Thread: Dead Orthodoxy?

What is the true definition of Dead Orthodoxy?

I have heard the term said most of my life by different people about different things. I guess it is sorta like the word Hyper-Calvinist. Everyone has there own definition of the word. It would seem like the great awakenings was called because the former (old order) churches were called into dead orthodoxy which I question now. I see the old order more interested in a balance of both Correct Doctrine and Correct Praxy. Those who called the Old order Dead orthodoxy swung the pendulum in the wrong direction which has lead us today into death ortho-praxy and hyper-pietism.


So anyway, I have been trying to formulate what exactly is dead orthodoxy..

Is it

A. Correct Doctrine without a change (regenerate heart)
B. Correct Doctrine without a correct practical outworking (Ortho-Praxy)
C. Correct Doctrine without a Zeal! A lack of zeal for the Word or for Souls!
D. A Combination of A leads to B which leads to C.
E. A lack of Emotional experience in worship
F. Formalism (A strict rigidness in worship)
G. Other (Please explain)


Also where does Dead Ortho-Praxy fit in today?

Correct practical outworking of salvation with a lack of zeal for correct doctrine?

What are your thoughts?

Having a decided lack of love for the brethren and a lack of patience with the more immature as they grow and learn, all the while holding to correct doctrine theologically.

Not to mention that any of your list above could accompany this as well. It's a hard thing to point out really. In my experience one can generally tell, particularly in a congregation setting if "Dead Orthodoxy (DO)" is creeping in. Because DO creeps in and love for the brethren and mankind slips away.

I guess I would hold more to "D".

I view E, F, and G as not part of dead orthodoxy but what people want dead orthodoxy defined as.....

Love for the brethren could fall under "Zeal"

Michael

Originally Posted by MrMerlin777

Having a decided lack of love for the brethren and a lack of patience with the more immature as they grow and learn, all the while holding to correct doctrine theologically.

Not to mention that any of your list above could accompany this as well. It's a hard thing to point out really. In my experience one can generally tell, particularly in a congregation setting if "Dead Orthodoxy (DO)" is creeping in. Because DO creeps in and love for the brethren and mankind slips away.

Originally Posted by trevorjohnson

Historic examples seem to be the Lutherans after the 30 year's war. Later Kierkegaard would write "against Christianity" and show how his country's dead orthodoxy was opposed to Christ.

Some say that the Dutch experienced this before the "Second Reformation" - but this is disputed. Some say England experienced this before William Carey in the form of hyper-calvinism.

Dead orthodoxy appears to happen in confessional churches where the confession is still honored officially but most of the people lack any fruit. Evangelisitc zeal seems to come into play somewhere in the equation. Instead of the church officially falling away, the church officially remains orthodox, but there is no fruit and the members lack zeal or love for others. Or (my credo leanings) the children remain unconverted while being told that they are covenant children and they do not make the faith personal to them.

What he said.

Originally Posted by MrMerlin777

Having a decided lack of love for the brethren and a lack of patience with the more immature as they grow and learn, all the while holding to correct doctrine theologically.

I don't know if this is the correct answer or not, but it is something that I do not want to fall into!

Perhaps we could define it better if we knew what 'Living' Orthodoxy meant.