This brings us to the Nicene Creed — believe it or not.
The fact that Jesus is the Messiah is the core of Paul’s gospel. And yet the modern Churches of Christ don’t teach this, not really.
We ask our converts to recite “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” but how many of our converts could tell us the meaning of “Christ”? Most, I suspect, would say that it means he’s divine, a part of the Godhead. We emphasize “Son of the Living God” purely in the sense of the Nicene Creed. Our theology is Fourth Century.
In the Old Testament, especially Psalm 2, “Son of God” refers to the king sitting on David’s throne. This is, of course, Jesus, who is part of the Godhead.
In the Old Testament, this is primarily language of kingship, rule, and authority, not the language of triune relationship. (Although I’m quite orthodox in my understanding of the nature of the Trinity. And it’s a vitally important theological fact. But it’s not what we are called to confess.)
The Nicene Creed says,
We believe … in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made;
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead,
whose kingdom shall have no end.
Now, I agree with every word of that. But how does that compare to Peter’s and Paul’s preaching in Acts?
Yes, the words “Christ” and “Son of God” are there, but many who recite this creed do not understand that “Christ” and “Son of God” are references to the Messiah as king of Israel, sitting on the throne of David.
Yes, there’s mention of the “kingdom,” but no reference to citizenship or faithfulness. For “kingdom,” we hear “church” rather than “realm in which Jesus is in authority as the king.” They are similar concepts, but not exact synonyms — and certainly submitting to the rule of a king is a very different thought from being baptized to be forgiven of sins (unless, of course, you understand baptism very well).
These are not contradictory ideas at all. Both are true. But we choose to emphasize the abstract part that demands very little of us. It sells better.
Notice how “faith” has been reduced to belief in certain propositions. There’s nothing here about a transformed life or submission to Jesus as king. Yes, he’s called “Lord,” but what does that title compel me to be or to do?
The Nicene Creed was hammered out in an effort to resolve a doctrinal dispute, and the result of this creed and the many that followed was to subtly shift Christianity from being about God’s story and mission — both of which are entirely missing — to intellectual acceptance of the right propositions. Having the right positions on the issues became more important than actually serving in God’s mission.
It didn’t happen all at once, and it’s rarely gone to the extreme of eliminating all obligations to obey. But the shift is quite dramatic in historical terms. We see it in the division of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church over whether communion bread is to be leavened and over whether the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son or just the Father. Really.
We see it in the Reformation division between Lutherans and Calvinists due to disagreement over consubstantiation. We see it in the French religious wars during which the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants) and Catholics treated each other so horribly, with so many deaths and atrocities on both sides that France turned to atheism after the French Revolution rather than have anything to do with a “Christianity” that focused on torturing “heretics.”
And we see it in the continued divisions within the Churches of Christ and among most American denominations. We place inferential doctrines at the center of our faith rather than loyalty to our King, who sits on the throne of heaven, weeping that his brothers and sisters have turned the mission of God to redeem the world into fights over nuances and unrevealed truths.
Many declare a church that sends no missionaries, serves no poor, saves no souls, and evidences no love as “sound” if it sings a cappella, while declaring an otherwise identical church “apostate” if it uses a piano, even though it sends missionaries who convert hundreds, feeds the poor by the thousands, baptizes scores, and brightly shines with the love of Jesus.
Conformity to questionable theological speculations is far more important to many among us than love, evangelism, missions, and serving the needy. And yet, if we truly knew God and his story, that couldn’t happen.
Our theology is often more Grecian than Jewish, and owes more to Plato and Aquinas than Jesus and Paul.
And as a result, we define “sin” as getting doctrine wrong — the more abstract and detached from everyday living, the better. And this cheapens the gospel, making “conversion” cost nothing more than a confession of an abstraction and a dunking.
And we wonder why we have so many unconvicted members who haven’t given their lives over to Jesus. Well, we told them they’re saved for joining the right denomination and obeying the right positive commands — commands that can be obeyed at nearly no personal cost at all.
It sure sells. People love a religion that costs them the right to sing accompanied by a piano. Anyone can obey that command perfectly their entire lives. You see, it’s the positive commands that are so very easy to obey and that make it so easy to damn all others — those heretics who love God so little that they haven’t even read the tracts on whether to use leavened or unleavened bread.
I stated in a Facebook group the other day that it would be far better if we put down the rocks that we throw and each other and join hand in hand with other denominations to increase our ability to assist the needy. The response from one gentleman was “what if they ask how to be saved. There would be 10 different arguments break out so what’s the use?”… Stunned me… Let’s not help the poor, the needy, the widows and orphans because we can’t get past John 3:16…
The only thing that I might mention in regard to your post is that we often times fail to see the convert as a babe in Christ. Yes, God calls us into service and faithfulness…but when does that happen. Most of us wouldn’t require our newborn infant to be able to feed and dress himself much less mow the lawn… Perhaps we can start with a trust and sincere faith in Jesus as Lord and King and move them into discipleship as they grow teeth and can chew…Salvation is for both the infant and the spiritually mature.. Don’t want to forget that.
This. Exactly. Lord, help us heal. Help us see. Help us forgive and love. Forgive us. Amen.
This sort of troublesome dynamic is at least in part rooted in a one-off concept of Christianity. We are not actually sheep following an actual shepherd. That is pure metaphor. We are academics debating on how to follow a book– or how to follow or not follow other people who previously talked about trying to follow the book. Our arguments do not admit of a living Spirit whose responsibility it is to enlighten the disciples of Jesus Christ. Perhaps we accept this as another metaphor, but we do not expect direct enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. We have placed our hope entirely in our capacities to wrestle with the previous wrestlings of men about what they read about God. We argue Calvin regarding the Bible regarding Paul regarding Jesus. “Follow me” has been augmented by a long string of intermediaries.
just gota JAY : you don’t mind i hope blessings RICH
Jay Said:
“Our theology is often more Grecian than Jewish, and owes more to Plato and Aquinas than Jesus and Paul.”
http://stonedcampbelldisciple.com/2007/04/23/heaven-3-resurrection-the-belief-of-the-early-church/
The resurrection is critically linked to any Christian view of the afterlife. In this particular post I share the view held by the Jewish worldview prior to and contemporary with Jesus and that of the earliest Christian writings following the New Testament.
I will highlight how the early Christians attempted to separate their beliefs from the Greeks and Gnostics.
The Platonic and Gnostic View
“the body is the prison of the soul” (Plato, Phaedo, 65, see 67-68 and 91-94)
“You {Judas} will exceed all of them {twelve apostles}. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me” (Jesus in the Gospel of Judas, 56; see the Gospel of Judas edited by Kasser, Meyer and Gregor Wurst, National Geographic Society, p. 43)
“for he {Christ} put aside the world which is perishing. He transformed himself into an imperishable aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed up the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way to immortality” (Treatise on the Resurrection, 44. The author(s) go on to insist this means shedding the flesh, cf. ch’s 47-48)
“When you strip off from yourselves what is corrupted {flesh}, then you will become illumators in the midst of mortal men” (Jesus in The Letter of Peter to Philip, 137. Nag Hammadi Library, p. 435).
“The soul answered and said, ‘What binds me has been slain, and what surrounds me has been overcome, and my desire has been ended, and ignorance has died. In a world I was released from a world and in a type from a heavenly type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient” (Mary revealing Jesus’ secret teachings in The Gospel of Mary, see Nag Hammadi Library, p. 526)
The Jewish/Christian View Exhibited in The Church Fathers
Before I produce a few quotes illustrative of the theme I have chosen, I need to refer to a passage in N. T. Wright’s popular level book Judas and the Gospel of Jesus (Baker 2006). Wright summarizes, correctly, I believe, the three major themes the early Church held dearly in continuity with the Hebrew Bible and its Jewish worldview: 1) the belief that the Creator God is none other than the Father of Jesus the Christ and his creation is good; 2) the belief in the ultimate justice of God and 3) a belief that is directly and intimately connected with the previous two is the conviction in the resurrection of the body as part of the restoration of all things (p. 102), this is argued in considerable detail by Wright in some heafty tomes). These beliefs are in stark contrast with Greek Platonism and Gnosticism. Indeed it evident that the Fathers rejected as Gnostic what some today long for … that “pure spiritual environment.”
Josephus, a Pharisee, offers this view of what his party believed about the resurrection,
“they who depart this life in accordance with the law of nature and repay the loan which they received from God, when He who lent is pleased to reclaim it, win eternal renown; that their houses and familes are secure; that their souls, remaining spotless and obedient, are allotted the most holy place in heaven, whence, in the revolution of the ages, they return to find in chaste bodies a new habitation” (Jewish Wars, 3.374)
There could not be a starker contrast in this statement and that made by Plato, the “Jesus” of the Gospel of Judas and the Gnostic treatise on the “resurrection.” Another text that I simply cannot reproduce for it is too long is the narrative of the martyrdom of the Seven Brothers in 2 Maccabees 7. But they freely give up their lives in belief of the bodily resurrection in a new creation along the lines in Josephus. These texts can be multiplied at length but there is no need.
One of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament is First Clement which actually belongs to “first century Christianity.” In 1 Clement 42, Clement says Christians are “fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ” that our faith is true. Earlier in ch. 24, Clement appeals to many life experiences to support the belief in the resurrection of the body.
If move down the line about 20 years we encounter Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius is interesting on many levels. He is a bishop. He is a martyr. And he had the gift of prophecy, at least he so claimed and the early church believed he did. That does not make his writings canonical but it is …
Above you wrote that you suspect that most in the CofC would say Jesus is divine, a part of the Godhead. You may well be correct, but how many of them understand that to be part of the Godhead is to be very God of very God? – to use creedal language. I have encountered more than a few that affirm that Jesus is the son of God but not God as they affirm that only the Father is God. There is a fellow that posts here that seems to hold that point of view. Barton Stone refused to affirm the Trinity and had a back and forth with Thomas Campbell in the Millennial Harbinger on the issue – while Alexander was away. Stone likely would have called the Trinity speculative theology. Thomas eventually told Stone he could believe what he wanted but to shut up about it in print lest the movement rightly be accused of being heretical. Many/most of the CofC songbooks have changed the words in Holy Holy Holy from God in three persons, blessed Trinity to something like God overall blessed eternally. Additionally, the Jule Miller filmstrips imply the outcome of 3rd Nicea and other great ecumenical councils to be in error. The CofC has focused so much on ecclesiology and salvation at the time of baptism and ignored or allowed tremendous latitude on more significant theological issues that many remain ignorant of some of the most significant theology. It is simply part of the warp and woof of the CofC.
No criticism of your blog intended here. Notice how much focus there is from your readers on the same old relatively minor theological issues to the relative exclusion of who God is – His nature and attributes as well as Christology and the Trinity. But just mention baptism or IM and you may get literally hundreds of comments.
Hope your recovery goes very well.
Hesed,
Randall
The Greek term “anastasia” when taken literally simply means to be revived and resuscitated from death. Since Plato and the gnostics believed the soul was immortal, they could not have used this term to describe the soul’s resurrection. The early Christians never had to use a modifier like “Bodily Resurrection” because Anastasia always signified just that when used literally!
Anastasia even signifies a newness or restoration. A renewal to what God originally intended for us back in Eden-to have super-human bodies like Christ’s. Metaphorically it has the connotation of an awakening(from the old stench of sin to the invigorating life of righteousness that comes by faith in Jesus).
Randall,
I certainly agree that Churches of Christ do not focus on the ancient creeds. After all, the Restoration Movement includes a rejection of creedalism at its very roots. Of course, what the founders of the Movement meant by “creedalism” was dividing based on the creeds, not having creeds. Somewhere along the way, we lost that distinction and began to object to creeds in general, even true creeds, for reasons that made no sense (such as, creeds if true are unnecessary — which is like saying math books aren’t needed if true).
Moreover, A. Campbell’s insistence on using the purity of biblical language made “trinity” an unacceptable word in some circles — although this teaching is also largely forgotten. After all, once you get comfortable with “institutionalism” and “missionary societies,” it’s hard to criticize the use of “trinity” just because the word isn’t found in the Bible.
In dealing with Stone, A. Campbell had Stone affirm that he agreed with each statement found in the Bible re the relationship of God, Jesus, and the Spirit. Thus, Campbell concluded, they only disagreed as to inferences, which could not be a barrier to fellowship.
Today, we have an ugly arrogant streak, and we often think we’re smarter than all the theologians who precede us — which is rarely true. We lack the humility necessary to learn from the Nicene Council. Rather, we place them in judgment and look for a nuance by which to prove ourselves wiser and smarter — and this attitude often leads to some truly bad theology.
By no means do I equate the great creeds of the church with scripture, but neither do I believe we start by looking for ways to disprove them and so prove ourselves better Bible students. Rather, we should seek to learn from those who’ve studied the scriptures with the same passion we have — but centuries closer to the events in question. It doesn’t make them necessarily right but it makes them worthy of our open-minded consideration.
In fact, one of the blessings of today’s world is that we can study the scriptures with the works of Calvin, Luther, the church councils, and the early church fathers at our fingertips — all for nearly free on the Internet. The hermeneutical community thus expands to include nearly 2,000 years of theologians in the discussion, if we would just bother to listen to what they say.
Again, they are not inspired — and plainly so — but not stupid and ignorant. There’s a lot to be learned from our spiritual ancestors.
Thank you for the reply Jay. I know you are a very busy man. If you ever have the time there is a lot of interesting stuff in the Harbinger. I’ll bet you’ve read a lot of it.
Among the 13 propositions found in the Declaration and Address we find number 6:
“That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when
fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are
they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than
they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their
faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of
God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion,
but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the
Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths
ought to have any place in the Church’s confession.”
I have no doubt that Thomas Campbell had the Westminster Confession of Faith specifically in mind when he penned those words, although there is a much broader application.
Hesed,
Randall
Randall,
Barton W Stone rejected Unitarianism, Arianism, and Socinianism. Thus he believed The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be of One Essence-One God. But where he differed from many was his view that Jesus and The Spirit were subordinate to the Father in all eternity. Thus not co-equal.
He also could not stand the non-essential qualms over every little nuance of The Divine Nature(e.g. were the two natures of Christ united or divided, did The Spirit proceed directly from the Son or from The Father then The Son, and on and on we go).
He also rejected Tritheism. The belief that The Father, Son, and Spirit were merely gathered round a table. Thus three gods.
“They, who profess to believe nothing without testimony, can not; because the two last propositions are not in the Bible.
……….. They who profess to believe nothing before they understand it, can not.
……….. Therefore it is as incredible as it is incomprehensible ”
I have always wondered how one could believe anything, they could not understand..
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
–Alice in Wonderland.
Laymond, we will not be discussing the merits of the Nicene Creed’s trinitarian theology. I only brought it up to make a very different point.
But I thought you’d enjoy the quote from Lewis Carroll.
Randall,
Thanks for reminding us of T. Campbell’s position on inferences. Strictly speaking, it’s very, very hard to draw a line between what the Bible “says” and what is merely “inference.” But the point remains valid: something like the Nicene Creed, while generally agreed to by Christians, is plainly filled with inferential truths (and some truths that are less so). To insist that someone be in agreement on every point of the Nicene Creed is to insist on agreement with human reasoning (although it is, in my opinion, correct reasoning).
Campbell wanted us to get away from the subjective standard of whether Jay thinks it’s true. You don’t have to agree with Jay to be a Christian. You have to agree with the scriptures — and then only enough to come to saving faith in Jesus.
Plenty of room for some very hard questions in all that, but we peal away a lot of mess if we realize that Calvinists and Arminians, for example, can disagree and yet be brothers and sisters in Christ. There are some limits, but they come up far less often than we like to imagine.
Thanks Jay, as you know I often compare many Christian beliefs to , Alice in Wonderland.
Believe it or not, I have trouble believing in the truth of that amazing children’s book by Lewis Carroll., or the Movie made from it. And believe you me when I say I have read the book, and watched the movie numerous times, (I have children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) it might rival the times I have read the gospels , but believing it to be true is a little far fetched for me.
You just described American Christendom writ large, not merely some churches of Christ. I’ve seen this far, far more in Calvinistic denominations.
“Conformity to questionable theological speculations is far more important to many among us than love, evangelism, missions, and serving the needy.”
America is the most religious in the west . People don’t read the Bible but they believe in the Bible yes the people are very religious but Europe is different very liberal and open minded .