A Time for Orthodoxy (Part Four)

Today I will conclude the series urging anti-creedal churches to rethink their opposition to explicit creeds, confessions of faith, and statements of belief.

A Little More History

The Early and Patristic Church

Creeds, confessions of faith and statements of belief served different purposes in different eras of church history. Beginning with the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), early and patristic church leaders met on occasion to deal with controversies. They sometimes issued decrees clarifying controverted issues and condemning erroneous views. For example, the decrees (creeds) from the first two ecumenical Councils, Nicaea and Constantinople (I) built on the list of truths articulated in the early rule of faith. The Councils found it necessary to clarify certain disputed points and condemn certain assertions made by the Arian party, which asserted that the Son of God was not truly God but the first and greatest creature. Wisely, these Councils made no attempt to articulate everything Christians believe and practice. Not only would this have been impossible, it would have engendered fruitless controversies. They left all these things implicit in the tradition of worship and the practical life of the church.

I see much wisdom in the patristic church’s practice. The Christian faith cannot be articulated in all its fulness and richness. As philosopher of science Michael Polanyi observed, “we know more than we can say.” If the church tries to say everything it knows, it will complicate what is simple and oversimplify what is complicated. But there are times when the church must articulate some piece of its tacit knowledge and condemn the worse distortions of its faith.

The Protestant Reformation

When Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican and other branches of the Protestant Reformation organized themselves into separate bodies, they promulgated confessions of faith to clarify for the world what they believed and taught and how they differed from the Roman Catholic Church and each other. Among the earliest of these are the Lutheran Augsburg Confession of Faith (1530), the Reformed First (1536) and Second (1566) Helvetic Confessions of Faith, and the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563). These documents were much longer than the Nicene Creed and covered a more extensive catalogue of doctrines. Nevertheless, the Protestant confessions did not attempt to articulate the full depth and riches of the Christian faith. Every later Protestant body explicitly or implicitly followed the same rule.

The proliferation of Protestant confessions of faith was driven by necessity. Given the separation from the Roman Catholic Church and the disputes among themselves Protestants had to make clear how they differed from the RCC and each other. This task remains necessary even for contemporary anti-creedal churches. How else may anti-creedal churches let the world know that they differ from other churches by rejecting creeds?

Contemporary Independent, Community, and Bible Churches

In this list I include every church whose primary leadership and identity rests in the local congregation. Instead of a Protestant confession of faith, they often list their beliefs on their website or in printed material under the rubric “What we Believe.” This list usually includes basic teachings common to all orthodox churches (Trinity, Christ’s Deity, Atonement, Resurrection, etc.), some that are central to Protestantism in general (justification by faith), some that are characteristic of the parent denomination, and some that are important to the identity of that particular congregation. Most of these statements are not too long, at most 20 points. Like the Patristic church and the churches of the Reformation, community and Bible churches do not attempt to put into words everything they teach and practice. You learn these things, if at all, by long years of participation in the life of the church.

The Present Challenge: Progressive “Christianity”

As I explained in the first essay in this series, my faith was nurtured in a conservative wing of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. That is where I serve today and expect to serve for the rest of my life. We like to think we preserve some unique insights within a generally Protestant tradition. To the outside observer, however, we look like most other low church Protestant groups. We cherish the canonical scriptures and adhere (informally) to the orthodox ecumenical faith set out in the ecumenical creeds. But we wished to be guided by Scripture alone apart from detailed Protestant confessions of faith. Our original aim was to protest against the use of minor theological differences to exclude and condemn other believers. We wished to reclaim in practice the biblical doctrine of the unity of the church.

A Different World

Today, however, our anti-creedal stance has made us less able to assert biblical/orthodox teaching even in the most fundamental areas, which in the past we took for granted. Our hesitancy to assert doctrinal truth has opened the door to heresies that never came knocking in the past. We face a decisive moment. Will we assert and enforce the biblical/orthodox faith by making use of the authorities of scripture, tradition, and office or succumb to the spirit of the postmodern age in which everyone is their own judge?

Admittedly, I am speaking here of urban and suburban churches. Rural and small-town churches face other issues. What, then, is the challenge urban and suburban SCM and other independent, community, and Bible churches face? Readers of this blog will not be surprised to learn that I think the greatest challenge to the orthodoxy of those churches is the temptation to assimilate to the progressive sector of modern culture.* That is to say, to adopt an easy-going inclusivism that accepts everyone the way they are. No demand for conversion, repentance, or confession! Sexual promiscuity? No problem! Wish us to affirm your LGBTQ+ way of life? Who are we to judge! Your inner self is the measure of your truth! Want to divorce your spouse because you found someone else? We understand…God wants you to be happy! Abortion…well, at least you struggled with the decision. You think everybody will be saved? Makes sense…God loves everyone! Want a social justice Jesus? So do we!

A Time to Stand

I am speaking to those church leaders and planters who want to preserve the biblical/orthodox faith. I urge you to follow the example of the early and patristic church. State clearly what your church believes and practices. Make it concise, but include the ecumenical faith, other basic teachings, and do not neglect the beliefs challenged by the progressive heresy: affirm the positive teaching of Scripture on these subjects, but also make clear your rejection of the progressive principle of religious and moral relativism and the specific progressive heresies mentioned above.

*Use the search function on my blog to look for essays that deal with “progressive Christianity.”

2 thoughts on “A Time for Orthodoxy (Part Four)

  1. Dr Jonne Smalhouse's avatarDr Jonne Smalhouse

    Hello again Ron.

    What a rare and precious witness, and a welcomed treat for me to read about you, rather than from you! It’s unlikely that one will meet you, but what compelling honesty have you given.

    My own witness is probably plentiful and cheap by comparison. Hope i haven’t given the impression that me or my churches are “anti-creedal”? I was simply using Paul to emphasize passages like Matt 6:1-34. Summarized by a greek orthodox friend of mine as “if there is room for misinterpretation in the New Testament scriptures, then there is gulf of misinterpretation possible in most of the creeds and coupled together, often bewilderment”.

    What we share in our own churchs, ecclesiolae, and meetings is a world apart from the ‘prospectus’ that we offer anyone in the street, visitors, converts or potential christians. A point that you make very well Ron. I love the Lord so much, and i revel in His Word so much, that oftentimes i’m really really upset when new folks think i’m a “bible basher”. That really hurts me.

    Let me try to be brief then. Much of developed patristic credology is still dependent upon one or two fundamentals, i believe these are sovereignty and the trinity, because whether we agree or no, they touch everything else we might come to believe… And so when you mention Bishop Arias i thought of a small church group under my care, which, after many weeks decided ” Arias didn’t do much or think, or believe anything particularly wrong or sinful, and made a lot of sense”.

    It took me a while, after coming round from the floor, to understand why they thought this. And the answer was, that they didn’t really agree upon any aspects of who God and the Holy Trinity was, and what absolute sovereinty looked like. And yes, as you said, few actively read their bibles in any great depth.

    This is probably why i preach trinity more than most, and also why i like to mention the feast of tabernacles. The lectionary times for preaching the transfiguration are now rarely observed for one simple reason. That very same day is now on the calendar as ” Hiroshima Day”. Not so funny how one of my favourite trinitrian events in the bible has been replaced by arguably, one of the most awful.

    In your litany of creeds, you don’t mention baptism. Another biggy Ron.

    I’ll leave you with the french term RSVP, ” respondet s’il vous plait?” Which is intriguing, because there is a tendency in churches for modern spoken creeds to be in a ‘question and answer’ form where congregants speak out together. So that when we do so, we might remember,

    Repentance, Salvation, Victory and Providence?

    Upon this we can depend!

    Like

    Reply
    1. ifaqtheology's avatarifaqtheology Post author

      Thank you! Arius was slippery! He proposed what one Patristic scholar called “the worst possible Christology.” Thanks also for pointing out my omission. The scriptures first and then the Nicene Creed declares the “one baptism for the remission of sins.” What a beautiful thought! Baptism is an objective event and marker of departure from the old way of being human (the flesh) and the new way (the Spirit)!

      Keep teaching and preaching the word! (2 Tim 4:2).

      Ron

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Dr Jonne Smalhouse Cancel reply