Creeds, Creedalism, and the Church in the 21st Century

I strongly believe that the Bible is our primary and authoritative source for theological information.  I also strongly believe that statements of faith (creeds, but that’s a bad word in Baptist circles, unfortunately) are important tools in studying the bible, sharing the gospel, and making disciples.

A creed is simply a concise statement of what one (or one’s group) believes.  It is a miniature systematic theology.  The church found creeds to be essential by the 4th century AD, and has used them effectively for the past 1600 years.  The only time things go wrong is when the creeds become the foundation rather than a reflection of scripture.  I don’t think that will be a problem in a 21st-century Baptist church.  In fact, even mentioning them to a few particular folks can get one run out of town on a rail.

Without creeds, things go awry in a hurry.  Just look at the drift of the SBC in the first half of the 20th century when ‘creedalism’ was a bad word through the convention.  In fact, the reformation doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” was corrupted into what you now hear from many Baptists as, “the priesthood of the believer”, wherein they think any individual believer has the right and ability to interpret scripture apart from apostolic teaching, church history, or elder guidance.  I’ve had it thrown in my face in my own church.  Here's what Timothy George had to say about it-

"The priesthood of all believers was a cardinal principle of the Reformation of the 16th century. It was used by the reformers to buttress an evangelical understanding of the church over against the clericalism and sacerdotalism of medieval Catholicism. In modern theology, however, the ecclesial context of this Reformation principle has been almost totally eclipsed. For example, in the current SBC debate on the issue, both sides have referred (uncritically) to the "priesthood of the believer." The reformers talked instead of the "priesthood of all believers" (plural). For them it was never a question of a lonely, isolated seeker of truth, but rather of a band of faithful believers united in a common confession as a local, visible congregatio sanctorum."

When I talk about church history and elder guidance, I'm not envisioning a teaching magisterium or even an inerrant body of teaching from the mother church.  I'm envisioning the spirit-led and God-gifted men (and women) throughout the history of the church who have kept the church on the straight and narrow in the midst of heresies and movements that tried to drag her away.  Whether that be Aurelius Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, or Spurgeon, these men have been mightily used of God in keeping secularism, Pelagianism, and other falsehoods from dragging the church off-course.  While scripture is authoritative, the writings of these men are valuable resources in how the scriptures are interpreted and applied in an orthodox manner.

So a systematic approach to bible study is warranted in the culture of the SBC, I think.  J. I. Packer, in a recent Modern Reformation article, says it thusly- “It has often been said that Christianity in North America is 3,000 miles wide and half an inch deep. Something similar is true, by all accounts, in Africa and Asia, and (I can testify to this) in Britain also. Worshipers in evangelical churches, from the very young to the very old, and particularly the youth and the twenty- and thirty-somethings, know far less about the Bible and the faith than one would hope and than they themselves need to know for holy living. This is because the teaching mode of Christian communication is out of fashion, and all the emphasis in sermons and small groups is laid on experience in its various aspects. The result is a pietist form of piety, ardent and emotional, in which realizing the reality of fellowship with the Father and the Son is central while living one’s life with Spirit-given wisdom and discernment is neglected both as a topic and as a task. In the Western world in particular, where Christianity is marginalized and secular culture dismisses it as an ideological has-been, where daily we rub shoulders with persons of other faiths and of no faith, and where within the older Protestant churches tolerating the intolerable is advocated as a requirement of justice, versions of Christianity that care more for experiences of life than for principles of truth will neither strengthen churches nor glorify God.”

What is Packer’s answer to this?  Teaching of the truth of the gospel, of course!  He says, “The well-being of Christianity worldwide for this twenty-first century directly depends, I am convinced, on the recovery of what has historically been called catechesis—that is, the ministry of systematically teaching people in and coming into our churches the sinew-truths that Christians live by, and the faithful, practical, consistent way for Christians to live by them. During the past three centuries, catechesis as defined has shrunk, even in evangelical churches, from an all-age project to instruction for children and in some cases has vanished altogether. As one who for half a century has been attempting an essentially catechetical ministry by voice and pen, I long for the day when in all our churches systematic catechesis will come back into its own.”

I agree. 

I think this is one of the more important  answers to why we lose so much of our youth (I’m speaking of the church at large) when they leave for college.  Those statistics are appalling.  I also know that catechesis done in a dry and non-community environment will lead nowhere for most people.  It is essential it is done in a faith-community environment where people have each other’s ‘six’ and are willing to live out the truths they learn by giving of themselves and by service to both their brothers and the lost. 

This all comes back to basic Christian living…we as individuals and families need to live out the Christian life apart from church programming as well as within it, and we’ll find an amazing connection to our culture suddenly appear that we didn’t know was there.  The bible study, catechism, systematic theology, or whatever you call it (centered on the gospel, of course) is the foundation for living that life, and the actions and service, primarily the preaching and teaching of the word,  will be the means that God uses to bring the elect into His presence.

I’m looking forward to re-reading the book of Acts with an eye toward how the early church engaged their culture.  If I recall from the last time I read it, there’s a whole bunch of individuals sharing the gospel with other individuals, and not a lot of church-organized events and formal programs which lean on a professional pastorate to do the evangelization for the church.  And primarily, there was a tremendous dependence of all Christians to rely on the holy spirit to turn the hearts of the converts, rather than convincing them with methods and amusements, and this dependence was most faithfully demonstrated by an active and fervent prayer life among the believers.  And it was effected by sharing the gospel, which consisted of God’s judgment on sin, our hopelessness in sin, and God’s provision in Christ (all shared using the Old Testament, of course).

Splintering in Neo-Calvinism

I've been taken aback recently by several comments I've read on blogs, and maybe more so by a particular blog and the direction it has taken.   The comments that have bothered me have had to do with those in reformed churches calling many folks in the, "young, restless, and reformed" (YRR) movement illegitimate with respect to being reformed.  There are two important considerations that are not being taken into account by these people- (1) their definition of 'reformed' isn't shared or known by those new to the doctrines of grace, and (2) they don't understand how much damage their attitudes can do in those who are new to the doctrines of grace.

First, look at the flap over John Piper's invitation to Rick Warren to speak at Bethlehem's national conference.  No, Rick Warren isn't reformed, nor even a proponent of the doctrines of grace, but the way Piper has been treated by some in the blog world has been truly mind-boggling.  They are attacking him as if he'd denied the faith itself.

Second, look at the popular Internet Monk blog.  The founder of the blog, Michael Spencer, recently died of cancer.  The person (or people) who took over the blog have turned it into a cheerleading platform for evolution.  It is supposed to be a reformed blog, but it is rivaled only by Hitchens and Dawkins in its fervor for evolutionary origins of humanity.

Michael Horton posted on the White Horse Inn page, just today, a blog which helps to clear up some of this confusion.  At least, it will if enough people read it.  Now, Horton has made some comments in the past that (in my mind) put him in the group calling YRR folks illegitimate.  His work, particularly Christless Christianity and Gospel-Driven Life have been very influential on me, so I was certainly bothered by his apparent attitude.  The new blog today has cleared up some of my concerns by clarifying some of what he has said.  Getting the 'big picture' is always a good idea, and Horton has helped with that by his latest post.

I hope the YRR movement can come together better on some of these issues before too many 'seekers' of the doctrines of grace are driven away by the in-fighting.  There are huge differences between reformed ecclesiology and Calvinistic soteriology/christology.  Some in the reformed churches seem ready to cast out all those who believe in the doctrines of grace and support the solas of the reformation unless they also adopt covenant theology in its entirety.  I don't think that's a wise choice.  Horton has advocated calling the movement of non-reformed adherents to the doctrines of grace, "Calvinistic evangelicalism".  I don't know if that's the best choice, since 'Calvinism' has been given an unfortunate baggage of derision by the Arminian movement, but if it keeps the splintering to a minimum, I'll take it.

The Spiritual Gift of Teaching

I have heard on numerous occasions that we should only have a "childlike faith" and that any deep study of scripture is either unnecessary or downright dangerous (in the form of divisiveness or elitism). Aside from the fact that childlike faith has little to do with the study of God's word, I strongly disagree with such sentiments, for many reasons, but primarily on these grounds: (1) we are commanded to be prepared to give an answer to those who question the reason for our faith, and we can't give answers if we don't have some facts and scripture to support them; and (2) God bothered to give out a spiritual gift that He calls "teaching" (1 Cor. 12:28).

Now, why would God bother with a spiritual gift of teaching if such a gift wasn't necessary for the building up of the body of Christ (the church)? If understanding scripture was easy, why would we need teachers? Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that scripture cannot be understood. On the contrary, the perspicuity of scripture is one of the primary reasons I believe we can know and understand anything about an infinite God at all. But as John Grudem points out in a recent journal article, "Scripture affirms tht it is able to be understood but (1) not all at once, (2) not without effort, (3) not without ordinary means, (4) not without the reader's willingness to obey it, (5) not without the help of the Holy Spirit, (6) not without human misunderstanding, and (7) never completely."

My focus here is on the second point- not without effort. 2 Peter 3:15-16 says that some things in scripture are hard to understand (but does not say that anything in scripture is impossible to understand). The gift of teaching is a gift God gives the church (yes, the church) to help build it up in the likeness of Christ (individuals get the gift, but it is to be used for the benefit of the church, not the individual; and I'd say especially not for financial gain of the individual).

I have benefited greatly from the teaching of a number of fine Christian men over my life and I've seen the effects of good, gifted teaching on the Church as a whole. I'm especially greatful to some teachers I've never met, like R. C. Sproul, John Piper, John MacArthur, Tim Challies, and many others. I'll probably never meet most of them, though I'd like to. Their clear exposition of the truths of God and His word have had an enormous impact on my life. I'd like to be able to thank them some time, personally.

Hebrews 5 says that we should all be growing up in Christ, such that we can all be teachers at some point in our walk with God. I know God gives some in the church less emphasis and excitement about learning the details of the faith, and rightly so. Some are equipped for other tasks in the body. But no one is excused from the responsibility to mature in their faith and in turn be able to explain the basics of the Christian faith to others.