Tents Within Tents
Tents Within Tents
Can We Partner With One Another in Generous Orthodoxy
I’d like to discuss tents. Well, at least metaphorical tents and how we view our place within them. The phrase “big tent” is one which gets used for many ideas and is especially useful when speaking about religion. My observation is that we all live and move between ever shrinking tents that end up within one another like nesting dolls. For this discussion, I am going to look at wide categories of thought. This is how I see the world, so your own mileage may vary. This is also a theistic point of view which influences the language and descriptors used.
The most broad category is creation, which encompasses all experience regardless of the size of a tent. This is our universe and its inhabitants. Theoretically, this could encompass ideas of multiverse, or even the idea of sequentialverse I coined from my friend Tom Oord’s understanding of time. The straightforward thing to say is that this is what we experience as reality and existence and is the most broad “tent.”
There are many narrowing tents, but I would like to skip to the theistic tents for brevity. Our first tent is faith. There are a few good definitions of faith that encompass ideas like trust, belief, and relationship. But I really like Aaron Simmons' definition of faith as “risk with direction” because it offers a broad description of how people experience faith. There is mystery and even the unknown in faith, but it is something we choose to acknowledge and intentionally foster in ourselves. The tent of faith is very broad and does not concern itself with orthodoxy or even whether that faith is right or wrong, it simply is faith. The thing about faith is that humans can be faithful without believing. I know that the last sentence is frightening and goes against many ideals. But it is true as faithfulness is moving toward understanding the risks involved. Belief is much easier than faith, but belief is also a tent within faith because the tents that get smaller shape it as we look at the breadth of human existence within a theistic framework. Like all our categories, we could write an entire book on faith alone.
(full access granted at 8AM CDT April 23, 2024)
The next tent is broad theology, which is simply humans working out what they understand about God. This tent is also pretty large, as it is close to faith. This tent encompasses varying understandings of God and the concept of God. It does not insist upon a specific understanding, so we could just label this theistic theology because it assumes a deity. Theology contains ideas like polytheism, monotheism, pantheism, and other ideas about deity so it does not contain particularity - that idea begins in other tents. This is the tent in which humanity can engage in multi-faith discussions and attempts to understand one another. Going into a smaller tent from here leads us into particular religions and ideas about our world.
For the Christian, the next level is orthodoxy. This tent is smaller than the broad tent of theology, but houses theologies itself. No, this is not inception, but it is a way to see how though progresses toward narrower thinking. Orthodoxy is defined by the Church catholic (universal church) and is the broadest understanding of traditional Christianity. Historically, orthodoxy is defined by the great ecumenical creeds of the early centuries of Christianity. Here we find ideas like the Divine Trinity, the nature of Jesus, the Christ, as fully human and fully God, and broad understandings of the Church, scripture, and God working in creation. Despite what some tents within orthodoxy may think, they are all orthodox within the traditional understanding. As we enter the ever smaller tents, we will discuss the danger that exists within the smaller tents in orthodoxy, as they often try to define orthodoxy as themselves. Ironically, some tents within orthodoxy have poles that are based within ancient heresy and thus not fully orthodox. That highlights how badly the contemporary church (at least in the West) can define and understand orthodoxy.
Next is Christian theology, which deals with understanding God through the revelation of Jesus. This tent encompasses theologies as expressed through broad categories. Theologians label theology here and give examples including Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic, Reformed, Anabaptist, Wesleyan, Arminian, Wesleyan-Holiness, Pentecostal, Celtic, and other ideas. The tents of theologies are broad, but even here we see hints of smaller tents attempting to define orthodoxy by saying who is and is outside the Kindom (purposefully dropped g) of God. While theses theologies may have ideas we find good or bad, they all fit within the tent of orthodoxy. Of course, that does not stop those who study these theologies from labelling one another as wrong or even heretical. But we can do well to recognize the broad understanding of orthodoxy even if we believe our theology to be the best expression.
The tents of doctrines narrow theologies into particular expressions which are most lived out in denominations. A good example from my own current tradition is the comparison of the Wesleyan Church and the Church of the Nazarene. Both are Wesleyan-Holiness denominations, but each has a different doctrine of scripture. Both are orthodox and both are Wesleyan-Holiness, but the particulars are different. Denominational tents coalesce around shared understandings of theology as expressed in doctrines. These tents may cross one another within certain theological understandings, but typically, each has doctrines which diverge from one another. Denominations also express their unity in different ways. Some create bounded sets that rigidly describe who is and is not a part of the denomination, while others form themselves within centered sets by rooting everyone to the center pole, understanding that diversity will exist that only rarely ventures outside the walls of the tent. Some doctrines within a seemingly orthodox group may actually not be orthodox. But the assumption is usually not on the doctrines that are truly heretical. A good example is the New Apostolic Reformation, whose overall makeup is orthodox, but their understanding and practice of special prophecy and direct revelation is modern Montanism. Denominations are at their best when they recognize their own particularities within wider orthodoxy. But denominations are at their worst when they define orthodoxy by their doctrines, which leads to the next tent.
Dogma is the idea of doctrines run amok. When a doctrine becomes so rigid and rooted in certitude, it becomes dogma. This is the point where sectarian impulses shape a group. When you believe that your expression of Christianity is the only genuine expression, dogma has formed your tent. Fundamentalism exists within dogma and the expression of fundamentalism can be both traditional and any type of insistence that one’s understanding defines the only correct way to view God, or Christianity. Dogma creates rifts, strife, and splits, but it is not the most onerous tent. That title belongs to a fairly new expression of thought made possible by the rise of social media and extreme partisanship.
I label this smallest of tents (outside of the single human who sees themself as the only true Christian) the tent of shenanigans. This tent is small because those within it demand rigid acceptance of their beliefs. This goes beyond dogma by actively seeking to expel or punish those whom they view as outside their understanding of doctrines. This is where you will hear claims of heresy emerge on ideas that have been orthodox from the beginning of Christianity. Shenanigans works in the shadows and in the open with threats, campaigns, and propaganda. The worst versions of shenanigans merge the partisan political fights with dogmatic adherence to interpretations of doctrine. The tent of shenanigans is full of those for whom reaction is key. They foment outrage at invisible and nonexistent threats. They use the language of hate and exclusions. They even redefine key Christian doctrines to allow their individualized dogma to become their expression of orthodoxy and denominational doctrine (at least in their eyes).
Your question may be “how do we exist within orthodoxy while holding our own particularities?” That’s an excellent question which my next essay will dive into. As a teaser, I will look at how John Wesley, fueled by love and pastoral concerns, worked within these categories. I believe we can do the same in our contemporary context and bring hope to a world in pain.
For more on Aaron Simmons’ risk with direction, check out his book Camping With Kierkegaard.