| Religious Doctrines and Dogmas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctrine in theology
(Latin doctrina; Greek didaskalia,
didache) is a generic term for the theoretical component of religious
experience. It signifies the process of conceptualizing the primal--often
experiential or intuitive--insights of the faith of a religious community in
support of rationally understood belief. Doctrines seek to provide religion with
intellectual systems for guidance in the processes of instruction, discipline,
propaganda, and controversy. Dogma (Latin decretum,
Greek dogma) has come to have a
more specific reference to the distillate of doctrines: those first (basic or
axiomatic) principles at the heart of doctrinal reflection, professed as
essential by all the faithful. |
|
|
This distinction appears in Christianity
in the New Testament, in which didaskalia means
"basic teachings" (as in I and II Tim.) whereas dogma is used only in the sense of an official judgment or decree
(as in Acts 16:4). Later, however, many theologians of the early church
(including, for example, Origen, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Jerome) use the
term dogma in the sense of doctrine. In Eastern Christianity, the theologian St.
John of Damascus popularized the term "orthodoxy" (literally
"correct views") to connote the sum of Christian truth. In Western
Christianity, the great medieval theologian St.
Thomas Aquinas chose the phrase "articles of faith" to denote
those doctrines that are solemnly defined by the church and are considered to be
obligatory for faith. As late as the Roman Catholic reformatory Council of Trent
(1545-63), "doctrine" and "dogma" were still roughly
synonymous. |
|
|
Most modern historians, however, have
stressed their difference. According to J.K.L. Gieseler, a 19th-century German
church historian, in Dogmengeschichte, |
|
|
Dogma is not doctrinal opinion, not the
pronouncement of any given teacher, but doctrinal statute (decretum). The dogmas of a church are those doctrines which it
declares to be the most essential contents of Christianity. |
|
|
A modern church historian, Adolf
von Harnack, sought to explain the rise of dogma in Christianity as the
specific consequence of an alien blend of Greek metaphysics and Christian
thought that had been rendered obsolete by Protestantism's
appeal to Scripture and history. The German Roman Catholic dogmatician Karl
Rahner's contrasting definition, in Sacramentum
Mundi, points to a perennial process: |
|
|
Dogma is a form of the abiding vitality of the deposit of faith in the church
which itself remains always the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
The functions of doctrines and dogmas
vary in the several religious traditions according to the stress each puts on
the importance of the rational conceptualization of religious truth first
glimpsed in images, symbols, and parables. In what are viewed by some scholars
as the more mystical religions of the East, doctrines are usually designed to
serve as catalytic clues to religious insight (e.g.,
the notions of Nirvana, or the goal of the religious life, in Hinduism,
Jainism, and Buddhism). In
what are regarded as the more personalistic religions of the West, doctrines and
dogmas tend to function as aids to theological reflection (e.g., the concept of God's unity in Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam). In all the higher religions, doctrines and
dogmas emerge and develop in the service of instruction for the faithful:
interpreting their sacred Scriptures, understanding their obligations and
duties, and safeguarding the lines between allowable diversity and actual
error--all of which help to chart the religious pathway to wisdom, rectitude,
and fulfillment. Theology (which utilizes doctrines and dogmas) is, according to
the medieval Christian theologian and churchman St.
Anselm of Canterbury, "faith seeking rational
self-understanding." |
|
|
The normative function of doctrinal
formulation is a typically vain effort to fix and conserve an interpretation of
the original dogmas of a given tradition. The themes of samsara (the process of reincarnation) and karman (the law of cause and effect) are shared by Hinduism,
Jainism, and Buddhism, though with quite different doctrinal explicitations and
consequences. Analogous developments are evident in other traditions. |
|
|
A third function of doctrine is
polemical: the defense of the faith against misinterpretation and error, within
or without a religious tradition. Given the invariably pluralistic character of
theological reflection, there is a constant tension between the concern for
identity and continuity of the tradition, on the one hand, and for deeper and
richer comprehension of truth itself, on the other. Over against this there is
in most cultures a concurrent rivalry with other religions, with their contrary
doctrinal claims, and beyond that, the challenges of secular wisdom and
unbelief. This calls forth a special sort of doctrinal formulation: apologetics,
the vindication of the true faith against its detractors or disbelievers. |
|
|
At the heart of all efforts to support
religious faith lies the problem of primal authority. It is required of a
doctrinal statement that it be clear and cogent, but doctrines always point past
their logical surface to some primitive revelation or deposit of faith. The
appeal may be to any one of a number of primary authoritative positions: to the
memory of a founder (as in Zoroastrianism), or a prophet (Moses in Judaism), or
to ancient Scriptures (e.g., the Veda
and Upanisads in Hinduism), or an
exemplary event (as in Gautama, the Buddha's "enlightenment"), or to
God's self-disclosure (as in the Torah, or Law, for Judaism, or in Jesus Christ
in Christianity, or Muhammad's revelations to Islam). Here again,
the diversity between doctrines ("allowable interpretations") and the
stability of dogmas ("essential teaching") points to the vexed problem
of doctrinal development in history that is apparent in all the traditions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Every religion has a history of doctrine
that is more than a replication of the deposit of faith. Doctrine, as a mode of pedagogy,
is conservative of its tradition; as a mode of inquiry, it may be innovative,
generating new insights that alter the rhetoric of conventional teaching and,
sometimes, its substance as well. There are, of course, wide variations. The
persistent continuities between ancient Zoroastrianism and its modern form,
Parsiism, or in Jainism, are clearer than those between primitive Hinduism and
modern Vedanta (a Hindu philosophical system). All forms and sects of
Buddhism appeal jointly to the Three Jewels (the Buddha; the dharma,
or law; and the sangha, or
monastic order) but are irreconcilable in their differences of interpretation
and practice. In each case, the question as to what constitutes legitimate
development (e.g., the rival claims of
Theravada, or "Way of the Elders," and Mahayana,
or "Greater Vehicle," in Buddhism) is left undetermined. |
|
|
All Jews profess devotion to Torah, even
in their disagreements over its authentic observance. Christians profess a
common loyalty to the Bible and a common acceptance of the twin dogmas of the
Trinity (that the one God is three Persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and
the God-Manhood of Jesus (that Christ is both divine and human) but then divide
in their doctrinal systems as they have developed historically. Later dogmas (e.g.,
transubstantiation, the teaching that the substance of the bread and wine in
the Lord's Supper is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ,
with the properties of the bread and wine remaining unchanged) were defined by
the Latin Church without concurrence from Eastern Orthodoxy; the modern dogmas
of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., the
immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, the bodily assumption into heaven of
the Virgin Mary, and papal infallibility) were defined in separation from both
the Eastern and Protestant consensus. Protestantism has continued an emphasis on
its distinctive dogmas of "grace alone" (sola gratia), "faith alone" (sola fide), and "Scripture alone" (sola Scriptura) but has nevertheless undergone immense change and
proliferation. |
|
|
Islam
lays great stress on doctrinal stability that is focussed in the Qur`an,
the sunnah (custom or tradition), and
the consensus (ijma') of its jurists ('ulama`).
Even so, it has produced doctrinal variants--especially in the medieval
period--that are as disparate as the mysticism of the Iranian-born philosopher
al-Ghazali and the rationalism of the Spanish philosopher Averroës
and the Persian philosopher Avicenna. |
|
|
The process of doctrinal development has
been explained variously as a process of logical unfolding or of organic growth,
or else as a process of purgations of error and restorations of the original
deposit. The notion of a logical unfolding assumes that all that has developed
in a religious tradition over the course of its history was already implicit in
its original foundation and subsequently had only to become more fully
understood. In the case of the doctrine of the Trinity
in Christianity, for example, it is argued that the abundant references in the
New Testament and the earliest liturgies to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
required the development of a dogma that would make explicit the essential
Christian trinitarian conviction. Similarly, the dogma on the nature of Christ
is understood as the logical outcome of sustained reflection on the testimony
about Jesus as the Christ in the Bible and in the apostolic tradition. In the
notion of logical unfolding, even in its continual development, truth remains
forever unchanged. |
|
|
Theories of organic development stress
the fact that the history of doctrine includes more than explicit formulation of
implicit revelation. Such theories take into account the ways in which religious
thought is affected by "contemporary" science, philosophy, and
historical crises (e.g., the
"Copernican revolution" in astronomy, the Renaissance, and other such
events). The holders of this view are convinced, however, that all such
historical supplementations have been integrated into the original deposit and
thus exhibit the power of the religious organization (e.g., the church) to grow and change without substantial alteration
of its identity. Thus the 19th-century Roman Catholic cardinal
J.H. Newman, in his Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), argued that |
|
|
. . . the highest and most wonderful
truths, though communicated to the world once for all by inspired teachers could
not be comprehended all at once by the recipients, but, . . . have required only
the longer time and deeper thought for their full elucidation (Introduction,
pp. 29-30). |
|
|
Newman also believed that this process
was safeguarded by the authority of the teaching that would even allow for
revisions and occasional corrections of antecedent. |
|
|
Protestants, by and large, have been
more impressed by the lapses and deviations they see in church history and
doctrine and thus have tended to construe authentic "development" in
terms of a perennial recourse to Scripture and apostolic tradition. Such a view
takes historical flux for granted and is less sensitive to the problem of
historical continuity. |
|
|
In all traditions, the course of
doctrinal development is crucially affected by the occasional emergence of
profound and powerful thinkers who have gathered up scattered elements in their
various traditions in freshly relevant syntheses, altering thereby the
subsequent history of that tradition. This can be seen, for example, in the
North African theologian Augustine's contributions to the making of Latin
Christianity and in the matching services of St. John of Damascus in Eastern
Orthodoxy. Such also was the role and contribution of Moses Maimonides in
medieval Judaism (e.g., the Thirteen
Articles of Faith in his commentary on the Mishna) and of St. Thomas Aquinas in
medieval Christianity (e.g., Summa
theologiae). The 16th-century Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin gave
Protestantism its classical form, to be followed by yet other and different
system builders (e.g., Friedrich
Schleiermacher in the 19th century and Karl Barth in the 20th century). |
|
|
Each theory of development has had its
own distinctive prescription for doctrinal stability and doctrinal change. In
Christianity, Eastern Orthodoxy
locates its authority in "Holy Tradition," which is fixed and guided
by the dogmas proclaimed by the ecumenical councils. Roman
Catholicism relies on the magisterium (teaching authority) of the church,
which is directed by the bishops as a "college" (collegium
episcoporum) and supremely by the bishop of Rome as their collegial head.
Protestantism has sought to bind both tradition and the church to the authority
of Holy Scripture, with the resulting problem of specifying what is to be
regarded as truly authoritative interpretations of Scripture. |
|
|
|
|
|
Insofar as doctrines and dogmas
represent conceptualizations of the human encounter with the divine mystery,
they are bound to reflect the interplay of faith and reason
in religious experience and to imply some notion of levels and stages in the
progress of believers as they move from the threshold of faith toward its
fulfillment. Doctrine is concerned with communication and consensus, with the
exposure of the religious vision to rational probes and queries. There is,
therefore, a tension in all religions between mystical intuition and logical
articulation, between insight and dialogue. Most traditions agree that perfect
understanding is a goal that lies beyond a "simple faith" and the
routine observance of rites and duties. Most of them also agree that the utmost
pinnacle of religious insight is ineffable. One mode of differentiation between
doctrinal traditions, therefore, is their relative openness or resistance to the
auxiliary services of philosophy and science of faith's fulfillment. |
|
|
In the majority of the religions of the
East, very broadly, reason's chief role is the purgation of illusion and
self-deception so that souls may follow the ways of wisdom and right conduct to
their true fulfillment in Nirvana. The Hindu passes from the initiatory
level of "the student" (who is dependent on a teacher, guru) to the
ambivalent freedom of "the householder," to the great freedom of
"the forest dweller," to the fullest freedom of the sannyasin
(an enlightened ascetic). Reason, which is chiefly reflective, assists at
every stage in perfecting faith's self-understanding. In Buddhism, one follows
the dharma from saddha (which
is practical knowledge of one's religious obligations), to jñana (rational insight), to vijñana
(mystical illumination). |
|
|
In most of the religions of the West,
again very broadly, the primary function of reason is seen to be that of
rendering the mysteries of faith as intelligible as possible, in support of the
intellectual love of God. In Judaism,
progress in the knowledge of Torah
is focussed in the Bible and the Talmud (commentaries on the Law), guided by the
twin hermeneutical (critical interpretive) principles of Halakha
(the oral precepts and decisions of the rabbis) and of Haggada
(instructive stories, parables, and other similar devices). |
|
|
Variations in Islam range from
the rigid orthodoxy of the Hanbalites (a conservative school of law
following the teachings of Ibn Hanbal), to the rational liberalism of the
Mu'tazilites (a school of law utilizing Greek philosophical methods), to the
dialectical doctrines (kalam) of the
Arabian theologian al-Ash'ari and the Turkish philosopher al-Farabi.
All of these, however, are anchored in the twin dogmas of the unity of God and
the prophetic office of Muhammad. Spiritual progress is measured by the
believer's faithfulness in obedience to the "Five Pillars," or
religious duties, including prayer, fasting, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. |
|
|
In Christianity, the dialectic between
faith and reason has ranged from the fideism (emphasis on faith) of the
2nd-century North African theologian Tertullian to the intellectualism of Thomas
Aquinas. An ancient distinction between faith as bare assent to orthodox
doctrine (fides informis) and faith as
existential trust in God's grace (fides
formata) gave rise to the further distinction between faith as a set of
doctrines to be believed (fides quae
creditur) and faith as personal involvement (fides qua creditur). Philipp
Melanchthon, a 16th-century Lutheran Reformer, stressed the point that
even the devils are "orthodox" (having "dead faith") but to
no avail, since only those who have embraced God's reconciling love (fiducia)
receive the benefits of salvation ("living faith"). In general, this
distinction has become standard in Protestantism.
(see also Christianity) |
|
|
|
|
|
In all the great religious traditions,
and between them, the clash of doctrines and dogmas has, more often than not,
been polemical. The odium theologorum ("bitterness
of the theologians") of which Melanchthon once complained so plaintively
has been notorious. Within the several traditions, doctrinal disputes have
sometimes led to division or else have accompanied divisions caused otherwise.
In relationships between the great world religions, dogmas and doctrines have
usually been regarded as mutually exclusive. There are, however, significant
signs of change in this attitude. The rise and spread of the ecumenical movement
in the 20th century and notable advances in the comparative study of world
religions reflect an enlarged commitment to the widest possible community of
mutual religious interests. The "Decree on Ecumenism" and its
"Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian
Religions" of the Roman Catholic second Vatican Council (1962-65) are
signal instances of this new disposition. (A.C.O.) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
