Skip to main content

Why orthodoxy?

A common question posed by skeptics and non-believers is why we Christians insist on religious orthodoxy. Aren't other things like "love" (whatever they mean by that) more important? Well, true Christian love without a proper foundation is hollow. Christian living without a proper foundation is pointless. In fact, without orthodoxy (proper belief) and orthopraxy (proper lifestyle), it is no longer biblical Christianity, but a human-made religion, an idolatry, a god of one's own making.

This is the case if we deny that God is transcendent, holy, beyond our understanding; all-powerful, all-knowing; immanent and ubiquitous and omni-present, always at hand and near us at the same time he is transcendent; that he exists as a trinity of Father, Christ, and Spirit, which is how he revealed himself to us; that he is love and loves us, but is very unhappy with how we ignore him and how we treat him and how we treat each other; that Christ as God died for our sins so we could be saved thru him and him alone; that Jesus meant what he taught; that God reveals himself in his word and by his Spirit to us; that he made us for himself; that we ought to live for him.

If one denies the basics of Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy, then one's God is not really God, but a fanciful creation of one's imagination. Such attempts are common in newer derivative religions, in liberal theology, and in neo-gnosticism (a la The DaVinci Code). Liberal theologians like the controversial Bishop Spong attempt to recreate God in their own image, based on current pop philosophy and attitudes of the zeitgeist and secular presuppositions. Real truth is sacrificed for a sort of "truthiness" - something that sounds truth-like for today, but isnt'. Bishop "Sponge", for example, believes in God not as an external theistic reality, but some sort of inner "reality" or inner experience. Their religion thus has no universal validity. It will have to be reinvented every time a new paradigm shift occurs in modern thinking. It has no validity for those who lived before it or those who will come afterwards. It is only valid for Westerners of his generation. It is a god made to suit their desires and pop philosophy, a hollow, fluffy, feel-good pop religion, which fails to really challenge people or present them any spiritual reality.

It is a form of idolatry, like a cult with a newly invented god. It is little different than ancient pagans creating gods in their own image - weak, impotent, sinful deities, who as a result could offer no real help to the worshipers of the idols. Likewise, the god of modern liberal theology or DaVinci Code neo-gnostics appeals to human pride, rather than confronting themselves and challenging people with God's diagnosis and cure for their human condition.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gossip, accusation and spiritual warfare

Paul once wrote to the Corinthians, “For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder” [1 Cor. 12:20]. Gossip is diagnosed as a serious spiritual problem, not a harmless form of conversation and social entertainment, as many in the secular world would view it.God views it differently. Gossip is the opposite of the love and grace that God wants to display in our lives.
Gossip is often exaggerated (and thus, untrue), or outright fabricated. Even church people engage in gossip in a seemingly sanctimonious guise (“We really ought to pray for X – you wouldn’t believe what he told me yesterday!...”). Whether secular or “christianized,” gossip betrays trust. “A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret” [Prov. 11:13]; “A perverse person stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates clo…

Book review: Green Eggs and Ham (Dr. Seuss)

Green eggs and ham, as a recolorized staple breakfast food, captures the reader's attention by turning this diurnal sustenance into an unexpected and apparently unappetizing foodstuff. It thus symbolizes the existential angst of modern life, wherein we are unfulfilled by modern life, and are repelled by something that might impart nourishment. The "protagonist" to be convinced of its desirability remains anonymous, while the other actor refers to himself with an emphatic identifier "Sam I am", formed with a pronominal subject and copular verb of existence. This character thus seeks to emphasize his existence and existential wholeness, and even establish a sense of self-existence, with an apparent Old Testament allusion to Elohim speaking to Moses as the "I Am". This emphatic personal identifier thus introduces a prominent theme of religious existentialism to the narrative, probably more in line with original Kierkegaardian religious existentialism, ra…

Portraits of Christ: John’s Gospel, part 2

In John’s Gospel we have an emphasis on Jesus that is unique compared to the other gospels. John not only emphasizes his deity, but his mysteriousness. The reader is left with an impression of Jesus as a mystical teacher, in the sense that his words and actions are not only those of a profound religious teacher, but of one who is other-worldly. So often in this gospel we read of Jesus making statements that the crowds, the religious teachers, and even his own disciples sometimes could not fathom.

For starters, there are the “I am” statements (e.g., I am the bread of life; I am the living water; I am the good shepherd; I am the way, the truth, and the life), which were clearly claims to divinity, for these statements in the Jewish context referred to God’s title “I am,” given when Moses inquired of his name at the burning bush. Jesus makes much use of mystical metaphors like these and others, like all the ‘day’ and ‘night’ references in this book, which portrays him as mystical or mys…