Kant on Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms -- Hint, He's Not a Fan

Immanuel Kant’s 1784 essay, “What Is Enlightenment?” was written shortly after the America Revolution when a spirit of optimism was sweeping throughout much of Europe. Kant challenged those willing to think for themselves, to muster up the courage to move beyond a self-imposed intellectual immaturity to embrace his creed, "Sapere aude!” (dare to be wise!). Kant was responding to what he perceived to be an unhealthy and stifling relationship between the Prussian church and state, which restrained people from seeking greater “enlightenment.” One of his prime targets was Prussian protestantism. You can read the essay here: Kant's essay, "What Is Enlightenment?"

Kant, still an up and coming philosopher, took direct aim at synods and presbyteries (“church councils”) which he thought to be one of the single biggest obstacles to future societal progress and enlightenment.

Here’s the relevant section:

But should a society of ministers, say a Church Council, . . . have the right to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine, in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members and through them over the people? I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract, concluded to keep all further enlightenment from humanity, is simply null and void even if it should be confirmed by the sovereign power, by parliaments, and the most solemn treaties. An epoch cannot conclude a pact that will commit succeeding ages, prevent them from increasing their significant insights, purging themselves of errors, and generally progressing in enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress. Therefore, succeeding ages are fully entitled to repudiate such decisions as unauthorized and outrageous.

Kant’s foil is “unalterable doctrine” imposed on the folk which, he says, impedes all societal progress. Such he says, is “outrageous” and ought be repudiated.

He goes on . . .

The touchstone of all those decisions that may be made into law for a people lies in this question: Could a people impose such a law upon itself? Now it might be possible to introduce a certain order for a definite short period of time in expectation of better order. But, while this provisional order continues, each citizen (above all, each pastor acting as a scholar) should be left free to publish his criticisms of the faults of existing institutions. This should continue until public understanding of these matters has gone so far that, by uniting the voices of many (although not necessarily all) scholars, reform proposals could be brought before the sovereign to protect those congregations which had decided according to their best lights upon an altered religious order, without, however, hindering those who want to remain true to the old institutions. But to agree to a perpetual religious constitution which is not publicly questioned by anyone would be, as it were, to annihilate a period of time in the progress of man's improvement. This must be absolutely forbidden.

Instead of defending, elucidating, and proclaiming the received doctrines of the churches (their “perpetual religious constitution”), it was the clergy’s job to push for reform and protect the freedom of members of the congregation to seek personal enlightenment and pursue societal progress. Hanging on to old institutions ought to be “absolutely forbidden.” Old dogmas must be placed by a new creed, “Sapere aude!”

Professor Kant, you got your wish. I present to you the UCC and the PCUSA . . .