Orthodoxy and Freedom

Way back in July, when my Dearly Beloved and I appeared before the Maroondah Presbytery as part of our ongoing application to candidate to the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church, I was asked by one Presbytery member how I would deal with the issue of orthodoxy and the requirement to uphold the doctrinal teaching of the church.

I was asked this question because, in the course of my presentation to the Presbytery, I had articulated my conviction that Christianity was essentially a faith of freedom. In this respect, I had described the received tradition of the Church not as the be-all-and-end-all of faith, but as its starting point, the basis from which, in the light of new information and new understanding, Christians could make their faith relevant to the present and enable it to be open to the future. In my view, tradition is not - and cannot be - that which ties us to the past; rather, it is the foundation for the future, that which enables us to take new directions and move toward new horizons.

Thus, it seemed to me that the unasked question behind the question was, given my views about Christianity as a faith of freedom, how would I accept the authority of the Church and articulate its doctrinal position?

As far as I am concerned, this is a perfectly legitimate - indeed, a necessary - question, because it asks for a clarification of what is meant by "freedom". Is the "freedom" which I believe is the core of Christian faith an anarchic liberality, a free-for-all that gives permission to individuals to believe what they choose, and act accordingly? Or is this "freedom" one that exists within a context of a particular understanding of the nature of faith, and the nature of the relation between humankind and God?

And my answer, emphatically, is the latter. Christianity is a faith that embodies a particular understanding of freedom grounded in the ministry of Christ, and of Christ as God's self-revelation in the world. But what is this particularity?

Firstly, I think the freedom of Christian faith arises from the fact that Christ came to bring humanity life, and life in abundance. Not, however, the "abundance" of so-called prosperity theology, which is the mere subordination of Christianity to free-market capitalism; nor is it the "abundance" of leading a life of ease or unending happiness, which is the yoking of faith to our wish-fulfilment. On the contrary, the abundance which Christ offers is a life lived fully, a life in which we enter into the fullness of our human nature. Moreover, it is a life in which we engage with every dimension of experience - the good, the bad, the indifferent - on the basis of faith, instead of simply using faith as a consolation for hardship or suffering. It is, in short, the experience of life in which faith is a philosophy for being, and not merely the expressed assent to doctrinal statements.

Secondly, I believe this freedom exists in a context in which doctrine and credal statements form the framework that enables the expression of freedom, instead of restricting or curtailing its expression. Thus, doctrine becomes not a cage but a launching place for the freedom of Christian faith, the basis upon which people - both individually, and as members of a faith community - can explore, question, examine, debate, and enter into the depths of faith as a lived, interior experience, instead of a mere ritualistic or formulaic process. In other words, it is a context in which freedom arises from doctrine and credal statements liberating the individual rather than confine them to a particular viewpoint or understanding.

Thirdly, I believe that the combination of the first two points - faith as a philosophy of being, and as a context in which doctrine enables the expression of freedom - combine to produce a third context: the freedom to reinterpret the past in light of new knowledge and new understanding in order to attain a deeper and richer understanding. This is innovation not as breaking with the past - which is not really innovation at all - but as drawing on the past in collaboration with new insights in order to be relevant in present contexts and open to new futures. This is the freedom to engage in innovation that honours the past and reaches toward new horizons.

Thus it is that I answered the question that was put to me by saying that the issue of orthodoxy and authority and tradition was dependent on how one viewed these aspects of the faith experience: were they chains that tied us to a dead past, or were they the foundations that enabled us to have a living present reality and also entertain prospects for future development. If the former, then orthodoxy was an oppressive weight; if the latter, then it was a liberating, life-giving force.

My view is definitely the latter.

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often. (Cardinal Newman)