Orthodoxy (correct doctrine). Orthopraxy (correct living). Distinct but not to be separated. Or so we say. But churches throughout the ages define themselves more by orthodoxy than by orthopraxy. Our identities are traditionally shaped by right believing than right behaviour.

The great Council of Chalcedon AD451 declared heretics those who failed to agree with what would eventually become orthodoxy. No one, however, complains about Cyrus of Alexandria's dubious behaviour against his nemesis, Nestorius (eventually declared a heretic but pardoned post-humously after it was discovered that Nestorianism didn't really split the divine and human natures of Christ).

I don't know of any council which supplied rules against those who failed the test of orthopraxy. If in doubt about someone's "Christian-ness", check what the person affirms is true of Christ, the Bible, the Trinity and so on. That puts us on more solid ground, doesn't it?

But I differ. I think orthodoxy is neither necessary nor sufficient for inclusion into God's people.

To say it's necessary makes absurd the idea that the Gospel is "good news" (as there are millions who have barely heard and/or understood what orthodoxy consists of - even disciples in the First World have barely a clue about what Chalcedon decreed). To say it's sufficient would be worse: It would be to reduce faith to doctrine.

The only piece of orthodoxy transcending this is the Cross. Believing that Jesus died for you is both sufficient for salvation (do not let anyone tell you you MUST believe in anything more - see Galatians 1 and 2!), yet I would argue (maybe later), not some cognitive soteriological requirement failing which God banishes you from His kingdom. A bare minimum understanding and acceptance of Jesus' giving Himself for you is sufficient yet I hesitate to say it's absolutely necessary to enter the kingdom of God post-death (to, once again, "make room" for those who have never encountered the message in propositional form and/or have undeveloped or damaged mental faculties through no fault of their own).

This is good news. That we can download true meaning, vocation, goodness and authentic humanity from the Jesus server. All you gotta do is click. And even then sometimes His pop-ups find you first.

Don't, however, think that God plays light and easy with career theological con-men, who twist the truth to make a fast buck, score some points, or generate some glamour. That's messed up. And won't be tolerated for long.

Orthopraxis, on the other hand, is both necessary and sufficient.

A changed life (a "broken and contrite heart", a "living sacrifice") shows God's transformative grace within you. If you don't love your brother, the love of God is not in you. By loving one another shall the world know who God's people are. Failure to bear fruit results in being cast away, thrown in the fire. Sacrificial living ain't no "add on" to theology and Christian doctrine. It's that which is the goal of, and gives life to, right thinking.

A renewed life is worth more in the eyes of God than whether you're willing to sign your name on a document which declared that Jesus' divine and human natures shouldn't be be confused. No Christian life - no point being Christian. That's how 'necessary' right living is.

Finally, nothing can remove you from the love of God, not even wrong doctrine. The best "assurance (read: sufficiency!) of salvation" is continued love, continued seeking, continued centering on others as a self-sacrifice.

Do this and live. Radically.