I was asked the other day by a pastor, “You’re not exactly what we would call ‘orthodox’, are you?”
No, I’m not. Being “orthodox” would suggest that I have the right worship of God, and the right thought, opinion, or estimation of him and his relationship to everything else which exists. I think that would be a problematic place to be. If I think I’m right about those things I’m going to stop looking for anything else that may be right; therefore, if I’m wrong, I will become nearly incurably so. As I told the pastor, I much prefer to focus on orthopraxy—right action or practice—which is experiential and to some degree self-corrective (if not allowed to become another orthodoxy in itself).
As an orthopractic rather than an orthodox follower of the way of Jesus, I tend to focus on the human element of the biblical narrative. I tend not to hold anything so dear as to consider it beyond questioning; or, perhaps I consider everything so dear as to want to understand it all. I don’t get tied up in the literal hermeneutics and the pick-and-choose proof-texting exegesis necessary for creating and upholding doctrines; therefore, my reading of scripture, my views on the nature and person of Jesus, and my entire concept of God are rather “loose” by orthodox Christian standards. This creates precious little in the way of confidence of belief. I have experienced my own “crises of belief” and have seen how they can destroy good people. I do not wish such crises on anyone else; however, if they bring us to humility rather than despair, if they lead us to a less self-centered expression of faith, and if they encourage us to treat others in the way of Jesus, they are worth the discomfort.
All that to say this: my faith is real and means a lot to me, but I look at the Christian religion much differently than do most people who would call themselves Christian. This leads me to unorthodox opinions and causes me to rail against some things I consider spectacular failures of Christianity. I will represent that thinking from time to time in this blog. I hope my musings will cause no one any undue offense; rather, I hope these thoughts can spur discussion and lead all of us to a more responsible faith.
Coiling
11 years ago
Doesn't right action require right authority? Or do you see orthopraxy as entirely experiential (if it works, do it) and not stemming directly from orthodoxy (if God says so, do it)? Trying to figure this out myself and will keep reading...
ReplyDeleteEmily, you're right. To some degree right opinion and right practice cannot be separated; each is fostered by the other and each flows from the other. For most Christians this debate would be simply a matter of emphasis. The older denominations were/are quite good at maintaining a balance of emphasis here; however, that balance exists within the constructs of what it means to be Christian FOR THEM, which still comes back to being a pro forma orthodoxy. I don't know that within ecclesiastical Christianity we can ever get out of this circle or truly know a practical balance between the two emphases.
ReplyDeleteI think where I am on this issue is this: orthopraxy can and does exist outside of what "Christianity proper" upholds as orthodoxy. This does not mean that orthopraxy can exist outside of right opinion, just outside of what the Church would consider right opinion. I fully believe a person could act in the manner of Jesus while believing absolutely no doctrines of Christianity. I think a person could even see Jesus as an anointed revelation of God to the world, value Jesus' example and seek to emulate it, and exhibit the marks of the work of God in his life (the "fruit of the Spirit") while believing none of the doctrines of Christianity. Right opinion and right practice would be present, but "orthodoxy" would not. I think this is even implied in the portion of the "Sheep and Goats" parable of Matthew 25:31-40, or, at least, I want to see it there.
I suppose another tack we could take here would be to say that right practice IS orthodoxy, in the sense of 'right worship'. Good practice IS the proper worship of God, and I don't think 'right doctrine' is required for that.
As to "right authority" as you put it, I sincerely believe that, no matter how ardently we may seek God's will and ways and stamp of approval, if we were to be truly honest, our final authority is actually ourselves, for it is our human construct of our "philosophy of God" which leads us to seek God in a particular way, and therefore to some degree we limit ourselves to the understandings we want/are disposed/etc. to find or acknowledge. Not that God cannot or does not work within that, but that's another topic. The key is to be humble and honest enough to admit that even though we may think we are right, or that God has spoken thus to us, that we may still indeed be wrong. In that case, who was the authority? Who was wrong, God or us? If we say 'God' our entire religious worldview comes falling down on our heads; if we say 'us' then we admit we were our own authority no matter how certain we were otherwise. I've dealt with this myself, and the answer to "Who was wrong?" has led me down my current path, for better or worse.
Perhaps I should qualify something from my post: I am not an orthopractic follower of Jesus—I TRY to be an orthopractic follower. The way I wrote that makes it sound like acting rightly can be nailed down as easily as an "orthodox" catechism can be recited. It is much harder to act rightly than to believe "rightly", but I think that is one of the benefits of an emphasis on practice—it constantly brings one back to action.