In a post two weeks ago, I noted that the idea of Christianity being all about orthodoxy and Judaism being all about orthopraxis — right doctrine on the one hand, right action on the other — was more stereotype than reality.
Going beyond that, I'd like to say that the division between orthodoxy and orthopraxis in religions in general is more a permeable membrane, and one permeable in both directions, than a wall.
Doing the right thing is usually based on a belief.
Take Communion or the Eucharist.
Catholicism traditionally reserving the cup only for the priests was a practice. But it was based on a doctrine that included ordination as a sacrament. But that sacrament developed — along with other things, such as a single clergy — out of a practice of separating the priesthood from the laity. (Single priesthood also developed from Rome as a way of trying to prevent land in a bishopric from being heritable and thus strengthening regions at the expense of Rome.)
In Judaism, I noted in that previous post, in pre-rabbinic Judaism, Qumran's use of a solar calendar was a praxis issue. But it eventually led to separation from the Jerusalem priesthood, and eventual condemnation of it on both praxis and doctrinal grounds.
Move to Buddhism, outside the Middle Eastern-Western monotheism orbit entirely. Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists may not excommunicate each other, but practices in the two that differ from each other differ in part on whether someone who is an arhat should stay around and help fellow humans or not. And, yes, and yes Buddhists, that's a doctrine.
Within Muslims, the succession to Muhammad, or within Shia, the split
between Sevenrs and Twelvers? Dogma. Per Spinoza's excommunication, defining who Yawheh
is or is not, to then wonder who can say the Shema or not? Dogma. Or, if you're a Karaite vs Rabbinic Jews, the status of the Talmud? Dogma.
No comments:
Post a Comment