FAITH IS NOT THE SAME AS DOCTRINE

Catherine Keller
Professor of Constructive Theology
Drew University

Faith may include doctrines, it may shape them, it may seek to articulate 'right beliefs' and, under pressure, defend its orthodoxy-but orthodoxy is not faith. Faith in both the biblical and the Wesleyan senses is never reducible to verbalized beliefs.

There is an unfortunate tendency in much postbiblical Christianity to think that being a Christian means holding certain views, i.e., "having beliefs," indeed holding "right opinions." Right opinion is the English translation-and the one Wesley used-for the Greek concept of "orthodoxy.' Right opinions may be important and are surely to be preferred to wrong ones (at least that is my opinion!), but they do not comprise faith-or what Wesley called "true religion." Wesley took a more radical position: as he said in a "Plain Account of the People Called Methodists," "orthodoxy, or right opinions, is at best but a very slender part of religion, if it can be allowed to be any part of it at all." This is an often repeated and passionate view of his: "Religion is not opinion: no, not right opinion, assent to one or to ten thousand truths. Right opinion is as distant from religion as the east is from the west" ("On the Trinity").

How can this be? For he is thinking of important beliefs indeed, such as "right opinions" about the nature of God and the trinity or the Calvinist notion of predestination (an orthodox concept he rejected as wrong-but not reason to boot out its proponents among his preachers). Over and over he de-emphasizes creedal dogmas, theological beliefs-all the apparatus of orthodox Christianity that the "Good News" style of Methodist wish not only to recover, but to make the defining center of Christianity! Wesley did not dispute the truth-claims of the creeds. But he didn't center his faith in them. And he certainly did not make them the test of true Christianity. To the contrary: Wesley's faith was fundamentally biblical, not creedal. So he could affirm the traditional doctrines without demanding that others do so, without insisting on their absolute truth, and above all-without confusing doctrine with faith.

He writes in "The Character of a Methodist" that "the distinguishing marks of a Methodist are not his opinions of any sort…As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think…" Clearly, part of that thinking is always trying to figure out what that "root" is. But that root is not itself an opinion, an orthodoxy! Wesley's sense of the root of Christianity has attracted many who are not at home with the more Calvinist and Roman Catholic styles of creedal Christianity. Wesley is unambiguous in his own emphases: love of God and neighbor, stirred up by God's gracious -indeed gratuitous--love of us.

In a letter to John Newton, he states that he permits any opinion that is "compatible with a love to Christ and a work of grace." In the aftermath of the religious wars between creedal Christianities in Europe, Wesley's sense of the distinctiveness of Methodism as a way of the heart might strike some as sentimental-but it certainly is defining.

What is faith, then, if not doctrinal belief? It is not an assertion, a proposition, even one like "Jesus is Lord" or "God is love." New Testament faith is a love-relationship, not a belief: the Greek New Testament term for faith is pistis, meaning, "trust" not "belief". Or rather, it is "belief" in a purely relational sense: as in "I believe in you"-not, I believe that you exist, have such and such attributes, will do such and such for me, or whatever. It means I trust you even if I cannot see, grasp, or predict you. Thus the only inquiries Wesley made concerning applicants to his society were: "Is a man a believer in Jesus Christ and his life suitable to his profession?" This is not believing that but believing in. It could never be flattened to the sort of propositions typical of fundamentalism and now being proposed as the basis for Methodist faith: "I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior." That may be true enough, if we can interpret the ancient language meaningfully for our day! But it is a proposition, using human symbols-it is not anywhere close to the essence of faith, according to Wesley-and certainly according to Jesus! He invited trust in him and his path-can you imagine how Jesus would react to the notion that our belief about his "nature" is what really counts? (I apologize if bringing up Jesus' own possible views-rather than classic views of him-is uncouth.)

Despite Wesley and his Jesus, United Methodism is being overwhelmed by voices trying to redefine faith as orthodoxy: Wesley's heart would be strangely chilled! The movement to credalize Methodism may be moved by a sincere passion for classical Christianity, its councils, its creeds, its metaphysics of divine "natures". But Wesley was moved by scriptural, not creedal, Christianity. So let me assert the sub-proposition to "faith is not doctrine": biblical Christianity is not classical Christianity. Classical Christianity and its creeds interpret scripture in a historically powerful way, which Wesley took seriously-- but not as the defining center of Christianity. And so I would think must contemporary Methodists take orthodoxy seriously but not literally. The creed was called after all symbolon. Symbols are not literal, not 'of the letter'. In the Spirit we engage them, recite them liturgically as appropriate, analyze them in context. But let them never displace the Christ of scriptures or the Spirit of our living experience!

To engage each other in that lively and loving Spirit will often mean to respect each other enough to disagree-and thus to make each other very vulnerable to the negative emotions, the confrontation and the possible shaming that come with explicit disagreements. Precisely this vulnerability demands trust of us-a trust in God that enables us not just to trust one another but to become trustworthy to one another. Is this an unrealistic hope? Well, Wesley's hope may also be unrealistic. Certainly historical Christianity, tragically, has a lousy track record on respectful disagreement. It has often resorted to institutional, economic and intellectual coercion. Again we are threatened by the formidable organization and funding of those who prefer inquisition to inquiry. But we have among us the wisdom with which to grow in grace. If Christians are to "go on to perfection," certainly Christianity should too! We must not fearfully recoil from change into a fantasy of past perfection (whether of classical Christianity or of the early Methodist movement!). The church itself either stagnates or goes on toward perfection. Our salvation does not lie in any past but in the present work of the Spirit. We best serve the past of our tradition by standing within its forcefield and looking forward.

Even in the face of seemingly insurmountable hostility and organized opposition, let us take heart-heart-to-heart. I do not need to remind this audience of the famous text Wesley took from 2 Kings 10:15: " Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart? …If it be, give me thine hand" ("The Catholic Spirit"). As Wesley wrote in "The Witness of Our Own Spirit":" And now we can perform, through God, what to man was impossible. Now we can order our conversation aright. We can do all things in the light and power of that love, through Christ which strengtheneth us."

See more:

How We Might Become Deeply Loving People -- Marjorie Suchocki, Professor Emerita, Claremont School of Theology

Openness to Difference -- John Cobb, Professor Emeritus, Claremont Scool of Theology

Purpose | Articles | Contributors