I Prefer To Not Write A Statement of Faith
Time to read ~ 30 minutes. TLDR:
I am against the idea of writing and publishing church “statements of faith” for the following reasons. First, they do violence to the text by necessarily leaving out key Biblical truths and themes on any subject that they try to address. Second, determining the scope of such a document is a completely arbitrary choice that likely does not well serve the purpose for which you’ve created it. Third, “statements of faith” are flawed human creations that are typically (and rightfully) ignored/bypassed in meaningful Church decisions. Fourth, they necessarily fail to convey the humility with which we must approach the Biblical text, leading to disastrous consequences. And Fifth, because we are not compelled in scripture to write anything like a “statement of faith.” I suggest that an open and responsive dialogue should take the place of these statements.
INTRODUCTION
When I arrived at Madison Church to serve as pastor, we did not have a website. One of the first projects that I tackled when I arrived was building one. I completed this project in consultation with the Elders, but it was my work. Church websites invariably feature an “About Us” page that will, more often than not, contain a “Statement of Faith” (or “Doctrinal Statement,” “core values,” etc.). I elected to provide only one line for Madison Church.
We are non-denominational Christians whose only creed is Christ, and only doctrinal statement is the entire Christian Bible.
(The Elders of Madison Church reviewed and approved the page with this statement shortly before the website’s original launch in 2017)
Now, I would argue that this is* a “Statement of Faith.” While it is not nearly as long as the majority of such projects, I contend that it establishes some important, basic tenets about our Church
1. We are non-denominational
2. We are Christians
3. Jesus is the king (Christ), and that is our organizing principle (only creed)
4. We hold doctrinally to the teaching of the Christian Bible – all of it, in fact.
That is an immense amount of work for one sentence.
The issue of whether we should create and publish a longer “statement of faith” is one that the Elders at Madison Church have discussed at length over the last year. Thus far, we have opted not to create one, and I have expressed my preference in that context for us to not* post one on our website. Let me explain why by first making a very brief positive case for the ultra-brief statement I posted above, and then raising some troublesome aspects of creating/having a Church statement of faith. Following this, I’ll describe what I think is a better approach to discussing and establishing doctrinal issues as a Church.
THE POSITIVE CASE
Again, this will be brief. It seems preposterous to give a thirty-sentence rationale for a one-sentence doctrinal statement. First, the sentence I’ve posted establishes a set of facts that would safely prevent a seeking person from committing idolatry to some God other than that of the Bible by attending. While there is no dearth of issues where a seeking person may disagree with what we teach, they may reasonably and safely proceed to join us for worship, free from the fear of sinning simply by participating in what we’re doing. Second, this brief statement serves to introduce a dialogue between the seeking person and myself or other Madison Church leaders or congregants about Christ and God’s word. That is precisely the outcome I desire personally. For reasons I will demonstrate below, I think that dialogue about theological/doctrinal issues is the ideal medium for a seeker and Church to deal with the prospect of agreement/disagreement and membership. Third, it may already be too long. Paul tells the Corinthian Church, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” The simplicity of his claim to only the kingship (that is what “Christ” means) of the crucified Jesus is one I desire to emulate, but fell just short of copying due to an additional desire to feature God’s Word in what I composed.
TROUBLE WITH STATEMENTS OF FAITH
DOING VIOLENCE TO THE TEXT
I am troubled by the violence inflicted upon the Biblical text by “Statements of Faith”. I have yet to read a Church’s doctrinal statement that is as long as the Bible, which necessarily means that huge and important biblical texts both directly and adjacently related to any doctrine or issue being established by the statement have been hacked off and disregarded. I know that this is necessary for the purpose of brevity and preciseness if you want to create a traditional “statement of faith,” but I contest the need to do so.
Why would we create a product that purports to convey what the Bible teaches, which leaves out so much of what the Bible says? Especially when the student of the Bible knows the multifaceted, elaborate, and diverse teaching of God’s word on these, the weightiest of theological subjects, which are typically addressed in “statements of faith.” The student of the Bible knows, when assembling or reading these statements, that there is so much more to discuss and so much nuance missing from the locution that these human “statement of faith” authors produce. Why would it be okay to leave it like that? At what point could the author be satisfied that he or she had crafted a statement of little-enough violence to the immense depth of the Biblical text that it be worthy of publishing? There is an alternative that I will explore below, an open and responsive dialogue.
Let me illustrate the violence to the text problem on a subject frequently addressed by “statements of faith” everywhere: salvation.
What do you put in your “statement of faith” paragraph about salvation?
The most common approach I’ve seen is to deploy Ephesians 2:8 (For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God) and then go on from there to touch on other passages which fit into the arbitrarily desired length that they have in mind for the document they are composing. Some important questions and observations follow:
What do you do with repentance? I was recently sent a sermon by John MacArthur on Acts 2:38 where he gets worked up enough to pound the podium a little and nearly bark the words “there is no salvation without repentance!” yet it is left out of many church’s “statement of faith” paragraph on salvation. I agree with MacArthur on this point about what God’s word teaches (Acts 2:38, Luke 13:3,5, 2nd Peter 3:9, Acts 3:19, 2nd Corinthians 7:10). But even those loquacious enough to include repentance in their salvation paragraph surely do not have room to clarify what exactly it is or how one would do it. Nor will they have space to plumb the issue of human response to the gospel and how it relates to the grace and faith of Ephesians 2:8. Here, there is violence to shutting off so much of the Bible’s text in the construction of the paragraph
Baptism poses a similar challenge here. 1st Peter 3:21 says that “…this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also.” That seems like a pretty direct line from baptism to salvation, yet a supermajority of salvation paragraphs do not mention the sacrament of baptism, not even to explain why they did not include it. In a fascinating phenomenon, even though repentance and baptism appear in parallel in Acts 2:38, there is a much higher percentage of Evangelical Churches that will mention repentance in their salvation paragraph than baptism. Here, there is violence in shutting off so much of the Bible’s text in the construction of the paragraph
Matthew 25:31-46 is my favorite way to illustrate this problem. In the dozens of “statements of faith” that I have read in my lifetime, I have never read one that deals with Jesus’ teaching on the sheep and the goats. Jesus is unquestionably talking about salvation and judgment day (see v. 41,46). In this passage, there is one single delineating factor for HIS OWN future judgment of which he speaks: help given to the poor and needy. Jesus says that this IS A DETERMINING FACTOR. How could we not tell people that when we’re telling them what we believe the Bible says about salvation? The obvious answer is that there is not space. Because there are more passages like Matthew 25; those that require a public confession (Matthew 10:32-33, Romans 10:9), the teaching that you will not be forgiven by God if you refuse to forgive others (Matthew 5:12, 18:21-35), and the need to confess your sins to be forgiven and purified (1st John 1:19) to name a few. Deciding to create this document requires us to do violence to what the text of the Bible says about salvation for brevity’s sake.
I affirm without any hesitation the truth of what is written in Ephesians 2:8; we are saved by grace through faith – Amen, Hallelujah. Here is an important theological and hermeneutical question: Is what Ephesians 2:8 says about salvation more true or more important than what Matthew 25:31-46, 1st Peter 3:21, 1st John 1:9, and 2nd Corinthians 7:10 say about salvation? Believe it or not, there are some particularly misguided Bible readers who would unironically answer “yes” to this question – I disagree with them. The Holy Scriptures (plural) are able to make us wise for salvation (2nd Timothy 3:15) and all of them are God-breathed and useful (v. 16). Thus, I have considerable hesitation at the prospect of writing a few sentences or even a whole paragraph defining what the Bible says about Salvation in a format that does not reflect the depth of the Bible’s whole teaching, and ending it with a period.
Writing a brief paragraph on salvation and declaring this to be your doctrine of salvation or “statement of faith” requires the author to take the beautiful and richly deep teaching of God’s word and do great violence to it by leaving so much of the depth, nuance, and even important facts out of the finished product. This is one problem that I have with creating a “statement of faith”. I think it is preferable to take an approach of minimum fact – that all of Scripture is God’s word - and then enter into an open and responsive dialogue about what it says.
DETERMINING A SCOPE
Once you start listing important doctrines that the Bible teaches, where do you stop? Most Church statements of faith that I’ve encountered cover 5-12 doctrines or issues. Is that because this is the total sum of important doctrines that the Bible establishes? HARDLY! This 2,000-page book on my desk teaches a great many more than twelve important truths. Typically, a church with a “statement of faith” will have some sort of purpose for this document, so the number of doctrines established therein is determined by the number of such that they feel are sufficient for the execution or establishment of that utility. For instance, a Church may say that their statement of faith must be agreed to by all who are members of “Church A” or all who are considered for leadership positions at “Church B”, but let me point out why the “statements of faith” that they create are insufficient for that purpose.
In actuality, there is a much larger list of practices or doctrinal errors that these Churches would consider disqualifying for membership or leadership that can ever be included in their statement of faith.
I’ve never seen a Church statement of faith that addresses pedophilia. They may have a sentence in there about ‘obedience to the word’ (which is question begging!), but imagine a person who did not practice pedophilia but believed that the Bible permitted such behavior. Thus, they are not disobedient – they are just wrong. I’d bet that someone who endorses such a position would not be accepted as a member or leader at any orthodox Christian Church, yet I have never seen this issue established or clarified in a “statement of faith.” All of God’s word is sufficient for the utility you wish to accomplish, but a 12-paragraph “statement of faith” will fail to do the job in this scenario and many other similar situations.
What if you encountered a prospective member who believes that the Bible teaches that we should pray to angels? That would be a disqualification for leadership at every protestant Church that I can imagine and would be a disqualification for membership at the vast majority of them. Yet I have never seen angiology, or the proper object of prayer, addressed by any Church’s “statement of faith.”
Imagine a believer who thinks that the Bible teaches that the speaking of tongues is an element that should be present in every spirit-filled worship service and who insists on speaking tongues loudly during corporate worship and prayer. There are many who read the Bible and practice their faith this way around the world. Would this believer be accepted as a member of your Church? Would they be considered for a position of Church leadership? Probably not, yet an Infinitesimally small number of church statements of faith address the speaking of tongues in worship.
Typically a Church will include some sort of catch-all statement in their “statement of faith” which can be applied to issues like this such as “(a member/disciple) must be obedient to the teachings of God’s word” or “must be following Jesus” (which by extension they would use to require obedience to the Scriptures), so that they can have a clause by which to delineate membership/leadership suitability in cases like these. But pay close attention to what they require in doing so! They require an unspoken, unwritten, shared understanding of what it is that God’s word says on these issues, which is what their “statement of faith” was purposed to accomplish at the outset! If the answer to the question “what does the Bible teach?” includes a begged question of “what does the Bible teach?”, then what is it exactly that you have accomplished in attempting an answer?
No “statement of faith” that is short enough to be useful can accomplish the utility that most Churches intend for it. I think there is a better way to accomplish this utility than a “statement of faith,” which I will discuss below, briefly, an open and responsive dialogue between the prospective member/leader and the leadership of a Church.
THE INFERIORITY OF A HUMAN CREATION
In addition to the utility of delineating one’s eligibility for membership/leadership, Church “statements of faith” are also used as a tool of accountability for teachers and preachers within that congregation. Again, I think that there is a better alternative to a “statement of faith” for this purpose.
I find that “statements of faith” are ill-suited to this purpose because they are human creations written by people not yet fully freed from the body of death that is ours by sin, with its corrupted understandings and intentions. “Now we see only a reflection as in a mirror” (1st Corinthians 13:12), but there is a time coming when “we shall see face to face”. “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully.” Even the most erudite and faithful Bible scholar falls into this category/condition, and their words will bear the imperfections of their minds and souls. There is only one category of text that does not, and those are the words of Scripture – the words that are God breathed.
It seems very strange to me to make the role of teaching at a church accountable to the fallible creation of a few men rather than to the infallible Word of truth. I am a preacher at my Church, and I see doctrinal accountability to something like “this is what we agreed upon” as complexly unrelated to and unimportant to my ministry. I am accountable to one factor to one rule: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction” 2nd Timothy 4:2.
I am completely accountable to the elders of my Church in that role, but not to some standard that they have created, nor a list of doctrines that they have established. I am accountable to them under the standard of God’s word. If my teaching runs afoul of God’s word, does not accurately communicate what it says, or under or overemphasizes certain truths within it to the detriment or exclusion of others, it would be the elder’s job to correct me – in fact it would be completely welcome for a congregant who is not an Elder to participate in this process together with our Church elders.
Imagine that scenario has occurred – That I have preached something that is contrary to what the word of God teaches. Which would be the better approach for them in their correction, to read the three-sentence paragraph that they authored a few years ago about theology at me and accuse me of transgressing it? Or for them to present the teaching of scripture, which they believe has been transgressed, and enter into an open and responsive dialogue about what should be taught in our Church. It seems clear to me that the latter is preferable and the destination that the conversation would inevitably arrive at, regardless of what the “statement of faith” on our website says. Again, there is a better alternative to a “statement of faith” for the purpose that we intend it for, so why are we writing it?
INCONGRUITY WITH A THEOLOGICAL HUMILITY
I believe that the primary reason that Churches publish a “statement of faith” is often unspoken. It is essentially ‘to show that our Church is better than the other Churches in town.’ The statement of faith is published on the church website so that a prospective visitor can say ‘this Church is better at understanding God’s word than the other ones I looked at.’ Here are some concerns I have for using “statements of faith” that way.
First, while right doctrine is an important factor to consider in choosing a Church, it is not the only factor to consider. Here are four others (there are probably more) that I would consider much more important than many issues of doctrinal disagreement
Does the Church treat people well? 1st Corinthians 13:2 says, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” I also think all of Matthew 23 and James 2:19 need to be considered here.
Do the people of this Church display the fruits of the Spirit? (Galatians 5:22-23)
Is the Church interested in fulfilling the great commission? (Matthew 28:19-20)
Is the Church “devoted to the Apostles’ Teaching” (Acts 2:42) in worship? Another way you could ask this question is, “Are they preaching the Word, or is it more of a self-help session?”
I think these are much more important factors in choosing a Church than issues like: the importance/role of baptism in conversion, a historical Adam and Eve, an identical eschatological understanding to my own, just to name a few that are regularly addressed in “statements of faith’. None of these factors can be evaluated by reading a statement of faith! Thus the seeker who is “statement of faith” shopping makes a decision based on much less important criteria than that which would be available to them if they visited that church and entered into an open and responsive dialogue with that Church’s leadership and met their congregation.
Second, do you expect the pastor and teachers that you hear at that Church to be accountable to the Word or to the statement of faith you found on their website? If you selected that Church because* of the schnazzy doctrinal paragraphs on their website, you may find yourself leaning towards the latter at the expense of the former.
The third is one I am passionate about, so please excuse my lack of brevity. Our perspective on or evaluation of our own ability to rightly understand God’s word should be marked by humility. Here we are - sinful, imperfect people, again, only seeing “in a reflection as in a mirror” (1st Corinthians 13:12), trying to systematize and summarize the infallible and eternal glorious Word of God. We – could – be – wrong. I think that strutting our confidence that we are right, while implying that our other Jesus-loving, Gospel-believing brothers and sisters are wrong, as the primary factor in recruiting prospective Church members, is a violation of the principle of humility that we need to have as readers of God’s word.
We certainly can and should take steps to increase our understanding of God's word, but we must always be aware of the difference between the holiness of God’s Word and the imperfection of what our mind thinks about it. What would a Church doctrinal statement look like if it featured this kind of humility? Theological propositions and assertions could still be made, but would typically end with a question like: “Is that the way you see it?” This kind of humility fits better into an open and responsive dialogue than an eight-paragraph “statement of faith.”
Consider this example: I disagree with the most prolific theologian in the two-millennia history of the Church, Augustine of Hippo, about the doctrine of original sin. So does nearly every reformed theologian, whether they know it or not (just Google the difference between natural and federal headship). I disagree with him because my best-faith reading of scripture leads me to understand that babies do not inherit the guilt of sin from Adam or their parents. However, I recognize that this reading of scripture puts me in an extremely small minority theologically (We’re talking single digits) within the Christian faith over the last 1,500 years of the Church. And what am I to Augustine?? – Surely just an ant or a flea when it comes to teaching Scripture.
I’m not going to change my position on this issue simply because Augustine and almost everybody else disagree with me. Not even when the good friend I made at seminary my first year never spoke to me again after I told him about my position on original sin (true story). When I read the Bible, this is the conclusion I come to. Is it also wise/prudent/moral for me to obstinately declare that >90% of believers over the last ~1,500 years of Christ’s Church are wrong about this issue? I don’t think so. It would be more wise/prudent/moral for me to note that I don’t see this issue in scripture the same way they do, and attempt to enter an open and responsive dialogue about what the scripture says about the issue, where possible. This is what I mean practically by approaching theology with humility, and I struggle to see how this important characteristic could be featured in a “statement of faith” purposed to the ends for which they are normally provided.
My best-faith reading of scripture does not produce the same conclusions and theological constructions of my brothers and sisters in the Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, and, to a lesser degree, generally evangelical churches like New Beginnings and Kent Chapel (those are all the Churches in my little town of Brooklyn, Iowa). But I’m not interested in compiling and distributing a list of all the reasons that I think they’re wrong (which is usually the subtext of at least some percentage of the “statements of faith” that churches produce – as I’ll show in the “case study” below). I am interested in having an open and responsive dialogue with them about why they understand scripture the way they do, and hope to be able to share why I see it the way that I do.
In the meantime, I do not* see them as my competitors for prospective Church members. I would resist an effort to checkmate them with an extremely well-written statement of faith, so that we get all the Church visitors/members instead of them. No, they are my partners in the great commission shared by all of Jesus’ disciples. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ, all of us partaking in the one body of Christ together through the sacrament of communion by whichever name it is called. That is true for the believers who don’t agree with me on the doctrine of original sin, even about marriage, baptism, purgatory, and praying to saints. I will serve by their side in the name of Christ without hesitation, I would attend worship with them, and I would serve communion to and receive communion from them without hesitation (I already do each month at the nursing home where a huge range of theological perspectives are represented each time we worship together).
I LOVE Pastor Yumba and Pastor Lisa, and Dorothy and Pastor Gerard, and I honestly don’t know the Catholic priest’s name, but I love him too! I want every seat in their Churches to be full on Sunday. There are WAY more people in Brooklyn than there are seats in all of our Churches combined, and for the sake of the glory of Christ, I wish that we’d collectively run out of room. I should not be spending my time and attention in ministry squabbling over which believers end up at my church and which end up somewhere else. I will instead busy myself with making disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey everything Jesus has commanded (Matthew 28:19-20) while I pray for the success of the other churches in my town who are doing the same in the name of Jesus.
SCRIPTURAL SILENCE
Finally, I can’t think of anywhere in scripture where it is suggested that a church undertake an endeavor anything like writing a “statement of faith.” As in:
“Please taketh thou thy word and maketh a shorter version with the parts that thou think especially important and set you most clearly apart from the other Churches that bear my name which you do not like.”
- The Gospel of Church Division 3:27
This seems to me like a very big problem for anyone who would tell a church that they need or should have a statement of faith. It would be equally valid – biblically - to tell a church that they need to wear yellow hats; there’s nothing about that in there either.
Would it be right, for example, to make the production of a statement of faith that acceptably reflects your understanding of the Bible, a condition of one’s participation in a Church, when nowhere in the Bible is that Church directed to undertake anything like the production of a statement of faith at all? The one who does so would, by implication, need to presume to know better than God himself what the Church should be at work doing. Unless, of course, He just forgot to tell us; nobody is perfect.
An Open and Responsive Dialogue
I’m done laying out my main objections to writing and publishing a Church “statement of faith. While doing so, I explained why that format is not the best option for achieving the utility for which they are intended, but this results in the question: What does? How might we set the bounds for Church membership and the qualifications for Church leadership? How might we hold teachers accountable for presenting God’s word truthfully? How might a prospective member know whether they are comfortable attending a certain Church?
I think all these needs are better met by an open and responsive dialogue with a Church than by a “statement of faith.” In dialogue, you can have a two-way conversation about God’s word, you’ll get a better sense of the character of the person/people that you’re speaking to, and both they and you will ideally get a chance to explain why you understand the Bible the way that you do. This format allows both parties greater insight into the matters that are most important, as its responsiveness allows for follow-up questions and clarifications that could not be achieved by any other means. Whereas “statements of faith” become instruments for division, disagreement, and outcasting, I believe that an open and responsive dialogue is much better suited for mutual understanding, for gracious exchange, and even for the healthy challenging of one’s own presuppositions. This format has greater utility in every situation I can conceive of for the purpose of unity and cooperation.
I’d want to clarify that this does not mean that there are no rules to the dialogue, but that there is one rule to the dialogue: the Word of God. It is not as though anything we come to a mutual understanding on during our conversation is duly established. Or that either party in the dialogue is necessarily right or justified in the belief that they are expressing. God’s word - all of it – is the rule. The dialogue takes place between* two imperfect and corrupted parties who “see only a reflection as in a mirror” (1st Corinthians 13:12), but the dialogue is about* words that are God breathed. Participants will need to understand both of those dynamics: First, that God’s Word is true, and second, that both they and their conversation partner are imperfect at understanding and expressing it. It could be that one party in this dialogue is correct and the other is incorrect, but that will not be established by appealing to an especially well-crafted statement of faith but to the Word of God. Furthermore, according to that perfect Word, this determination and subsequent attempt at correction must be made in love and gentleness, and in the spirit of unity which Jesus prayed for in John 17. Can a statement of faith bear those qualities? No. Can an open and responsive dialogue do so? Yes.
There is one advantage that a “statement of faith” has over my alternative – speed. Is there any virtue that we have come to value more than hurry? Are there many fears that frighten people in our society more than wasting their time? Reading a statement of faith page on a Church website takes under 10 minutes. On the other hand, visiting a church to learn about what they believe and engaging their members and leadership in an open and responsive dialogue could take months - is it worth it? I think so. We were made to do/be Church together with other people (Ephesians 4:16). Some of the last words we have of Jesus were a plea in the Garden of Gethsemane for the unity of all who believe in him (John 17). Even if the prospective family finds, at the end of months, through an open and responsive dialogue, that this is not the place they wish to worship, what harm have we done the prospective member? Will they count it a loss to have had meaningful conversations about what God’s word says? Will they be burdened by having met dozens or hundreds of fellow believers who have put their faith in Jesus? Is spending time with a group of believers in a prospective Church to learn what they believe and having an opportunity to build each other up not worth it?
Consider this approach as it relates to preaching. As I was criticizing brief “statements of faith” for not being able to comprehensively convey the whole meaning of scripture, I could imagine a reader wondering how I might be able to wrap up a sermon in 25 minutes and not fail the same standard. Sermons don’t typically end with periods like “statements of faith” do. They end with invitations – an invitation to transformation, to further and greater following of Jesus, to repentance and growth according to God’s word. They are a launching point into a dialogue where we can build each other up until we all reach unity in the faith. (Ephesians 4:13). No preacher (exempting the Pope’s Ex Cathedra pronouncements for now) is delivering final verdicts on the matter they address when they do anything but read from the Good Book. Sermons are properly understood as an opening salvo to a greater examination of the scriptures. What does God’s word say about people speaking in such a role? “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1st John 4:1). Or consider the example that scripture gives us of how to hear a teacher well: “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). When I preach at Madison Church, I intend to enter a dialogue with the other disciples of Jesus in that room about the text in question towards becoming mature and more obedient in our faith. I don’t want anyone to take my word for it unless I’m reading from the Bible. Sermons should be understood as a part of the dialogue of the Church.
CONCLUSION
The “statement of faith” you’ll find on our website is one sentence long and does not bear such a pretentious title. That’s on purpose. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this issue over the last 6 months, and you now know why I am generally against writing and publishing a Church “statement of faith.” I believe that the Spirit of God already did that for me, and I have a hard time understanding why someone would consider my, or anyone else’s, very brief summary of it a statement of their faith.
I understand why many (most) Churches compose something like this and think it important. I disagree with their conclusions on the issue the same way I might disagree with someone who thinks that the 2001 Miami Hurricanes were the best team in the history of college football - because that title properly belongs to the 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers. I recognize that it is a matter of opinion, and a relatively small one at that (despite the length of this article). If a majority of the elders at my Church thought that we should have one, I would help them write it and try to make it as open-ish, dialogue-ish, and humble as possible. I would not hesitate to serve at a Church that has one, though I would be more interested in talking to a leadership team that has chosen not to.
You may disagree with me about this. If that is the case, I would love nothing more than to have an open and responsive dialogue with you about why. But feel free to amend the “statement of faith” on your website to include a brief paragraph about why I’m wrong if you feel that you must.
CASE STUDY:
Here is an excerpt from a Church “statement of faith” that I think is really well done. It is prepared by a team that is led by a pastor for whom I have an immense amount of respect. They list 9 paragraphs (averaging 3 sentences each): God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, baptism, communion, eternity, sin, scripture, and salvation. While it is well written, it bears many important flaws, as I’ll show by examining just a small portion of this statement. I’ll provide the baptism and salvation paragraphs below:
Baptism is the symbol of one’s new birth into the new creation. It depicts our entrance into Christian community that is ruled by the story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. With a new identity, we are symbolizing dying to ourselves (Romans 6:3-4) in allowing the Spirit to transform us into the unified community of those who belong to God (Matthew 28:18-20). We affirm the pattern in Scripture to be a believer's baptism by immersion (Acts 2:38-41).
Salvation can be found in Christ alone and is offered to all by grace through faith. Our saving faith is displayed by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, confessing we are sinners separated from righteousness, repenting of our sin by turning away from parts of our lives that don’t line up with Scripture, being baptized by immersion into Jesus, and living out of our new obedient heart we’ve been given. (Rom 3:23; 5:12, Acts 2:38, Gal 3:26-29; Eph 2:4-10)
That sounds pretty good, right? But did you catch the following in the baptism paragraph?
They call baptism “the symbol,” which is something the Bible calls it… never, in any way. They then repeat this error a few sentences later when they write that in baptism, “we are symbolizing dying to ourselves,” followed by a parenthetical reference to Romans 6:3-4 as if that is what those verses said. Nowhere in Romans 6 is baptism called a symbol or that it symbolizes anything, nor does Romans 6 say that we “[die] to ourselves” but that we have died to sin (v.1) and that our “old self was crucified with sim so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with” which seems to carry a different weight.
“Into the new creation” is language stolen from 2nd Corinthians 5 or Galatians 6. Neither of these passages are about Baptism or even contain the word.
“[Baptism] depicts our entrance into the Christian community” is another claim that scripture does not say about baptism anywhere. It is likely a conclusion drawn from the account of Pentecost in Acts 2 or Cornelius in Acts 10, but these words are not provided there nor in any other Bible passage about baptism. Especially troublesome is the use of the verb “depict,” as it is not ever used in scripture to describe what is happening at baptism.
To review – the first sentence in the baptism paragraph says that “baptism is the symbol” (not what the Bible says about it) “of one’s new birth” (oh, good, maybe we’re going to talk about John 3:5) “into the new creation” (scrap that – that’s not what John 3 says, or what any other Bible passage says about baptism). These are the first words that someone will read about baptism in this “statement of faith.”
How about the salvation paragraph? Here, let’s focus on what is left out
Jesus says in Matthew 25 that the sheep and the goats will be separated based on their having (or not having) served the poor and helpless. Yet there is not even a catch-all open-ended clause about service, which would allow that passage to fit into this paragraph.
They include confession in the paragraph, but oddly not the kind of confession that the Bible ties directly to salvation. Romans 10:9 says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (ESV), but the confession that this church includes in its salvation paragraph is a confession of sin. This is a regular misunderstanding of that verse based on the use of the English word “confess” to translate the Greek word “homolegeo.” This misunderstanding is so rampant (meaning that modern, English-speaking people just assume that “confess” has to do with the confession of sin, when that has nothing to do with what is being communicated in Romans 10:9) that the NIV 2011 used the word “declare” to clear up the confusion. But here, the error is made right in their salvation paragraph, which leads to them leaving out something really important about salvation that Scripture communicates very clearly - you need to declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord! (See also Matthew 10:32-33)
Jesus connects our being forgiven of sins to our willingness to forgive others (Matthew 5:12, 18:21-35). Did you read anything about that in their salvation paragraph?
Imagine the person who is unwilling to serve the needy, has never confessed that Jesus is lord with their mouth, and refuses to forgive others. Are they a candidate for membership or leadership at this Church? Would this church affirm that this person is saved?
I consider the person who wrote this “statement of faith” a good friend. So I called him to have an open and responsive dialoge about what he and his Church had written and produced. One of my first questions to him was why they had used the word symbol (really made it a central cog) in their baptism paragraph when the Bible never describes baptism that way. His response to me began with these words: ‘well, there are baptismal regenerationalists out there…’ and proceeded to describe how their paragraph on baptism was constructed to avoid any possible association with that theological position. Baptismal regenerationalism is a theological position with many prior questions like - what do you mean by “regeneration” and when we talk about “baptism” are we talking about only the dunking in water or the normative Biblical process of baptism that includes repentance (Acts 2:38) and an allegiant pledge (1st Peter 3:21). Depending on how these questions are answered I may myself be labeled a “baptismal regenerationalist.” However, the ensuing conversation with my friend clarified that they wished to demarcate themselves from an “ex opere operato” understanding of baptism where the physical act of dunking in water in the name of Jesus (or typically the Trinity) - irrespective of corresponding will or a state of repentance for the baptismal candidate - accomplishes the state of salvation for the recipient (this is Roman Catholic dogma, and it is shared by a very small number of protestants).
This Church wanted to be sure that they were not associated with such a theological position, and their desire to distance themselves from fellow Christians with whom they disagreed played a large factor in the way that they constructed their paragraph on baptism. Here, the true purpose of this “statement of faith,” and likely all the others written and published, is revealed. It is not to succinctly summarize or encapsulate the message of the Bible. They are created to show people how much more right we are than other Churches/Christians who we think are wrong. They are far less a statement of faith than they are a statement of disagreement. To distance themselves from an understanding of baptism (which I agree is incorrect), they ended up saying things about baptism (in just four sentences) that God’s word does not. And this paragraph starts with the words “Baptism is…” Should we be doing that? If we are willing to say things that the Bible does not about what we’re explaining so that we can distinguish what we believe about it from the beliefs of others, shouldn’t that be made transparent in the statement? Does the reader know that is what we are doing when we say something like, “Baptism is…”
This is not unique - I can do this to every statement of faith ever written. Since the divine dispensation of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles who wrote the scriptures, no Church has ever written a statement of faith that completely or entirely accurately conveys the whole teaching of scripture. Even those that, in an attempt not to import any of their own fallible wording, simply list Bible verses for the theological categories that they wish to illuminate, are guaranteed to have left out immensely important bible passages related to the theological issue that those passages are listed under. If they are, by necessity, so flawed, why are we writing them? Why are they taking up bytes on our domains? In fact, this is my offer to you as compensation for reading all the way to the bottom of this article; email me a link to your “statement of faith” (Joel T Nielsen at (f+1)mail dot com) and I will personally subject it to the righteous decimation which it deserves – in love - as a sign of my gratitude for your patient reading.