Over the past thirteen years that I have studied Christian theology in the academy and in the field, I have found myself, again and again, thrust into the battle between those considered “orthodox” (conservative) and those considered “heterodox” (liberal). This battle has disunified the Church, and confused those both sides are attempting to reach with the Gospel of Christ’s love and forgiveness.
Orthodoxy, though not a universally understood or agreed upon term, might be described as the conservative Christian theological system that requires “true believers” to have “right thinking” or “correct doctrine” in order to obtain salvation. Orthodox believers must be able to articulate and sustain a correct doctrine of the Faith in order to gain entrance into the Kingdom. The proof text for the orthodox view might be: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16 NIV).
With the advent of Liberation Theology in the 1960’s, a new controversial system was put forth that put the Liberal-Fundamentalist war on hold. Orthopraxis, though not a new theological formulation, was proposed as an alternative to liberalism and evangelicalism by South American theologians who were struggling against the repressive regimes in their respective countries. Orthopraxis proposed that Christian salvation was obtained from the “right practice” of and reflection on the Christian faith rather than simply the “right knowledge” of the faith. (Emergent theology seems to be headed down this road as well.) Matthew 25:40 could be a proof-text for orthopraxis: “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for Me.”
Most Christians would agree that both views, orthodoxy and orthopraxis, contain critical elements that are necessary to successfully live the Christ-life.
Unfortunately, Liberation’s orthopraxis fell into serious disrepute as Communistic elements within Liberation hi-jacked its main principles and asserted that “salvation” could be obtained by merely participating in the process of alleviating injustice in the world. This new interpretation of “right practice” discounted the grace of Jesus Christ in freeing people of their sins by His blood on the Cross (the Atonement). Additionally, the revised form of orthopraxis became a purely works-based religion, thus stripping Christianity of its power and uniqueness. However, it could be said that even orthodoxy is a “works” based system, because it often forces the believer to have a correct understanding of the faith before being justified.
In the end both orthodoxy and orthopraxis, by themselves, fall short. I propose that if Christians are to truly benefit from the partial truths found in these systems of thought, we need to develop a new grace-based option.
Orthofilia is a newly coined term that will describe an alternative basis for inquiry, one that incorporates the good of both orthodoxy (Romans 12:2) and orthopraxis (James 2:26). Orthofilia will be a system of Christian thought which emphasizes that it is only through “right relationships” with Jesus and humanity that one can be saved. Therefore, salvation is gained by receiving the unmerited favor of God through faith in Christ, confessing Jesus as Messiah before men, and receiving, by repentance, the resurrected Jesus as the Lord of your heart. Further, as you enter into a correct relationship with God through Christ, and appropriate the grace and power of Jesus through that relationship, you will be transformed into a Kingdom relationship-builder, spreading and sharing the love of God with your neighbor (Galatians 5:14).
The Biblical paradigm for Orthofilia will be the “one another” passages of both Old and New Testament Scripture. One of the main problems of orthodoxy and orthopraxis is their tendencies towards reductionism. Each attempts to reduce the Christian faith to simple emphases, and thus does not permit the believer to benefit from growing spiritually in the dynamic tension of the “grace/works” paradox. Alternatively, Orthofilia will be based on the warp and woof of the meta-narrative of “right relationships” as described throughout the Bible.
Orthofilia will always take a larger contextual look at God’s Word. This approach will assist the Christ-follower to not overly focus on the teachings of Jesus, a gospel that may seem to emphasize Kingdom activity or works (Luke 4:18-19), thereby under-utilizing the teachings of St. Paul, whose gospel may seem to emphasize grace (Romans 16:25). Hence, a theology constructed primarily from the Gospels may lead one into the trap of a one-sided orthopraxis. Furthermore, if one was to start from St. Paul (especially the Epistle to the Romans), and not interpret his teachings in light of Jesus’ words and deeds, a danger exists of falling into the trap of a noetic, one-sided orthodoxy.
But by focusing on the “one-another” passages found throughout Scripture, the Christ-follower will center their attention on the God who wants to be in a “right relationship” with them. With this correct relationship with and to God, the Holy Spirit will manifest His power in us so that we can be in “right relationships” with our neighbors (Matt. 22:37-39): “And He has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother” (1 John 4:21 NIV).
Orthofilia is only a new way to look at an old tension. Ultimately, I hope that the coinage of the term Orthofilia, its subsequent preliminary definition, and further reflection by others, will assist the Church in our attempt to bring unity to the “faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
