A “creedal test” would seem to me to involve the existence of a disciplinary body that could nullify a person’s membership on the basis of a discrepancy between the person’s stated beliefs and the church’s official statement of belief. It’s the withdrawal of fellowship from someone because of that person’s conscientious difference of theological opinion.

I don’t think any of the historical Unitarian or Universaalist professions qualify as “creedal tests,” although there are moments in our history when they may have briefly been used that way — almost always to discipline ministers, not members.

The really interesting question, in my mind, isn’t whether a member faces disciplinary action for deviating from our implicit or semi-explicit doctrines — since it’s pretty hard to find an example of such a thing at an organized, official level. It’s this: How does a congregation find a workable compromise between guaranteeing “freedom of the pulpit” while also expecting its minister to publicly promote the congregation’s values and doctrines?

What if the minister’s conscience ends up at odds with the congregation’s? Can this be explicitly acknowledged, or does the congregation need to discover some other grievance to end the relationship? Do we have implicit creedal tests for clergy?

To me it sounds like a very good lay ministry to have around in small and rural churches that lack full-time ordained ministry. If I would be at my current church longer, I would definitely revive the office of deacon.