In my recent research on the meaning of "gospel," I read Ted A. Campbell's new book, The Gospel in Christian Traditions. Here is a book that needs to be read as a primer to theology in the history of the Church. Why? Because theology is the unfolding of the gospel and the gospel alone can contain the contours of the gospel.This book is designed by a veteran theologian in the ecumenical movement to demonstrate that the church's unity can be formed on the basis of the gospel.
But perhaps the most important result of this book, a book written in wonderfully clear prose, is how he ties "orthodoxy" to "gospel." Let me explain:
How do you define "orthodoxy"? Do you think one must be "orthodox" to be "saved"? Did "orthodoxy" stop with the NT, with the early creeds (say Nicene, Chalcedon, etc), with the Reformation? Who "defines" orthodoxy?
The foundation for Christian orthodoxy is 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 (most folks say 15:1-4, but I'm not sure that is the most natural of stopping points):
First, the gospel is a narration of the saving events in the life of Jesus as they bring to fulfillment the Scriptures of Israel.
Second, the events in Jesus' life are his life, his death, his burial, his resurrection and his appearances.
Third, this narrative forms the basis for salvation, understood here to include the forgiveness of sins. These events accomplish that salvation and the gospel therefore involves the appeal to believe in God's redemption through these events.
Fourth, all of the early articulations of "orthodoxy" -- from the The Apostolic Tradition (Hippolytus of Rome) to Nicea to Chalcedon -- are elaborations of this narrative.
Fifth, orthodoxy, then, in spite of the yacking of some today, is not speculative theology drawn simply from current philosophical debates but elaborations of the gospel, often in response to threats to that gospel.
Sixth, what is at stake in denying orthodoxy is not simply the "right ideas" or "quaint" ideas but the gospel itself. That which threatens the gospel is articulated by those who are most concerned with the gospel.
Seventh, theology that is done without the framing of the gospel narration of 1 Cor 15 is not gospel orthodoxy. In other words, orthodoxy is the faithful unfolding of that original gospel narrative of 1 Cor 15 and orthodoxy is faithfulness as well to the major unfoldings of that gospel, including such things as the Apostles' Creed, Nicea, Chalcedon, and the fundamental insights of the Reformation's solas as they seek to elaborate the gospel narration. (At least for Protestants?)
Campbell's book goes on to elaborate how the gospel was understood in the Eastern churches, in the liturgies, in Protestant churches, in evangelical circles, in the ecumenical movement, and then he concludes with the mystery of the gospel.
The foundation for Christian orthodoxy is 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 (most folks say 15:1-4, but I'm not sure that is the most natural of stopping points):
I want to make a few observations and would like to hear your response:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
First, the gospel is a narration of the saving events in the life of Jesus as they bring to fulfillment the Scriptures of Israel.
Second, the events in Jesus' life are his life, his death, his burial, his resurrection and his appearances.
Third, this narrative forms the basis for salvation, understood here to include the forgiveness of sins. These events accomplish that salvation and the gospel therefore involves the appeal to believe in God's redemption through these events.
Fourth, all of the early articulations of "orthodoxy" -- from the The Apostolic Tradition (Hippolytus of Rome) to Nicea to Chalcedon -- are elaborations of this narrative. Fifth, orthodoxy, then, in spite of the yacking of some today, is not speculative theology drawn simply from current philosophical debates but elaborations of the gospel, often in response to threats to that gospel.
Sixth, what is at stake in denying orthodoxy is not simply the "right ideas" or "quaint" ideas but the gospel itself. That which threatens the gospel is articulated by those who are most concerned with the gospel.
Seventh, theology that is done without the framing of the gospel narration of 1 Cor 15 is not gospel orthodoxy. In other words, orthodoxy is the faithful unfolding of that original gospel narrative of 1 Cor 15 and orthodoxy is faithfulness as well to the major unfoldings of that gospel, including such things as the Apostles' Creed, Nicea, Chalcedon, and the fundamental insights of the Reformation's solas as they seek to elaborate the gospel narration. (At least for Protestants?)
Campbell's book goes on to elaborate how the gospel was understood in the Eastern churches, in the liturgies, in Protestant churches, in evangelical circles, in the ecumenical movement, and then he concludes with the mystery of the gospel.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I've been teaching all day...
#8 Barry: it is an indisputable fact that the early framings of (proto)orthodoxy used 1 Cor 15:1-5 as a template. That's the point Campbell is making.
Dodd, yes. But not directly using Dodd.
T, yes this is a point ... but a strong case can be made that discipleship (to the point of persecution) was assumption at the moral level while these framings were central to what was to be believed.
Marc Borg never claims to be "orthodox" in the historical sense.
I think that a question which is rarely examined well, but may be central is when the gospel speaks of salvation, what is it saying we are saved from? Everyone says hell, yet hell is not mentioned at all in the epistles and only rarely by Jesus and then only to the religious leaders of the day. I've been looking at Eastern Orthodox beliefs and they have an interesting conception of salvation being tied to theosis, or the transformation of the believer into the likeness of God through full indwelling of God in the believer. The idea is that a wasted life (ie one without God or without growing in God) is what we are saved from. In this thought process, right belief matters not for its own sake, but because it provides instructions for the journey towards theosis, and thus salvation.
I do think that the evangelical tendency to focus on right belief for its own sake, is a hair's breath away from the religious ruler's belief in the importance of the law and temple practices for their own sake. The point isn't to believe the right things (or in the case of the religious of Jesus' day the right ritual practices). It is to live a life transformed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, imo.
Scot, I think you're saying (not sure) that discipleship, both the process and content (Jesus' commands), was assumed either at the time of the NT or of the making of the creeds or both. If so, granted; and that's part of my point. But I wouldn't at all say that such is the common assumption now. I don't think that a person who affirms the creeds today necessarily thinks that by doing so that they are simultaneously deciding to be a disciple of Jesus who will learn to do all he commanded. I don't think becoming a disciple is even a part of the soteriology in many camps; it's a second-tier, sanctification issue, regardless of how Jesus framed it. The assumptions have changed, but the creeds stay the same.
i think it is important to note that this is PAUL'S summary of the faith. as has frequently been noted paul seems to have been utterly uninterested in the life and teachings of jesus. for him, jesus' death and resurrection were all that mattered.
this belief is reflected in the nicene creed.
"the events in Jesus' life are his life, his death, his burial, his resurrection and his appearances"
this is an incorrect summary of paul's position. the 1 cor 15 passage makes NO mention of jesus' life. if this is the kernel of orthodoxy, what jesus did when he was alive is utterly irrelevant.
it strikes me forcibly that were herod to have suceeded in the slaughter of the innocents, evangelical theology would be utterly unaltered. this CANNOT be right. i've written more on this here if anyone is interested. http://tinyurl.com/cqpzu5
Borg's arguments regarding "orthodox" stem from the etymology of dox(a), regardless of his beliefs and teachings. Doxa also carries with it a sense of glory/honor/worship, hence we sing the Doxology.
Our contemporary definition (which Borg holds shifted during the Reformation from the ancient definition) promotes belief or thought as in the philosophical sense, rather than right worship/lifestyle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxa
I would also wonder how the litmus test of knowing false and true teachers by their fruits plays into this conversation (Matthew 7). The context (verse 21 and following) seems to imply that the fruit in question relates to obedience and lifestyle more than proper doctrine.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.