Theology is Credal

As I work on sections and drafts of the essay mentioned below (Where does Authority of Indie Theology Lie) I find myself constantly revisiting what I’m calling, the creedal nature of theology – and the disjunction that exists between the “official” or “public” confessed theology of a community (any community not just Indie groups) and that theology and belief to which its members privately ascribe.

Let me offer two examples, in other traditions, representative of what I’m describing here. Anglicans “officially” adhere to the 39 Articles, a document written in 16th century intended to represent – among other things – the distinctiveness of the Church of England. How many members of the Anglican Communion (in the US and Europe) adhere to the official belief in predestination? I used to work in an Anglican seminary – not one of the laity, professors, seminarians, or clergy I met subscribed to the doctrine of predestination.

Official Roman Catholic teaching holds that everyone enjoys intellectual freedom, as long as it is sanctioned by the church. This particular teaching is of important historical value to us OC/IC folk because it is in part the cause for our coming into existence. How many Roman Catholics in the pews today are aware of this teaching laid out in such Encyclicals as Miriari Vos and the Syllabus of Errors? What is more, how many, in our contemporary information driven society freely subscribe to this teaching, that the church reserves the right to bound their enquiry into a subject?

My point here is not to criticise other sacramental traditions, rather it is to demonstrate the open disjunction between official doctrine and private belief that exists across the spectrum of sacramental traditions. I think its worth adding that this is not a uniquely modern happening – indeed I suspect it is one that can be traced back to the late antique period and beyond via the devotional activity of individuals and communities within the church. One example that pops to mind is recorded in the writings of Epiphanius of Salamis, who writing in 375 is horrified at one of the expressions of Marian devotion in his day – devotion which conflicted with “official” teaching of the time (though it would be overturned within 100 years – which in itself is cause for reflection).

Our OC/IC tradition, to its credit, though admittedly not always expressed in its best interests, has openly struggled with this reality for at least the past three decades; as is expressed by the ways various Indie communities approach creedal statements.

Some have rejected the use of creedal formulas; others use the “traditional” formulas, such as that of Nicea/Constantinople but leave its interpretation up to the individual; still others have crafted statements of their own – reflecting the theology and outlook of that community – often including within the text a license for self reflection or interpretation. What does this say about theology within our communities?

Some outside our community criticise our prevailing creedal flexibility as representative of our lack of responsibility, and accountability. I think that, while it is certainly true in some cases, the reality, for most of our communities, is more complex, and therefore more interesting.

What is inescapable however, for me, is the fact that doing theology results in a body (informal or formally arranged) of ideas and images that convey a belief system – a creedal formula. When Martha meets Jesus just before he raises Lazarus she confesses to him: “I have come to believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, the one who is coming into the world.” Likewise: When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” We might wonder why Jesus asked the question? In hindsight, it is not unreasonable to say that he was encouraging us to do theology – to explore and reflect upon the nature, person, and activity of Christ; to better understand the reasons for our saying “yes” and to better appropriate that affirmation. When Martha, Peter, you and I “confess” that Jesus is Lord we have done so after considering the meaning and value of the assertion – we have “done the theology” and the result is naturally creedal.