In some cases, the civil power has supported the religious authorities, whereas in other cases, it has remained neutral or disinterested. Sometimes a group has insisted on rigid criteria of purity and conformity, whereas at other times, a great diversity of opinion and practice has been acceptable. Diversity of attitudes on such matters has existed at different times within each of the major traditions.
The scriptures normally serve to delineate the characteristics of acceptable, as opposed to unacceptable, persons. Later theological or philosophical or legal schools often take the scriptural indications as a basis for outlining systems. Elaborating the fixed systems usually involves decisions as to the canon of scriptures and the modes of authority, as well as the establishment of training institutions for those who are to impart and uphold the particular orthodoxy. The self-conscious articulation of an orthodox perspective tends to occur several generations after the establishment of a new perspective, or the successful renewal of an older tradition that has been challenged. The usual process is to project the newly proclaimed orthodox position backward onto the beginnings of the community's life.
In the past century, two opposite tendencies have manifested across traditions: There is both an active fundamentalism in every tradition and a new interest in reconciling divergent streams of thought and practice.
This is a free page. This page contains 199 words. This
article contains 4,340 words (approx. 14 pages at 300
words per page).
Read the rest of this Article with our Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy Access Pass.
