Dogmatic

Some definitions are in order to start this thought:

Dogma: n.
- a system of principles or tenets, especially for a church.

Dogmatic: adj.
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.
2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.
-Synonyms: arbitrary, imperious, dictatorial.

Dogma today is largely considered a joke in the popular vernacular. People who subscribe to a system of doctrines are, well, just stupid people who deserve ridicule. You have to think for yourself, you see, and if you agree with dogma, you're not a thinker.

Never mind the failure of logic in the position. How did we get here from there? When did it become a bad thing to agree with a set of principles? Well, of course, it's not. It's only when you agree with religious dogma that you're being foolish. Everyone operates on some set of principles. Unfortunately, this idea that people who subscribe to religious dogma are foolish isn't limited to the world (which Christ promised would hate His followers). It is also a common position of a large part of Christianity. You know ... "no creed but Christ". "Experience unites; doctrine divides." That sort of thing. Very popular even among Christians. Never mind that the Bible uses the term in a positive sense (e.g., Rom 16:7; Eph 4:14; 1 Tim 4:6; Titus 1:9; Titus 2:1 ... point made). Never mind that the Bible itself is a set of dogma, a system of principles and tenets for Christianity. We need to avoid that stuff at all costs. We need to make Christianity more experiential than theological, more emotional than mental. Everyone knows that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. Yeah ... right.

I suppose that kind of thinking is what got us from definition #1 for "dogmatic" to definition #2. If doctrine is good -- if dogma is right -- then dogmatic would not only be good for a Christian; it would be mandatory. But we've moved away from that to "arrogant and opinionated". We've moved from using "dogmatic" as a good term to using it as an insult. One thing no one ought to be today is dogmatic. That's bad. Don't do it!

Unfortunately, the ramifications aren't pretty. Since Christians have largely decided it's unwise to stand firmly on principle (be dogmatic), doctrine has been sliding. Although we are commanded to "stand firm", we don't want to be labeled "dogmatic", so we stand ... softly. We have been warned "to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught" and to "avoid them" (Rom 16:7), but we make them our friends. We don't, at almost all costs, don't want to be considered dogmatic, so we don't stand and we don't defend and we don't give a reason ... and we find ourselves wondering why teenage pregnancy within the church seems just as high as without and why we are having to fight so hard to defend marriage against same-gender unions and why it is that we aren't taken seriously much at all anymore. Oh, we feel just as warmly toward God as those who went before us; we just don't know the truth as well as they did. You see, that would be dogmatic. And "dogmatic" is an insult we just don't want to bear.

Me personally? I suppose I'd rather be dogmatic and wrong than wishy-washy and right. "No, no, you believe whatever you want. Don't want to offend, you know. It's just that, well, I think you might be wrong ... but, hey! That's not what I mean to say. Wouldn't want to be dogmatic, now, would I?" Am I helping anyone that way? No, I'll remain dogmatic -- standing on doctrine -- at the risk of being perceived at times as dogmatic -- opinionated. I didn't arrive here by accident or by some brainwashing. I've thought it through. Anything else, then, would be a lie. Anything else wouldn't be very helpful to those around me, would it?