
Rodney King
Let’s start with the assumption that each individual believes he or she is right and other people are wrong. In computer geek language, it’s our default setting. I know that sounds harsh, but sometimes you have to be brutally honest—and I had to start somewhere with this.
Sure, there are those among us who do actually hold open the possibility that other people may be right some of the time, or even that they’re likely to be right. Apparently that’s not the norm, however (case in point: recent scenes from town hall meetings on health care in the USA). Of course, everybody has a right to their own opinion.
Among other things, this helps explain why there are so many religions in the world, and why there are so many subdivisions (denominations, sects, cults, and “lone rangers”) within them. Religious professionals, of course, have necessary terms for this situation: orthodoxy (right thinking and right doctrines within the religion) and orthopraxy (right ways of doing and practicing the religion). It’s the way we determine who’s faithful and obedient and who’s a heretic. It worked well centuries ago for the Spanish Inquisition (when others saw how adept the Spaniards were at it, they joined in, too).Although in less extreme forms, it’s how we do many things even at the start of the twenty-first century.
In short, it appears religions just have to have boundaries, sometimes rigid and unmovable and at other times more fluid or perhaps just a bit hard to find. There ends up being a point where you’re either in or out, accepted or excluded, good or bad, saved or damned. But just because it’s worked this way for centuries doesn’t necessarily mean it must continue to be so. That, I believe (and apparently I’m not alone in thinking this) is where we are today. Whether you call it a shift in the space-time continuum or just a breakdown in all we hold dear and true, we live in unsettling times.
So what’s a religion (denomination, congregation, sect, or cult) to do? It can, of course, cling to its default setting. But if it can’t condemn sinners to eternal damnation for crossing boundary lines, where’s the fun in that? Okay, that was a bit harsh, wasn’t it? Let me rephrase: Without clear boundary lines, how do we determine what we believe anymore? How do we distinguish our group from the next one? How do we even settle a religious or theological argument?
I discovered a new word not long ago, orthoparadoxy, in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, eds.; Baker Books, 2007). One of the essays was by Dwight J. Friesen: “Orthoparadoxy: Emerging Hope for Embracing Difference.” Here’s a quote:
“The ministry of God’s people has always been understood as a ministry of blessing—from God’s call to Abraham, with the promise that Abraham and his descendants would be a blessing to the nations, to Paul’s charge to the church in Corinth: ‘All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation’ (2 Corinthians 5:18). Orthoparadoxy is an effort to make God’s main thing the main thing for all the people of God: reconciliation. Not sameness or agreement but differentiated oneness—where the fullness of one can be in relationship with the fullness of another. Orthoparadox is right paradox—holding difference rightly. Orthoparadox seeks to hold difference, tensions, otherness, and paradoxes with grace, humility, respect, and curiosity, while simultaneously bringing the fullness of self to the ‘other’ in conversation, not to convert or to convince but with the hope of mutual transformation through interpersonal relationship.” –pp. 204–205
Wow, wish I’d thought of that. At least I’m passing it along.
Basically, the thought is that in our post-modern, post-Christian, post-denominational (and whatever other “post-“) world, we live out our lives as believers, including our search for Truth, in a state of constant paradox. It’s a life of certain uncertainty (or is it uncertain certainty?), of being in and out at the same time, of being chosen and marginalized, of possessing knowledge while surrounded by mystery, of discovering an abundant life through sacrificing our life in loving service to God and our fellow human beings. Truth is somewhere in the mix, and it can only be approached (but never fully grasped) within the tension of the search.
What would it mean, then, if our denominations, starting with our congregations, embraced orthoparadoxy? How radical would that be? Or just how very Christian? This doesn’t begin to deal with the challenge of “lone rangers” in our midst, but for the rest of us, it might be worth a try.