Pelikan on the Creedal Nature of the Community of Faith

I just had to post this quote from Jaroslav Pelikan’s article “The Will to Beleive and the Need for Creed.” It can (and should) be read in its entirety here.

Shema

Shema

But when personal religious faith has exhausted its allotted supply of “the courage to be,” when the only Psalm it can remember is not the one that begins “The Lord is my shepherd” (Ps 23.1) but the one immediately preceding it, which begins “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” (Ps 22.1), then, precisely then, we are not thrown on our own individual and feeble resources of believing or speculating or explaining (or even “experiencing”), such as that may be. Rather, though perhaps in a sense that he may not have intended, it is then that the admission of William James comes through and rings true: “Our faith is faith in some one else’s faith, and in the greatest matters this is most the case.” For then it is time to confess: However much or however little I may be able to believe on my own, existentially, as of this precise moment, I affirm myself to stand, trembling, in the continuity and heritage of that community which has been confessing without interruption for entire millennia, “Shema Yisroel, Adonoi Elohenu, Adonoi Echod; Credo in unum Deum.”


No Comments

Mark, September 1st 2009 | Posted in Christianity, Creeds, Orthodoxy

The Danger of Distintives

“There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution (the Church) that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years. Its experience naturally covers nearly all experiences; and especially nearly all errors. The result is a map in which all the blind alleys and bad roads are clearly marked, all the ways that have been shown to be worthless by the best of all evidence: the evidence of those who have gone down them.” G.K. Chesterton                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      This is my second post about the Nicaean Creed leading up to the conference at Beeson next month. Chesterton, in the quote above, gives a brilliant argument for the practice of historical theology. His illustration of a map is a good one, especially noting the blind alleys and back roads being clearly marked. A large part of this task was done in the fourth century through the work of the ecumenical councils. This work took several councils and much discussion and debate. First in 325 the initial structure of the creed was delivered, then in 381 some additions were made, importantly the mention of the Holy Spirit. After this period the councils refused all requests, even from emperors, to change the Creed. However, in 451 a very important elaboration of the creed called the “Definition of Chalcedon” provided the church with an official description of the nature of Christ as the God-Man. For those unfamilar, here is the text:

“Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.“

This has been a central tenant of Christianity from the beginning, which was carefully explicated at Chalcedon in order that people have a better understanding of the God who is, both for proper relationship and worship and to refute heresy. Needless to say this is an essential belief of the Church. Therefore it must be taught, believed, defended and held to the highest levels of regard in Christian institutions.

N.B. Unless otherwise noted, when I refer to the creed, I mean the conciliar work from 325 to 451.

Now here is the danger we face when we elevate our preferences for worship style or some minor point of theology over these, the essentials that make us actually Christian, as opposed to something else. First, it unnecessarily divides, and second, it minimized the standard for orthodoxy, which is like opening a window to the swarm of heretics just waiting outside, no, more like opening the front door and inviting them into your Church, or school or other ministry.

Here is a prime example. Some of our free Church evangelical tradition here in America, have placed an undue focus on things like “Premillennial eschatology.” and a “Premil-Rapture.” In the history of the church these are distinctives, not essentials. Yes, it is essential that Christ will return in the flesh, that there will be a resurrection of the dead and a judgement and eternal reign. But the timing of these events have been debated and disputed and are in fact NOT essential. (Be clear, I’m saying the TIMING is not essential.)

So when you see a church interviewing a pastor, or a school a teacher, and they spend an inordinate amount of time and effort making sure the person really feels good about their preferred order of end time events, but then they mention that they don’t care much for the definition of Chalcedon, and this gets a pass, then my friend, we have a problem. What the church just did was to elevate a preference, a distinctive, OVER Christological orthodoxy. The nature of Jesus Christ. Problem? Yes.

We all have our understandings of areas that are important and often debated, and that is great. If your school only wants to hire amil teachers, cudos…do that. But, do not , repete, DO NOT place your institutions preferences over the essentials of the faith of the Church. You do not have the right to do that. Your church is only a small part of the Church. The Creed helps us to do the main thing which is keeping the main thing the main thing. Yea, let’s do that.


No Comments

Mark, August 28th 2009 | Tags: , , ,
Posted in Christianity, Christology, Nicene, Orthodoxy, Theology

Historical Orthodoxy According to Jesus in Mark 7 (WARNING: Preaching)


I always like to find a namesake. Recently I came across in reading, another Mr. Howell. We have more in common than just our last name. We both spent alot of time in Texas, and both have a passion for the study of scripture. His ability as a student of scripture far surpassed mine however. He knew large chunks of the bible by heart, memorized much of it by the time he was 12. He was a walking concordance that would put most of our pastors to shame with his comprehensive knowledge of scripture. When he taught, He encouraged his students to check everything that he taught against scripture. He had a problem with his interpretation though, because it was based on a False Authority – his own. His practice then, was not grounded on God’s precepts. False traditions slowly developed over time, and were “based on scripture” so they felt right to those who listened to this learned bible teacher. We should do what feels right, right? Some still follow his teachings today, though they do not call him Vernon Wayne Howell, they prefer to call him David Koresh. They prefer to call him their messiah.

In several ways our contemporary evangelical Christian culture has infected our hearts and minds with the traditions of men. Yes, (shock) this is true even in “Bible” churches. When we focus on our exegesis to the point that it leads to private interpretation, we have set aside the tradition of God for the tradition of men. When we “buy” into the “prosperity ecclesiology” which over-emphasizes church growth and programs, likewise, when we accept and adopt a pastoral theology based more on business models than on soul care, we set aside the tradition of God for the traditions of men. This should not be. We need to listen to the tradition of the apostles and the prophets, to valid sources of tradition to ground our understanding of scripture and ground our practice on Gods precepts.

In the opening verses of Mark 7 we see that Israel had Accepted False Tradition from False Authority (7:1-7:4). Now these Scribes and Pharisees were false authorities in that they did not have the appointment by God as Prophet, that is to deliver God’s requirements to his people, nor the appointment by God as Priest, to lead the people before God in worship. Yet the understanding of these ‘interpreters of the Law” was passed on as if it was holy writ, slowly adding to and eventually setting aside the traditions of God for the traditions of men. Read more…

No Comments

Mark, July 31st 2009 | Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Christianity, Faith and Practice, Nicene, Orthodoxy, Theology

Beyond Belief, what are we willing to believe?

This is the first post on what will probably be a series on the Nicene Creed that will lead up to, and continue from the conference at Beeson Divinity School.  I’m acrtually working on another peice right now, but came across this quote from Pelikin which just had to be posted.

“For the “will to believe” it so relentless — or, if I may put it this way, so insidious — that when it is denied or frustrated and when religious toleration, instead of being “justified by faith” (Rom 3.28), is justified by non-faith, belief will (in Dostoevsky’s phrase) go around the locked doors and sneak in through a window, substituting Wotan for the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, and replacing the Shema, andNicene Creed with the creed of Blut und Erde.”  - Jaroslav Pelikan

Why do we need to confess what the church has always confessed about the nature of God and his redemption? Because we are “prone to wander” but unlike the popular song, we do not often feel it when we do.  This is around the  point where some of my less “confessional” friends will tell me that we do  not need a creed, because we have the bible. The problem with this, I think, is that while we are believer/priests, we are not apostles. By the way, exactly NONE of the “apostolic fathers” considered themselves to be apostles. Every crack-pot heretic and most inventors of religion, read the bible, use the bible, and refer to the bible for their understanding. Some of them also claim to be apostles :> The key word there is understanding. The early church (second century) used whatever scripture they had (many old testament documents and perhaps some new testament writings that were beginning to circulate.) yet the primary thrust of the argument is what do the biblical writers MEAN. The early church was very interested in carefully handling and passing on the understanding of scripture received from apostolic teaching on the meaning of the text. Read more…

No Comments

Mark, July 28th 2009 | Tags: , , ,
Posted in Faith and Practice, Nicene, Orthodoxy, Sacraments, Theology

Peanut Butter Christianity

Blogphoto

by Michael J. Svigel

One day my wife sent me to the store to buy peanut butter—specifically, natural peanut butter. In other words, no fake stuff. This seemed simple enough . . . until I arrived in the peanut butter wing of the grocery store. The options overwhelmed me—creamy, chunky, extra chucky, honey-flavored, jelly-filled, low fat, organic, and countless sizes, shapes, brands, and prices! George Washington Carver himself would have shaken his head in despair. I’m sure that managing that isle alone must be a full time job.


So there I stood, paralyzed with indecision, wanting nothing more than to just grab the cheapest jar of peanut butter and dash for the checkout. Instead, showing due diligence, I searched for “natural peanut butter” amidst the flashy brand names that virtually called out from the shelf like brochure-pushers on the Vegas Strip: “Pick me! Pick me! Don’t you remember all those commercials you saw as a kid? All those smiling faces? Those cool special effects showing golden roasted peanuts magically spread into smooth, creamy Jif [or Peter Pan . . . or Skippy]?”

Lured by the flashy labels, my eyes landed on “Skippy” paired with the keyword “Natural”! How convenient!

I snatched it off the shelf. Read more…

No Comments

Mark, July 10th 2009 | Tags: , , ,
Posted in Christianity, Evangelical, Faith and Practice, Orthodoxy

Conference Notice: “The Will to Believe and the Need for Creed: Evangelicals and the Nicene Faith”

BeesonAnyone intrested in historical orthodoxy in evangelicalism should attend this conference! It will be held this september at Beeson Divinity School in Alabama. The theme is based on an article from Jaraslav Pelikan titled “The Will to Believe and the Need for Creed” The conference according to the site will stress “both the confessional and unifying purposes of the creeds as an expression of Christian belief and identity.”

This conference will be well suited for pastors and theologians and will feature “topics including the significance of the Nicene faith for pastoral work, evangelical worship, the emerging churches, biblical exegesis and vital expressions of orthodox Christian faith around the globe.”

Cost is $95 and includes program fee and two meals (Monday dinner and Tuesday lunch). Find out more here.

No Comments

Mark, July 6th 2009 | Tags: , , ,
Posted in Events, Nicene, Orthodoxy

My Time Machine Trip to Discover “Orthodoxy”

TimemachineWell, I have invented a time machine. Working with my astute son, we have constructed out of star wars lego pieces, aluminum foil and duct tape a functioning time machine. Now, my first thought was to use this to get rich, or at least pay off student loans. But, I decided it would be more fun to use this new power to answer a question that is really caused alot of ruckus in the modern study of Christianity. Inquiring minds want to know. Does our Christian faith derive from an apostolic tradition which goes back to the life and teaching of Christ?” If so, is this tradition a “rule of faith” and is it a consistent measure of orthodoxy? Has this tradition changed substantially over time, or is our confession fundamentally that of the apostles? Much of modern scholarship (without access to a time machine) denies any central orthodoxy to the Christian faith and they say that what we now believe only came about in the third and fourth centuries through much conflict and infighting. What people believed about Jesus was very diverse and what we now think of as “orthodox” was an option among many, and not even the first option available. Well, lets fire up our new invention and take a little trip back in time. Hold on, because we are going to cover a great deal of church history pretty quickly and see if we find mostly consensus on the central belief of the Christian faith, or if we struggle to do so.

Read more…

No Comments

admin, July 3rd 2009 | Posted in Orthodoxy

The growing need for historic orthodoxy

The discussion of historic orthodoxy in evangelicalism has been going on for some time now. There have been a steady stream of books by Oden, Webber and Williams for the last 20 years. Of course it can also be argued that the reformation was an attempt at restoring historic orthodoxy from a run-away Roman Catholicism. The trouble our parents got themselves into is they divorced also from the history and tradition of the faith in the process of rejecting Rome. They did not need a separation agreement, they freely gave up the house, the kids and the dog, deciding on a fresh start with themselves as independent, autonomous authorities under God.

This separation had dire consequences for the children of the reformation. Divorced from the historic faith and practice of the church, Free Church Evangelicalism becomes the anti-type seeking each new contemporary fad with aplomb. Now characterized by a shallow, performance based, “worship” that focuses on music style and administration of the word which elevates the preacher over the table of Jesus Christ. Not to be reminded of the incongruence of a church with no liturgy, we kicked the theologians out of the church as well. This sad downward spiral has continued for many years because we no longer remember the sanctity of worship, nor the meaning and import of the sacraments. Having devalued the communion of Christ, we now have no community of faith maintained by anything stronger than preference. We have become walmart Christians. Whatever we prefer for ourselves, we will shop for and finding the church with the best deal, we will attend there until in is inconvenient or a better option presents itself. Without community there can be no discipline. Without discipline there can be no discipleship. Without discipleship in the church we cannot grow in the faith.

Read more…

No Comments

Mark, July 1st 2009 | Tags:
Posted in Orthodoxy, Theology

a chat with D.H. Williams – evangelical hope for historic orthodoxy?

Last week I had a brief chat with Dr. D.H. Williams. The following contains the issues he raised in our discussion, plus some additional information for those unfamiliar with the conversation. For those not into early church studies, Dr. Williams is currently Professor of Religion in Patristics and Historical Theology at Baylor University. Before this he was at Loyola University Chicago. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto. He has written several books which are pertinent to our topic, including Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants, He is the editor of and contributor to The Free Church and the Early Church: Essays in Bridging the Historical and Theological Divide. In short, this guy knows a thing or two about historic orthodoxy and he is an ordained minister with pastoral experience, so he can speak to practical matters regarding orthopraxy in evangelicalism.

Dr. Williams has recognized, along with others, a growing attraction to the authority of the ancient church (see the preceding post) and he is concerned that we approach the task of resourcement with some due care. For Free Church Evangelicals, resourcement means defining the central, orthodox teachings of historic Christianity and then answering the tough questions of authority and praxis for our in contemporary faith. This does not mean a shopping cart, take what looks good approach. The challenge comes when we admit that we have been so influenced by the enlightenment, modernity, post-modernity, secularism and so fourth that we are not objective. In fact, we need these early church writers to offer us a perspective that is clearly outside, prior to our current sitz en leben which produces our ecclesiological myopia.

Williams cautions that there are two extremes that should be avoided. First is the pessimism so prevalent in the discussion thanks to folks like Bart Ehrman and Eileen Pagels. (my examples, shoot me not him.) Their viewpoint sees no central orthodoxy in Christianity and they are loudly proclaiming this from the vantage point of popular media. Their viewpoint makes a great deal of sense, unless Jesus actually rose physically from the dead. If this happened their reasoning is flawed and the rest of their argument crumbles under the weight of faulty presuppositions.

The second extreme is an uncritical optimism. There are important aspects in the doctrine of the church that took much time and work to arrive at the best expression. There was diversity and conflict. These arguments have to be worked carefully through. Oden might be considered an example of this, as he sees a broad consensual tradition in the early church which can be fairly easily apprehended. The danger inherent in this path is in overlooking the tension between continuity and change and how that works out over time. Williams says that development “proceeds on the basis of the traditions past that leads to revisions or qualifications of that past in the present.”

Read more…

No Comments

Mark, July 1st 2009 | Posted in History, Orthodoxy, Theology

a chat with the Internet Monk

mike.jpgLast week I had a chance to sit down (over the phone) with Michael Spencer, one of the shining stars in the often murky Christian blogosphere. His blog is one of the best reads out there. I’m sure I don’t always agree with him, but his posts are always well written and will make you think. If you have not added this blog to your RSS reader, I’ll just go get a coke while you do so.

The reason I called the Internet Monk was to get his take on the state of Free Church Evangelicalism with respect to its re-appropriation of historic orthodoxy. If you are wondering about this topic, you can read a bit in my earlier post. The basic premise of this is that in the words of the Monk “in the confusing times in which we live, the way back is a more reliable guide” that is, to the content and practice of the Christian faith. Michael and I both think that this resourcement is going on at the fringes of free church evangelicalism, but in fairly good numbers. Michael himself comes from a baptist background but has been influenced by Robert Webbers book The Majestic Tapestry He commends this book for Webbers thoughtful interaction with the evangelical Christian who seeks to reunite with the great history of the church. Spencer notes that Webber is able to carry on a personal conversation with the reader about what they are thinking and feeling, he gives a perceptive about what people are looking for and finding in their church tradition. He is able then to fit this into the larger picture of the catholic faith. Read more…

No Comments

admin, June 28th 2009 | Tags: ,
Posted in Orthodoxy
« Older Posts