In a recent (offline) discussion in which I was more a fly on the wall than an active participant, the question arose of whether orthodoxy or orthopraxy was most important in one’s religion. The participants were mostly Evangelical Christians, so it’s not really surprising that the conclusion was that orthodoxy won the day, even though there was some disagreement over what the “correct belief(s)” should be.
The idea that orthodoxy was related “right belief” seemed to be generally accepted, but they were less sure about what orthopraxy was all about. So I took a moment to ask Bing Chat what orthopraxy means. Its reply was:
Orthopraxy means correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace. It is often contrasted with orthodoxy, which emphasizes correct belief. The word is a neoclassical compound from the Greek orthos (correct) and praxis (action). Some religions, such as Hinduism, Judaism, and Eastern Christianity, are considered both orthopraxic and orthodoxic, as they guide adherents in both practice and belief. Other religions, such as Scientology and Santeria, are more orthopraxic than orthodoxic, as they focus more on ritual performance and obedience than on doctrine and theology. Orthopraxy can also be applied to secular contexts, such as medicine, law, or politics, where correct action is valued over correct opinion.
I found this answer interesting as some Friends describe Quakerism as being orthopraxic in contrast to traditional Christianity which they describe as being orthodoxic. I’ve done it myself. However our use of orthopraxy to describe Quakerism is inconsistent with the meaning provided by Bing Chat. So I did the obvious. I asked Bing Chat if it thought Quakerism in the liberal unprogrammed tradition is orthopraxic. The answer was longer and more nuanced than I expected.
The first part of its reply indicates that a yes or no answer is inadequate:
That is an interesting question. I think the answer depends on how one defines orthopraxy and how one evaluates the practice of liberal unprogrammed Quakers.
The second paragraph was almost word for word identical to the definition of orthopraxy given above, so I won’t repeat it. The third paragraph was a good attempt at describing Quakerism in the liberal unprogrammed tradition:
Liberal unprogrammed Quakers are a branch of the Religious Society of Friends, a historically Protestant Christian set of denominations. They practice unprogrammed worship, which means that they do not follow any prearranged or structured order of events or liturgy. They sit in silence and wait for the Spirit to move them to speak or read from Scripture or other literature. They emphasize the authority of the Inner Light, which is the presence of God in every person, and their membership contains both those who identify themselves as Christians and those who do not. They are often active in service work, but generally not in missionary or evangelical activities
The fourth paragraph sets out an argument supporting the idea that Quakerism is orthopraxic:
One could argue that liberal unprogrammed Quakers are orthopraxic, because they value the experience of the Spirit over the adherence to creeds or confessions. They do not have a formal doctrine or theology, but rather rely on the testimonies of peace, equality, integrity, and simplicity as guides for living. They do not have a hierarchy or clergy, but rather respect the priesthood of all believers. They do not impose their beliefs on others, but rather seek to listen and learn from different perspectives. They do not judge or condemn, but rather affirm and support.
I go along with that. But in the fifth paragraph Bing Chat provides an argument as to why Quakerism is not orthopraxic:
One could also argue that liberal unprogrammed Quakers are not orthopraxic, because they do not have a clear or consistent standard of correct conduct. They do not have a fixed or prescribed ritual, but rather allow for spontaneity and diversity. They do not have a common or shared belief, but rather allow for individual and collective discernment. They do not have a strict or binding authority, but rather encourage personal and communal responsibility. They do not have a definite or exclusive identity, but rather embrace openness and inclusiveness.
And I go along with that too. So is Quakerism orthopraxic or not? Bing Chat is clearly of the opinion that “it depends” as shown by the final paragraph:
Ultimately, I think the answer to your question depends on your own perspective and criteria. I hope this helps you to explore the topic further. Thank you for chatting with me. 😊
I find I am growing quite fond of Bing Chat as it seems to be much more nuanced in its “opinions” than a great many flesh and blood individuals I encounter on line and in person. Hats off the developers and programmers of Bing Chat.
Another Spectrum 