Rules for Orthodoxy

I find myself in a situation of question, which might mean a situation of crisis.  I have been pondering what constitutes a "true" faith.  Mostly because in our struggle with extremist groups, we find that there are a whole lot of people who claim to be the spokespersons for particular faiths.  

I have to wonder if any of them actually are.  Sure, they all believe themselves to be, but who can say?  I have been one who is not sold on the idea of denominations, mostly because I can't say that one has it all right or another is all wrong.  I the question and/or crisis comes from the fact that in these musings, I have to begin by acknowledging that I am actually part of a denomination.  And that denomination has rules to govern itself by.  Rules as to what we believe and why. 

Herein lies the problem.  Is that “rulebook” based on an understanding of scripture, or has that rulebook become the lens through which we understand and interpret scripture?  Neither option is a great one, but the second one is particularly disturbing.

And that lead me to another disturbing realization.  When, if ever, was Christianity “true”?  By true, I mean free from interpretive guidelines?  Was there ever a genuine Christianity that required no guidelines save the instructions of Christ?  Apparently not.  And if there ever was, it has long been lost to us.  Paul, the earliest of the New Testament writers, wrote largely to “correct” early Christians who had apparently lost their way and fallen into heretical thinking.  But how could there be heresy if there had been no set orthodox ideology?  How could there be heresy when there appears to be no “ordained” orthodoxy?  Paul could well be reacting to his own beliefs:  what he disagreed with was obviously heretical, from his perspective.  If one reads the epistle of James, one quickly sees that not everyone felt Paul was right.  It shows that sincere people can disagree.  But Orthodoxy whitewashes Paul and James in an effort to make them come out sounding as if they were saying the same thing.

                

Yet if Paul is the first Christian writer (that we managed to canonize) why the need to correct him with the Gospels or the Book of Acts?  Matthew seems especially bent on creating a Jesus that does not match Paul’s Jesus.  Mark and Luke likewise developed strikingly different portrayals of Jesus not so much to counter Paul, but counter to each other.  Matthew and Luke take great pains to “correct” Mark, as did many early church writers.  And what of the Gospels that did not make it into the New Testament?  What did they contain that was so damning?  Possibly it was the political issue that Peter does not come out as the leader of the disciples.  Quite clearly in the Gospel of Mary, Mary Magdalene comes out as the true disciple, while Peter acts like a temperamental child.   It would seem that early Christians had a vested interest in producing a sense of orthodoxy and seamless history.  Obviously there was an attempt to show that the first church of Jesus as founded by Peter was a constant in a sea of heretical misunderstanding.  Yet how can it be that the orthodoxy of the fourth century cannot always be found in our scriptures – the very ones that supposedly supply us with that very orthodoxy?

For example, the concept of the trinity is as present in the Bible as the issue of abortion.  Even Revelation makes reference to the “seven spirits of God” which is obviously not Trinitarian.  But there had to be a consensus.  Even if consensus meant twisting the text into theologies and ideologies that were never present.

Which brings me back to the issue of denominations.  Who are we to create rules by which we decide who is and who is not fit to be called Christian?  Are we God?  Are we divine?  Or are we simply another Council of Nicea where we vote to elect a common belief even if that means branding the loser heretical?  When does something go from a good idea to heresy?  When it was no longer the most popular idea.

It seems Orthodoxy is based on a series of premises that are shaky at best.  Yet instead of addressing those issues, we brand those that do question or wonder as heretical or non-believers.  But this stems out of our fear of possibly finding out what we profess was created by humankind, rather than from God.  We study the Bible not to find truth, but to find validation for beliefs we already hold.  If we find countering opinions, we either ignore them or misconstrue them so badly that we make them say whatever we want.  In so doing, the Bible becomes a ventriloquist’s dummy, and we are the puppet-masters.  All hail our God who sounds and looks and thinks surprisingly like we do.

Is there an answer, then?  Is there hope for the church? Are we not supposed to be a vehicle by which we work to find God?  Are we not the vehicle by which we strive to hear God?  Then why do we have the audacity to think that orthodoxy is the answer in and of itself?  How can we possibly still be looking to God when we not only define what God is, but when we have taken God’s place?

What, then, shall we do?  I do not know.  It may be a question of ethics or morality or integrity.  If I am an individual pastor with integrity, I may well have to say, ‘keep looking’ for we may be a church where you come to know God, but we (and I include myself in the we) are not the end-all.  The question then is to tell the truth or tow the party line.