Dump the creeds
A couple weeks ago I lauded Lutheran bishop Jim Hazelwood as someone who put spirituality ahead of church. I’m afraid I have to walk that back at least a bit after reading his latest blog post, “Are the Creeds of any Value? Wonderings around Dogma and Doctrine in a Post-Secular World.” He begins this way.
Critiquing or discounting creeds and dogmas is fashionable of late. But today, I will make a case for their value in the spirit that we all seek a mature spiritual life.
I don’t know what that second sentence means. But creeds? Really? Of the things that might be salvageable out of the church’s current crisis, I would put creeds at the bottom of the list. What is Hazelwood thinking?
To begin with the obvious, the creeds of the church are really old. Written originally in ancient Greek, they were then translated into Latin (in the Western church), and only much later into English. But in the case of the creeds, translation today is often misleading. How do you translate ancient concepts that have no modern equivalent?
The creeds were attempts to define the meaning of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Inevitably, they used the metaphysics of the ancient world. Thus, the Nicene Creed declares, God “the Father” created “heaven and earth.” And Jesus Christ, who is of the same “substance” (now rendered as of one “being”) with the Father, descended from heaven to earth, only to return to heaven after his death.
Such philosophical word salad is based on the three-tiered universe of ancient cosmology, which was demolished by Galileo et al. centuries ago. The notion that while reciting them, we can just mentally substitute the known cosmos (Big Bang and all) for the creed’s antique scheme is just not true. A different universe means a different God. Our universe is also one where up and down, and thus ascending and descending, are meaningless. Where is God, where did Jesus come from, and where did Jesus go are questions not answered for us in the creeds.
Further, we would be mistaken imagining the creeds being written by a harmonious gathering of theologians working together to come up with the best possible statement of the Christian faith. The creeds were, in fact, products of intense, sometimes even vicious, conflict within the church. Wikipedia gives a simple but historically accurate explanation.
The purpose of a creed is to provide a doctrinal statement of correct belief among Christians amid controversy. The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and heretics….
Historically, creeds were about drawing lines in the sand. On one side of the line, you were in, on the other, out. The church’s primary creed, the Nicene, was voted upon by a conference of bishops called by the emperor Constantine. It was not unanimous. The losers were not happy, nor were the winners magnanimous. Dissenting bishops were removed from office. Writings of dissenting theologians and churches were burned (or buried for their protection, with some only rediscovered in our own time).
This somber understanding of early church history has been around for at least a century. I assume Hazelwood knows it, so I’m surprised at the romanticized version he presents in his essay. He begins by recognizing the “plethora” of religions and philosophies of “the ancient Near East, from Greece to India, down through Egypt.” But then dismissively declares that “it was a fertile engagement of human consciousness but also utter chaos,” which is utter nonsense.
Hazelwood acknowledges the diversity of beliefs and practices in early Christianity. But then sweeps its first centuries together in one breathless summary.
As the early Christian faith was taking shape, it became necessary to clarify the teachings of this new faith. This led to the establishment of various statements of teachings, which became creeds and doctrines over time.
“Became necessary” for whom? It was Constantine who forced the creation of the Nicene Creed because he wanted a uniform religion to hold together his fracturing empire. We now know that a “plethora” of Christianities had existed from its earliest years. Among early Christians, it was the competing bishops and theological fanatics who wanted uniformity, a goal which has never been achieved.
Finally, Hazelwood offers three ways of understanding the function of the creeds to make them palatable to modern people. You can read them if you’re interested. None of them persuaded me. Their main problem is that they ignore how creeds have been historically used and how they are commonly understood, which is as statements of theological truth.
In most churches, to be ordained, or even to become a member, you are expected to adhere to the creeds. When recited in worship, there is no preface saying, “Here are some ideas to ponder.” No, it’s a straightforward “I/We believe…” without qualification. And most denominations will only recognize other denominations as Christian if they affirm the creeds. This, in fact, is the biggest obstacle to churches changing the creeds or dropping them altogether: fear of being drummed out of the international ecclesial corps.
As I pondered Hazelwood’s words, I felt I had found his conflicting loyalties on display. On the one hand, Hazelwood is commendably aware of the church’s deterioration and the need to rethink and remake it. But Hazelwood is also a “churchman” with a visceral love and loyalty to the institution. How can you be a bishop without that?
As a result, there is always the temptation to defend and preserve the institution. In the church’s current crisis, with its problems so evident, that temptation leads to trying to believe its components aren’t as bad as they seem or that they can somehow be re-imagined in a more favorable light. Thus, Hazelwood’s defense of the creeds.
But the creeds have become a security blanket, or rabbit’s foot, for a fearful church thrust into the modern world. It’s long past time to let them go. And if there is still a need to have some identifying statement to make, the church could do worse than returning to one of the earliest and simplest Christian affirmations and simply say, “Jesus is Lord.” Of course, then you’ll have to behave as if that were true.