Orthodoxy and Subjectivity
I was thinking after the Call-in Fireside today, as Orthodoxy was mentioned in a couple of different ways. (Both Jewish and Christian Orthodoxy.) It brings to my consideration the tension between Subjectivity and Orthodoxy.
Orthodox views are almost always more traditional (except in Mormonism, where they are more obedient-based to current leadership rather than tradition), whereas the variety of other views such as progressive, mainline, fringe, scholarly/academic consensus, revealed from personal experience or study, can range all over the board.
I don’t fault someone for holding any of these views if that’s what their seeking and life experience has led them to. In fact, if someone wants to learn about a tradition they haven’t been exposed much to before, the best way is usually to start looking at either the orthodox(most traditional) or mainline (most common) views to get an idea of what its all about.
The thing I dislike about Orthodoxy, however, is that it often draws a line in the sand which effectively closes the door to others. (And, I would count Evangelical Christianity as its own special type of Orthodoxy in this way.)
Almost all progressive groups (just as an example) would consider orthodox to be valid but different expression of their same faith-tradition (while acknowledging the flaws, and hopefully that they also have flaws themselves), but it seems to me like almost all orthodox leaders consider authority supreme, and labeling to be their sole prerogative, to the point that the non-orthodox “aren’t really valid (fill in the blank)” be it Mormons, Jews, Christians, etc. The orthodox mindset seems to translate easily into a tendency of “looking down” on the other viewpoints and seeing them as “less than.”
I think honoring subjectivity is an important part of loving others– honoring that their viewpoints are genuine, heartfelt, and sincerely arrived at. Welcoming to the table of discussion and perhaps fellowship, even those with whom there are disagreements, and keeping the tent as large as possible, seems to me an expression of love.
When I called in to share that Genesis 1-11 might be allegorical, it was me extending (to the caller who asked about allegory) the attitude that you are welcome at my personal table of discussion whether you think they are literal OR allegorical. It’s okay to hold either view or anything in between.
Now, I rant a bit:
It’s sadly so often the case (but not one I have felt here, to be clear) that people who teach a literal flood, a literal garden of eden, a young earth with literal genealogies, label those who do not take literalism as faithless and outcast them, or alienate them. Like it is used as a litmus test to drive out those of different mindsets. Ironically, these are often the same people who say “faith alone” and “not works” but the faith they require of others isn’t a simple thing… it often goes way outside the bounds of what he scripture says, even, and requires them to reject evolution, and hold a whole litany of political views as well, in order to be considered true faith. When this “faith alone” has a laundry list of can and cannots that seems designed to exclude entire fields of scientists and entire disciplines and vocations of people… is that really faith and love?
There are other reasons I point out the evidence for the late composition of Genesis 1-11 as well: I think putting a late text at the beginning of the collection of scripture (Torah/Tanakh/Bible) causes a big shift in emphasis when the scriptures become adopted by the first generations of Gentile Christians, I think its treatment as almost pre-eminent is one of the biggest causes of divide between Christian and Jewish perspectives. “Revelation” at the end being the other one that carries a lot of weight in this way – often dividing one denomination of Christianity from another because of its various interpretations.
- 1 Reply
Amen, brother, beautifully said!
Log in to reply.