The UCC as a Non-creedal Church

The paper below is a piece I wrote for the Committee on Ministry of the Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Church of Christ on the issue of the UCC's claim to be a non-creedal Christian church.  I thought it might be of interest to some beyond the Committee on Ministry, so I have posted it here.

Further Thoughts on What It Means

to be a

Non-creedal Christian Church

For the Committee on Ministry

Pacific Northwest Conference

United Church of Christ

Rev. Dr. Thomas C. Sorenson

Pastor, Monroe Congregational United Church of Christ

September, 2010

At its September, 2010, meeting the Westside Committee on Ministry of the Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Church of Christ discussed the question of what it means for the United Church of Christ to be a non-creedal church.  My earlier paper Some Preliminary Thoughts on What It Means to be a Non-Creedal Christian Church served as a starting point for that discussion.  This paper represents further thoughts on the issue, including some of the things that came out of the Committee on Ministry’s discussion.  It repeats some of the text from that earlier paper.  I intend this paper to be a contribution to the discussion.  I certainly do not see it as the last word on the subject, perhaps not even my last word on the subject.

The UCC as a “Non-creedal” Church

The question of what it actually means for the United Church of Christ to be a non-creedal Christian church is a pressing one that is receiving renewed attention today.  Is such a thing even possible?  I take it as a given that the UCC’s claim to be non-creedal means at least that we do not require anyone to recite the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, or any other specific creed without mental reservation to be a member, We call these creeds testimonies of faith, not tests of faith.  Yet  the UCC’s claim to be non-creedal seems to imply more than that, and in practice it is often taken to mean more than that.  So we have to ask:  Can a Christian Church truly be fundamentally non-creedal, truly to have no creed?  Isn’t Christianity inherently creedal, more inherently creedal than any other faith tradition?  Some Christians do indeed call non-creedal Christianity an oxymoron.  Yet the UCC and a few other Christian denominations do claim to be non-creedal Christian churches, so we need to understand just what we mean by that affirmation. 

The first question we need to ask is:  What precisely are we rejecting, if anything besides requiring adherence to the ancient Christian creeds, when we say we are non-creedal?  We are rejecting creeds, but what fundamentally is a creed?  One dictionary definition of creed is “a brief statement of religious belief; confession of faith.”  The English word creed derives from the Latin word credo, which means I believe.  On its face, therefore, the claim to be non-creedal means that we do not have or require a statement of religious belief or a confession of faith.  At this level of meaning the claim to be non-creedal means that there is nothing that we believe or confess as a church, which clearly is not the case with the UCC.

The next question we need to ask is whether it is even remotely possible for a Christian church truly to be non-creedal in this sense.  The thing that makes Christian churches Christian is that they profess faith in Jesus Christ.  They may mean different things by that profession, but some kind of faith in Jesus Christ is what makes Christianity Christian.  Is it not true that the mere statement “we believe in Jesus Christ,” whatever a particular church may mean by that statement, is the profession of a creed?  A minimalist creed to be sure but a creed nonetheless.  When Christians speak of creeds they usually are thinking of The Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, or one of the confessions of the various Reformation traditions.  Those creeds appeared a couple of centuries after Jesus at the earliest, and it is legitimate to ask whether or not there ever was a time when Christianity did not have a creed.  The earliest Christian creed is the simple confession “Jesus Christ is Lord.”  That phrase, in precisely that form, appears at Philippians 2:11, which dates it all the way back to the earliest decades of the Christian movement, most probably to the fifties of the first century CE.  We know that very early on the Christian movement was distinguished from other movements within the Jewish faith by its confession that Jesus was the Christ, God’s Messiah.  That confession appears in the earliest of the canonical Gospels at Mark 8:29, which dates it to the late sixties or early seventies of the first Christian century.  Paul was using the title Christ for Jesus even before the Gospel of Mark had Peter confessing Jesus as the Christ.  It appears, therefore, that there never was a time (at least after about the 40s of the first Christian decade) when Christianity did not have at least a minimal creed focused on its confession about Jesus.

The next question we need to ask is whether or not the UCC is truly non-creedal as we claim.  Do we really have no creed?  There is good reason to doubt that this is the case beyond the fact that there never has been a truly non-creedal Christianity.  The website ucc.org/beliefs gives some information on the UCC’s position regarding the Christian creeds.  That source says that the UCC “embraces a theological heritage that affirms the Bible as the authoritative witness to the Word of God, the creeds of the ecumenical councils, and the confessions of the Reformation.”  It goes on to say that “We seek a balance between freedom of conscience and accountability to the apostolic faith.”  We “receive” the historic creeds and confessions as “testimonies, but not tests of faith,” it says, a statement I have already included in the discussion above.

The UCC Constitution also provides some information on our issue.  The Preamble to the Constitution of the United Church of Christ states in Paragraph 1 that the denomination was formed by its two immediate predecessor denominations “in order to express more fully the oneness in Christ of the churches composing it, to make more effective their common witness to Him, and to serve His kingdom in the world….”  Paragraph 2 of the Preamble states that “The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior.”  It also says that the church “claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers.”  And:  “In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments:  Baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.”  The Preamble of the UCC Constitution therefore places the denomination squarely within the ancient Christian faith and specifically within the Protestant variety of the ancient Christian faith.  It declares the UCC to be a Protestant Christian church that proclaims Jesus as head of the church and as Son of God, Lord, and Savior.

Are those authoritative statements by the UCC, including statements in its foundational document, consistent with the claim that we are non-creedal?  I suggest that they are not.  The statement that the church “acknowledges as its sole head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior,” for example, is the statement of a creed.  That is, it is a brief statement of religious belief, a confession of faith.  The statement is short, but it is packed with theological meaning.  All of its terms—head (of the church), Jesus, Christ, Son of God, and Savior—are theological terms, the terms of a faith.  We need not try to unpack all of their meaning here, but it is clear that this statement is, in a basic sense, creedal.  So the first conclusion we reach is that in a fundamental way the UCC’s claim to be non-creedal is a bit disingenuous.  We are not truly or completely non-creedal.  It is not clear how any Christian church could be or that any Christian church or movement ever has been.

Non-creedal as Valuing Individual Freedom of Conscience Within a Core Theology

Once we have concluded that the UCC is not, at the most basic level, non-creedal, we need next to ask if the claim that we are non-creedal yet has any meaning other than the one I have assumed, namely, that we don’t require adherence to any of the ancient Christian creeds.  The UCC is not the only Christian tradition to declare itself to be non-creedal, and looking at other Christian traditions that claim that label may help us in our inquiry.  The Society of Friends (Quakers) and the various Baptist denominations also claim to be non-creedal.  Yet each of those traditions has a distinct identity.  We know, more or less, what Quakerism is and what the Baptist tradition is.  Clearly for those traditions being non-creedal does not mean having a lack of identity.  Yet people both inside the UCC and outside it wail all the time about the UCC’s lack of identity.  Our emphasis on individual freedom of conscience and local church autonomy is so strong that it is indeed sometimes difficult to say just what the UCC stands for.  We often point to our non-creedalism as a source of that unclear identity, yet the experience of the Quakers and the Baptists teaches us that a claimed non-creedalism, perhaps in part because a Christian church cannot truly be non-creedal,  need not equal a lack of identity or the absence of a core theology.  In those traditions non-creedalism seems to mean valuing individual freedom of conscience while at the same time proclaiming a core theology.  These other non-creedal Christian traditions seem to value individual freedom of conscience (to a greater or lesser extent) within the limits of a core theology, a core identity.  In that regard they are, I think, a good model for us, so I suggest that  non-creedal really means a commitment to individual freedom of conscience within the bounds of a common core theology.

But what is the UCC’s core theology?  According to the foundational documents cited above, that core theology doesn’t seem to extend much past a confession that Jesus Christ is the head of the church, that he is Son of God, Lord, and Savior, and that we claim as our own the ancient Christian faith, especially in its Protestant form, creeds, confessions, and all.  Which leads us to the conclusion that non-creedalism in the UCC means that we recognize individual freedom of conscience while at the same time self-identifying as a Protestant Christian denomination.  It seems that we value individual freedom of conscience within a tradition that self-identifies as Protestant Christian.

There is of course more to theology in the UCC than those few statements cited above.  We have a tradition, or rather several different traditions that have come together in the denomination.  Each of those traditions was in its own right a Protestant Christian tradition.  There are theological differences between them, but they were all Protestant Christian traditions.  No non-Christian or non-Protestant tradition is part of the UCC tradition.  The denomination’s history strengthens the conclusion that the UCC is expressly and intentionally a Protestant Christian tradition. 

Are There Limits on Individual Freedom of Conscience in the UCC?

So the question arises:  Does that self-identification as Protestant Christian impose limits on individual freedom of conscience within the church?  For us committed UCC people the phrase “limits on individual freedom of conscience within the church” certainly grates.  I at any rate have an immediate, visceral reaction against it even as I write it.  Yet I think we do need to consider the question.  After all, our church’s self-identification as a Protestant Christian church must have some meaning.  It must in some way define who we are, and any definition of a group necessarily imposes a boundary between the group and the rest of the world.  Without such a boundary a group has no identity.  Identity is established as much by what a group is not as by what it is.  When we proclaim that we are a Protestant Christian denomination we are proclaiming that we are not any other kind of church.  We are not Roman Catholic.  We are not Orthodox.  We are not Unitarian Universalist.  We are not secular humanists.  We are some variety of Protestant Christian.  We do not and need not condemn people who are not Protestant Christians, but we do proclaim that that is who we are. 

Which leads us back to the question posed above:  Does that self-identification as Protestant Christian impose limits on freedom of conscience within the church?  My answer to this question is a reluctant yes, it does impose some limits on individual freedom of conscience.  The individual freedom of conscience that we recognize and value is individual freedom of conscience precisely within the Protestant Christian tradition.  We of course recognize everyone’s right to a faith position that is outside the Protestant Christian tradition, and we celebrate the way in which people in other religious traditions, whether Christian or of some other faith, find their connection with God in those traditions.  But we are a Protestant Christian tradition.  To be a member of the United Church of Christ is to be a member of a Protestant Christian organization. 

Within that broad tradition there are a great many different understandings of the central issues of the Christian faith—our understanding of God, our understanding of Jesus, our understanding of the church, our understanding of the sacraments, and so on.  Beliefs that characterize the Protestant Christian tradition include at least a belief in the Triune God and in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Savior, as the UCC Constitution says.  As the UCC Constitution also says the Protestant Christian tradition professes two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist.  Within the broader Protestant Christian tradition these beliefs are understood in many different ways, all of which fit in the United Church of Christ.  That the UCC is a Protestant Christian tradition is a limitation on the breadth of theological belief appropriate in the denomination, but it is a very broad limitation.

So What Are the Limitations?

 That the UCC is a Protestant Christian church places broad limits on individual freedom of conscience within the denomination, but it has also occurred to me that those limits differ for people occupying different positions and filling different roles within the denomination and its local churches.  For me, the distinction between lay members of our congregations and those who are authorized or who seek authorization by the UCC for ministry in the denomination is significant in this regard. 

Lay members

Let’s start with the laity, the members of our local churches who have made a commitment to be part of the life of the church and to live their spiritual lives within and with the help of a local UCC congregation.  These people in a meaningful sense are the church.  One of the great virtues of our emphasis on local church autonomy is that this polity more than any other expresses the belief that the people, and not some hierarchy, are indeed the church.  Yet the UCC also has an institutional expression, the institutional expression established, at the most basic level, by the UCC Constitution.  That is the institutional expression of the church that has declared itself to be a Protestant Christian church.  The lay members of the local churches are not authorized representatives of that institutional expression of the church.   Therefore the larger institutional expression of the church has a low level of interest in what these individual lay members of the church believe.  The faith of the members of the local church is a matter of primary concern for the pastor of the local church.  It is less of a concern for the larger institutional expression of the church.  The limits on the individual freedom of conscience of the lay members of the church are few, and they are primarily the concern of the local church.  Let me suggest just one limit:  I believe that we can and should expect those who become official members of a local congregation of the UCC to self-identify in some way that is meaningful to them as Protestant Christians.  I know that some of our churches have admitted as members people who self-identify as followers of some other faith tradition.  Personally I would draw the line here and not invite those folks, however good, however faithful, however constructive for the church they may be, to become formal members.  In not inviting them to become formal members I intend no judgment of their faith.  I am merely seeking to preserve the self-identity of the UCC as a Protestant Christian church.  Beyond that limit, however, at the level of the laity individual freedom of conscience can and indeed must have the widest possible latitude in the UCC.  That freedom is part of who we are, a cherished, valuable part of who we are that we must preserve and defend.

Authorized Ministers

I believe, however, that the matter looks a bit different when we shift our attention from the laity to those who have or who seek formal authorization for ministry in the UCC from an authorized body of the UCC such as a Conference or Association Committee on Ministry.  The difference is precisely that authorized ministers in the UCC, whether ordained, commissioned, or licensed, are precisely authorized for ministry by the UCC; and the UCC formally declares itself to be a Protestant Christian church.  The UCC’s self-identification as a Protestant Christian church means, it seems to me, that those who have or who seek authorization for ministry in the UCC from an authorized body of the UCC must profess a faith that is in some sense recognizably Protestant Christian. By that I mean that they must profess a faith that the larger church, the church from which they are seeking authorization for ministry, recognizes as Protestant Christian.  I said above that the common characteristics of all Protestant Christian traditions include belief in the Triune God, in Jesus Christ as Son of God and Savior, and the profession of the two Biblically established sacraments.  In this way of looking at the matter, candidates for authorized ministry in the UCC should profess a faith that the larger church can recognize as a Protestant Christian version of those beliefs.

  Because this question arises in our Committee on Ministry, it is appropriate and necessary to consider what the UCC Manual on Ministry has to say on the matter before we reach any final conclusions.  The most appropriate place to look in the Manual on Ministry is Section 3, Ordained Ministry.  That section of MoM begins by citing relevant provisions of the UCC Constitution.  That Constitution says:

20.  The United Church of Christ recognizes that God calls the whole church and every member to participate in and extend the ministry of Jesus Christ by witnessing to the Gospel in church and society.  The United Church of Christ seeks to undergird the ministry of its members by nurturing faith, calling forth gifts, and equipping members for Christian service.

21.  The United Church of Christ recognizes that God calls certain of its members to various forms of ministry in and on behalf of the church for which ecclesiastical authorization is required.  Recognizing God’s call, the ecclesiastical authorization is granted by an Association through the rite of ordination; through commissioning, licensing, granting either ordained ministerial standing or ordained ministerial partner standing and other acts of ordination.

23.  An Ordained Minister of the United Church of Christ is one of its members who has been called by God and ordained to preach and teach the gospel, to administer the sacraments and rites of the church, and exercise the prerogatives of ordained ministry in the United Church of Christ.

Other relevant provisions of the Manual on Ministry include a statement that the purpose of part one of a candidate’s ordination paper is to “provide a way for the student to share his or her present grasp and understanding of the teaching and traditions of the Christian Church down through the ages and to relate this to his or her own theological perspective.”  MoM says that part three of the ordination paper “invites the person to relate the faith and practice of the Church to her or his own pilgrimage of faith and understandings of and intentions for her or his ministry as a person ordained by the United Church of Christ.”  MoM says that the task of the Committee on Ministry in the ordination interview is “to satisfy itself that the candidate is prepared for and can faithfully and effectively carry out the responsibilities of ordained ministry in and on behalf of the United Church of Christ.”  MoM suggest as an examination subject “Is this a person of mature Christian faith?”  MoM’s section captioned “The Church’s Expectations of Its Candidates for Ordination” includes the expectations that the candidate is “compelled by the Gospel of Jesus Christ” and can “clearly articulate a personal theological position.”

What can we conclude from a review of these relevant provisions of the Manual on Ministry?  We conclude first of all, I think, that these provisions are not as clear and consistent as we would wish.  They are however, significant guidance for us as we consider our question of what limitations on freedom of conscience are appropriate for those with or seeking ordination or other authorized ministerial status in the UCC.  We can conclude I think that MoM expects candidates for authorized ministry in the UCC to be Christians, to seek to proclaim the Gospel, that is, precisely the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to understand Jesus precisely as the Christ.  The statement in the section on expectations of candidates for ordination that the candidate should be able clearly to “articulate a personal theological position” taken in isolation may seem to suggest that any theological position is acceptable.  When MoM’s statements on the issue are taken as a whole, however, the Manual is not quite that loose.  It expects candidates to be Christians who profess Jesus as the Christ.  It expects them to have an understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to make proclamation of the Gospel central to their beliefs and their ministry.  Thus MoM does not use the language we are using here, but nothing in it squarely contradicts the language we are using here.

In my experience not all of the candidates who come before our Committee meet this criterion.  Let me give a specific example of a situation where we have seen this issue come up.  Many of the candidates for ordination who have come before us in the past two years or so that I have been on the Committee profess a Christology that is radically different from the classical Christology of the ancient Christian creeds and of the Protestant Christian tradition.  This Christology is more Unitarian or humanist than it is Protestant Christian.  These candidates see Jesus as only a man whose role in the faith and in the lives of the faithful is to be a great moral teacher, nothing more.  We have approved some of these people for ordination in the UCC, an approval for which I have also voted.  Has that approval been appropriate?  For purposes of discussion at least, let me suggest that no, that approval has not been appropriate.  A Unitarian or humanist understanding of Jesus is inconsistent with the statement in the Preamble to the UCC Constitution that the UCC proclaims Jesus as Christ, as Son of God, Lord, and as Savior.  It is inconsistent with traditional Protestant Christianity, which has always accepted the classical Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  The New Century Hymnal may have so much trouble with Jesus’ masculinity that it has virtually eliminated the idea of the Incarnation from the hymns we sing; but that is a problem with the New Century Hymnal, it does not change the self-identification of the UCC as a Protestant Christian church.  I consider this matter open for discussion, and I am more than willing to listen to other views.  Today, however, I am inclined to vote no on approval for ordination for candidates who express only such a Unitarian or humanist view of Jesus because that Christology is in no meaningful sense a Protestant Christian Christology.  I would take the same position with regard to a candidate who had a view of God that was more Unitarian than Trinitarian.

Conclusion

So then:  It turns out not to be entirely correct to say that the United Church of Christ is a non-creedal Christian tradition.  We profess Jesus Christ as Son of God, Savior, and Lord, and those are creedal professions.  Yet we continue to say that we are non-creedal, so we need to consider what that claim may yet mean in our church.  First of all, non-creedal does not mean anything goes.  It means that we are a Protestant Christian church which, despite that self-identification, does not require members or authorized ministers to be able to recite the Nicene Creed, or any other traditional creed, without mental reservation in order to be members of or ministers in the church.  But non-creedal does not equal non-Christian.  Seeking a balance between individual freedom of conscience on the one hand and accountability to the apostolic faith on the other, as ucc.org says we do, means that we live always in tension.  We live in the tension between two polarities—absolute individual freedom at one end and rigid, mandatory adherence to the creedal Christian tradition on the other.  We, quite rightly, tend to position ourselves toward the first of those two polarities.  We seek to live freely, but we seek to live freely precisely within the Protestant Christian tradition.  It’s not an easy thing to do.  The right thing is rarely an easy thing to do.  I look forward to discussing this matter with you further in the months ahead.