Creeds, a toothless watchdog

Gospel Union ^ | March 29, 2005 | Kevin Harper

[GospelUnion]

If creeds are so useful for the truth they may contain, but are not authoritative for our salvation, then we might as well call Moby Dick by Herman Melville a creed. Scripture is quoted in the novel, so it contains some inerrant truth, right?

People view creeds as watchdogs to protect a group from heresy, but if the creed has no real authority, then it is a toothless watchdog. One bit of prose is as good as another, provided there is some semblance of truth in it.

As long as we are all free to dissent with this phrase or that nuance of meaning without endangering our soul, then why have the creed in the first place? Because it's a crutch. Everyone is deathly afraid of what would happen if there were no creeds, thinking that chaos and heresy would be just around every corner. But that implies that they are not at the moment, which I deny emphatically. Creeds have been used for centuries now, with the same chaotic and divisive results. How many Christian sects and denominations do we have now? Thousands, no doubt. If we keep doing what we're doing, we'll keep getting what we're getting.

The meaning of the word heresy, as it was used by new testament writers, was not departure from orthodoxy, but a schism. We can discuss all day long what the appropriate circumstances are for a schism, but the fact is that creeds have engendered more of them than they have ever patched up, simply because they introduce fallible language and opinions into what is intended to be an authoritative document.

But again, if Christians don't have to consider them authoritative, then why have them? Perhaps we should make nothing a test of fellowship that God has not made a test of salvation. Then the real watchdog against heresy becomes the inerrant Word of God. And there is an additional benefit; it has real teeth.

Join the discussion

[GMMAC]

Well newbie, one supposes if you were looking to pick an argument with those who adhere to Liturgical Churches, this may have seemed like a good start but seemingly you're simply being ignored.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Who are you calling toothless?

[GospelUnion]

I'm not about picking fights, but ending them, friend. I accept all who are in Christ, even if they (mistakenly) subscribe to some human creed. :-) And who are you callin' a newbie?! I've lurked for years here. I guess that doesn't count. Thanks for supporting our Marines. God bless, Kevin Harper

[GMMAC]

Here is the Catholic Church's teaching on Creeds so that readers of this thread can adjudge both how it relates to Faith and whether it was fairly portrayed in your initial post above.

BTW, as your button link doesn't seem to work, did you mean "STEPHEN" Harper - Leader of The Conservative Party of Canada?

[GospelUnion]

No relation to any Steven Harper that I know of. And I didn't know Canada had a Conservative Party. OK, I did know that, but are they actually conservative? I haven't followed Canadian politics too much. God bless, Kevin Harper

[r9etb]

Your comments about creeds work equally well in a discussion about the Constitution -- about which John Adams famously stated, "Our constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Creeds, like the Constitution, are meaningful to those who are a priori obedient to the principles underlying the creed; and mere obstacles to those who are not obedient to them.

St. Paul discusses the distinction at length, in his Epistle to the Romans.

[GospelUnion]

Interestingly stated. (I think that quote was from Madison, not Adams, but I could be wrong.) The written code has been nailed to the cross, with the law of God now written on our hearts. When we are truly following Christ, neither a written code nor a creed are necessary. But I'll put my faith in the inerrant Word over a human-authored creed any day. Insofar as a creed is viewed as a fallible set of opinions, I don't have a problem with them. It's using them as an inerrant "shorthand" test of fellowship that bothers me. That is what divides, not the truths that may or may not be expressed in them. This topic (and Paul's treatment of it) relates to the one of "What makes sin sin?" God bless, Kevin Harper

[GMMAC]

Sorry for any misunderstanding.
However, given that you'd just commented on my tag line which mentions Canada, that your initial post didn't say anything about a "Kevin" Harper and that your first link to same apparently was inoperative, surely you can see how you managed to leave me somewhat confused.

No, Canada's Conservative Party isn't all that conservative but, depending upon one's level of optimism, it's either a step in the right direction or at least a lesser of evils.

[GospelUnion]

Hey, no problem. I don't know why the links weren't working. My first post did have my full name, but oh well...just one of those tech glitches, I guess.

Best of luck to you in conservatizing the Conservative Party of Canada. I was depressed about the spineless direction of the Republican Party a decade ago, and I think they've come a long way. Still spineless sometimes, but much bolder than before. I'm always optimistic. I know no other way to be. :-)

[r9etb]

I think what you're missing here is that the creeds are less a matter for individuals, than they are a matter for the Church, in the same way that the Constitution is a document meant for the government, rather than the citizens of the nation.

Also, the creeds are not a set of "fallible opinions," nor are they to be regarded as holy writ. Rather, they list those things that one must believe if one is a Christian. Take a look at the Nicene or Apostles' Creeds, and see if there's anything wrong with what they say -- and the answer is "no."

One cannot forget the context in which the creeds were written -- and I cannot help but notice that your individualistic approach to religion bears a striking resemblance to the environment that spawned those heresies -- and which the Creeds were written to combat. I'm not saying that you're a heretic; however, you're suggesting that people can use their own judgements on how best to follow Christ. As a member of the Episcopal Church, I have seen at first hand the damage that abandonment of the Creeds, and the adoption of "personal faith" does -- both to the Church, and to individual believers.

[GospelUnion]

You're viewing the church as a human institution, in which case it is hopelessly divided and pitted against itself in thousands of factions. If the church is the ekklesia--all the individuals called out by God who are in Christ--it is not a human institution that can be organized and shaped into a hierarchy. I realize this will take some time to wrap your mind around this for anyone used to hierarchy, clergy, process, etc. But Christianity is not about those things--that is Churchianity, not Christianity. Being Christlike--now that is where the rubber meets the road. As for whether there is anything wrong with the Nicene or other creeds, that's beside the point. I dislike the use of creeds on principle, not their content. No, there is nothing that screams heresy in the Nicene, but my point is that one does not need to read and understand the Nicene (or the historical context it was written in) to be saved. God bless, Gospel Union

[GMMAC]

Ultimately, an overwhelming majority of Christendom resides within Liturgically based, Hierarchal Churches.

Major Traditional Branches of Christianity
(mid-1995; source: Encyclopedia Britannica)
Branch Number of Adherents
Catholic 968,000,000
Protestant 395,867,000
Other Christians 275,583,000
Orthodox 217,948,000
Anglicans 70,530,000
Source

Accordingly - and without even touching upon the clear Scriptural dictates we accept for both - pragmatically, this same vast majority is far more rightly concerned with healing past schismatic rifts which serve to divide us on otherwise common grounds than in arbitrarily subscribing to the individualistic and anti Liturgical, anti Hierarchal, doctrines advocated by "Gospel Union" - or by anyone else plainly well beyond the Christian mainstream we so obviously represent.

However, while a practicing Catholic, I regularly work in common cause with fundamentalist Protestants on "the Christian Right" on a host of societal - "family values" - issues, none of us compromises or abandons any personally held theological principles to do so.

In the final anlaysis, what Christian can ever aspire to be - or need be - anything more than "the thief on the right"?

[GospelUnion]

I don't doubt that hierarchical Churchianity is the mainstream, and I don't doubt that there are faithful believers with varying levels of maturity and faith scattered among all (or most) of the denominations and factions. But that doesn't make the denominations "the kingdom" or a "piece" of the kingdom. The kingdom of Christ resides in each of us who are in Him, and doesn't have an address listing in the phone book.

Individuals might mistakenly submit to faulty systems of authority and clergy who are not authoritative in the eyes of God, but that doesn't mean they are lost. We are responsible for what we understand, and when people come to understand that professional clergy bear no God-ordained authority, they will figure out what to do.