This past Sunday was the feast of the Trinity, the only Sunday of the church year that celebrates doctrine, per se. In my sermon I said that the Trinity is a “doing trinity” within which we are intimate participants…that when speaking of God, or attempting to understand God, it is best to speak of what God does rather than who God is… The formal theological term for this understanding is “economic trinity” and it is an ancient concept first postulated by Hippolytus and Tertullian both theologians of the second century C.E. So it is certainly not a new fanciful modern idea. Sadly, as Christianity became institutionalized and became the official religion of empire, codified formulas as to the nature of God and Son and Spirit were required by the hierarchy, the powers that be, so that the realm in terms of its religion could be on the same proverbial page.
The now imperially sanctioned church fathers of the third and fourth centuries were commissioned to formulate creeds and dogma as to the “being” of God. God was Trinity: (the doctrine of a Trinitarian God is absent from scripture) Father, Son and Spirit…three persons of same substance in one Godhead…the philosophy of Aristotle no small influence; the philosophical modus operandi of the Greeks always predisposed in its inquiry as to the nature of God’s being, and rarely concerned with the nature of God’s doing. In short, the church that evolved in the third and fourth centuries espoused an inchoate deism (that was later resurrected in the Enlightenment) that is: God is aloof in the heavens complete unto God’s self, who has created the world once and for all, and set it loose subject to the prescribed natural order…the Son and the Spirit being the means of making any connection with this God who simply and purely… is.
This aloof God whose love is meted out in bits and pieces by the Son and Spirit was orthodoxy (right belief) articulated by Augustine, and later by Anselm, and Aquinas, and still later by Calvin, and in our own day by Karl Barth. It has ensured that the Christian faith would be one that valued dogma first and foremost and that predisposition, as we have witnessed over the centuries, has made the church not one of embrace, but one of exclusion. The theologies of an economic Trinity have always been in the background, though a decided minority view, but always offering an alternative to the church’s dogmatism( most particularly in the mystic tradition) through enlightened practice privileged over “right belief:” Orthopraxy first, orthodoxy last.
The voices in support for an economic Trinity have become more resonant in our time. As early as the 1920’s Alfred N. Whitehead was formulating what he coined “process theology,” that as the creation including humankind is process, then God, Godself is process, the creation being an outward and visible sign as to the changing nature of God, and God inseparable from the process of the created order… The liberation theologians of the 1950’s spoke of a God as the active liberator of communities under the oppression of structural sin in our world, a liberation in which faith is necessary catalyst, the means of liberation incarnate in the work of God’s people…The notion of the aloof unmoved mover, the unchangeable God of the Greeks and their interlocutors over the centuries was and is being challenged by the awareness that God inhabits creation, is immanent among us effecting change….effecting change by means of Trinity: Creating, redeeming, and sustaining….A doing Trinity, not just a being Trinity; practice engendering belief.
And we the beloved of God are a vital, necessary part of this doing, this creating(the world still being created) and redeeming, restoring that which is in need of God’s healing and wholeness, and sustaining, insuring that this promised reign of God that breaks into our world as we speak has the power and impetus to sustain itself….therefore we people of faith, and I mean all faiths, all people of conscience, participate in this so-called economic Trinity…and therefore we are a part of the very Godhead, that is love let loose….which means all the affairs of earth are our business….all matters of creation and its well-being and dignity are our business, just as it is the business of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…but no less…because it is all the same….all one beautiful process….One blessing….One privilege.
Jim, thank you for your kind response in the “Of a Glimpse” thread. I began drafting a response here yesterday but must have clicked on the wrong button and all my “wisdom” got lost somewhere in the Internet ether. 🙂
Your disciplined method of writing communicates well. I find it difficult to respond in like manner. I tend to think intuitively rather than logically (perhaps that’s one reason I could really use a spell checker in this program). That combined with my lack of education in your field make it difficult for me to express thoughts clearly without using too many words, so I appreciate your having taken the time to read them.
Your orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy distinction helped me understand even better what you are saying. You explained “orthopraxy” well, but I still turned to a dictionary (your writing frequently causes me to do that). I looked at one or two other sources also and came up with the following concept from another author (whose blog entry is posted, credited and directly quoted in the aforesaid response now lost in the Internet ether) who described them as opposites in the sense that they are opposite sides of the same coin. I hope that is a reasonably accurate analogy, because it too communicates to me.
My perspective is that our actions ALWAYS will reflect what we believe. I also understand that one of the best ways to change what we believe is to change our actions. As with the orthopraxy vs orthodoxy issue, when properly perceived these are two opposite sides of the same coin.
My orthadoxy tends to tell me to take, and to influence others to take, many (if not all) of the same actions you embrace and endorse. Since both sides of this coin are populated by human beings, both will generate mistakes in both judgment and action. My side of the coin influences my portion of the collective population to be more aware of the mistakes being made by the inhabitants of your side of the coin, if for no other reason than that we might not be aware of our own mistakes. Logic and experience suggest the same likely is true of the population of your side, but I don’t know that for a fact because I have not lived there yet.
Even in ideal conditions, most people’s initial response to corrective information (which is not the same thing as an attempt to communicate a corrective instruction in my opinion) is less than ideal. When the corrective information transmitter and receiver reside on opposite sides of the same orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy coin, the opportunities for miscommunication become even greater. (This would be similar to the difficulties generated by my efforts to express my way intuitive way of thinking in your disciplined method.) The net result is that the information is even more likely to generate a less than ideal response in the receiver.
Effort and acceptance are required by both parties if they are to overcome the barriers those conditions cause. Most of us are tired and busy already. I honestly and sincerely appreciate the time and effort you obviously invest in sharing these ideas in an informative (and not necessarily a corrective) way.
My present approach embraces a personal salvation that results in positive ACTIONS of the type you promote. I have seen misuses of the type you have suggested by those who have adopted a similar approach. I have been guilty of some of them myself and may be so again in the future. Still it seems both you and I are influenced to take action and to encourage others to take action themselves.
It also appears that your approach tends to focus on a macro model while mine tends to focus on a micro model. But that does not mean we are not still both still components of the same coin, merely existing on opposite sides for the time being. As Carey Clark said in one of your “Of Being Saved” threads, perhaps we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing. (And I STILL don’t know why I can’t say that in 30 words or less.)
I may never be prepared to embrace everything you say, but I certainly appreciate your investing the time, energy and effort in saying it. I especially appreciate your communicating it in a forum like this where you know you likely are to be misunderstood by some and perhaps criticized by a few. Dealing with misunderstanding and criticism requires still more time, energy and effort, along with loving acceptance.
Your writings have helped me understand you better and to work on me a bit more. For that I thank you.
I would welcome any feedback you or your other readers care to share. I would like to drop back in here from time to time. I hope that will be okay.
Ashton, I know your sister Deborah, over here in Fairhope well, and I used to know you years ago (from another life, ha)
I found this article (these are not my words) that sums up what I believe about orthodoxy and orthopraxy, but says it much better than I would. The web site is http://www.reformationtheology.com.
To me, without Christ’s saving work on the cross, we can have all the best works in the world, but they are “filthy rags.”
Here’s the short article:
*******************************************************
Not Right Teaching, But Right Living
In our local newspaper on Sunday, there was a story about the emergent church, The title of the article is “Unchurched? Dechurched? Rechurched? Your prayers may be answered.” Here is a quotable quote from Paul Metzger from Multnomah Bible Seminary: “These communities span the theological spectrum, drawing from ancient as well as contemporary sources of spirituality.” He goes on to say, “For many of them, it’s not about right-thinking or right-teaching, it’s more about right-living.”
Does that not strike you as an odd statement? How can you have right living without right teaching or right thinking? It is not as if orthodoxy and orthopraxy are mutually exclusive. Yet a close look at the Text of Scripture would have us be aware that orthopraxy (practice) is dependant upon orthodoxy. That is why Paul, in his epistles begins with several chapters of doctrine before He gets into how we should respond to it (See Eph 1-3, 4-6; Rom 1-12, 13+). If we do not know who Christ is, then He simply becomes a wax nose conforming to the latest fashion and our religion becomes indistinguishable from other world religions of human effort.
If the basis of our faith were orthopraxy more than orthodoxy then we could think wrong thoughts about Christ all day, as long as we remain well-behaved. This would amount to nothing more than a religion of behavior modification or moralism. The Scripture makes clear, however, that to the degree we think wrong thoughts about God, to that same degree we commit idolatry. If we reject what Christ taught about himself, in favor of only His teachings about how to behave and treat one another, then we strip the gospel of its substance and turn the grace of God into something about us. Our orthopraxy should, rather, arise our of what He has done for us. The new life in us animates our love for God.
To Ashton Hill:
Since you asked for feedback from other readers, please let me make three points.
One, you say that orthodoxy and orthopraxy may be two sides of the same coin. Let me suggest a different metaphor: an estuary. In an estuary, it is difficult to know precisely where the freshwater stops and where the saltwater begins. There is an area of brackishness where the two types of water swirl and mix. In theological reflection, it is likewise difficult to know where belief and practice begin and end. Theology is a swirling and mixing of belief and practice. In the Episcopal tradition, the three resources we use to do theological reflection are Scripture, tradition, and reason. Reason includes not just rationalism and logic, but also experience and imagination. We use these tools to reflect on our life experiences, and thus our theological understanding evolves.
Two, the Church’s liturgical life is also part of our formation and theological reflection. There are two main cycles in the liturgical calendar: the Incarnational cycle (Advent, Christmas, and Epiphany), and the Paschal cycle (Lent, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost). These seven seasons of the Church year mark the turning points in the life of Jesus. In marking and living these moments liturgically, the Church lives the life of Jesus and makes the same earthly pilgrimage. This draws us over time into deeper relationships with others, the whole creation, and God. Thus, the practice of living liturgically shapes our belief which in turn shapes our practice. Where does belief start and practice end? The answer is unknowable, so we’re back to the estuary metaphor.
Three, the Church’s sacramental life is also part of our formation and theological reflection. Sacraments like Holy Baptism or Holy Eucharist are rituals that the Church celebrates regularly in corporate worship. The sacraments are outward and visible signs of God’s self-giving. God gives part of himself through the sacraments. The Church in turn gives itself to the world. The Church, then, is a sacrament in, to, and for the world. The sacramental life, like the liturgical life, is part of the Church’s belief which informs its practice which in turn informs its belief. So just like an estuary where it is difficult to mark precisely where freshwater ends and saltwater begins, so too in the Church’s theological life it is difficult to know where orthodoxy (belief) and orthopraxy (practice) precisely begin and end.
The Episcopal Church offers a way to do theological reflection using Scripture, tradition, and reason; through the liturgical calendar it offers a way to make an earthly pilgrimage by following the life of Jesus; and through its sacramental life it offers an ethic and witness based on giving oneself to and for the greater good, which is the way of God. The experience of all this is estuarial. And as anyone who has been in the delta knows, estuaries teem with life.
Dear Ashton Hill,
You broach a rich and provocative subject that, from my humble observation, seems to have eluded the grasp of many Christians through the centuries. Christians of various traditions tend toward one extreme or the other (an obsession with doctrine, to the exclusion of its practical manifestation in the life of the believer; or an obsession with praxis, to the diminishment of doctrine).
As one poster in this thread noted, works — charitable and noble though they be — without sanctification in the blood of the Redeemer are, in Isaiah’s words, “filthy rags.” Yet as St James teaches, “A man may say, ‘Thou hast faith, and I have works’: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” Right (i.e. biblically founded) belief always precedes right (biblically founded) practice; but right belief necessarily issues in right practice.
Another Christian has put it this way: Christ alone, received by faith alone, is the alone Agent of salvation. But saving faith in Christ is never alone.
Thank you again for causing me to dwell on this subject.
Thanks, all, for the feedback.