As people lean towards a post-modern mindset, is there any room for dogma? It seems that people would rather believe in one extreme or the other, but must they be mutually exclusive? I derive my understanding of praxis first from my understanding of dogma, but then you may claim that the only way to express our dogma is through our praxis. So, our praxis must be first before our dogma. I wonder if we want to claim that praxis is more important than dogma, how do we know what the correct praxis is? Well you may claim that we live it out, but it seems best that dogma would be the most fitted to guide our praxis. In Mere Christianity, Lewis describes the Christian doctrine as a map of the ocean. Yes, the experience as we sit on the beach and hear the waves is more real and inspiring than reading a map, but we need the map to navigate ourselves through the ocean. Also, the map is a collection of people's own experiences of the ocean throughout time. As more people traveled the ocean, they outlined the land masses of the different continents. One would need a map (and compass) to travel from England to the Africa, or this person may end up in America as the ocean seems like a vast endless collection of water. We may be traveling around within the praxis of the world, but we also need dogma to help us get through it. Praxis and dogma is not mutually exclusive; our dogma is derived from the praxis of those before us; therefore, we cannot claim that our praxis is separate from the dogma of time that is before us. We cannot even claim that is is better but only a better continuation of the truth that has be given to us throughout history. I am not trying to replace the emphasis of our understanding of truth only through dogma instead of praxis, i am merely showing both must be a vital aspect as we seek to understand the world that is before us.
dr
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Glad to hear you giving tradition its due.
Wright has challenged my thinking by pointing out that it might not be valid to suppose that the Christian story, the narrative of how God saves the world, can be somehow distilled into a set of propostions. In other words, story is not the "poor (or stupid) man's" path to understanding. Story is a primary method of communication; systematic theologies may be nice, but the point is still to tell the story.
"Dogma" might not even be the ground of our praxis, but rather a supplement to story.
p.s. I don't know what a post-modern mindset is. I usually think in terms of a post-modern critique, but I certainly wouldn't claim to have a post-modern mindset. Maybe a modern mindset that I'm learning to get over...
Kyle,
I believe you are correct to describe a post-modern mindset more in terms of a post-modern critique. Also, how would dogma be a supplement to the story instead of a ground for praxis?
dr
Would I be correct in reading "dogma" as something like "doctrinal propositions regarding the faith"? Propositional truths are not primary source material. They are derived from the Christian story, and would serve as interpretive guides for continuing the narrative. In praxis (everybody knows that this is just latin for "practice," right?) we continue as active players in God's story.
In terms of whether story or doctrine should be the ground of praxis, I would put the burden of proof upon advocates of the philosophical systems. The story came first.
Kyle,
Was not the doctine needed first before the story could be understood? Was it not after the several councils did the story of Jesus' full humanity and full divinity in one person become understood? If you want to claim that the story is the ground for praxis, should doctrine not be the ground for the story?
dr
No, yucky!
I consider doctrine to be the interpretive guides we devise to help us understand the story and be faithful to it as we retell it. I don't think that the councils claimed to understand such mysteries, either (I could be wrong), but rather sought to proscribe heresies, that is to say drawing some boundaries in terms of how the story could be told and explained.
When I say "story," I mean God's action of creation and redemption, from the beginning of everything to the restoration of everything in Jesus. The Church is the primary player in the ongoing Incarnation. Blah blah blah, that sort of stuff. One can and perhaps should frame that with some propositions to aid our continual "storytelling," but I don't think we can consider those doctrinal propositions themselves to somehow be the source material.
Post a Comment