Why doctrine for theology?
When we come to study theology we want to do all we can to come to a true knowledge of God. We want to read and study the Bible honestly and openly, drawing on the best of scholarship to understand its historical and literary contexts. We want to draw on the best of philosophy to parse difficult concepts, and the best of contemporary thought to have our attention drawn to historically neglected issues and figures in theology and the bible.
It would be reasonable to question what place doctrine has in all that. Perhaps you wonder if clear convictions about doctrine could even be a hinderance to that process. Couldn't coming to Scripture with a statement about the Trinity in mind, or convictions about justification or the atonement make you read-in things that aren’t there or miss what is there? Doctrine ought to be the result of good theology, of reading Scripture, not the starting point. Wouldn’t it be better to come to Scripture as an empty vessel ready to be filled?
The truth is, theology doesn’t work like that. It’s a naïve view of human nature to think that we can come to Scripture as a blank slate. We all have our theological baggage. Theology is much more like a relationship that grows each time you interact with the other person than an information download. Our knowledge of God is shaped by who we are and what we bring to Scripture as well as Scripture itself.
Attention to the rich tradition of orthodoxy that has been passed down to us gives us the opportunity to approach Scripture, not as blank slates but as those whose hearts and minds have been oriented towards the Triune God, to Jesus as our Lord, and who are receptive to learning rightly from His word. It helps us overcome some of our personal baggage and be challenged by centuries of theological thinking outside of ourselves.
We are not the first to do theology. Our generation is not the first to encounter God’s word or to think deeply about what it means. The modern school of biblical studies is not the first to read the bible with clarity and precision. Christians have been reading Scripture, learning from the teachings of the Prophets (looking forward to Jesus) and the Apostles (passing down the teachings of Jesus) from the very beginning.
In this process of doing theology, Christians in many different eras have come to certain shared conclusions that mark out the propositional content of faith in Christ. We see these take shape in various creedal confessions from the very beginning of Christianity, even in the New Testament itself (cf. Acts 8.37, 1 Cor 15.3-5, 2 Cor 4.5, and 1 Jn 4.2-3). And these creeds have been built upon by each new generation as they face new threats to faith in Christ.
We lean on doctrinal statements, not to settle matters before they’re even opened, but to orient our hearts and minds to the one true God and faith in Him, so that when we are doing theology we are doing so as those whose faith is in Christ, not in some other God or one of our own making.
How should we relate to doctrinal statements?
If doctrine and more specifically the expression of orthodoxy found in certain creeds and doctrinal statements can be good for our theology, how can we best relate or make use of it?
First, we should approach these statements, not as the whole picture or fully fleshed out exegesis, but rather as a basis for unity with other Christians in a shared faith and more specifically a shared theological project (Christian, or even Evangelical, Theology). Far from being exhaustive descriptions of everything there is to know about God, these statements are outlines that point to a greater reality beyond themselves.
These statements provide boundaries or structures that grant us real freedom in theology in much the same way that a map gives us freedom to get to where we want to go rather than wandering aimlessly or grammatical rules provide regulations that mean that we can communicate freely. In this way they don’t ‘rig’ the results of theology, instead they give parameters based on what has clearly been revealed which allow us to freely plumb the depths of the mystery of God.
Second, we must approach any creed outside the bible as a fallible, interrogatable statement which only carries authority as far as it convey Scriptural truth. Doctrine should always point us back to Scripture even as it represents reflection upon Scripture. As such creeds and doctrinal statements are stand-ins for the reality that they represent, not the reality itself. We look through them to the eternal God whom they describe.
These statements form a point of reference on the dialectic spiral of theology. We can interrogate them in our theological process, test them to see to what extent they are true. But when we are not interrogating them, they provide anchors for what we know about God which add shape to other areas of inquiry.
Where does UCCF’s Doctrinal Basis fit in?
UCCF’s Doctrinal Basis (DB) represents a doctrinal outline that is necessary for the specific project of which Theology Network is a part, namely the pursuit of academic, evangelical theology as part of the wider mission to bring the gospel to the university. It may be asked, why be so narrow? Why not just a broadly Christian statement like the Nicene creed? This is answered well by UCCF’s article ‘Why we have a Doctrinal Basis’. You could also ask, why not just a statement about the bible for an evangelical basis? This excellent question is answered well in ‘Inerrancy is not enough’, an article proposing to adopt UCCF’s DB for the Evangelical Theological Society.
Instead of rehearsing the arguments of these two papers, it will be helpful to simply outline what the DB actually is, and how we will be approaching its content in the following series.
Firstly, the DB is a classical statement of orthodox Christian doctrine. It is fully in line with and consciously points back to the ecumenical creeds which safeguard the Trinity, the true humanity and divinity of Christ, his work in incarnation, death and resurrection, and the ongoing work of the Spirit in the church and the world. The truth emphasised in these creeds can be seen woven throughout the DB, but where it says less than these creeds it directs us back to them for a fuller understanding (as we will see especially with respect to the Trinity).
Secondly, the DB is a Protestant document. Though it does not explicitly use the language of the five solas, it includes important clarifications around the gospel and the doctrine of Scripture which were important fruit of the reformation. These clarifications are not at odds with classical Christianity but seek to further preserve it in the presence of concerns emerging in the late middle-ages.
Thirdly, the DB is broadly evangelical or non-denominational. That means that while it makes important affirmations around core doctrine essential for preserving the integrity of the gospel, it holds back from taking positions on certain secondary matters such as baptism or church governance. This allows our theology to fit into the evangelical project alongside brothers and sisters from other denominational backgrounds, standing united in the gospel (especially in distinction from the 20th century and contemporary liberal Christianity which presents a different gospel).
For the rest of this series we will be taking the DB line by line and asking: What are we and what are we not affirming in this statement? Where is this challenged or a challenge when studying theology at university? How does this help us do Evangelical Christian theology better?
