Good question, narrowpath!
I think that the concept of statements of faith -- particularly the parts that divide various fellowships, congregations and denominations -- have been discussed quite a bit of the years here. As some have pointed out, they do unite local congregations behind common beliefs; so, they help to limit non-believers or non-adherents from sneaking into membership and forming "voting coups."
Yet, at the same time, there is the side effect of limiting the "hand of fellowship" to individuals who must adhere to those specific tenets within each "statement of faith." As such, they often focus upon very specific views and beliefs interlaced between the commonly embraced "essentials" of the faith. Consequently, they can have a side effect of constraining ministry within a fellowship -- or merely full fellowship -- to those who adhere to both the essentials and non-essential doctrinal peculiarities of each local fellowship, congregation or denomination.
This raises the question of whether the inclusion of non-essential ideals then become a litmus test for whether or not full-fellowship is offered to believers in that congregation. In a way, they can (in some circumstances) become a means of doctrinal coercion.
Interestingly, most churches have a "statement of faith" or "list of doctrinal truths" included somewhere in the church (or even on the church website). They'll contain the essentials alongside what are generally regarded as non-essentials. They'll include the clear inarguable truths of the Gospel alongside very specific (yet oft-debated) teachings about everything from eschatology, tithing, music, spiritual gifts, head coverings, views on "Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism," etc. I've visited some that even held views on facial hair and which translation of the Bible must be used.
Obviously, there was no written-in-stone "statement of faith" in the early church. In fact, there wasn't even a gathered "New Testament" -- the gospels and epistles -- until somewhat later in early church history. After all, the epistles were still being written. And, of course, there were already some divisions and issues popping up in relation to church beliefs and practices (hence, the specific teachings within the epistles).
Later in history, there was an "apostle's creed" that was widely passed around. The earliest traces of these are to the early fourth century. Interestingly enough, whereas the "Apostles Creed" today has a few elements that are somewhat controversial, the earliest forms of the idea of a creed was rather simple beliefs:
- God the Father
- Our Lord Jesus Christ -- the only Son of God
- Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary, after being conceived by the Holy Spirit
- Jesus was crucified, died and buried under Pontius Pilate
- Jesus resurrected on the third day
- Jesus ascended into Heaven and is seated at the Father's right hand
- Jesus will return and judge the living and the dead
- The Holy Spirit
- In the sanctification of the church
- The forgiveness of sins
- The resurrection of the body
- Eternal life
Despite the later Catholic wording and additions, the "creed" itself in its earliest form is rather basic. It focuses on belief in God (in the substance of a Trinity) and the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. It also embraces the birth of the Church and the Lord's return -- and subsequent judgment and, of course, eternity.
The earliest recorded mention of this creed was in a letter by Marcellus of Ancyra around 341 A.D. A few decades later, Rufinus wrote about it too. He commented that he believed that this creed was written by the apostles in Jerusalem before they spread out beyond Jerusalem to other parts of the world. However, this is after the reign of Constantine and his his icon-seeking mother, Helena -- from which modern Roman Catholicism traces its idolatrous roots.
I suppose that a "statement of faith" would essentially need to be focused on what is truly indisputable doctrinal truths of the faith contained within God's Word.
It's my view that there are essential truths found within the "statements of faith" held by most true churches. If you gather the SOF from most congregations, fellowships and denominations and leave out the much-debated views with them, you'll likely find something simple: The Gospel of Jesus Christ -- his birth, miracles, atoning death and resurrection, God in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), water baptism, the infilling of the Holy Spirit, the understanding that Jesus is coming again, Jesus will judge the world and eternal life to those who believed in Jesus.
Of course, various theological views are sometimes considered "essential" by some -- including those who view their own doctrinal persuasions as binding "essentials."
During college, I went to a church fellowship that seemed to focus on what was absolutely certain in Scripture while leaving room for each believer to search the Scriptures on other issues (such as eschatology, tithing, the gifts of the Spirit, the different views on grace/works/holy living, etc.). While the pastor and teachers would mention their own views, they tended to cover all of the most prevalent views and simply implored the congregation to prayerfully search the Scriptures and pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance. I thought that it was a very unique approach. I always thought that it would lead to harsh debate in Sunday School or in moments where such issues were discussed. Oddly enough, it never did (at least when I was in attendance).
I wonder: What would others consider "essential" to the point of it being a necessary part of a "statement of faith" that would be binding for all believers?
