Against Creedalism: Why I am a “Confessing Christian” but not a Creedal Christian

Against Creedalism: Why I am a “Confessing Christian” but not a Creedal Christian December 19, 2017

Against Creedalism: Why I am a “Confessing Christian” but not a Creedal Christian


My immediately preceding blog post (“Can Authentic Christianity Exist without Cognitive Truth Claims [Doctrines]?”) argued that authentic Christian unity cannot exist without shared cognitive truth claims (doctrines). I did not go into detail about which cognitive truth claims are necessary for true Christian unity because I have done that here several times before. My only purpose there was to argue that experience of God is not enough for authentic Christian unity. As Luther is reported to have said “Subjective experience is a wax nose any knave can twist to suit his own countenance” (paraphrased).

Now comes the balance, the “and yet….”

One reason I am a moderate Baptist is to avoid creedalism. Let me define that—as it is meant by my fellow moderate Baptists (and some others). To me, to us, “creedalism” is the elevation of some extra-biblical statement of belief to a status equal with Scripture itself—authoritative beyond doubt, mental reservation, question or revision. And church leadership, if not membership, depends on some act of expressing uncritical agreement with, loyalty and allegiance to an extra-biblical doctrinal statement.

Now, of course, there are degrees of creedalism. Some Christian churches and organizations require leaders only to “sign” (whether literally or symbolically) a statement of faith and then write out any mental reservations they may have about parts of it. Sometimes their mental reservations are acceptable and sometimes not. If not, they are either not ordained or hired in the first place or they are “de-frocked,” excommunicated or just fired.

My point (and explaining all the variations on creedalism would take forever) is simply to say that creedalism is the explicit or implicit elevation of some extra-biblical statement of beliefs to the same status of authority as Scripture itself—functionally. Few Christian groups would admit to doing so explicitly.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

An alternative to creedalism that still emphasizes the importance of doctrines is confessionalism. The line between them is not always clear. To my mind, many Christians who call themselves “confessionalists” are really creedalists. But also to my mind, it is entirely possible to be confessional with one’s Christianity without being creedal (as I explained it above).

Examples are always helpful. Southern Baptists (allegedly the largest Protestant denomination in the world [but let’s not debate that]) have three times written a Statement of Belief called the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963 and 2000). The second and third “writings” were revisions of the first. One seminary that I know fairly well requires faculty members and administrators (not students) to publicly sign the BF&M. They are threatened with being fired should they ever teach that any part of it may not be true. To me, that is creedalism.

Another Baptist seminary I know well has a written Statement of Faith that is published as a general expression of the seminary’s “common belief”—consensus of doctrines—that no one is ever required to sign. Candidates for faculty status are asked whether they are in general agreement with it and permitted to express mental reservations if they have any. Then the tenured faculty and administration decide whether the candidate is sufficiently in agreement with the Statement of Faith to become a faculty member.

Another Baptist seminary I know well simply asks candidates for faculty status to write out their own personal statement of belief (doctrines) which is then examined by the tenured faculty and administration—for general “fit” with the seminary’s ethos.

The second and third seminaries are examples of confessionalism (in two varieties) without creedalism. However, I know some moderate Baptists (and probably some others) who would consider both examples of creedalism. They are not because they hold the seminaries’ statements of faith (or implicit, shared doctrinal beliefs) secondary to Scripture.

However, there’s another key difference and it blurs the line between creedalism and confessionalism so that some would argue the line never really entirely holds forever. The difference (possibly without a distinction) appears when someone points out that there is a flaw, biblically or logically, in the Statement of Faith. That the Statement of Faith is not entirely biblical or that it contradicts itself. What happens then?

Case study of this: Some years ago the president of an evangelical liberal arts college published a book in which he argued that any faculty member of any truly evangelical liberal arts college who has mental reservations about any part of the college’s statement of faith should resign and go elsewhere. Around the same time, however, a student of the college discovered a serious heresy “hidden” within the college’s Statement of Faith. (I have detailed this incident in my book Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology.) When the student pointed it out to the president, the president could not help but agree and change the wording.

Surely (!) some faculty member had noticed that problem with the college’s Statement of Faith before the student did. Surely. (When I read it, it almost literally jumped out at me!) But, of course, given the college president’s clear creedalism no faculty members would dare to point it out. And yet, once it was discovered and pointed out, the president changed it. Did he not then have “mental reservations” about it? Even more; he clearly disagreed with it.

When writing his book and functioning as a guardian of doctrine, that college president functioned as a creedalist. But upon being shown that one phrase in the college’s Statement of Faith was heretical he briefly functioned as a confessionalist. And (so I am told) immediately went back to functioning as a creedalist.

What this incident, and reasonable Protestant commitment to sola scriptura, means, of course, is that every extra-biblical statement of faith must be held more lightly than Scripture itself and open to revision in light of fresh and faithful biblical research (and logic insofar as it is demonstrable that it contradicts itself or some other statement of faith held).

I am comfortable with confessionalism but not with creedalism but I realize the line between them is not clear to everyone. So, I have to make up my own mind about the line in particular cases.

Generally speaking, requiring someone to sign (whether literally or figuratively) an extra-biblical statement of doctrinal beliefs borders on creedalism. Asking them to write out their own statement of faith for consideration for membership does not. Creedalism definitely (to my way of thinking) appears when an extra-biblical statement of faith (doctrinal statement) is elevated to belief beyond mental reservation or question. These are my “rules of thumb” about this matter, but I am open to reconsidering them in particular cases.

My own preference is that every church and Christian organization write out its statement of generally-agreed upon (consensual) doctrinal beliefs and publish it on its web site and in its brochure. Then (to my way of thinking, my preference) is should be open to correction of that statement of faith and not impose it on members or leaders in a way that makes it even functionally “the sixty-seventh book of the Bible.” However, many moderate Baptists are so averse to creeds that they will not do that and I understand their hesitation given the background history and continuing prevalence of creedalism among fundamentalist Baptists. So, I will settle for a church and Christian organization that prefers not to write out its doctrinal beliefs but still and nevertheless holds them from the pulpit and the lectern without apology.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Browse Our Archives