The Necessity of Dogma

The following is an article I wrote in 2004, and printed in issue #4 of Leben Magazine. It was written primarily in response to questions posed in the magazine about the classical dogma of the Trinity, and the eternity of hell. The question was raised whether there was any harm in exploring such questions. The following article was my response.

—————————

The Christian faith is constantly evolving. Ever since the death of Jesus, His followers have had to decide amongst themselves, hoping for spiritual guidance, what truths would lead our religion. In recent times, questions again arise within Christianity itself about God’s true nature, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the permanence of hell, and the meaning of the Trinity. These are the same issues which challenged the church in the first few centuries as it was still developing its dogma. Some of today’s new ideas represent true visionary thought, while others represent heresy. Perhaps sometimes the church goes too far in stifling the tide, but if so, the visionary theologians of today are often equally rash in pushing forward ideas which may contain more danger than they know.

Bitter disputes arose in the first century between Paul and James and Peter regarding the direction the Church would take. Likewise, in writing their respective accounts at the end of the century, Thomas and John gave distinctive emphases to the gospel story.

Ever since the moment the Holy Spirit first enlightened the followers at Pentecost, there has been a tug-of-war between different factions of the faith. To this day, the faith continues to develop. Bold theologians push forward with new ideas, while the Church holds fast to tradition. Visionary thinkers often find themselves frustrated with the Church, and vice-versa. Thus a tension exists, and no doubt always will. Yet the dynamic shared by each side in this tussle of theologic push and pull is vital both for the preservation and the evolution of healthy and balanced Christianity.

EVEN TRUTH CAN LEAD TO UNFORESEEN RESULTS

Much has been discussed of late regarding not only old Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the afterlife, but also about the Church’s role in protecting these doctrines and its own tradition. Much of the debate has focused on whether such doctrines are “true,” and the role occupied by the so-called “Orthodoxy Patrol” (perhaps too often viewed as a closed-minded antagonist.) The questions are intriguing. But the implications reach further. While the Church’s tradition and dogma are often accused of stifling truth, they deserve more credit. This is the body that brought the world forward for two thousand years.

Church leaders often get a bad rap, both in history books and in contemporary opinion. They are remembered in the past and seen in the present as dogmatists who refuse to admit to truth beyond their own narrow confines of thought. But I see this as a grossly unfair representation. Church leaders have been given their authority for one reason alone—to protect the faith of God’s people, threatened on all sides by wayward thought. Sometimes the threats come from within. Can we blame them for carrying out their charge so vigorously, even when occasionally crying Heresy! in vain?

The relationship between bold thinkers within the Church and its religious authorities has been a tense one for centuries. And while the free-thinking philosophers of any day possess a wealth of understanding, as well as a willingness to probe the depths of the world’s meaning, the tradition-minded theologians within the Church have an equally powerful ally on their side for the preservation of truth. That ally is the legacy of the bold thinkers of eras that have come before. For what establishment of doctrine has not been the result of bold thinking? From the original Apostles to the Council of Nicea, to the leaders of the Reformation, the men who codified our religious thought were bold thinkers of their times.

In retrospect, the Church has often been made to look silly by its rage over certain seemingly harmless issues. Especially when the very things it opposes, in time, become accepted either in church doctrine or in everyday life. Look, for example, at the conviction and imprisonment of Galileo (1564-1642), whose only “heresy” was to propose that the earth rotated around the sun! Galileo died excommunicated, and only in 1992 did the Catholic Church finally clear his name.

But while on the surface these actions seem absurd—for the Church was clearly wrong regarding the earth and sun, and Galileo right—the long-term consequences of their dispute are not as simple to judge. Galileo is remembered as a scientific pioneer. But what impact did his discovery, true as it was, have on faith? For in discovering a scientific truth, Galileo turned the key in a door of human thought which he never intended to open. Hindsight reveals that the fundamentalist “Orthodoxy Patrol” of his day actually possessed uncanny foresight, and perhaps even wisdom, in squelching his teachings.

The work begun by Galileo led within a century to Sir Isaac Newton’s theories of gravitation and matter. In his time, Newton (1642-1727) also incurred the wrath of the Church. Both these men were devout Christians within the denominations of their respective countries—Galileo an Italian Catholic, Newton an English Protestant. For both, their theories contained the intricate necessity of a creating God, and led to an expanded understanding of the divine. But with three centuries now between ourselves and them, it is easy to see why the Church was so afraid. Do not modern agnostics champion these two men of science as the forefathers of humanism? Whether they intended it or not, Galileo and Newton paved the way for the age of enlightenment and the secularization of the western world.

Would Newton be troubled by the places Voltaire and others took his theory? We cannot know. Newton was a bold thinker. Perhaps the illumination of the Christian world was in part his mission.

In these cases, though the bold thinkers were for the most part “correct” and the Church traditionalists “wrong,” the results of the Enlightenment which followed are more dubious. It cannot be denied that many individuals were lured away from God by the new theories of the Scientific and Natural world. Newton had no idea that his own “Newtonian” theory would lead to such secularism. But such was the result when men and women less brilliant than he embraced only the portion of his teaching they could understand.

If a principle like gravitation, in its misrepresentation, could deal such a blow to Christianity, how much more dangerous a threat to the Church are questions posed about the Trinity or the afterlife—the full truth of which we may not yet be privy to? Who can say but that full knowledge into these mysteries might similarly lead mankind down unintended paths whose ends we cannot see? Jesus did not give us completely clear pictures of these truths. Perhaps He only meant to show us what we needed to know.

The fruit of the tree of knowledge is indeed the curse of mankind.

To take an example from within the church, think of the legacy of Origen, the third century theologian. While none can doubt his devotion and holiness during his life, nor the reverence his immediate followers such as St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen had for him, the doctrines, indeed, the heresies of so called Origenism, which later followers credited to him, caused the church to condemn much of his teachings. Among these were the ideas of universal salvation and a hierarchical Trinity. It is debatable whether Origen himself actually held these views.

The wisdom of men like Origen and Newton is not in question. Yet the church’s insistence on upholding its dogma against their new and bold ideas reflects a wisdom of foresight that might have saved many of the faithful from falling into error.

None of us will ever fully comprehend the mysteries not only of our world, but of the next. One truth out of context can prove very dangerous. Why else would Jesus have demanded, both in His words and by what He chose to reveal, such faith from His followers?

THE GLUE OF DOGMA

Christianity has survived the centuries in large part because of its consistency. If we examine the Church of any given era, it seems to be about a hundred years behind what would have then been considered modern thought. But this, in fact, reflects its wisdom. A religious body cannot afford lightly to espouse a trend. But once certain that a social or philosophical trend is indeed reflective of truth, then the Church usually, though perhaps reluctantly, follows. There will always be pressure from liberal Christians to push more rapidly for such changes, and this is good. Bold thinkers help the Church adapt to the times. Yet never must we forget that it is the glue of dogma that holds the Church together.

This constant struggle within the Church between bold thinkers and the conservative voice of orthodoxy is invisible to most of the faithful followers of Christ within the very Church where that struggle is continually taking place. Most men and women lack either the desire or the ability to think boldly about the faith they follow. But though the challenge of bold theology may fall mute on their ears, their contribution to the stability and solidarity of the Church is incalculable. Philosophy is not their gift. Yet through their obedience and mercy, they are far more integral to the body of Christ.

Some possess the gift of being able to fully explore the ideas of their beliefs. Others need to be given something to believe. They need rules to obey. Without doctrine, they would be lost. Dogma is not so much for men like Newton, Galileo and Origen, as for the men and women who do not need to know why, but who only want to do what is right. If the Church suddenly shook up its most basic tenets, a great disruption of faith would take hold of the masses. It would be dangerous for the Church, for instance, to begin teaching that the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is much different than we have been taught. Though the doctrine of the Trinity might not be intrinsic to obedience, it is one of the most fundamental straws in the mortar that holds together the entire structure of Christianity. The Origens among us may be able to safely examine the subtle make-up of that straw. But for most, it is not worth the risk of seeing something they have always believed begin to crumble. Thus does the Church wisely and jealously guard such doctrines.

If someone proposes, therefore (as modern Gnostics are once again beginning to do) that Jesus was fully mortal or that the Holy Spirit is not on a level of equality with Father and Son, the Church must cry heresy. If in heaven we discover that the truth of the trinity contains depths and nuances we were unable to apprehend with our earthly understanding, the Church will still have done well by protecting the most important asset of God’s people which it is its charge to uphold—their faith.

If God had wanted us to understand the Trinity in full, Jesus would have stood on the mount and laid out its every detail. Instead, He told us what we needed to know: “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” “And, I will send the Holy Spirit to be with you.” God wants us to exercise faith. There is no faith in mathematical or declared fact.

So while fundamentalist authority may continue to suppress bold thought, and even to an extent keep the Church behind the times, its most sacred mission is to give its people a framework of belief through which to live good lives. This was the mission of the Council of Nicea, and all the subsequent councils, even in the midst of occasional selfish and political motive. Sometimes it was with fear they kept the Church together, sometimes with promise of reward. But primarily it was by promoting love for God. Love does not require perfect understanding.

In the body of Christ there will always be bold thinkers and staunch dogmatists. Neither is the greater, and both are necessary, one for pushing Christianity forward, the other for holding it together. But greater than both is the multitude of the faithful and their own relationship with God. He will blame no one for failing to understand His mysteries. But whoever would cause one of the faithful to stumble shall surely face His wrath.