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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Evangelicalism's gradual demise

The term "evangelical" was popularized by Martin Luther ("evangelisch" in German), which meant a follower of the gospel. The term was originally a very good and useful term, as it referred to someone who believed in a religion based on faith and following the teachings of Christ, rather than man-made religious rules. It was meaningful enough but also broad enough to encompass a general theological orientation and religious lifestyle. It could include and accommodate somewhat different views or interpretations of Christian belief, including those who focused more on the grace, spirituality and lifestyle of Christ. As such, it was not the exclusive property of one religious group or theological orientation. The meaning has been generally positive in modern church history. However, in recent decades the term has been hijacked by fundamentalists who insist on a narrow interpretation of the term, insisting on a set of specific theological beliefs, while ignoring the C...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 my...
Post a Comment
Read more

Portraits of Christ: Luke’s Gospel

Particularly in Luke, we see a Jesus born and raised in the backwaters of insignificant Jewish towns - born in Bethlehem, and growing up in the small farm village of Nazareth. You would think that if God mainly cared for or wanted to influence the powerful and mighty of the world, then Jesus should have been born in Rome, or Athens, or Alexandria, or at least Jerusalem. Instead he is born to a peasant girl named Mary in the middle of nowhere, at a time when the province of Judea suffered under poverty and oppression. Incredibly, her peasant son changed the world. But he never did it by allying himself with the rich and powerful or even seeking them out in order to implement his program. Usually if you want to start an influential movement, even as a grassroots movement, you would still recruit some wealthy donors and celebrities or leaders to promote your movement. Jesus did it totally opposite. He did not even focus on winning over the religious establishment; in fact, he often chall...
Post a Comment
Read more