On Orthodoxy and Pandering

I am torn on the current issue orthodoxy vs. the loss of identity for the current church. I lean conservative in most matters, so it is more comfortable with me to side with the old-school approach in some ways.  On the other hand, I can see the devastating social effects and philosophic isolationism that it often brings too.  I am concerned with our tendency to make things so all-or-nothing, especially when our conclusion-making just might start at some incorrect points.  First of all, let me say that I believe the Bible is completely authoritative and God inspired.  I believe it is God authored.  It is the universal by which all believers should chart their course collectively and individually.  The manner in which we approach those timeless truths from generation to generation, however, is what is important to this conversation.  I believe that while the Bible is true for all generations with the same amount of authority, efficacy, and relevance it is to be uniquely, skillfully, contemporaneously and freshly lived out in each generation.  That is not to say that it should be watered down, or made to conform to our boxes (our reality should be informed by scripture, not scripture informed by our reality). Just as each person must know God through his or her own journey and relationship development, so each generation must know God in its own way.  Paul talks about “rulers of this present darkness.”  I suspect that, in part, he was expressing to us that each generation has its own present darkness to have to face uniquely and against which its Christianity must be relevant and effective. 

One of the ideas I have been wrestling with for some years is what I, for lack of better terminology, have begun calling the problem of the pristine moment.  Let me explain what I mean by that.  It seems that throughout history groups of believers have looked for, and often settled on, a definitive, authoritative (pristine) moment in Judeo-Christian history to emulate.  A moment that is as close to a perfect form for the believing community to model as possible.  Should we be trying to get back to Eden, or the theocracy of Moses, or the times governed by David?  Perhaps we should be making a journey back to that moment described in the second chapter of Acts.   I have always found it interesting that orthodox Jews dress in throw-back, old-school garb.  Why?  They hail from a brand of old European Judaism whose adherents wore clothes that were contemporary to them; now those clothes are dated.  Why did the orthodox Jews choose that moment, that style, that strain to emulate; what made it more Jewish, more orthodox, more authentic, than any other (earlier?) form?  Or consider the Amish- why?  Why that moment, why their specific brand German language, why those clothes?  I get it: there is a reasonable answer to each of those specific questions.  But today’s Amish are not who their originals were.  They now come from here.  Why not emulate something else as being more authentically Christian now?  Why is so much of the Catholic Church modeled after a form of Christianity that came hundreds of years after Christ’s death and was several cultures removed?  While I ponder those questions, I am left even more baffled by the protestant form of worship found in modern American culture.  It zealously claims some kind of authoritative stance on scripture, but what makes it more authentically Christian than what the Greek orthodox are doing, for example?  I don’t think the answer is found in measuring each form or expression of worship that each believing community has held, in search of the pristine moment.  The answer lies elsewhere altogether. 

I have come to understand a principle that I discovered while reading through the part of the Old Testament that gives nauseating detail about how the tabernacle and all of its contents were to be constructed.  I read through it wondering what could be learned about the character of God in such an opaque and uninteresting part of the Bible.  I was a contractor for several years so the thought came to me that though the plans given by God in scripture were detailed and precise, the end result would potentially be different in the hands of each contractor who attempted to build in accordance with those plans.   Given that the plans were carefully and faithfully followed, there are infinite possible expressions that would satisfy the criteria of a God-sanctioned product.  So while the Bible is unwavering in its stances, there is at least the possibility that God’s heart has room for many varied acceptable expressions of the fulfillment of the requirements found therein.  The tabernacle is where the light bulb went off for me.  It is not the only place this notion is found in scripture though.   Whether we are considering the way the Hebrews and Jews worshipped YHWH, as prescribed by Him, differently from generation to generation, or surveying the differences of the churches (some good, some bad) in the book of Revelation, it is undeniable that there always have been, and will always be varied forms of acceptable expression of YHWH worship; of doing Christianity “right.”  Actually, Christianity as a development of Judaism is its own example of what I am saying.  I have learned one more thing that I think is useful to this kind of a conversation.

I have learned that scripture, among other things, is a cacophony of voices singing in unison the message that God has choreographed and is currently orchestrating to express his heart. Please note that I am not saying that the Bible is open to modification; it is not, it is a closed cannon.  God’s inspiration in accordance with scripture, however, is always fresh.  It is comprised of poetry that is to be understood poetically, history that is to be taken historically, narrative that is to be taken literally and metaphorically, and on and on.  Furthermore, this wonderful expression of God is not to be understood in terms of particulars for the full picture, but rather, in terms of principles.  For example: the law of Moses was given to a specific group of people who had an almost emergency kind of need for law and order after the obtainment of an overnight freedom from 400 years of slavery-as-culture.  That law was known to be temporary almost from its inception.  So while, on the terms of grace and the fact that it simply does not apply to our non-Jewish, slave-free selves, it is not ours to live out; well not exactly.  It applies to us in principle.  There are many things that we can learn from it like principles concerning ideal living.  We get a snapshot into the heart of an eternal God and what He thinks, and how He handles newly freed people.  We get to see a little bit about how He perceives ideal relationships lived out.  So while it doesn’t apply to us in specificity, it is ours to be wrestled out contemporaneously; it is useful to us, in our culture, in the now. 

I oppose the watering down of the Bible or of Christian culture.  I oppose making it user friendly to the point that it changes in essence.  On the other hand I challenge the notion of pristine moment choosing, and more specifically, I challenge any pristine moment that is chosen (hint: we have not found it, nor have we become the pristine moment, nor is there one to be found).  I believe that God has us on an evolutionary developmental trajectory from Genesis through the eschaton (I am not speaking of Darwinian evolution as it pertains to genetics or creationism), wherein he slowly grooms us into being His bride and slowly reveals Himself to us.  The Bible and Christian culture are not vehicles for formulas of living.  We are not to approach it willy-nilly either; we don’t get to just pick and choose what works for us conveniently or expediently.  We are to catch a rhythm of God’s heart beat and wrestle out our generation’s ideal Christianity so we can best serve God in the now.