Traditionally, the basis of religious community is allegiance to a set of doctrines, both theoretical and practical.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t true of every religion internationally, but it is true of most.\u00a0 The irony is that to formalize religious doctrine is to kill the spirit of what you are trying to capture.\u00a0 As many theologians have noted, religion is a deeply existential and subject experience.\u00a0 Therefore creating a one-size-fits-all set of beliefs and practices, while wildly popular, is generally destructive.<\/p>\n
Rigid doctrine is particularly prevalent in Christian circles.\u00a0 For many congregations, church is nothing more than gathering together with people you agree with, to reinforce doctrine you already believe.\u00a0 Perhaps that is why most church services are dreadfully boring.<\/p>\n
But there is another view of the utility of religious community.\u00a0 Dialogue.\u00a0 A diversity of opinion, shaping and reshaping one another, built on respectful discussion about the principles that drive us.<\/p>\n
To be sure, neither approach is without fault.\u00a0 Doctrine-centric church is nothing more than gathering together to celebrate our own piety and solidify ourselves as \u201cus\u201d and those we disagree with as \u201cthem\u201d. It is one-dimensional, petty, and ultimately divisive.\u00a0 At a point, the more narrowly you define yourself the closer you are to creating a church that consists of the only person you agree with 100%: yourself.<\/p>\n
Conversely, the idea of church as a dialogue of ideals is far from perfect.\u00a0 Discussion is time-consuming.\u00a0 Communities can become protracted in discourse, and dialogue can be every bit as divisive as doctrine if done incorrectly.\u00a0 If you are looking for efficiency, discussion on principled living is probably not for you.\u00a0 Democracy is always messy.<\/p>\n
While imperfect, I think the dialogue-focused approach has more value.\u00a0 The differences between doctrine-driven and dialogue-driven religious communities are somewhat nuanced, but vitally important.<\/p>\n
Doctrine is inherently concrete, where as dialogue is, by and large, abstract.\u00a0 Without question, doctrine is easier and less unsettling.\u00a0 Being clearly told what to do, and what to believe makes life much more peaceful.\u00a0 But the cost of harmony is high.\u00a0 Inevitably you will alienate good people who can contribute to your church in powerful ways if you can\u2019t allow differing perspectives.<\/p>\n
Dialogue, in it\u2019s abstraction, is inclusive if handled in an environment of mutual respect.\u00a0 When a church holds loosely to principles it empowers a diverse body of people to reach the needs of others with a breadth that is impossible in a system built on rigid doctrine.<\/p>\n
An example; Church A says \u201cour stance on sex is that it should only be a man and a woman who are married.\u00a0 period.\u00a0 no exceptions\u201d.\u00a0 Considering over 90% of people in America have at least one sexual relationship before they are married, this automatically narrows your audience considerably.\u00a0 People in monogamous but unmarried relationships, gays, widows\/widowers in love who choose not to remarry for financial reasons, are all sanctimoniously written off.<\/p>\n
Church B says \u201cour stance is that people should strive for sexual lifestyles that are healthy, edifying, and rooted in love and commitment.\u201d Now you have invited the vast majority of people to the table for a discussion.<\/p>\n
A common criticism is that being open-ended allows people to say \u201canything goes\u201d.\u00a0 I would argue that allowing people some autonomy in determining what sexual responsibility means creates longer lasting moral infrastructure in a person than simply following a rule.\u00a0 Reading the biblical text, studying the culture and language, and discussing with others who are concerned with ethical living engenders a stronger affinity for principles because the individual has taken part in shaping them.<\/p>\n
Another criticism is \u201cpeople will justify whatever they feel like doing\u201d.\u00a0 It\u2019s true, some will.\u00a0 But if a group of people are willing to gather in their free time to discuss ethics, they are obviously concerned with doing what is right, and are much more likely to arrive at a principled existence than what they are being given credit for.<\/p>\n
Secondly, doctrine, by it\u2019s nature, puts rules ahead of people.\u00a0 Dialogue, however, is uniquely human.<\/p>\n
In Mark 2 Jesus and his disciples are walking in a wheat field, picking the grain and eating it as they pass through.\u00a0 The Pharisees see what they are doing and criticize them for working on the Sabbath (as they are technically harvesting grain).\u00a0 Jesus rebukes the rigid interpretation of Sabbath adherence, going on to state that the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.\u00a0 This story is demonstrative of the problem with putting rules first; it can harm the people it is intended to help.\u00a0 Moral codes are created for the sole purpose of helping people live healthy, productive lives.\u00a0 They are not objectively good devoid of people.\u00a0 If enforced inflexibly, morality becomes a hindrance to goodness.<\/p>\n
Open-ended principles, always subject to reexamination, allow for exceptions.\u00a0 It also creates a setting where proper prioritization can take place.\u00a0 In the example of Mark 2 the principle of charity for the hungry would take priority over the principle of resting on the Sabbath, because it is the most beneficial to the people involved in that particular situation.<\/p>\n
Religious community can be an empowering experience for almost anyone, but to allow fellowship to reach it\u2019s full potential we must be willing to sacrifice.\u00a0 We have to give up the power, and control that allows us to feel superior others.\u00a0 If we can let go of the comfort of lifeless doctrine and embrace the living, breathing and yes, changing, nature of ethical dialogue, the waters of grace will flow, invasive and irresistible, over all things.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Traditionally, the basis of religious community is allegiance to a set of doctrines, both theoretical and practical.\u00a0 This isn\u2019t true of every religion internationally, but it is true of most.\u00a0 The irony is that to formalize religious doctrine is to … Continue reading