Statement of Faith
There has been some recent discussion on other blogs (Brett and Ochuck) regarding statement's of faith. This has apparently come out of some current debate in the Church about the need for such statements and, presumably, their effect on reaching the unchurched.
I'll be honest. I haven't read up much on this topic. It has struck a chord with me, though, because I went to a church that seemed to have this "ideal" of no statement of faith (they do have a "Things of Importance" section on their website). This seemed quite enjoyable at first. Everything was very community oriented. I appreciated the people.
That was fine until the pastor declared, "the bible is not the word of God." He opened it up to questions later and I asked him about that statement. He told me that Jesus was the Word of God, not the bible, and our reason for believing the bible is that "it's our story."
First off, he was wrong about the bible (here's an example of Jesus calling Scripture the word of God). I got curious about the other beliefs of the church, so I emailed him a list of questions. He responded by telling me that the church "has no official stance" on any of my questions. One of those questions was "how is one saved?" Through a series of emails, my questions were avoided and no answer was given. To be honest, the responses came across as arrogant to me. Eventually, he told me essentially that he agreed with me on salvation (the question it eventually boiled down to), but was hurt that I "accused" him of not believing that it came through faith in Christ. Since he hadn't told me he believed it did, I had no reason to believe that was his stance.
I use a specific example not to say that others are like this, but that it is vital to know what we believe as Christians, and to be able to have unifying statements based on Scripture (superfluous beliefs aside - statements of faith are foundational, not based on disputable matters). One cannot build without a foundation to stand on. Without it, discussion even amongst believers becomes futile and painful.
My question becomes, then, to those who believe that there shouldn't be a statement of faith (or something similar): on what ground should a group of believers stand? The ground of Christ, yes, but we see today with the popularity of things such as the Gospel of Judas that standing on Christ means more than just an ambiguous declaration of belief. Christ has come to mean whatever anyone wants him to mean.
Scripture tells us:
...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have... 1 Peter 3:15And at another point it says
I think this speaks to a bigger issue of life, which is that people need definition. They need to know who they are, where they belong, and what the heck they're doing in life. Without that, people have no direction. This is not to say one should blindly follow some code they don't know about. But think of all those movies where you see the hero being trained for battle by his instructor. There are rules to follow - a code - a set of beliefs. They may not be written, but they sure are clear.Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16
This principle can be plainly seen in the military. The Marine Corps still remains one of the least softened forces in the military. They don't have a huge problem with recruitment either. People join the Corps because they crave definition, rules, and the like. There is also, within this, a strong sense of community and belonging since everyone knows their purpose.
The same should go for the Church. Are we not part of God's Army? Sure, the Church is not be the military. It is a relationship with God, I agree. But without a set of codes - a clear goal - a set of principles - a battle cry - a foundation to stand on - a community of a singular purpose... out of what are we to act? How are we to know even what we believe is true? On faith? Yes, but faith is pointless if it isn't clear.
I have been somewhat disenfranchised from church recently not because of too many statements of faith, but with the idea that doctrine has little value, that the bible's words can mean different things, and that Christianity is a religion of feelings. I just don't believe that that is the Bride that Christ desires.
P.S. As a disclaimer, none of this was in direct response to anything on any other blog or directed towards anyone in particular. Just merely a ranting of my own thoughts...
posted by Chris Hill @ 5/17/2006 06:53:00 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Chris,
I appreciate this because I have had similar issues with this lately as well. It is truly mind-boggling to me. So, we all get together and feel happy but refuse to define any of what we believe in? Why gather? What is the purpose? Is it merely emotional balm? Can the wounds of existence really be healed in any meaningful way by getting together and "feeling"? That seems more like a drug addict's solution: a temporary hit of mind-altering chemical. Quick, pass the heroine...it will be awful when it wears off, but it will help for a moment. Quick, pass the doctrine-less church (do they even use the Bible?) so I can feel accepted. I might be misunderstanding things, but a lack of any core beliefs seems to invariably come to this result.
At a church that has no statement of faith is Jesus the son of God? Is He a savior of any kind? Is the Islamic God the true God? Why not, since we refuse to define anything. I understand the impulse away from needlessly complicated statements of faith. But if there is not a core set of few beliefs that we can come to as a body then, no offense, but I don't want to be part of your ambiguous body (with 'your' being no one specifically). If you (again, general) can't say with certainty that Jesus Christ is the son of God and our eternal Lord and Savior, then are you Christ's? Luke 12:8 should make people pause and reconsider (8 "I tell you, everyone who confesses me before men, him will the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God;
9 but he who denies me in the presence of men will be denied in the presence of the angels of God.).
Now I'm just ranting, but I can do that since it's not my blog...right?
Jordan,
I think you're allowed to rant more on other people's blogs. I've used yours as my ranting post; now you can use mine. What a beautiful design!
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them and agree wholeheartedly.
-Chris
Chris (and Jordan), I appreciate this post. I think that there is a lot of wisdom here.
However, as you may know, I am not an advocate of a certain type of rigid faith statement which attempts to make beliefs universal and timeless even though they are bound by a certain way of speaking and thinking--usually what we call a statement of faith.
Take my wife for instance, if I believe in a certain set of statements about her that doesn't mean that I really know her or even relate to her--it doesn't even mean that I am not misunderstanding her or that my understanding of her will remain the same. In fact, others who know my wife well may even disagree with how I characterize her or how I say is the best way to know and understand her.
Maybe Laura is much different than we thought, or the way we characterize her may need changing. Knowing Laura, then, would be an ongoing conversation to be had by all--no doubt including statements about who we perceive her to be and how we perceive to know her—statements held loosely and open for dialogue.
Holding our conclusions of our relationship with Laura loosely is a scary proposition for those of us who really want her love—there are no statements then that guarantee us to be in right relation with her. Any statement, rather, merely serves in our exploration, dialogue and relational process…and so I think it is with God.
sorry for posting in the comments...
FYI, just found this:
http://emergent-us.typepad.com/
Going partway down the page, Jenell Williams Paris gives a brief description of a class she is teaching entitled "Homosexuality and emergent churches." Her description seems very close to saying she is about to teach homosexuality should not be said to be wrong by the church (although she'd probably say she's just "creating discussion"... anothing topic to write about at another time).
Anyway, the point of interest is that she went to the same church I did where the pastor said the bible isn't the word of God.
Brett,
Post all your want. We're open for dialogue here too.
I think your argument would fall apart pretty quickly if your wife asked you if she was beautiful (I could think of other examples but let's stick with this). You could say that that is a particular wording that may not be valid at a different time. "Beautiful" could mean something very different 100 years from now. Yet, your wife would be crushed, and think that you don't really love her.
The issue that is more foundation here, I believe, is the value of language. God created the world with his WORDS. Jesus is called the WORD of God (previous comments aside). We are made in God's image, thus I believe our WORDS to have power - lots of power. If we can control our tongue, James says, we are "perfect". So the use of language is vital. To say that words mean different things and can't be understood is to say that we can say nothing. How do you even know that how you read my last statement is what I mean? How do you know anything, for that matter? You don't. Thus, you can't even know that God exists, and you can't have faith in Him.
We look back on Scripture and try to understand the words IN CONTEXT. Thus, we must also be wise in our words today, knowing that those who are to read these words must also seek to understand them in context.
If the writers of Scripture were concerned about the meaning of words in the way that some people are today, Scripture would have never been written.
Chris, I don’t have to wait 100 years for the word ‘beautiful’ to take on very different meanings. In fact, within the same conversation, Laura’s asking if she is beautiful and my saying yes or no could be operating on completely different concepts and implications of the word beautiful. You associated the concept of love with beauty. Fair enough, but not necessarily what everyone else thinks or does at all times.
Presumably the more we talk about things the more our thoughts, language, and ideas converge or are at least identifiable. They have a particular meaning to those of us holding a particular conversation.
I have no doubt that words are powerful and hold substantial meaning. But I also believe that words simply characterize that which is actual—they put a recognizable face to thoughts and concepts and realities. Words are images…they are abstractions, but of course we use them to mean very specific things.
Brett,
Thanks for your input.
But even if we acknowledge a desire to avoid statements that are overly rigid (like "we believe everyone should wear formal clothing to church because we believe that to be a necessary component to honoring God") can't we have statements that at least provide bounds? Couldn't any Christian organization say "we believe God is good"? If God is not good I have no desire to serve him. Isn't that general enough? Is it possible to avoid unnecessarily rigid statements of faith (like my first example about clothing) by using general bounding statements (like my second example) without completely following the path of anarchy and purpose by removing statements of faith altogether? I think there is a reasonable position in between those extremes.
Kind of like what Chris is saying, avoiding statements of faith is a perfect example of the non-commital path so common in our passive-aggressive culture. Unfortunately, ambiguity is often a tool of Satan (though, without statements of faith perhaps a large part of a church wouldn't acknowledge his existence). It provides a wonderful opportunity for demonic forces to use willing or unwilling agents to cause division and mayhem. A malicious pastor could easily slip poison to such a willing body that is devoid of common, constitutional beliefs. I think that danger of exploitation is being overlooked. And I believe Satan has and will use it. Hopefully I'm mistaken. Because if I'm right, some people will be led astray and damned eternally because of this movement....
You guys are fast! I really should go to bed… ;)
Yes, Jordan! I think that I agree wholeheartedly. Those statements are important. We can call them statements of faith if you like. I like to call them ‘weigh stations’ in our ongoing conversation about God. They are points of departure for our faith communities.
However, the statement “God is good” is rather vague and in need of clarification—in need of dialogue. Our concepts of ‘good’ are vast and varied especially when attached to our concepts of God.
I think that there are more stories in the bible than there are statements of belief because the authors could never satisfy themselves with a particular statement. One could read the stories that make up Exodus and say God is good because such and such; God’s goodness, rather, is like such and such; and on and on. The responding answer of the author may be a resounding, Yes!
So…I am all for making statements like these as long as they don’t limit or cease our ability to explore the depth and richness of a very dynamic, intense and relational being. Often, statements of faith are just conclusions about that which is inconclusive. They are too frequently used as epitaphs on inquiry rather than catalysts for a dynamic knowing.
Brett,
I appreciate your insight and respect your views. I know your character is good and have no doubt that you follow God. I just wanted that to be clear cause I don't want you to think I'm attacking you at all.
1. Anyway, I'm curious what you would say to overt statements about God in the New Testament. Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. didn't seem to stray away from making explicit, clear statements about God in their letters. Peter even calls Paul's letters "Scripture," and notes that people try to distort these words (thus Paul's words didn't have a universal meaning, but did have a meaning in context, which people tried to distort):
2 Peter 3:16
He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Also, I'm curious to know your thoughts on 1 Timothy 4:16, which tells us to watch our doctrine (and lives) closely.
2. In response to something you said:
"I have no doubt that words are powerful and hold substantial meaning. But I also believe that words simply characterize that which is actual—they put a recognizable face to thoughts and concepts and realities. Words are images…they are abstractions, but of course we use them to mean very specific things."
I agree with this and think it conflicts with your other statements. If this is true, why can we not use these words to mean the specific things that we are trying to say. Certainly we should be clear. That's why many statements of faith can become very long. But I believe that if someone misunderstands what we're saying, when all attempts for clarity are made, seeking clarity is to be initiated by the receiver, not the sayer. This can create dialogue, which is good. But without clear statements (i.e., salvation comes through faith in Christ alone), there can be no discussion, since no one knows what they're discussing anyway.
Thank you, Chris. I believe that we have mutual respect for one another. This is REALLY LONG but I tried to be fair to your questions...
In Response to #1: We might share the same views on these things as far as 1) the importance of right doctrine and 2) the importance of ‘scriptures’ and 3) the necessity of watching our doctrine closely. Though we may disagree as to the nature of scripture and the details of right doctrine, we both still value those things. In regards to this conversation on statements of faith, we may only disagree in the methods of watching our doctrine.
In Response to #2: As you pointed out, we both agree that it is necessary to use words to make specific statements about God that mean particular things. We may only disagree about how one should use those statements. We all make statements about our faith, but the very specific genre/tradition of statements of faith largely developed/used by protestant and evangelical churches is what I am against. I recognize that these statements are useful (to some degree) for controlling the thoughts of those that worship in a corporate setting—especially when you can not take the time to know or trust the other people. The pastoral staff (and other church goers) can then rest assured that everyone believes the same stuff.
I don’t like this method. I would prefer to use statements about faith to engage in meaningful dialogue with those I worship among—like you Chris. I would never want the basis of our gathering together to be because we agree upon certain statements. While we are bound to find areas of agreement we gather together because we love and trust one another. It is just as you said to me: “I appreciate your insight and respect your views. I know your character is good and have no doubt that you follow God.”
Now if we had to agree upon your statement, “salvation comes through faith in Christ alone,” in order to worship together then we probably could not worship together—and that would be a shame. Because, although I believe that ‘salvation’ comes through Christ I don’t believe that it comes through faith in Christ alone. That, perhaps, is a discussion for another day, but I will suffice to say that many in scripture are presumed to be ‘saved’ who never even perceived of the concept of Christ.
That is tangential. I will conclude my answers simply by saying that I agree that statements about faith are important and that ‘statements of faith’ have a particular (controlling) use within a worship setting. However, those uses of statements of faith will nearly always exclude someone like me who is continuously reformulating the way in which I perceive of my relationship with God—much in the same way I do with my wife.
I will point out though, Chris, that you do not exclude me. It is, rather, an ongoing dialogue set in the safe environment of love and trust that allows us to gather together in worship—granted, there are things we agree on but we do not know exactly what those are or for how long we will agree; those statement which we may agree upon are a part of our continuing dialogue and becoming as persons in relationship with God and one another.
I should clarify that I think making statements about faith known is a good thing, but only for the sake of accountability and continued clarification--not for the sake of saying 'this is the way that it is' period.
Brett,
I understand what you're saying and we can leave the debate for another time. However, I think that if we had that debate, we might still agree with the statement that "salvation comes through faith in Christ alone" (Jesus himself said NO ONE comes to God w/o him), although we may apply it differently. For instance, we may say that those before Christ were saved through faith in a promised savior (again, debate for another time), but we still come back to the core principle. Thus, the statement provides a basis for which we can have a discussion. We have a foundation to work upon. Without the statement, there is no foundation on which to build.
I agree that a community of worship is based on relationships - without that there is no point. I can relate to the story you gave of just needing to sign something saying you agreed w/ x,y,z and then you're in. That's foolish and unbiblical because it has no bearing on character. But unless those relationships ALSO have key foundational agreements, there is no point in worshiping. I would refuse to belong to a community of worship with people who declared that there are many ways to God, and that Jesus was just a good teacher (unless perhaps I desired to share the Gospel w/ them, in which case my purpose is not worship but spreading God's Word).
Thus, foundational statements of faith become vital to the community of believers. Without these common beliefs, the Church becomes ineffective. I do not know, but I was wondering today how many have come to know Christ w/o being told why they should.
Post a Comment
<< Home