I've been thinking about the idea of dogma for over a year now. At first I was trying to figure out whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. I came to think of it as an antonym for open-mindedness. But I had heard a lot of conflicting things about open-mindedness as well. You know how they say if you're open-minded your brains will fall out? But then in any movie where someone is trying to reform or invent or reconsider anything substantial and faces obstacles, they tell the habit following people not to be so closed-minded. Well, then I was in high-school and I read London and Shelley and then I went to college and read Descartes, and I realized that some people questioned things that seemed pretty obvious to everyone else. The thing is, once you start seriously questioning something, it's hard to stop until you find solid evidence for it ("you're waiting for a train"). I did some thought experiments with ideas about reality being an illusion, etc. and realized that those considerations simply weren't beneficial. So for pragmatic reasons, I simply accepted the idea that our senses and experience are in some sense real, and questioning that could not lead to any benefit. I memorized Hamlet's famous soliloquy about being or not being and pondered it for a while. Hamlet's initial argument: life is full of pain, death ends life therefore death is good. He decided against suicide because he thought there might be something worse ("dreams"). That argument didn't really do it for me because I had read C.S. Lewis and he thought dying would be like waking up from a dream (Romans 8:18). I figured though, if I was going to wake up from the dream eventually, then I really had nothing to lose and I might as well make it the best dream possible and let myself wake up naturally.So those were two questions which I settled for myself and decided that pursuing them was worthless. If someone told me that life was meaningless, so I would be better off killing myself, I would resist the urge to ask why they hadn't taken their own advice and I would have to decide between Proverbs 26:4 and Proverbs 26:5, depending on the person.
On the other hand, there are some things that I've ruled out that I probably shouldn't have. In general, my friends are Evangelical, Republican, law-abiding, and the only R-rated movies they watch have Mel Gibson in them. I remember in high school, a certain set of my friends started making jokes about how stupid that culture was and they started rebelling. It looked to me like they were rebelling for rebellion's sake. I didn't buy it. I actually thought there was a lot of value in those conservative values, and I didn't see any reason to ditch them unless I found something more valuable. Then I came to Wheaton. Wheaton, the town, is about as conservative as Suburban Chicagoland gets. Wheaton College is pretty quiet itself. The rebellion here is surprisingly quiet. A slightly vocal minority complains about strict rules (they're really not that strict most of the time) a smaller minority breaks the rules, but for the most part people are really okay with mandatory chapel attendance and waiting for official dances to bust out their moves. But I've encountered various perspectives on some subjects that I had set aside as settled. Economic. Scientific. Theological. There were stances that I never really considered. I agreed with them because they were things that conservative, Bible believing people believed. Not necessarily because they were beliefs that are in the Bible. I hadn't realized that other Bible-believing people believed other things. Don't panic. Most of my opinions haven't changed. Actually, I think the fact that I've seen other reasonable perspectives on so many things has allowed me to be more confident about less questionable things. I've yet to encounter a situation, story, movie or argument that has caused me to think that my only responsibility or duty for my actions is to pursue my own happiness. There is a core set of values and virtues that I have never found a good reason to question. Passion for God's glory, love, humility. There are other things that I almost put down like loyalty and diligence, but those depend on the prepositional phrases attached to them: Loyalty to what? Diligence in what?
When it comes down to it, I have a pretty short list of things that I'm not willing to question at all: axioms. However, there are a lot of other things that are pretty closely connected to those that you would have to work pretty hard to get me to overrule. I believe God exists. It's hard for me to imagine myself sincerely questioning that. I also believe that Jesus is God. Based on those two things, it's not much of a jump to believe that I shouldn't be stealing or murdering. Of course, there is a host of reasons why I could be wrong about that. I might be completely misunderstanding Jesus' words. Somebody might have copied them wrong. Someone else who looked like Jesus might have been impersonating him on the one day that Matthew was paying attention. But you can see that with something that straightforward, you have to work pretty hard to make a good case against it.
On the other hand, some beliefs that seem to be completely supported by scripture when the first person convinces you and quotes a Bible verse (Proverbs 18:17, Matthew 4) can get pretty shaky pretty fast when you start to put pressure on them. Think of it in construction terms. You want the lowest parts of the building, the ones closest to the foundation to be the sturdiest. Then you can build other solid, but less critical beliefs on that solid framework. “Facebook is a detriment to society!” Sure, that can be part of my belief structure but it’s not close to the core. Capitalism, save the environment, small government, reformed, anti-Facebook, pro-business, young earth, progressive, Kantian, neo-Marxism, might all be good ideas (probably not all of them). Those sorts of beliefs need to be put in their proper place and not too closely identified with the heart of Christianity, the gospel. They cannot become interdependent. Faith in the gospel must not rely on confidence in interpretive methods and social strategies.
I think my central point is that dogma should be grayscale, not black and white. There are some beliefs that should be held very closely. Once doubts have been entertained they must be dismissed unless a new, separate case is made (like a suspect who can't be tried for the same crime twice). On the other hand, it is important to bring our beliefs into question at some point so we can determine the basis for those beliefs. If our justification is solid, then our belief will be all the more steady. If not, perhaps we should consider alternatives and pursue deeper lines of questioning. Here’s my parting challenge: Think of the beliefs that are most important to you, and the beliefs you are most confident in. Hopefully, there is some overlap. Then try to support the important beliefs with the ones you are most confident in (1 Peter 3:15).
