Christian orthodoxy is anything but a simple, easy-to-handle package: it is very risky business. Orthodoxy is a pearl that must be sought after with great zeal and safe-guarded. The risk is due to the nature of what is being investigated. The truths being maintained do not pertain to ordinary matters, but to extraordinary ones of the highest magnitude. Due to this fact, the possibility of falling into error is much greater and the consequences for doing so more dire. However, with greater risk comes greater reward.
There is a tendency among Christians today to pick up an idea and want to run with it. Thus, we see a plethora of material on but a few subjects. Many Christians tend to promote one particular theme and stress that over others. While it is sometimes necessary to highlight one aspect of the faith over others, we must be careful that we do not lose the overall balance. This overemphasis on one theme is where the danger of developing certain ideas as reactionary to others is all too real.
The Christian faith is full of paradoxes and, depending on the mindset with which we view it, seeming contradictions. Because the Christian faith was not designed by men, it is beyond the faculties of men to attain. In fact, it breaks the mould in which man-made ideologies are devised, because such ideologies are constrained to the limits of reason and thus need to be rationalized. Great trouble arises when people try to view the Christian faith using the same tools which are employed in the investigation of other ideologies. Unfortunately, this danger is something to which even Christians themselves are not immune.
The Christian faith cannot be fully rationalized and systematized, nor is it meant to be. To borrow an illustration from a former professor of mine, studying the faith is like trying to study frogs. There are two methods one can take: either watching the frogs in their natural state, full of activity and life, or dissecting them for further examination. The former method takes longer, but is very rewarding, preserving the natural state of the frogs. The latter method provides a much more controlled, efficient way of obtaining information; however, the frogs never jump again afterward. Orthodoxy is maintained by acknowledging and promoting the central role of mystery, which is necessary in order to properly uphold the paradoxical truths of the faith. Orthodoxy provides a context in which one is free to hold two truths that seem to be completely contradictory to one another, such as the truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Mystery is central to orthodoxy, because it provides a method of interpretation which acknowledges that faith is not determined by perfect understanding, and that belief in something does not have to be contingent on the comprehension of it. When faith is treated as though it were a science, paradoxes cause a lot of discomfort. In this regard, great effort is made to try and describe a way in which conflicts between truths can be reasoned away. The danger of taking such an approach is that greater problems usually occur as a result.
Orthodoxy is not a safe science, but rather is a risky adventure. Maintaining orthodoxy is like trying to navigate a ship along stormy waters. It is a wild ride and one has to be very careful to avoid being slammed into the rocks. It is by no means the easy course, but is the difficult way which few find (Matt 7:13-14). Praise God, therefore, that he has given us both his Word, which communicates to us “what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q&A # 3), and also the Holy Spirit, who produces within us the faith necessary to believe those truths which God has communicated to us.
Trit
hobocheese
rcvanmanen
Tertullian
Black Knight
redeemedcomments
epitomousnub
Beth
Although I agree with you in regards to the valuable nature of mystery, and its integral position within the orthodoxy of Christianity, I find the real struggle exists in discovering what should be surrounded with “do-not-enter” signs, and what should be explored. The problem is, how do you know how far you may go with philosophical inquiry? I think that this is a particularly hard question, and one that likely needs to be answered, because it can indicate how much we are to engage with non-believers. What is the point where we simply say that the subject-matter is off limits, and we are not to engage. Furthermore, will this not destroy our ability to really engage with secular philosophers and academics? (I may or may not be playing devil’s advocate!).
Beyond this, it does seem peculiar to have off-limit signs, as we do not need to fear ever coming to a place of understanding something that is incomprehensible, as it is incomprehensible. Therefore, it seems that, given what I just said, infinite investigation and exploration can do no harm, as it will reveal increasing level of truths, or at least will not destroy currently held truth, while never reaching the point of complete understanding. God’s mysteries cannot be revealed and unwrapped by human beings, thus we have no need to protect them from the prying eyes of philosophers. As well, it seems that increasing investigation tends to bring people back to a recognition of God’s glory, whereas withholding investigation can often lead to people believing they have all the answers, or that the answers are being monopolized by the church unjustly, as has been seen in the perceptions towards the catholic church during the late modern era.