The name of our contemporary service, and the nature of our worship in general, is different than the majority of Christian congregations and maybe some would say is even "weird"--
--we use contemporary, even 'rock' style Christian music predominantly...but we use hymns and traditional gospel songs occasionally that are set to a more modern beat and feel because we respect the faith of those who have gone before us.
--we use ancient Christian prayers and creeds on because we're REALLY serious about our faith, but once you move out from the ancient essential beliefs our opinions differ greatly and we're REALLY diverse.
--we'd rather have someone associate with us, join in on our worship and activities, and start to serve others alongside us even if they don't believe all the "Christian stuff" yet, rather than demanding that they believe all the right things before they can participate.
--we'd rather have visitors wow'ed by our gracious hospitality and passionate worship than by glitz and glamor.
--we're trying to be a part of a larger Church body, both in our local church and denomination and the world-wide group of Christians in general, rather than a separatist, insulated, exclusive club.
--we want to be cutting-edge and ancient at the same time.
--Even our name "Faith Infusion" is a blend of ancient (how many churches throughout the centuries have used the word "Faith" in their name!?!?!?), and modern (at first our team felt like "Infusion" alone sounded like a dance club name!!!).
--The theology behind it is ancient...as you can read in the "About" section of the faithinfusion.org website. But the practices are often modern...as in this blog. (What would St. Peter have thought a "blog" was? Maybe something you shouldn't step in?)
So in the midst of the weirdness I want to ask:
WHAT DO YOU THINK?: An article I just read yesterday said that one tendency of congregations like ours is that they place a greater emphasis on orthopraxy--the right ACTIONS, than on orthodoxy--the right MENTAL ASSENTS / BELIEFS.
Is that what you think we do? Is that what we should do? Are they really separate emphases, or are they inseparably related?
For example, is it more important that a person act lovingly toward fellow humans than for that person to mentally assent to / believe the correct details about God?
Local kids plead for school
5 weeks ago
7 comments:
In this comments section, you can respond to the post OR you can post your own faith-related question you'd like me to consider addressing.
Have fun, and be loving!
Nathan
Is there a term for doing both? It seems as though having the correct beliefs and acting in life according to those beliefs is the direction to head. Since Ortho- means to be proper or correct, maybe there should be an ortho-term for having the correct beliefs accompanied by the proper actions. At my age, orthotics are also a good idea.
My reading of the Bible matches up with what pappap huling said - there is a category for wanting both. In particular, God says that beliefs result in actions. This is the main thrust in the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21. I have heard this passage taught as an argument for God's concern for orthopraxy over orthodoxy, but I think the key is in verse 29:
"[...]but later he changed his mind and went."
One son initially refused to work in the vineyard, but then CHANGED HIS MIND, and did what his father wanted.
James 2:14-25 argues exhaustively that faith that saves is the kind of faith that results in actions, i.e. not hypocritical, demonstrable, consistent, and providing an opportunity for God to validate his promises
Clearly, only lip-service to an idea is unacceptable. However, the parable of the two sons also illustrates that actions without belief also fall short. Jesus applies this parable to the state of the chief priests and elders. He says that the "sinful" people of the day would enter the Kingdom of God ahead of religious authorities because this latter group "did not REPENT and BELIEVE him [John the Baptist]" (emphasis mine). Like the first son, these people had said they would do what their father wanted, but actually failed to take the action of belief.
I recently heard it said that in the Old Testament, the meaning of every passage is what it says about the character of God. Yet often when I read the New Testament I am focused on what I should do. Which angle do you think is the right way to interpret the teaching sections (do this, do not do that) of the New Testament?
Also, in your initial post about orthodoxy you grouped together mental assent and beliefs as the same thing. I had always thought of those as two distinct concepts. Could you clarify what you meant by the two terms?
PAPPAP--I wish I knew of a term for doing both. If anyone reading the post knows of one, please inform us (seriously)!
As you and Silence indicate, it seems like we need them equally...though I'm not sure that's a balance that is easily achieved.
Maybe we can form a new word:
Orthopraxodoxology. I like it--though, it sounds like something a pharmaceutical company might sell that 'could cause...[insert something obnoxious here]'
SILENCE--
Nice screen name!
I'll address your last comment first. It's certainly a difficult semantic division, because people use the word "belief" in a variety of ways and those ways do not seem to line up with the NT "believe." For instance, I believe in birds in that I think they are real, but I do not "BELIEVE in" birds in a NT sense of believe (i.e., pray to them, follow their leading, etc.).
So like you, when pressed far enough I would distinguish between 'mental assent' (I think birds do exist) and NT 'belief' (which implies an associated action.
HMMM--an argument could be made that the word pappap was looking for is BELIEVE if the NT description of that word was used! Thanks for leading me to think about that.
As for your question about the right interpretation of the "teaching sections of the NT," I think I'd start by saying that I don't think that we can lump all teaching sections of the NT into one category with one interpretive method. Otherwise, "greet one another with a holy kiss" would be as absolutely authoritative as "love your neighbor as yourself." (Dennis Hollinger's Choosing the Good has a good discussion on this.)
I'm skeptical that any perfect system of interpretation is out there, and certainly almost no two NT scholars/pastors agree on the perfect method...so my challenge to you would be to interpret it in a method that honors God and the history that brought us the Scripture. Are we approaching it reverently? Are we listening to the Christians of old who wrestled with it? Are we praying intensely to be led whether or not to literally do what the Scripture says?
So though I'm familiar with the approach to the OT you've heard--which is very helpful and enriching--I don't think the Bible can or was ever meant to be interpreted with a single idea like that overriding all other approaches. Certainly that's not the only way the NT writers were inspired to interpret the OT.
It may be helpful yet to search for a new word - that way people have to wrestle with the meaning instead of thinking they already "get it" when maybe they don't. Your comment on two uses of BELIEVE illustrates this.
Thanks for your insights on the interpretation of the Bible. In particular I was keying on how much time we should be focused on what to do (orthopraxy) vs. what to believe (orthodoxy). If right actions are the RESULT of true faith, then we wouldn't want to get focused on actions all the time and live under the law. This is a difficult balance. The writer's of the New Testament always combine the imperatives (what to do) with the indicatives (why you should do them).
Personally, I think this process will always be uncomfortable and this is as it should be. If we are always worried that we are living under law or being too licentious, then we are forced to go to God and ask Him what He would have us do.
People should read this.
Post a Comment