If It's New Can It Be True?

Orthodoxy has been described as “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by everyone.” This generalization attempts to describe core beliefs as those which have always existed and have received universal acceptance as being authentic. This is a standard I have embraced. Stuart G. Hall suggests in his book, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, that this is not true, but that orthodoxy is ever morphing and developing – coping with changing cultures and ecclesial variables. This understanding of orthodoxy is not unlike the debate over the Constitution of the United States. Constructionists believe the founders knew what they meant and codified it. Progressives believe the Constitution is an adapting, ever-changing document that allows for the evolution of the culture. Christians are taught to build our “house upon the Rock.” If the rock is forever changing and adapting, doesn't that sound a lot like sand?

One of the reasons I am drawn to the Early Church is revealed in the analogy that “the water is always purest near the source.” Those who learned from the Apostles (who learned from Jesus), have the advantage of “hermeneutical proximity.” As Paul indicated in his first letter to the Corinthians, “For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you…” Truth, taught by the Lord, has been handed down from generation to generation. Ostensibly, it should be preserved in a pristine state so as not to pollute its purity. I believe this is vital if our children and their children are to understand the Truth.

Further, the Scriptures teach us that there is “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, it would seem reasonable that His Truth would also be unchanging. And this Truth should be discernible from the beginning. Later developments are valid if they deal with clarification, not new doctrine. Christianities' belief in the Trinity is a good example of this kind of later focus on an early teaching. Conversely, Joseph Smith claims to have received a special dispensation from the Lord. His reception of a new orthodoxy should be highly suspected by those who embrace the concept that orthodoxy has been believed “everywhere, always and by everyone.” If a doctrine can not be found in the teachings of the Scriptures and the early church, it must be called into question.

Can you think of any doctrines that have developed relatively recently? Zwinglian “memorialism” comes to mind. But, there must be others. What are we to do with later developing theological concepts? These are the questions that keep me up late writing articles. What do you think about all of this?