I have several friends who are Orthodox Christian, by birth or by conversion, and this post... is not about them. I want to discuss for a bit the idea of lowercase "orthodoxy" itself, not the particular Church but as an approach to philosophy. You can be "orthodox" anything.
All "orthodoxy" means, from an etymological perspective, is "right (or true) opinion (or praise, worship)." Sounds pretty good - I mean, everyone wants to be correct in their thinking and be doing things in the right way, especially when it comes to the metaphysical. Even most atheists will tell you that theirs is an accurate approach and attitude towards the spiritual, and I'm guessing even satanists would be happy they're not deceived sheep. And of course it can apply to the political just as much as the religious.
Anyhow, the tricky part is in how orthodoxy is defined and redefined as time goes on and cultures change. And further, what that process means for how the organization handles various levels of dissent from within and without.
The usual four guidelines for determining a "Christian" opinion are tradition, scripture, community, and conscience. (And again, most organized groups have relevant versions of these.) Tradition is just the way things have always been done, or as established by authority. Scripture is the holy text, though it should go without saying that quoting can often vary in degree of applicability. Community is how the people around you do things, and the societal norms; always good to factor in, whether as a good or bad thing. Conscience is one's own moral sense, and the main thing I want to talk about in relation to orthodoxy.
Because I feel like they're at odds a lot. The concept of orthodoxy often involves surrender of the individual will, bringing it in line with those other factors. It doesn't leave room for interpretation - by definition, if you find yourself in disagreement with the orthodox position, you are not thinking rightly. And remember, this is philosophy and theology, not science. There, facts can be proved and verified by independent experiment, and a wrong hypothesis can be tossed out fairly easily (though bellyaching is often unavoidable). In philosophy it is much harder to find grounds for objection other than conscience and what rationales make sense to an individual, assuming no apparent logical fallacies.
Anyhow, all that to say, it's great when orthodoxy and individual conscience are in sync... but when they're not, well, you're gonna have a bad time.
We as a species have a poor track record when it comes to dealing with dissent peaceably. Variations include stoning, burning at stakes, excommunication, shunning, hanging for treason - you gotta toe that party line, lemme tell ya. I paint a bleak picture, I suppose, but the general process has been the same over much of history:
organization is going along fine;
some new situation or idea comes along;
people holding an opposing belief claim the support of tradition, scripture, community;
new belief folks either challenge and win the mantle (see slavery, women's suffrage), or lose and are tossed out into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth;
in either case, from then on there are usually two camps - the orthodox, and the heretics.
Often, what happens is the formation of a new church, etc., when the belief systems still have much in common otherwise (see Anglicans, for instance). Sometimes they still work together; sometimes they become mortal enemies. But the point is that the identity is now different. What counts as a "Real, True X" has changed, whether by adapting to the new idea, or by merely adding to the definition a part about opposing the new idea (see the marriage kerfuffle). It is exceedingly rare and amazing when an organization adopts the position of "either way is OK, you can still belong here."
Now, you may be asking yourself, so? What is he getting at with this ridiculously long post? And I will tell you: learning discernment is key. If you are going to be "orthodox" in your beliefs, that is fine, but organizations should be careful about picking their battles, and wary of over-clarifying things to their own detriment. I understand that you might want to make sure your fellow believers aren't falling into error. But "circling the wagons" may be unnecessary if the issue is minor (say, previously not mentioned in official creeds or other documents).
So be careful with your orthodoxy. There are some cases in which good fences make good neighbors; sometimes, though, tossing up fences makes people dissociate, and possibly even hate and kill those neighbors.
