No Creed but the Creed I’m Not Articulating to You
“No Creed but the Bible” has become a popular position to take, frequently expressed by fundamentalists and emergent Christians alike, albeit in rather different ways.
Carl Trueman wants to call b.s. on the whole thing.
I read his new book, The Creedal Imperative
In particular I was struck by his argument that everyone has a creed, the only difference is creedal traditions put that creed in the public domain.
By that he is suggesting, and I’m prone to agree, that everyone has a framework they read the Bible through whether or not they acknowledge it.
That might be Calvinism, an affinity for Liberation theology, an eschatology that has been shaped by growing up in Dispensational churches, or a thousand other theological biases, but ultimately no one reads the Bible without interpretive baggage.
So then when a pastor proclaims his church has no creed but the Bible, he is in danger of two things. First, he is effectively making his church’s creed whatever he (and the other key leaders of the church) decree is Biblical in a given week. And secondly, he is identifying his own theology so closely with the Bible that he is unable to see his beliefs objectively enough to really evaluate them against the Scriptures.
In other words, it is too easy to move from “no creed but the Bible,” to “no creed but my personal interpretation of the Bible.”
Or, “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.” [Switch part 1 and part 2 of that sentence as necessary]
I’ll admit that my own ecclesial history has made me prone to seeing all sorts of red flags when it comes to entrenched theological camps (which creeds and confessions certainly can represent). But that said, Trueman’s book is a good reminder that the alternative is fraught with difficulties as well.
What do you think? Are creeds and confessions helpful, necessary or inevitable even? Do they too easily lock us into errant or uncritical readings of the Scripture? Is there really a better alternative?
Pingback: The Bible, Inspiration, and Fundamentalism
Creeds are best used as placeholders until one can read and study the Scripture sufficiently to come to a personal conviction – at which time the creed can then be reinforced, rejected, or revised..
In my case, I found the Apostles’ Creed quite helpful until I came to realize from personal study of the Scriptures that it was impossible for the Lord to still be at the right hand of the Father because more than enough time had elapsed for the New Testament’s promises of an imminent return of the Lord to have occurred. Unlike Albert Schweitzer, I came to see this not as a case of Jesus having failed with regard to His apocalyptic prophecies but rather to have succeeded in a way that we have failed to recognize – that is, the coming of the kingdom was a spiritual event which escaped worldly notice. Thus the kingdom of God has come and the judgment of God has been taking place since the late 1st Century.
That leaves most of the Apostles’ Creed intact, but it does mean that church is obsolete and we only please God when we seek His kingdom. In other words, we should preach Jesus Christ as Lord with more vigor than ever but should cease preaching church altogether.
Pingback: “The Creedal Imperative” by Carl Trueman – Thoughts from Mason « Baker Book House Church Connection