Comments on: Are you orthodox?

By: ash

ash — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:30:14 +0000

I think that General Synod recently added a new clause to the Windsor Report, asking that people not seek alternative episcopal cartoonage. But I may be wrong.

By: augustus meriwether

augustus meriwether — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:31:18 +0000

Orthary dixory dox
God climbed out of the box
Theologians cried “NO!”
The clergy said “Blow,
Now we’re all out of jobs.”

By: St

St — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:19:20 +0000

There’s a book I can’t be bothered to write called, ‘Searching for the new orthodoxy.’ Any suggestion that you have orthodoxy taped is just an illusion of permanence. It was once orthodox to have many wives. Paul told Timothy it was appropriate for church leaders only to have one. Now it is deemed orthodox to have a maximum of one (at a time).

By: Davo

Davo — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:13:11 +0000

It can still be pretty amazing when you come across a new, revolutionary and exciting idea about God – only to find it sitting there right in the middle of ‘orthodox’ teaching (This is one of those times that is calling out for an example, but I just can’t think of one at the moment).

But, I do agree with the sentiment – if you think you’ve got God all sorted out and nailed down (ummm.. that wasn’t actually meant to be a reference to the cross), then you’re looking at the wrong god.

By: robert marshall

robert marshall — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:33:20 +0000

God is Dix rather than Dox – as in Gregory?

fx – Removes liturgists hat – /fx

and no that’s not a French elaboration of the Trinity!

Robert

By: jim bonewald

jim bonewald — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:47:09 +0000

Well said, Jesus certainly challenged the ‘orthodoxy’ of the religious leaders of his day and age.

By: Karin

Karin — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:05:59 +0000

There is also the fact that some people seem to define what is orthodox in narrower terms than others.

I like Brian McLaren’s idea of a generous orthdoxy. I think it would go well with a wide orthodoxy, which, I think, the CoE has attempted to embrace, with more or less success, depending on how loud the voices for a narrow orthodoxy happen to be.

By: Tiffer

Tiffer — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:56:25 +0000

Yes – I certainly didn’t disagree with what you wrote, although I can never resist qualifying which is why I am such an annoying person

The cartoon is correct in that orthodoxy is attributed to mans (and womans these days) understanding of God and church life/behaviour. God is and never will be what we can pin him down as.

Although in reference to himself, God is very orthodox. I don’t think His values change – any open theists in the house?

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:46:46 +0000

Larry – indeed. I’m all for orthodoxy if it helps sell books.

Tiffer – you are of course right. Looking back is good and highly important. I meant to put ‘if in doubt be orthodox’ in the post somewhere. Actually, that would make a good t-shirt slogan.

By: Tiffer

Tiffer — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:40:20 +0000

Forward in Figures?

The point of being “orthodox” is just to avoid being swayed by trends and fashions and led astray by false prophets. Of course the orthodox position is not always right, but if an organisation doesn’t look back in order to learn from mistakes it will going barmy. If people stick to the orthodox position simply because it is orthodox, then they are being silly.