Religion Without Dogma?

Fr Longenecker explains how the modernist 'reinterpretation' of dogma leads to indifferentism and the weakening of all religions.

From The Imaginative Conservative

By Fr Dwight Longenecker

In his recent book The Return of the Strong Gods, Rusty Reno catalogues the concerted effort, after the Second World War, of philosophers, political thinkers, economists, and theologians to exterminate dogma. They looked at the legacy of war, revolution, and political chaos in Western culture over the last five hundred years and concluded that the chaos was caused by people fighting over dogma—political ideologies and economic dogma, but most of all religious dogma.

Trimming their sails to catch the wind, Christian theologians also went with the “let’s get rid of dogma” mood. In addition to Protestant theologians, Dr. Reno shows how Catholic theologian Karl Rahner pioneered a dogma-free “anonymous Christianity.” There was to be an openness, reaching out to the marginalized, “breaking down barriers and overcoming binaries.” [1]

These trends sat comfortably with the emerging ecumenical and inter-faith movement in the second half of the twentieth century. The theory was that if the dogma could be dumped, the divides could be bridged. The Christian ecumenists realized that getting rid of dogma completely would not fly, so—believing that dogma only arose out of particular historical circumstances and culture anyway—the dogma was to be “re-interpreted” for a modern age.

The typical modernist approach therefore was not to deny the dogma, but to re-interpret in such a way that it would be acceptable not only to all Christians, but as much as possible to all people. Whereas Catholics once understood church unity to be an invitation to Protestants to “come home to Rome,” now ecumenism consisted of an agreed understanding of the re-interpreted Catholic dogmas.

This shallow and shabby betrayal of historic Christianity has led to an epidemic of indifferentism—the notion that every religion is of equal value. The indifferent Christian cries, “Surely all that matters is how much we love Jesus!” And the interfaith enthusiast chirps, “We are all climbing the same mountain but on different paths… and as we climb that mountain all the paths converge.”

However, while one Christian may love Jesus more than another, it is patent nonsense that all Christian denominations are of equal value. Catholicism is far richer in every aspect: philosophy, spirituality, culture, art, architecture, history, music. No matter what one’s prejudices are, it must be agreed that Catholicism, despite her all too human failures, is the richest and fullest expression of Christianity.

Likewise it is nonsense to say that all religions are of equal value. Some religions are superior to others. Chartres Cathedral is not on a par with a squalid voodoo hut. Shall we compare Michelangelo’s Pieta to Kali the Destroyer, and must we pretend that the terrifying religion of the Aztecs is as sublime as a Mozart Mass? I think not.

Indifferentism in religion only serves to weaken all religion, for when the dogma and the distinctive devotions go all we are left with is a kind of vanilla-pudding spirituality.

Overweight Materialism

In his 1946 essay, Religion Without Dogma? [2] C.S.Lewis analyzes the fatal flaw of relativist religion. As he does, he also unlocks the underlying problem of the whole relativistic mindset on which the rejection of dogma rests.

“Dogma is impossible,” argues the materialist, “because there is no God to reveal the dogma. Religious truths are mere human inventions the product of human thought.” In fact, the thoroughgoing materialist must not only maintain that religious ideas are human inventions, but all ideas, moral precepts and philosophical concepts can be no more than human inventions. This leads us to ask, “If all ideas are mere human inventions where do the ideas come from?” In other words, where does thought itself originate?

If there is only this material world, then thoughts and ideas are no more than chemical reactions in the brain as it processes data from the senses. Lewis asks how the human brain has this capacity. If the whole natural order is nothing more than a series of complex, irrational, random biological interactions, as the materialist holds, then the human brain is no more than a highly-evolved, very complicated meaty computer. If materialism is true—and nature is no more than a result of random chemical reactions—then the human brain itself is no more than the result of random, irrational processes.

Lewis writes, “Every particular thought… is always and by all men discounted the moment they believe that it can be explained as the result of irrational causes. Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach any importance to it. But if [materialism] were true, then all thoughts would be merely the result of irrational causes. Therefore all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore [materialism] is worthless. If it is true, we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.” [3]

The same is true of relativism. If the idea that “there is no such thing as truth” comes from the human brain, and the human brain is the result of random, irrational evolution, then the statement “there’s no such thing as truth” is also senseless.

But of course, we know certain statements are true not because they are true in the realm of ideas, but because first of all they are true in this physical world of reality. The philosopher proves the brick is real by kicking it and howling in pain.

The Scandal of Particularity

Another term for kicking the brick is “the scandal of particularity.” This theological jargon refers to the intellectual scandal caused by the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Put simply, it is intellectually respectable to be a Deist—to believe in the “The Creator.” It is also intellectually respectable to believe in God as “the Force” or “the cosmic energy.” This sort of god does what a god would do if you were inventing a religion. He remains where he belongs—up there in the spiritual realm. In other words, he remains an idea, a concept, a philosophical theory.

However, it is the cornerstone of the Christian religion that this Creator—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob got involved. He was in a relationship with a particular tribe of nomads in the Arabian desert and then deemed to descend into human history and take human flesh of a peasant girl in Nazareth before going on to teach the truth, heal people, and deliver them from bondage before dying and rising again to return to the invisible realm.

This “scandal of particularity” is embarrassing. It’s incredible. It’s not intellectually respectable. Philosophers and Buddhists don’t like it. To think that the one God—the majestic Creator, the Divine Architect, the Great Father of All should become a mewling, man-child! To think that he would come into a particular stable in a particular town in a particular province of a particular empire at a particular time on a particular day and that he would live a particular life and die on a particular cross on a particular hillside outside a particular city on a particular Friday afternoon.

It’s a scandal.

And yet, isn’t particularity necessary for any idea, thought or concept to become real? A Chopin nocturne only becomes real when it is recorded on particular notepaper, then played by a particular body seated at a particular piano with particular fingers hitting particular ivory keys which strike particular steel wires to make particular sound waves that vibrate in particular ear drums of particular people.

An idea, thought, or concept is only real once it becomes particular, and the Christian religion is only real because of the scandal of the particularity of the incarnation. God became man in place and time. In doing so God became real. He was no longer a theory he was a scandal of flesh and blood.

It is this same particularity that reveals the ridiculousness of relativism because relativism, by its very nature, can never be particular and therefore can never be real.

Furthermore, it is this particularity that demands not only a dogmatic religion, but a sacramental one. The religion of the incarnation must be dogmatic and sacramental because, like the incarnation, it is real. It must therefore be solid. It must be historical. It must be experienced. It is not just a theory.

Indifferentism and relativism must fall in the face of these particular demands. The more real a religion becomes the more particular it becomes and the more—by that very reality—it must be defined and specified, and the more it is defined and specified the more it must exclude that which is outside the definition and particularity.

The particularity of reality therefore demands not only particular dogmas, but also particular sacraments. This must be believed and not that. This sacrament is valid. That is not. Finally, this particularity is demanded, for it is particular men and women, boys and girls who have particular souls that need saving.

Notes:

[1] Rusty Reno, Return of the Strong Gods, Regnery Gateway, 2019, p. -.

[2] C.S.Lewis, Religion Without Dogma? In God in the Dock, Eerdmans, 1970. p. 134.

[3] ibid. p. 144