The idea of doctrine is unusual as a feature of scholarly attention. The only two spheres of academic learning that I can think of which rely on the idea of doctrine are law and theology. One might even say that doctrine is crucial for these two areas of learning, and anathema for most others.
Legal doctrine is studied extensively by law students, and times were that "doctrinal" scholarship was the primary preoccupation of law professors. That changed to some extent with the coming of both the crits and the 'law and...' phases of legal scholarship, though there continue to be accomplished and interesting doctrinalists (indeed, I have noticed a new wave of young-turk doctrinalists lately -- in some ways, it is they who are today's subversives). But even those who plow the interdisciplinary and critical fields know to pay doctrine its due; stray too far from it and one's writing begins not to look like legal scholarship at all. It may even be that it is doctrine which puts the 'legal' in legal scholarship. I am far less familiar with the history of theology as a discipline, but it seems to me that the interpretation of doctrine would play a central role in the life of the theological scholar. The accretion of exegetical incrustations is a happy and welcome event for theology, a sign that the field is thriving, and when one becomes a theologian, my guess is that one is committing oneself to the idea of doctrine as a core feature of one's writing life -- even if it is one's aim to offer reforming, novel, or radical doctrinal interpretations.
Is there any other discipline in which the idea of doctrine is accorded respect, let alone pride of place? Does it make any sense to speak to a philosopher or a literary critic, a scientist or an architect or a mathematician, about doctrine? In these fields and most others, doctrine, to the extent that it appears as an intellectual phenomenon at all, is an impediment. It is an obstacle to be blasted through, something to be challenged and replaced. Parricide is the order of the day, and if there are doctrines out there, they are regarded with executioner's eyes by the next scholarly generation. Naturally there are dogmas in all fields, law very much included, but the idea of dogma is different than the idea of doctrine. A dogma is an entrenched but temporary piety; a doctrine has greater permanence and less attitude. A doctrine is regarded by those within the discipline as fundamental, a cornerstone on which sound buildings can be constructed, redesigned, and reconstructed. A dogma is more militant, more ambitious, and more brittle.
What can explain the prominence of doctrine in law and theology? This is too large a topic for a blog post, but some rank speculation follows after the jump (which I hope readers will supplement).
Continue reading
The Christianity Today politics blog has a pretty up-to-date tally of how pro-life Democrats (that is, Democrats "who voted for the original Stupak-Pitts Amendment (which would have banned abortion funding in the health care bill) and final passage of the health care bill (which did not include the Stupak-Pitts amendment)"). (My own representative, Joe Donnelly, is such a Democrat, and he won -- without a majority of the vote -- with, it appears, some help from the Libertarian candidate.)
Story here:
Amendment 62 would have changed the state constitution - stating that a person is a person "from the moment of biological beginning." That, in effect, would outlaw abortions in Colorado. But, opponents feared it would reach much further, affecting in-vitro fertilization, contraception and some medical procedures.
"I think that our over 70 organizations of doctors, nurses, faith leaders, medical researchers, civil rights folks and health care advocates throughout the state have done a very good job of education Colorado voters," says No on 62 Campaign Director Fofi Mendez.
The measure failed on a 3 to one margin, much like a similar measure did in 2008. Supporters of the Personhood Amendment couldn't be reached last night. But in past interviews with KUNC they stated that they hoped a more conservative electorate would mean victory. They've also stated that a loss would not stop them from trying again in the future.
Today (in a few minutes, actually) the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a school-choice and church-state related case out of Arizona, called Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. (To learn more about the case, check out this helpful summary at SCOTUSBlog, and this argument preview by Lyle Denniston.)
There is a non-trivial chance that the Court will not reach the merits of the First Amendment challenge to Arizona's (very successful and entirely, in my view, sound-as-policy-matter) tuition-tax-credit program. But, if they do, they should certainly uphold the program, and reverse the Ninth Circuit's misguided misinterpretation and misapplication of Zelman. Programs like Arizona's are proving more successful, and more politically do-able, than "voucher" programs, and they are essential to education reform.
