Paleo-Orthodoxy
Hmmm...
So, I've gotten a bit further into the book Kyle recommended that I read, "Cruelty of Heresy," and I'm finding it fascinating. It certainly seems to me that the Orthodox teachings of the Christian Church are not little bits of history we can ignore. I am convinced that Orthodoxy is a good thing and heresy is a bad. It really doesn't seem that difficult to understand.
Wrong belief leads to wrong action. Wrong action leads to wrong institutions. And wrong institutions just aren't very pretty.
I see myself attracted, at some level, to the results certain heresies promise but I know they can't deliver. Allison highlights two major types of heresy, Adoptionism and Docetism. He says that nearly all other heresies fit in one of these two categories.
I think that at times some of my thoughts on Theology and Christology nearly fit in the Adoptionist model. Now, I am learning that this is a bad thing. I am, again, not certain of what exactly I think on this. I was fairly certain I had a good idea till I found out that someone already came up with it. His name was Theodotus. And he was declared a heretic.
Crap.
I guess I'm back to square one all over again.
Just when you feel you know a thing or two about Theology...
So, I've gotten a bit further into the book Kyle recommended that I read, "Cruelty of Heresy," and I'm finding it fascinating. It certainly seems to me that the Orthodox teachings of the Christian Church are not little bits of history we can ignore. I am convinced that Orthodoxy is a good thing and heresy is a bad. It really doesn't seem that difficult to understand.
Wrong belief leads to wrong action. Wrong action leads to wrong institutions. And wrong institutions just aren't very pretty.
I see myself attracted, at some level, to the results certain heresies promise but I know they can't deliver. Allison highlights two major types of heresy, Adoptionism and Docetism. He says that nearly all other heresies fit in one of these two categories.
I think that at times some of my thoughts on Theology and Christology nearly fit in the Adoptionist model. Now, I am learning that this is a bad thing. I am, again, not certain of what exactly I think on this. I was fairly certain I had a good idea till I found out that someone already came up with it. His name was Theodotus. And he was declared a heretic.
Crap.
I guess I'm back to square one all over again.
Just when you feel you know a thing or two about Theology...
posted by -mike- at 1:32 PM
4 Comments:
You mention that your views on Christology nearly fit an Adoptionist model. I'm just curious if you could expand on that just a bit. Is it based on an understanding of the (ontological) nature of Jesus or of his own self-realization?
I should have been more specific when I wrote that, my bad. What I meant to convey is that my understanding of the way Jesus of Nazareth understood himself as well as what exactly his "divine nature" was made of fits inside of Adoptionism.
Now I'm trying to fix that.
:)
Theology will do do that to you. Good and careful study requires humility and intense attention. It's not easy but it's good for you.
I'm glad that you're "trying to fix that" as your study of Church history and theology will demonstrate some of the trouble of adoptionism and docetism.
I'm really trying to understand it some more. I am reading Allison, Benedict, Vivian Green, Hauerwas, Schwager, Merton, and the Scriptures trying to figure out exactly what this "Orthodoxy" is all about.
I'll admit, it's a bit of a new concept to me... trying to follow in the footsteps of "good" Christians who have gone before all of us. I'm tired of reading theology that is so stuck defining God, Salvation, and Sin inside of the whole modernist paradigm. I think God works outside of that and that Orthodox teachings are proof of it.
Now coming to say that I am Orthodox... that will take a while. All I know is that I don't want to be a heretic!!
:)
Post a Comment
<< Home