Six months ago I turned in and defended my personal doctrinal statement to fulfill my final requirement for graduation. This was a painful process for me and one that convinced me that I needed to spend more time examining the scriptures. I had to include a couple of things that I am not fully convinced of – things to which I can only say that I aspire to believe.
Since then I have begun considering how this institution of formal doctrinal statements relates to what we truly believe. Every church I have ever been involved with has had one. Right out of college I even encouraged my church to adopt one. I thought the litigious atmosphere in our society made it a necessity. They provide grounds on which to maintain the moral purity of a church. They are also a 4 page litmus test for whether or not I have to fellowship with you – whether or not I have to consider you credible.
The exercise of writing my own comprehensive doctrinal statement made me painfully aware of the pitfalls accompanying this institution. I believe that doctrinal statements are a valuable tool to help us communicate our understanding of theology. We should not do away with doctrinal statements, but we need to understand their limits and the pitfalls they present.

Externalizing Belief

The first pitfall is externalizing belief. The fact that I had to defend my personal doctrinal statement shifted my focus from what I believe to what I could convince my professors was believable. These are not the same. I have spent my entire life reading the Bible. I have observed patterns and picked up perspectives that I cannot proof-text, and hence did not remain in my doctrinal statement. I became more interested in deflecting any attacks on my stated positions than in seeking the truth. I entrenched myself in the presentable aspects of my doctrine and gussied-up or deleted the rest.

This process of constructing defensible doctrinal statements blunted my theological understanding. I sequestered my heart and relied on my mind to codify my beliefs to fit within the architecture of Evangelical doctrine. Oddly, scripture doesn’t always fit tidily into the modern theological architecture. My dad often told me that every carpenter makes mistakes. The good ones know how to cover it up well. Systematic theologies require a similar expertise when fitting scripture into different “rooms” of theology, the doctrines of the church. Scripture can frustrate the most elegant systematic theology “floor plan.”

Hopefully we are no longer surprised by dogmatic opinions based on merely some of the counsel of God. I know that I have my own, sometimes odd, perspectives. I just don’t like being asked to live by such opinions when they belong to someone else.

Evaluating doctrine on purely intellectual grounds

This first pitfall is closely related to the second: evaluating doctrine on purely intellectual grounds. Logic or cleverness wins the day rather than maturity or character. The Apostle Paul’s evaluation of false doctrine included its effects in the lives of people.

3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

The craving for controversy and the list of evils accompany false doctrine should tell us that doctrine has consequences. Our reticence to evaluate doctrine on the basis of the character of its promoter stems from a misapplication of Jesus’ warning about judging others. We need to deal with our fear of being judged and judge ourselves, taking our own character into account in our evaluation of doctrine. True doctrine agrees with scripture and makes me more like Christ.

Doctrinal statements encourage us to stake out their theological territory and move on to more practical concerns. We become unwilling (or unable) to evaluate doctrine in light of the scriptures. We turn early to the commentaries to understand how a passage ought to be interpreted. This is the third pitfall: neglecting Biblical theology.

Neglecting Biblical Theology

Biblical theology is the foundation of every formulation of doctrine. If my theological foundation is faulty then I am a foolish man building his theology on sand. But we are logic-impaired and unskilled in exegesis. This leaves many of us without a means to correct their theology. Most of us scoff at the notion that we have our theology perfect, but are we capable of detecting the errors that we rightfully expect to exist in our doctrine?

Not usually.Accurate doctrine can only flow from accurate exegesis.

Theology is a community project. I can handle scripture rightly and still miss crucial details. We read the scriptures and gather together to understand them better through discussion. This is not a discussion that ended with the Chalcedonian Creed, the Protestant Reformation, Vatican II, or The Gospel According to Jesus. The ongoing nature of this discussion is at the heart of recent discussions about paleo-orthodoxy. We are the beneficiaries of millennia of theological discussion, but the discussion is far from over.

Many have abandoned the discussion, thinking they have reached that utopia of objectivity. These are the ones who argue theology rather than discuss it. Their “discussion” is to persuade, cajole, or obtain acquiescence for their views. For these theologians the doctrinal statement is used as the first line of defense against errant doctrine.

Doctrinal statements cannot fulfill this role. A doctrinal statement cannot guarantee that it is true. Proper exegesis may not be measured by the conclusions one reaches rather than by the methods one uses to understand scripture. One’s conclusions cannot be used to evaluate arguments brought against one’s conclusions. If an argument is in agreement, the conclusion lies sleeping. If an argument is in disagreement, it is automatically rejected as unbelievable. End of discussion.
So what can we do to avoid the pitfalls I have listed?

External theology is concerned about convincing others to share our interpretations of Scripture. Godliness is concerned about personal piety. I take a look at my life and see how (for example) my doctrine on the natures of Christ is related to God’s concern about this physical world and sin and my own purity. We need to connect the dots.

In the intellectual arena we need to stop idolizing the strong statement and clever retort and learn to evaluate arguments according to relevant criteria. Many theologians have demonstrated skill in rightly handling the scriptures. Others have gained approval by parroting their conclusions without being able to handle the scriptures. These are the ones who weaken the faith of the church.

Doctrinal statements (and the systematic theology they represent) can only be judged by scripture –by Biblical theology. Here we must each be humble enough to submit our carefully thought out statements to comparison with scripture. We cannot invoke the right to interpret scripture my way as though by fiat.

We must own our own perspective. We must account for the role that our own experiences played in the understanding of scripture and the formation of our theology. My experiences actually enable me to discuss theology. It is a form of Gnosticism that suggests that I can reach an understanding of theology that escapes from the bonds of my humanity. And suggesting that I have arrived at my conclusions sola-scriptura is disingenuous. It is Evangelical, but disingenuous. It is not possible to comprehend scripture (or any written work…any form of communication) without interpreting it in light of our own experiences.

Can we stop distancing ourselves from our theology? Stop speaking of theology as though we are standing beside a laboratory bench examining it objectively. When we discuss theology we affect it. We need to acknowledge that our own perspective colors our theology. And once I recognize this weakness of mine (that glorifies God!), I must also accept my own inability to impose my perspective on the lives of others. When we do these things we can come closer to our goal of truer theology.
Subjective theology is all we can truly claim. In a community of believers the subjectivity is more reliable, but it is still subjective. We can strive for sinless theology, theology without errors, but we have not laid hold of it yet. Yes, we should allow our theology to be sanctified – to be in the process of sanctification. Our hope is that we may come closer to being right or having that elusive objective theology.

I will keep my doctrinal statement as a “work in progress.” I expect that I am already right on essential doctrines, but I have no guarantee. My Baptist, Biblical heritage provides me with great confidence in my doctrinal statement, but if scripture calls it into question, there is no contest. Biblical theology is crucial because accurate doctrine can only flow from accurate exegesis.

I hope that you will join me in the ongoing theological discussion so that we each may improve our handling of scripture and our knowledge of God.