The Meanings of Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy. It is a word I have an uneasy relationship with. I should be getting side long glances right about now because I just said I have some problems with orthodoxy. I assure those who have already jumped to conclusions that the jury is still out. In today’s discourse it often seems you are guilty until proven innocent. I recently read some research that with Internet culture, people find it even more satisfying to condemn something and express outrage than to show solidarity with their in-group in what they affirm. Matters of group identity have always been important but in modern pluralistic societies, with widespread access to intrusive and instantaneous communication technology, signalling to others you toe the party line has a new, more prominent platform.

Unfortunately, Christians are not immune to this type of poor discourse. On the internet, I have witnessed many heated debates among Christians as well as with non-Christians. I am not someone averse to debate. I do enjoy some good verbal sparring. However, what I do find worrying is how often and easily people go for the quick rhetorical takedown, by appealing to orthodoxy in some form. In terms of argumentation it is a lazy, undignified, attempt to prematurely end the debate. Yet it is effective at getting emotions running which orthodoxy is meant to do.

Every group has its dogmas that it jealously guards because it defines their identity. Orthodoxy is simply a consequence of humans being sapient, social creatures. Things fall apart when the centre does not hold so the core must be passionately protected. So even though “orthodoxy” is a word that is seldom used, even in the church where it is most at home, the idea it represents is very active. It instinctively informs our mindset and influences our behaviour as members of a group. Whether we are aware of it or not, the issue of orthodoxy is a significant part of our lives. Living in a world where there are multiple competing options, the onus is on each group to maintain its identity. As such, orthodoxy is a paramount concern of the Church.

Today, the Church is arguably under more pressure than it has ever been in its long history. So while matters of orthodoxy have always been important, people are even more sensitive about it because they perceive their identity is under threat. Now orthodoxy is primarily a Christian theological term so it is of great interest to us. The trouble with orthodoxy is like many other words, it can have many related but different meanings. So two people can be talking about orthodoxy and mean different things by it. On account of that, we must not be quick to sound the orthodoxy alarm when differences arise. With polyvalent words, people usually navigate the nuances quite easily. However, when it comes to such an important and often sensitive term as orthodoxy, I think it is worth parsing out the differences.

I have observed about four senses of the word but before I go into them, I would like to point out the common relationship between these different senses. Orthodoxy describes a group’s relationship to a collective standard. This is not what the word means in itself but that is how it functions. It is always used in comparison with something. In theological terms that standard is a shared belief. This leads into the first meaning: rightness.

Orthodoxy is from the Greek “orthos” which means “right” and “doxa” which means “opinion”, therefore right opinion. The collective standard here is correctness. This is the original meaning of the word but from there on things get a bit trickier. Something may be considered right because it’s simply correct or even true. The measure there is the truth. Then again if a standard is all that is being considered, simply adhering to it, whether it is right or wrong, means relative to that standard you are right. So the second meaning of the word is conformity but it is the root idea behind the term. To use an example outside the church, when in healthcare some one talks about “orthodox medicine” they mean administering health according to modern scientific conventions. It says nothing about how effective that form of healthcare is. Unorthodox medicine could be just as effective or even better, it also could be far worse, but “orthodox” here has nothing to say about whether something is right in itself. Similarly, in Christian theology people can hold particular views not necessarily because they can demonstrate their inherent rightness but because they are part of a shared belief system you must assent to in order to belong. For example, to be a peer recognized healthcare professional you must practice orthodox medicine. You are conforming to a group standard which does not necessarily imply that standard is right.

With all that in mind, I must underscore: orthodoxy is not the same as truth, even though it is sometimes synonymous with it. When it comes to theology this is an important distinction. As I have already expressed, I have no problem with the word on its own but when it is always equated with truth or prioritised over truth then there is something wrong. In Christian theology truth is greater than orthodoxy. There are numerous examples throughout church history of orthodox positions which were later discovered to not be necessarily right or true.

In no small part, what helped these wrong positions gain a hold is the influence of the group. It is such a powerful thing because as people we find comfort in acceptance and belonging. Yet the Christian message is about accepting and holding on to the truth, even if it means being rejected by others. That being said, even if you think you are on the side of truth, you must still consider the matter of orthodoxy in assessing the truthfulness of your position. That is because in Christian theology truth is not idiosyncratic or private. If you think you are right onto yourself without appealing to a standard beyond yourself then you are definitely wrong. For example, in the Protestant Reformation when they claimed the Roman Catholic Church was wrong, they tried to show that the church had actually deviated from orthodoxy and they had not simply made things up. Even though orthodoxy and truth are distinct, orthodoxy should be the servant of truth. Other than that things go topsy-turvy.

Rightness and conformity are the principal ideas behind orthodoxy. You may be orthodox because you conform to what is truly right or you are considered right just because you conform, regardless of whether it is truly right. I described orthodoxy as a way of talking about how people relate to a collective standard. So far the first two meanings focused on the nature and type of standard. The last two meanings will zero in on the collective, that is, the role people play in defining orthodoxy. As I have indicated from the beginning, orthodoxy exists only in a group context. A group often holds to a standard because everyone else does and/or they have done so for a long time. Orthodox sometimes means “popular” or “traditional”, that is, a norm. When people are debating something they often point to the fact everyone is doing something or things have always been done a certain to way to assert the status quo. Sometimes things become mainstream partly because they have been around for a while. Other times traditions are started because they gain mainstream acceptance. Sometimes these two different forms of orthodoxy coexist and complement each other. Other times there is tension between tradition and what is popular. It is often the dynamic between these two that causes cultures to change.

However, just because something enjoys mainstream acceptance and/or there is historical precedence for it does not make it right. At the very least it indicates that it should be considered but it is not necessarily justified. Again it may be orthodox but that does not automatically mean it is true. When it comes to the debate about homosexuality in the West, Christians argue the church has always widely held since the days of the New Testament that homosexuality is wrong, until very recently in Christian history where there have been a few dissenting voices. Even though it is a very powerful argument which is definitely worth a hearing, it is dangerous to rest your entire case on it. What it demonstrates is that it is normative for Christians not to accept homosexuality. It simply says that is the Christian view but does not necessarily show how the Christian view is right.

These different meanings of orthodoxy we have seen are also different ways of deriving orthodoxy as well. They are four individuals means of establishing orthodox positions. Each has their own value which needs to be assessed individually and with respect to the others. To do that I would like to group the four meanings into two. First there are the measures, that is, veracity and conformity. Secondly, there are the norms, which are traditionality and popularity. Since orthodoxy is a way of talking about a group standard, the sub-type of measure corresponds to the standard and norms refers to the group. Measures mostly deal with the ideal while norms concern how those ideals are realised in the group.

The distinction is an important one to make because most people organically assimilate orthodoxy as a norm. Orthodoxy within a group is mostly not consciously learned. You pick it up without much thought as you grow and live in the group environment. It is what every one believes and has always believed. When people consciously learn an orthodoxy it is usually because they are changing their group identity and therefore must acquire a new ideology. Even in those cases, a lot of deeply held presuppositions are not explicitly taught but still acquired over the course of their life in the group. It is at the level of the norm that people form the most profound attachments to a particular orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is about the group and being social creatures any threat to our group identity instinctively provokes a strong reaction. Even in non-theological settings such as in the world of science, as Thomas Kuhn astutely pointed out several decades ago, it is quite difficult for paradigm shifts to happen. Unless you have insider knowledge, it is impossible to fully appreciate what it is like to live according to such dogmas. The norms constitute lived orthodoxy. Therefore for outsiders, it is much easier to engage with ideological orthodoxy, that is orthodoxy measured by correctness and conformity, because you do not require the experience of actually living it out.

Failure to recognize these two dimensions of orthodoxy causes much conflict. A person challenging another’s orthodoxy rationalises it because that is by and large the only way that can relate to it. They then become baffled by why the other is getting so upset and falling to see things objectively. This incenses the people being challenged even more as that sort of rational detachment is construed as condescension (which it many times is.) Then what often happens is that the group whose orthodoxy is being critiqued returns the favour and unsurprisingly gets the same type of reaction. As it turns out, the challenger also doesn’t like it when their worldview and deeply held beliefs are poked at. This is all because orthodoxy is primarily lived and breathed not philosophized. It is shared by the group and not a product of independent musings. We collectively take it very personally and that is how orthodoxy is supposed to be. The culture wars in the US, which through the internet the whole world is witnessing, is so acrimonious partly because of what I am describing. They are talking about orthodoxy in two different ways and failing to recognise what the different types of orthodoxy mean to the other.

As I have already noted, the other thing about orthodoxy primarily being lived as a group norm is that as an idea, it isn’t given much deliberate thought. So lived orthodoxy may form a coherent experience but at the ideological level it may not be as secure. When the standard and how right it is are measured, it may surprise the believer. If it indeed is the case that there are problems, since most people have not really grappled with their dogmas to that extent, they might find it quite unnerving. Even the appearance of it being scrutinised may cause consternation since it suggests that it might not be as formidable as they thought. Even when this examination of orthodoxy is done by insiders, it is often looked upon with suspicion and may even be censured as if they were an outsider. Again orthodoxy is integral to group identity therefore scrutiny is usually not welcome.

The point of mentioning some of the reactions is not to say orthodoxy should not be probed because it might cause discomfort. I rather want the reader to be aware of what they are doing and the response it will likely engender. If you wish to be persuasive or deliver convincing apologetics, understanding this will help you win over or at the very least get a hearing from someone who holds a different position. It is very hard for outsiders to relate to the insider’s orthodoxy as a norm. Knowing this you can empathise with those who have differing stands. This does not mean you agree with them but you can appreciate that you both have comparably intense attachments to your dogmas and therefore they should not be treated flippantly. So if your particular orthodox position is put under the spotlight, knowing this will hopefully make you more contemplative and less reactive.

Having highlighted how we are more invested in orthodoxy as a norm than as a measure, we need to shore up what we lack in the ideological department since it too defines orthodoxy. I said before the four meanings of orthodoxy are distinct but are related and ideally should function together. However, people tend to favour certain understandings of orthodoxy, especially in particular contexts, which can cause confusion when different meanings are in play. For a holistic understanding of orthodoxy, the relationship between the various senses needs to be properly ordered. The lived orthodoxy of what is popular and/or traditional needs to be grounded in the measures of ideological orthodoxy which are correctness and conformity to a standard. Orthodox measures should be the regulative guide of orthodox norms. This is because orthodoxy is fundamentally about a standard which the collective seeks to abide by. Therefore the standard takes primacy over the collective even though the standard cannot become orthodox without the collective. Moreover, in Christianity truth takes precedence over orthodoxy so ideological orthodoxy should shape orthodox norms.

With these considerations in mind, one can arrange a hierarchy of how the different meanings of orthodoxy ought to relate to one another to form a holistic understanding of orthodoxy. So in order of priority, I propose correctness before conformity, conformity before popularity, and popularity before traditionality. That is to say what is right ought to determine the standard, that standard is then what people conform to, and once it is held by the group it is must be transmitted to the new generation to preserve both the standard and the group identity which rests on that standard. In this arrangement orthodoxy is both the right belief and what everyone rightly believes. When that happens, a person takes personal responsibility for his orthodoxy and not only sees its as the standard requirement to participate in the group. He is cognizant of what he is signing on to and not only who else he is signing with. Orthodoxy defined ideologically means not reckoning it primarily as a group norm. This means you cannot appeal to the group but rather you must grapple with the ideas as an individual. To do this is a deliberate, conscious choice. It is from this that a sense of personal ownership of orthodoxy emerges. Once you have seen the inner workings of orthodoxy, you can therefore gain a deeper level of appreciation for it.

About 4 or 5 years ago I also endeavoured to get my orthodox theological ducks in a row. I realised though I held Christianity to be true, I had not worked out why I believed what I believed. In my experience, interrogating fundamental Christian beliefs has not drawn me away from orthodoxy but made me more confident about it. My decision to dig into Christian orthodoxy was my own initiative. However, many people find themselves coming face to face with their dogmas only in reaction to challenges or moments of crisis. It is impossible to preempt every question that will challenge our deeply held dogmas. But it is better to proactively ask the penetrating questions of your own orthodox positions rather than being caught unaware by them.

Orthodoxy being so important is enough reason to deepen your understanding of it and strengthen your hold on it. The point of examining the meaning of orthodoxy is because living in a pluralistic postmodern world, you have to navigate different orthodoxies. So it is not only worth knowing what constitutes a particular orthodoxy but how the word itself is used and therefore understood. There are a dizzying array of worldviews and dogmas to choose from so it is immensely helpful if we are clear on what the word orthodoxy means.

As we saw, the four meanings of orthodoxy which are correctness, conformity, popularity and traditionality, are also the four means of developing an orthodoxy. Even when the word is not being expressly used, the concept is at play because we all participate in some kind of group identity which has core characteristics that define and distinguish it. You will come across people with very different views and in public discourse understanding these differences in meaning help us have more discerning conversation. This is especially needed on the internet where dialogue so quickly breaks down. Even on such an often contentious medium, as believers we ought to speak with care and wise judgement, especially when there are differences among ourselves because we are one body.