Greta
-
Posts
8,163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Greta
-
-
This was part of my path, as well. It's too long and boring to recount the whole thing here, but a few things hit me over the course of a few months.
1. If our belief/understanding saves us, just how much does one need to have? What if one is incapable of understanding most anything at all? And what if someone who is pretty smart and determined to understand ends up confused and frustrated? It really came home when I realized that I could rely on no one catechism to teach my son the faith--because I didn't agree with any of them, not 100%. And that was the true turning point, because I realized that I am not the smartest or the most Christlike Christian who ever lived, and yet, essentially, I was making it up according to ME. I was a Church of One. Ugh.
BUT
2. I had brushed up against a cult and its leader and even that amount of contact had wounded and scarred me. I was very nervous about trusting anyone to be my teacher. That truly became the central question: Who can I trust to teach me what a Christian believes? CS Lewis made a similar point--it didn't matter to him what HE believed; he wanted to learn what a Christian believes.
It's important what we believe about God because actions flow from that. If God is out to get me, I will act one way. If God is a puppetmaster, I will act in accordance with that belief. If God IS love and loves me no matter what, that generates a different way of life.
That's the best I can do to say why it mattered to me: in my experience, behavior flows from belief and worship, but not everything *about* that belief or worship need--or even can--be known and certainly not completely lived into.
Living with paradox, with not-knowing, that's pretty much to be expected if God is Who He claims to be. But we can act on the small bits we do understand.
So much good food for thought here. Thank you, Patty Joanna. Regarding your point #2 in particular, you know from our previous conversations that I still bear some emotional baggage (or maybe a lot?) from the religion that I was raised in. But I hadn't really thought about it in relation to this particular question until you brought it up. Being able to trust again after you've been misled, it's not an easy thing. You can think you've healed, moved on, and then something pops up out of nowhere and bites you in the butt. In that religion, not only was disagreement with ANY minor point of doctrine not tolerated, the mere act of questioning was itself considered sinful, rebellious, and grounds for excommunication. (They will deny this to outsiders, but I know it's true.) You were not allowed to hold a different opinion or belief about ANY teaching. No exceptions. So perhaps now, I just need a period of reveling in the freedom of not being overburdened with doctrine?
-
2
-
-
A point of definition: the word "doxy" refers both to dogma and worship...so if what you were saying above is that praxy forms doxy, your sentence above would need to read, "if we live correctly, then correct worship and understanding will follow."
Ah, I did not know this. Thanks for the clarification!
-
Interesting subject.
There are two central concepts in Judaism: that of covenant (the written and oral Law that God expects Israel to follow) and that of struggle (one of several ways to translate the name granted to Jacob after his night of wrestling, Israel, which then became the name of the community as a whole, is God-wrestler). There is, arguably, tension between these two modes of interaction.
There is also considerable diversity within Judaism, with multiple denomination-like strands that emphasize different aspects of the tradition (and we don't necessarily understand each other all that well, lol...). Generally speaking (and with the caveat that I have much more insight into the progressive strands than the observant ones), I'd say that the observant strands put relatively more emphasis on the Covenant concept; and the progressive strands relatively more on the Struggle concept.
But I think most Jews across the various divides concur that actions matter a great deal (thus the very language "observant)". As well, there is a good deal of room even in the most traditional circles for lively debate and searching on religious matters... and within more progressive circles there are many who look to the texts of the tradition for metaphor, meaning and moral truths without "believing" in their divinity.
So while there is within more traditional circles a concept of "right belief", I don't know that the orthodoxy/orthopraxy spectrum really "fits"Judaism all that well (particularly as it relates to presumed outcomes after death, which is a kinda-sorta different subject but one which -- I think -- seem to come into Christian approaches to the spectrum?).
Thank you, Pam! I really appreciate your insights. Regarding the bolded, I wondered as I was posing the question, whether the question would even make sense or be the right question to ask about other religions. In particular I wondered if Pagans or Hindus would even think of it in those terms or recognize those concepts in the same way I was thinking of them. My daughter wants to do a study of world religions next year for her theology credit, and I am really looking forward to it. I am fascinated by religion, and yet woefully ignorant at the same time. It's past time to rectify that. :001_smile:
-
1
-
-
I think Christianity is a mixed bag and especially in terms of non EO and RCC. Fundamentalism and Dominionism/Reconstructionism is all about the praxy. You could believe all kinds of non conformist theology in your heart so long as you conform to the rules in lifestyle. My experience with these groups is that true matters of theology are rarely addressed while rules and keeping rules are constantly hammered.
Mainstream - Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Episcopalianism...these seem to be a lot more orthopraxy is an outflow of orthodoxy but don't be too judgy if someone else reaches a different conclusion than you do especially on matters not contained in thd Nicene/Apostle's Creed.
Then there are lesser known groups like the "Red Letter Christians" who are almost entirely orthopraxy driven.
An interesting read on this is A.J.Jacobs book, "The Year of Living Biblically". It is the comedic tale of a Jewish thirty something professional writer/husband/father raised nominally, culturally Jewish who is agnostic as an adult but fascinated by his heritage. He decides to live a year as close as he can, a modern guy with no theological training, to the exact thou shalt and thou shalt nots of the Bible focusing mostly OT and Talmud, but adding NT the last three months of the year. At the end of his year, he is not convinced of Jewish Orthodoxy, but the orthopraxy convinced him that maybe his family was missing out on something important, that spiritual journey is desirable so he concludes with feeling that his son Jasper should have the opportunity to be educated in matters of theology so if he chooses to live it or reject it in adulthood, he will be making an informed choice.
For AJ orthopraxy brought spiritual enlightenment even if it did not result in a whole hearted embracing of orthodoxy.
Except for Dominionism/Reconstructionism which does seek to force conformity by all manner of emotional manipulation and spiritual abuse coupled with the determination to force theocracy on the political landscape, I think that most Christian leadership at least hope orthopraxy flows from orthodoxy however for many evangelical denominations the "no true Scotsman" emphasis on right belief ends up appearing very dominant.
I am speaking from personal experience, raised United Methodist, subjected to some Bill Gothard style Dominionism, taught in an LCMS Lutheran school, married a man loosely associated with the Free Methodist church and whose best friends in the whole world are three couples one of whom is devout RCC, one LCMS, and one agnostic from a Buddhist background. We are currently without faith home and given where we live, this may be an issue for a while to come. I am without theogical degrees but with a sacred music background that spans the gambit of Christianity and includes Judaism so some exposure in my travels but certainly no expertise, take it with a grain of salt!
I didn't realize that Red Letter Christians was anything more than a website with some interesting articles. I've read a couple of their articles, and really liked them. I might do some more browsing around there. And I would definitely like to read the book you mentioned by A. J. Jacobs. That sounds fascinating! Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Faith.
-
I think she's generally right about Islam. While I like to believe that beliefs and intent are central.... I would say that far more people I know focus on actions....such as prayer (5x/day), fasting, giving charity, etc. Of course, ideally those things do stem from belief. But there are hadith saying that the first thing God will hold us accountable for on the day of Judgement is our prayers, etc.. (ETA: When I say prayers, I mean the set-formulated five times per day prayers, not du'a/supplication which is what I used to think of when I thought prayers. So, praying fajr checks a box. Saying a brief or long prayers for God to watch over my parents does not check the box (although has other benefits).
That doesn't seem like such a bad thing, though. I think there's a lot to be said for struggling to do the right thing, even when you don't feel like you're heart is really in it. Of course, I do see that there's a danger in it becoming mere box-checking. That is something that I suspect we all (of all faiths) have to be wary of.
-
2
-
-
This is precisely what I believe. And I speak for no one else!
I have responsibilities toward God, toward myself, and toward others. Likewise, God, and others, have rights on me. IOW, have legitimate expectations from me.
I can spend my whole short life trying to figure out the answers to spiritual questions. I still won't answer them, and even if I did, what then?? In the meantime, I've got stuff to do, and I had better make sure it's good stuff.
If I have faith in nothing else on any given day, I have faith that all will be made clear eventually. But it will not be through my striving to believe and understand. Again, in the meantime...things to do...
I really like this! I think that I've been feeling this way more and more lately. I feel like the more deeply I try to dive into theological or doctrinal questions, the less I feel confident that I know! Really, I don't know anything! Except that I want to live my life as I ought to. That, as you said, I have responsibilities that need to be carried out. So I think I need to spend less time trying to answer unanswerable questions, and just get to work. :001_smile:
-
6
-
-
I think that if we say that orthopraxy flows from orthodoxy, then we ultimately are saying that orthodoxy is first and most important, right?
It isn't hard for me to imagine a different approach, one which says, "if we live and worship correctly, then a correct understanding will follow" (putting praxis first) of even one that says that salvation, whatever form that may take in that particular faith, happens primarily as a result of actions rather than beliefs. But I don't think that's the way most Christians approach it.
I've also noticed that if you put two Christians of different churches in a room together for more than five minutes, there's going to be a discussion (usually in the form of a disagreement) about orthodoxy! :lol: So the way I see Christians act and interact in the world every day leads me to believe that orthodoxy is of primary importance. Also, Christianity is a faith that seems to become more and more fractured and divided over time. There seems to be an ever-increasing number of churches and denominations. And while they do have different views on praxis, it seems to be primarily doctrinal arguments that drive that division, yes? I realize, of course, that all major faiths have sub-divisions. What I don't have enough knowledge to understand is, are they all as divvied up as Christianity has become? Is the Christian faith unusual in this regard, or is this just human nature?
-
Actually, Catholic teaching is no longer that women cover their heads. Despite the controversy in certain areas, the Vatican has made that fairly clear.
Oh, that's interesting, I did not know that. In the EOC, I think it varies by location and culture and personal conscience. My parish is pretty evenly mixed between women who cover and those who don't, and not a word is ever said about it either way because it's considered each woman's choice. I stumbled on an EO message board once, though, where a heated and somewhat vicious argument was going on about the topic. I got outta there quick! :D
-
EO here again: The entire *point* of being a Christian is to become like Christ, to be united with Him. This can be done by the simplest of people--perhaps more readily than by those who have great intellectual abilities which outstrip their ability to integrate knowledge into practice. This being the case, many EO clergy and monastics advise the laity to spend more time each day in prayer than in reading / study.
One doesn't have to understand tremendous amounts of dogma to become like Christ. But the dogmas inform what we are to do; one needs both doxy and praxy to hold to either with integrity.
I think there are some interesting parallels between EO and Buddhism touched on in your post, Greta.
Yes, EO was the first Christian church that I encountered (and to be fair, I hadn't truly encountered very many, because I'd been atheist then Buddhist most of my adult life, and had not attended many churches or talked to many Christians about their faith) where there seemed to be more emphasis on those "heart issues" and the day to day work of transformation, and thus more balance between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It was definitely one of The Big Things that drew me to the church. It seemed to me that a lot of churches just talked about the faith. I didn't want to talk about it, I wanted to live it. Well, I must admit, some days I don't want to live it! :lol: Transformation is hard work!
-
It's a historical and geographical line. :) Judaism, if counted from the 10 Commandments, began in Egypt before there was a West. Christianity began in Israel, and spread pretty evenly all over, with it's major centers mainly in Middle Eastern locales (Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople). Islam, which I know less about, is decidedly Middle Eastern; I think I can safely say that. This is all as far as the cultures into which these religions were born. Western civilization, I think, has never really touched Islam, Judaism to varying degrees, because of the diaspora. Christianity is more complicated because it is so far flung and because of the East-West schism, both politically and ecclesiastically. Some history and religion buffs are welcome to jump in and tidy up and expand on my little synopsis here, though! Correct me if necessary, as well. :D
Well, then I'm going to blame my teachers for drawing that line in the wrong place :lol: because all of the lands surrounding the Mediterranean seemed to be lumped into "Western Civilization" in the course of my education. Not that we studied the Middle East with any depth whatsoever, but if my memory is accurate it was treated differently from The East. Probably because of the ties that Christian Europe had/has with the lands of the Bible. Anyway, I do see what you're saying, and it makes more sense than what I was taught. :)
-
That is a long explanation that books have been written about, but basically it would be any belief, action, or saying which belittles Allah, His Books, His Messengers, His Angels, His Rites, the well-known practices of His Religion, and His Rules.
ETA: I think often knowing what the belief is leads to one following the practices anyways. Not saying that there aren't Muslims with the correct belief who do commit sins, it happens.
Probably a tricky thing to define in any religion. Showing my own ignorance here: I'm not sure how it would be defined in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. It hasn't really come up in the relatively short time that I've been Orthodox! (six years) I should find out.
-
I disagree with the author that Christianity in general is more focused on orthodoxy than orthopraxy. Although the contemporary understanding of my tradition (Lutheran) is definitely far more focused on orthodoxy, but that's not true of our tradition as a whole, and I think our current lopsidedness is to our detriment. (Honestly, I kind of blame modernism and the Enlightenment for driving a wedge between orthodoxy and orthopraxy and making this whole question possible in the first place. Lex orandi, lex credendi - the law of praying is the law of belief. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are two sides of the same coin - you live what you believe and you believe what you live - the whole modern division between them drives me bonkers.)
My tradition (Lutheran) defines faith as trust - faith in Christ is not about intellectual assent to the truths of the Bible, but about *trusting* that God will honor His Gospel promises to forgive people through Christ. And it's not an intellectual trusting, but a heart-mind-soul-body trusting - clinging to Christ where He is found, given to us, for our salvation in Word and Sacrament. And it is separate from both right doctrine *and* right living - we see both orthodoxy and orthopraxy as (necessary) *fruits* of faith (although lack of right doctrine and/or lack of right living can lead us to quit trusting in Christ for salvation).
But my tradition has kind of lost the sense of orthopraxy being a *necessary* fruit, and so we've ended up emphasizing right doctrine by default. But even so, we still hold that upholding right doctrine, having right doctrine, is a necessary-but-not-salvific *fruit* of faith - not part of faith itself - even as we've unfortunately downgraded orthopraxy to a not-as-necessary fruit of faith. A lot of us are working to have a more orthodox, historical understanding of the equally-necessary-but-not-salvific role of orthopraxy, though.
Thank you for this reply, forty-two. It does seem to me that faith sometimes gets reduced to mere intellectual assent, and that's a faith that seems very . . . hollow? empty? to me. I like the way you said that it's a heart-mind-soul-body trusting, that's really good. And that both orthodoxy and orthopraxy flow from that. Very interesting! I never viewed it in quite that way, but I like thinking about that. :)
-
2
-
-
I have to leave for awhile, but will come back when I can. Don't think I'm abandoning the thread, because I find this fascinating, and I appreciate the replies! I want to say more, just don't have the time.
-
I would say this is true, but only insofar as the "praxy" is defined as a lifestyle, as opposed to specific sacraments, prayers, or rituals. But I have experienced a lot more "you must do this right" from Evangelical groups than EO or RC. But the belief comes first, as opposed to the belief and practice being inseparable.
However I have a problem with the book's premise. Islam and Judaism aren't Western religions, and Christianity isn't only Western, either. Its roots are in the East. In my opinion, she's actually comparing Eastern vs. Western mindsets.
Interesting. I'm not sure I'm entirely understanding where you're drawing the division between East and West (because I've always thought of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as being Western), but before I became Christian I was Buddhist. And in Buddhism I think there is definitely a great deal more emphasis on orthopraxy. Doctrine seemed pretty minimal in comparison to the emphasis it gets in Christianity. I never encountered anything in Buddhism that was remotely like the elaborate doctrinal discussions and theological debates that seem common in Christianity. I don't know -- practicing Buddhism in a non-Buddhist country may be very different than in a traditionally Buddhist country. But that's how I experienced it here. It was much more about heart issues (developing compassion even in minor little decisions and interactions throughout your day) and much less about head issues (reading and studying scripture and understanding what it means).
-
1
-
-
As a Muslim, I would disagree. Correct Belief is of the utmost importance. If some does the "right things" without the correct belief (aqidah) then it is not accepted. The first thing that is taught to a new convert SHOULD be the basics of belief. After that they are taught how to pray, fast, what is halal and haram (like no drinking alcohol or eating pork). A person who has the correct belief, but commits sins will still enter Paradise eventually, but if someone held the wrong belief (to the level of apostasy) and did all the "right" things, they would not.
I have seen some people focus on the practices, but some are what I call "cultural" practicers. Meaning they may just be copying what mom and dad do without having learned the basics themselves. I see this in Dh's family. Some of his aunts and cousins who know I studied, come and ask me questions, because they never studied that in depth. This is happening more and more back home due to the increased number of non-Islamic schools being opened in those countries. This used to be taught at all Islamic schools and is still, but for $$ reasons or cultural pressures (we want our kid to speak french or whatever) some send their kids to the free or very cheap secular schools then neglect to send the kid to learn the basics of the belief from the Mosque.
Thank you for this explanation! I know very little about Islam, so this is very interesting to me.
May I ask what would constitute "apostasy"?
-
1
-
-
It does vary a lot within Christianity! And the two are absolutely intertwined, and not separate or distinct entities. I was thinking that the Eastern Orthodox Church (of which I am a member) and the Roman Catholic Church (never been a member, just my impression from outside) probably lean a bit more toward the orthopraxy end, while most (but not all) Protestant churches in my experience tend to lean more toward the orthodoxy end.
But even in EOC and RCC, when it comes down to it, don't we generally say that it is faith in Jesus Christ that saves? That sounds more like orthodoxy, BUT then the question obviously becomes: what is meant by "faith"? Is it belief? Or is it faithfulness?
-
2
-
-
I was recently listening to an audiobook by Karen Armstrong, and she mentioned that out of the three major Western monotheistic religions, Christianity is the only one that emphasizes orthodoxy (correct belief or doctrine) over orthopraxy (correct practice or living). Judaism and Islam both emphasize orthopraxy over orthodoxy. (And I will note that she wasn’t assigning any value judgment to that whatsoever, and neither am I!)
I thought this was really interesting, and I was wondering if anyone might wish to discuss this further here.
I would particularly like to hear from our Jewish and Muslim board members whether or not you agree with her assessment. (As a Christian, I do think she is right that Christianity emphasizes orthodoxy over orthopraxy. I may get into this more later, but I don’t want to bog down this opening post too much with my own ramblings. I want to hear from others! Christians, too. Do you agree with her assessment?)
And I would also just love to hear from people of any and all religions (not limited to the three mentioned!) about your view of the roles that orthodoxy and orthopraxy play in your religious life. What do you think distinguishes you the most from people of other religious faiths: what you believe or the way you live?
-
2
-
-
It would be helpful if people could not bank sick days for the purpose of cashing in at retirement. Around me that is the number one contributor to coming in sick.
I've never heard of being able to bank sick days before! That seems odd, but perhaps it's more common than I realize.
-
I really hesitated to post since there is some heavy disapproval & many think it's selfish... but we had an adults-only wedding. We could only afford about 80 people, counting ourselves, which was a factor. But I would have loved to have kids there.
However, my husband did not want some SPECIFIC children there -- I didn't even know them but he was certain it was a terrible idea. He didn't want their parents there either -- but his parents invited them in advance of us ever having a guest list. And upon investigation my family actually voiced that they did NOT want to bring their children to a Friday night event in another state, so the children my husband didn't want there would have been the only ones! The easiest thing was to have no kids. We did get some nasty reactions from that family, like we'd deeply offended them... which I guess we did, but not as offended as if we'd uninvited them entirely I guess. I'll leave the story as, we got a card implying we were terrible people from them in lieu of a wedding gift.
Anyway, I never expect for my children to be invited. And I always expect that there is more to the story than I hear as a guest.
Emphasis mine, obviously, because I thought this was a point worth emphasizing! It's very true, very important, and yet so easy to forget. You and others here have shared stories that make it clear that there are perfectly valid reasons for sometimes not inviting children.
And I'm really sorry that those people sent you that tacky card. :grouphug: And sorry that your parents-in-law invited them when it wasn't their place to do so!
-
5
-
-
At the time my daughter was born, my husband's employer offered fathers one week of paid leave with the birth of a child. (I don't know what the policy was for the mothers, nor what the policies are now.) I think one week is pathetic, but here's what's even more pathetic. My husband took one day off of work, ONE DAY. The day my daughter was born, after he'd spent the entire night in the hospital with me while I labored. That was it. And yet his boss gave him no end of grief about it, and made him count it as one of his vacation days rather than a family leave day.
Using your vacation days (not just sick days or family leave days) is also frowned upon. There is a lot of pressure to simply not take time off, for any reason, ever (this rule doesn't apply to upper management, of course, just the lowly employees). Lots of people where he works would have several months' worth of vacation time accumulated, which they would use in one big chunk right before they retired. So, it's like they got to retire six months early (and at full pay for those six months). The company decided to put a stop to that, so there's now a time limit on your vacation days, meaning if you haven't used them by a certain amount of time after they were earned, they disappear. So now, you can't take vacation when you earn it because there's too much pressure to always be at work, and you can't save it up for later either. This is a workforce that is made up largely of PhDs. So these are people who are very accustomed to working hard and sacrificing to get things done. Management knows that, and doesn’t mind taking full advantage of the fact.
I haven't worked in almost 17 years now, but at every job I ever had, the automatic assumption if you called in sick was that you were lying and just wanted a day off. These were pretty crappy jobs with unpaid sick days, so there actually was no reason to lie. But the overall culture of the workplace was that the employer treated the employees like burdens and liabilities instead of assets. They made it very clear to you that you were “lucky†that they tolerated your presence.
American work culture is very dysfunctional in this regard. I know that not every employer is like this, but many, many are. I suspect they would find that their workforce would be just as eager to work hard if they were appreciated rather than just tolerated, and that letting people stay home when they’re sick without fear of repercussions would actually be beneficial because it wouldn’t spread contagious diseases throughout the workforce! But what do I know?
-
8
-
-
Judith Martin's Miss Manners books are my favorite (and I've read them all, lol): Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Miss Manners' Guide to the Turn of the Millennium, Miss Manners' Guide to Rearing Perfect Children. Miss Manners On Weddings. Not only are they fun to read, but they really are excellent guides to correct behavior and all that. :-)
They sound fun! Thanks, Ellie.
-
1
-
-
Thanks, Patty Joanna! I just put it in my Barnes and Noble cart. :)Miss Manners is hilarious and very readable. I put her Guide to Excrutiatingly Behavior on the back of the John and my son read it cover to cover. And thanked me.
It is an enormous help to have the assistance of etiquette. It's like traffic laws--if everyone knows what to expect from all the other drivers, everyone is more at ease as a driver.
ETA: And I like your traffic analogy!
-
I'm curious what advantages your daughter sees to doing away with etiquette rules. That isn't meant to be snarky, if it reads like it. I'm genuinely curious. But I don't know if she is talking about truly formal etiquette, such as that practiced by wealthy elite (or nobility) with servants and such.
It seems to me that people didn't like etiquette rules because they were too formal or stuffy or something, so people moved away from them. So what have we replaced them with? Confusion, hurt feelings, and even anger. Hosts don't know how to extend invitations and guests don't know how to respond. No one knows what is expected because there's no shared standard. I dunno, that doesn't sound better to me. :-)
I think she's just in favor of more relaxed etiquette rules, not getting rid of them entirely. For example, she likes to dress nicely for her classes, and for social events. But she also likes the ability to just wear a logo tee and some faded denim shorts when we go out for errands. (And dressing nicely by modern standards is a whole lot easier and more comfortable now than it was in the days when women had to don corsets and many layers before stepping out the door!)
She was saying that she thinks that more rigid/formal etiquette results in the violations of those rules being taken far more seriously, so she would be constantly nervous about messing up. Personally, I think more formal rules would be liberating, because then I wouldn't be stressed out wondering what I'm supposed to do. But I can kind of see her point too.
-
1
-
-
Too many events at ruined by children running amuck. Too many parents are simply deaf to the own dc wailing. People planning events want them to be fun for all invited, not just for the children who do whatever they want. So the answer is to exclude the children.
Yes. I think I've posted this in a similar thread before, because I'm having deja vu, but I attended a wedding once where one particular family's children were running around like it was a playground instead of a wedding reception. They ran into a table, knocking over the centerpiece and glasses. They ran into many guests, and the bride. And the parents just sat and smiled obliviously and did absolutely nothing to curtail them in any way. So I would suggest that the people who are upset at couples who don't invite children might consider redirecting their ire to the parents who don't parent, because I believe they are the ones ruining it for everyone.
-
7
-
Orthodoxy versus Orthopraxy in your religion?
in The Chat Board
Posted
Well now I really can't wait to read it! It sounds amazing. :001_smile: Thank you again!