Orthodoxy versus Orthopraxy in your religion?

[Greta]

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?

[8circles]

I think it depends on which flavor of Xianity you're talking about.  Some prioritize one, some another, and there's many combinations.  But I definitely agree that as a generalization, Xianity prioritizes orthodoxy over orthopraxy much moreso than other major religions - at least that I'm aware of.

[Veritaserum]

The religion I no longer practice (LDS) values both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I'd say orthopraxy is more valued. Outward behavior that alligns with church teachings is more important than believing every bit of doctrine. In fact, even if you don't understand or agree with a particular teaching, you are encouraged to follow it anyway (with the idea that God will confirm its correctness). LDS theology is more works-based than some Christian traditions. That probably factors in.

[ktgrok]

I would say that the Roman Catholic church actually fits the Orthopraxy model, not Orthodoxy. That was what was taught in the graduate class I took on Modern Catholicism (secular university), and what I've experienced. You can believe what you want, but you are expected to do what is required. Or at least not lead others "astray". 

[maize]

I agree that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are both important in the LDS religion. Faith and works both matter significantly.

[Greta]

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?

[maize]

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?

I would think that if sacraments such as baptism are also considered necessary for salvation then you have a mixed model.

[TranquilMind]

I would say that the Roman Catholic church actually fits the Orthopraxy model, not Orthodoxy. That was what was taught in the graduate class I took on Modern Catholicism (secular university), and what I've experienced. You can believe what you want, but you are expected to do what is required. Or at least not lead others "astray". 

 

I agree with you, and would go further to state that many nondenominational churches also value both equally. I mean, faith without works is dead.  Lack of faith is a waste of time. 

[Um_2_4]

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.

[EMS83]

I agree with you, and would go further to state that many nondenominational churches also value both equally. I mean, faith without works is dead.  Lack of faith is a waste of 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.

[forty-two]

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.)

 

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?

 

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.
 

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by forty-two

[Guest]

The religion I no longer practice (LDS) values both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. I'd say orthopraxy is more valued. Outward behavior that alligns with church teachings is more important than believing every bit of doctrine. In fact, even if you don't understand or agree with a particular teaching, you are encouraged to follow it anyway (with the idea that God will confirm its correctness). LDS theology is more works-based than some Christian traditions. That probably factors in.

Hugs to you. I know you struggled.

[Greta]

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"?  

[Guest]

Orthodox Christian here.  

 

It seems to me that orthopraxy flows from orthodoxy, not that they are "vs" one another.  In our homilies, for example, we are taught what the Church teaches, and then in that same homily, given some ideas as to how that teaching works itself out in our lives, but not in a dictatorial manner.  So, when the reading was the one about how Jesus told the young man who did everything right according to his faith to go and sell all he had, that was taught as Christ's teaching.  But when the "praxy" part was talked about, it was about what this might look like in our day, and we were challenged to look hard at how much we value material things, how much we need and how much is just grabbiness.  But we were not given a prescription for what we all had to do. 

 

It is interesting to me that the Adults-Only Wedding thread has made me think a lot about this very issue during the past week.  I noted in one of my posts over there that Orthodox Christians live sacramentally and therefore in communion, that marriage is a sacrament, and how that plays out in how weddings (praxis) are done.  Other Christian "doxies" don't have a sacramental view of marriage, and the "praxies" reflect that.  

 

That is my blabbery way of saying that I think praxis flows from doxis.  Not that doxis is a real word, but I think people can understand what I am saying.  

 

:0)  

[Um_2_4]

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"?  

 

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.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Um_2_4

[Greta]

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).

[Greta]

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. 

[ktgrok]

I disagree. They are and should be inseparable. I never encountered the idea you describe while getting a bachelors in theology from a Catholic university.

 

Well, for instance, you can't be excommunicated for things you think or believe. But you can for things you DO. That would be the biggest argument I'd make. 

 

edited to add: This applies more to the Church as a body, and the dealings within it, versus the relationship of people to God, if that makes any sense at all. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by ktgrok

[Guest]

I disagree. They are and should be inseparable. (snip)

 

Agreed.  It seems to me that if one believes something to be true, one would do whatever one can to act according to truth.  But sometimes we don't have the strength, or we just screw up, and so our actions don't match our beliefs.  In Eastern Orthodoxy, this is where we call for repentance.  :0)

 

On the other hand, and this was brought up in another post about Islam, there are cultural pressures that cause people to mimic actions without having the slightest understanding of what they are doing.  This happens in EOrthodoxy as well (example below).  People in our parish who have been raised as Orthodox but never been instructed have started attending the catechism classes with the people new to Orthodoxy, and it is hard to tell who is more enlightened.  :0)

 

Intellectual assent to Orthodox teaching without parallel actions (at least at SOME level, mostly involving the sacraments) is no more helpful than the reverse.  And really, what's the point, if that is the case?

 

(Insert unnecessary narrative:  In a recent situation, an immigrant from a predominantly Orthodox country came to our priest to have her baby baptized.  The priest said that she needed to come to church three times and then he would do so.  She came twice, and then wrote an email to the priest telling him she really didn't want that active a spiritual life.  Therefore, the baptism would have been essentially an act of superstition, and not appropriate.  In addition, at a baptism, godparents are bound by promises to help raise the child in the faith.  Where the parents make this relatively impossible, it is unfair to bind the godparents to a promise they have very little chance of keeping.)  

[Petrichor]

Well, in Islam, there are the basic tenets of faith and there are the intricate details of certain things. Like, whether you believe that God has x attribute. A person can be a Muslim and know nothing except for that there is only one God and that Muhammad was his messenger, and still get a high position in heaven. Among the different sects of Islam there are differences in belief that other sects claim will take you out of the fold of Islam. Was the Qur'an created, or is it the speech of God? <- that was a big question that caused/causes a lot of problems between some sects. It's perfectly acceptable to just not know though and to stay out of the controversy.

 

Outwardly, orthopraxy is also very important. Well, inwardly it's important to develop a relationship with God, but the outward appearance of doing what a Muslim does is important. Say you find yourself in the mosque while people are praying ishaa prayer, or when the call to prayer is being called, you are supposed to go and pray even if you have already prayed it on your own or plan to pray it later in a different place. 

 

I would think orthopraxy would be more "important" in religions that have a lot of rituals. Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, along with many others. There are lots of Christian faiths where rituals are much less emphasized, which is probably why they appear to emphasize orthodoxy mainly. My experience with a variety of Christian faiths has displayed an emphasis in orthodoxy. Believe X and you will go into heaven, no need to really DO anything additional. Whereas in Islam, once you believe X there is a need to engage in the rituals, etc. 

 

There's a lot more time and thought involved in dealing with the orthopraxy side of things over the orthodoxy side though, in Islam. 

[forty-two]

I disagree. They are and should be inseparable. I never encountered the idea you describe while getting a bachelors in theology from a Catholic university.

Well, for instance, you can't be excommunicated for things you think or believe. But you can for things you DO. That would be the biggest argument I'd make. 

 

edited to add: This applies more to the Church as a body, and the dealings within it, versus the relationship of people to God, if that makes any sense at all. 

 

You can be excommunicated for teaching heresy and refusing to recant it, though.  That's very much concerning things you believe - but also has to do with how you act in light of what you believe (which reinforces the "they're inseparable" position). 

[MercyA]

...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...

 

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.  

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

 

The modern Christian church has emphasized salvation by faith to the point that many seem to have forgotten passages like James 2 and 1 John 2, and it is absolutely to our detriment.  I agree with Patty Joanna that orthopraxy should flow from orthodoxy--that is a nice way of putting it.

Edited September 15, 2016 by MercyA

[Bluegoat]

I would  agree that Christianity, as a whole, puts more value on orthodoxy - it sees orthopraxy as comming out of orthodoxy.  How one determines what is orthodoxy thus becomes a major preoccupation.  Some groups would say that orthopraxy is important in informing orthodoxy as well, so there is a real tension there.

 

I also would agree that Judaism seems, as a whole, to put much more emphasis on orthopraxy, to the point where some significant jewish groups seem to see little value in orthodoxy at all - though others seem to see it as very important. 

 

I've wondered occasionally if the divide between the two elements is wider within Christianity or Judaism, (or neither.)

 

I am not so sure about Islam.  My impression at times has been that in many cases they don't really see a difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, which I don't think is the same as valuing orthopraxy more.  And actually I think this is the approach of some Jewish sects as well.  But I don't feel like I have a good enough sense of various Islamic sects and cultural groups to make any generalizations about how widespread that is.

[maize]

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

The modern Christian church has emphasized salvation by faith to the point that many seem to have forgotten passages like James 2 and 1 John 2, and it is absolutely to our detriment. I agree with Patty Joanna that orthopraxy should flow from orthodoxy--that is a nice way of putting it.

When you reference the modern Christian church who precisely are you referring to? Would you include Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers?

[ktgrok]

You can be excommunicated for teaching heresy and refusing to recant it, though.  That's very much concerning things you believe - but also has to do with how you act in light of what you believe (which reinforces the "they're inseparable" position). 

 

Yes and no. You can't be excommunicated or believing heresy, is my understanding. Only for teaching it. Believing is orthodoxy. Teaching would be orthopraxy. But overall, i agree they are largely interrelated. I mean, it's unlikely you would be practicing wrongly if you believed properly, you know?

Edited September 15, 2016 by ktgrok

[Bluegoat]

I really would not have said that Catholisism was more about orthopraxy.  A Catholic who doesn't do what he is supposed to is a bad Catholic, one who doesn't believe it might be in heresy or apostate whether he does it or not.

 

I think a fairly fundamental emphasis in thinking that became prominent within early Christianity is that many ideas of correct behavior were seen to be more than externalities - as externalities they were meaningless, or worse - they were meant to become intrinsic to who we are.  I would say that this is the case even with things like sacraments that are believed to have an objective aspect beyond the individual - they may be objective, but for the individual that isn't really enough. 

[EMS83]

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).

 

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

[Greta]

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.  :)

[Greta]

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.

[nd293]

I would say that the Roman Catholic church actually fits the Orthopraxy model, not Orthodoxy. That was what was taught in the graduate class I took on Modern Catholicism (secular university), and what I've experienced. You can believe what you want, but you are expected to do what is required. Or at least not lead others "astray".

Still, if I saw a 'very orthodox' Catholic, I wouldn't know immediately that they were Catholic, would I? Whereas the same could not be be said of an Orthodox Jew or Muslim. So there is more emphasis on physical signs of practice built into Islam and Judaism, perhaps? If Catholics were following all teaching on practice, wouldn't women cover their hair, for instance?

 

I'm just curious here - I'm not religious (raised Christian - Methodist) but this is something I find very interesting. I can recognise older Catholic women in our area because they wear all black, but I think that's entirely cultural? I don't think there's anything about how widows should dress in the New Testament?

[Greta]

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.  :)

[ktgrok]

Still, if I saw a 'very orthodox' Catholic, I wouldn't know immediately that they were Catholic, would I? Whereas the same could not be be said of an Orthodox Jew or Muslim. So there is more emphasis on physical signs of practice built into Islam and Judaism, perhaps? If Catholics were following all teaching on practice, wouldn't women cover their hair, for instance?

 

I'm just curious here - I'm not religious (raised Christian - Methodist) but this is something I find very interesting. I can recognise older Catholic women in our area because they wear all black, but I think that's entirely cultural? I don't think there's anything about how widows should dress in the New Testament?

 

Actually, Catholic teaching is no longer that women cover their heads. Despite the controversy in certain areas, the Vatican has made that fairly clear. 

[Guest]

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).

 

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.

[ktgrok]

You are misinformed. Apostasy and heresy both incur automatic excommunication.

ETA: Code of Canon Law 1364:1

 

Thank you! I stand corrected :)

[Guest]

You are misinformed. Apostasy and heresy both incur automatic excommunication.

ETA: Code of Canon Law 1364:1

 

Is there a definition of "heresy?"  I have heard it defined in a couple of different ways by different groups, and that definition makes a difference. 

 

Let me see if I can spit out the differences without completely muddying the waters.

 

A  Some people call anyone who believes things other than are taught by their religious body a heretic.

B  Some people call anyone who TEACHES things other than are taught by their religious belief a heretic.

C  Some people call anyone who once adhered to the religious beliefs of a particular group but NOW teaches something different a heretic.

 

Eg. of each, to pick randomly on two completely ridiculous examples:  The Star Trek Religious Group's belief concerning the Star Wars Religious Group. 

 

A:  All Star Wars believers are heretics.

B:  That Star Trek guy over there who teaches some Star Wars principles as correct belief, HE is a heretic.

C:  Our former Trekkie who has gone over to the Star Wars Side, THAT guy is a heretic.  But the other Star Wars crowd, they are just misinformed.  

 

Which of these is the definition of heresy in the Canon?  Thank you.  

[ktgrok]

Is there a definition of "heresy?"  I have heard it defined in a couple of different ways by different groups, and that definition makes a difference. 

 

 

 

I actually looked it up as soon as she posted that. It seems to be anyone who willfully doubts the truths taught by the church, if I'm remember what I just read. Now, the flip side of that, is there is also the primacy of conscience. 

[Greta]

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!

[Ravin]

I'm a Reconstructionist Heathen. We're all about praxis, but not so much the ortho- part, for the most part.

[Greta]

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

[ktgrok]

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

 

Yes, the only real issue and debate about it in the RC is also on the internet :)

 

It WAS a rule, once upon a time. However, it no longer is. Despite those saying that just because it isn't mentioned, it still is a rule. The vatican has been clear about it. That said, it is culturally expected to cover your head at Latin masses. 

SaveSave

[sassenach]

My husband, a Christian pastor, would say that one's orthopraxy comes from their orthodoxy. What we practice will always come out of what we believe. 

 

But yes, I agree that Christianity as a whole emphasizes orthodoxy.

[EMS83]

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.   :)

 

I was taught the same way, and looking at Wikipedia, this is still the position, it seems.  To my mind, though, if a culture was clearly not Western then, and the same people group and/or region do not identify as Western now, how can we just commandeer them for ourselves and say they are our heritage?  Especially when we have never bothered to see things from their perspective.

 

The Far East was treated differently, and it should have been.  Each civilization and culture deserves the dignity of keeping its own identity, regardless of who borrowed, or flat out plundered, their ideas, sciences, or arts.

 

But about mindset, I see the East as embracing paradoxes and balancing opposing forces.  In the West, we seem to have a binary mindset, and cannot reconcile two opposing concepts (justice and mercy, for example).  It's both/and versus either/or.  I could be way off, but this is my very rough view of things at this point.  Two years from now, eh.  Who knows?  ;D

[MercyA]

When you reference the modern Christian church who precisely are you referring to? Would you include Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers?

 

Sorry I wasn't more clear. Admittedly I had in mind the modern evangelical church, not Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers. Generally speaking, I would say that my Roman Catholic and EO friends place a much heavier emphasis on "works" than do my evangelical friends. 

[Katy]

I suspect that within Christian denominations, the more Calvinist/Reformed you are, the more Orthodoxy is important.  Those who believe a relationship with God is a choice, and that you can choose to walk away at any given point, the more likely Orthopraxy is important. Faith without works is dead and all.

[Guest]

Hmm I think the author is correct about Islam.

 

Deeds are of the utmost importance in Islam.

 

I'm not talking about outward rituals and practices of Muslims, but deeds.

 

And God-alone judges deeds, because God-alone knows the intention behind them.

 

Doing good things (not expected, ritual things, again) with good intentions is the most important call for a Muslim.

 

As a contrast, my experience as a Christian was that to "accept Jesus in your heart" (belief) was the most important thing.

[Greta]

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?

[Guest]

 

 

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) ?

 

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...

[umsami]

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).

[Greta]

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:

[Greta]

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.