Introduction
One of the ways to
undermine orthodox Christianity’s stance against the sexual perversions of
contemporary, Western society and the disappearing mainline denominations in
the West revolves around the word ‘orthodox.’
The argument goes that orthodoxy is all about affirmations in the early
Church, ecumenical councils, which do not mention anything about
homosexuality—or sexuality in general.
So, goes the argument, there is no orthodox teaching on sexuality.
Smith’s
Argument
James K. A. Smith—and he
is not the only one with this argument—has recently put the argument to print.[1] He says,
Historically,
the measure of "orthodox" Christianity has been conciliar; that
is, orthodoxy was rooted in, and measured by, the ecumenical councils and
creeds of the church (Nicea [sic], Chalcedon) which were understood to have
distilled the grammar of "right belief" (ortho, doxa) in the
Scriptures. As such, orthodoxy centers around the nature of God (Triune),
the Incarnation, the means of our salvation, the church, and the life to come.
The markers of orthodoxy are tied to the affirmations of, say, the Nicene
Creed: the creatorhood of God; the divine/human nature of the Incarnate Son;
the virgin birth; the historicity of Jesus' life and death; the affirmation of
his bodily resurrection and ascension; the hope of the second coming; the
triune affirmation of Father, Son, and Spirit; the affirmation of "one
holy catholic and apostolic church"; one baptism; and the hope of our own
bodily resurrection.
Smith later avers,
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.
Thus, Smith seems to
think that, if we extend the meaning of orthodoxy to other, traditionally held
convictions of the Church, then it will be a way to say, simply, ‘I don’t like
your teaching,’ without any basis in ecclesiastically defined and authoritative
teaching. He asks, ‘Do you really want
to claim that Christians who affirm all of the historic markers of orthodoxy
but disagree with you on matters of sexual morality or nonviolence or women in
office are heretics?’[2] He also challenges the supposed selectivity
when the meaning of ‘orthodox’ is broadened: why this matter but not that one?
In
Reply
While Smith is
commendably concerned to affirm orthodoxy and not let it become soft from too
much stretching, he is decidedly mistaken—seriously in error. I would suggest the following points to
consider.
First, those applying the
term ‘orthodoxy’ to matters of sexual ethics do so to indicate that such
matters fit, like the early Church councils, the universal affirmations of the
Church and the teaching of Scripture. (a)
The Church councils affirmed orthodoxy, they did not define it. What was ‘orthodox’ was what all the Church
had always and everywhere affirmed. As
St. Vincent of Lerins (d. 445) says,
Moreover, in the Catholic
Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which
has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the
strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the
thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we
follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we
confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world
confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which
it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers;
consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient
definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests
and doctors (Commonitory 2.6).
If the Church Councils
defined orthodoxy rather than affirmed it, then we would be in the peculiar situation
of having to say that there was no orthodoxy until the 4th century (the first
council, Nicaea, being in 325). We would
also have to discount all the ‘orthodox’ writings of the Church Fathers other
than what emerged in the conciliar canons. The whole purpose of the ‘ecumenical’
(universal) councils was to find where the Church agreed: everywhere, always,
and by all. Thus, ‘orthodox’ has to do
with this principle as articulated by St. Vincent and is not limited to
specific statements in response to specific heresies that needed countering in
the 4th century councils and creeds. The
principle articulated here—that by St. Vincent of Lerins (d. 445) in his Commonitory (2.4-6) of ‘everywhere,
always, and by all’, or ‘universality, antiquity, and consent’—is stated as a
principle to be applied to anything arising in opposition to orthodoxy. It is a principle that could help the Church ‘discover’
what is orthodox when new heresies threatening the Church emerged.
This was, furthermore,
St. Vincent’s second criterion for orthodoxy: the affirmation of the Catholic (i.e.,
universal) Church. (b) His first
criterion for orthodoxy was the authority of the Divine Law—that is,
Scripture. He says,
I
have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for
sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I
may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical
pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to
this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and
avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete
in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two
ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of
the Catholic Church (Commonitory
2.4).
We cannot agree, then,
with the notion that ‘orthodoxy’ is limited to creedal statements emerging from
the ecumenical councils. This is a
limitation that early Christians themselves would have rejected.
Indeed, previous
arguments for an orthodox Christianity in the 2nd century, called for (a) reliance
on the Scriptures (which is why the definition of the canon was so important—that
what was God’s Word would be defined and its limits set), (b) an affirmation
and guidance by the ‘Rule of Faith’ (the emerging creed), and (c) the consensual
affirmations of bishops from apostolically founded churches (‘apostolic succession’). Such, e.g., was Tertullian’s argument at the
end of the 2nd century (Prescriptions
Against Heretics)—as also Irenaeus in his magnum opus, Against Heresies. On the latter, mind, Irenaeus had a host of
heretical groups to oppose, including those touting a sexually perverse
doctrine of one sort or another.
Irenaeus would find Smith’s suggestion as to what constitutes ‘orthodoxy’
to be a step backward and over the cliff. If orthodoxy were applied only to certain
doctrinal affirmations and not also to the Church’s ethics—including sexual
ethics—then Irenaeus’ defense of orthodoxy over against these heresies becomes
incomprehensible.
Second, Smith’s reductionist definition of ‘orthodoxy’ undermines Biblical teaching. He offers an alternative term for matters not
addressed in the ecumenical councils: ‘traditional’. So, are we really to say that teaching
articulated in Scripture in the strongest of terms but that is not repeated in
the creeds of the 4th century (for contextual reasons, of course) is merely ‘traditional’
and not ‘orthodox’? Can anyone dispute
that the following passage from Scripture fails to articulate a distinction
between orthodoxy and heresy as to both doctrinal and ethical—sexual—matters?
2 Peter 2:1-2 (ESV) But
false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false
teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will
even deny the Master who bought them-- bringing swift destruction on
themselves. 2 Even so, many will follow
their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be
maligned.
Similarly, Jude calls the
recipients of his letter to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the
saints (v. 3) and then proceeds to warn against the false teaching of a group
affirming Sodom’s sin (which is clearly a sexual sin in this verse, even if the
sins of Sodom were many):
Jude 1:7 (ESV)
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same
manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve
as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Moreover, are we really
being asked to exclude sexual ethics from orthodoxy when Paul says that those
who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6.9-10). On Smith’s reckoning, the sexually immoral,
idolaters, adulterers, soft men, homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunkards,
revilers, and robbers who will not inherit the Kingdom of God may well be
orthodox Christians affirming the creeds.
May God help us!
Third, Smith’s example of
‘baptism’ being snuck into a debate about orthodoxy rather makes the
alternative argument than the one he suggests.
If we can find varied practice in early Church orthodox circles, then we
are surely not talking about a matter that is definitive for orthodoxy. And that is precisely what we do find on this
matter of baptism. Tertullian’s defense
of adult baptism at the end of the 2nd century is surely offered to counter an
alternative practice of infant (cf. his ‘On Baptism’). There is meagre but significant evidence from
the early Church that there were varied practices and perhaps theologies of
baptism. There is no danger of
introducing baptism into a definition of orthodoxy, and that precisely because
the early Church did not have a single practice of baptism that was universal, ancient,
and consensual.
Fourth, just what is
Smith up to? An affirmation of orthodox
creeds from the early Church is most welcome.
But in the present climate of mainline denominations imploding precisely
because they reject Scripture and oppose the Church’s universal, ancient, and consensual
teaching on sexuality, Smith’s argument showers upon the context like flammable
liquid on a fire. One simply cannot
approach theology in this unorthodox, heretical context with an argument that
we need to limit our understanding of ‘orthodoxy’ to the particular matters
that came to expression in the 4th century context. His argument does not stand for the early
Church, but it is also an argument that waltzes into the battle zone of our own
time as though dance form is more important than the present danger.
Conclusion
We have responded here to
an attempt to side-step the seriousness of contemporary, Western softening of
the Church’s teaching on sexuality by claiming that it is not a matter of ‘orthodoxy.’ The argument countered here would have us
define orthodoxy narrowly so that it refers only to conciliar councils. Yet we have seen that this will not stand up
to a Biblical or early Church understanding of orthodoxy. Instead, we have affirmed a definition of
orthodoxy as articulated by St. Vincent of Lerins that is based on (1)
Scripture as God’s Law and (2) the universal, ancient, and consensual teaching
of the Church. On these criteria, the
Church’s teaching that homosexuality is a sin is a matter of Christian orthodoxy.[3]
[1] James K.
A. Smith, ‘On "orthodox Christianity": some observations, and a
couple of questions,’ Fox Clavigera blog (August 4, 2017). Online: http://forsclavigera.blogspot.co.za/2017/08/on-orthodox-christianity-some.html;
accessed 5 September, 2017.
[2] This question confuses
issues. How shall we equate the sin of sexual morality, which has to do
with entering the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6.9-10), with advice on church polity
(women in office)? Let us say that one
should not ordain women, for argument’s sake.
There is no Biblical basis to say that this is a matter so pressing as
entry into the Kingdom. At most, one
might say that it is a practice set up to protect the Church from error, like
not ordaining someone who is the husband of more than one wife (i.e., remarried)
(1 Timothy 2.10-3.13).
[3] See
S. Donald Fortson and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent
Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville, TN:
B&H Pub., 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment