What about Creeds?

As a "born and bred" Bible-believing Baptist, I never had much use for the Christian creeds--and in many ways I still don't. I have never been the member of a church that regularly, or even occasionally, used one of the Christian creeds as a part of worship.

Actually, my problem with the creeds has been not in what they say but in the way they have been used. When creeds are used as summaries of vital Christian doctrine and expressions of common faith, they are not only acceptable but also valuable. But when creeds are used to enforce conformity and to eliminate diverse views they become problematical.

The Apostles' Creed is widely used in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and many Protestant Churches. The longest part of that creed is about Jesus:

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried;

he descended to the dead.

On the third day he rose again;

he ascended into heaven,

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

That statement, as well as its amplification in the Nicene Creed, expresses the heart of the Christian Story--and it is hard to see how people could really be considered "believing" Christians if they do not affirm this central part of the creed. But does that mean we all have to interpret each part of it in the same manner--in a literal, factual manner? I think not.

How many of us today could possibly affirm, for example, that Jesus ascended in a physical body from this earth to a physical heaven in some sort of "three-story" universe? But does that mean that we should remove that phrase from the creed? Again, I think not. While we now will need to interpret it in a metaphorical rather than a literal manner, the assertion of Jesus' ascension is not without significant theological content.

So, the creeds are good as summaries; they are dangerous as weapons. The use of the creeds must allow room for diverse interpretations, but they are to be affirmed as valuable expressions of the core of the central Christian Story.

Are Historical Religions Better?

This is my response to the second issue raised by a "thinking friend"(TF) on August 13 (and repeated in different words in another e-mail message of August 20). My response to the first issue was in "Is There One Christian Story" posted on August 18.

In part, my TF wrote: "There seems to be a hint of judgment in noting the story-less tradition of Buddhism as compared to our 'decisive' faith story. Is an 'historical' religion better? If so, why?"

Regardless of what I think about the merits of "the Christian story"--and I continue to maintain that in spite of all the differences there is an overarching story which not only unites all Christians at some level but also definitely makes Christianity a historical religion--I in no way think that being historical in itself makes Christianity superior to non-historical religions.

On the other hand, those who are adherents of non-historical religions (or a mystical, non-historical version of "Christianity") are usually clear in their contention that religious faiths focussing on "eternal truths" are superior to any religion based upon historical events. The Buddhist scholars with whom I regularly had dialogue in Japan left little doubt about direct contact with Ultimate Reality bring better than any reliance upon historical events.

As I write in the seventh chapter of my forthcoming book "The Limits of Liberalism," "Gotthold Ephriam Lessing (1729-81) was one of the outstanding philosophers of the Enlightenment era. In an essay published in 1777, he wrote that 'accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason,' and he went on to declare that such a situation is 'the ugly, broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap.'”

In other words, Lessing denies that historical events can lead to universal or ultimate truths. And so do many who are not adherents of a historical faith such as Christianity.

So, regardless of my personal beliefs, Christianity has through the centuries been considered a historical religion by most people who have a thorough understanding of it. This says nothing, though, about the relative value of that position. It does mean, though, that many who have a non-historical religious faith are often dismissive of Christianity partly, or largely, because it is a religion based upon a historical story.

Is There One Christian Story?

I received some significant responses to my blog entry for August 11, and one "thinking friend" raised questions about two issues so important I feel I must respond to them--to one in this post and to the other later.

The first issue is concerning the great diversity within Christianity. Is, as my respondent wrote, Christianity so diverse with so many different interpretations that, "just like other traditions," Christianity has many stories rather than being a story? Thus, "rather than our strength being in a common, singular story, our strength may be in the multiple 'stories' understood by the various Christian traditions, denominations, sects, etc."

Certainly, there is no question that there is great diversity within Christianity. There are multiple differences between various forms of the faith now and there are great differences between the bulk of Christians now and Christians of one hundred, five hundred, one thousand, or fifteen hundred years ago--to say nothing of the differences between Christians now and those of the early Church.

But, are there multiple stories? Or is there only a great variety in the way one central story is understood, explained, and followed? In spite of all the diversity, I am firmly convinced that there is, in fact, a central Christian story. Moreover, it is belief in and commitment to that story that makes one a Christian, in the sense of being a Christian believer. (There is and has been for a very long time "cultural Christians," people who are Christians because of their birth and cultural connections; the multitude of people like that are to be distinguished from those who are Christian believers, that is, people who have committed their lives to the lordship of Jesus Christ and are seeking to live accordingly.)

The Bible, for all its diversity, is primarily one overarching story much more than a book of teachings, of "eternal truths." The classic Christian creeds have been used and are used today by millions of Christians. Interpretations of the creeds vary greatly, but there is allegiance to the centrality of the creeds as summaries of the Christian faith--of the one, central Christian story.

For the past three years I have taught one of the required theology courses at Rockhurst University in Kansas City. The textbook I have used is Hans Küng's massive "Christianity: Essence, History, Future" (1995). He writes about the six different Christian paradigms and the great differences between those six basic expressions of Christianity. But he continually emphasizes the commonality that is found in all types of Christianity in all eras.

I think Küng is entirely correct in his assertion about the essential commonality of Christianity. In spite of all the variance in the way it is interpreted and explained, there is, indeed, one overarching Christian story.