Today we continue some meaningless meanderings on the Christian Creed during which aliens will take over my brain and make me use all sorts of anemic alliterations like “meaningless meanderings.”
It just goes to show what I’ve always said: In America, when we’re in doubt about our own good standing with the truth, the only reasonable course of action is to blame aliens. It says so right in the Constitution, right after the part that says there is a kind of person that only counts as 3/5 of a person (it doesn’t say that about aliens, for the record, but it really does say the part about 3/5 of a person…only that was later amended).
My whole point, which I assume is obvious, is that an alien might or might not disagree with the Christian Creeds, and this week we’re wondering if said alien could be considered a Christian. So let’s get right to that, ok?
(1) Can you be “Christian” and disagree with parts of the Creed? I’m not sure I have a good answer to that perfectly reasonable question. In some ways, I’m inclined to say “no” to that question on purely linguistic grounds: (a) I think the term “Christian” should mean something, (b) I think what it has historically meant is captured in the Creed, and (c) changing what we mean by the term only adds linguistic confusion, however well-intentioned. I don’t think of people who disagree with parts of the Creed as bad people doomed to Hell…I just don’t think they are Christian.
I’m also inclined to say “no” on doctrinal grounds. On the other hand, that’s probably a little too harsh. I have some sympathy with the idea that the average person probably does not care a whit about the controversies that obsessed the Nicene bishops. I don’t really care that much about them myself, and I actually LIKE that sort of thing! I’m quite sure that God isn’t up in Heaven thinking about ways to emphasize His “homooúsios.” I’ve had debates with Jehovah’s Witnesses (who seem to me to be Christian heretics) and I don’t feel like they are that far off the truth. (And I certainly don’t feel like that I’m that far ON to the truth myself).
I want really badly to not believe this next thing, but the truth is: I think some of the things in the Creed itself are more important than others. It’s clear to me you can’t be a Christian and disbelieve in Jesus’ death and resurrection. But a few of the other things in there I’m not so sure about. Consider: Do you have to believe in a literal hell to be a Christian? After all, it’s in the Creed (or at least implied in the Creed). And I’m hypocritically inclined to say “no” because I just don’t think that’s a super-important part of the Creed (though I myself believe in a literal hell). I haven’t worked out why; but I’m actually not sure why the bishops put that part in, because it really doesn’t seem “central” in any meaningful way to Christianity.
They recorded the brain activity of the respondents levitra uk felt that impotence lowered their self esteem. This article has compared the two drugs purchase cialis online – they operate in roughly 70% to 80% on the situations. These medications 100mg viagra effects can cause male impotence. There are 2 types greyandgrey.com tadalafil vs cialis of diabetes. So maybe my original article would have been better if it had been written at a more personal level, talking about what the Creed meant to me personally — maybe it IS unnecessary for the vast majority of Christians, many of whom are perfectly fine Christians having never heard of Nicene bishops and the like. Don’t get me wrong — I do think the Creed is important; but I also think my original article lacked context and complexity, and (perhaps) treated a personal epiphany as something that everyone would also share.
(2) Does the Creed include every possible important Christian belief? No. I think it is a reasonable summary of Christian belief on which virtually all Christians everywhere agree on. But some of the doctrines I personally think most important are not really represented directly in the Creed at all.
For example, the Doctrine of the Fall (briefly stated, God gave people free choice and we chose to go bad) is not mentioned in the slightest. Yet I don’t think Christianity makes any sense — or even has much intellectual value — without it. Further, one of the things most fundamentally important to me is the fact that God loves everyone unconditionally, and that statement does not exist in the Creeds, either. And think about this: It’s hard to say the Creed is all-inclusive when none of the teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (unarguably the most famous record of Jesus’ teachings) are in the Creed.
So what are we to make of all this? I would say first that many of those things are implicit, and were taken for granted, by the people who wrote the Creeds. It would have been nice for them to put them in, and I wish they would have…but they didn’t. Maybe they felt like many of the folks who wrote the Constitution felt about the Bill of Rights. Many who opposed the Bill of Rights did so because they argued that they were unnecessary; they said all of those rights were implied in other parts of the Constitution. So perhaps the fact that salvation was necessary on the one hand, and that God was willing to die on our behalf to obtain it on the other, implies directly that we fell and that He loves us. But of course I don’t actually know what they were thinking at all; I’m only guessing.
More importantly, the Creeds do not exist as a solitary document that was designed (or should be used) as the only thing anyone ever looks at. I know my original article kind of implied that, but that wasn’t what I should have implied. It’s not how I live. I actually don’t read the Creeds often myself; I read the Bible, I read St. Augustine, I read St. Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and so forth. I think the Creeds help guide and summarize what’s most important, but were never intended to be the end of the discussion, or even the beginning. If the Creeds are like the boundaries of a football field, they serve an important function: But the game’s the thing, and you can’t play the game by looking at the lines.
Next week we wrap up our discussion of the Christian Creeds by delving into that black hole of Christian theology known as the Book of Leviticus. Stay tuned!
It’s indisputably true that “the term ‘Christian’ should mean something”–the issue is whether the Creed is the best way to express or define that meaning. The term “Christian” could be said to mean, for instance, “anyone doing her or his level best to follow Jesus” or “anyone honestly striving to live in imitation of Christ”. Those definitions may be overly simplistic, and they certainly lack the theological majesty of the Creed, but they seem consistent with the only test to which Jesus himself subjected his would-be disciples. “Follow me,” he repeatedly said, without having anyone first recite a creed or answer a theological questionnaire; which was probably a good thing, since the gospels indicate that the original disciples frequently misunderstood Jesus, his parables, his teachings, and even his very identity. Of course, Jesus wasn’t running a church, so his criteria for discipleship might have been a bit loose; any instituion must have an orthodoxy to enforce, or what’s a hierarchy for?
You claim that “what [Christianity] has historically meant is captured in the Creed,” which seems to suggest that Christianity is basically a set of beliefs. That is, of course, one way to look at it. Another way is to see Christianity as a way of life (which of course includes beliefs), and to find its historical meaning(s) in the lives of individual Christians (for better and for worse) and in the actions of Christian communities (also for better and for worse). From that standpoint, the Creed, while not unimportant, is less central, on the simple grounds that “actions speak louder than words” (also known as “by their fruits you will know them”).
It can be (and has been argued) that when Christianity went from being a persecuted sect to being a respectable mass movement (complete, eventually, with imperial imprimatur), “right belief” came to be prioritized over “right practice,” because it’s just too gosh darn hard for most people to actually live a Christian life, but a whole lot easier to recite (in good faith, to be sure–and in the original Latin!) a list of creedal statements.
I’m not saying that beliefs or creedal formulations are irrelevant. In some sense, they serve as a foundation for (in this case) Christian life; though, come to think of it, isn’t Jesus supposed to be the foundation? In any case, there’s nothing wrong with foundations–there would be no structures without them–but they seem somewhat miscast as the focus of faith. To the extent that the Christian creed empowers and inspires Christian living, it’s serving its purpose; to the extent that it (even inadvertently) substitutes a set of beliefs for a way of life, it’s missing the mark. Let’s say then that the Creed is sort of a map of the Christian worldview; let’s just remember that, as the saying goes, “The map is not the territory.”
The Creed can be and historically has been recited either as a series of “I believe” statements or as a series of “We believe” statements. I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned or discussed the difference, which is anything but trivial. In community, which is where Christian life is ideally lived, the individual doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t have to) bear the burden of belief or unbelief alone; in community, the creedal “we” affirms the historic belief elements of Christianity, while implicitly accepting that perhaps not every member of the community fully accepts (much less comprehends) them. There can be different degrees of creedal understanding and acceptance within a community, where brothers and sisters in Christ compensate for (and forgive) each other’s lack of creedal faith just as they do for each other’s failings in so much else. Unbelief can thus be seen, not so much as heresy or as cause to ban someone from the community, but as a given individual’s particular cross, which other (stronger?) believers can help bear. “Believing together” allows individuals to struggle with their own unbelief (“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief”) while remaining part of the community, the corporate body of Christ; “We believe…” puts the burden of belief not on the fragile individual but on the enduring community (present, past, and future), where it is much more easily borne.
For some, then, reciting the Creed is an act of affirmation; for others, it may be only an aspiration, uttered in recognition both of the Church’s historic insistence on certain truths and of some people’s genuine difficulty accepting them. Finally (!), I’d also suggest that dialogue with heterodox beliefs within a community doesn’t necessarily threaten orthodoxy but can actually help sharpen and clarify it; which isn’t to say that “anything goes,” but that responding respectfully to honest creedal doubts and disagreements can be both intellectually and spiritually fruitful. If a cloistered virtue is suspect, so too should be a cloistered Creed.
Jack,
Fabulous commentary! Actually, I mostly agree with you. The creed IS potentially dangerous if it is substituted for Christ. The New Testament actually talks about the dangers of knowledge as such quite a bit, and gives no quarter for anyone who thinks they can simply recite a book or belief but not love their neighbor (etc). Jesus doesn’t say of the goats in the parable “you didn’t believe the Creed” but rather “I never knew you.”
About the definition of “Christian”: Well, I guess I’m influenced by C. S. Lewis’ view that it would be better to call someone who believed the creeds but didn’t act in a Christ-like way a “bad Christian,” rather than calling them a “non-Christian.” That’s what I meant when I was talking about “linguistic grounds.” But really I have few qualms to pick with anything you said. Probably it would have been better if I had focused explicitly on the “belief” side of things in my post.
And frankly, it’s mostly a semantic issue anyway to which I have little attachment on either side. Your framing of it is, for the most part, perfectly satisfactory to me. And I certainly agree about the dangers of organized religion — it’s interesting to note that, while I believe in the church in some real sense, Jesus really didn’t have much good to say about organized religion per se (and in fact pretty much the only people he really lashed out at were clergy). I often wonder what he would do today if He came physically to some of our churches! (Of course I believe He actually IS in our churches, just not in bodily form).
One other thing: You say Jesus is supposed to be the foundation of Christian life, and I agree completely. But note this: People have said all sorts of things about Jesus. Some scholars argue that Jesus did not perform miracles. Some say he came to promote [insert scholar's pet political philosophy here]. And my point is that it is all well and good to say we should follow Jesus, but which Jesus? I personally don’t think it’s much value to follow any Jesus but the one in the Bible. So I think at some practical level it matters what you believe about Jesus. Well, I believe that He is what the New Testament says He is: A miracle-worker, prophet, savior, and God in the flesh. That’s what the Creeds affirm. That’s one of the purposes the creeds serve. I think believing (for example) that Jesus was a good guy and is now dead is fine, but not very intellectually credible on the one hand, and basically adds nothing to what I would have believed without him on the other. (I mean, there are plenty of good folks teaching good morality in the world, and I don’t really need them anyway — I already know what’s right and wrong. No; I need present, real-world help from someone who is actually alive: Forgiveness for my many past sins and strength to overcome them in the future).
None of that is to disagree with anything you said, but only to point out that while following Jesus, serving Him, loving Him and being loved by Him, are in fact what Christianity is about, those things are contingent on who He is. On the other hand, since I believe Jesus is actually alive, I don’t worry too much about all of that. He doesn’t really NEED the creed in that sense, and I actually have way more sympathy with your view than my commentary suggests. And He Himself taught that those who seek, find. He didn’t add “but only if they start with the Creed, which will come a few hundred years after I say this.”
About the we/I thing: Good points! I can see both sides of this issue — I guess I don’t think about it too much because I’m apparently only egocentrically concerned with my own beliefs! I don’t want anyone to be exiled or run out of the church building for what they believe, but I also don’t want Christianity to become “anything goes” (since I view that as essentially useless in any context). I think your discussion of it helps balance those two concerns quite nicely. But look, let’s be honest: If we removed people from the church for doubting any orthodox Christian belief at any time, we’d have to remove literally everybody. I myself have hard time with (for example) the Second Coming of Christ (though I believe in it in an abstract way, and it is inseparable from Christianity, I find it a difficult doctrine in many ways). So there are days when I can only “hope” it is true. I think most people feel that way about some beliefs some of the time. As C.S. Lewis said (I’m paraphrasing), “Now that I’m a Christian there are days when atheism looks plausible. And when I was an atheist there were days when Christianity looked plausible.” Most honest people I know are like that.
All of that was to say that I really appreciated your comment and I think the spirit of it was right on target…my little nitpickings should not override that larger fact.
Re your final point: Timothy Beal, in his book THE RISE AND FALL OF THE BIBLE, said that as a believing Christian (I’m paraphrasing) “there are days when I can out-atheist anyone” and also that “there are parts of the Bible that can out-atheist anything.” I didn’t realize he was in turn borrowing from C.S. Lewis; in any case, I appreciate your point, and Lewis’, and Beal’s.