“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)
Some people don’t like doctrinal statements, viewing them as a tool of oppression and exclusion. They would much rather be “non-confessional” (meaning: doctrinal agreement is optional, as long as people play nice).
Unfortunately, non-confessional movements usually end up looking like the picture at the top of this post.
What makes a doctrinal statement useful is its objectivity. It serves as an impartial standard, a measuring stick by which all parties can evaluate their own doctrinal health.
Throughout church history, statements like the Apostles’ Creed, and the Nicene Creed (among others), have served in similar ways, providing a much-needed litmus test so that movements could obey the Scriptural admonition to safeguard the church from doctrinal “alternative facts” (aka heresy).
For example, St. Paul’s warnings and instructions:
- “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30)
- “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer.” (1 Timothy 1:3)
- “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3)
A “Statement of Faith” is vital for straining out doctrinal error, and the New Testament is replete with admonitions to be on guard against false teachings. St. Paul was not the only one to sound the alarm. Similar warnings were voiced by St. John (1 John 4:1), St. Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3), and also Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:10-11).
When a movement eschews a statement of faith, preferring instead to be non-confessional, they create an ethos where no teaching can be objectively evaluated, and where “alternative (doctrinal) facts” cannot be challenged.
However, something far more insidious results from a non-confessional approach, which inspired my choice of picture at the top of this post:
A non-confessional movement will always be controlled by the biggest bullies. It is inherently power-based and political in nature.
Without the objective standard of a Statement of Faith, the direction of a movement will rest in the hands of those with the most political power. Appeals to Scripture or the history of Christian orthodoxy will fall on deaf ears. “Alternative (doctrinal) facts” can now flourish freely.
Anyone holding to a confessional approach can then be effectively ridiculed and silenced, usually by caricatures, shout-downs, and zinger-ology (I’ve written about these tactics before). Doctrinal questions and debates are settled by whomever can generate the loudest echo chamber, bolstered by the largest number of “likes” and retweets.
No, thanks. I’ll take the (confessional) antidote St. Paul gave to Timothy:
“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” (2 Timothy 4:1-2)