"Orthdoxy." We know that word, right? Well, maybe. English is a tough language. So, let's take a look at it. Because I use the word and you might use the word and we should be clear on what we're meaning by it.
Orthodoxy is defined as "the quality or state of being orthodox." (Thanks, dictionary. Always helpful.) Okay, so "orthodox" is generally aimed at religion, so "orthodox" would be defined as "conforming to established doctrine especially in religion." Even without religion, though, you get the idea. "Conforming to established doctrine." So if a swimmer was said to swim "in an unorthodox way," we would understand that there was a normal, established way to swim and this swimmer was doing something else. No religion required.
Here, maybe the word origin will make it clearer. The term comes from a combination of words from the Greek. "Ortho" refers to "straight" or "right" and "dóx" means "belief" or "thinking." There! All clear. "Orthodoxy" then is simply "right thinking." We can debate what "right thinking" actually is, but that's the concept behind the word.
So here we are in 21st century America debating "orthodoxy" -- right thinking. For the Christian the standard of orthodoxy comes from God because the Christian believes that humans are morally fallen (Rom 3:23) with deceitful hearts (Jer 17:9) and deceived minds (2 Tim 3:13). So we decide what right thinking is based on God's Word. Not so the rest of the world, and, hey, I get it. They don't believe that and won't believe that (1 Cor 2:14) and I'm not surprised. On the other hand, what they do classify as "right thinking" becomes rather strange because it is so relative.
We are told now that we need to straighten up and fly right. We believe that marriage has a definition and our society says that we're wrong and that's not correct. We believe that sex is reserved for marriage and, if "marriage" is not what we've always said it is, clearly we're wrong on what sex is for. We believe that God made male and female and the culture angrily warns us we'll have to toss that out because it's wrong thinking. We're confident that Jesus is the answer to our sin problem and the world tells us to back off and be quiet. We're confused and need to shut up. What we have are competing orthodoxies and the world is insistent that we surrender ours. The schools will teach their version of orthodoxy in gender and sexual orientation and ours will not be allowed. In some countries ours is actually illegal. In some places in our own country some of our orthodoxy is illegal. How long before the government mandates that Christian schools and churches like Christian-owned businesses conform to secular orthodoxy in matters of marriage, sexual orientation, and gender (just three examples)?
In all human interaction -- within and without religion, as long as there are two humans discussing -- there will be competing orthodoxies. No two people think alike, and everyone thinks that what they think is right thinking, so we will always disagree on something. Today, one side of this discussion is working harder and harder to eliminate opposing thought by whatever means possible -- law, media, entertainment, social media, whatever -- rather than simply disagreeing. Today, secular orthodoxy is not only regarded as right -- it is regarded as the only possible option. How long before we eliminate the First Amendment? (Might as well; we're trying to eliminate the second, right?) Typically a Christian worldview encourages those that don't share it to change their minds and join us. Today's secular orthodoxy wants to force the Christian orthodoxy to change. Things could get ugly.
5 comments:
I have a theory I want to run by you.
The problem with the “bible isn’t a rule book” type, isn’t acknowledging that there are rules in the Bible, it’s acknowledging that any of those rules (at least the ones they don’t like) are universal.
Because if they’re universal, then it’s harder to dismiss a bunch of things. Things like; an objective moral code, an authoritative Bible, the sovereignty of God, and even sin.
If it’s possible to apply the “That law is 4000 years old and doesn’t apply” test to every Biblical law, the consequences seem significant.
Let’s take “Thou shall not murder.”. You’d think that’s one where everyone could say that it’s a universal law that should always be obeyed. But, if your argument is “Murder is wrong, but not because there’s a line in an old book that says so.”, then you’ve put God in the position of simply agreeing with a truism.
This position seems to inherently deny God’s creation of life and His power and sovereignty, as well as the intrinsic value of human life.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think I’m totally wrong. Any input would be appreciated.
I think their premise is that rules change (i.e., relativism, not objective morality). I think they believe that the principles set forth in the Bible can't be timeless. I think they fundamentally deny that it is a "God book." Someone once told me that the most offensive verse in the Bible is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." If that verse is true, then God is the owner and God makes the rules because God created everything and knows best how it works. The premise of human beings is "I know what's best for me and, therefore, it's good and no one can tell me otherwise." The serpent's "Did God really say ...?" is the first expression of "I will be like the Most High."
I agree that it's much less about pushing back on the "rules" than it is about focusing on self, not God. Even asserting that the old rules don't apply is placing oneself in God's role.
What I've seen is that they won't argue that "Thou shall not murder." is a bad rule, they argue that it's not God's rule. Or that arriving at that rule by means of human reason and consensus somehow makes the rule better. Of course, then we see the pharisee aspect when they decide who this rule applies to and how it applies.
It's definitely just an updated version of "Did God really say...", the difference is that the serpent probably had a more accurate concept of God than todays progressives.
Yes, I understand and have seen the same. What they're doing is "I make the rules" and then congratulate God in getting some of them right in His Word. "Yes," they agree, "there are rules in this life. It's just that we (by some means or another -- logic, philosophy, our own ambiguous "harm" principle, whatever) decide what they are and if God's Word doesn't line up with it, God's Word is wrong. They make God's Word submit to their values.
Yes, that sounds right.
Post a Comment