I have been sent a thing by the Christian Union asking me if I want my 'church' to be advertised to next years freshers by them. Unlike previous years, this year the CU are asking all churches (and it seems also the chaplaincy) if they would sign a piece of paper to say they agree with everything the CU believes. This is known in the trade as the 'Doctrinal Basis'
As I flick through it though I have a problem:
It doesn't say anything.
There is stuff there like “There is one God in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” and “The one holy universal church is the Body of Christ, to which all true believers belong.” which is just stuff that every Christian believes.
Sometimes it is very badly phrased so that it is actually difficult to ascertain quite a lot of the time what it is claiming to believe. Sometimes the tone is spectacularly unhelpful such as:
“The Lord Jesus Christ will return in person, to judge everyone, to execute God's just condemnation on those who have not repented and to receive the redeemed to eternal glory.”
The idea of a last judgement goes back to Jesus himself who talked about sheep and goats but while nearly every Christian affirms the idea of a last judgement most of us like to be quite vague about who is in and out because it is not nice to condemn people and also Jesus told us not to judge other people. This line just seems to gloat a bit.
However the bit that everyone has a problem with is this:
“The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God”
What does that mean?
Does it mean every single word is true? Does it mean for example that evolution did not happen during the six day creation? That interpretation is exactly what most people understand by Biblical infallibility, but I'm far from sure that creationalism is the official doctrine of UCCF.
Does it therefore mean that doctrinally the Bible is sound but that certain sections such as Genesis 1-3 are not meant to be taken literally? I think is quite mainstream albeit at the protestant end of the spectrum, but the Doctrinal Basis doesn't say. To be honest if UCCF are not saying “there was a literal Adam and a literal Eve and they lived 6,000 years ago and used to hang out with dinosaurs” then they are stretching the English language a bit.
When Catholics use the word infallible (with reference to the Bishop of Rome) they are very clear to establish exactly what they mean and when and how said Bishop is infallible. The basic problem here is that the Doctrinal Basis is so short it does not have space to clarify things. So we are left with a statement which ends up being vacuous since the reader essentially has to decide for him or herself what it means. Therefore my contention that UCCF doesn't “officially” believe anything apart from basic mainstream Christian theology.
So if the Doctrinal Basis is so vague why is it so important?
I think that it does not serve to state what UCCF or anyone in the organisation actually believes but rather by chucking in a few well chosen words it serves to exclude people. So the word infallible is important as it scares off the liberals. Most liberals aren't creationists so they refuse to sign.
I'm sure that if anyone from UCCF read this (which of course they wont) they would think an attack on their DB for being vacuous and woolly was a bit left field but this does give me a slight ethical dilemma. This rather lengthy post is a preamble to that...which I shall share with you next.
9 comments:
There is an explanatory document, which "clarifies" what the DB means. When I was a student, one could only see it once one had signed up.
Too right, some of the stuff in there will scare off those with a less literal view. This is proof of how a poorly worded document can lead to alot of confusion. Theres lots of stuff in History where two sides argued for ages over something that began with a misunderstanding, often in a treaty or religious document like this.
Simon I completely agree.
The UCCF DB means "we're not Catholics" (notice the bit about imputed righteousness, although that's clearer in the more formal language of CICCU's version) and "we're not liberals, who ever even worse". Read Whatever happened to the Jesus Lane lot? or the modern re-issuing, From Cambridge to the World, for the history. I guess, like a lot of credal statements, it helps if you know which other lot of Christians the ones writing it were trying to anathemise (in this case, the SCM, bless 'em).
Whilst the wikipedia entry on UCCF is contradictory, I think that it raises some valid reasons for 'chaplaincy' not being able to sign it...
I've known many people over the years who have had trouble with this Doctrinal Basis. "The Bible as originally given" is a bizarre statement indeed which shows little depth of scholastic consideration of the text. The Bible as a whole wasn't "originally given". It is a collection of texts which were carefully considered and judged to be "canon". What about the Lutheran exclusion of some of the texts? What about the so-called Apocryphal texts?
All that aside, the texts of the Bible, inspired by God (to whatever extent you believe) was written down by human beings who are fallible. There are places where names and numbers don't match up and where two texts have clearly been combined to give as full a story as possible but the result is a little mixed. These scribal errors make the TRUTH no less true. However to brush these errors under the carpet and pretend the Bible is literally (in the sense of words) infallible rather than spiritually infallible lessens our faith in the eyes of others who point out the literal fallibility (see various videos on youtube!)
Ok ramblings over... I'll be pondering this one today now.
Hi,
YOu asked why the db was so important - this link might help you as you think through these issues?
http://www.uccf.org.uk/about-us/doctrinal-basis/why-do-we-have-a-doctrinal-basis.htm
Also, UCCF CUs do believe the bible is without error and doesn't fail to do what God intends it to do. That doesn't mean that every one who agrees with the db is a 6 day creationist. many of the thousands of stuednts in Cus wouldn't be but woiuld still agree with the DB.
Hope that helps a little.
Normally people say the UCCF doctrinal basis is too specific rather than too vague.
IVP publish a book called Ultimate Realities that unpacks a fair bit of what's detailed.
Part of the point is that it's not too specific, so it leave plenty of room for difference within a protestant/evangelical shape.
To my knowledge, as one of the guys who works for UCCF there's a decent range of views on Genesis 1-3 within the fellowship of staff and students alike.
As always, enjoying reading your blog.
Hi,
I'm with Dave on this one, I find it strange that you complain that 'it doesn't say anything', but that it also then acts to exclude people.
The idea is that it is deliberately not as specific as it might be so as to encompass a broad range of views on a number of controversial areas, but it is also focused enough that it does give some distinctives as to what are considered to be the key core doctrines of our faith.
On the question of infallibility, this does not require a 'literalistic' interpretation of the Bible. The doctrine of infallibility doesn't rule out the use of phenomenological language such as 'sunrise' (even though it is the earth's rotation that causes this) etc, and also that there is a varied body of literature there. Thus, many hold that Gen. 1-3 is not giving a direct historical account, while others do. Infallibility (although i'd prefer the term inerrancy) allows for both, while affirming that it is still God's Word. To me, it essentially means 'The Bible is true in all it affirms', whether relating to faith, practice or historical events. The 'originally given' bit refers to the original 'autographa', thus allowing for scribal errors in subsequent copying.
'Ultimate Realities' by Bob Horn is useful for info, for more, check out the sections on each point on theologynetwork.org - lots of details there!
Hope that helps,
James
Post a Comment