As far as the statement of faith goes I think it does ok. It covers the fundamental ideas while being concise enough that people will bother to read it. In my view a statement of faith should leave room for debate on non-essential theology (e.g. Calvinism versus Arminianism) but not leave room for erroneous belief to slip in (e.g. Modalism).

That being said I think a couple of things could be better described in the current statement of faith with the addition of a few words. For instance:

I would add to the Trinity that God is one being made up of three personages and each personage is co-existent, co-eternal and fully God.

Ben is right in what he said regarding the section about Christ. Just mentioning that he has two natures doesn’t quite cut the mustard for me either. I’d like to see more of the hypostatic union outlined so there isn’t room to dilute or mix the two natures (no demi-gods allowed).

I also think the section on baptism should include not just the mode but take more of a stance against paedo-baptism and baptismal regeneration.

Including a statement about Christ returning (to judge the quick and the dead?) would also be worthwhile. I’d prefer the statement of faith had a heading for itself but I’m sure changing a website is a nuisance.

I would question whether the ‘about us’ section of the church website is equivalent to an online foyer. Where else would one look for detailed information about what we believe? If I was looking for a church, that is the first thing I would look for. Of course, I may just be a sole psycho

Now to make a completely different comment. If Judaism was not so concerned with orthodoxy, then how come Paul could raise such a stir by mentioning the resurrection of the dead? And the Shema begins with a theological statement as the basis of it’s orthopraxy. But the issue is not whether Judaism was concerned with orthodoxy or not, but whether God wants us to be concerned with it. Our church says Northcote Baptist Church…
…is a community of people who seek to follow Jesus in all of life. By all of life, do we include the life of the mind?

Perhaps we could have two statements of faith to cater for both groups. One with a ‘basic framework’ for those who aren’t too bothered. And a detailed one for people who actually care about what we believe.

For example, the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds have been excepted by Christians in general as good definitive (not exhaustive) statements of what the Bible teaches regarding the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. These are a hang of a lot more specific than saying we believe Jesus is human and divine (like some kind of demi-god?). Do we as a church affirm these creeds?

Do we as a people place a stake in the ground regarding the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible? Are we going to unite with our brothers in affirming the ‘Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy’? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy

Do we have an official position on the Biblical manhood and womanhood debate (egalitarian or complementarian?) Can we unite over the danvers statement http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/The-Danvers-Statement

It seems strange that we as a Baptist church are specific in telling people what we believe about the mode of baptism (i.e. full immersion) but not saying that we believe in believer’s baptism (as opposed to infant baptism), which is the more significant belief.

If we are concerned to avoid controversy, then we should remember that every point of theology that is worth anything has been controversial at some point in church history. What will you have left if you want to avoid controversy?

more meat on the bones?

The question of how specific should a communities’ ‘official statement of beliefs’ be is an interesting one. For various reasons, some would want quite specific, detailed points included, while for other various reasons, others would be content with a more basic framework.
I transcribed the statement of faith word-for-word as it reads on a poster in our foyer. I personally think it’s quite an appropriate statement, especially given the ‘foyer’ context. A ‘deacons meeting’ context would be different. And in a sense, the website is more of an ‘online-foyer’, so to speak.
Thoughts from others?
-d-

Thanks for putting up the statement of faith. But do you think we could put a bit more meat on the bones? It’s a long way from the 1689 Baptist confession Warrior4Jesus mentioned. Surely the Bible is clear enough to commit ourselves to a bit more definition?