I believe that what most people call orthodoxy in religious beliefs is little more than the imposed authority of some part of the Christian faith. The claim to be orthodox in one's belief is not to acknowledge a point of view that is true, but only the point of view that has prevailed. My studies lead me to believe that there never was a single consistent set of Christian beliefs.
This is my thinking too. What people call "orthodoxy" are really the ideas that have become established. Orthodoxy is conformity to established ideas, but whether or not the ideas established really lead a person to the most important things in their life is a question of whether those ideas are the same ideas that person would autonomously and independently discover for themselves to be "true" (ie. leading to the most important things in life).
There were many Christianities from the dawn of Christianity itself. Various groups have tried to define true Christianity, but when they do they almost always define their own institutional, authoritarian system.
I don't completely agree with this. I don't believe that all Christianities are authoritarian. Consider, for example, the concept of individualistic Christianity, a kind of Christianity that one imposes only on himself. This isn't authoritarian, because you are not imposing authority on others.
I think it would also be conducive to consider a secular concept: democracy. Religion often works like statecraft. A state power often aspires to regulate ideas and thoughts in society. An established group of "orthodoxy regulators" (scholars in a particular ideology) will seek to enforce conformity to an ideology. Anyone who does not conform is a "heretic." An established orthodoxy works very much like an autocracy and is driven by ideological hegemony. The established ideology has become dominant and enforces its rule.
In a democracy, state ideology isn't fixed. Cultural values and laws are allowed to evolve over time under a democratic framework. The trouble with Christianity driven by enforced conformity and enforced orthodoxy is that ideas either don't evolve, or only a certain group of people have the right to change the "established ideas."
In some churches, ideology isn't enforced. There is, however, guidance and emphasis on certain ideas.
So determining what the "core beliefs" of Christianity are is not as easy as people seem to think.
This might be a radical statement, but I personally don't think there are
any core beliefs. I don't believe Christianity was supposed to work that way.
We all have our individual differences and stories like that of Jesus make a different impression on each of us. Each of us has his own unique experience. You can guide a person new to Christianity, but for that person to reach their full potential as a Christian, you have to allow that person to think for themselves.
Orthodoxy means "right thinking," but what is "right thinking?" This is very much like the question of what it means to have a "good education" and "bad education." I have heard it said that America has a "crappy public education system." (yeah here I go again commenting on that "superpower nation")
How do you give someone a "good education?" How do you teach someone well? What people often do at secondary level is have students pass a series of tests and examinations and have them ranked/scored by some numbering system. Students will then try to and maximise the scores they receive on that examination system. Apart from scores, there is also students' thinking and behaviour. Do students respect their teachers and educators? Do they suffer from depression, misbehave? Do they keep moving from one school to another? Are their parents breaking up? This is a big issue in the USA.
Let's suppose they do take their education seriously and try to maximise their scores. If they score high, does that mean that they are smart? Consider what happens when they reach university. Did their secondary education prepare them for tertiary education?
The question of a good education is similar to that of orthodoxy. It has to do with teaching and teachings. It is the question of what you need to do to teach a person to be useful, whether it is how one will contribute to one's religion, or the society, economy or government of one's country.
When I was reading about possible reforms in public education in America, I distinctly recall one article discussing the difference between "good and bad education." A good education was one that taught you to think for yourself. A bad education was one that trained you in narrow-minded thinking. Indoctrination is the worst kind of education you can receive. This is why I abhor fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is bad education for Christians.
The most difficult part of all is the distinction between education and orthodoxy. Education is about learning. Orthodoxy has a religious function, so the two cannot be the same. The way that I would resolve this difficulty is to say that although the two are not the same, they serve the same function. Orthodoxy to me is actually a subset of education. Orthodoxy is education in religion. Much like there being good and bad education, there is good and bad orthodoxy. More accurately, there is good and bad thinking.
Because orthodoxy means "right thinking," I don't agree with the "orthodoxy" of the Catholic Church. The orthodoxy of the Catholic Church are the
established ideas promoted by the Catholic Church. But in order for one to be "thinking right" they may need to discard ideas that have become established. Established ideas may not be constructive.
To me, true orthodoxy is not conformity to established ideas, but a realisation of the full potential of human thinking. God created us all to be unique and different, so we are not all going to think the same way. But despite differences in thinking, God will have some way of ensuring that our individual endeavours all work together towards a common goal.
Despite what many may be thinking, I don't believe that God's will manifests itself in ideology, that is, in common, shared ideas. God has an individual agenda worked out for each person. Not everybody who reads the story of Jesus will have the same ideas on what is "Christianity," but somehow, it will work out to be something fruitful in the end.
That is, at least, the theory.
That is what keeps me active in church life. Christianity is not static or doctrinal. It is a pathway we walk into the mystery of God. I grant that it is easier to walk the Christ path in some churches than in others, but true Christianity is always evolving into what it can be; its purpose is not to protect what it has been. So I would suggest that for you to see your role in your church to be that of a change agent, you are in fact being a true worshiper of Christ.
This pretty much sums up what I have just said.
