Third Stage of Spiritual Development: Adherence to Doctrine

For those seeking spiritual advancement, adherence to religious doctrine is in furtherance to an advanced spiritual and moral life. Adherence and mastery of the doctrine ought not to be at an advanced level to achieve adequate and wholesome spiritual life. However, sadly, most linger at the second stage. This is so for lack of proper understanding of doctrine is indicative of pride. One who is pride seldom seek the truth. One would argue that one seeks truth, but one's behavior would be totally misaligned with the quest for truth. One would actively misinterpret others' arguments and even refuse to even hear others' arguments, because they fear that they might not have anything to say in refutation. Such is the state of the Church now. Despite the wealth of free resources to answer theological questions, many faithful do not seek after the answers. In fact, the vast majority of those who profess to be Christians actively show aversion to orthodox theology and clear-thinking untouched by secular politics.

In wonderful simplicity, the very beginning of the Scriptures tell us the importance of adherence to doctrine, or in other words, teachings of God and the Church in communion with Him. The Scriptures tell us that pride is the original sin that spiraled humanity downwards, introducing corruptibility to an otherwise incorruptible world, leading to the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Eden. They defied God's commandment, and, as consequence, they came to be unworthy of God's true presence. As the narrative of Genesis further progresses, we see that pride bled into other aspects of moral life of humankind: murder, infidelity, rape, and cannibalism. Thus the Scriptures clearly tell us the importance of this stage of spiritual development. Despite the importance, I rank adherence to doctrine as the third stage for two reasons. First, belief and sensing do not require robust doctrinal understanding. Second, all the stages are on a spectrum and the divisions are made to express where a definitive development must happen in order to progress further. Although moral and spiritual advancements are one and the same in substance, I divide them for the sake of ease of expression.

Spiritual Development

As mentioned in the previous post, a vast majority of the faithful do not advance beyond the stage of perception. For many, such an advancement is barred from sectarian or denominational flaws. This flaw is prevalent among the Protestant sect itself, in particular among the so-called non-denominationals and Baptists. For one, the Protestant sect in general has lost doctrinal traditions the Catholics built for 1,500 years. The rich philosophies of great Doctors have failed to be incorporated into the Protestant sect. Some denominations within the sect such as Baptists went so far as to forego doctrinal solidarity. This is why evangelicals lost so many of their faithfuls. When the faithfuls are challenged intellectually, they will likely lack firm understanding of Christian doctrine to respond intellectually. This is also the reason why the evangelicals seem to be too radical. Since the evangelicals rely purely on emotional responses to grow faith in lieu of intellectual activity that is understanding the doctrine, they are much more liable to be irrational, and everything they believe appears to stem from indoctrination as opposed to careful contemplation upon the doctrine.

The problem pervades the Catholic Church also. Despite having two thousand years worth of philosophers and theologians to fall back on, and despite the rich presence Catholic philosophers still enjoy in modern academia, the leaders and the previous two generations have largely failed to teach the doctrines of the Church to their offspring, both biological and spiritual. Due to this failure, it is all too common for young Catholic high school and college students to lose faith for the same reason mentioned in the previous paragraph. The problem is so widespread that nominal Catholics proudly justify that they hold heretical positions because they are self-proclaimed Catholics. This problem is exacerbated by ignoring the problem by the clergy and by open presentation by politicians. Too many Catholics focus on social justice, but the moment someone says that Catholics ought to focus on both social justice and sound doctrine, one is liable to passive-aggressive jabs that offend 2000 years worth of Tradition and the ways of Saints.

Often, these heretical positions are products of ideologies. In too many Christians’ minds do ideologies dictate what they choose to believe and what they choose not to believe. We see too many Christians acting in furtherance of unfettered capitalism and too many falling for the false utopian vision of socialism. They justify evils of both aisles of politics by sacrificing theological soundness, proving more loyal to a political party than to one’s own religion and God. Thou shalt not commit idolatry, so says the Scripture. Yet too many faithful go so far as to justify the evils of worldly ideologies by twisting religious doctrine, as blasphemous act. Adherence to religious doctrine liberates the faithful from worldly ideologies by giving them a clear criteria by which one can evaluate the world as opposed to conforming to the ways of the world. Those who adhere to religious doctrine pick and choose the methods of different ideologies to further one’s faith whereas those who do not adhere to doctrine pick and choose which part of the religion they wish to believe in furtherance to one’s party loyalty.

Those who possess a certain level of mastery of the doctrine are thinking people; they are able to respond to opposing views with a rational argument. In so doing, they possess the ability to reject certain policies pushed by ideologues. Those who hold contrary positions to the faith often fail to defend their positions intellectually when those who have mastered the doctrine press upon their ideas. This is so simply because they lack proper understanding of the doctrine and because their ideas are mere products of emotivism. The basis of religious doctrine is metaphysical. The metaphysical understanding of God is liable to be corrupted by a single erroneous supposition. In such an error, the ontological understanding of a human being and of oneself will be skewed, and, by consequence, what is to be a moral agent will likewise be skewed.

For instance, if a Christian believes that abortion can be moral even when the mother’s life is not in jeopardy, a heretical position, then this individual has a metaphysical understanding of God that He permits such an act by way of mercy. By consequence, this individual has an ontological understanding of human being that would be either of the two sort: 1) human life can be expendable for the convenience of another or 2) human life does not begin up until a certain point that even the pro-abortion scientific community has no definitive stance on.

In order to achieve an advanced stage spiritual development, one must necessarily have a firm understanding of God and of oneself. Without adherence to sound doctrine, one cannot possibly expect oneself to reach a level of spiritual competency and self-awareness for one would not have a proper understanding of God and by consequence understanding of one’s identity rooted in God. I have observed too many Christians of collegiate age say: “I don’t know who I am anymore.” Absent sickness of the mind, this statement is an indication that one has no ontological understanding of the self. Thus, adherence to doctrine is a necessity in developing one’s spirituality further.

Moral Development

With regard to moral development, a person without dogma living “loudly within” is a person without a guidance in life. Without such a guidance, an individual cannot hope to establish an advanced moral life for morality is a set of dogmatic principles that cannot be changed. If one supposed that morality can “develop” or “evolve,” then that person is in effect a moral relativist, which in effect means that person holds no morals except those imagined by oneself. Any logically trained philosopher will tell you that, if something is relative and never objective, then it is purely a subjective construct of the human mind. If something is purely a subjective construct of the human mind, then any definition that presupposes objectivity, e.g. morality, cannot apply. Thus, adherence to doctrine is needed to establish a moral life, since doctrine presupposes objectivity.

The relativistic positions are products of the first sin: pride. One must humble oneself first in order to to open to dialogue with the teachers of the doctrine. Sins of the flesh are better for they can be forgiven when forgiveness is begged for. But the sins of the mind, such as heresy is more dangerous, because one would not think that one has done wrong to begin with, and thereby lack the desire for forgiveness.

Most faithful who have advanced in humility have simple understanding of moral doctrine. Although all the mother principles can be extracted from the reading of the scriptures, it takes mastery of the doctrine to infer and apply the principles mentioned in the scriptures. Most faithful approach ethics in a utilitarian or deontological manner. The vast majority rely on the utilitarian method, an ethical method that attempts to provide greatest good for the greatest number of people. This method, in most cases, is incalculable. Due to its incalculability, most make judgments on the moral worth of an action ex post facto, not before they act. For instance, a faithful may violate “thou shalt not lie” and justify after the fact by showing that the result brought about the greatest good. Thus, this approach is relativistic, incompatible with sound doctrine.  

The deontological approach suffered from shortcomings also. Deontology relies on categorical imperatives. For instance, “thou shalt not lie” would be applied in every instance. While it has the appearance of a more advanced moral method, those who employ deontological approach often do not allow the fluidity of the moral doctrine. The deontological approach fails to take into account the fallen nature of this world, how at times the application of doctrine may be subject to different situations. Thus, utilitarianism’s shortcoming is its excessive fluidity, whereas deontology’s shortcoming is its excessive rigidity.

What of the middle path? Those who has a firm basis on the doctrine of the faith, through absorbing the moral principles shown in the scriptures and through sound theology, one will begin to focus on one’s character instead of situational actions. The vast majority of this world’s population can only maintain ethical standards under certain situations. One might be able to be kind to others under normal circumstances, but under severe stress, one would become a dark cynic. The point of focusing on character is to transcend difficulties brought on by situations. God does not stop being kind based on how much stress He is under.

As one grows in the mastery of the doctrine, one would recognize how a sound doctrine would take into account how circumstances might change the application of the doctrine, despite the doctrine appearing to be rigid. Likewise, one would recognize how a sound doctrine actually imposes rigidity, despite the appearance of fluidity exceptions might have. True mastery of the doctrine sees that there is already a proper level of rigidity in fluidity and a proper level of fluidity in rigidity, and adjust one’s actions accordingly.

One’s moral character, one’s level of virtue, requires more than mere mastery of the moral doctrine. A master theologian can still fail to act in accordance to the doctrine when under stress. To cultivate virtue effectively, a sort of self-mortification is required. It is the next stage of spiritual development, and will not be discussed here.