The Toviah/Ben Thread that may Revolutionize the CGGC
Ben,
Your posts are extremely thought provoking but, much more than that, they are radical, dude! Your first post may very well be the most important one every entered on this blog!
Tell me how I am mischaracterizing your thinking in the following. You are saying:
It is true that John Winebrenner said,
“The Church of God has no authoritative constitution, ritual, creed, catechism, book of discipline, or church standard, but the Bible. The Bible she believes to be the only creed, discipline, church standard, the test-book, which God ever intended his church to have,”
but we have moved beyond that.
What was true in his day is no longer true. We already have a creed. In its latest form, we call it WE BELIEVE. We should embrace the reality that we have become a creedal church and not be afraid to continue to develop our creed and, as a church, intentionally work on becoming all that a creedal church can be.
That is how I read you when you say,
“Let’s accept it: we ARE creedal. You will disagree with me about my next statement: we SHOULD be creedal.”
In any way that I have mischaracterized what you have written, please correct me.
Assuming that I am reading you correctly, let me just say that you are one courageous, deep and radical thinker, Ben.
And, as I’m sure you know, I love courageous, deep and radical thinking.
In the past, I've had to muster courage to post what I've posted and I love the courage that it took for you even to get to the point that you would allow yourself to think these thoughts as a CGGC person.
But, what I really love is not the permission you have given yourself to think in this way but that you have thought these thoughts and not pulled back from them but have developed them as cogently as you have.
But, even more than that, I love, admire and respect you beyond words that you have had the courage to articulate your bold and radical thinking in so public a forum. AND, on top of that, in response to my thread that is so outspoken in making the exact opposite point.
I love you, man! You are one awesome dude. We need a ton more people exactly like you!
However, of course, as much as I love, admire and respect you for your courage, I couldn’t possibly disagree with you more. You are my brother. I know that now more than I ever have. But, our understanding of the church could not be more at odds.
----------------------
But, here’s the thing, gang: Ben has opened a very important door to a thoughtful and honest discussion.
Ben argues that we are not in any way what we once were. We are no longer what we claim we are. We are not--and, for a long time, we haven't been--disciples of John Winebrenner.
We are now a creedal church.
Having a creed was anathema to Winebrenner. But, we have become something different than the church Winebrenner envisoned.
I argue that we need to rediscover Winebrenner and repent of our creedalism and return to the days in which the Bible was our only rule of faith and practice. Ben says, as I read him, that we need to acknowledge our creedalism and to repent of our lingering Winebrennerianism.
Most of our leadership won’t acknowledge the reality that Ben describes:
We are functioning as a creedal church and have been for a long time. We walk one walk but actually talk a different talk.
Ben has the courage to say that 2.0 and is, very simply, misrepresenting the truth when it says,
“We believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of God, our only rule of faith and practice.”
Ben says, “No. We ‘ARE’ a creedal church. We have a creed. WE BELIEVE is that creed. He says that we have a creed is a good thing. To say that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice is not true and we shouldn’t want it to be true.
I love you for saying that, Ben. You don’t know how much I love you for saying it.
Here’s what I hope:
I hope, Ben, that you will continue to say what you have said. We ARE a creedal church. We ARE! I agree with you. That is the 1925 to 2009 CGGC truth in full. Period. I don’t know how anyone can read all of the faith statements we have written since 1925 and deny that truth.
What I want to do, Ben, is to debate you on the point, as you said it: “…we SHOULD be creedal.”
There’s a lot of creeping creedalism and denial that’s been going on in the CGGC since 1925. Let's you and I call an end to that. Let’s stand together and say that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
Then, let’s all--the two of us and the whole CGGC body--have an honest dialog about whether our Body should accept our creedalism and develop our church as a creedal body.
Let's have a debate that is honest!
What do you think?
Thank you for your honesty and insight and courage, Ben. You have done us a great service.
Thank you, man.
I love you!
Labels: The Toviah.Ben Thread
posted by bill Sloat at 8:08 AM
24 Comments:
If the desire is present to be a creed-less movement then the CGGC will have to remain small.
I'm guessing that there are some conversations taking place in the CGGC about attempting to increase the numbers. If so, does the push for a larger denomination work against the idea of a hierarchy-less movement? My answer is yes, it does. From my vantage point, as the denomination grows larger it will become more structured.
One of the things that happened when Constantine embraced the church is that it grew exponentially. It was impossible for it to remain creed-less as it grew larger.
Is it possible to become larger and remain creed-less? Probably not.
I posted some of these items under your previous thread, but I thought they were relevant here as well (and I like to be the first one to reply).
I'm pondering your words Brent.
Almost all of Christianity (the movement as a whole) can embrace the Nicene Creed.
If our creed includes Feet Washing as an ordinance, we just limited our movement and size.
If our creed includes Free Will as opposed to Calvinism, we just limited our size.
My theological assumption is that the only creed that will stand in the Kingdom of God is "Jesus is Lord!" Is Jesus putting a limit on His kingdom or opening it up to a size beyond what we can imagine?
I don't think I agree. I think we are trying to define our heritage and our preferences. That is limiting.
Brent,
I saw your comments on the other thread. I'm having trouble keeping up with all the comments.
I'll catch up on that thread and this one.
This is as important as it gets.
Brian,
I'm sorting through Bill's comments, so I could very well have a completely different opinion about these topics when this conversation is completed.
You make some good points. In order to include certain important tenets of our faith practice (feetwashing, free will, etc.) we are excluding those who don't practice such things. Inclusion and exclusion are two sides of the same conversation.
Should a faith statement be a reflection of who we currently are or an activist document that attempts to move us in a specific direction?
I have taken a break from posting for awhile do to some personal convictions, but have continued reading the blog for some time. I will probably stay away from it for awhile, but I feel some misunderstood truth can be shed on this subject.
Non creedal movements do not have to stay small. In the mid to late 90's the fast growing denomination Nationaly and Internationally was the Independent Christian Church and Churches of Christ. Infact while not still the fastest growing Denomination (the A.G. are) they are still Out planting and out growing us and most others by leaps and bounds. Their statement is "No Creed but Christ."
Also the Vineyard Church is a Non Creedal group that is matching our numbers in existance.
I would agree that the CGGC is a creed following church. I would contend that the We Believe is not only credal, but honestly it is a small cathecism. Although it lacks some of the explanation of say Luther's to me it resbembles it.
I would prefer no other book than the bible.
Secondly if you will examine the church planting movement oversees most are non creedal. In fact you can get the expanation why why creedal churches don't have church planting movements overseas by the book Church planting Movements.
I desire a movement, and I think our We believe is just another road block to such a movement.
Thank you for your kind words, Bill. I think you've fairly described my position, although you've certainly carried my comments further than I had originally intended.
Repent of lingering Winebrennarianism? Don't mistake me: I cherish what he did in his emphasis on evangelism and church planting, but I don't agree with his assessment of creeds. It's likely I don't have a complete understanding of his stance, because I simply want to affirm the Nicene Creed and then use an appropriate teaching device to properly catechize our people to be disciples. This is where I hope you and I can agree.
My argument for the Nicene Creed as our "litmus test" arises from:
1. Respect for the ancient Church and the theological boundaries to the Christian faith God led them to identify. As I said in my previous comment, I have to admire leaders who are willing to suffer and die for their faith.
2. The need for clearly-marked boundaries within which we have the freedom to follow the Lord and work together in all the diversity God has established. I learned in my systematic theology class how the Evangelical Theological Society had to establish a statement of faith after the Jehovah's Witnesses applied for membership. Prior to the JWs' application, they apparently used the formula "We have no creed but the Bible." WHICH THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES ALSO SHARE! Suddenly, a creed didn't seem like such a bad idea!
When Winebrenner said that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice, he lived at a time and place when there was little doubt as to what Christians believe. True, the Unitarians were beginning to take over the ivory towers of New England, but there wasn't anything close to the theological cacophony our day. We all know how confused people are regarding the basics of what Christians believe; we don't need a Gallup poll to tell us that people who call themselves "Christian" don't necessarily believe in God. We need boundaries.
The Nicene Creed has the historical clout -- and basically the universal acceptance -- to say: "This is what ALL true Christians believe."
Now, Winebrenner and other radical reformers were correct to protest how the mainline denominations incorrectly allow that affirmation to be the sole content of faith. Such rationalism relegated the faith to a historical litany of facts rather than personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I share that protest.
However, now we're experiencing the result of 2 centuries of creedlessness. We don't have a universally upheld statement of Christian beliefs. People avoid difficult terms like "consubstantial" and "begotten, not made." And they get irritated when we tell them that beliefs really do matter. It seems to me that we have a thousand different definitions of what Christians believe. Imagine what would happen in football (my favorite professional sport, given that I live in Steelers country) if there were no established rules for how to play! The Nicene Creed allows for quite a bit of flexibility, and every phrase is based on Scripture, but most importantly it provides a foundation on which to build our understanding of Who God is in His Tri-unity, what Jesus Christ has done, Who the Holy Spirit, what the Church is and what we hope for.
If we were to simply pull out the Nicene Creed as our basic statement of belief, it wouldn't make us successful. But it would provide a strong, broad foundation on which to build.
Gang,
I will catch in responding to the comments that are being made on both threads.
However, for now,
Re Brian's" "My theological assumption is that the only creed that will stand in the Kingdom of God is "Jesus is Lord!""
In 2.0 this statement appears:
"We believe the central message of the Scriptures is the creative and redemptive work of God in history."
It replaces this statement in the original:
"We believe the central message of the Scriptures is the Good News that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Interesting.
Great conversation!
A couple thoughts: Belief in the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice is NOT the opposite of having a creed. It is simply saying that our creed (our specific beliefs) are not infallible - scripture is infallible.
To say 'just the Bible' sounds good but it is problematic. Who's interpretation? This is huge. Winebrenner while with the German Reformed Church was in a place much like Luther. The tradition had a big T and wasn't open to correction by Scripture. When the creed is bigger than the Bible, there is a huge problem.
Let me just say it: Nobody lives by 'Bible only' It was impossible for Winebrenner to sort the Bible alone from the mentor he studied with, his colleagues, the books he read. It is impossible for us.
For us to have a creed is a good thing - so long as the creed focuses us back to God in Christ, the Holy Spirit, The gospel, the kingdom of God, the Scriptures. If 'We Believe' doesn't do this, than there should be revision.
I will not say that 'We Believe' is essential. I don't believe that it is, but it can be helpful if updated well.
Hey all~
I've been in Haiti for a week, so I've not seen any of this conversation as it unfolded, but I've read it all now. My simplest observation is that while most of us want to see people's lives transformed by God, and want to see new Jesus communities emerge as that happens, it doesn't happen as a result of conversations like this, nor because of what we write in booklets. It happens because people who have found life give it away.
That is not to say that this conversation is not a good one. I happen to think that at some point any connected group of churches needs to define the beliefs it holds in common and which it requires for a church to be a part of things. The sticky question is how broadly or narrowly we try to do that. Typically, the conversation goes back and forth between the poles of the ancient creeds versus the modern statements of faith.
What Brian's comments made me ponder, though, is that both of these may serve as defining fences for our herd, but they do not provide fuel. The ancient creeds were written to positively define core beliefs about God against then current heresies. The modern faith statements have been written to define how our group is different from those other denominations. Neither says much about the message Jesus preached, which was the Kingdom of God.
So perhaps what we need is to say:
A) We agree with the ancient creeds.
B) In addition, we value some truths we think matter.
C) But if you want to know what we want to set the world on fire with, here's how we understand Jesus' message and the life he came to bring us...
But... I would humbly suggest that it would be hard to bring the CGGC together around (C) above, because we don;t all think about the message of Jesus the same way. (I'll talk about that more if anyone wants me to).
Where that leaves us is that the best we can do is have a basic set of Christian truths to come around. As others have noted, dying on hills like feetwashing and free will are likely to keep out leaders God might have used beautifully among us. For my part, I will gladly accept as partners apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, and teachers who don't believe exactly like I do about every little thing if their hearts have been captivated by the God made known in Jesus Christ, and they dream deeply about seeing people come from death to life in every way.
Fran,
I've been looking forward to the moment that you would chime in.
You say,
My simplest observation is that while most of us want to see people's lives transformed by God, and want to see new Jesus communities emerge as that happens, it doesn't happen as a result of conversations like this, nor because of what we write in booklets. It happens because people who have found life give it away.
I agree.
My "2.0" thread had four points. This thread focuses on the first of those four points.
Your comment takes up the ideas I was trying to make in points 2 and 3. 2.0 is sectarian, not Kingdom-Oriented and it is irrelevant.
Both WE BELIEVEs are concerned with ortho-doxy. You are saying, I think, that, in the end, what really matters in ortho-praxy, i. e., doing right not believing correctly.
Right on!
So perhaps what we need is to say:
A) We agree with the ancient creeds.
B) In addition, we value some truths we think matter.
C) But if you want to know what we want to set the world on fire with, here's how we understand Jesus' message and the life he came to bring us...
But... I would humbly suggest that it would be hard to bring the CGGC together around (C) above, because we don’t all think about the message of Jesus the same way. (I'll talk about that more if anyone wants me to).
I would like you to talk about this more.
You are correct that we don't all think about the message of Jesus in the same way. We don't think about ANYTHING in the same way.
We don't know who we are now and we won't acknowledge who we have been in the past.
I'm about to write something that essentially says that one thing we need to do is to reflect on who Winebrenner was and to acknowledge that the roots of the CGGC are extremely radical.
Winebrenner was off the radar on sola scriptura and he, on the day the Church of God came into existence, he asserted that the Reformation had failed. That is our spiritual heritage.
While we have been dominated by moderate, shepherd values for many decades, we have an extremely radical past.
And, I will say this: While many want to toss out what Winebrenner taught and believed:
Winebrenner wasn't a mindless fool. He was not a moron. We have no right to ignore him. He deserves to be taken seriously.
We can’t figure out who are now until we acknowledge who we have been, even if we reject our past, even if we are ashamed of it.
No one I know of takes seriously how Winebrenner’s teaching about the authority of the Bible. And that teaching was at the core of his success in ministry.
When he said that we have no constitution or creed or test-book but that we rely only on the Bible, he said that after more than a decade of careful thought. He said it with reason. He said it with intention. He said it with vision. It was not a stray thought.
It seems that everyone wants to start at the base line of rejecting the core idea that guided us when we were a movement. We are fools if we think we can cast that aside easily. Yet, we’ve been trying to do that for decades—decades of rudderlessness and decline.
Long before Winebrenner made the statement about constitutions and creeds and test-books he called for 'another Great Reformation.'
Get it?
We were formed around the conviction that what Protestantism is all about was already a failure. On the day we came into existence our leader issued a radical call to move toward something new.
Anyone who looks around the CGGC and notes how large a percentage of our churches have closed in recent decades and how many of our existing churches are languishing--living off the savings of previous generations and making no kingdom impact and having congregations in which the average age is the 60s or older--knows that we don't have much time to repent or it will be too late.
And, I'm saying, why not take at least a passing, serious glimpse at Winebrenner.
He wasn't a stooge.
Bill,
I was not gonna post on this thread as I feel this is one meant more for the members with the decoder rings as opposed to outsiders. But some points Fran touched on along with your invocation of orthopraxy (SPOT ON!) sparked something that I think is worth entering.
An area that gets ignored by modern creeds and statements of faith is praxis, or how the faith is lived out. If we acted out what we believe, would we encounter more emphatically the Incarnation of Jesus?
To take it a step further, your right, we need to have a stronger focus on Orthopraxy. I believe we need to strike a balance between right living and right thinking, but the picture has been painted that the those who believe that how a person lives is more important than what he or she believes. Where does this picture come from? It comes from the fact that those of us who do not think that orthopaxy flows from orthodoxy as the mainline Evangelical does. Let's be honest here, there is merit to this claim. Experience does not prove that those who believe the right things live the right way. No matter how much sense the traditional connection makes, it does not work itself out in practice. Public scandals in the church prove this point time and again. This is not to say that one's relationship with God is established solely by how one lives. But, we need to have the focus shifted to a greater focus on Christ like behavior is all. Jesus declared that we will be judged according to how we treat the least of these (Matt. 25:31-46) and that the wise man is the one who practices the words of Jesus (Matt. 7:24-27). In addition, every judgment scene in the Bible is portrayed as a judgment based on works; no judgment scene I've read looks like a theological articulation test. So with that said,
a. Choose your ancient cre4eeds carefully because some of them do not say it as well as the savior.
b. value those truths and have them in balance with the praxis and allow for flexibility. In other words, write this part in pencil and have an erasure handy.
c. Yeah...I like fran's c.
Bill, do you have any good resources on Winebrenner I could read? The more I hear you reference him, the more I begin to think he was better than a century ahead of his time and he would resonate with your words and hopefully like my goofy way of doing things. I think you guys need to take a serious look at Winebrenner, your spot on.
Final thought. Why do we make creeds and statements of faith anyway? Would it be so out of line to just post the Sermon on the mount, the greatest commandment, and the great commission and call it a day?
Bill,
I think you are right that Winebrenner was a radical, perhaps in such a simple way that it escapes us: He thought the faith needed to look differently than it did, so he thought about it deeply and flew up the flag and yelled "Charge".
The question of scriptural authority is very important to you, personally, and hence you often remind us all how important this was to Winebrenner. I want to clarify where I am with Scriptural authority for you.
First, I believe in Sola Scriptura as long as we are all honest enough to admit that we interpret Scripture in the context of our own experience, and within the limitations of our current knowledge and wisdom. There has long been this idea in Protestantism that one can come to the Bible completely objectively and hence come away with a 100% accurate comprehension of the systematic truths God wanted to give us. Looking back over the centuries since the Reformation suggests this is terribly naive, since all our sola scriptura denominations disagree on many doctrines. I like where N.T. Wright comes down on this: The Bible is the biggest authority, and not only will you have to read it flavored by your experience and current knowledge, you SHOULD employ your wisdom and experience to hear its message the best you can.
Second, it has long been obvious to me that many (perhaps most) groups which claim sola scriptura unintentionally abandoned the primary message of Jesus long ago (about a new way to see and be and live) for a more religious message about how to get into heaven. What this tells me is that clinging to the ideal of sola scriptura will not by itself keep you from error. I believe the corrective needed is to bow to Scripture, but make sure we read all of Scripture through the primary lens of Jesus' message. I read Paul through Jesus, not Jesus through Paul-- not because I think Paul is off or disagrees with Jesus (au contraire!), but because I think I am likely to misread Paul if I do not deeply understand the words and actions of the Jesus Paul was captivated by-- which is what I think much of evangelicalism has done. Is it possible that in misunderstanding the message of Jesus, many evangelicals are "orthodox to systematic protestantism," but "heretical to the message of Jesus"?
Third, the perspective that allows sola scriptura to marry my orthodoxy and orthopraxy is when I determine that I must let the Bible read me rather than merely reading the Bible. The "authority of Scripture" takes on a different light when I am as concerned with what it says about my motives and values and actions as I am with what it says about free will or the proper administration of the ordinances. It is not just authority to say what is true, but authority OVER ME.
Perhaps what I am trying to say is that I think getting back to Winebrenner is more about:
A) The basic willingness to rethink things (often lacking in denoms like ours);
B) Getting back to the real message of Jesus;...
than just getting back to a "position" of sola scriptura.
I like J.W., and I think if he were here with us today, it is likely his "rethink" would look differently than it did then, BUT it would be just as radical.
Pat, you made me smile and laugh when you wrote, "Final thought. Why do we make creeds and statements of faith anyway? Would it be so out of line to just post the Sermon on the mount, the greatest commandment, and the great commission and call it a day?"
I can picture Jesus saying, "Yeah, would that be so bad?"
It's interesting that we want to nail down the doctrine and say we agree with it.
I try to preach through the Sermon on the Mount every year because it is such a challenge. I noticed this year that Jesus' encounter with the Rich Young Man in Mark 10 is in the midst of Jesus Sermon on the Mount in Mark.
One of our elders said to me, "I think it was just a test. If the man would have offered to give his money to the poor, Jesus would have told him to keep it."
I said, "Well, when Jesus called the disciples off the fishing boats, and they left their jobs and families, Jesus didn't say, 'Whoa boys! It was just a test. Get back on them there boats! You'll follow me without ever leaving your current life."
Jesus calls us to drop everything for him, which is so nearly impossible that it tears at us. He calls us to leave so much more than our jobs. He calls to leave our anger and pride and judgment.
So I think we agree upon some fairly orthodox doctrine and say yes to that instead.
I think I vote "Sermon on the Mount" and call it a day. Let's just accept Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship as our statement of faith. ;)
To the posts that appear above this one by Fran, Brian and tux, I say, "Amen."
I'm not a sola scriptura person. That is merely a theological idea. I attempt to be a sola Jesus person.
The reason that I keep bringing us back to Winebrenner's radical assertion of the authority of Scriture is, as I stated it in my '2.0' thread.
WE BELIEVE and all other doctrinal statements diminish the raw authority of the Word for us and they give us something of the spiritual quality of Cheese Whiz.
WE BELIEVE is way too easy to be a good thing. To have so great a sense of awe in the realization that God has made Himself known to us through the vehicle of human language that one might read the Scriptures on his knees, as Winebrenner did in the years before he initiated the Churches of God is what I want for us.
As spiritual beings, we don't have anything like that.
It seems to me that, since I entered ministry in the Churches of God, there has been none of that sense of awe before the Lord and His Word that characterized Winebrenner's ministry.
All we ever seem to do is pass around the latest hot book with the latest great idea or program or strategy and, if we can afford it, bring in the author to speak at Conference or General Conference or (when we could) IMPACT.
Brian's observation that it is simply easier to agree on "points" than to surrender our lives to God is noteworthy.
Perhaps the larger problem is the lack of Sermon On The Mount-Bonhoefferesque-Winebrenner On His Knees in Awe reality in our hearts. If that were present in us, We Believe might serve as a decent gatekeeper for who can be a leader or start a church in our movement, but that's it.
So maybe We Believe should start with some statement that says, "If our hearts have not been captivated by this great and holy and beautiful God, if we aren't ready to work at surrendering our hearts and lives to God, if we aren't willing to pay the prices involved in following the Jesus who appeared to make known the God who has spoken to us, then the document which follows will be worthless to you."
It's clear that John Winebrenner was radical in his insistence on adopting wholly new practices of worship and evangelism. Especially relevant is his (and others') enlargement (or is merely the logical extension?) of sola scriptura to mean “We have no creed but the Bible, which is our only rule of faith and practice.” In doing so, Winebrenner followed other Restorationists in wanting to reestablish the New Testament church along literal biblical lines.
We rightfully thank God for Winebrenner's passion for God and Scripture, but we do not see him as infallible; I'm quite sure he wouldn't want that! After all, not many today would defend his staunch views regarding observing the Lord's Supper four times a year, at night and in a sitting position! But where do we get his view of an expanded sola scriptura? Biblically, what support is there for an aggressive non-creedal position? To accuse the Creed of limiting God and sapping vision is unfair; the Creed wasn't intended to “drive” the Church's mission any more than a car's owner manual “drives” the car from Pittsburgh to New York. The Creed (Nicene, that is) simply outlines orthodox Christian doctrines that define our core beliefs.
Some wonder why this is necessary. They ask, “Why focus on beliefs when obviously our actions are more important?” Granted, “faith without works is dead,” but so are “works without faith.” Furthermore, I fear the consequences of jettisoning a statement of core beliefs. To claim a sola Jesus position sounds good, but what happens when false teachers promulgate heretical views about Jesus? Without an accurate undestanding of Who Jesus is and what He did, we'll reduce Him to an emotional experience, or a Marxist revolutionary (the view of liberation theology), or a guarantor of the “good life” (as in the health-and-wealth movement). In other words, without a creed, how do we know which Jesus we serve? Remember Arius and his ilk. The Church dealt with the damage caused by gnostics for over 300 years (and in some ways still is); the 4th century Church dealt with the problem the same way it did in Acts 15: they gathered together, listened to the Spirit speak through Scripture, and established clear guidelines. And it kept growing!
My goal here is solely to challenge the idea that doctrinal boundaries cause stagnation. I could not disagree more. Granted, we are all involved in a hard fight against growing paganism outside the Church and stagnation within. We need BOTH core beliefs and vibrant, radical love for God and others. It's not an either-or situation, both a both-and.
Toviah,
I’m not sure if doctrinal stances cause stagnation as much as doctrinal stance do not matter to many congregants in the CGGC. This may because of Winebrenner’s belief that we have no other creed or statement of faith other than the Scripture. Apostles or Nicene Creed’s have never been part of the normal worship service in my home church. Even if they were added to worship I’m not sure they would have anything more than ritualistic significance. Part of the reason for this, I suspect would be that we are an older church both in age of membership and age of the church (we were actually founded by Winebrenner.) Moreover, the addition of creeds in worship would give the impression to some that we are a liturgical church, and that would never fly.
It’s exciting to see however, that the some on this blog are having an impact with younger congregations as it relates to We Believe. They are asking questions about the church that I would bet have been not asked for years. If We Believe causes a deeper understanding of our faith as well deeper search into Scripture to examine what the Word of God as to say on doctrinal issues, then that’s a good thing.
I agree with Bill, that our churches would benefit from a thorough study of Winebrenner’s 27 points. I agree that Winebrenner is not infallible and should not be worshipped, but he is the founder of our denomination and because of that is worthy of our time to see what led him to what was then a courageous and difficult decision.
Toviah...
I for one was not arguing that doctrinal boundaries cause stagnation, but when discussions like this become intense, people often do confuse answering these kinds of questions with that which will drive mission. I have no problem with the establishment of doctrinal boundaries in a group like ours. But I have also found it's easier to get discussions with people about We Believe than about what's missing in the church's passion and her definition of the gospel.
And I would argue that the fourth century creeds, as revered as they are, were reactionary. They were a GOOD and necessary reaction to growing heresies about the natures of Jesus and God, but they contain nothing about Jesus' own primary message of the Kingdom, and therefore ought not to be considered adequate shorthand for the heart of the Christian faith.
The problem with doctrinal statements is not that they cause stagnation, but they are usually founded by an over importance in language and usually are rigid and stagnant statements that every so often will need a committee to revise the whole darn thing as our understanding changes. When you hit a point of new understanding as so many here are you have to go back to said document and start a new committee and search out new language. Now comes the camps. There are always at least two camps. One says,"what we wrote has always served us and always will and it is fine." then there is the "Change it!" set. Within those two camps are many potential subcamps. The ones who do not want change sometimes threaten a split, as do sub camps who are not happy with the evolution of the changes. Then you have consultants and committees and meetings and a few (let's be honest here} small minds who wanna be a part of history and the Big Man on Campus who has all the answers on the committee with a wrong heart. In this multicamp, multimeeting, multicommittee process the one Holy spirit gets overwhelmed and lost in the shuffle of the process and is often an afterthought. The do not accuse doctrinal statements of being stagnant, I do worse, I accuse the processes of being stagnant and the end result is usually without flexibility which means the process needs to be repeated. Rigid inflexibility was the way of the pharisee and not that of Christ.
Now, when you go with a no doctrine other than scripture position you do run the risk for heretical views....but...um....if we are being honest,so no approach will be perfect. But I believe when the holy spirit has more room to move and to guide than man does, there is more fluid and organic growth and also a God who tends to protect the integrity of His words and has done so for many many years.
If you were to go with Sermon of the Mount and call it a day, you would not have to have Roberts Rules of Order in play to discuss how often you do communion and in what position. :) You also have a little room for different expressions of the great commission and you have document that covers ortho praxy and doxy in balance and harmony far better than anyone since has been able to do. I sometimes wonder if we are arrogant to assume we can summarize the summary of Jesus better than Jesus did.
If a creed was meant to address certain heretical views, today's modern creed would have to be longer than the health care bill to address that. We would also have to spend a decade or so deciding what is and is not heresy. If a doctrine of beliefs is meant to summarize what we believe and how we express that belief, I think the work was already done and he gave us permission to use what he said. I think our JW was onto something here.
Part 1
Ben,
Here are some thoughts in reply to your argument for creeds in which you say:
My argument for the Nicene Creed as our "litmus test" arises from:
1. Respect for the ancient Church and the theological boundaries to the Christian faith God led them to identify. As I said in my previous comment, I have to admire leaders who are willing to suffer and die for their faith.
I take issue with your suggestion that the ancient church is the church that began pumping out creeds.
I believe in the written Word of God. No one who reads my posts here can doubt that. I believe that the Word is inspired—it is, as Paul said, ‘God-breathed.’
But, it also occurred to me a few years ago that the New Testament can be very useful when it is examined as nothing more than a collection of extremely early documents of the Jesus Movement.
So, there are times that I set aside my firm and unshakable conviction that the words are inspired and study them as a historian would study any text.
It is possible that the best documented century of the early Christian Movement is the first century. The ancient church is not the fourth century church; it is the first century church.
When you talk about respect for the ancient church you talk about the sculptors of the Christendom model of the church who were living 300 years after the church began.
When I talk about the ancient church, I talk about the church portrayed in our earliest documents in letters that nearly every scholar—even unbelieving scholars—acknowledge are from the pen of Paul of Tarsus and accounts of our early history that even skeptical, unbelieving scholars acknowledge are rooted in the accounts of eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus.
What I want you to understand, Ben, is that heresy was at least as much a threat to the first generation of the movement as it was to the fourth century of the movement. It is likely that heresy was a much more serious threat to the first generation church than it was to the church that existed 300 years later.
Part 2
Think about how much of the content of the New Testament is concerned with false belief.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned against the coming of false prophets and taught His followers how to recognize them. He also warned, in the Sermon on the Mount, that many self-proclaimed prophets would hear Him say, “away from me you evildoers” on Judgment Day.
In talking about the end of the age, He first explain that there would be false teaching.
How many of Paul’s letters deal with the same kind of theological struggles that convinced Constantine’s four century church to start writing creeds?
Galatians is all about the content of what followers of Jesus believe. Paul said,
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (1:8-9)
Colossians was about the same theological difference that spawned the Nicene Creed. Paul said of Jesus:
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”
Philippians contains Paul’s command that a believer’s life be guided by who it is Jesus really was:
“ Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!” (2:5-8)
And Romans! Need I say more?
First John gives testimony to the degree to which the ancient church was challenged by heresy.
“My dear friends, don't believe everything you hear. Carefully weigh and examine what people tell you. Not everyone who talks about God comes from God. There are a lot of lying preachers loose in the world.
Here's how you test for the genuine Spirit of God. Everyone who confesses openly his faith in Jesus Christ—the Son of God, who came as an actual flesh-and-blood person—comes from God and belongs to God. And everyone who refuses to confess faith in Jesus has nothing in common with God. This is the spirit of antichrist that you heard was coming. Well, here it is, sooner than we thought!” (4:1-3 The Message)
Second Corinthians and 2 Peter talk about false brothers.
First Timothy and 2 Peter talk about false teachers.
Three of the four Gospels, Acts and 2 Peter talk about false prophets.
Second Corinthians and Revelation describe false apostles operating in the church.
Part 3
We know all about the theological struggle among sincere believers at what the Christendom church, but not the Bible, calls the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
What impacts me in all of this is that, while there was heresy around every corner in the first generation church, the notion that the answer to heterodoxy was the writing of a creed didn’t appear anywhere in the ancient church and is nonexistent until the fourth century or—calculated another way—the second DECADE of Christendom.
Christendom is all about creeds.
In the ancient way, there is no such thing as a creed.
As I understand church history, Ben, there can be no argument for the Nicene Creed from the ancient church. The ancient church never thought in terms of creed.
However, a powerful argument for the Nicene Creed can be made from very early Christendom but not from the ancient Jesus movement.
From the beginning, the Church of God has believed that the New Testament pattern of being church is the one that must be followed.
It has also been our belief, from the beginning, that the onset of Christendom was a corruption of the church.
To respect the ancient Jesus movement is to reject the creed.
As I have opportunity, I’ll comment on your second observation.
Bill,
I don't distinguish between the 4th and 1st century church; to me it's all the "ancient Church." I don't agree with McNeal's assertion that the Church has been off course for the past 1700 years. We're so used to beating up the "christendom" model that we fail to see the good that it did accomplish, especially in the wake of barbarian and then Muslim invasions from all sides. And of course the apostolic church had to deal with heresy; that's why we have the NT epistles. I don't dispute that fact at all.
You claim that it was the 4th century church that "began pumping out the creeds." All a creed is, at least in my opinion, is a statement of belief. We tend to criticize the use of a creed as a litmus test, but that's exactly what John does in 1 John 2:22 -- "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist -- he denies the Father and the Son." Sounds like a creed to me. As I've said before, the 4th century Church is not to blame for all the problems that brought about the Reformation of the 16th century.
I follow Thomas Oden's approach in appreciating the Church's basic unity throughout her first 1000 years. To me the supreme tragedy of history is not the conversion of Constantine but the Great Schism. We've been divided ever since, and in our creedlessness the Church will continue to fracture.
This is my take on the situation. I mean no disrespect when I admit to not agreeing wholly with Winebrenner. Peace.
Ben
Post a Comment
<< Home