Twig, Branch, Trunk and Root: An Approach to Orthodoxy?

Can orthodoxy, as ‘right opinion’, ‘right doctrine’, or ‘right belief’, be traced as a single set of beliefs, back through the historical periods of the church from modernity, through the Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Middle Ages, post Chalcedon periods, formations of creed at Chalcedon and Nicaea to the early church, the Gospels and the apostles to Christ? Is the church like a mighty tree, with individuals like leaves held on community twigs amid denominational branches that flow to a solid trunk and down to deep roots bedded in Christ? Is this a valid image, allowing for a pruning, as heresies were excised from the trunk? Or does being perched on your leaf and looking back along twig and branch give a myopic view, hiding the ground from which your particular viewpoint emerged on one of many trunks? Christianity is neither like a mighty oak nor a mallee with many trunks, but is like a forest emerging from fertile ground.

In Bart Ehrman’s new book, Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, it is made clear that the rise of orthodoxy is more a process of domesticating tradition than rising from it. There can be no doubt that the received traditions as handed down in the four, canonical Gospels, reflect different communities. The Gospel of John reflects a community vastly different from that of The Gospel of Matthew, for example, and within each there are significant references to other communities. There are differences in how Christ is seen and portrayed and in how the communities conducted themselves, even in leadership. The writings of Paul signal that the early church was far from being a unified body. Opinions varied, with different groups clashing over approaches to the Torah and Torah observances of Law, diet, circumcision and the role of Gentiles and of women in the churches. Luke the Evangelist, in Acts, shows Paul, Peter and the community of James confronting similar issues. Add to the Canonical material that which comes from other sources, such as Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, The Shepherd of Hermas and the large number of apocalypses, Gospels, epistles and other books found at Hag Hammadi, early Christian traditions were very diverse.

Competition between various christological opinion lead to selective interpretation of texts among the proto-orthodox Christians of the second and third centuries, who can be shown to have altered Scripture to fit their own theological paradigms. (For a full discussion, see Bart Ehrman, "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the text of the New Testament. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 1993). The diverse socio-political structures, beliefs and practices of early Christianity were wide ranging, in a milieu of competing doctrinal opinion. The Scriptures that survive are largely the work of the victors (the Nag Hammadi scriptures being exceptional examples). The post Nicaean church passed on their Scriptures and within that we inherit the body of modifications to text that were made in an earlier time, when the scribes of the second and third centuries corrupted scripture to match their christological views. These changes by proto-orthodox scribes were made to combat claims made by others who cited early forms of the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul and non-canonical writings that support of suggest that Jesus Christ was a "mere man" (an Ebionite belief); or that he was not even a man (Marcionites and the opponents of Ignatius); or that he had two separate natures (Gnostics); or that he only appeared to suffer (a docetic belief); or was God the Father himself (modalism, patripassianist belief and that of the Noetus, Sabellius and Callistus); or to uphold the virgin birth or to deny adoptionism. (Ehrman, The Orthodox corruption of Scripture, pp. 262-263.)

In only looking at the first 500 years of Christian history, by way of example, deciding what was ‘orthodox’ and what was heresy or error engaged considerable dialogue, conflict and numerous councils. Language and cultural context influenced the development of local Christianities, with local orthodoxy in Caesarea, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage and Rome vying for influence or control under competing bishops. Orthodoxy only emerged under the state authority imposed by Constantine I, supporting one Emperor, one faith, and one church. However, even at that time, the potential for division existed between Latin speaking western, and Greek speaking eastern parts of the Empire.

Across the Roman world after Constantine I, there was diversity, with Donatists and catholics in North Africa, Catholics in Italy, Ebionites in Palestine, Marcionites in parts of Asia Minor, and Christian Gnostics where ever Greek was spoken. Much of the European Gallic and Germanic hinterland was Arian. Earlier times had seen Elkesaites, Mandaeans, Carpocratians, Montanists, and Meletians, to name a few. The Church Fathers, including Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Tertullian, and Origen, were a disparate lot, too, each facing their own controversies in struggling to pave the way for proto-orthodoxy. The roads to Nicaea and Chalcedon and the working of an "orthodox" Creed were fraught with squabbles and bitter division. Agreement finally owing more to the presence of manacles and swords than to concurrence, firstly under Constantine I (Nicaea, 325/327) and secondly under Marcian and Pulcheria (Chalcedon, 451). Anti-Chalcedonian riots occurred in Alexandria and Jerusalem and Proterius, patriarch of Alexandria, was lynched by dissenters (in 457), as they cried a betrayed orthodoxy! Essentially, Chalcedon failed and Christianity fragmented into Latin, Nestorian, Eastern Orthodox and Monophysite divisions, determined by culture and geography as much by searches for orthodox doctrine. Christian orthodoxy was an illusion, except among those who named themselves such.

Naming themselves ‘orthodox’ is the political game being played by Evangelical Members within the Uniting Church (EMU) today. They claim orthodoxy (‘right opinion’) in biblical interpretation, and in their ideologies of denial as applied to faith, membership and participation of homosexual persons within the church. Crying aloud, with regard to issues of sexuality and faith, that the voice of the EMU "is the only organised voice within the UCA representing main-line, orthodox Christianity," (stated in an EMU document entitled, "Debunking the Rumours", August 2003), while pandering to deluded, conservative egos, also points to a truth: orthodoxy has a diverse face. For why else is it labelled, 'main-line', if not to separate it from other, orthodox voices? Of course, ‘main-line’ contains a hidden value judgment, similar to the myopic practice of gazing along one’s own twig to discern trunk and root. It serves to delimit all other viewpoints in a false paradigm of singularity. It resembles the mob mentality that murdered Proterius.

Dorothee Sölle, in Thinking About God: An Introduction to Theology, recognises three paradigms or basic frameworks in contemporary, Western theology: conservative theology (which names itself ‘orthodox’), liberal theology and radical or liberation theology. In Sölle’s view, orthodoxy became a delimiting case, based on the neo-orthodoxy (dialectical theology) of Karl Barth, to ‘hear’, ‘trust’, and ‘obey’ the Word of God in Scripture and to repudiate all other "events, powers, forms and truths". It lacks context, having a "Christ above culture" approach, appearing "other worldly" and ignorant of its own cultural bias towards humanity, marriage, family and morality. It is also theologically ambivalent, for as Sölle asks, "what does it mean to hear Christ as the one Word of God, if some Christians assert that only heterosexual love counts as obedience to Christ: that it is a sin to love another person of the same sex?" (Dorothee Sölle, Thinking About God: An Introduction to Theology. SCM Press, London, and Trintity International, Philadelphia, 1990, p. 12)

Theological ambivalence, if not outright contradiction, exists in orthodox application of "Christ above culture" to biblical interpretation. It is blind to the fact that the received tradition is culturally determined itself, with its own languages of origin and diverse, cultural context, both within the text and before the text. The original recording of revelation is as much culturally determined as translating it or interpreting it. An example in point is found in Matthew 8:5-13, as presented in the NRSV, where The Evangelist’s use of pais and doulos is translated with one word, ‘servant’, in the English version, thus removing the critical, redactive significance of the pais language of Matthew’s Greek. Aspects of sexuality and same-gender relationships are removed from the text, in a shift from specifics of Greek language and culture to those of a selective, English translation. Thus the work of orthodoxy continues to recreate scripture in their image of truth, such that the translator determines the text. Historical-critical and literary interpretation reveal meanings other than orthodox translation allows. However, engaging such criticism is to cease being conservative and to enter methods of biblical interpretation in which the paradigm of ’orthodoxy’ rests in reason, the historicity of religion, context and hermeneutics of suspicion. In a pluralistic Church, how can we ask conservative orthodoxy to take countenance of things beyond their framework? The leaf and twig see the branch as definitive of the trunk, while failing to comprehend the ground that feeds many trunks. The liberal approach sees orthodoxy for what it is- an outmoded view of the world and the church. Liberation theology calls both to a critical and prophetic reassessment. It declares all things are possible, through faith (Mark 9:14-29). Well may we cry, "I believe: help my unbelief!"