Who Let the Dogma Out?

TheLightWithin

TheLightWithin

...through a glass, darkly
Veteran Member
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
1,850
Points
108
Location
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio
I have run across the idea of theological minimalism, which is essentially focusing on the theological basics and not on secondary doctrines or dogmas which define denominational divisions. Some look at it as stripping down religion to ethical behavior. At the very least, it seems to be about simplification.

Apparently it is also viewed as heretical. Oddly enough the World Council of Churches has been described as "dogmatically minimalist" having something like Trinitarianism and Christology as criteria to join.

It seems like people who were very minimalist believers might even reject trinitarian or Christology theories if their minimalism was based on straight and simple bible reading and rejecting anything not explicitly in scripture.

Seems like this theological minimalist - thought it may be trying to create a "big tent" may also end up being as complicated as anything else.

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this, or have read up anything about theological minimalism?
Or regarding the jettisoning of dogma itself under whatever reasoning?

If responses go beyond Christian thinking, feel free to move the thread.
 
TheLightWithin said:
I have run across the idea of theological minimalism, which is essentially focusing on the theological basics and not on secondary doctrines or dogmas which define denominational divisions. Some look at it as stripping down religion to ethical behavior. At the very least, it seems to be about simplification.
Click to expand...
There's different types, apparent?

I hadn't come across it, so I did a quick look in light of this thread.

It seems to encompass a range of views, some seeming to oppose others.

(The links supplied sent me looking for the credentials of the authors – the Podcasters seem to reflect a certain contemporary sociopolitical Christian bias, and the 'prophecy' book is someone under a pseudonym who claims a PhD in theology and a seven-year ministry, yet I can find no reference of either?)
 
Thomas said:
(The links supplied sent me looking for the credentials of the authors – the Podcasters seem to reflect a certain contemporary sociopolitical Christian bias, and the 'prophecy' book is someone under a pseudonym who claims a PhD in theology and a seven-year ministry, yet I can find no reference of either?)
Click to expand...
Yeah, those I wouldn't take too heavily. For those I was just checking who had also used the clever phrase "who let the dogma out" and how. But I may have accidentally implied they were explicitly relevant to the topic of theological minimalism, when they may not be. I may have inadvertently muddied the waters... sorryabout thato_O
 
I created a thread prolly last year sometime called "a simple faith"

If I had known about theological minimalism as a term then I might have put it there.

The discussion is different though. I think then I was talking about how people approach their beliefs simply.
Here I am wondering about how "the" church or religious leaders or dogma defenders are critical of this simplicity.
 
TheLightWithin said:
The discussion is different though. I think then I was talking about how people approach their beliefs simply.
Here I am wondering about how "the" church or religious leaders or dogma defenders are critical of this simplicity.
Click to expand...
I suppose it depends on what form the 'simplicity' takes.
 
Thomas said:
I suppose it depends on what form the 'simplicity' takes.
Click to expand...
In both cases, it can mean not having a lot of detailed theology, dogma, or complex rituals.

It can be as simple as Deism, maybe Deism with petitionary prayer
(This is even simplifying Deism to be without that pesky addition some Deists insist on that "no petitionary prayer" - which is then not any form of faith but just an idea.)

Faith with extremely minimal claims or stances. Belief there is a G-d that might help people. Minimal on the metaphysical claims and the rules being as simple as love your neighbor and non aggression and do no harm - golden rule stuff. Human philosophy can take up the specifics of what to apply how.

The problem with theology as I understand it is the confusion in relation to both reality and scripture. It gets a little better with the Wesleyan quadrilateral "Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience" They make sense and all, but why does it have to have so many elements?

Because Scripture alone doesn't really provide a lot of answers. I have read the Bible and I have trouble seeing how anybody can draw any conclusions from it at all, metaphysical, moral, or otherwise, much less derive doctrine. Much less detailed theology or firm dogma.

To paraphrase something I think you said in another thread, I think people often treat the Bible like a string of abstract disjointed all purpose maxims and/or instructions and/or commands, interspersed maybe with legal advice, and interpersed with stern warnings of divine punishment or metaphysical claims on the whole - without context - but nothing could be further from the truth.

Taken by itself, the Bible is a series of stories, some of which seem more interconnected than others, and very few of which lead to inevitable conclusions about grand metaphysical truths or justice, divine or otherwise, or how to live.

The historical and cultural and linguistic and literary context of the Bible makes all the difference. It adds a lot more complexity but with or without it people argue and argue. Different denominations have their own distinct dogmas, that force their life decisions and feed their identities.

And different denominations were practically forced by social reality to develop, as people made efforts to follow their Bibles and follow their consciences as they attempted to apply the Bible and found themselves shocked or unsatisfied by what their home churches were doing. Denominations are the fault not of rebellious people but of pre-existing rigid dogma (rather than an enthusiastic encouragement for people to keep things very simple, or on the other end, speculate away without getting called ""heretic"")

But what if somebody couldn't make heads or tails of any of it and said, "It's not that deep! There is a G-d we know little about, pray in your closet and out in the world just help people. Don't resist social change just for the sake of tradition."

(Which can mean, in today's world, "Don't freak out about other people's private lives or personal purity - don't see that as the most meaningful expression of your faith." But in the 19th century "don't resist social change just for the sake of tradition" might have meant something else in real world application)

Are the questions that come out of that any harder to solve without dogmas or dogmatic reliance on scripture, than they are with them?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top