This is part 4 of a series yet undetermined in length.
With Protestant evangelical churches’ historical animosity toward church history, there are few resources to help those who are trying to bring older practices into today’s churches. This is particularly true in free churches (Baptist, E-Free, Pentecostal…) that do not have a set liturgy. Churches that have come out of the magisterial reformation (Anglican, Reformed and Lutheran) and kept the liturgy (although modified for each denomination) have part of the historical church passed down in their liturgy week after week. The liturgy provides a common reference point, a kind of living memory for a church from which a connection with the historical past can be emphasized and explored. In churches without a liturgy and a general a-historic view of the church it can be difficult to find a way to begin to explore the past with the church community.
The one resource that most churches, even free churches, have to use is church creeds. No matter what denomination, nearly everyone will agree with what is said in the Apostles and Nicaea Creed. There are some exceptions here, the Church of Christ (and some others smaller groups) do not use creeds, there is disagreement on Christ descending into Hell and the Filioque clause with the orthodox church, but the these two creeds come the closest to being catholic (in the universal sense) documents that the church today has.
When churches and denominations recognize the authority and truthfulness of these creeds, they are often doing so out of a sense of tradition - or only because they wish to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy and recognize somehow that is set by these creeds. Most churches and denominations within the free churches have not given much thought as to why they use, or at least recognize these creeds, which provides an amazing chance for a church to begin an investigation of the history of the church.
We have, in our churches, examples of how scripture and tradition have historically interacted with each other in the church that are waiting to be investigated and explored. Among Emerging Churches, Dan Kimball seems to take the creeds the most seriously. In his chapter in Listening To The Beliefs Of The Emerging Church he spends a lot of time discussing what their role in the church should be. He seems to understand what I have been saying here; that they are a doorway that we can use to enter into the past, but more importantly are the bounds of orthodoxy. Kimball represents the emerging church at its best on this point.
There are many resources available to churches wanting to begin an investigation of the creeds. With the internet, documents such as Philip Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom and other writings on the creeds are available to everyone. There is also a newer book by D.H. Williams entitled Evangelicals and Tradition, which, among other things, discusses the formation of the creeds and is an important book which I hope to review in full at a later date.
“When churches and denominations recognize the authority and truthfulness of these creeds, they are often doing so out of a sense of tradition - or only because they wish to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy and recognize somehow that is set by these creeds.”
I believe this to be a true statement. However, from my point of view, creeds are important because the are generally an affirmation of New Testament truth. That is different from identifying with them out of a sense of tradition.
I like reciting the creeds, even though I’ve mostly attended churches which don’t do so regularly, because they are a summary statement of orthodoxy and because they are a reminder of the things Christians from many denominations can agree on. (Mostly we hear about the things they can’t agree on.)
After reading this article I found a website where the author crossed out all the parts of the Nicene creed he didn’t agree with, which seemed to me a pointless exercise–the creed is so minimal and basic that if you can’t accept it, you really shouldn’t call yourself a Christian.
Yeah, the Nicene creed is pretty basic. I had never thought of using it as a launchpad for exploring church history though. That’s a great idea.
Vain, in the context, means empty.
When we watch a Shakespearean play we are watching a “vain” repetition. The conversations that are taking place in the play are not real conversations, the actors are never speaking to one another, but instead repeating a known dialog between themselves in turn. The observer may see a conversation, but there is no conversation taking place. Even if the actors could sincerely brainwash themselves for each performance such that their recitation became an actual dialog, even then we would only be seeing (at best) a heartfelt, but utterly empty recitation.