I have had the privilege of being raised in a conservative, evangelical Protestant tradition, of spending the past 15 years in a progressive mainline Protestant tradition, of marrying into a Roman Catholic family, and of spending the past year at seminary under the tutelage of a Greek Orthodox priest--four vastly different expressions of the Christian faith, almost four different religions. All four, I believe, have a piece of the puzzle that is a whole, complete understanding of our Christian faith. However, the adherents of each have irreconcilable doctrinal differences with one another. In addition, for convenience and practicality's sake, we each only participate in one of these traditions or, at least, one at a time, based on our cultural background or preference.
The question becomes; the question has been for me: "Which one is right?" Who has it right in this theologically, ecclesiologically beautiful mess? I have come to the conclusion that the question is unanswerable. In fact, it is the wrong question, even as it still tugs at me for an answer.
It is a question of
doxis vs.
praxis. I was raised in a tradition that was concerned with
doxis, having our beliefs exactly, precisely correct because then, and only then, were we assured of our salvation. If we could make the intellectual leap, put the pieces of the puzzle together in our minds, then we were OK.
However, that does not seem to be the concern of scripture, or at least most of scripture. God called Abraham to trust and follow. The Israelites under Moses had laws, but those dealt with
praxis, with practice, with what they were to do. Yes, they still had the directive of worshipping the one true God, but how that belief worked did not seem to be important. What was important to them was the practice of worship in the tabernacle. The prophets, again, were concerned with
praxis, how the people of Israel acted, how they treated one another. Jesus himself was most assuredly not about doctrine and dogma. He boiled down the whole of the law to "love God and love your neighbor" he said "I am the way, follow me."
Of course, the apostles, including Peter and Paul, began to explain and contextualize the gospel for the benefit of their audiences. But, I think they were explaining their experience, not devising a doctrinal obstacle course for one to struggle through in order to get it right.
What difference does it make? I wouldn't waste the effort or bandwidth to work through this unless I thought it made a big difference. I believe our obsession with
doxis over
praxis is what has rendered the church impotent in the modern age. We have been so concerned with "getting it right" that we continuously argue with one another, obscuring the simple beauty of the Gospel to those on the outside. When we feel that we have gotten it right, we become smug and lazy, believing we have arrived, even as the world around us hungers, fights, and withers from lack of connection with the Divine.
So, the question must be, "What do we do?" In Francis Schaeffer's words "How should we then live?"
