It occurs to me from time to time that I might actually want to share some of my background thinking for many of my more blanket statements on "stuff."
Especially where liturgical stuff is concerned, this is the case. I love to just say something and let it hang out there to be interpreted however the wind moves. It is a specific joy.
But lately, I have been finding myself using the term "discipline" in many of my conversations. I use it in lieu of "dogma"...or to give a framework for Christian dogma/systematic theology. Typically I find that this is a good term to use when speaking with people full of questions. I encounter these people often when I hang out with my musician and actor friends. Most are used to me by now, but every so often I am introduced to someone new and they want to know about Christianity. They typicall ask their questions three or four martinis into the evening, so I try to keep things clear as I can. One thing that helps is to steer clear of the terms "doctrine" or "dogma." There is a knee jerk reaction against them. So, "discipline" works well. Somehow the people I can talk to can then think of Christian belief and practice with the same charity they approach other religions. Cool, no?
Richard J. Foster's book, Celebration of Discipline is a great place to begin to get at what I mean by discipline. I think I may reexplore his book and post on it from time to time.
Here is how he divides up discipline:
The Inward Disciplines: meditation, prayer, fasting, study
The Outward Disciplines: simplicity, solitude, submission, service
The Corporate Disciplines: confession, worship, guidance, celebration
Even the way he divides things up is interesting. I think this may be a worthwhile experiment.
Posted by tripp at October 26, 2005 03:41 PMis systematic theology parallel to dogma? or, is systematic theology about creating dogma or perpetuating dogma? and, is discipline and dogma parallel?
Posted by: baptistnomad at October 26, 2005 09:37 PMWe're about to run head-on into my lexical curmudgeonliness. Ready? :-)
"discipline" describes individual practices, as the pretty terrific division of disiplines you posted shows.
"dogma" and "doctrine" both describe bodies of belief that are mandated by Christian denominations.
So no, I don't find them interchangeable. And no, I'm not surprised that the people in your martinied conversations find "discipline" a more appealing term -- they don't react to it like they would to "dogma" or "doctrine" because it doesn't mean the same thing as either of those words.
So what I'd like to know is, in those martinied conversations, are you actually talking about disciplines? Or are you talking about dogma and doctrine, but trying to sneak it by them with an inaccurate substitution of words?
Posted by: Megan at October 27, 2005 11:31 AMA discipline is a practice. It can be either individual or corporate. For many Christians, the corporate matters more than the individual. We Baptists go both ways with that one. Some honor the inidvidual relationship/piety more than the corporate.
"Mandated" is a curious word. If you recall the article I posted a bit ago about whether or not one body was actually Baptist any longer, I was referring to just this issue.
No theology/doctrine/dogma can be mandated withihn our tradition...except for the idea that you cannot mandate..;-) There may be descriptive statements. Sure. And some insititutions may mandate some adherence, but it does not have to be that way.
So, a doctrine or a dogma can be a discipline of thinking similar to Zen philosophy or Hindu poetry. They are stories that one can enter...engage in a contemplative manner. The Creed can be seen as poetry, a metaphor to enter into and not a doctrinal statement that is mandated by a body.
A discipline is a practice. If, as Jesus says, we are to love the Lord with our hearts, souls and mins, then our thinking matters. There is more than one way to interpret this, of course, but if one is to engage a tradition, why ignore its thinking? Why ignore its philosophy?
So, I pray the Creed as a discipline. It is a contemplative discipline. It shapes my thinking. I see this as a good thing. I do it voluntarily. It is not mandated in any way. And through such practice, I believe I encounter Truth. I believe I encounter God.
A discipline is voluntary. At least it should be. By placing doictrine or dogma under the umbrella of discipline, then they too are voluntary thought practices.
That is the short of it.
Posted by: Tripp at October 28, 2005 12:59 PMSo, somebody or some congregation that didn't believe in Christ could be Baptist?
If not, then the dogma of believing in Christ is mandated.
Posted by: Megan at October 28, 2005 01:55 PMmegan, i'm wondering what or how you might define dogma? is belief dogma or conviction? and, are dogmas and convictions analogous to one another in your thinking? furthermore, what does it mean to believe in christ--and how is this related to a baptist identity? i am not convinced that christ is a dogma, but rather a person. so, in what way is the "dogma of believing in christ is manadated"--this confuses me.
anglobaptist: i think discipline is the larger umbrella, and i do think the grammar of one's faith can be the creed, as it is for you and so many others. this is discipline, but there is a sense where the discipline of praying the creed is internalizing dogma, yes? this is just a question--i'm not sure? where do practices lie then if praying the creed is internalizing dogma? does dogma inform our practices? if so, we're back to the question of discipline--whether corporate or individual.
Posted by: baptistnomad at October 28, 2005 05:41 PMThis has nothing to do with the above post, just too lazy to search for your email address.
While searching some web pages I came across your and read a bit of your bio. I too went to BTSR, or ButSore as the Presbys, referred to us. I was there from 96-98 then transferred to Colgate Rochester. I went to be near the Episcopals at Bexley Hall. I didnt become anglicized but almost. I'm still baptist. I dont know if we crossed paths or not.
c.a.b (theobilly)
Posted by: Theobilly at October 29, 2005 08:34 AMWe're about to run head-on into my lexical curmudgeonliness. Ready? :-)
"discipline" describes individual practices, as the pretty terrific division of disiplines you posted shows.
"dogma" and "doctrine" both describe bodies of belief that are mandated by Christian denominations.
I love that kind of curmudgeonliness - I'm a newspaper sub-editor!
Good point. As I like to say there is one set (what you might call kerygma) of Catholic dogmas, universal teachings. Defined doctrines, East and West, are expressions of that.
Foster's cool. Sounded very Catholic when I read him.
Posted by: The young fogey at October 30, 2005 10:39 PMTo be Baptist, one need only be a member of a congregation. Every congregation will be different. Thus, some Baptist congregations do not require belief in the divinity of Jesus prerequisite to membership.
This is the simple truth of it.
More later, I think.
Theobilly, I was at BTSR in '92. I lived at Richmond Hill from '92-'96. Did you ever pass through?
And, for the record, I am still happily Baptist.
Posted by: Tripp at October 31, 2005 12:04 PM"some Baptist congregations do not require belief in the divinity of Jesus prerequisite to membership."
For real? You have witnessed this or it's been published somewhere official? That's astonishing. But, useful to know.
Of course, I have trouble imagining *why* a person who didn't believe would want to be part of a Christian denomination... but that wanders far from the subject of your original post.
Posted by: Megan at October 31, 2005 12:32 PMI'll admit it suggests an inconsistancy or two. BUt they do exist!
Judson Memorial in New York
Lake Street Church in Evanston, IL
There are certainly others. The theological line is, I believe, that since many of us are on a journey with God, a church should represent all points along that journey with harmony in relationship.
So, if someone wants to explore Judaism, Hinduism or another faith tradition, perhaps it is the place of a congregation to make that possible.
Perhaps it is not. I think both positions are valid.
Another way to think about it is this: I did not apply to the Virginia Military Institute for my undergraduate because I am a pacifist. I am not a military chaplain because I am a pacifist. As I understand it, there are those who have attended and do serve in spite of the differences.
Anyway, there are of course some Baptist fellowships/denominations that do draw a tighter line. The SBC most likely would disfellowship a church that allowed people to remain members or become members without adherence to the official theology of the SBC. The ABC is not so inclined. We are more congregationalist.