Creedal conundrums (part 3)

This is the third and final part of a three-part series. Read parts 1 and 2.

As I said in my last post, in this final instalment, I am going to touch on some of the pitfalls or common objections to the use of creeds.

Pitfalls

Use of jargon

People point out that the creeds use vocabulary that is unfamiliar or confusing to the ordinary person (e.g. words like ‘communion’, ‘catholic’, ‘begotten’, ‘incarnate’, etc.). However, so does the Bible and so do many of our songs—both older ones and contemporary ones.

In addition, the Bible values church meetings that use intelligible language. That’s why it says no to speaking in tongues at church, unless there is an interpretation/translation (1 Cor 14:6-19).

However, the answer is not to ignore the concepts behind the words as being too hard; that would be ‘dumbing down’ our faith. Sometimes the answer is to substitute a modern word or phrase. Often the answer is to teach people what the technical or uncommon word means. We do this with other words like justification, sanctification, propitiation and repentance, and with concepts like incarnation or the Trinity. We do this educating in sermons all the time (e.g. “Repentance is when you chuck a U-turn in regards to God because you realize you’ve been going the wrong way”). We can do it in articles (e.g. in a letter from a minister in the church bulletin). Sometimes we even do it before we sing hymns with obscure words, inserting a brief explanatory sentence or two prior to singing.

Of course, that was the purpose of my entire three-week sermon series on ‘Creedal conundrums’: I wanted to explain some puzzling phrases or concepts in the Nicene Creed, so that people attending St Michael’s could understand the creed and (if they wish) join in reciting it with greater meaning than before. And I thank God that, judging from the many people who gave me encouraging feedback, the sermons largely met their purpose.

Rote repetition

People sometimes say they find it strange to be asked to recite words. Obviously this is an unfamiliar practice to some newcomers at church—whether they be Christians from a different background or non-Christian inquirers. That’s why no-one is forced to say the words, and why sometimes the service leader will even invite those unfamiliar with the words to simply stand and listen.

However this objection is right when it notes the danger flagged in the Bible of meaninglessly repeating words—as if that alone will impress God (see Isa 29:13 [quoted by Jesus in Mark 7:6] and Matt 6:7).

The Bible’s answer is not to always find new ways of saying things; it still uses repetition. Jesus and the New Testament writers quote and even recite the psalms. In addition, what appear to be hymns and creed-like statements for the purpose of recalling great gospel truths appear throughout the New Testament (e.g. 1 Cor 15:1-8; Phil 2:5-11; Col 1:15-20; 1 Tim 3:16). There is certainly a degree of repetition in the singing and worship in the vision of heaven John receives in Revelation! (See Rev 4:8, 11; 5:9-10, 12-13; 7:10, 12, 15-17; 11:15, 17-18, 15:3-4; 16:5-7 etc.)

This is where I think service leaders should be free to use variety in the gatherings they lead—especially with congregations whose age or cultural background means they value variety more or find the creeds unfamiliar. Variety will help create the space to appreciate the creeds as one important resource among others.

So apart from the creeds, we have tried to encourage the use of the New Testament’s own creed-like statements, where we recite Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, Philippians 2:5-11 and Colossians 1:15-20 to each other. Sometimes it’s fine to have no creed or other affirmation of faith, and instead to use a prayer of thanksgiving that rehearses some of the great truths of the gospel. Another suggestion: perhaps sometimes a thoughtful service leader could simply quote a wonderful paragraph of a book he has just read that summarizes key aspects of the Christian message.

To our service leaders, I say sometimes we do get stuck in a rut. But you are free to use your creativity to bring some intelligent variety to help us, in an orderly way, to appreciate who God is and what he has done for us in Christ! Nevertheless, for the reasons I have outlined above and in my previous post, there is still value in repeating the creeds—albeit at a lower frequency and with more variety at some congregations.

Key gospel truths

One of the functions of the Apostles’ Creed and, more particularly, the Nicene Creed was to guard against false teaching of the most serious sort. In the early centuries of the Christian churches, this had to do with the Trinitarian nature of God—one God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the early church fathers were especially concerned about the person of Christ, who was fully God and fully man. The Nicene Creed does a good job of refuting false teaching, as discussed last week.

However, the creeds really say next to nothing about the other great threat to biblical truth and (most especially) the gospel. The two matters I am thinking of concern:

1. the supreme authority and sufficiency of Scripture;
2. the way in which we obtain the benefits of what Christ has done for us: through Christ alone, by grace alone, received through faith alone, and not by works, summarized in the biblical phrase “justification by faith without works”.

These issues were not so much of an issue in the early centuries of church history, so the creeds say nothing about them. But they were key points of dispute in the 16th-century Reformation, and they remain key issues today.

Regarding the latter matter, in the case of Galatians, Paul makes justification through Christ alone by faith without works absolutely central. If anyone preaches a gospel other than this, he says in Galatians 1:6-9, then they should be eternally condemned. Teaching that we must add our good works to what Christ has done in order to secure our salvation is that serious an error. Paul repeats the point that we are only justified (that is, ‘declared right with God’) by faith in Christ and not by observing the law three times alone in Galatians 2:16! Ephesians 2:8-9 underlines this in a less contested context.

Likewise, regarding the former matter and following the teaching of Jesus, the Scriptures are our full and complete authority. But the creeds don’t mention the role of the Bible, except to say that God has spoken through the prophets. And they don’t mentioned we are saved by faith without works, except to commence by saying, “I believe” or “We believe”.

So the Creeds can be augmented helpfully by other statements that remind us of these critical and central matters of gospel truth. For example, in place of a creed, the service leader could read aloud or call the congregation to recite together scriptural passages like:

• On justification: Ephesians 1:3-6, Ephesians 2:3-10 or Titus 3:3-8.
• On the Bible: 2 Timothy 3:14-17 or Hebrews 1:1-3 (the finality of the gospel word of Christ).

Or perhaps we could even read or recite the relevant article from the Thirty-nine Articles. (These articles are the official Anglican statement of faith dating back to Reformation times, and allowing for their age, they are exceptionally evangelical!) For example,

• On Scripture, the first part of Article 6 and all of Article 20.
• On justification by faith, not works, Articles 10-12.

Obviously, you might want to modernize slightly one or two words or expressions. Furthermore, if your denomination has another statement of faith like the Westminster Confession, the Helvetic Confession or Heidelberg Catechism, you might want to use the relevant sections from them.

To conclude

The historic nature of the Nicene Creed helps to guard us against faddishness and the chronological snobbery of believing we always understand things better than previous generations. Robert Letham, in his excellent book The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology and Worship, writes,

Since its origin, over fifty generations of the church in both East and West have confessed their faith using its words. This alone should give pause to those who wish to jettison it. The Protestant Reformation asserted the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, but the Reformers to a man wanted to keep this creed, for they respected the historic teaching of the church and accorded it an authority of its own. (P & R Publishing, Phillipsburg, 2004, p. 181.)