Why Orthodox
The decision to call ourselves orthodox is clearly problematic.
To some the word conjures up images of bearded men in black robes
presiding over mysterious, smoky rites. To others, it describes a wooden
faith marked by a closed-minded adherence to abstract dogma. To others
still, it bespeaks an arrogant attitude bereft of humility and love.
In origin, the word, orthodox, is a combination of the Greek particle,
"ortho," (which means right or correct) and the Greek verb, "dokein." which
means to think. Initially, therefore, to be orthodox meant to think correctly
– as opposed to thinking in a heterodox or heretical manner. By the fourth
century it came to mean
"that which conforms to the Christian faith as formulated in the early
ecumenical creeds and confessions of the church."
Therefore, by electing to describe ourselves as "orthodox" we are saying:
that we are convinced of the essential truth of the apostolic testimony
to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ;
that we have chosen to center our faith within the boundaries set by the
ancient church's understanding of that apostolic testimony; and
that we believe it is absolutely essential for faithful men and women to
defend this historic faith against the arrogant intrusions of contemporary
culture.
In his book,
Crisis in the Church: The Plight of Theological Education,
(Westminster John Knox Press: 1997), John Leith asks:
"Are there any boundaries to Christian faith? This question
is now critical for the church if it is to maintain its identity and integrity.
For some there seem to be no boundaries. The Divine Spirit works throughout
creation and history illuminating special individuals such as Jesus. The
universe is somehow revelatory of its being. Persons who are moved by the
spirit can claim they are Christian even if they have no connection with
the historic faith of the church. Even for some in the church there is
no higher authority than ‘feeling reality.’ If I feel it, experience it,
it is true. This is the impact of our secular culture."
Voices of Orthodox Women believes that the time has long since come for
faithful Christians to work at establishing legitimate boundaries for the
church’s theology. As David Mote argued in an editorial in the September
1, 1997 edition of
The Presbyterian Outlook:
"No human institution thrives if it doesn’t know where its
boundaries are. "Having theological boundaries does not mean that the church
has chosen legalism over grace, that the church requires a dull uniformity
of thought, that creative and poetic expressions in worship and preaching
and writing are disallowed, that the church refuses to face the 21st century.
If the boundaries are very narrow, it might mean all those things,
but this church is not going to draw boundaries that are narrow.
I am not arguing for narrow boundaries. I am arguing for a remedy to the
problem of a non-existent boundary. I believe it is time to begin
a theological debate about where the boundary should be drawn."
Further, Voices of Orthodox Women wishes to engage in the debate about
such theological boundaries on the side of an historic expression of the
Christian faith. At a minimum, we believe that such theological boundaries
will include:
The doctrine of the Trinity – that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully
divine; and that God is one in essence and three in person.
The foundational tenets of Protestant Christianity – Scripture alone as
the authoritative revelation, for all people in all times, both of the
content of true faith, and of God’s intention for human life; Grace alone
as the cause of our salvation; Faith alone as the means of oursalvation;
Christ alone as the mediator of our salvation; and the glory of God alone
as the purpose of our salvation.
Another way to describe legitimate theological boundaries for our
church is in terms of what our Presbyterian Book of Order calls "the essential
tenets" of the Christian faith – faith opinions which officers of The Presbyterian
Church (Ministers, Elders and Deacons) promise sincerely to receive and
adopt as part of their ordination vows. Unfortunately, we Presbyterians
have neither been willing or able to say precisely what these tenets are. For purposes
of clarifying our position, we believe that they must include:
belief in the existence one living and personal God who is neither the
same as his creation, nor to be confused with it, and who, although unbounded
by time, acts providentially in history to accomplish his purposes;
belief that God has uniquely revealed himself in Jesus Christ and in the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and that these "twoWords" do
not change nor contradict one another;
belief that God has accomplished the salvation of his people through the
life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ;
belief in the resurrection as an historical event;
belief in the ministry of the Holy Spirit to sanctify and empower his people;
belief that history is moving toward God’s appointed conclusion.
As we said at the beginning, we recognize that any attempt to define orthodoxy
is fraught with peril. We understand that we may be accused of reopening
the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. We understand that we may be
accused of lacking humility. We understand that we may be accused
of representing a hard, wooden and graceless understanding of the faith. If
such indictments do, in fact, come, we know ourselves well enough to know that they are
not true – that they will merely be the rhetorical contrivances of "voices"
who hope to silence our voice without exposing themselves to the rigors
of the much-needed debate. However, we are willing to take the risk of
such vilification in the conviction that it is better for us to give clear
witness to "the faith once for all delivered to the saints," than to allow
those whose goal it is to deform forever the meaning and nature of the
Christian faith to go unchallenged.