Spiritual direction (4): Reconstructing our faith

Theologia and contemplative prayer

It’s not at all unusual these days to see the words theology, dogma, and orthodoxy treated as antithetical to “spirituality.” There are reasons for this development, of course. “Dogma” has frequently been confused with “dogmatism” (see my post, “Pragmatism: the remedy for dogmatism” by clicking here), and “orthodoxy” with the repression, suppression, and ossification of bureaucratized religious institutions. “Theology” has had less bad press, it might be said, but the word nonetheless suggests for many dry academics, impenetrable jargon, obscurantism, and – in short – abstractions that are out of touch with “real life.” Surely, it has been argued, these terms represent what are practical barriers to the purity and simplicity of “true” spirituality, meditation, and contemplation. Indeed, if I were to define theology, dogma, and orthodoxy as these caricatures would have it, I would agree that a healthy spiritual life would be well shed of them; but these are, in fact, caricatures. My intention in this post – without going into any great detail and leaving some obvious questions unanswered – is to “reconstruct” those terms, restoring their pristine definitions, and, I hope, in the process showing that spiritual practice would be empty without their contribution. One of G. K. Chesterton’s wiser remarks was that there are two sorts of people: those who hold to dogmas and know it, and those who hold to dogmas and don’t. Just as an aside, I’ve had tense exchanges with Zen Buddhists who were every bit as unyielding in their dogmatism as the most hardline Calvinist, and who became infuriated when I pointed it out to them. In short, even those who reject the very notion of “dogma” frequently do so with dogmatic vehemence.