Orthodoxy or Orthopraxis?

Is Christianity a religion concerned with orthodoxy, or orthopraxis?

I’m taking a great course at Harvard Divinity School (HDS) called “The History and Practice of Lived Religion.” Each week, we read one or two lengthy case studies of “lived religion,” that is, religion as it is actually lived and practiced on the ground.  Sometimes, these are first-person accounts of religion–diaries, memoirs, etc. Other times, they are secondary sources that recount and analyze a religious practice from the vantage point of a particular scholarly methodology such as history, anthropology, or sociology.

In class today we focused on an anthropological presentation of a havurah Jewish community in Los Angeles.  During the class discussion someone brought up a concern for what the author chose to include and exclude in her account of the community, and her analysis of it (this type of concern is common in discussion of lived religion).  In this case, the student was struck by how this anthropologist overlooked the actual beliefs of the community communicated in their religious practices, questioning whether her focus on the function of ritual rather than its doctrinal meaning left something to be desired.  ”While Christianity is a religion of orthodoxy, Judaism is a religion of orthopraxis,” responded another classmate, suggesting that the scholar’s focus on religious practice reflected the nature of the jewish tradition.

Is Christianity really about orthodoxy rather than orthopraxis? This delineation struck a cord with me.  On one hand, it was immediately helpful for pinpointing some of the differences I have perceived among Judaism and Christianity.  On the other hand, I was uncomfortable with placing Christianity in the category of “orthodoxy” as opposed to “orthopraxis.” Most Christians, particularly Catholic, that I know do not define themselves according to a checklist of creedal statements.  Those who do often struggle to comprehend and articulate the doctrines that they define themselves by.  I, for one, have such a limited understanding of Christian “orthodoxy” despite the fact that I have been studying it formally and informally since I was teenager.  Many of us expouse “orthodox” beliefs, but is it really accurate to then define ourselves as “orthodox,” that is, “of sound doctrine,” if the richness and complexity of the Christian tradition is such that so few of us can actually understand this doctrine that we assent to?  Rather, it seems that most of us who expouse “orthodox” beliefs are actually defining ourselves by the practice of Christian speech and meaning-making than we are defining ourselves by the content of that speech itself.

Furthermore, many Christians I know identify with religious practice more than “orthodox” speech/beliefs.  They find meaning and fulfillment in the ritual and communal life of Christianity even when they resist its tenants. In this case, it seems that they can be of “orthopraxis” and not “orthodoxy” (in the traditional sense) while still possessing a strong sense of Christian identity.

So what do you think? Is Christianity a religion concerned with orthodoxy, or orthopraxis?

Advertisement