“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.
ost 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.
To clearly see the benefits of historical theology on cotemporary praxis, we need not hearken back to the reformers, or earlier. We should, mind you, but it is not always necessary to do so. Our culture is so far removed from even our American forefathers that we can learn much by studying the early American proto-evangelicals (that’s going to cause some grief :>). The Puritans have much to inform us regarding the spiritual disciplines. And men like Jonathan Edwards should be listened to regarding among other things soteriology and ecclesiology.
Today is the “soft opening” of Michael Pattons “
