Christianity Without Dogma Absence of Church Doctrine Leads to a Religion of Sentimentality By Father Dwight Longenecker ROME, August 20, 2014 (Zenit.org) - The poet Robert Frost once said that writing free verse was like playing tennis without a net. It’s the same for those who would like their Christianity to be free from dogma. Dogma, for those who have forgotten, are the doctrines that are specified as necessary to be believed. By their very nature, dogmas are intellectual propositions that spell out certain Christian beliefs. They’re mandatory--like the net is for tennis. There are some Christians, however, who suggest that dogma is divisive. “Dogma” they argue “restricts the faith. It’s exclusive. It puts people outside the fellowship. “Dogma destroys dialogue,” they argue. “It leads to self righteousness and legalism. Without dogma we wouldn’t have all these denominational divides. Without dogma we would all exist together happily--tolerating one another in Christian love.” Maybe. Maybe not. The problem with Christianity without dogma is that it leads to a certain formlessness, the reduction of an intellectually vigorous and astringent faith to something sentimental and cute. It becomes what C.S.Lewis called, “Christianity and water.” If there is no dogma there is nothing to believe--just something to feel and do, therefore Christianity without dogma ends up being nothing but a religion of “spirituality and sentimentality” just “feeling good and doing good.” In addition to good works and good feelings, the human mind needs to articulate the faith. Without dogma the articulation of this “faith” becomes a sad, ridiculous struggle with words which cannot have any meaning other than the re-interpretation of that meaning according to each person’s preferences, and about which no one can argue because all have agreed that there is no such thing as objective theology. The practice of the faith then becomes vague and incoherent collection of good causes, passionate personal intentions of making oneself somehow better or following one’s idea of Christianity within a wilderness of personal opinion, sentimental conclusions. One is as T.S.Eliot put it, “on the edge of a grimpen where there is no foothold.” Without dogma religion is flaky and pale. It is not a case of the blind leading the blind. It’s more like the bland leading the bland. I have met some modernist Christians who embrace this non-dogmatic religion. They tend to see their lost condition in terms of romantic courage. They say with touching bravado, “Ah yes! we brave pioneers are willing to wrestle with meanings and meaninglessness. We often walk in darkness without seeing the great light, and is it not a courageous act of faith to walk boldly into that void where we may be sure of nothing except that we are sure of nothing?” I remember once hearing a sermon in Cambridge by a theologian who mistook his own atheism for the via negativa–the spiritual way of negation. He piously said, “We who have no dogma and no certainty and no absolute authority to blindly obey, we are the courageous men of faith who “go bravely into that darkness which is the darkness of God.” I would never judge the state of the man’s soul, but it reminded me of the fool named Rycker in Graham Greene’s The Burnt Out Case who is in mortal sin but mistakes the darkness in his soul for the Dark Night of the Soul. No, give me dogma, for dogma is the frame of the window through which I glimpse the heavens from my prison cell. Dogma is not the end of the questions, but the foundation for the greatest questions of all. Dogma gives structure and form. It is the ladder on which we climb; it is the map for the journey and the directions for the quest. The irony is that a religion with no dogma is only possible because of dogma. You would never know the freedom of playing tennis without a net if tennis were not first and always properly played with a net. Likewise, the modernist can only rejoice in his religion without dogma because Catholics exist who insist on dogma. The rock which is a stepping stone for the Catholic is the same rock the modernist kicks, and then calls himself a brave martyr for having hurt his foot. Blessed John Henry Newman observed that Christianity must be dogmatic for it is based in a real event in history. That is to say, because Christ the Lord was a particular person particular beliefs are required. Newman observed further that while Christianity must be dogmatic it can only be so if it has an infallible interpreter. Without an infallible interpreter Christianity will fall either into the latitudinarian error or the sectarian error. The latitudinarian error is simply a long way of saying that anything goes while the sectarian error is a long way of saying nothing goes but what we in our little group permit. The latitudinarian allows any belief as long as they retain formal unity. The Episcopal Church is an example. The sectarians sacrifice formal unity in order to retain unity of belief. The thousands of Protestant denominations are an example. Only with an infallible interpreter can one retain both unity of form and unity of doctrine, and the only infallible authority for such unity and based in dogma is the authority of the successor of Peter--the Rock on which non Catholics stumble, and the sure Rock on which Catholics build. Fr Dwight Longenecker is Parish Priest of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Greenville, South Carolina. Visit his website to browse his books and connect to his well known blog at www.dwightlongenecker.com Fr. Dwight Longenecker Website: www.dwightlongenecker.com Blog: Standing on My Head. His latest book is The Romance of Religion --Fighting for Goodness, Truth and Beauty
Well said. I imagine there are many Catholics (including priests, bishops,) who would like to do away with those pesky dogmas of faith that keep interfering with their pursuit of ecumanism.
Earlier this year an extraordinary event took place in the Vatican. Bishop Tony Palmer -- a bishop in an Anglican breakaway church met with Pope Francis. Palmer and then-Archbishop Bergoglio had become friends when the Evangelical Charismatic Anglican minister was a missionary in Argentina. Once he was wearing the white soutane, Pope Francis telephoned Palmer and asked to meet. During their extended breakfast the Pope asked Tony Palmer what he could do to encourage unity with Evangelical Protestants. Bishop Tony pulled out his iPhone and said, “Why not record a video greeting to the group of influential charismatic Christians I am going to meet at a conference in Texas next week? Pope Francis obliged and the greeting can be viewed here. After Pope Francis’ greeting was played to the conference of Protestant Evangelical leaders, the television evangelist Kenneth Copeland gave a warm response and said he wanted to visit with the Pope. That meeting has now taken place. Rick Wiles reports that a delegation led by Bishop Tony Palmer traveled to Rome and met with Pope Francis for three hours. James and Betty Robison hosts of the Life Today television program and Kenneth Copeland founder of Kenneth Copeland ministries were accompanied by Reverend Geoff Tunnicliff, CEO of the World Evangelical Alliance; Rev. Brian Stiller and Rev. Thomas Schirrmacher, also from the World Evangelical Alliance. Also in attendance were Rev. John Arnott and his wife, Carol, co-founders of Partners for Harvest ministries in Toronto, Canada. This meeting is all the more remarkable since not too long ago conservative Evangelicals in North America were inclined to view the Catholic Church as the “great whore of Babylon” and the Pope as the antichrist. The Evangelical leaders were not only impressed by the simplicity and warmth of Pope Francis's welcome, but they clearly had a fellowship in Christ that has been lacking in the past. How can we understand the warmth between conservative Evangelical Protestants and Pope Francis? What we are witnessing is the fruit of a historic realignment in Christianity. For some time now the real division in Christianity has not been between Catholics and Protestants. It has been between those Christians who believe in a revealed religion and those who believe in a relative religion. The real divide is between progressives who wish to alter the historic faith according to the spirit of the age, and those who believe the spirit of the age should be challenged by the eternal and unchanging truth of the Christian gospel. Those who believe in a relative, progressive and modernist form of Christianity dismiss the miraculous element of religion, believe the church and the Scriptures are merely man made accidents of history and think the church should adapt completely to the needs of modern society. The progressives see the church as an agent of social change and think the main task of Christians is to be political activists. The other side are those who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is revealed by God for the salvation of souls and the transformation of the world. These historic Christians believe the Scriptures are inspired by God and that the gospel cannot be changed by the culture of any age. They might be called classical Christians because they believe the “old, old story” of a sinful humanity and a merciful God who gave his own Son for the salvation of the world. Progressive and Classical Christians can be found in all the denominations and ecclesial structures. There are classical and progressive Catholics and classical and progressive Protestants. The recent meeting between Pope Francis and the Evangelical leaders reveals that the classical Christians of all traditions have more in common than the classical Christians have with progressives. I Knew a Priest Who Could See the Dead » Pope Francis Evangelical Catholic July 1, 2014 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker 3 Comments Here is my latest article for Aleteia – reporting on Pope Francis’ meeting with Anglican bishop Tony Palmer and Charismatic televangelist Kenneth Copeland and other Evangelical leaders. For some time now the real division in Christianity has not been between Catholics and Protestants. It has been between those Christians who believe in a revealed religion and those who believe in a relative religion. The real divide is between progressives who wish to alter the historic faith according to the spirit of the age, and those who believe the spirit of the age should be challenged by the eternal and unchanging truth of the Christian gospel. The words and actions of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both rooted in the past and yet pointed to the future. Likewise with Pope Francis. His meeting with Evangelical leaders points to a new alignment within global Christianity. As the progressive Christians merge increasingly with the spirit of the age the divide between them and classical Christians will become increasingly acute. As this happens the classical Christians of all denominations will begin to coalesce and cooperate more closely. Classical Christians from Eastern Orthodoxy through Roman Catholicism, classical Anglicanism and Evangelicalism will all find an increasing understanding and agreement. Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/pope-francis-evangelical-catholic.html#ixzz3B50Jrgz7 I Knew a Priest Who Could See the Dead » Pope Francis Evangelical Catholic July 1, 2014 by Fr. Dwight Longenecker 3 Comments Here is my latest article for Aleteia – reporting on Pope Francis’ meeting with Anglican bishop Tony Palmer and Charismatic televangelist Kenneth Copeland and other Evangelical leaders. For some time now the real division in Christianity has not been between Catholics and Protestants. It has been between those Christians who believe in a revealed religion and those who believe in a relative religion. The real divide is between progressives who wish to alter the historic faith according to the spirit of the age, and those who believe the spirit of the age should be challenged by the eternal and unchanging truth of the Christian gospel. The words and actions of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both rooted in the past and yet pointed to the future. Likewise with Pope Francis. His meeting with Evangelical leaders points to a new alignment within global Christianity. As the progressive Christians merge increasingly with the spirit of the age the divide between them and classical Christians will become increasingly acute. As this happens the classical Christians of all denominations will begin to coalesce and cooperate more closely. Classical Christians from Eastern Orthodoxy through Roman Catholicism, classical Anglicanism and Evangelicalism will all find an increasing understanding and agreement. Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2014/07/pope-francis-evangelical-catholic.html#ixzz3B50Jrgz7
Sorry, I tried to clean above up but Stan won't let me. Great article by Fr Dwight Longnecker, answers so many questions. God bless Tony Palmer!
LM I think you will find that the Catholic Church is actually committed to Ecumenism at the highest levels so I don't think dogma's of faith can really be "pesky" in this respect. I think the problems you may refer to are more to do with erroneous understandings of what Catholic Ecumenism involves.
Just a question BH. How would you see a new Dogma going down at the moment? Like the long awaited Co -Redemptrix. In your opinion would this help Ecumenism?
Best define the word Ecumenism, so everyone is on the same page with its meaning. ECUMENISM. The modern movement toward Christian unity whose Protestant origins stem from the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference in 1910, and whose Catholic principles were formulated by the Second Vatican Council in 1964. These principles are mainly three: 1. Christ established his Church on the Apostles and their episcopal successors, whose visible head and principle of unity became Peter and his successor the Bishop of Rome; 2. since the first century there have been divisions in Christianity, but many persons now separated from visible unity with the successors of the Apostles under Peter are nevertheless Christians who possess more or less of the fullness of grace available in the Roman Catholic Church; 3. Catholics are to do everything possible to foster the ecumenical movement, which comprehends all "the initiatives and activities, planned and undertaken to promote Christian unity, according to the Church's various needs and as opportunities offer" (Decree on Ecumenism, I, 4). Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
False ecumenism pays no attention to error, and seeks to be united to error and people with blind regard for God. As Fr. Hardon spoke on it, he said: Since the close of the Second Vatican Council, many Catholics have sincerely initiated relationships with the churches separated from Rome without taking into full account the doctrinal foundations on which true ecumenism must be based. True ecumenism is the Christian unity that Christ Himself revealed. It is the unity which is not merely verbal but real. It is the unity which preserves all the essential elements of faith and morality prescribed by the Savior for those who are to be His followers in truth and not only in name.
"Such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." --Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, par. 2, January 6, 1928
LM excuse me if I suggest you could be showing more good faith and neutrality wrt the research you have done here. I come to this conclusion because: (a) You have had to go back to 1928 to find an Encyclical that comes close to making your point (Ecumenism or Religious Unity is not a goal/Teaching of the Church) which is rarely a good sign. If your view is based on solid tradition one would have thought it would be well represented in Vatican II or Encyclicals closer to today. I suggest reading Vatican II or the 1995 Encyclical "Ut Unum Sit" (That They May be One). http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ts/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html Note the heading at the top of this Encyclical: "On commitment to Ecumenism". (b) You seem to have studiously omitted quoting the preceeding specific concern Pope Pius XI is actually responding to here. There is absolutely no indication he is talking about "Ecumenism" (which is good) or even "Religious Unity" (which is the topic of his Encyclical and of which he approves if one understand what the Catholic Church really means by that endeavour). The preceeding sentences you left out are: " Some seem to have ... a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. Conventions ... are frequently arranged by these persons ... at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission." Clearly his concern is not with Christians and others coming together as such in theory. Rather he saw (at that time) little prudential advantage in low-calibre representatives of different religions coming together in the belief that all we need to do is give up cherished doctrines and sink to the lowest common doctrinal denominator. That is not what he sees as the Catholic desire for Religious Unity or how it should progress. It is for this reason I believe that Catholicism is indeed committed to Ecumenism - but one has to understand what Catholics mean by that word. Like many Catholic storms in a tea-cup over whether Dogma changes - its all in the definition. e.g. If the Church allows some of the presently Divorced and "Remarried" access to communion ... it won't be because we have changed our teaching on the indissolubility of a valid Catholic Marriage. It will be because, due to new Church insights into the nature of what constitutes a valid marriage in the first place, some of these "remarried" will be found not to have had a valid marriage in the first place. In which case they are only, understandably, "fornicating" in their second illicit "marriage" and, after having that union regularised and confessed, will be free to receive Communion regularly. Its all in the definition of the terms of the Dogma, not a betrayal of the Dogma itself - whether that be Ecumenism or Catholic Marriage.
Well I am no expert on this particular topic MAC and I sense a Ninja attack lurking in the shadows . But if my memory of generic Vatican studies from a long time ago serves me correctly there was concern at that time wrt the Orthodox Church's reaction (perhaps other Churches as well) to such a move. Someone may be able to correct me on that. Interestingly, on a tangential topic, yesterday I accidentally came across a serious move late last century to publicise an apparently ancient but very politically incorrect title of the Church known as Casta Meretrix. We have a very interesting Catholic Tradition indeed.
BH said...Well I am no expert on this particular topic MAC and I sense a Ninja attack lurking in the shadows .
BH, there are so many things wrong with your post I don't know where to start! 1. I never said ecumenism was bad. Go re-read what I originally wrote, and notice the word "THEIR." 2. I didn't HAVE to go back to 1928, as though it was my only choice, I just happen to really like Pope Pius XI. The fact that you said "which is rarely a good sign" doesn't even make sense. What? Really? What does that even mean? Quoting a previous pope is a bad sign? Oy-vay. 3. I quoted THAT specific piece because of WHAT IT SAYS. Notice the quote starts with "Such attempts..." signaling there is previous text (to anyone with at least a double digit IQ). I wasn't "studiously omitting" anything, go read it if you feel like it, I'm not going to quote the whole encyclical. 4. "If your view is based on solid tradition one would have thought it would be well represented in Vatican II or Encyclicals closer to today." What would give you this idea?? So just scrap everything prior to Vatican II and just read recent encyclicals? Uhhhhh......okaaaaaay. 5. I've read Ut Unum Sit. 6. Thanks for ecumenism 101, but......I know what it is. I know what the Church teaches. I know what this pope teaches, the last pope, the pope before that, and the pope before that, and the pope before that, and the pope before that .....you get the picture. 7. Now go back and read #1.
Apologies LM if I have the wrong end of the stick ... you did say, "... many Catholics ... would like to do away with those pesky dogmas of faith that keep interfering with their pursuit of ecumenism." To me it reads that you oppose Catholic Dogma and "ecumenism" as if they were on either side of the fence. Perhaps you really meant "their pursuit of false-Ecumenism". Or maybe I have missed something sorry.
I should have put "false" for those who do not know my manner. My whole world revolves within our Church dogmas, I live them, I love them, I need them! God bless.
