Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy
Series Part One
You may or may not have experienced these terms before but they are crucial to understanding a healthy view of Biblical Christianity. Consider their three simple definitions:
First, orthodoxy is correct doctrine/teaching. The content is right.
Second, orthopraxy is correct living. The lifestyle is right.
Third, orthopathy is right emotional and/or affections.
To deny a right doctrine or teaching at worst case could produce a false teacher or false preacher. Church history preserves this pillar for us through creeds, confessions, and doctrinal statements, all of which show that certain beliefs are correct and others are not. But the scriptures do not stop identifying a healthy Christianity with beliefs alone, there is more. Even those who adopt a minimalist view of core beliefs for the sake of fellowship or defining what a Christian is are in fact admitting that certain beliefs do matter.
To deny a right lifestyle is essential and many times may have its own motives: avoidance of confrontation, refusal to address a known sinful lifestyle, refusal to obey clear commands found in scripture, avoidance of ad hominems such as "legalist," etc.... In recent evangelical history, primarily in writing and preaching, this has been an issue of divide. Consider the terms indicative and imperative. The orthodoxy (point one above) has this one nailed down. They believe in right doctrine however when it comes to the imperatives then we have a new ball game. Actually its kind of ironic that the same ones accusing others of Pharisaism, legalism or any other self-defined position turn around and make up their own lists (usually from a minimalist position).
But in the end there are too many action verbs (regardless of verb tense) orchestrating the lives of every believer. You could also view this through the lens of bearing fruit and good works repeatedly demanded of true believers. If this were not enough, right doctrine and practice is still not enough to produce a truly desirable Christianity. Even as I write this I am looking at the mission statement of a our church our family attended years ago. Their statement ends with this clause, "glorifying God our Father in all we do and say." Here's a test case question: when you hear or read someone use the phrase sola scriptura, what do they really mean (maybe sounding reformed is cool, relevant, or trendy)? Do they mean the Bible is sufficient or the only source of authority for doctrine alone? Very interesting that sola scriptura doesn't apply to how we actual live (think: right beliefs, but wrong lifestyle).
Lastly, to deny that right emotions or affections are necessary leaves you open to influence from a plethora of external sources (all of which of course are neutral and unbiased, as some will claim). These last two are commonly denied to make it convenient for focusing only on correct doctrine and practice (that is right living and affections don't matter). There are many doors to the human heart changing and/or affecting our desires (eyes, ears, touch, etc...). I'll be blunt to end this section. If the sounds going into your head are producing emotions and affections that do not correspond with scripture, then the sound is not aiding in your sanctification. If what is placed before your eyes, is producing horrible images and thoughts in your mind and heart, then what you are viewing is not helpful. Or worse any of these gates to the heart produces sinful thoughts (followed with sinful actions), then don't claim it is aiding in your personal growth.
In recap as this series on sanctification begins there are multiple aspects to a healthy view of Biblical Christianity.
History through careful Biblical exposition, creeds, and confessions has repeatedly defended that orthodoxy (right beliefs), orthopraxy (right living) and orthopathy (right affections) are all necessary for a correct view of Biblical Christianity.
Hope this is helpful to your personal daily walk with the Lord.
Comments encouraged.
No comments:
Post a Comment