(I lost a longer version of this comment several days ago when my comp decided it needed to restart to install some updates)

Cheapham,

I am not sure if you are doing the same thing I am doing. You seem to be criticizing misappropriations of orthodoxy and the idea of orthodoxy, not a rejection of orthodoxy itself. Do you reject its existence? Do you yourself not have a stance on orthodoxy (whether you like it or not?)? The fact that it is not easy to define and the fact that people have abused in orthodoxy's name does not negate the idea that there is some standard, some requirement, something out there by which God allows people into her kingdom or excludes them (Matthew 18, that which freaked out the johanine community and caused the writing of the Johanine letters, etc), and can't we call that orthodoxy? That is why I don't want to criticize the notion of orthodoxy, but not use it as a requirement of breaking fellowship.

I like the warnings and difficulties that you discuss when talking about the concept. I wonder about your view here because I don't see anything positively asserted.

"I would say that when you break orthodoxy, then you are no longer a follower of Jesus."

While Henry didn't want to "criticize" this, I think it requires some serious inquiry.

Defining "orthodoxy" is a pretty tall order. Whose "orthodoxy" are we talking here? At what point in church history do we consider "orthodoxy" established...and then at what point in church history do we consider "orthodoxy" left behind? Orthodoxy is a very contested term, and has been since the inception of Christianity. Much of what is popularly considered orthodoxy doesn't become solidified until the 4th and 5th centuries CE...and a good deal of what was codified during those times was actually a set of compromises that didn't leave anyone at the time happy (I'm looking at you Nicean Creed).

If you can establish an objective "orthodoxy" (Good luck!), then comes the problem of determining what it means to "break it." How much and/or how often must one think differently for them to be considered an "orthodoxy breaker." Does merely entertaining certain notions committ someone to unorthodoxy? Do doubts damn someone? Does one really have to believe an entire checklist of ideas formulated by powerful male elites to be a true "follower of Jesus"? What does someone's view of the trinity have to do with how genuinely they are FOLLOWING Jesus? It seems that we would know how well someone follows Jesus more by how they act/live and less by how much they assert beliefs codified hundreds of years after Jesus' death.

Sorry if that came off overly harsh, but I think throwing the term "orthodoxy" around is often problematic. We need to be careful about it, and recognize the very serious ramifications that term has...the very dangerous consequences it can bring about. Just think of how many countless thousands (millions?) have died because someone didn't think they were "orthodox" enough.

Titus 3:9-11 I think sheds some great light on this issue and yet muddies the water. In Titus 3:9, the arguments and disputes are hard to nail down because one would have to be present in Titus' church. But there are disputes and quarrels that are unprofitable to the Christian because it prevents a person from being the person that Paul has instructed in Titus 3:1-2. In Titus 3:10 Paul says to "Reject a divisive person after one or two warnings." Paul warns Titus to reject a divisive person (αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον). I think we must break fellowship with one who is bent on pursuing these "foolish controversies" that "are useless and empty" (Titus 3:9 NET) to the point that they cause division. Paul is very concerned with a unified body and that if it means rejecting one who is causing division to achieve that unity, then so be it. This idea is echoed in Romans 16:17-18. Now the big kicker in Titus 3:9-11--and Romans 16:17-18--is that this "divisive person" is one who is "twisted by sin" (NET) (In Romans 16 Paul says the false teacher serves not Christ but his own appetite). This has to do with a person who is caught up in sin and has been engaging in "foolish controversies." Thus after confronting that person not once, but twice, that "divisive person...twisted by sin" is to be "rejected." Or as Paul says in Romans 16:17-18, that person is to be avoided. We must make an attempt to correct that person ("warnings" in Titus 3:10 is νουθεσίαν, meaning "instruction"), indeed repeated attempts. But when the "divisive person" insists upon his/her sin and divisive teachings, he/she must be cast out of the church in order to prevent other sheep from falling after him/her. Paul is applying Jesus' teaching on church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17 to false teachers. But this casting out or treating sinner as a Gentile sinner is for their redemption and salvation (1 Corinthians 5:5). So we are not to cast the "divisive person" out just for the sake casting them out, it is so that they might return to the community in restored fellowship and unity.

"Break orthodoxy..." what does that mean exactly? I'm not criticizing what you are saying, just noting that it is such a hard thing to define and evaluate. How unorthodox are we talking? Thinking Jesus is a son of God, not the son of God? Too high or low of a role of women in ministry? The theological acceptance of instruments in worship? The nature and efficacy of the bread and the wine during communion?

weeding out the bad and keeping the orthodox strong. Why not maintain relationship and try to bring them back into "the fold"?

For myself, there has to be a large disjointment between myself and a local church's leadership.

Then again, historically, Meredith and I have left a great many of churches, for a wide variety of reasons, from doctrinal to social issues.

Then there is the Christian to Christian relationship. I think that as long as they say they follow Christ, I will fellowship with them if only for the sake of their faith. I won't agree or accept that with which I disagree, but still maintain relationship and let God be the judge of their souls.

This is such struggle. I would rather be one Church with subgroups of people that don't agree with certain views. For example at the company that I work for, there are some policies that I disagree with but I still live by them. If people ask me my opinion, I tell them what I think, but I finish with 'but I don't make the rules around here..." we could follow something similar with the church.

That said and to answer your 2nd question - When does “not comprising” win over “be of one body?”

I would say that when you break orthodoxy, then you are no longer a follower of Jesus.

having a single denomination will build false expectations. we will always have empty bottles with labels on them. We see this at churches even now.

The diversity of orthodox denominations may be keeping the body of Christ healthy by weeding out the bad and keeping the orthodox strong.