I hear you. In Ian Anderson's case I don't think fear of music lessons prevented him from taking any, it was just that things rolled on nicely without them. I find him very creative and musical. He picked up the flute for the first time about 6 months before their first album! If I remember correctly, the flute was part of a trade involving a Fender guitar of some kind.
The story he's most often told was that he was hitchhiking through Europe and decided he needed something easier to truck around with than the acoustic guitar he was carrying. So he swapped it with somebody (wherever he was) for a flute. And the rest, as they say, is rock history. Funny story: when Ray Thomas of the Moody Blues stepped down from touring (and later the entire band) for health reasons, Justin Hayward contacted a talent agent he knew and said they were in need of a "rock flutist" for their upcoming tour. Hayward asked him to send them 20 names to audition. The agent told him he wouldn't send him 20. He'd send him one because it was all he'd need. Enter Norda Mullin. It's an interesting story - and also a good example of how fortune favors the prepared. She already knew their repertoire (since childhood) when they called her in. Four days of rehersal later and she went on tour with one of the most iconic rock bands in history. You can hear more about it here:
I've gotten to a point where I don't care what other people want to learn or not learn, but if they are working with me & can't keep up because they haven't learned something they should have. Well, it's time to say goodbye to that person.
It's clear there are people who play well without knowing much formal music theory. It's possible to have a lot of knowledge or and/or ability without knowing the theory behind it. "If I put my hands like this on the instrument, it makes this sound ... I like that, and so do people who hear it." There's a part of music that's just basic like that, and so be it. That's how I first learned to play guitar - get out the old tape recorder, play back John Fahey and Steve Howe at half speed, pick out where each note they play is on the guitar, go through an entire tune like that and eventually ... hey, I can play it! A very labor intensive method, though it works. When I decided I wanted to be able to play with other people, I took some jazz guitar lessons (seemed like it would be a good foundation for modern music), which meant lots of theory as well as physical practice. This was enormously helpful to me, and made it fairly easy to transfer my guitar skills to the bass. So for me, theory has been useful, for sure, and only enhanced my creativity and ability. There are those who have lots of formal training and theory study whose playing is kind of dead - but that's just them failing to connect, not finding the musical elements beyond theory and formal study that make things breathe. There is a performance aspect to music making which shouldn't be minimized or overlooked. That doesn't mean theory is destructive or not useful, just that it's not the only thing to learn. Then there's the story Mickey Mantle used to tell about hearing batting theory from Ted Williams. Ted and The Mick talked at some length about batting stance, swing path, etc., etc., and afterward, Mick said, "I couldn't hit for a week!" Mick was just a natural who did what he did, and just got tied up in knots trying to think about it. For some folks it's like that. ^_^ For most of us, a Ted Williams, studied approach is useful.
And ... theology? Anyway, I'm not sure who's seen as advocating willful ignorance. Myself, I was pointing out a few examples of how theoretical/'technical knowledge is only PART of the picture, while at the same time mentioning how very useful studying jazz theory and technique has been to me, personally. I don't think that's unreasonable.