Orthopraxy

Orthopraxy is from the Greek ortho (correct, straight) and praxis (practice, action)[1]. The literal sense is right practice or correct action. The term was coined in 20th century religious studies to name the emphasis on correct practice over correct belief, in contrast to orthodoxy (right belief).

orthopraxy is often contrasted with orthodoxy, though living traditions usually combine both in complex ways.

The distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is one of the most useful analytical tools in comparative religion. Some traditions emphasize correct belief as the central marker of religious identity (Christianity in many of its forms, with creeds and confessional traditions). Other traditions emphasize correct practice (much of Judaism, with its detailed halakhah; Hindu and Sikh traditions with their structured observance; Islam with its emphasis on the Five Pillars and broader compliance with sharia).

In orthopraxic traditions, the central question is not what you believe but what you do. A Jew who keeps kosher and observes Shabbat but holds idiosyncratic theological views is a fully observant Jew in halakhic terms. A Hindu who performs proper puja and follows family religious tradition is a practicing Hindu regardless of philosophical position. A Muslim who maintains the Five Pillars is a practicing Muslim across a range of theological views.

This is not to say that belief is absent in orthopraxic traditions or that practice is absent in orthodoxic traditions. Most living traditions integrate belief and practice in various ways. The distinction is one of emphasis: which is treated as central, which is treated as secondary, and how the relationship between them is understood.

Christianity is often presented as the paradigm orthodoxic tradition because of its creeds, confessions, and theological articulations. But Christian practice (sacraments, ethics, devotional life) is also central; describing Christianity as purely orthodoxic flattens what it actually is.

The orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction has been useful for noticing how Western (especially Protestant) categories have sometimes been imposed on traditions that organize themselves differently. Asking what Hinduism believes, in the abstract sense, misframes a tradition that is structured more around practice, lineage, and devotion than around abstract belief. Asking what Buddhists believe similarly imposes a question shaped by Christian categories.

Most living religious life integrates orthodoxy and orthopraxy in some way. The distinction is analytical rather than describing wholly separated kinds of religion[2].

The orthodoxy/orthopraxy distinction has been developed in 20th century religious studies. Wilfred Cantwell Smith's work on faith and cumulative tradition[2], broader comparative religion scholarship, and specific studies of how different traditions structure the relationship between belief and practice have all engaged the distinction.

• The Meaning and End of Religionby Wilfred Cantwell Smith
  book
• Sacred Performances: Islam, Sexuality, and Sacrificeby Frank Korom
  book