Tag: Doctrine

Doctrine and Dogma in the Bible

The following is an essay I wrote last semester, for my Introduction to Theology class.

Understanding the difference between dogma and doctrine can more easily be done through the use of examples. Reflecting on two well-known parts of Christianity, and how each operate within the concepts of dogma and doctrine, serves this purpose well. This paper will explore Christology and Creation in order to delineate the difference between doctrine and dogma.

Christ is understood commonly as the center of the Christian faith. As Tyron Inbody writes, “For Christians faith in God is christomorphic (Christ-shaped.) Faith is Christian when Jesus Christ is decisive for faith in God.” (Inbody, 189) As such, there are certain beliefs about Christ that are normative for Christianity. The Apostle Paul provides a strong set of dogmatic statements about Christ in 1 Corinthians 15. He writes, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the twelve.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 NRSV). Within just these few statements one finds the centrality of belief about Christ: he died, was buried, was resurrected, and experienced again by those close to him. These, at a minimum, constitute dogma about Jesus Christ. Very few would debate the inclusion of any of these points as Christian dogma.

Many Christians would, however, debate the line being drawn at those four things only. For instance, some groups would see as necessary the inclusion of his birth to a virgin, or his miracles, or the manner of his death, or a physical, bodily resurrection. The presence of a debate about the subjects, however, shows the presence of doctrine within Christology. The reality of the Resurrection is surely a dogmatic point. What form that resurrection takes is the stuff doctrine. Was is a physical body reanimated? Was it mystical visions? Was a new body constituting the essence of Christ experienced? Christians can debate these issues, and form traditions around them. They are doctrines. The resurrection is not.

The belief in resurrection serves a salvific purpose in Christianity. No matter the way it occurred, something about the resurrection stands as a saving moment for Christians. This is what is important ultimately about the event, and what makes it dogma. The specific salvific mechanism present is never explained in scripture, and thus is of secondary (doctrinal) importance. One need only affirm the reality of a resurrected Christ to be a Christian; to draw the line of inclusion in the faith at atonement instead is to distort the boundaries of the Christian faith.

creationfomanBeliefs about the creation of the world by God can also showcase the difference between doctrine and dogma. A pillar of Judeo-Christian thought is that God created the world, and everything in it. Few Christians would debate this notion. But how did that creation take place? When did it happen? Is it still happening, or is creation finished? These questions and more all shape doctrinal statements about creation.

Genesis provides two conflicting accounts of the creation narrative, the first appearing 1:1-2: 3, and the second in 2:4-3:23. The presence of two stories already opens up opportunities for doctrinal disagreements. Additionally, the growing knowledge in science about geology and cosmology and the beginning of the universe calls into question the story recounted in Genesis, and instead reveals it as meaning-making myth. Consequently, the only sure statement about creation that can be proclaimed in that “God created.” This statement reveals crucial knowledge about the nature of God. Beyond this, all understanding is left up to interpretation.

Did God create the world six thousand years ago? Or did God use the Big Bang and evolution? Are we all descended from Adam and Eve, or primate ancestors originating in Africa? The answers to these questions as they relate to a theological understanding of the creation of the world are not included in Scripture. What we can know is that God created the world. That is a statement of dogma. Any statement beyond that that purports to explain the mechanism of divine creation is doctrine.

The drawing of limited lines to determine what is dogma and what is doctrine is important to the maintenance of a Christian faith that values and nourishes freedom of conscience and individual decision of each person to become a Christian or not. Stopping at statements such as “Christ was resurrected,” or “God created” when making dogma, while leaving further speculation open, allows each and every Christian to ability to interpret and experience faith in a way that speaks authentically to them. Ultimately, the goal of Christianity is to bring human beings into communion with the divine, as revealed through the life of Jesus Christ. Setting markers that make this more and more difficult is theological malpractice.

The Difference Between Doctrine and Dogma

The following is a essay written last semester, for my Introduction to Theology class.

Dogma and doctrine are words heard often in a Christian context. Accusations of “dogmatism” are thrown at theological opponents, and various “doctrines” are expounded upon. Yet, discerning a real difference between the two terms can be a difficult task. The terms are not interchangeable, but enumerate important separate concepts that are crucial for the task of theology. This paper will explore the difference between the two terms, how they are related, and their importance in Christian theology.

The book of GenesisDogma is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.” Within a Christian setting, this is partially right. Dogma is not in fact doctrine, but could be defined as “a body of doctrines.” Most importantly, dogma is made up of assertions “formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.” For Christianity, the proclaiming body is not a church, but the Church, universal. Thus, dogma can be understood those truths that have broad agreement among Christian communities throughout time. Clearly, there are broad disagreements amongst the various communities that make up Christianity; nevertheless, there are a set of agreed-upon truths – the primacy of Christ, the importance of baptism, to name two – that can be called Christian dogma. Dogma can be understood as “timeless truths,” so to speak. Within the Christian context, dogma is specifically salvific knowledge. These are things that comment upon or increase human knowledge about the nature of God.

Doctrine, on the other hand, is defined in Merriam-Webster as “something that is taught,” or “a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.” More specifically, doctrine are the specific appropriations of dogma that mark the boundaries of difference amongst Christian communities. Doctrines are the specific positions churches take on different issues of practice, tradition, and theology.

The differences that arise over disagreements about doctrine create and shape various Christian traditions. As a result, these traditions serve to make visible the shape of doctrines. These traditions arise as Christians respond to specific historical circumstances that shape their experience of God. Thus doctrine, rather than being knowledge about God, is rather the response of humanity to that knowledge. Doctrine arises as a result of response to dogma.

Oftentimes, doctrine gets mistaken for dogma. This is problematic because disagreements on these doctrinal issues that harden into dogmatic statements become the hard edges that serve to fracture communities. Understanding and preserving the difference between the two is important for maintaining the shape of the Christian tradition. Whereas dogma is constituted of pieces that are not up for debate, but which are understood to be timeless and unchanging, doctrine is in fact changeable and up for debate.

In The Faith of the Christian Church, Tyron Inbody describes a helpful difference between the two concepts in his glossary of terms. Doctrine, he writes, is “an agreed-upon teaching of the church which has been declared to be an official teaching in some kind of assembly.” (Inbody, 341) Dogma, on the other hand, he defines as “an official teaching of the catholic church set forth in creedal for through a church council.” (Inbody, 341) In other words, statements of dogma can be found in church creeds, such as the Apostles Creed, held to be authoritative and unchanging. Doctrine, on the other hand, is other statements about Christian worship, practice, and life that are agreed-upon and important, but which can be reinterpreted, disagreed about and even dismissed, by those in other traditions.

Despite the differences between the two, there is important interplay between doctrine and dogma. Both concepts are essential pieces of Christian theology, serving as counterbalances of competing instincts. On one hand, the existence of dogma gives shape to Christianity, establishing the borders of acceptable discourse within faith, and establishing it a religion of universal truths, unchanging and unchangeable. On the other hand, doctrine allows Christianity to retain flexibility, to be a faith that can be responsive to the needs of specific people in specific places and times. The presence of doctrine that can be debated and changed means that the border of the faith, while real and important, is also permeable, allowing in a variety of voices and ideas.

Doctrine and dogma are two sides of a single coin. Both are crucial components of Christian theology. However, it is imperative that Christianity works to educate believers on the differences between the two, and why those differences matter.