I’m working on an adult curriculum titled “The Beauty of the Christian Faith.” It explores the basic elements of Christian faith as expressed in the Nicene Creed. I’ll be posting excerpts as they’re done. Here’s the sixth part of the introduction. Prior posts can be accessed through the Beauty of the Christian Faith Page.
Doctrines: Second Order Statements Derived from the First Order Sources of Theology
Doctrines are propositional theological statements that summarize claims to knowledge about God. A “propositional” statement is simply a discrete statement of claimed fact, such as “water is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen atoms.” Doctrines historically have been collected in summary statements such as creeds and confessions.
The manner in which doctrines function as theological authorities is the subject of some debate among different types of Christians. The debate relates to the relationship between scripture and tradition and also to the nature of scripture in relation to doctrinal propositions. The next sections discuss how this relationship is understood in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant traditions. You should understand, however, that there is considerable variety even within each of these traditions. The models discussed below are intended as broad and general illustrations of key themes and differences.
Protestantism
Protestant approaches to the nature of doctrine are quite diverse. In general, protestants emphasize scripture as the final “norming norm” (norma normans) of theology and doctrine. Most Protestants therefore would argue that doctrines are not in themselves basic sources of authority. Instead, doctrines are “second order” statements because doctrinal propositions always derive from the basic sources of theology (scripture, tradition, reason and experience).
Protestants do not always agree among themselves about precisely how the first order sources of theological authority relate to second order doctrinal propositions. Many Protestants think scripture contains or is the immediate source of some direct, propositional doctrinal statements. For them, many doctrinal propositions are effectively irreformable because they are derived directly from scripture. Some Protestants argue that scripture is not fundamentally propositional in nature, or that scripture can only be understood dynamically as the Holy Spirit makes its meaning clear, and that doctrinal statements therefore in principle are always reformable.
These two different types of Protestant views can be illustrated as follows:
Figure 3 illustrates a model in which scripture supplies direct or nearly direct doctrinal propositions. In this model, reason, experience and tradition mostly serve to aid in the understanding of scripture. Reason and experience are grouped together because they are understood as related sources.
Another model for Protestant construction of doctrine is illustrated in Figure 4:
This model is labeled “Wesleyan Postliberal / Postconservative” because it reflects the pietist streams of Protestantism, particularly as led by John Wesley and by the Anabaptists before and after Wesley, and because it also reflects a contemporary effort to overcome the breach between “conservative / fundamentalist” and “liberal” theologies that erupted in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
John Wesley was a great evangelist and reformer who lived in the eighteenth century. He emphasized personal piety, including the experience of conversion, the devotional practices of prayer and Bible reading, and abstinence from cultural practices thought to be damaging, such as consuming alcohol. The four sources of authority we have discussed in this Module – scripture, tradition, reason and experience – are often called the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral,” because they were emphasized by Wesley in contrast to the more “intellectual” approach of the Calvinist Reformed churches. Wesley also rejected the Cavlinist doctrine of “double predestination” – the belief that God chose in advance who will and will not be saved – and taught that salvation is available to everyone. In fact, the differences between Calvinism and Wesleyanism continue to represent one of the major dividing points in the history of American evangelicalism.
“Anabaptist” refers to various Protestant groups that dissented from the Calvinist-Reformed churches on various matters starting in the fifteenth century, including on the nature of baptism. Calvinists baptized infants, whereas Anabaptists held that only adults should be baptized. Anabaptist also held that even people baptized as infants should be re-baptized as consenting adults. “Ana-“Baptist literally means “re-“baptize. Anabaptists emphasized personal piety, including the direct illumination of the individual conscience by the Holy Spirit. The Anabaptists often were ferociously persecuted by Calvinists, including punishments such as burning at the stake. Most independent Evangelical churches in North America follow Anabaptist beliefs about baptism, although such churches usually are disconnected from other typical Anabaptist teachings (most Anabaptists, for example, were and are pacifist). Many Charismatic and Pentecostal practices also bear some relationship to the Anabaptist emphasis on direct illumination by the Holy Spirit.
Because both Wesleyans and Anabaptists focused more on personal experience than intellectual knowledge, they were less attuned the particularity of doctrinal statements. This does not mean they ignored doctrine, but it does mean that their approach was closer to the “post-conservative / post-liberal” approach described below.
Meanwhile, Model 3, the “Protestant-Propositionalist” model, was the dominant approach in the Calvinist-Reformed and, to a certain extent, in the Lutheran-Reformed churches, until the mid-Nineteenth Century. In the 19th Century, in connection with various philosophical, cultural, and other changes, “Liberal” theology began to challenge all notions of religious authority. In many cases, Liberal theology eventually relegated all theological claims – including basic claims such as the divinity of Christ – to the realm of private emotional sentiment.
Some branches of Protestantism, including Fundamentalism and some varieties of Evangelicalism, clung (and still cling) ferociously to the Protestant–Propositionalist model, in an effort to avoid the specter of Liberal theology. These theologies, however, tend to make claims that cannot be sustained about what the Bible is or how it should be interpreted.[1] Moreover, more often than not, this approach simply produces profound, basic, and irresolvable disagreements about what doctrinal propositions the Bible actually is thought to state.[2]
In recent decades, many Protestants in both “Mainline” and “Evangelical” circles, wary of the excesses of both Liberal theology and Fundamentalism, have focused on theological methods that appreciate the divine-human nature of scripture and the contextual-historical nature of doctrinal statements, while recognizing the importance of continuity and stability. Figure 4 is one way of thinking of this relationship.[3]
Since Figure 4 is a Protestant model, scripture is the central source of theological authority. Reason, Tradition, and Experience are also sources of authority, which inform how scripture is read and understood, but which are also subject to scripture as a final norm. Unlike in the Protestant-Propositionalist model, however, scripture is not here understood primarily as a direct sourcebook of doctrinal propositions. Although scripture does contain direct doctrinal statements, the texts of scripture are for the most part not given in the form of creedal statements. Instead, scripture is given to us in the diverse forms of narratives, stories, poems, songs, letters, visions, and so on. Doctrinal propositions derive from scripture (along with and informed by reason, tradition, and experience), but scripture is not essentially a rational-propositional sourcebook.
This is an important point, because it helps situate doctrinal propositions as fallible, human statements. We do not worship “doctrine” – we worship the living God. In an effort to understand and explain what we know of God, we engage in the process of formulating doctrinal propositions from the basic sources of knowledge God has made available to us. This perspective helps us engage the scriptures and the other sources of theological authority with greater humility. It also encourages patience and dialogue when we disagree with each other.
This does not mean that faithful Christians are free to modify at will the essential meaning of basic doctrines that have been passed down throughout the history of the faith. This also is a vitally important point. A central core of Christian doctrine has stood the test of time because of its deep connection to the first order sources of Christian theology. This is the case with the Nicene Creed, which is the doctrinal statement that forms the backbone of this class. To depart substantially from this central core of doctrine is to think in a way that is less than fully “Christian.” We study the Nicene Creed to explore how its propositions tie together the first-order sources of theological authority in a way that is coherent, satisfying, beautiful, and unifying. When we recite the Creed, we proclaim publicly that its propositions express essential truth about God and the world.
Nevertheless, we recognize that even great doctrinal documents such as the Nicene Creed are second order statements. Our purpose is not merely to study and recite historical words. Our purpose is to participate more deeply in the living faith the Creed proclaims. In the next Module, we will begin to explore the contours of that living faith through the articles of the Creed.
[1] An example of this is the effort in some circles to read the ancient texts of the Bible as modern “scientific” documents.
[2] An example of this are the deep disagreements between Calvinist and Dispensational conservative evangelicals, about matters as basic as the nature of human free will, Divine predestination, and the economy of salvation.
[3] Many contemporary Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians would adopt a similar model, somewhat in contrast to the more “traditional” models in Figures 1 and 2, but perhaps with a different relationship between scripture and the other sources of authority.
