On Orthodoxy

Today, I was reading a bit from one of my favorite works on Christianity: Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton wherein he discusses the reality and rationality of miracles. Chesterton has this knack for being able to convert the most mystical elements of Christianity into what appears to be irreducible common sense, the kind that even the most benighted dimwit could grasp while simultaneously making the educated scholar sweat.

Chesterton maintains that to be an orthodox Christian is not an epithet that would indicate a boring personality. Yet from my experience, the first connotation of the word "orthodoxy" that comes to mind is one of dullness , boredom, and remarkable ordinariness. Chesterton suggests that we end this stereotype permanently and view our self-perceived orthodoxy in a new way and perhaps, that our supposedly vibrant testimonies were more stagnant than we once thought:

People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad. It was the equilibrium of a man [in front of] madly rushing horses, seeming to stoop this way and to sway that, yet in every attitude having the grace of statuary and the accuracy of arithmetic (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Chpt. 6).

I have found that within our faith, we members often bifurcate our ward populace between the so-called "Mormon orthodoxy" and then the "liberal" free-thinkers, the former being seen by the "liberals" as dogmatic, inflexible, and sometimes even uncaring. To the liberals, the orthodox betray their traditions of learning, refusing to "seek ye therefore out of the best books" (the orthodox might respond that the Lord is implicitly referring to the scriptures).

On the other hand, the orthodox see the liberals as free-wheeling, doctrinally unreliable, and untrustworthy on missionary exchanges. They're loose cannons and must be kept on a short leash, some orthodox would maintain. The liberals get off on doctrinal branches and might not even have a strong testimony; why else would they bother reading/citing material not found explicitly in the manual?

Both parties have their strong points, but sorting out the balance between them requires what Elder Neal A. Maxwell calls the "synchronization of the Spirit." I suggest that more dialogue--open, frank, and candid discussions--take place between these two parties. After all, as Chesterton argued, orthodoxy need not be an excuse for constricted thinking. The orthodox need not be surprised when critics bring up problematic issues while the liberals need not be incensed when they are asked to make their loyalty more transparent.

No matter our talent or ideological proclivity, the call from the Lord remains the same: "Faith, hope, charity, and love with an eye single to the glory of God qualify him/her for the work." Would that we all take a lesson from Mr. Chesterton and learn that to be an orthodox Mormon is among the highest life adventures one can take--for both the mind and the spirit.