Orthodoxy versus Orthopraxy in your religion?

[FaithManor]

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!

[MaeFlowers]

FaithManor, I find your post interesting. I would have said that Fundamentalists would be 100% proxy but, having read your post, I can see how one might deem them more orthopraxy. I guess even within sub-groups there is a spectrum.

 

I don't have much to add but I am enjoying the discussion. Religion fascinates me.

[Pam in CT]

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?). 

 

[TranquilMind]

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

ETA: Code of Canon Law 1364:1

 

How is anyone going to know that you, as a Roman Catholic, have committed apostasy or believe heresy unless you publicly communicate it in some manner? 

 

[Guest]

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.

 

(snip)

 

 

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."  

[Guest]

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:

 

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.

[Greta]

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.

[FaithManor]

Tony Compolo (sp?) is one Red Letter Christian who used to be associated with evangelicalsim before becoming too progressive for their tastes. There are not a lot of them, but they are a very acrive social gospel based group.

[Greta]

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:

[Greta]

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!

[FaithManor]

AJ makes you think and he also makes you laugh. He is a NUT! Seriously, he did this experiment after his year of reading the encyclopedia Britannica and dropping random bits of trivia into every conversation until his wife Julie was embarassed beyond reason.

 

So you have to understand this is a Brown University (Brown...that is a big indicator right there) graduate with a bizarre sense of humor, a desire to write about the crazy experiences he creates for himself, combined with a little OCD and germ phobia all rolled into a progressive ideology with a double whammy of virtually non practicing Jewish relatives on one side and PROFOUNDLY guru like orthodox on the other, both sides also contributing some hippy like, "make love not war" vibes to his life. From an outsider looking in, it is a hysterical romp and yet there are so very many poignant moments where he is contemplating something very deep and potentially life changing which kind of makes you reexamine what you really believe about this or that or what that verse in Leviticus really means, or how did we get so many interpretations of the same set of words, or.....

Edited September 16, 2016 by FaithManor

[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?

[Greta]

AJ makes you think and he also makes you laugh. He is a NUT! Seriously, he did this experiment after his year of reading the encyclopedia Britannica and dropping random bits of trivia into every conversation until his wife Julie was embarassed beyond reason.

 

So you have to understand this is a Brown University (Brown...that is a big indicator right there) graduate with a bizarre sense of humor, a desire to write about the crazy experiences he creates for himself, combined with a little OCD and germ phobia all rolled into a progressive ideology with a double whammy of virtually non practicing Jewish relatives on one side and PROFOUNDLY guru like orthodox on the other, both sides also contributing some hippy like, "make love not war" vibes to his life. From an outsider looking in, it is a hysterical romp and yet there are so very many poignant moments where he is contemplating something very deep and potentially life changing which kind of makes you reexamine what you really believe about this or that or what that verse in Leviticus really means, or how did we get so many interpretations of the same set of words, or.....

 

 

Well now I really can't wait to read it!  It sounds amazing.   :001_smile: Thank you again!

[Guest]

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?

 

 

Been there, done that.  Even brushing up against that cult damaged me in this way; your having been simmered in it, that will take some undoing.  But I think you did at least some of the undoing on your route through Buddhism.  You embraced paradox and the ability to "not know" yet trust, and I think that is part of your healing. 

 

If you say your prayers and go to Divine Liturgy, you will have more than enough to go on.  "We believe what we pray."  Don't let it worry you at all.  

[Greta]

Been there, done that.  Even brushing up against that cult damaged me in this way; your having been simmered in it, that will take some undoing.  But I think you did at least some of the undoing on your route through Buddhism.  You embraced paradox and the ability to "not know" yet trust, and I think that is part of your healing. 

 

If you say your prayers and go to Divine Liturgy, you will have more than enough to go on.  "We believe what we pray."  Don't let it worry you at all.  

 

:grouphug:  You are the best, PJ.   :001_wub:

[FaithManor]

And I get it, Greta. The few month brush with the Bill Gothardite school in 9th grade left me badly hurt and questioning. During college I completely left the faith. To this day I have visceral reactions to extremism in the faith and legalism. I have become the very last Jesus follower on earth that a narcissistic, leader would ever want to attempt to manipulate because my flight or fight turns into a grizzly bear difficult to keep under control.

 

So I get it.

 

For me, on the worst days, I just recite the creed over and over and over again, and when prayer just won't come, the Lord's prayer works nicely and reminds me that I am okay.

[Greta]

And I get it, Greta. The few month brush with the Bill Gothardite school in 9th grade left me badly hurt and questioning. During college I completely left the faith. To this day I have visceral reactions to extremism in the faith and legalism. I have become the very last Jesus follower on earth that a narcissistic, leader would ever want to attempt to manipulate because my flight or fight turns into a grizzly bear difficult to keep under control.

 

So I get it.

 

For me, on the worst days, I just recite the creed over and over and over again, and when prayer just won't come, the Lord's prayer works nicely and reminds me that I am okay.

 

 

I'm so sorry that you had that experience.  It is so damaging, and the damage is long-lasting and comes up in unexpected ways.  I really appreciate your practical advice regarding reciting the creed, and just praying the Lord's prayer when that's all you can do.  I will definitely keep that in mind, and I am grateful for your help.  :grouphug:

[Greta]

Feeling like I should apologize now.  I really intended this to be a more general discussion, and not me whining about my personal problems!   :blushing:

 

I really am very interested in how people of all faiths answer these questions and approach these issues.  So if anyone still feels like jumping in, please do so!

[HS Mom in NC]

I'm from the evangelical wing of Christianity. Generally speaking, the idea of supernatural regeneration by the Holy Spirit at the moment of genuine faith and repentance are central and absolutely critical to our belief system, because it's the act of regeneration itself that makes a person into a Christian. That transformation is the well from which the right motivations and right behavior spring but it's a maturation process. There's a strong piety strain among some evangelicals that emphasizes right behavior for all professing believers because faith (belief) without works (behavior) is dead and faith is demonstrated by behaviors.  Behaviors on their own may have earthly benefits, but no spiritual ones. External behaviors without faith are a white washed tomb full of spiritual death. 

 

I'm guessing it's fairly complex whatever your religion is.

 

[FaithManor]

You aren't whining. God likes seekers! You are just seeking.understanding discernment. Nothing wrong with that and the world is a better place when we seek that.

[Bluegoat]

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

 

The study of western civilization is genmerally seen as beginning in the middle east, pretty much any history of the west starts there are many classics departments include at least some middle eastern studies. 

 

And in my experience in religious studies Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are largely identified with Middle Easter/western civilization, while the east is identified with Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other religions found in Asia.

 

Then, when you are looking within the Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, you have eastern and western divisions as well.

[Rosie_0801]

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.

 

I've always looked at that kind of thing as a built in fail-safe. Everyone has their ups and downs and the rituals are there as a structure to support you, to make it easier for the up to happen again.

 

 

 

 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.  

 

 

Possibly depends on whether one belongs to a denomination. I've never belonged to one, so I don't know. Since, generally speaking, pagans are supposed to be their own boss, there isn't anyone qualified to say you're doing or believing wrong. I can imagine pagans thinking someone doesn't fit well with their group, but if anyone was branding someone else's beliefs or practices as fundamentally *wrong* and they shouldn't exist that way (unless they are actually hurting someone) they deserve a flea in their ear. I mean, it'd be pretty stupid to tell someone there is a wrong way of being a kitchen witch. "Rightio, Honey. You're the boss of MY kitchen, are you?"

[Greta]

I've always looked at that kind of thing as a built in fail-safe. Everyone has their ups and downs and the rituals are there as a structure to support you, to make it easier for the up to happen again.

 

 

Good point.

 

 

Possibly depends on whether one belongs to a denomination. I've never belonged to one, so I don't know. Since, generally speaking, pagans are supposed to be their own boss, there isn't anyone qualified to say you're doing or believing wrong. I can imagine pagans thinking someone doesn't fit well with their group, but if anyone was branding someone else's beliefs or practices as fundamentally *wrong* and they shouldn't exist that way (unless they are actually hurting someone) they deserve a flea in their ear. I mean, it'd be pretty stupid to tell someone there is a wrong way of being a kitchen witch. "Rightio, Honey. You're the boss of MY kitchen, are you?"

 

:001_smile: Thanks, Rosie!