The Gospel and Orthodoxy

What a great title and concept, tracing the way the gospel is articulated throughout church history. And showing how doctrinal orthodoxy is narrative-based. It would be interesting to compare the book to Jaroslav Pelikan's Jesus through the Centuries.

Does the author anywhere suggest that the basic narrative framework of the gospel might include I Cor. 15:20-28? These verses pick up where verse 5 leaves off, and extend the time frame by incorporating the beginning ("as all die in Adam," vv 20-21) and the end (vv 25-28). The Apostles' Creed, for example, includes all of this extended narrative (although the beginning of the narrative, the fall, is only implicit in the mention of the forgiveness of sins).

The Apostles' Creed as gospel gives a fuller picture that do "four law" and "four step" gospel presentations. The latter often leave out not only the final resurrection of all, but also the Holy Spirit, Christ's return and final judgment, and the church. Or else these are treated as add-ons, thus implying that they are not essential to either the gospel, the Christian life - or orthodoxy.

Is this similar to what CH Dodd saw as the common preaching in Acts?

Thanks for this post. I have put it on my book list.

Scot,

I like several of these points, especially the first, but I still have reservations about the combination of what is left out of traditional lists of teachings that make the cut for 'orthodoxy' and why, and what such ommissions lead to, formationally speaking. Rarely, if ever, do the commands of Jesus or the nature of discipleship generally (certainly important features of his life), for example, get included in the 'Christian orthodoxy' lists. What's more, everything not on these lists gets put, by implication, into categories of 'not central', or 'not necessary to enjoy God's salvation' (often sadly reduced to surviving judgment). It unintentionally creates or reinforces a distortion of the faith and, thereby, distorted faith communities. The inevitable, though unintended, side effect of the elevation of the specific content of the historic creeds has been to shift the church's focus from 'making disciples who do everything Jesus commanded to do' into making affirmers of the right historic facts about Jesus and about soteriology. I don't see how this could have been or will be any different unless and until we, at a minimum, adjust our 'essentials' (in fact, if not formally) to include the centrality of discipleship (learning to do what Jesus commanded) and a greater recognition of Jesus' own teaching priorities.

ChrisB,

How can you say that the NT rarely points us to his life!? All four gospels are clearly his life, death and resurrection, regardless of what the I Corinthians verses happen to focus on due to an error in Corinth.

That brings me to related concern. It's significant to me on this larger question of 'orthodoxy' and 'gospel' that of all the ways scripture talks about 'gospel', many of which Scot just finished working through, the I Cor. content is essential. This passage was written to a church that was questioning the resurrection of Jesus. So Paul corrected them and affirmed that Jesus was raised and that such is central to the good news of God's work. But he also would have said (and did so in other scriptures) that, for example, no one who continued in greed had any share in the kingdom of God--that his gospel required detaching from such idolatry. He corrected many beliefs and behaviors that were simply opposed to his gospel. His gospel required many new beliefs and actions. But we've made it seem, at least in significant part through our creeds, that affirming resurrection, for example, is essential to the Christian faith (essential to enjoy God's rescue, to having 'right Christian belief'), but letting go of the practice of greed, or growing in the way of agape, is not! This, I think, would shock Paul, let alone John or James or the other apostles. It's certainly contrary to several of Jesus' own statements. We've been invited to trust the whole person, everything he said and did. How can we make disciples of him, the man, if his own teaching priorities are not part of 'right belief?'

I think all of the NT points back to Jesus' life and teachings. Jesus is Lord. That is in all the creeds. It is claimed repeatedly in the NT.

I don't know how anyone can hear the claim 'Jesus is Lord' and not immediately understand that what the Lord said and did commands my attention. It is implicit in the Gospel. It may not be mentioned in the passage that Scot mentions in the post, but it is there none the less.

I was inexact. I should have said, "The epistles rarely point us back to His life." They are largely commentaries on the cross and resurrection.

We've had this argument before. Words mean things. "Orthdoxy," much like "creed," is about what you believe. "Orthopraxy" is about what you do. Fusing, or confusing, those terms adds nothing to the debate. If we all use the same terms, we can have a meaningful conversation.

Healthy Christianity requires both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The former is the foundation and formation of the latter (I believe ... therefore I must...). The latter is the proof of the former.

ChrisB,

The letters are largely commentaries on the cross and resurrection - they leave out birth and life, in fact I don't think that elements relating to the birth of Jesus are ever mentioned. Does this mean that one need not accept the virgin birth to be orthodox?

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.

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