on practice and belief

The past week or so in class we have been focused on the shared history of the three "religions of the book" and how they began to depart from each other. One of the more interesting nuances is around the intersection of belief and practice. Last week E. gave a presentation on washing rituals in the three different religions. All three use water for some sort of ritual bathing, but there is an important difference that this study of the different rituals brought out for us. 

In Judaism there is an intense focus on right practice. This is what makes you a Jew by religion: that you behave like a religious Jew. 

In Christianity there is an intense focus on right belief. I cannot count the times I was assured as a child growing up in an Evangelical, holiness movement tradition that it was what was "in my heart" that mattered. This is what makes you a Christian (for many) that you believe like a Christian.

In Islam both are vital. For a class assignment I am looking more deeply into the prayer rituals and practices of Islam and it is very clear that no prayer can be made without an internal, individual pure intention. However, one's intention does not excuse the need for precise and correct practice of the ritual. This is what makes you a Muslim - that you believe like a Muslim AND behave like one. Faltering on either course risks one's salvation.

Now I am sure that there are plenty of people from any of the three religions being discussed who would disagree with the statements above. I'm going to focus in this post on the one I know something about - my own. 

 I resist the intense focus on right belief (orthodoxy) in Christianity. I am an Episcopalian - we are sacramental and people of the "middle way" between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. One of the unique aspects of Anglican spirituality among the Christianities is a focus on right worship not right belief.  (An example of how this plays out: recently while working with a local Episcopal congregation I found myself in the role of moderator during a fierce debate around whether or not that place should say the Nicene creed during worship. Some people felt that saying it excluded people who might not agree with it. Others felt that it was part of the tradition and should be said whether people literally believed every word or not. Note - the argument was not over whether the creed was "true" but whether it would be a good worship practice to always say it.) But I didn't grow up Episcopalian, and I know quite well that especially in this country most people who claim Christianity as a faith tradition operate under a theology of individualism, based on their individual and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is something that is almost exclusively based on belief, not practice. I find this problematic.

Here's the problem with attempting to regulate and control or unify religious belief without emphasis on practice. What I believe affects how I behave - I don't think many people in modern American culture would dispute that. But what I do, my practice, also affects how I believe. It seems to me that in Christianity there is a temptation to pretend that if we believe correctly it won't matter what we do, or that if we believe correctly we'll automatically do the right things - as individuals and as communities. If we were Jewish we might think the same thing, but the other way 'round - that if we just do the right things, our internal life and belief will sort itself out (personally I like this idea better, but that tells you more about who I am than anything).  I think that, taken to extremes there are some problems there as well. 

So maybe it comes down to why we act, why we believe, what religion is ultimately for. Doing theology, for me, is the process of creative meaning making that includes input from and regard of that which I and my community experiences as Divine. It is a practice, and it happens not from what I believe but out of the things that I do, to include the rite and ritual of my tradition. 

So perhaps Islam has it right? To make both belief and practice essential? I guess the irony for me is that this is also a problem. Both Christianity and Judaism have built within them a little stretching room. Or a lot, depending on what sort of Christian or Jew one is. By focusing on practice over belief, or on belief over practice there is room for sacred wondering, for holy doubting, for intense theological misgivings. There is space, in each faith tradition(s), to accumulate new information about the world and adapt belief and practice to new information about and experiences of God. If both are vital - if you must believe a specific way AND act in a specific way, I wonder where the room to actually make new meaning might be?