Here are two men:
One is obsessed with nature. He studies it. He observes it. He quantifies, qualifies and catalogs it. He memorizes the facts and figures that describe it. He is passionate about his obsession and he works diligently at learning more in his attempts at revealing the structures and patterns that run through nature. He reads and writes and reads and writes some more. Although he cannot satisfy his curiosity, he has little time to ever get out of doors (except to collect samples).
The other man is very comfortable being outdoors and that is where he can usually be found. He goes on long hikes, he floats down rivers, he lies on his back in fields of clover, basking in sunshine. He sleeps outdoors, walks in rainstorms, builds campfires in snowstorms and stares fascinated at thunderstorms. He might know the name of a certain tree, a flower or a cloud formation, but then again, he might not. He has doubts if he will ever understand the natural world, but he cannot imagine ever being apart from it.
i fall into the second description, right now.
all i know is i love being in His presence. i love soaking Him up. His word, His creation, His people.
actually, in this season, He is taking brent and me through quite a journey and is speaking to us on a level like never before. and its real! and i am humbled to a part of this, of Him.
i dont always “get it” – but i am always searching…
By: tam on November 12, 2008
at 2:43 am
So is orthodoxy a butterfly?
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on November 12, 2008
at 6:59 am
So in a post-modern, emerging world without taint of orthodoxy [cue John Lennon], who is say that anyone’s view of God or His relationship with His people is correct?
You’re close, but the answer is simple: we just need more “outdoor lepidopterists”.
By: Steve on November 12, 2008
at 11:36 am
Steve, you’re right. It’s not that one is better than the other, they’re just different.
The second picture was of John Muir. He certainly was an outdoorsman but he loved to write and was more than conversant with the science of nature.
It’s just that religious orthodoxy is incomplete. You can learn a lot about nature by studying butterflies. But it tells you very little about life beneath the sea.
By: Christian Beyer on November 12, 2008
at 11:46 am
Any analogy breaks down – how to describe the Trinity? The question wasn’t about knowledge of life under the sea, but butterflies. A proper study would require lab work and field work, and one without the other would be incomplete. Likewise, to ignore orthodoxy will give in correct and unbalanced view of God.
By: Steve on November 12, 2008
at 1:08 pm
Do you mean that we can’t describe the Trinity? I think that can describe what we call the ‘trinity’ but is that really a description of God or just a tool for human understanding?
The Trinity is a perfect example: Look at all the controversy and animosity that has stemmed from the presence of one letter: homoousios vs. homoiousios.
We have two orthodoxies at work here – which one is more correct and balanced?
By: Christian Beyer on November 12, 2008
at 3:18 pm
Well I think I’ve functioned like the taxonomist above in my Christian practice. I’ve learned lots about God and thought I had things neatly categorized… but then along comes life… In the past year I have had twin girls, only to lose one of them two days later, and my mom has struggled with serious mental illness bringing up tons of “stuff” from my past that has never been entered into. So now my “display case” has crashed on the floor and the critters are spilled all over the floor and I am scrounging around trying to rebuild… and it makes me sad… and mad… I worked so hard to keep it all straight and how will I ever put it back. But I’m slowly learning that maybe I don’t have to reorganize it all… maybe God is in the chaos as much or more as in the order… maybe God can put things “back together” far better than I could in all my struggling to do it just right.
By: Alan on November 12, 2008
at 4:23 pm
Man.
Alan, I think you have put your finger right on the danger inherent to taxonomies (great word,here btw). Since they are structures that often provide us with sense of order and security they are particularly vulnerable when the foundation is shaken by life. They can become houses of cards.
I think that that many (not all!) people who are comfortable with these types of highly structured orthodoxies are aware of this danger, hence the tendency to be so defensive of them.
“…maybe God is in the chaos as much or more as in the order… ” What a great question/observation. How many times have we heard people share stories like yours, that God reaches us through our brokenness, our weakness, not through our strength.
Thanks, Alan, for sharing yourself with us. I hope you will find more peace.
By: Christian Beyer on November 12, 2008
at 4:51 pm
Orthodox–here is a word that has a panoply of meanings. I believe in means “true worship” or “accepted worship.”
Orthodoxy was not defined until the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries.
The Reformation and Councils of Trent redefined orthodoxy–as did the 2 Vatican Councils.
Protestants and non-conformists (Baptists, pentecostals, charasmatics) make orthodoxy an open idea–with the latter 2 frequently redefining orthodoxy based on “moves” of God.
To boil it down, one man’s orthodoxy is another’s heresy. I used to hear one of my AG buds use the term “worshipping God in an unprescribed manner . . .” and he would soon follow this with “will take you to hell.” Hmm.
What are the biblical prescriptions? Worship in the Tabernacle? In the Temple? Wherever Christians gather?
Okay, beyond that, we are called to “Worship in Spirit and in Truth.” The questions is, how can we be assured of a timeless truth?
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on November 12, 2008
at 6:36 pm
Maybe we have a tainted definition of the word “orthodoxy.”
Let me find my good friend Kenneth Burke join the conversation, with his “terministic screens: (by which) we come to see the world as our symbol systems enable us to see it” (http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/burke.html–Accessed 11/12/08)
In other words, we throw out words like “Orthodox” and join in what we believe to be the truth. However, we learn that the Church defined orthodoxy, not Scripture.
For example, it is orthodox to say, “Jesus died for my sins” and it is true, especially in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews that this is a Scriptural position. However, the Bible does not define what fits the terministic screen of “orthodoxy.” Think about the Jews of Jesus’s time. The “orthodox” were attacking Jesus left and right. The Pharisees attacked Jesus because He did not keep the Sabbath–The Saducees attacked Jesus because He preached the eternal nature of the human soul. Yet, these groups were at war with eachother over–you guessed it–ORTHODOXY. (The Essenes had enough of this and went desert-ville, man. Like Dead Sea Scroll-Ville).
Anyway, I think we mistake reporting for prescription, and prescription for a particular group (like the Corinthians) as a one-size-fits-all orthodoxy.
I’ve read enough theology, and read the Bible through enough times (at least 5, and through the NT more than that). I have also been in United Church of Christ, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal (AG and 4 Square) Calvary Chapel, non-denom-Baptist-leaning-ex- Church of God of Findlay, Ohio, and currently a Church of God of Findlay, Ohio churches, not to mention attending several services with Messianic Jews (also including 3 colleges connected with this hodge-podge, as well as a mail order seminary with some Baptist and Calvinist leaning professors).
In all of these travels, I have discovered one thing–Orthodoxy is like a calloid–both fluid and solid at the same time, kind of like Corn Starch mixed with water. As I said above, what is orthodox to the Pentecostals is absolute heresy to some Baptists and others; what is heresy to the Calvary Chapel folks is common practice among Lutherans and the United Church of Christ.
So, you want to nail down orthodoxy to the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed, and give credit to Augustine and Abelard–fine–but when you remove the leaven from the bread, you’re gonna anger a lot of Greek and Russian Christians who like their communion bread with a little yeast–and they have no problem claiming that they have the true right to call themselves the exclusive descendants of the beliefs of Peter, James, John, and Jesus Himself.
Phew!!!!
By: logiopsychoambrosiaivorytowerpath on November 12, 2008
at 9:59 pm
Phew! is right. Whew. Boy. Let me catch my breath, here. Good golly. OK.
Yep.
By: Christian Beyer on November 12, 2008
at 10:24 pm
BTW–With the Russian Orthodox it is more like a communion muffin (really, I’m not kidding–I was given one of these muffins by a “Reader” in a real Russian Orthodox Church).
By: logiopsychopathivorytowerdweller on November 13, 2008
at 8:31 am