American Unitarian Conference Forum

I just finished reading "Integral Christianity" by Richard Vincent and one section has made be rethink my opinion of the word "Dogma." It is more complex than previously imagined.

Vincent notes that dogma has a bad name because it is interpreted as against open-minded pursuit of truth. But, dogma does not have to be misused in this way. Theologian Lesslie Newbigin (The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society) states "Dogma is an inescapable aspect of every learning community." It is not unique to Christianity.

Newbigin tells us that "dogma", derives from the Greek word "dokein" (to seem) used to indicate that which seemed good to a competent authority and was promulgated as such. Dogma is received truth, accepted and passed on by a community.

Vincent: "No one engages with reality from a completely objective position. Everyone begins by accepting authoritative statements from trustworthy sources which have been accepted by a larger part of the community. In other words, all knowledge begins by accepting the prevailing by faith."

Newbigin: "If we consider what is involved in learning to know anything we will see that knowing has to begin with an act of faith. We have to trust the evidence of our eyes and ears, or, if we are learning a language, or learning science or history or any other branch of knowledge, we have to begin by trusting those who undertake to teach us. There is no other possible way to begin."

Vincent: "Contrary to popular assumptions, authentic knowledge does not begin with doubt, but with the reception of dogma."

Newbingin: "....To doubt everything that could be doubted leads not to truth but to imbecility."

Vincent: "The dogma of a learning community ... is the starting point of knowledge within that community.

Newbingin: "The contemporary opinion - very widely held - that doubt is somehow more honest than faith, is an entirely irrational prejudice. It is a form of dogmatism which is entirely destructive."

However....not all dogma is the same:
The rationalist tradition - dogma - asserts that truth is known through human reason.
The spiritualist tradition claims truth known through mystical experience.
Both the rationalist and spiritualist traditions claim that truth must be timeless, universal and equally accessible by all.
Christian tradition relies upon the truth of God's action within human history...truth that is storied: ultimate truth is embodied, incarnational, active and relational. Because of this it conflicts with the dogmas of rationalism and spiritualism. Christian dogma rejects truth as timeless because it is manifested in particular events that possess universal significance. It assumes the "scandal of particularity" - that a particular person in a particular place and time among a particular people has truly and fully revealed God in a universal way...." This is rejected by the rationalist and spiritualist traditions.

Q: What is or can be the AUC / Unitarian Dogma?
Q: What are or can be our sources...rationalist, spiritualist or revealed? Maybe all?
Q: What are or can be our traditions for passing along the dogma?

P.S. Would anyone be interested in a chapter by chapter discussion of this eBook?
(Bimillennial Press $9.99)
I think much can be learned and applied to our AUC / Unitarian & Universalists efforts.

wrong thread

Fascinating topic! I would be interested in a chapter by chapter discussion.

Answer to the first question: I would say that Unitarian dogma is essentially a combination of rationalist and spiritualist ideals. I think the mystic experience (the heart/soul) neatly compliments the more intellectual approach of the mind (personally I think Unitarianism is more rationalistic while Universalism is more spiritualistic but I think the history of the Unitarian faith itself encompasses both).

As for the second question I believe that the AUC could draw heavily from rationalist and spiritualist sources. I'm iffy on the "revealed" religion piece, since such a term is pretty broad. I think "revelations" as such are generally more in the context of mystical experiences that would fit better under the spiritualist label. The idea of the literal dictation that some religions adhere to just doesn't fit.

I don't have an answer for the third one...at least not yet,

Also I would say that one could argue that there is another source besides rationalism, direct mystical experiences and "revelations": The natural world. I would even argue that there may be yet another: The experience of God in the experiences of our lives. When you think about it, the sources are almost limitless.

Logan....see my post under the Books Read thread...I will move the online discussion to that thread.

Logan, within the rather brief "AUC tradition", it seems to me Rationality is Authoritative, Mysticism is Exploratory and Revelation is Illustrative.

At least, that seems to be my position.

At the moment.

Fred

Well said Fred. I think one of the points of an "integral" Unitarianism would be to respect/include & transcend information from each traditional source of "dogma."