On the birthing of orthodoxies

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11102

[Virtue Online] 31 Aug 2009--
I just read David Virtue's recent article, "A Summary of the State of the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada", which I found to be enormously helpful, intended as it was for people like me who, finding themselves in the thick of the Anglican culture wars, can't keep the names, places, and movements straight.

(See David's article at http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11083.)

I was impressed by Virtue's use of the word "orthodox", which appeared seven times in his article and then thirty-seven times in the comments that followed. He used the term reservedly as a simple designation of a broad constituency of conservative Anglicans. His present use of "orthodox" is exactly like the earlier use of the word "conservative", once commonplace among Anglicans in a less self-conscious past.

Virtue's generic use of the word touched some raw nerves among his readers. For many of these the term "orthodox" is latently pregnant with meaning, if not loaded. I thought it would be worthwhile to review the use of this term and place it in the context of the present nuanced discussions of Anglicanism as it continues to evolve in North America.

Readers' comments repeated the usual chorus of reactions to the casual use of "orthodox" as a term, and I take them to be representative. To summarize briefly, they were reading through the lens of their own assumptions of who or what is orthodox. At the same time they seemed to assume their own presuppositions to be normative, that is, truly orthodox, whereas others' might be suspect.

For example, one reader objected to the use of "orthodox" to designate conservative Anglicans remaining in TEC; another to the "absurdity" of its use in designating ACNA jurisdictions that permit female priests; still another to its misuse in describing the Reformed Episcopal Church and other evangelical groups who do not explicitly affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements, which is "a pretty clear rejection of my understanding of orthodoxy."

This last remark is the most telling: orthodoxy, whatever it is, is somehow coterminous with "my understanding".

One reader observed that "orthodox" had regrettably devolved to the non-technical use to which Dr. Virtue had put it--as an equivalent to that embarrassing term "conservative". He and a few others found the word to be "useless" for just this reason, implying that the word ought not to be used and perhaps should simply rest in peace.

What the critics had in common was a sense that the word "orthodox" implies a claim to legitimacy, even outside the boundaries of a legitimizing institution or authorizing body. This is the psychological residue of a prior orthodox consensus after the original authorizing structure has disappeared. One of the functions of an institution with a claim to orthodoxy is that it legitimizes its members, placing them "inside" the group (tribe, clan, etc.) while delineating the social boundaries between them and those who are "outside".

But, if I may paraphrase the psalm, when the foundations are destroyed, what are the orthodox to do? Or to take it a step further: when the boundaries are eliminated, who's in, who's out, and (for that matter) who knows?