on the NT and Christ. Getting back to, or starting with, a solid relationship with Christ seems to be the answer, as far as I understand. But that could just be my opinion.
I think one really interesting aspect of this process today is that the orthodoxy debate has moved very strongly to the internet. This creates an entirely new dimension that would have not existed in Acts 15 and I think has a very strong influence in a lot of circles. Certainly the emergent movement is an example of this.
I think there are positive and negative aspects to this. On the positive side, it is much easier to have a meaningful discussion with a very broad audience. On the negative side, misinformation can easily take precedence over information. Either way, I think it is stimulating some good conversation about orthodoxy. I don't know if at the end of the day this produces better orthodoxy or worse, but it does get people engaged.
In stark contrast to Lisa's statement that we haven't strayed too far...I think that the modern church has strayed from, and in many cases, completely abandoned their love of the truth. "The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead they will gather around them a great number of teachers to tell them what they want to hear. They will turn away from the truth." 2 Tim 4:3-4
This verse is referring to believers who once knew the truth, but have TURNED AWAY. I see the modern church as the whore who rides on the scarlet beast of Revelation declaring "I shall know no sorrow!"
And Mike, you are correct that there are many denominations that are building their house upon the shaky ground of "enlightenment" or "unity". The emerging church movement, Willowcreek Organization, and dare I say, even Rick Warren are huge promoters of those things which cause cruel bondage. Trust me, I know that there are many who scoff at what I say. Please don't think I have developed a hatred for the church...on the contrary!! I have a deep love for the church, or else I would not care to share and participate in these discussions.
Yeah, the internet aspect is really interesting. In my opinion, I think it's beneficial mostly in that we can talk about things in the hypothetical which can help to build and sharpen our thinking. But when things get down to putting "orthodoxy" into practice all those hypotheticals need to hit the reality of life in the Church.
I think one of the tough things about striving to live out orthodoxy as God intends it to be is that we aren't simply trying to become an exact duplicate of the Early Church (as seen in Acts). I believe that the elements seen in the Church in Acts are there to guide us as the Church of today. But I don't think the Church of 2010 A.D. is going to look exactly the same as the Church of 52 A.D.
So there is definite wrestling that needs to happen as we seek to live according to the Scriptures and be the Church that God wants us to be today.
Our God is the same as theirs ("theirs" being the Early Church's).
Our mission is the same as theirs.
Our Gopsel should be the same as theirs.
But I don't think the way the Church looks or operates today will look exactly the same as theirs did because we live in a different time and place, with a different culture, language and different set of social issues, etc...
Oh, and I didn't intentionally skip over Carey's comment... she must have made it while I was writing my last one, so I missed it.
I'll let Mike speak to that last section if he wants to 'cause I can't speak for him, but he didn't say anything about "unity"... I understood him to be saying that the Church has been overly influenced by The Enlightenment and Modern Philosophy. I would agree with that.
It's clear that you care deeply for the Church. So I'm assuming that you don't challenge "orthodoxy" lightly or flippantly.
What aspects of orthodoxy are you proposing we return to?
Actually, when I think about it, Carey's right. I was thinking about some of the churches I attended briefly in Calgary and there were some churches that didn't read from, or even mention, their Bibles. It was almost creepy how they would mention God briefly, but their sermons would be all about environmental awareness or loving your neighbor with no real scripture involved at all. It wasn't good and you can tell they completely were off base. I guess when I think about the church in general, I try to think really positive about churches I see who are doing well and really seeking after God, I don't really focus on the others. But there are many out there who are not focussed on God and are wandering, and it's sad.
I know that there are some problems with other churches as well, but I guess I'm really hesitant to be critical of the bride of Christ. I've been reading the prophets in the OT lately and I see that the people of God completely turned away from God and followed false gods and God reminded them over and over, but even after he punished them he brought them back to him. On the contrary the countries that were destroyed were the ones that mocked and went to war against the Israelites. People who tried to destroy God's chosen people, they were, in turn, destroyed. It may be that we have fallen short of where we should be, but I'm not sure I have the right to put down God's people. If the Holy Spirit is working in people's lives, like I believe he is, then who am I to say how things should or shouldn't be. I guess that's why I'm not a debater. :)
Sorry folks. In regards to my statement about unity, my sentence structure was the cause of that confusion. As I was agreeing with Mike's use of the word "enlightenment" I was wanting to say "yes, that AND unity". So unity was my word expanding on his thought about enlightenment.
As for critisizing the bride, I certainly don't need to make anything up about that...scripture itself has enough critisism of the bride, that I merely have to quote! I am Yahweh's people, my family is Yahweh's people. I am none to quick to point out the speck before I remove the plank! My journey has begun with cleaning my own house.
So in answer to your question Tim, regarding orthodoxy, I truly believe that we need to get rid of the pagan idol worship from our lives and our churches. I mean very specifically the traditions of christmas and Easter, whose roots truly have nothing at all to do with our Messiah and everything to do with pagan idol worship. Esentially we have just scotch-taped a "baby Jesus" and cross on these pagan traditions and called them our own. Not cool.
I understand what you're saying, Carey. Anyone who knows anything about Church History understands that these celebrations were put into place in order to replace pagan holidays.
That being said, I have a couple of thoughts.
1 - Since these celebrations (Easter & Christmas) had not been put into any sort of formal practice at the time in which the scriptures were written, Paul's teachings on idols were not specifically addressing them... but, of course, that doesn't mean that theses teachings don't apply, it just means we need to be careful before claiming them on something that he wasn't actually talking about.
2 - When we read passages like 1Cor.8 which address idolatry specifically (in this case food) we see that Paul isn't actually that concerned about the idols themselves since "an idol has no real existence" (vs. 4). I think most of us today in North America have that "knowledge." In the time & culture in which Paul was writing this letter not everyone had that knowledge (vs. 7). I don't think anyone today walks away from a Christocentric Christmas service and gets the impression that they were just at a pagan solstice celebration. So, providing that there is no stumbling block (vs. 9) I don't see how how these sorts of Christian celebrations have any sort of unity with paganism (at least in the Western world at this point in history... I understand that centuries ago or even today in different cultures this may not be the case).
3 - Is there room for redemption? One of the biggest themes in all the Scriptures is redemption: taking that which is ruined, tarnished, and unholy and redeeming it for the glory of God. That's what Paul's teaching about New Life/New Creation is all about. Can this happen with our calendar? From this angle, what better days are there to redeem than days on which false gods have been worshiped? Is it possible to take a day, strip it of it's unholy significance and set it apart for our Great God? Can days be redeemed?
Those are just some of the thoughts rolling around in my head.
Good question Tim...dod the Messiah come to redeem days? Did He come to redeem objects? Did he come to redeem the things we really like to do because we enjoy them?
Even Aaron in Exodus 32, with the creation of the golden calf declared "tomorrow shall be a feast unto the Lord!" But Moses cam back down off the mountain and said that Aaron had "sinned a great sin."
Have we been untrusted with the responsibility, the priveledge, the RIGHT to declare things Holy or profane. Yahweh told us that he has made us Holy as He is Holy , and that we would learn to tell the difference between the Holy and the Profane. Not that we could make the profane Holy by our wishes. Yahweh could wave his arm and declare all things Holy if He were to so choose...but He doesn't!
So we have taken the pagan rituals of dedication to the god Mithra, Ra, Ishtar, Eostre and dedicated them in the service of our Lord. Has Jesus ruberstamped them as "GOOD" or have we? Why not participte in the ritual of burning a efigy of a child (like is done to the god Molech...only historically they used real children) and delare it representitive of being "refined by fire" and "giving up our childish ways"? Would that be reasonable? Based on the church's history of accepting pagan rituals, what would be wrong with that? Would any of us be comfortable with adopting other pagan rituals if we changed the name of the god being worshipped? Sweetgrass ceremonies, animal sacrifice, Wesak Festival, World Invocation Day, Krishna beads? I have to ask, if we follow that thought through to it's conclusion...where does it end? If freedom in Christ, or in cruel bondage?
Are you really saying, Tim, that the rituals themselves have no spiritual significance in a negative way? If so, then why wpuld we assume that they would have spiritual significance in a positive way? And if that's true, then why are we doing them?
And au contraire...as a believer in the western world, based on my KNOWLEDGE of pagan rituals, I do indded feel as though I have just participated in a winter solstice festival when I attend a "christmas service", hence the reson I chose not to partake. I guess if people don't know, and we don't tell them where these traditions originated, then ignorance is bliss right!?
Isn't Jesus the LORD of ALL things? Can He redeem objects? Isn't that precisely what 1Cor.8 says?
Food that was specifically dedicated to the honour and worship of a pagan idol Paul says is OK for a Christian to eat. Paul says that these objects (ie. foods) are fine to eat... why? Because these "gods", these idols don't actually exist. In essence, because they don't exist, these foods were dedicated to nothing. As such, providing we acknowledge that it is God "from whom are all things" (vs. 6) there is nothing wrong in participating/using objects that have been dedicated to non-existent gods. After all, it is from God and through Jesus that EVERYTHING has its existence (vs. 6). Does this not include time?
If a certain day was at some point in history a day of worship for some pagan religion or cult does that mean that they "own" that day?
Of course not. All days and all things belong to our LORD. I can't help but wonder, if we went through every religion that has ever existed and marked down all of their pagan holidays how many days left would there be left over for us? It seems obvious to me that this is the wrong approach.
I think the reason why Aaron sinned in Exodus 32 was because they were leaving a polytheistic culture where people BELIEVED in these pagan gods and were going to Canaan, another polytheistic culture where people BELIEVED in these gods, and YHWH, the One True God, would not allow Himself to be construed as being just one among many gods.
I don't think this is the case today. Nobody (well, maybe like 0.001% of the pop.) believes in any of those Greco-Roman or Ancient Near Eastern "gods" anymore. So why do they still get to hold us captive by dictating when we are allowed to celebrate anything, let alone the Incarnation and Resurrection of our Great God? They didn't even exist in the first place!
Is it the celebration that offends you or is it the day? If we had some sort of "Christmas" type celebration (ie. a day that we set aside to thank and worship God for becoming Messiah) but we set it on some random day, like June 8th (... random pick...) would that be fine in your eyes? I'm just curious.
Oh, and as a final note, since this is obviously a "stumbling block" (1Cor.8:9... but don't construe this to be me calling you "weak"; the last thing I would ever call you is "weak":) issue for you, I think it is appropriate that you follow your conscience and not participate in these celebrations until you feel God calling you to do otherwise.
This discussion has caught me right in the middle of teaching 1 corinthians and Exodus at the Bible College this semester- so I've been spending lots of time unpacking these things for myself and my students...
The issue of the meat sacrificed to idols is mostly about freedoms- that we have a tremendous amount of freedom in Jesus- but we don't excercise it if it causes a "weak brother" to go against his conscience. That weak brother in this context is someone who likely was a former idol worshipper whos conscience did not allow them to eat any meat because ALL meat was idol meat. If my freedom causes him to eat it against his conscience-- i will not excercise that freedom.
Or if me excecising my freedom makes it difficult for someone to come to Christ (i.e. a missionary in saudi arabia eating pork, or putting his Bible on the ground) I will not excercise it. Conversely I should not use my conscience to steal your freedom.
The question comes down to who is the weaker brother? if it is anyone who has an issue with something-- Paul would not have written against legalism so often we could just use the most sensitive conscience of the group and all follow them. Thats what some of the ascetics were doing in Corinth and what Paul was speaking against! A good example of the weaker bro is the beleiver who struggled with alcohol in his former life. I may have freedom to drink wine (like Jesus did...) but if my drinking it causes him to stumble-- I won't do it! The weaker bro is NOT the 70 year old lifetime tee-totaler who has never smelt liquor before who is dead set against it. I'm under no obligation to be obedient to his/her conscience.
The modern religious holiday weaker brothers are those who came to Christ from a background of paganism. for those folks- I won't invite them to my house for Christmas- (but I might for my resurrection day ham dinner).
It sounds to me like ctninja is NOT a weaker bro in that you are not at all tempted to participate in these festivals- I'm not sure of your religious background- And so our freedom is not causing you to stumble.
Galatians 5 tells us that it was for freedom that Christ set us free- and not to let ourselves again be shackled by a yoke of slavery-- that slavery was legalism...
Since The scriptures tell us that each day is the same and that we should not argue over days-- and that sacrificed meat has been redeemed (except in the case of participating in the pagan worship ceremony)I deduce that we have freedom to celebrate Jesus birth, death and resurrection on whichever days we choose...
i've lost myself here... better stop!
Post a Comment