Should we have statements of faith?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009 at 9:39AM There's been a lot of debate about whether statements of faith are valid or not. Take this quote from theologian LeRon Shults:
Jesus did not have a "statement of faith." He called others into faithful relation to God through life in the Spirit. As with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, he was not concerned primarily with whether individuals gave cognitive assent to abstract propositions but with calling persons into trustworthy community through embodied and concrete acts of faithfulness.
I get part of his point. Intellectual assent is not enough. But why create a false antithesis? Surely right belief and right action are both important. The prophets called God's people back to covenant faithfulness, and that covenant was based on certain beliefs about who God is and what he had done in their history. It involves understanding and action.
John Frame seems to make sense here. He says that it's not enough to say we just believe Scripture, because that doesn't really distinguish us in any meaningful way from others - including cults.
We must tell people what we believe. Once we do that, we have a creed.
Indeed, a creed is quite inescapable, though some people talk as if they could have "only the Bible" or "no creed but Christ." As we have seen, "believing the Bible" involves applying it. If you cannot put the Bible into your own words (and actions), your knowledge is no better than a parrot's. But once you do put it into your own words (and it is immaterial whether those words be written or spoken), you have a creed. (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God)
Reader Comments (6)
Thank you for this brother. Good stuff.
I really appreciate the both/and call that Darryl issues here. Right action for the wrong reasons is just as incomplete as the right reasons with the wrong action. If you read the rest of LeRon Shultz quotation you see that he says this, "The very idea of a “statement of faith” is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties." I can't help but wonder what how he thinks "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth..." is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties. I see statements of faith as the modernist versions of creeds. Now a lot of them had elements (or gained them over time) that go way beyond what most of us believe to belong in creeds (there are some that still have pre-trib/pre-mil statements in them) and so our natural tendency is to fight against them. It seems like this is the post-modern Christian's tendency in every area. We don't like the way the established church has gone so we fight against it. We don't like the way the role of pastor/clergy has moved so we fight against it. We don't like the way church/state political relationships have gone so we fight against them. We don't like the way statements of faith have gone so we fight against them. Part of me understands it, but what if instead of putting so much energy fighting against these things we put that energy into redeeming them? Is eliminating statements of faith because "Jesus didn't have one" really Biblical or is it just a way to justify taking the easy way out. Jesus teaching of "take my yoke upon you" tells me that he did have a statement of faith. That statement wasn't shaped like ours our today and it certainly placed an ultimate emphasis on being an incarnated statement, but he had a way of understanding God and man and sin and life and the world and redemption and restoration. So lets redeem those statements of faith. Part of that redemption might be calling them something different. Certainly it involves weeding out that which is not central and adding things that should be. Of course in necessitates a new emphasis on them being incarnated. It will be work, but I believe it will be work that is worth it.
Definitely an interesting topic... While I do strongly believe in knowing what you believe I do have a tendency to lean towards how those beliefs are lived out. Reality is, when you compare the statement of faith of different churches you probably won't find all that many difference... but you will find a HUGE difference in how that statement is lived out. The church that gets "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" and "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Galatians 5:6, 14) is the church I'd rather be at then one that has it's statement of faith perfect to the letter. Of course, that could just be me :)
Before we can TELL people what we believe, we need to KNOW for ourselves what we believe. A Statement of Faith is a handy tool for describing what we believe,.... as long as it is an accurate accounting of our beliefs and not just a parroting of what our Denomination says we should believe. It is also a quick reference when deciding whether we would like to join a particular church or not. No sense joining a church whose Statement of Faith is radically different from our own set of beliefs. Other than that,.... I dunno. I kinda like what Jon says: "lets redeem those statements of faith."
Great discussion! But i gotta be honest, redeeming doctrinal statements sounds about as exciting as redeeming 80's glam rock. I'm not sure if the modern/post modern thing is really the issue, or just has helped us to see a weakness in how things have been. But the reality is, long before our faith was creedal it was narrative. We are people of the book/story. Articulating and defending summary points about what you believe is not the same as knowing the story you are a part of. And i think when we widdle a cosmic story like God's down to statements we are bound to leave out more than we can include. I love how Eugene Peterson makes the point in his pastorally diplomatic way; "Many Christians, impatient with what they perceive as the inefficiency of Jesus' prayer (John 17 - unity prayer) attempt to solve the problem by the imposition of unity, unity by coercion - that is, authority depersonalized into an institution. (doctrinal statement? - my addition) The style is hierarchical. The methods are bureaucratic. Any person or congregation who refuses to conform is excluded; anathematized, excommunicated, or shunned. Unity is preserved by enforcing an institutional definition."
Good comments, everyone. Trevor: You're hitting on some of the negatives, and I think that's important. Every group can and does define what is important to them, but this can slip into rigidity and pride. I like Frame for arguing that we don't need twelve propositional statements. A statement of faith can be narrative. Check out this attempt: http://www.thecrowdedhouse.org/doctrine