How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy
everal times in the past, the subject of orthodoxy has come up on this blog. And quite honestly, I’ve taken a lot of flack over my hesitancy to write some people off as being “heretics”.
This evening, while perusing some blogs, I spotted this paragraph from a commenter:
It seems to me that the wrong way to identify whether someone believes the Bible is to ask them if they do.
Better to find out what they believe on a variety of subjects which the Bible teaches us about, and then determine for them whether or not they really believe it.
That, my friends, is apparently how we are to judge others.
Forgive my bitter cynicism, but I fail to see the justification in this kind of approach. It could easily be paraphrased as such: “Don’t give your brother any benefit of the doubt. Give them, rather, a theological quiz, and grade it based on your own inerrant, infallible, and complete knowledge of the truth.”
No, thank you.
Until next time,
steve 
August 28th, 2007 07:50
Hi Steve …
I’ve been lurking here for a while and really enjoy your commentary.
You almost threw me for a loop with this. I had to re-read it a couple of times. Especially this line:
“…and then determine for them whether or not they really believe it.”
Wow … that’s pretty arrogant … to determine for someone else whether or not they really believe something. Borders on hubris in my book … I wonder how a person might go about determining another person’s “real” beliefs. Scary.
August 28th, 2007 09:37
Steve,
Sadly, I read that comment also. I am coming to the conclusion that real communication is not possible with those “brothers.” I really don’t understand their desire to paint a part of the body of Christ as dangerous heretics threatening the glory of God and in need of being treated as enemies of the cross. Perhaps it is in boxing it as a dangerous movement that they can avoid seeing that they are really talking about individual members of the body.
Although they ask for response, I don’t believe real conversation is possible when they’ve already established the parameters that put others in the category of deceived heretics before ever hearing them. And even when they listen, it seems to be to simply look for a way to prove their point.
Eventually, I believe that they will end up the same as SOL, spouting their rants to the amen chorus who already agree with them, boosting their feelings of self-righteous certainty. Eventually we will all come to the conclusion that there is no fruitful purpose in engaging in their discussion, and the only reasonable response is to simply leave them in their arrogant opinions.
Personally, I’ve tried to understand, and I just don’t get it. One thing I know for sure, there is no “winning” from either side in this type of engagement, even for those who are sure they won.
August 28th, 2007 09:41
I wonder why anyone would think the guidance Jesus gives on this issue is lacking:
Joh 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
August 28th, 2007 11:25
Steve -
I am struggling with this same thing because someone very near and dear to me subscribes to this “philosophy” and it puts quite a strain on our relationship. For some reason this person thinks they are the Holy Spirit in my life and that it’s their job to “guide me into all truth”.
Recently this person wrote on their blog about whether or not it is okay for those ministering in Jesus’ name to be mistaken in different areas of theology if their intentions were right and pure. They say no, I say yes because … “mistaken” according to whom? I’m not (and this person is not) talking about obvious error (i.e. Jesus didn’t die, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, etc.) but they are talking about points that are debatable (gifts, tithing, interpretations of certain Scriptures, etc.).
So … the person who made the quote you refer to above … this person seems to think that they have the market cornered on the truth and that they are the Holy Spirit too. Why else would they write, “and then determine for them whether or not they really believe it. (emphasis mine). Why is it anyone’s job to determine for anyone else if they believe the Bible.
There seems to be a whole lot of lack of trust in the Holy Spirit these days and His ability and His promise to lead us and guide us and comfort us and empower us.
*sigh*
~Heather
August 28th, 2007 11:27
sonja, nice to have you de-lurk and comment. I think I’ve read comments by you on other blogs.
Hubris is a good word in this case, I think.
grace, I figured a handful of readers would have come across this on their own. It is very, very sad. As for the comparison to SOL, I think they’re probably already there. They’ve been bedfellows for a long time, and I don’t really see much difference. There’s so much mockery, slander, and high-fiving about it all in the comments. Constantly.
I’ve tried in the past to dialogue with them in response to their questions, not even as a representative of the particular movement they are criticizing (because I’m not sure that I am part of any movement at all, let alone that particular one). Any attempts at dialogue with them have been met with mockery and dismissal. I finally gave up, but every once in a while I go back to see if anything’s changed. Sadly, nothing has.
ded, I thought about including that very verse. Thanks for bringing it up. And what an excellent way to put it — in the language of Jesus’ instructions being lacking. That is definitely what it appears to me.
Again, I find myself with a heart broken by the sadness of this type of stuff masquerading as representative of Jesus.
August 28th, 2007 11:34
Heather, welcome back! You and Brandon have been missed.
You, like ded above have hit on the issue. The role of the Holy Spirit is completely marginalized with this approach. It is our job to make disciples, but disciples of what? Of whom? Ourselves? Our interpretations?
Even with regard to core issues, there are many “in-house debates” with regard to details about those issues. But some don’t even see that as legit.
Postmodernism, in my experience, does not mean the complete absence of the existence of truth. It seems, again in my experience, to simply understand that there may be aspects to the truth that we don’t fully grasp yet, and so we have to be careful about what we do with our current conclusions.
For example, my theology has gone through significant overhaul in the past 8 years. But through it all, I have never once questioned whether there is salvation in any other than Jesus, nor have I questioned that it is solely his sacrifice on the cross which enables me to be in right relationship with the Father. In fact, if anything, my understanding of the work of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit have deepened tremendously in that time.
But, that’s not good enough for some people. To which I have to respond that it’s a good thing that I won’t be standing before them on the final day of judgment!
August 28th, 2007 11:41
So how then do we with righteous judgment examine someone by their fruit?
August 28th, 2007 11:43
Josiah, I’m not sure I understand the question. Can you elaborate a bit, please? Thanks!
Good to see you, brother.
August 28th, 2007 12:37
Steve -
You said, “For example, my theology has gone through significant overhaul in the past 8 years. But through it all, I have never once questioned whether there is salvation in any other than Jesus, nor have I questioned that it is solely his sacrifice on the cross which enables me to be in right relationship with the Father. In fact, if anything, my understanding of the work of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit have deepened tremendously in that time.” …
I couldn’t have said it better myself … exactly my same experience here as well!!
~Heather
August 28th, 2007 13:05
Fruit examination:
You can read the label on a can of fruit to know what’s inside, what vitamins it contains, how many calories it has. When you open the can, and the fruit is rotten, the data on the outside of the can becomes meaningless.
August 28th, 2007 13:26
The goal, it seems to me, is to not fall into the same trap. When we find ourselves complaining about those people our discussion can degenerate into something not very edifying unless we ask ourselves how we as Christians could be seduced to travel a path so contrary to the one our Lord calls us to. We should get nervous when our focus is on how bad they are rather than on how we can, like them, veer off course. Where does the seduction come from? Jesus calls us to make true judgments in love. That’s no easy task. I battle, first of all, my own self righteousness which is prone to prop up my vanity on the faults of others. Secondly, because of self deception, there are people who think they believe the Bible but don’t. Love calls for clear correction as well as understanding and respect. Shifting the focus to behavior rather than teaching doesn’t make matters easier. I think this may be what Josiah is getting at. How do I find the balance between iron sharpening iron and love covering a multitude of sins?
August 28th, 2007 15:45
Steve,
I remember a conversation you and I had about a year ago on this very topic. I must admit, I have come very far (much farther than I was) in my understanding of it. As a matter of fact, there is a political blog I comment on quite a bit and there are some radical right wingers who want to add litmus tests for salvation and then automatically if that person does not line up with their version of Christianity, then, well, that person CANNOT be saved.
I have played ring around the rosie with several fellas out there and they all spit and sputter over the core requirements of the Gospel. “Well, yeah, death, burial, and resurrection, but what about evolution? And inerrancy? And young earth? And homosexuality? And…and…and…but…but…but.
I then have pointed out how they add to the Gospel by demanding orthodoxy but I have yet to really get anywhere with those guys. But it is fun trying.
God bless you brother. This is what I love about you.
August 28th, 2007 17:18
Hi Steve,
As usual a great post that certainly hits the mark. I can’t believe how much my own views on this have changed over, say, the last two years or so. I used to feel strongly about doctrine being the measuring stick. It’s kind of funny in a way how we make it so difficult and yet Christ makes it so simple. “By our love”, not by the 27 “essential” doctrines…
In Him,
-marty
August 29th, 2007 02:51
I just read something on another blog (Alan Hirsch’s blog I think) about how we view discipleship. We focus on making disciples only with new believers. But the truth is that we are ALL disciples on-the-way, no matter how long we’ve been a Christian, no matter how much training we’ve had (whether it be in a formal setting, or the setting of life with the Holy Spirit as our teacher). I appreciate an attitude of giving others the benefit of the doubt and not writing people off as heretics. In my opinion, all of us are heretics at some level. I don’t think one person is going to get to heaven and God is going to say, “Wow. You really nailed the doctrine thing! You had all the right answers!” C’mon! If there is one constant theme in scripture, it is that people didn’t get what God was saying, they didn’t get what He was doing. Not even Jesus’s disciples who spent days on end with Him understood much of what He said. Eventually, they did. But even as an apostle, Peter stumbled and had to be corrected by Paul. So, you know, there is no “arrival” point this side of heaven. And that’s my two cents.
August 29th, 2007 15:32
How do we with righteous judgment examine someone by their fruit?
If righteousness is compliance with the terms of the covenant God made with Christ’s followers, then righteousness is loving God and people. So righteous judgment is judgment made in the context of loving others. How is the fruit demonstrating love? And since we are practicing love, our judgment is itself loving — charitable, open-minded, and forgiving; not addressing what we consider bad so much as what we consider good. That judgment would also trigger self-examination: what am I seeing in you that should remind me to be more faithful to the commandment?
Or so it seems to me.
August 30th, 2007 07:07
There is the treasure of heaven in that response, George.
August 30th, 2007 13:48
Is there any place for creed in your framework?
MB
August 30th, 2007 14:50
MB, it really depends on what the creed is used for.
Creeds have their place, but I don’t believe they should ever be landing points, nor do I believe that they should be used as clubs to beat other believers over the head. Unfortunately, I have seen them misused in this way far too many times.
What are your thoughts?
August 30th, 2007 17:30
Personally, I think creeds are foundational statements of faith. I would be reluctant to call anyone a Christian who denies an aspect of the Nicene or Apostle’s Creeds. This is even true of areas where Scripture is less than crystal clear (e.g., eternal nature of Christ, divinity of the Holy Spirit). Historically, creed and canon were siblings, and each affected the development of the other.
MB
August 30th, 2007 20:36
I would be reluctant to call anyone a Christian who denies an aspect of the Nicene or Apostle’s Creeds.
MB, You have made the same jump that many people make. I talk about creeds not being landing points (i.e., camping out on them) or being used as clubs, and you come back with a statement about how you feel about someone denying some aspect of certain creeds.
There are myriad problems with that, not the least of which is that affirming a creed or denying a creed are not the only two options. I may merely think that a particular creed is not an accurate representation of what I believe scripture teaches.
See, I don’t deny the statements of the Nicene Creed. But I passionately argue that the Nicene Creed unnecessarily limits a definition of God, goes beyond the teaching of scripture, and as such is a pretty lousy litmus test for fellowship.
The history of why the Nicene Creed even came into existence supports the idea that we place emphasis on the wrong points of the creed. The Council of Nicaea wanted to affirm the deity of Jesus over against the idea (Arius) that Jesus was a mere human being. But instead of focusing merely on that, we tell people they have to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. Well, like I said above, I have issues with the limitations put on the doctrine of the Trinity, based on scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity creates a box that we shove God in, and then tell people they have to believe that to be considered a Christian.
You just said that if someone “denies an aspect” — just even one aspect?? — of the Nicene or Apostle’s creed, you would “be reluctant to call [them] a Christian.” That’s pretty serious, brother.
But even more importantly (and I’ve blogged about this some in the past, but may revisit the topic since you brought it up here), using the extra-biblical creeds as litmus tests for fellowship go way beyond even what the Apostles taught, as recorded in scripture.
Can you imagine if, when asked what one must do to be saved, Paul had responded in Acts 16:31: “Affirm the Nicene Creed, and thou shalt be saved.”
Or how about in Acts 17 when Paul was speaking in the Areopagus, if he had started spouting off the doctrine of the Trinity? Instead, he talks about the Creator and “a man whom he has appointed”. (“a man”??? Think about that! Paul was really dropping the ball on his christology there…)
Or how about one more: Romans 10…maybe Paul should have said, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity, eternally co-existent with the Father and the Spirit…” But rather he just says that you have to confess that Jesus is “lord”. We mistakenly read “deity” back into the word “lord” every time we see it, but it was not strictly a “deity” word. It also was the general word for “master”.
And so this poses a huge problem when we begin to use terms like “foundational” to refer to the creeds.
The creeds are derivative works, not foundational works.
You may choose, after reading this, to come to the conclusion that you cannot call me a Christian. You probably would not be the first. But I would caution you with the words of Jesus when he told his disciples that whoever is not against us is for us. So, you would pretty much have to be willing to say that I am against Christ. Good luck with that one
August 31st, 2007 00:05
Suppose I were legally blind — not totally blind, but it was like I was just seeing thru a very cloudy glass. And I’d been that way since birth. During my young life I could kinda see my father, but of course not very well. And also during my young life I had other people who would describe him to me, but of course words can’t create an image if you’ve never really seen the image.
Question: Without being able to form an accurate picture of my father in my head, much less articulate on orally, would you accept my assertion that I might know, obey, and love my father anyway? Would you be convinced by my obedience, or would you require me to accurately describe him first?
August 31st, 2007 03:35
Some good discussion here. George, you need to start a blog. I would read it!
I really appreciate your contributions to this thread.
August 31st, 2007 11:06
Yes, Sarah, I agree. George, you really do need to start a blog!
…but it was like I was just seeing thru a very cloudy glass.
Seems I have read that somewhere before.
August 31st, 2007 15:47
Steve,
It seems that you view the creeds as derivative works and not foundational works. I take a very different tack. The creeds and the canon developed concurrently and each influenced the other. The Bible didn’t just appear and function as they sole source of doctrine the year the apostle John died. It took several centuries to put the canon together. The early church didn’t just look at the statements in the creed and ask, “Does this line up with Scripture?” They also looked at books up for nomination as Scripture and asked, “Does this line up with the creed?”
S: “using the extra-biblical creeds as litmus tests for fellowship go way beyond even what the Apostles taught, as recorded in scripture.”
MB: Everything in the creeds is taught in Scripture. It may not be taught with crystal clarity, but it is both taught and binding. The Bible was never intended to be self-sufficient for setting doctrine (II Thess. 2:15).
S: “But I would caution you with the words of Jesus when he told his disciples that whoever is not against us is for us.”
MB: Where do you stop, if you can’t call someone a Christian who denies an aspect of the creeds? On what basis would you say that a Docetist, a gnostic, an Arian, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Mormon or a Muslim is not a Christian? Where can the line be drawn? There may be people today who are uncomfortable with their own falliblity and lack of authority and are therefore unwilling to draw a line anywhere. That is not the way the Church is supposed to function.
MB
August 31st, 2007 16:06
MB, it is quite possible that my history is incorrect. Would you be so kind as to point to some sources for the fact that creeds were used in determining canonicity? I would appreciate it. Thanks!
Rather than retrace a lot of the ground that I’ve written about previously, let’s do this before going too much further in the conversation.
Read posts on my blog that reference “creed” (you can get a list of them by clicking here) and then come back here and let me know what you think.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but it will at least give you a great foundation for where I’m coming from.
One point of clarification on my comment about creeds being used as litmus tests and this going beyond the Apostles’ teaching:
What I was primarily getting at was reflected in the passages I “twisted” above by inserting anachronistic language. When asked “What must I do to be saved”, or when telling his readers what was necessary for salvation, Paul did not go into the details that are given in the creeds.
I think that is highly significant, don’t you?
Thanks for the very cordial interaction. I look forward to reading more from you.
August 31st, 2007 16:12
“See, I don’t deny the statements of the Nicene Creed. But I passionately argue that the Nicene Creed unnecessarily limits a definition of God, goes beyond the teaching of scripture, and as such is a pretty lousy litmus test for fellowship.”
Steve,
I’m not sure I understand the above statement. Are you saying that you yourself believe the Nicene Creed statements, but think they don’t describe things fully? Are you saying that you yourself believe the statements, but don’t think you can judge anyone who doesn’t believe those statements? Are you saying something else?
MB
August 31st, 2007 20:26
I’m afraid I have some doubts about the accuracy of your historical statements, MB. The creeds could not influence the development of the NT canon, because most of them came after it was settled. I have studied both the history of the NT writings and the history of the church. The canon was largely settled by 200-250 AD–the “Muratorian Canon,” one of the early lists of NT books, goes back to 180 or so. The Nicene Creed resulted from the Council of Nicaea in 325, which was held to settle the Arian-Athanasian controversy (for the record, it did not succeed in that aim–it took several hundred years for Arianism to largely die out–and it mostly died out for political reasons rather than theological debate). The ‘Apostles’ Creed is older, but not as old as the apostles–the dates I’ve seen for it range around 100-150 AD. It is also the shortest, and one of the least detailed. What other creeds are you thinking of? Westminster? Written in the mid-1600s. Similar for the Heidelberg Confession. Augsburg and Helvetic from the 1500s. There were others between, but they were all too late to influence what books became part of the New Testament.
The emperor Constantine ordered 50 Bibles copied for churches after he legalized Christianity. Two or three of the oldest surviving complete (or nearly complete) Bible manuscripts are believed to have been part of those fifty. He also called the Council of Nicaea, the first attempt to settle doctrinal differences by official action. It began a long history of trying to cure doctrinal differences by force, usually without success (at least without massacres, such as the Albigensian Crusade).
August 31st, 2007 20:31
S: “MB, it is quite possible that my history is incorrect. Would you be so kind as to point to some sources for the fact that creeds were used in determining canonicity? I would appreciate it. Thanks!”
MB:
from the Westminster Handbook of Reformed Theology by Donald McKim
“The criterion of canonicity of books of the NT appears to have been apostolic authorship or near-apostolic status, antiquity, orthodoxy and usage throughout the churches.”
If the creeds didn’t define orthodoxy for those deciding the canon, I don’t know what did. The creeds were first written to A) refute heretical ideas and B) instruct new converts. They were brief summaries of what were considered the foundational beliefs of Christianity. They were used to distinguish true Christian belief from heretical belief (gnostic, docetist, Marcionite, etc.).
For an agnostic (Wheaton grad) approach to the subject, you might try reading Erhman’s “Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew” http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=141830&event=AFF
The following two references talk about how the word canon had a much broader usage in patristic writing and encompassed creed as well as Scripture.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZiX5d09931UC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=creed+canonicity&source=web&ots=UerM5CwAXP&sig=J_aD3wCDZLqsTZD3ods61VPsBnc#PPA30,M1
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Criterion-Christian-Theology-Feminism/dp/0199250030
The following is from Ken Collin’s website (Disciples of Christ), “The New Testament and the Nicene Creed are deeply entangled with each other. The wording and the concepts in the Nicene Creed come from the New Testament—in fact, one of the most important debates at the Council of Nicea concerned whether it is proper to include a word in the Nicene Creed that does not occur in the New Testament. On the other hand, at the time that the Church issued the official canon of the New Testament, it customarily compared writings to the Nicene Creed to determine if they were orthodox. So you are correct if you say that the Nicene Creed proceeds from the New Testament, and you are correct if you say that the New Testament is certified by the Nicene Creed.”
This really is to be expected if one looks at the historical development of each and notes that both the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds predated the recognition of the NT canon as we know it today, though the NT books (and several others) were used liturgically by the Church.
The idea that the creed and canon both influenced each other is widely acknowledged within all branches of Christianity as fact. At least, that is my understanding. I would be interested in learning about folks who think the creed did not influence the canon. I can’t imagine a credible scholar of any stripe holding such an opinion. Perhaps my imagination is too small?
MB
August 31st, 2007 20:38
To go back to the original drift of this post, ded used the first Scripture that came to my mind, quoting Jesus. John put it another way in one of his letters: If you do not love your brother whom you have seen, how can you love God whom you have not seen?
Francis Schaeffer wrote about the need to maintain two things:
1) the purity of the visible church (theological and moral)
2) love
He lived through theological controversies, and concluded that you must maintain BOTH of the above–either one without the other leads to death.
August 31st, 2007 22:28
Phil,
I am referring to the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. While it is true that the NT canon was mostly settled by the mid 200’s (and the gospels were settled very early on), it was not finalized by any means. Extra books were regularly included and others that we have today were often left out. For instance, Origen accepted Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache all as inspired Scripture. The Muratorian fragment references the Apocolypse of Peter as being read in the liturgy. Hebrews, Jude, the apocolypse of John and many other books are often left out. As noted above, adherence to the Nicene Creed did play a role in which books were included in the final count.
MB
August 31st, 2007 22:55
“Read posts on my blog that reference “creed†(you can get a list of them by clicking here) and then come back here and let me know what you think.”
After reading these, I’m even more curious to how you’d answer my earlier question, “Where do you stop, if you can’t call someone a Christian who denies an aspect of the creeds? On what basis would you say that a Docetist, a gnostic, an Arian, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Mormon or a Muslim is not a Christian? Where can the line be drawn?” I would add, if it can be drawn, on what basis?
S: “What I was primarily getting at was reflected in the passages I “twisted†above by inserting anachronistic language. When asked “What must I do to be savedâ€, or when telling his readers what was necessary for salvation, Paul did not go into the details that are given in the creeds.
I think that is highly significant, don’t you?”
Nope. Paul used various formulaic sayings for what one should do if one wanted to be saved. Sometimes he didn’t even mention faith! It strikes me that there is more to “being saved” than what any particular passage says. Rather than pitting creed against loving God/our neighber against faith, I like to think of it as a package deal.
I hope I’ve answered your questions. I’ve left several for you to answer, so I’ll shut up for now (which I’m sure you were wishing for a couple posts ago).
MB
August 31st, 2007 23:32
MB, with regard to your question about where I draw the line, there are a couple of things to bear in mind:
1) It is not up to me to determine whether someone is “saved” or not.
2) Fellowship together is based on a unity of the Spirit.
3) According to scripture, one can say all the “right” things, and still miss the mark
As far as fellowshipping with other believers (which is probably what is at the heart of your question), I first of all give someone the benefit of the doubt. If they say that they have placed their trust in Jesus for their salvation, I am willing to accept their confession for starters.
Secondly, I watch their life. How one actually lives is quite indicative of where their heart is. When I see someone who confesses faith in Jesus and lives a life that is indicative of the fruit of the Spirit, I do not seek to divide from them over other areas of doctrine.
What more should we put on people? This “skepticism” and rush to label people is, in my opinion, quite misguided.
So, let me ask you: What must one do to be saved?
And furthermore, how did one express their faith prior to the creeds being formulated? What was the test of fellowship prior to Nicaea?
And one final bonus question for you: If what is in the creeds is completely revealed in scripture, then why don’t we just use scripture?
You quoted Ken Collins as saying, “The wording and the concepts in the Nicene Creed come from the New Testament….” Really? The creed says that Jesus is “one Being with the Father”. Where does the Bible say that Jesus is “one Being with the Father”? When Jesus said that he and the Father “are one” and then prayed that we would be “one” as they are “one”, did he mean two different things? Or does the creed impose a particular interpretation of that, and thereby, as I have claimed, go beyond what scripture actually teaches?
Well, I guess I’ll just keep throwing stuff out there while I’m at it so I don’t have to remember these questions tomorrow when I wake up!
Where does the Bible teach us that the Holy Spirit should be “worshiped”? Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would not draw attention to himself, but would point to Jesus.
And Jesus is referred to as “the only Son of God” in the creed. Yet, the Bible tells us that if we believe in him, we have the right to be called the sons of God, too.
And I’m not sure that all churches that are considered to be “orthodox” believe everything that the creed states. Let’s take the phrase “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” — do all “orthodox” churches believe in baptismal regeneration? I don’t think Southern Baptists believe that, do they? So maybe they’re “out”, too, in that whole list of JW, Mormon, etc. that you wrote.
I’ll quit there and let you respond.
August 31st, 2007 23:32
Phil, thanks for trying to bring the thread back on topic. It’s a lost cause, I’m afraid
hehe
September 1st, 2007 08:08
Interesting to me that the title of the post includes the word orthodoxy and we hear again a position of support for historical Christian creeds. This creedal support position reduces Christianity to a material certitude based on written documents drafted at various times in history to meet specific man-centered political, religious and economic goals. These political goals are embedded in the documents as a function of the marriage of ecclesiastical and state power. Together, these two forces have always marshaled alliances for the manipulation of the power of the people, which is the creation of wealth through labor.
People producing with their labor have always been exploited by those in the state/religion alliance. Over time the common man insisted on the freedom to create wealth for himself, and the worldly powers of state and religion adapted, cutting the common man a share (the collapse of the monarchical system of divine right of kings fully supported by the church in the face of revolutions bloody and simply political based on the rights of the individual). As a result, business blossomed in the mix holding forth the carrot of affluence for the masses with a false message of ever-increasing personal standards of living. As a logical function of the historical development of this three fold alliance of business, religion, and state power, we can easily identify the world system described in Revelations, and thus begin to discern the labyrinthine influence of the spirit of the anti-Christ.
Doctrines that have been produced by this system, though holding forth a form of biblical truth through references to specifics in Scripture, are nonetheless best viewed as extra-biblical and therefore unnecessary or in the most critical analysis openly identified as failed theology by those who are walking in the Kingdom of God. It is a failed theology because it has been used not to preserve the Truth of Jesus as purported by the authors and adherents, but to enslave the masses into wealth production for the system.
That good people who honestly want to love God believe they must adhere to these creeds is a testament to the power of deception in the spirit of anti-Christ. Human beings are vessels. We hold a spiritual reality within us which is eternal. We either hold the spirit of the anti-Christ which takes on many forms including religious, or we are filled by the Spirit of the Living God, Jesus Christ. In my opinion, holding up the liturgical products of the world system of state, business and religious power as a means of determining whether or not someone is a Christian is at best misguided. Such a position rests on the false assumption that Christians are expected by God to control spiritual reality according to the material principles of this natural life. Building from this assumption, adherence to creeds is an attempt to ensure that folks will obey properly the “Christianese” of the group granting acceptance and fellowship. It is expected thereby that the group then achieves and maintains its version of holiness and interestingly gains the means of both protecting its material wealth and community image (key to holding wealth) in the name of God.
Yet, the Father has clearly communicated the opposite throughout the Old and New Testament. “They honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.” “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble,” et al. The revelation of God is about bringing the unconditional love of His heart which governs heaven into this fallen world. This overriding goal of the Father will never be achieved by those who seek any level of earthly power. Examine the temptation of Christ in the desert. He was invited to see his personal worth as so important He could manipulate God by throwing Himself off a cliff–religious power vested in material symbolisms; He was invited to exercise His personal power to His own material gain and provide food for Himself–the basis of wealth through production; He was invited to step into the ready made power of the state empires–the political strand of the current world system. He rejected all of these! He relinquished all earthly control mechanisms to simply trust the Father. Have we Christians done likewise in the pursuit of our place as a sons of God? No. Because we see this spiritual position of sonship as something we gain through our self-effort. It feeds our egos to grasp it for ourselves. But we grasp at an illusion of straw and in so doing become puppets of the spirit of this age–a condemning, controlling, and manipulative spirit upon which the power of the world system thrives.
Those who hold forth the importance of the creeds, which are clearly a result of the development of the forms of religion married to state and economic power, need to examine the spirit behind the creeds and the fruit they have produced.
September 1st, 2007 21:58
Steve, I find myself agreeing strongly with your 3 considerations, and with your approach to evaluating fruit in the lives of others. It does take more time than asking someone to subscribe to a doctrinal statement, but I think it will be a lot more accurate. Even the demons believe that God is one, as the NT puts it.
ded, I agree with your last post, although I probably wouldn’t have put things the same way. I do believe that the Constantinian church, which began formulating creeds and focusing on authority structures and top-down enforcement, as well as friendship with the government powers, had already diverged dramatically from the life, practices, fellowship and leadership patterns taught in the NT.
MB, as a matter of fact, I grew up in a church body that historically rejected all man-made creeds and focused on the Bible itself (as Steve put it, if the creeds are drawn from the Bible, why not just use the Bible?). They started in the western US (now the Midwest) in the early 1800s. Some of their leaders had been involved in the first camp meeting revivals of 1800-01. There are now 3 groups out of that heritage: the non-instrument Church of Christ, the Christian Church/Church of Christ, and the liberal Disciples of Christ. I do not know of your Mr. Collins, but if he is a liberal Disciple, it is possible that he is influenced by the critical theories that deny the apostolic authorship of much of the NT (their view that the Gospel of John was written in the second century has been undercut by later archaeological discoveries.) There are a lot of other groups that, if they do not deliberately reject the creeds, they effectively ignore them. My own observation is, the first-generation Protestant churches–the Lutherans, Reformed/Presbyterian, Anglican, etc.–put a heavy emphasis on the creeds and confessions. Some of the second-generation churches, like the Methodists, who came out of the Anglicans, do likewise. When you get down to the fourth or fifth generation, which is about what I grew up in and trained for ministry in, it’s not so common. When you get to what might be called tenth-generation–the ’60s charismatics, the Vineyard (which I was part of from 1995 to 2006)–you can go for years without hearing anything about creeds; it’s not an issue for them. But they do believe the Bible and regard it as authoritative, while many (not all, but the majority in US and Europe) of those older first- and second-generation groups are now largely dominated by theological liberals.
September 2nd, 2007 00:10
ded, you made so many good points there. I really appreciate the time you took to articulate all of that. Your comment stands as an excellent (in my opinion) perspective on the issue.
And yes, it is ironic that whenever the word “orthodoxy” comes into play, the conversation seems to go right to creedal superiority to everything else.
Phil, Even the demons believe that God is one, as the NT puts it.
Thank you for making this point. This is what I had in mind when I said that one can say all the “right” things and still miss the mark.
Thanks for your ongoing contributions here. It is greatly appreciated.
September 2nd, 2007 17:02
Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it
(a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership
or
(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.
Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!
How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?
If you want to improve your relationship with someone, say your wife, do you go off to an auditorium and sit while someone who claims to know her better than you do lectures for half an hour? Or would the time be better spent going somewhere alone with your wife and conversing with her for half an hour? Which really builds the relationship with her?
I’m afraid most humans are too lazy for their own good. We’d rather have a list of rules to keep than try to walk in the Spirit. We want a doctrinal statement to assent to rather than trying to learn to hear His voice ourselves. The Hebrews started it at Mt. Sinai–they wanted Moses to hear God for them.
And for those who would say “It’s some of each, both (a) and (b)” my question is How can it be both, when (a) eliminates (b)? I think, and I suspect ded would agree (based on what he’s written here), that they are two different things, coming from two different sources. If God meant it to be a symbiosis, it would be a stable symbiosis, not constantly drifting in one direction.
To look at it another way: What has been the “fruit” of (a) in this country? Do we have a vibrant church that is transforming its culture? Are non-believers coming to Christ in droves? Are believers “turning the world upside down”?
Or is the picture more like this: “Our bookshelves are full of Christian books and videos. We have churches on every major street, more staff workers than ever before, large Sunday school departments, cell systems, mega- and meta-church seminars. We have Christian bumper stickers, political action groups, huge parachurch ministries–and in the midst of it all, we have lost every major city in North America.” Back in 1999, Wolfgang Simson included that quote from Ted Haggard in his book “Houses that Change the World”.
Maybe we do need to lay aside everything that’s been written since and go back to the New Testament for our original instructions.
September 2nd, 2007 17:30
[...] category comes this profound comment from (unwitting) guest blogger Phil on the recent “How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy” post: Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What [...]
September 2nd, 2007 17:34
Phil, this comment was way too profound and insightful to leave buried here in the comments. I hope you don’t mind, but I posted it in its entirety as a separate post to make sure those readers who don’t follow the comments see what you wrote here.
Great job, brother, and if for whatever reason you mind me giving you that front-page exposure, I’ll delete it on your command. But I hope you’ll not mind because what you wrote needs to be visible.
You and ded (among others) are both blessings to me in the depth of your comments and insights.
September 4th, 2007 19:39
“This creedal support position reduces Christianity to a material certitude based on written documents drafted at various times in history to meet specific man-centered political, religious and economic goals. These political goals are embedded in the documents as a function of the marriage of ecclesiastical and state power.”
ded,
That’s a pretty bold claim. Mind explaining how the Apostles’ Creed embedded the man-centered political goals of the early church and what those were?
MB
September 4th, 2007 20:59
Codifying Christianity as the state church served Constantine’s purposes of gaining the support of the clergy far more than clarifying Christian orthodoxy based on the NT. His goals of empire were furthered on the expanded power base as he supported the Apostle’s Creed as “proof” he was God’s man. The religious power structure openly praised him in the new temples Constantine declared Christian-only–nice trade off: proclaim the blessing of a Christian emperor and gain beautiful, marble pagan temples from which to preach the “gospel.” These temples added a significant innovation to the Christian corporate experience…the raised dais used to command attention by one speaker, effectively eradicating what may have remained of a participatory experience among brethren. However, that probably mattered little to large numbers of converts from Roman paganism who recognized the political expendiency of conversion and filled the temples dutifully praising this new God represented by the emperor. These new converts were accustomed to remaing silent while a trained clergy orchestrated the needed words to effect the appeasement and blessing of gods. All that changed for them was a reduction in the number of deities to be served.
Did Constantine embrace Christ because of His call to self-denial? Or did Constantine give any evidence of concern for the poor? That he formed an alliance with a hierarchial elite and that both sides profited from their collaboration looks like “politics” to me and very little like repentance of sins from conviction and humility before a holy God.
From the priesthood’s perspective, silencing a wayward theology by a creed which rested on the authority of the emperor was efficient. No let-the Truth-stand-and-draw-men-to-Himself, which requires someone to live that Truth personally. Simply command the creed be recited at every mass and there you have it…truth is preserved. Granted there may have been a little diversion from the words of Scripture like the use of that term “trinity”, but most of the faithful didn’t read anyway. What harm does it honestly do to add a bit to the Word of God when the essence of the truth revealed therein is alluded to?
Why would a person think that the blessing of Constantine on the writing of the Apostle’s Creed would come without a political price? Do the words of the Apostle’s Creed indicate these political aims? Not directly. Did Constantine and a state-sanctioned church profit by this companionship? Most definitely. Does our Lord ever compromise Himself through alliance with hubris of the first order because it means more heads in a worship service?
Bold are these words? Only in the fact that they are written against traditional religion. Swimming against multitudes across centuries may seem bold but it is not. In the view of many folks, this is simply calling a spade a spade. Even if that spade has a few good words written on it, it is not holy in and of itself. The Apostle’s Creed is an event in history. It is no more special than the Gettysburg address or the Bill of Rights. Significant at the time and carrying lasting impact in the world. Eternal and God-breathed like the Scriptures? Not in this witness’s view.
September 5th, 2007 00:17
Steve,
You asked what I think one must one do to be saved?
That’s a big question that can’t fully be addressed here, but I’ll start off with several things that the apostles told us to do.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Repent and be baptized.
Persevere until the end.
Be patient in well-doing.
Seek for glory and honor and immortality.
Work it out with fear and trembling (highly recommended, if not required).
Walk in the light
Keep His word.
Love your brother.
Don’t love the world.
Confess your sins.
Don’t commit sin.
What do all of these things entail, though? What does believing in Jesus entail? Was Jesus crucified, buried and raised? What for? Also, some of these seem a bit contradictory, even when taken from the same book (e.g., I John). However, that’s the way they are in the original text, so I’ll just quote the Word, brother. There’s obviously explanation that goes with all of these. Creeds help with that.
You also asked, what did people did before the creeds? That is the same as asking what they did before the contents of the Scriptures were established. The creeds were formulated to combat heresy and to distinguish real Christian theology from heretical theology. Creeds are the Churches way of dealing with heresy. This was evident as early as Acts 15, when the apostles stepped in and decided on a matter for which Jesus had left no explicit instructions. They did so, with the claim that it was both their decision and that of the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in the NT does one find the claim that such authority would die when they did, so why do you seem to believe that it did? Furthermore, if you look at the writings of the people who lived back in the early days of Christianity, it is obvious that they looked to the apostles and their successors to keep the ship aright. How would you know, if you lived back in the 100’s, whether the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Matthias, the Acts of Peter or the Acts of Thomas were legit? They all claimed apostolic authorship and many had the support of charismatic individuals like Marcion.
To attack the creeds and creedal-like baptismal statements of faith not included verbatim in Scripture is to attack a very foundational aspect of church teaching and functioning over 100 years before Constantine came on the scene and 200 years before the canon was set. If the church was that screwed up before the canon was set, how can one be sure that the right movements were included in the final score?
I have listed several sources for the historical fact that the creeds influenced the canon, and that position is nearly universal among scholars of all types from agnostics to evangelicals to orthodox to Lutheran and old line Protestants to Catholics. At the same time, I’m not about to defend how it is phrased in every case, especially where I disagree with how it is put (e.g., Ken Collins). Is there any reputable scholar that you would refer to who thinks the creeds had no influence on the canon?
If we can’t be sure of the creeds, then we can’t be sure of the canon. If we can’t be sure of the canon, then the foundation of our faith is sand.
MB
September 5th, 2007 05:37
MB,
I apologize for attacking creeds in the way it would appear I have. I get lost in rhetoric sometimes and do not say what is my heart. Clearly we are approaching the same topic from viewpoints that would seem unreconcilable.
What ties us together is not an intellectual exercise. So I regret attempting to spar with words in emotional summaries and in so doing tearing at the fabric of what joins us, Jesus.
Would I know this without the canon? Only to the degree the Father had managed to reveal Himself in other ways according to His discretion. That He could do so is clear to me. That He chose the written words He did and caused them to be in our hands is a wonder to me.
In the power of those words is life.
September 5th, 2007 09:23
ded,
The apostles creed predates Constantine by 100 years. If there are any politics embedded in it, they are the politics of a religion fighting for its survival amid the challenges of heresy on the one hand and official Roman persecution on the other. To appeal to Constantine to dismiss the Apostles Creed is like appealing to Teddy Roosevelt’s abuses of US power in Panama to dismiss the Declaration of Independence as evidence of the politics of US hegemony and abuse of power. I’m afraid that if you want to dismiss the Apostles’ Creed, you will need to at least find a reason that is contemporary to its development.
MB
September 5th, 2007 09:44
I confused the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed with the Apostle’s Creed. My error. Should have checked references before spouting off, eh?
The Apostle’s Creed remains just additional information. It is not even an addendum to Scripture and regardless of its role in guiding decisions for the canonized word, it is unnecessary to live a godly life and a poor test as to whether or not a person lives by faith Christ. However, for those who regard it as an important Christian tradition, I respect the choice to so.
September 14th, 2007 15:06
ded,
If some folks don’t want to consider the creeds important or lacking in authority, that is a conclusion that can be easily reached if one rejects post-apostolic developments. However, to be consistent, I think they should stop insisting that books like Revelation, Hebrews and James, etc. be considered as inspired and books like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, etc. be rejected. I see nothing in my Scripture or history to indicate that the formation process for the canon was any less inspired than the creeds. If the creed can be questioned, then the canon should be questioned as well. If after questioning, if we can’t determine the canon conclusively based on pre-creedal information, then we shouldn’t insist that those books and only those books are inspired. Why would God limit himself to using the books we have in the NT as inspired Scripture based on the decisions of a bunch of male bishops who lived hundreds of years after they apostles all died? I’m just arguing for consistency is all.
MB
September 14th, 2007 19:25
Good to hear from you, MB. Your opinion is noted.
May 2nd, 2009 11:29
[...] Resources for Writers & Journalists | Abigail RieleyDear Ashley | Organizational DemocracyThe Crazy Shopper Blog » Blog Archive » How To Stop A Crime Before It Even HappensThe Goodspeed Update » Blog Archive » Public Participation TheoryTake Phil’s Books (Pay What You Will) « The Phil Wells Dot ComHelpful Bracelets Knowledge Website » Blog Archive » 1.3ct Wedding Ring Set Simulated Diamond CZ Size 6 How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy » Theological Musings [...]