Fractured Foundation #4: HISTORICAL IDENTITY - PART 2

FRACTURED FOUNDATIONS (Areas in Which Baptist Churches Must Grow):

#4: Historical Identity - Part 2

[I felt my discussion on the creeds needed another post. Hope it helps clarify my position].


As you can see from the cartoon to the right, there are many who devalue the Church Creeds and Confessions. Claiming the principle of Sola Scriptura, they claim creeds have no value and no place in the life of the church. Worse yet, they see the creeds as something that keeps people from the Word of God.

Interestingly enough, Calvin and Luther would have recoiled at that thought. In their writings and sermons, they regularly appealed to the ancient creeds, confessions, and other writings of the early church leaders. In fact, they took great pain to show that they were (as opposed to the Catholic church of their era) the true successor's of the theology of the ancient creeds. Still, some of the more extreme anti-creedals even suggest that Calvin & Luther were wrong, and should have ignored the creeds all together.

What the anti-creedals don't seem to understand is that church history, the history of doctrine, and the history of exegesis belong to the "hermeneutical circle" (i.e. the process of interpretation) in which the text of scripture is carried forward, interpreted, and shown to be significant in the present. The history of the church (in its events, but particularly in its development and awareness of theology) provides a connecting link between us and the text.

To view this from another angle, all would agree that the Bible is "living and active". Now, what does this mean? Of course, it refers to the inherent power of the Word of God. But, it also refers to the inherent "movement" of Scripture. Most would agree (except for some die-hard anti-intellectuals) that the New Testament cannot rightly be understood without a thorough knowledge of the Old Testament. Just the sheer volume of quotes taken from the Old Testament alone (within the NT) prove this. The New Testament was "birthed" within a specific "theological context"; namely, the theology of the Old Testament.

Just as one must move backwards to understand Scripture, one must also move forward to understand and apply it. The biblical message is not a message from the past that sits on a self somewhere, waiting proper moment to speak and then, having spoken, returning to its self until such time as it may again prove useful. If that were the case, the Bible would be just another reference book. Instead, the biblical message is and has always been a message situated in the present life of the religious community.* The Bible is not static. It is not frozen within a particular culture and period of time. It is 'living and active", which means it is alive and working among us in our contemporary context just as it has been at work in the cultures and times of the past. Why, then, would we ignore the impact of the Living Word in the past? As Spurgeon once said (paraphrase), "it is odd that we think so highly of what the Spirit is telling us, but think so little of what the Spirit has told others". Spurgeon was writing directly to those in his day that devalued the past traditions and creeds of the church.

Oddly, those who devalue or demonize the creeds have no problem standing up on Sunday morning and preaching "Thus saith the Lord" from their pulpits. They have no problem speaking authoritatively on Scripture, but somehow believe it is wrong to listen to voices from 1,800 years ago that do the same. It is no wonder that heresy abounds today. From the legalism (which is another gospel) within Fundamentalism, to the anti-trinitarianism within some versions of Pentecostalism, to the humanism within many mainline groups, heresy is having a 'hay-day'. All appeal to Scripture, yet all completely ignore the Church's great creeds and confessions.

The question is not whether or not to give a place of importance to the Church creeds, but rather what type of place to give it. In some traditions, the creeds and confessions of the church are actually placed above Scripture in terms of authority (e.g. some versions of Catholicism). In others, Creeds are placed next to Scripture, assigning each equal status. Both of these are fundamentally flawed, and are not compatible with the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Instead, church tradition (creeds, confessions) need to be given the highest possible place of prominence directly under Scripture. In other words, Scripture is categorically higher and always will be, but the Creeds and Confessions are put in the highest possible place of prominence that a human writing can hold. They are not authoritative within themselves, but rather get their authority from the higher category (Scripture). They are true only insofar as they accurately represent that higher category.

The Protestant sola scriptura is absolutely essential if the power of the living and active Word is to be unleashed within our contemporary context. However, the Catholic emphasis on tradition is also important (still essential, but categorically secondary to sola scriptura).

The Word that spoke to the heart of mankind 2,000 years ago also spoke 1,000 years ago, and 750 years ago, and 250 years ago....and it continues to speak today. Who are we to silence it's voice in any time?

(I postponed an overview of the various creeds and confessions. That will be coming sometime next week. Also, I haven't forgotten about the other "Fractured Foundations". A few more are in the works....just trying to find the time).

* See: Muller, Richard A. The Study of Theology: From Biblical Interpretation to Contemporary Formulation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), p 109.