Chrisitan Orthodoxy, Fundamentalism, Conservative Evangelicals, and Emergent Faith

The Difference between “Orthodoxy” and “Fundamentalism”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/03/the-difference-between-orthodoxy-and-fundamentalism/

by Roger Olson

March 20, 2014

Comments

Something that dismays me is the common confusion between “Christian orthodoxy” and “fundamentalism.” There are probably many reasons for it, but I think the common one (among Christians, anyway) is that people “burned” by fundamentalism run from orthodoxy due to an over reaction. Some people I know almost break out in hives when they hear “orthodoxy” used in a positive, prescriptive way–as in “There are certain beliefs that are normative for all Christians.” They can only hear that as fundamentalism. The result is a kind of Christian cognitive relativism that reduces “Christianity” to warm fuzzy feelings or ethical behavior divorced from doctrine. But from its very beginnings Christianity included (not reduced itself to) certain basic beliefs. These are spelled out in the early Christian fathers’ “rules of faith” (Irenaeus and Tertullian most notably among them).

What are the differences?

Fuller Seminary president E. J. Carnell (1950s) famously quipped that “Fundamentalism is orthodoxy gone cultic.” (The Case for Orthodox Theology) Of course, that by itself doesn’t go very far toward delineating the differences. So I’ll try to do that here.

Orthodoxy is belief in the universal doctrines (dogmas) of Christianity rooted in Scripture and commonly held and taught by all the church fathers and Reformers. They are what author Gary Tyra (in Toward a Missional Orthodoxy) calls the “Christological verities.” They include the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ (incarnation of God), Trinity, salvation through Christ and his cross, and salvation by grace alone.

Fundamentalism is (among other things): adding secondary and even tertiary beliefs to basic Christian orthodoxy as NECESSARY for authentic Christian identity (e.g., premillennialism, biblical inerrancy, young earth creationism), insisting that salvation depends on belief in a long list of doctrines including ones NOT PART OF basic Christian orthodoxy, and refusing Christian fellowship with other Christians who are “doctrinally polluted” or “doctrinally impure” because they do not believe everything on the fundamentalists’ long list of essential doctrines.

So Where's the Confusion?

Anyone should be able to see the difference between Christian orthodoxy and fundamentalism. But confusion arises BECAUSE so many fundamentalists are influential in conservative Christian circles and cause confusion by claiming their long list of doctrines as identical with Christian orthodoxy. And even some moderately conservative evangelical theologians contribute to the problem by labeling any belief espoused by fellow Christians that they happen to disagree with as “heterodox” which means “not quite heresy but for all practical purposes heresy anyway.”

This habit of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals to expand the list of orthodox doctrines to include secondary beliefs and exclude anything they strongly disagree with contributes to many moderate evangelicals confusing “orthodoxy” with “fundamentalism” and running from the former out of (right) fear of the latter.

We moderate to progressive evangelicals need to embrace classical Christian orthodoxy BECAUSE it is biblical (not for its own sake as if it were true independently of Scripture). We need to call out fellow evangelicals who either:

1) expand “orthodoxy” beyond its proper scope to include their pet doctrines, or
2) reject orthodoxy because they confuse it with fundamentalism.

* * * * * * * * * *
Addendum
* * * * * * * * * *

As long as we're on the subject of dogmatic differences let's throw in emergent Christianity as well which is a recent development amongst evangelical churches wishing to reverse the stress on "right beliefs" (orthodoxy) to a stress on "right behavior" (orthopraxy). This isn't necessarily bad because it leads out with a soulful heart convicted by the Holy Spirit into the Christian practices of love and grace, forgiveness and healing, hope and strength, ministry and outreach. However, as Dr. Olson will note below, Christian doctrine must lead all while also acknowledging that mere head knowledge without WORKS of faith is empty head knowledge leading to (or revealing) an unsanctified (if not lost) heart.

Hence, having participated in an emergent mega-church and witnessing the vast multitudes of people coming through its doors to there find spiritual healing was a blessing too manifest to behold. Here were broken, lost souls desperate for God and fellowship, love and grace, inner peace, and personal fortitude, against a life full of pain and suffering, remits and regrets, torn fellowships, toxic addictions, harmful dependencies, and  broken relationships. And there finding all the Christian graces in spades through an emergent church which had lowered its dogmatic barriers so all may enter who wished. Without reprisal, gossip, or graceless convention.

A place that offered spiritual healing and safety. A place that protected its congregants against the harsh speech of surrounding churches. A place where God's love could be sought and found. A place that held ONE communion table (or Eucharist). ONE fellowship with full equality. And ONE spirit of grace toward all (although voting did require membership by the swipe of a pen to paper and nothing more.... Even so, active participation in a small group fellowship or church outreach ministry is continually encouraged). But there was also found a fellowship that taught the doctrines of the bible - or, in this case, giving to those well-known orthodox doctrines an emergent perspective. Such as allowing women into active leadership. An open communion table without a membership requirement. An appreciation for Christianity's Jewishness. An open Bible and open faith. Preaching God's love to all, as they are, whomever they are. And, a Jesus-centric faith. Through all, in all, and over all, the Spirit of the Lord reigned and wrought great miracles. It was revival at its finest. Intoxicating and life changing. And it unnerved the conservative evangelical churches in the area.

Now whether "belonging" was a high priority on the list of fellowship requirements I cannot say. But as a progressive evangelical become an emergent Christian (and now a post-evangelical as emergent Christianity begins to fade away), I had there observed this emergent (or progressive evangelical) church spending each Sunday morning in 25/30 minutes in worship and another 50 minutes teaching the Bible even as it continues to do so today. It was exhibiting all the consequential behaviors and elements of belongingness (if that's a word). The front doors were wide open to all who would enter. The barriers lowered or removed as much as could be possible. And a place of spiritual ministry and healing could be found abundantly. It was a Holy Spirit place of sanctuary. Of worship. Of gathering. Of fellowship. And of ministry. And it was of God and God ordained, blessed, and Spirit-breathed. It was where you would want to be to find healing and re-energizing back into the folds of the world to serve and to witness through a sacrificial life and loving heart and mind.

Hence, the task here at Relevancy22 is one of continuing the traditions of Christian orthodoxy both in doctrine and in practice, but in a post-evangelical sense of renewal and revival. We here believe that it is important to divide God's Word aright while importantly distinguishing where a dogma or religious belief departs from that understanding. Especially so because too many Christians today come in with so very little Christian background requiring teaching and training. Hopefully Relevancy22 provides a starting point to those lives ungrounded in biblical thought and spiritual reflection. And it is left to you the reader to think through any salient points which may be helpful to your life, witness, ministry, and outreach.

Now may the Lord bless you and keep you as He leads you forward by His love and grace into a holy service unto a broken world needing His Son and divine love.

R.E. Slater
April 4, 2014

* * * * * * * * * *

“Belong, Believe, Behave?” Or “Believe, Behave, Belong?”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/03/belong-believe-behave-or-believe-behave-belong/

by Roger Olson

March 24, 2014

Comments

I’m not sure who first suggested the idea, but some years ago someone associated with the “emerging church” movement said that churches need to move from a policy of requiring right belief and right living for belonging to offering belonging followed by believing and behaving. For some postevangelical Christians this has become a hallmark of the difference between emerging (or emergent) churches and traditional evangelical churches.

While I sympathize with the impulse behind “belong, believe, behave,” which is, I assume [means], inclusion over exclusion, I also have some qualms about the policy. I fear it can, and often does, lead to one of two problems. First, the church may drop belief altogether and permit doctrinal pluralism so that everyone believes differently and there is no real cognitive content to the church’s Christianity. In that case, the church would seem to be little more than a cozy club of people who like each other or, at the most, together look fondly upon a cross without any agreement about what it stands for. Second, insofar as the church holds onto some semblance of orthodox doctrine (however defined), it may relegate full belonging to a small coterie of leaders who must believe and behave first and then belong.

Important to deciding about this is defining “belong,” “believe,” and “behave.” What does it mean to belong? What does believe include? What does it mean to behave?

In most “traditional” evangelical churches (setting aside fundamentalist ones), “belonging” means membership. And not everyone who wishes can join in that sense—of possessing the status of full member. Many traditional evangelical churches have some category like “associate membership”—whether called that or not—for people who do not fit the criteria for full membership but are considered to belong to the community anyway. But only full members can vote on church business and serve as officers of the church. Full membership, in such churches, usually requires some belief and some behavior.

Is it possible to “belong” to such a church without conforming fully to the criteria of belief and behavior? Yes, in most cases. I know a man, for example, who honestly expressed some doubts about his new church’s doctrinal and ethical standards for membership. He attended and participated long enough for the church to recognize him as belonging without membership. The church came to see the depth of his Christian faith and commitment and embraced him with the exception that he cannot vote on church business or serve as an officer of the church.

I’m not sure what “belong, believe, behave” means if not that or something like that. And yet it seems to me that is a very common practical policy (as opposed to written down policy) among traditional evangelical churches.

On the other hand, if the man mentioned above openly declared that he did not believe in the church’s core doctrines and would speak against them, the church would be well within its rights to exclude him (in all matters other than allowing him to attend public worship services).

Sometimes I think that “belong, believe, behave” is an overreaction to sectarian fundamentalism—churches that really do exclude people who don’t conform to a long list of criteria for membership. I don’t think that’s typical traditional evangelical church life, though.

Unfortunately, in my experience, some emerging/emergent churches have dropped any doctrinal standards or criteria for membership other than (perhaps) church pastoral staff. And some have dropped them even for pastoral staff.

Now let’s turn to the words “believing” and “behaving.” Does any Christian church really practice belonging in the full sense without any expectations of believing and behaving? I would ask churches that say they do to tell me what they would do if an openly racist person (e.g., a white supremacist) started attending and wanted to belong (in whatever way that church defines “belonging”). Would they embrace the person as truly and fully belonging without conditions—such as changing his or her beliefs and behavior about minorities? Or does “believing” and “behaving” just mean persons who wish to belong do not have to have a full understanding beyond doubt or question about orthodox doctrines and struggle with some temptation into which they occasionally fall? If the latter, then, in my experience, most traditional evangelical churches accept people like that.

Again (as I’ve said about many things here before), it seems to me that the “belong, believe, behave” approach is largely an overreaction to sectarian fundamentalism in which people have to at least pretend to believe in a long list of doctrines without mental reservations and live a perfect life in terms of traditional (especially sexual) morality. If the idea that we are all flawed people is what “belong, believe, behave” means, then I am fully on board the policy. But if it means dropping all expectations and criteria for full membership, then I doubt any church actually does that (even if they claim to), and I would oppose it.

So, to get more specific and practical: What should a Christian church require for “belonging” in the full sense of church membership (including holding office and/or teaching)? At minimum a Christian church should require members to believe in (if not fully understand) the doctrines of the incarnation (deity and humanity of Christ) and Trinity. I would add also belief that all people stand in need of salvation which is by grace alone by faith and cannot be earned. In addition, members should affirm that Jesus is the risen Lord who left the tomb empty, lives forever more and will return in glory.

What should a church require for “behaving?” At minimum, a Christian church should require members to affirm repentance for sin and desire to live a Christ like life with the help of the Holy Spirit and the community of God’s people. The person should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or in the name of Jesus Christ.

Anyone who cannot affirm those beliefs (even with mental reservations) and desire to live that kind of life should not be given full membership in any Christian church. However, that is not to say they cannot belong in some sense of the word, depending on whether they are perceived to be moving in the right direction. A person who flagrantly denies those beliefs and rejects repentance and living a Christ like life should not even be allowed to think he or she “belongs” (even as they are allowed to attend).