The very mention of the word ‘dogma’ has such negative connotations that I have little doubt that this title has already either raised a few eyebrows or ‘hackles’ or both.
All that I ask is that you stay with me and find out what I’m talking about…
It’s all Greek to me . . .
‘Dogma’ is one of the many words in English which is literally a word taken from another language. Other examples would include ‘villain’ (French) or ‘exit’ (Latin). However, like the word ‘villain’ (meaning ‘peasant’), ‘dogma’ has largely lost its original meaning, hailing as it does from Classical Greek.
From Xenophon (4th Century BC) onwards, dogma was used in the following ways:
(1) opinion (in ordinary speech);
(2) a doctrine (in philosophy);
(3) a decree of God (in religious writings);
(4) a decree, ordinance, or edict in the legal sense, and often with the idea that it should be promulgated on the people, and enforceable.
And yet . . .
The word dogma actually derives from the verb dokeo (think, suppose, imagine, or conclude) and simply means an opinion, or conclusion, or belief. However, the intensive form of the verb (dogmatizo) is what most people usually think of as dogma – to lay down an opinion, order or decree, such that it must be believed… or else!
If we seek to explore the roots of religious dogma in the West we would do well to turn to Christianity. This is because, at least for Western Europe, the development of Christendom (the idea of a Christian Empire) has deeply influenced the development of our language and culture.
Herein lies the irony
The main occurrence of dogma as a legal decree in the New Testament is in Acts 16 v 4, when the most famous early missionaries of Christianity, Paul and Barnabas, are travelling through the Roman world delivering a decree from the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem regarding what the basic practices are for a person who is a non-Jew to be a Christian.
Why this decree? Because there was a faction of the early believers who had converted from Judaism, and who wished to honour their ancestral beliefs, requiring non-Jews to be circumcised and follow the Torah (the first 5 books of what Christians call the Old Testament, and Jews call the Tanakh, which included the Jewish food laws, amongst other things) to be ‘true’ Christians.
This was decreed to be not necessary, and so the earliest Christian dogma was a cry for religious liberty against those who would impose their beliefs on others.
It is also something which the early Church leaders felt forced to do by the actions of others.
It’s not unusual . . .
Strangely, this was very common in the early centuries of Christian belief and practice. Up to the end of the period largely known as Early Church History (c. 70 – 600 AD), the major ‘dogmatic’ statements were written to help all believers to know what they did believe and what, therefore, was a belief not to be held.
Good old Constantine
Where it began to go wrong is that the first ecumenical (general) council of the Church (held in Nicaea in 325 AD) was called for political, more than theological, reasons by Constantine the Great (d. 337 AD).
Constantine wanted to resolve a ‘theological trifle’ which divided the Church, so that his newly reunited Empire would be united both politically and religiously. The ‘trifle’? – the deity of Jesus (but that is a separate article in itself). The statement produced, known as the Creed of Nicaea (not to be confused with the later Nicene Creed of 381 AD), was then an enforced requirement within Constantine’s Empire.
The Emperors who followed Constantine also followed this pattern, and saw it as their ‘divine right’ to enforce their personal version of Christianity as the ‘orthodox’ belief for the Empire.
Unfortunately, Church leaders also followed this pattern and so the post-Constantinian settlement persecutions of Christians were largely internecine.
So, is it wrong to be dogmatic?
It depends what you mean.
If you mean that you are someone who is expressing a belief or opinion to encourage the same belief in others without any hint of coercion, then I would say not.
If you mean that you are passing on beliefs to another generation, then again I would say not.
Everyone – and I mean everyone – engages in this. Actively, or passively, we all pass on beliefs by our behaviour and speech, and our next ‘generation’ (children, teens, or adults) of those we would hope to believe the same as us will pick up on that.
No matter what you believe – cultural, ‘folk’, theistic or atheistic – you engage in the practice of dogma in the former two senses.
Dogma turns dark when . . .
If you practice dogmatism – as the expression of belief such that the person/group you are talking to will be required to believe what you believe, with no choice in the matter, or that they are ‘less-than-intelligent’ if they can’t see what you believe is the ‘truth’ – then, yes, it is very wrong. This is especially wrong if it includes false information – known or unknown – designed to reinforce the dogmatism.
Unfortunately, all belief systems are prone to this… to the embarrassment of those who follow those systems, and would not agree with dogmatism.
Whether the cruder forms of ‘creationism’, or the more sophisticated arguments of Dawkins’ The God Delusion – which included, amongst other things, the unconscionably false assertion that atheists would not kill another human being over religious beliefs – dogmatism is something which we need to avoid.
Am I dogmatic?
Yes – I am. I actively pass on my beliefs, to my children and others.
But… I am not offended if the person disagrees with me, and I don’t require that they believe what I believe.
In many ways, each article written for this blog – by me, or Ubiquitous Rat, or Fustrated Historian (great and genuine joy that it is to have him aboard) – are examples of the more positive senses of dogma.
We are each putting our opinions/beliefs/conclusions out there and inviting you to join in the debate.
So please do share your dogma with us, but please don’t ‘dogmatise’. It simply turns out that your dogma is not so bad after all.
__________
Note: Some of the information in this article is drawn from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, published by the religious publishers, Zondervan.
I want to avoid looking at the history of the Christian chuech, although I will say Constantine the Great needed a bit of a slap, but hey-ho.
Use defines meaning, you have proved this with the word “villain” (wasn’t the french “villein”?), and in this dogma has now evolved or has been corrupted beyond possible redemption or retrieval. An almost casual flick through google, or media pages, associates dogma with power, control and authority. With those inevitably comes abuse, favouritism, discrimination, violence and fear – something the dear old Catholic Church is very aware of.
Eric Kauffmann, a historian, argues against Francis Fukyama’s (another historian) proposal that after the fall of communism, western liberal democracy had become the only successful state construct. Kauffman argue that there is a rise in religious fundamental states which show incredibly strong characteristics, including use of religious dogma, to control their populations to a far greater degree than any western democracy could ever do. I hope this is a good example of how the word dogma has now moved beyond the definition (correct by the way) you wish to reassign to it, and now means something far more darker than was first intended. Maybe its time for a new word?
Hey, feel free to correct my French anytime :-).
Although I am aware of the work of both Kauffamn, and Fukuyama I am guilty of not actually having read them (what would you recommend?). But what you say raises very different questions in my mind. Firstly, is ‘dogma’ one of those words which is genuinely irredeemable – such as ‘gay’ – or is it more like ‘fundamental’ itself.
‘Gay’, of course, is still undergoing change and I believe that it has currently got overtones of ‘stupid’ and not just referring to the homosexual community – at least if the teens I constantly berrated for (mis)using the word were anything to go by. So, will ‘dogma’ continue to undergo change, and lose its original senses? Perhaps.
Is it like the word ‘fundamental’, and, therefore, will be accepted as having a plethora of meanings which will be used dependent on the context? Ironically, of course, ‘fundamental’ lost its original meaning in a religious context (at least in Christianity) fairly rapidly. Originally those who called themselves fundamentalist in Christianty were subscribing to a set of beliefs considered to be non-negotiable basics. it then became associated with unthinking fideism, and most people now use it in this sense when referring to religions – rightly or wrongly.
Unfortunately, for me, Kauffman’s idea, as I understand it, is nothing more than acknowledging that Machiavelli pretty much got people to admit what was going on when he advised rulers to see religion as a tool to control the masses. And I will be the first to admit that this has generally been the case.
Does this mean that we need a new word? Not sure. I specialise in both Church History and Historical Dogmatics (the development of Christian doctrine over time), so my perspective on the word ‘dogma’ is a little different to most. I would rather keep it, and fight for its right to a plethora of meanings.
However, your point is well made, and it is only one of the many issues that those who follow any religion must face. Thanks for raising it.
I have only scanned through Kauffmann and Fukyama, but the latters End of History and the Last Man could be a good alternative viewpoint if you want to look at states their influences. Fukyama has since retracted this somewhat, but it is still worth the read:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/End-History-Last-Man/dp/0140134557/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281177223&sr=8-1
If that doesn’t ring your bells (statehood), then I would possibly leave it alone because it does come across in places as a whoo-yah! for the good ole US of A.
The only place where I would be cautious myself is in the comparison of some words traditionally associated with religions. Fundamental is a great one as it is still in wide use in science and politics and an expression of basics or minimums. When it becomes Fundamentalism, or Fundamentalists, these have been hijacked by extremist religious proponents as, possibly, justification for their beliefs?
Dogma however is almost universally seen the same way unfortunately. It is rare to see Dogma used in any but its most negative form these days. I think to get it back to its original uses would take some effort :-). As to “gay” I agree with you, and I have also seen a huge rise of the use of “rape” to describe any action of being taking advantage of, especially in internet forums. Rape still have very disturbing conatations for me and to see it so carelessly used is slightly offensive. Of course then we could thrown in some post-modernism and make a huge mess of the place!
Resorting to the Greek origins of a word or taking one particular, obscure meaning as a defense is a weak argument and misses the point of how language works. This is demonstrated by your objections to the word ‘gay’ to describe things as being naff or weak.
A word does not have a fixed meaning. It is not some universal constant that can only mean what is written in the dictionary or what any individual believes is the definition. Language is a tool for communicating between two or more people in a particular situation. If those listening understand the meaning the speaker is trying to confer with the word then the word is being used correctly.
Kids using gay to describe a boring subject at school, e.g. ‘Religious Education is gay’ are perfectly correct because all the parties concerned understand what is meant by the statement.
However for the Prime Minster to publicly use it in the same way, e.g. ‘The debate on the education bill was gay’ would be incorrect because the meaning of the word gay would be ambiguous or simply misleading to most people.
This question of meaning is separate from the concept of appropriateness. Whether it is appropriate for either school kids or prime ministers to use gay in this context is an entirely separate argument.
Ironically, by enforcing a particular meaning of the word gay (or even the enforcing a particular view of its appropriateness) you are resorting to dogma in the commonly accepted sense of the word. i.e. you are using your authority to define something as being right or wrong.
Yet with the word dogma, you are trying to completely change the commonly accepted meaning of the word. I think 99% of people would understand the statement “I going to teach my kids some dogma today” to have negative connotations yet, based on this post, I assume you would not.
And this cuts to the core of the problem with dogma.
Dogma is fundamentally tied to the concept of authority because only authority can define what is right and wrong. That authority can come from position, e.g. church minister or teacher, or from familiar relationships, e.g. parent, or even the authority of the masses, e.g. peer pressure or acts of parliaments.
Without the idea of authority, dogma is not dogma but personal opinion.
And here is your problem with your attempt to redefine the word dogma – you have no authority in this area. Even with your positions as minister, teacher and blogger, your use of language carries no weight compared to the amount of language we all get from sources other than you.
The question of how someone with no authority overthrows the accepted dogma is beyond the scope of this already too lengthy comment but it certainly is possible.
I suggest that rather than trying to redefine the word dogma you simply replace it with the word opinion. This has far less baggage and critically, opinion inspires questioning and questions are the way to true understanding of a subject.
@ FH – Thanks for the response. Sorry it’s taken a while to get back to you. I’ll certainly put the book on my ‘wish list’ for now, and hope to get it before the end of the year. As for the hi-jacking of fundamental. I’m not sure which way it went. Certainly those who subscribed to the original ‘Fundamentals’ document were conservative in their theology, but they were using the word in the meaning of ‘basics’. Where it went from there I don’t know. I’m still waiting for volumes 4 and 5 of the History of Evangelicalism (20th Century) to be published to see if that sheds any light. There are others out there that might help me, but they are also on my ‘wish list’. Currently any book buying, for me, is restricted to only what I need for my Thesis. Most recently I got ‘American Psycho’ as I am looking at body image and cultural pressures as one of the aspects of applying my Thesis. By the way, I’ve never shirked a struggle 🙂
@ Chris – as always mate, A very thought provoking statement.
That my assigning a meaning considered obscure is actually answered by your own argument. In my chosen fields of specialism, dogma is clearly understood to have the meaning of doctrine or teaching, but without the negative overtones. So both its use and its audience are clear regarding the meaning I have argued for. This also answers the question of authority, I am not arguing from a position outside of a body which would advocate that meaning. My authority is not my own. That the meaning has been narrowed in common usage is what my blog is intending to address. That it will have limited success is something which I fully expected.
As for my being dogmatic on the usage of the word ‘gay’. Yes. Why? Because I had no choice. When I first heard it being used for ‘stupid’ or similar, I didn’t know that it had that meaning, so I was required by Law and as a teacher to address what I perceived to be its abuse. In so doing I chose to exercise a little common sense and not go as far as entering anything formal in a pupil’s record. If ‘gay’ was being perceived in a pejorative sense, as it can be even when being directed at the homosexual community, then I was right and required to act in such a manner. Again your own argument of usage and intended audience comes into it, because I wasn’t aware of the arising change in meaning, and I still think it to be extremely inappropriate.
Yes, words do not have fixed meanings, but I fail personally to follow the argument that looking at its original, and in some cases, current usages in different environments is an illegimate position to have.
Which is why I acknowledge both your’s and FH’s argument, but will still wish to argue for a wider acknowledgement of a plethora of meanings for the word dogma.
Che has been working with me now for 4 years during which time he has become a significant influence on my thinking. As someone who is attracted towards atheism I have found Che’s advocacy of religious tolerance refreshing and thought provoking. His open mindedness and preparedness to listen to another point of view, on any subject, has made him a constantly valued colleague and stimulating.
Sadly, for me and those remaining at Newton Stanley, Che will shortly be leaving us to pursue his passion for teaching. I sincerely hope that many generations to come benefit from his undoubted capabilities. My hope his to retain at least a little of his time and to maintain contact through his blogs. As a result of this I have started to take an interest in ‘coolreligion’ and enjoyed this article on dogma.
My concern though is that the following discussion became one of sematics rather than an exploration of the point being made. Like the revdmac I pass on my beliefs to my children and others, equally I am not offended by disagreement and do not expect adherence to my beliefs. This article to me was not about dogma; the context in which the word ‘gay’ is used or the correct spelling of the word ‘villein’ but more about an attitude of mind.
In that context I found it an interesting and rewarding article – I look forward to more thought provoking pieces in the future. I hope the discussions can explore the essence of the subject and not become an indulgent argument about definition. Provocative I know but the point being made risks being missed.
Thank you for your time and interest. I am honoured by your comments, and look forward to many more from you on any of the articles.
Derek