I’m adding an article to the Paleo-orthodoxy page: Will the 21st Century Be the Orthodox Century? (HT to Michael) It’s a CT article by Bradley Nassif, and it contains a helpful introduction to some of Oden’s ideas in Rebirth of Orthodoxy. He includes Oden’s evidence that there is a “widespread rekindling of the orthodox spirit”:
(1) Personal transformation stories. The lives of ordinary Christians and leading academics who have been dramatically changed by the testimony of the classic tradition, including Jaroslav Pelikan and Richard Swinburne, who became Eastern Orthodox, and Robert Wilken and Richard John Neuhaus, who joined the Catholic church.
(2) Faithful scriptural interpretation. Patristic methods of exegesis are receiving more attention now than at any time during the previous century. They are fast becoming a core concern of biblical studies, as evidenced by the growing number of ancient translations and commentaries being made widely available by publishing companies such as InterVarsity, Baker, and Eerdmans.
(3) The multicultural nature of orthodoxy. No modern multiculturalism is as deep or fertile as the ecumenical multiculturalism of antiquity. The cross-cultural richness of the early church is becoming increasingly evident today.
(4) Well-established doctrinal boundaries. After decades of uncritical permissiveness in the church, we are now witnessing a renewed energy for drawing boundaries around questions of religious truth. Thousands of the faithful are together relearning how to say no to heresy on behalf of a greater yes for the truth of classical orthodoxy.
(5) Ecumenical roots reclaimed. Confessing and renewing movements in Protestantism are changing local congregations and even entire denominations.
(6) Rise of a new ecumenism. Actually, what we’re seeing is a revival of the ancient ecumenical method of theological decision-making set forth by Vincent Lerins: “We hold to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” Laypeople can easily grasp this, and they are doing so.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Although I’m pleased with the rise of Paleo-Orthodox ecumenism and the movement’s desire to be faithful to ancient Christian consensus, we do ourselves a disservice if we overlook the fact that the younger among us have a tendency for unity (it is a command from our Lord) because the profound impression from their Christian experience leads them to regard all as brethren in the faith who have had like experiences. But, if the spiritual development and growth of such a newly converted individual is normal, then the time is bound to come when he or she feels the need of linking his Christian experience with the doctrinal experiences of the historic Church. So then, our young Christian grows and develops into a confessional Christian with denominational interests. Yet the Bible teaches us that all Christians have unity in Spirit which is the unity believers find in God but also in seven fundamental truths all Christians recognize and adhere to. These truths are: (1) one body, (2) one Spirit, (3) one hope, (4) one Lord, (5) one faith, (6) one baptism, and (7) one God and Father. These are the “Christian fundamentals” and they are the proper and Scriptural basis for all Christian fellowship and unity. As Ephesians 4:13 says, “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”
Although I agree that all Christians have unity in Christ and that the Bible shows us that we are united in Spirit, I also note that the Bible doesn’t show us how to resolve doctrinal differences. Notably the noble Boreans searched the Scriptures—and this is a clue that a sifting process is involved—and the first Jerusalem Council tells us that believers sat down and hashed out their differences, but the Bible largely leaves us to work it out for ourselves (under guidance of the Holy Spirit). For me, that’s part the fun of thinking with Christ: how may we resolve our differences, reveal the love of Christ in us toward each other and express patience while seeking unity?
George Calixtus sought one way by attempting to combine teachings and doctrines from divergent Christian traditions. Today we call his method syncretism and the method is heavily criticized because syncretism stripped away too much to arrive at a set of core beliefs and because the primary vehicle for unity wasn’t the the Bible per say but a confession (Calixtus arrived on the apostles creed as the basis of Christian unity).
Another method toward unity is Thomas Oden’s Paleo-Orthodoxy (summary available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-orthodoxy ) that seeks to find a generally agreed upon meaning of Scripture from the early church fathers’ to open the way up for greater discussion and unity among the three major Christian traditions. Oden holds the early church fathers (EFCs) are a good basis because their writings have had the longest time to influence the body of Christ, were closer to the apostles themselves, and finally, because no one tradition can claim ownership of the EFCs. Vincent of Lerins’ _Commonitory_ (Available: http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-11/vincentl/ ) should be required reading before exploring ancient Christian writers. Helpfully, Tom Oden summarized the methodology Lerins used to determine what is and what is not orthodox in his _Rebirth of Orthodoxy_.
There Oden builds a case for orthodoxy throughout to show orthodoxy’s patience, strength and flexibility within clearly distinguished boundaries. In so doing, Oden takes pains to show that orthodoxy doesn’t lead to oppression, but to freedom. Oden’s presentation in distinguishing the authority invested in the written word of God from that of oral traditions and why the written Word of God is normative and authoritative over all other voices is noteworthy. Of greater interest is his unpacking of the Vincentian rule of faith that says orthodoxy is that which has been believed by everyone, everywhere, and at all times. Thus to be trustworthy, Oden writes, Christian truth claims must: (1) Be the same faith that the church confesses the world over. (2) Be the same faith confessed by the apostles. (3) Survive testing by cross-cultural generations of lay consent through a trustworthy process of conciliar agreement. (Conciliar agreement: Has the teaching been confirmed by an ecumenical council or by the broad consensus of the ancient Christian writers?) What this means in practice: (1) If some isolated contemporary members abandon the historical, universally received worldwide faith, you prefer the universal to the particular. (2) Even if the whole community of believers for a certain period of time seems to go astray in a new culture with a new idea unfamiliar to the apostles, you appeal to antiquity above innovation. (3) If the reliability to apostolic testimony itself is questioned, you appeal to ecumenical conciliar precedent by looking at conciliar decisions and canons, where almost everything important has been already debated. Hence, there are four filters—or strata of references, if you will—through which to sift Christian truth claims: (1) The universal truth prevails over the particular (the whole is preferred to the part). (2) The older apostolic witness prevails over newer alleged general consent. (3) Conciliar actions and decisions prevail over faith-claims as yet untested by conciliar acts. (4) Where no conciliar rule avails, the most reliable consensual ancient authorities prevail over those less consensual over the generations. (As a general rule eight great doctors of the church are most referenced to chart ancient ecumenical consensual Christianity. From the east: Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. From the west: Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great.)