I have written elsewhere on the danger of dogma. Here, I want to explore the potential weaknesses of (over)reliance on Christian creeds and confessions in the life of the church.
Recently, in an unprecedented move, a group of American theologians and pastors within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) moved to amend their denomination’s confessional statement, “The Baptist Faith and Message” (BFM, 2000). They sought to add a new article that would enshrine the Nicene Creed in the SBC Constitution.
This represents a significant about-face for Southern Baptists. The sponsors of the amendment, Andrew Brown, Stephen Lorance, Steve McKinion, and Malcolm Yarnell, freely acknowledge that the Preamble of the current BFM describes confessions of faith as limited in purpose and utility, and the first article of BFM identifies Scripture alone as the arbiter of “all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions.”
Admittedly, the 1963 SBC Committee responsible for the doctrinal status quo acted to limit the authority of confessional statements and to affirm the ecumenical creeds, though it found that “such statements have never been regarded as complete, infallible statements of faith, nor as official creeds carrying mandatory authority.” Theologian Matthew Barrett, editor of Credo Magazine, supported the proposed amendment in 2024, arguing that Christians have used the Creed for teaching and worship for 2,000 years, and that formal affirmation of the Creed helps to prevent Baptists from denying the doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ.
One gets a sense that older Southern Baptists lack confidence in younger Baptists, or indeed future generations, to believe as they do and to defend doctrines currently held sacrosanct. The same sense is clearly apparent within the Baptist Association of NSW & ACT where draconian measures have been implemented to prosecute congregations and ministers who, on the ground of the valid Baptist principle of liberty of conscience, hold a view of sexuality and marriage that is at odds with the opinions of the current ecclesiastical power brokers.
Although enforcing credal conformity may seem common sense and straightforward, there are real dangers attached. One such danger is that insistence on the creeds as dogmatic statements of the faith may “close minds and harden hearts” as people uncritically and unthinkingly accept religious doctrines. Credal conformity may “abet intellectual laziness.”[1]
Further, comparing his theological peers with the Protestant Reformers, theologian Herman Bavinck expresses concern that “They now no longer confess the faith, but they only believe their confession.”[2] This is creed as king, supplanting what gives life with a cultural artifact.
A second danger is that, once the Nicene Creed, for example, is added to the essential list of beliefs of the constituent churches of the Southern Baptist Convention (or any other group), the temptation arises to expand that list to include all manner of doctrines and practices that would never have passed muster by church leaders of previous generations.
Complex creeds and equivalent lists of essential authoritative doctrines may also be superimposed on Scripture, or serve to rigidly define the meaning of biblical texts within the culture that accepts the new creed. Properly handled, however, they may perform good functions. Theologian Geoffrey Bromiley suggests, for example, that despite a danger of credal creep, the creeds can facilitate public confession [of the faith], form a succinct basis of teaching, safeguard pure doctrine, and constitute an appropriate focus for the church’s fellowship in faith.”[3]
Thirdly, creeds address historic needs and this potentially limits their comprehensiveness. Since the creeds were formulated in particular times and places, to serve the needs of particular faith communities faced with specific threats, they possess strong emphases and other important doctrines are less well attested. For example, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed present robust defences of the deity of Christ, but many centuries later their uncritical use may “legitimate the embrace of a divine Christ that obscures his humanity.”[4]
Fourthly, creeds may be so lacking in legitimate authority that they are viewed as irrelevant or erroneous. In the latter half of the twentieth century, several prominent theologians argued that the ecumenical creeds were marred by “reliance upon an alleged alien Greek philosophical system and an outmoded cosmology.” Some claimed that “the creeds are mere human statements formulated in cultural contexts foreign to our own and are thus beset with serious limitations or even errors.”[5] This undermined the presumed authority of creeds.
A related issue is raised by Carl Trueman, who argues that creeds today are often regarded as implausible and distasteful because they are perceived to be built on “old-fashioned” notions of truth and language.[6] When we are encouraged by the wider culture to question, subvert and reject the authority of all texts, this includes creeds.
Fifthly, the spiritual authority inherent in creeds may be seen as undemocratic. Reformed theologian J. Fesko argues that “the anti-credal movement grew as churches that embraced theological democracy outpaced their confessional competitors.”[7] His argument seems to be that, while seemingly authoritarian and resisted by some, formal adherence to creeds and confessions of faith is to be preferred to the less well anchored faith statements and structures of belief evident in traditionally non-confessional faith communities.
Finally, global cultural and ideological change may undermine the perceived reliability of creeds and confessions. Fesko attributes their “large-scale atrophy” over the past four centuries to humanist scepticism, the “Enlightenment juggernaut” and the age of reason, the influence of mysticism and pietism on the church, and the rise of individualism.[8]
The list above is not exhaustive. There are other arguments that could be made against reliance upon creeds to do the work they have done in the past, or to address new problems and issues. In view of these reservations, should churches enforce conformity to creeds? I argue that they should not. I base my reasoning primarily on the need to safeguard liberty of conscience in an increasingly punitive church culture, and on my understanding of the nature of doctrine which regards it as a human, and therefore fallible, way to make sense of the text of Scripture.
The church needs both tradition and progress. Each of us too needs to learn from the noble traditions around us while at the same time working for progress and transformation that serves the common good. I fear, though, that in church life the excitement of progress may too easily eclipse the wisdom of legitimate tradition. Progress may also be the name given to harmful ideas and actions by people addicted to power rather than genuine progress. We must be optimistic, and on our guard.
I want to close this analysis and reflection with two quotations. The first is from theologian J. I. Packer, who died aged 93 on 17 July 2020, and who knew a thing or two about tradition and progress, power and wisdom, creeds and Scripture. For Packer, “Tradition … is the fruit of the Spirit’s teaching activity from the ages as God’s people have sought understanding of Scripture. It is not infallible, but neither is it negligible, and we impoverish ourselves if we disregard it.”[9]
The second quotation is from theologian and biblical scholar Luke Timothy Johnson, who writes: “to be a creedal Christian is to be a definite Christian. It is also to be a Christian who knows the difference between the essential and the non-essential, who is free to think and imagine boldly within the strong and flexible framework of faith, and who is open to wisdom from any source, confident that wherever there is truth, it is from God.”[10]
Dr Rod Benson is Research Support Officer at Moore Theological College, Sydney. He previously pastored four Baptist churches in Queensland and NSW, and served for 12 years as an ethicist with the Tinsley Institute at Morling College.
References
[1] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters (London: Darton, Longman & Todd,2003), 4, 6.
[2] Herman Bavinck, De Zekerheid des Geloofs (second edn; Kampen, 1903), 45.
[3] Geoffrey Bromiley, “Creed, creeds,” in Daniel J. Treier & Walter A. Elwell (eds), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (third edn; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 223.
[4] Johnson, op. cit.,, 6.
[5] Bruce Demarest, “Creeds,” in Martin Davie et al (eds), New Dictionary of Theology (second edn; Downers Grove: IVP, 2016), 235.
[6] Carl Trueman, 49.
[7] J. V. Fesko, The Need for Creeds Today (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 2.
[8] Ibid., 45-75.
[9] J. I. Packer, “Upholding the unity of Scripture today,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (4), Dec 1982, 414.
[10] Johnson, op. cit., 324.
Image source: faith root.com
iDigress 