Posted on 10/18/2003 8:34:00 PM PDT by narses
Although few ponder the routine act, many millions of American Christians do something radical when they recite the creed, says New Testament scholar Luke Timothy Johnson.
In a country that praises individualism, worshippers are expressing solidarity with a community's collective wisdom rather than personal opinions, Johnson explains.
And in a culture that prizes novelty, they are reciting a formula that originated 1,788 years ago (for the Apostles' Creed, often used by Protestants) or 1,678 years ago (for the similar but longer Nicene Creed, part of Roman Catholic and Orthodox worship).
Johnson, a one-time Benedictine monk, is now a lay Catholic teaching at Atlanta-based Emory University's Methodist-related seminary. His latest book, "The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters" (Doubleday), provides analysis of the creeds' role and a phrase-by-phrase commentary on the Nicene version.
Adding a bit of autobiography, Johnson says fellow academics show little regard for the intellect of people like himself who adhere to fixed formulas of faith and are especially offended by Christianity's creeds.
Yet he says "life in the world is not possible without some form of creed." Even researchers in the "hard" sciences know "they cannot demonstrate their basic premises but must accept them on faith."
To Johnson, the Christian creed offers "the world's true story," not some "alternative view," or "Christian opinion" or truth for this or that individual, but truth for everyone. Nowhere else, he writes, "is such an alternative vision of the world and of humanity so clearly stated."
Against liberal theologians, Johnson insists Jesus' divinity was not a later belief the creeds tacked onto Christianity but an element in people's earliest attempts to comprehend Jesus. He also says the creeds explain the teachings in the New Testament rather than adding anything to them.
Johnson sees the creeds as defining what is central for all Christians, thus providing a corrective against both Christianity's extreme left and extreme right.
He argues against those conservative Protestants who reject creeds in favor of following the "Bible alone," and against liberal Protestants who don't want to be hemmed in by doctrinal requirements.
In Johnson's opinion, fundamentalists take marginal concepts such as the literal inspiration and "inerrancy" (factual perfection) of the Bible and make them essentials, then turn sectarian and exclude those who disagree.
The left's mistake, Johnson continues, is to make the faith too open and boundless in its inclusion, offering little sense of what is required of a believer and leaving the church unable to answer the simple question, "What does it mean to be a Christian?"
Conservatives compound problems, he feels, by identifying Christianity with a political ideology that ignores economic justice, while liberals are equally rigid in demanding that Christians follow the latest demands of the political left.
Some brief history:
The earliest Christian creed, it's often said, was the New Testament's simple statement, "Jesus is Lord." Those words were more radical than might be apparent because they asserted Jesus' divinity by using a title Jews applied only to God. More developed statements of faith appear in the New Testament and during the subsequent century.
The Apostles' Creed originated in a question-and-answer format, probably used for baptism rituals, found in the "Apostolic Tradition" by Hippolytus. The Nicene Creed was developed by 318 bishops at the first ecumenical council at Nicea (in present-day Turkey) and refined at a synod in Constantinople (today's Istanbul) decades later.
In A.D. 589, a council at Toledo, Spain, decided the creed would say that within the triune God, the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son," adding the phrase "and the Son." The popes adopted the innovation without agreement by Eastern Christians, laying ground for the great and tragic Catholic-Orthodox schism centuries later.
New Testament scholar Luke Timothy Johnson's Web page: http://candler.emory.edu/ACADEMIC/FACULTY/faculty—johnson.html
A couple of mistake, showing these two Creeds' fallibility:
Nicene: eternally begotten of the Father
Jesus was begotten in the earthly sense. Nowhere does the Bible suggest Jesus was begotten in any eternal sense.
Apostles': the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth
John 1 makes clear that all things were made through Jesus, recognizing that Jesus' creation activity is in every sense equal to the Father's activity. As the Nicene Creed would say, "Through [Jesus] all things were made."
HF
The Christian religion holds Jesus is God incarnate. God is eternal.
…true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
The Word was God and was present at the beginning. Jesus is neither eternally begotten, nor did he spring into existence-- either those two millenia ago or in some way reasonably called "begetting."
I don't mind too much if people are trying to say this or that is central or essential--presumably for some positive and godly purpose--so long as what's stated is not in conflict with the rest of Scripture.
At the same time, I don't think it useful or profitable that believers use such core beliefs as stated in a creed to insulate themselves from the rest of scripture, as if such were not required. I'd be as reticent as walking on 1/8" ice as I would to try to call any straightforward Biblical statement a "margin concept," especially less so when such a thing is repeatedly found in the Bible.
Though I'm certainly aware of the contemporaneous desire to teach against Aryanism, for example, it seems specious to try to use a creed for one to use such a creed as a weapon against others believers with whom one would disagree on one's pet beliefs, as this author points out is his intent.
I do generally agree with VOA, though when did we succumb to finding comfort in resting on the laurels of the brotherhood of churches? That, too, would be sinful man, as is often readily discernable.
I grant I could learn perhaps something from reading the book, but I don't yet see a reason to pick up the book from the citation above.
HF
The Word was God and was present at the beginning. Jesus is neither eternally begotten, nor did he spring into existence-- either those two millenia ago or in some way reasonably called "begetting."
I don't mind too much if people are trying to say this or that is central or essential--presumably for some positive and godly purpose--so long as what's stated is not in conflict with the rest of Scripture.
At the same time, I don't think it useful or profitable that believers use such core beliefs as stated in a creed to insulate themselves from the rest of scripture, as if such were not required. I'd be as reticent as walking on 1/8" ice as I would to try to call any straightforward Biblical statement a "margin concept," especially less so when such a thing is repeatedly found in the Bible.
Though I'm certainly aware of the contemporaneous desire to teach against Aryanism, for example, it seems specious to try to use a creed for one to use such a creed as a weapon against others believers with whom one would disagree on one's pet beliefs, as this author points out is his intent.
I do generally agree with VOA, though when did we succumb to finding comfort in resting on the laurels of the brotherhood of churches? That, too, would be sinful man, as is often readily discernable.
I grant I could learn perhaps something from reading the book, but I don't yet see a reason to pick up the book from the citation above.
HF
Nowhere does the Bible suggest Jesus was begotten in any eternal sense.
to:
there is no Biblical revelation indicating any eternal subordination for Jesus.
This is different. And no, to answer the second, "subordinate is not part of orthodoxy, and this is also so stated in the creed:
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
And you are also aware of the orthodox formulation of the trinity, with the persons not ranked or subordinated.
So, I'm not sure how this part of your reply discusses the original question, but it does once again illustrate how the creed can be useful.
I'm also unclear as to where this part of your reply leads:
Jesus is neither eternally begotten, nor did he spring into existence-- either those two millenia ago or in some way reasonably called "begetting."
Neither eternally begotten nor not eternally begotten?
Again, to me this illustrates the value of the creed. It succintly and clearly states the key points of faith; I find it more meaningful and clear than your description - no offense intended.
No, the creed is not meant as a substitute for all things Christian, not meant to replace our relationship with Jesus, our Christian living, salvation or transformation.
It has it's place and its purpose and value from long ago – and as our discussion shows, it still has value and usefulness today.
Thanks very much for your reply.
Though I'm not trying to say that anyone in particular holding to the Nicene or Apostles' Creed believes in subordination, that concept is easily gleaned from the Apostles' Creed, though you went speciously to the Nicene Creed for your refutation.
The AC's first paragraph could readily shape thinking that the Father did the creating where Jesus apparently didn't, since he wasn't yet "begotten." I'm not trying to say you or any other particular believer holds to that, I'm much more pointing to the fallibility of what men have written.
I'm ready to concede that a creed can be useful, but not any moreso than I would concede than handouts for a Bible class could be useful.
Regarding being begotten, the Nicene Creed juxtaposes that with "not made" as if these are the choices one is left with regarding how Jesus came about. Again this would be a mistake, and I'm not trying to say any one person in particular hold to that, but I'll bet many communicants haven't yet sorted it out accurately from the creeds.
Jesus begotten-ness has nothing to do with Jesus' origin, only his one-time-only change in taking on the form of a bond-servant. But again, a straightforward reading of the Nicene more quickly leads one to make a mistake here, even if one could excuse the first plain old mistake of saying, "eternally begotten."
Where I've spent time, I find the frequent recitation of the creeds takes time away from the rest of Bible study. Some churches are more interested with sectarian interpretation of their founders' pet religious concerns than preparing Christians to find answers for their lives through letting the Holy Spirit bring to mind what they've read and heard from the Bible (and no, I don't think the HS brings to mind what one says in a creed when its words are not the inspired text).
IOW, a creed's typical usefulness is a most clearly as a distraction from the Bible.
HF
I'm much more pointing to the fallibility of what men have written.
Wasn't Paul a man who wrote Romans and the other epistles? Wasn't it men who wrote the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.
And, out of the many versions and books written by early Christians, wasn't it men who determined which ones became part of the canon we call the New Testament?
God works through man; the Bible is very special, but not because it is untouched by men.
Not as bad as singing. Or for that matter, talking! And then there's bibliolatry. Brrrrr.
I'll consider there might be a reasonable pejorative worth juxtaposing the letters b-i-b-l-i-o-l-a-t-r-y when someone does twice what the Bereans are said to have done, and which I believe was held up as a model for us, to which to aspire. Other than an obligatory epistle and gospel citation, those combined with a recitation of a creed are too often the only sliver of God's Word many--dare I say most?--parishoners get in a week.
In short, many have already seen to there not being a problem anything like bibliolatry in Christendom. Sad!
HF
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.