Revisions to the Creed

Current status

The creed of Technotheology stands at version 1.0, adopted in 2026.

There have been no revisions.

That is the whole of the record. This page exists because it will one day contain more than that, and because a revision history begun after the first change is a history that cannot be checked.

We want to be explicit about what this means. A tradition published in 2026 with a creed at version 1.0 has not yet been tested by anything. Nothing here has survived a serious challenge, because nothing here has faced one. The tenth affirmation welcomes revision, and until this page has entries on it, that welcome is a stated intention rather than demonstrated behaviour.

You should weight it accordingly.

Why no history is invented

Some traditions present themselves as older than they are, or describe a development they did not undergo. It lends weight. It is also a lie about the most basic fact a reader might want.

Technotheology is new. Its creed was written recently, by people who are alive, without revelation, and it has not changed since. We would rather that be the first thing you know about it than something you discover later.

What may be revised

Anything, including the sixteen affirmations themselves.

The creed is not treated as fixed text. It has no claim to inspiration, no author whose intention must be preserved, and no status that would be diminished by correction. If a line is wrong, it should be changed. If a line is missing, it should be added.

Some changes are more consequential than others, and the process reflects that.

Editorial changes correct spelling, punctuation, or formatting without touching meaning. These are made as needed and noted in the page’s own revision record rather than here.

Clarifying changes alter wording where the existing text has been reliably misunderstood, without changing what is held. These require the process below and are recorded here.

Substantive changes alter, remove, or add an affirmation. These require the process below in full, and increment the major version.

How a change is proposed

Anyone may propose a change. There is no membership requirement, because there is no membership. There is no standing to establish. A proposal from someone who rejects the tradition entirely is considered on the same basis as any other.

A proposal should say four things.

Which line is at issue, quoted exactly. What is wrong with it: not that it is disagreeable, but what it gets wrong, permits, forbids, or fails to say. What should replace it, in specific words. And what the replacement would cost, since every change to a creed weakens something as well as strengthening something.

Proposals that identify a problem without offering wording are still useful and will be recorded, but they are harder to act on.

How a change is considered

Three things must happen before any substantive change is made.

It must be published while still undecided. A proposed change is posted openly, in full, with the reasoning for and against, before any decision is taken. A revision process conducted privately and announced afterwards is not a revision process.

It must be argued against in public. The strongest available case for keeping the existing wording is written down and published alongside the proposal. If nobody will make that case, the stewards will make it themselves, properly rather than as a formality.

It must sit. No substantive change takes effect within thirty days of being proposed. Urgency is the condition under which most bad amendments are made, and there is no circumstance in which a creed needs changing this week.

How a change is recorded

When a revision is made, this page will record: the version number, the date, the exact previous wording, the exact new wording, who proposed it, the reasoning, and the objections that were raised and not resolved.

That last item matters. A revision record that lists only the arguments that won is a record of decisions, not of reasoning. Where a change was made over serious objection, the objection is preserved here.

Nothing is deleted. Superseded wording remains readable. A tradition that quietly replaces its own text asks to be trusted about what it used to say.

Who decides

At present, a small number of people who maintain this site. We use the word “stewards” for them, meaning caretakers of text rather than holders of office. They have no authority beyond deciding what appears here, and no claim to insight.

This is an unsatisfactory arrangement and we will say so rather than dress it up. A creed that rejects the concentration of unaccountable power, maintained by an unaccountable few, is in tension with itself. The tension is real. It exists because the alternative structures — a council, a membership, a vote — require a community that does not exist yet, and inventing the structure before the people would be its own kind of pretence.

What we can commit to now is narrow: that the process above is followed visibly, that proposals from outside are recorded even when refused, and that when there are enough people for a better arrangement, the arrangement changes and this paragraph is revised.

How to tell if this has failed

You do not have to take our word for any of it. Three signs would indicate that this process has stopped working.

The first is a long silence. If years pass with no proposals recorded, either nobody is reading or proposals are being quietly discarded. Neither is good.

The second is a revision made without a published proposal preceding it. If the creed changes and no record of the argument appears here, the process has been bypassed.

The third is a version history that contains only improvements. Real revision includes changes that were mistakes, and a record with no reversals in it has been curated.