conraini,
Seems to me the ECFs have great variety in theology.
Considerable. But they also have boundaries.
I am simply saying that my church accepts the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. Personally I am more liberal about it.
OK. Hence the confusion.
Im not throwing out anything.
As a standard for communion, I said.
I am simply saying that the Nicene creed and the Apostles Creed ought to be sufficient.
No, you said above that your views are more “liberal” than that. You seem to be saying that certainly no more than these standards ought to be sufficient.
Fine. But you then claimed that there was some time in the past when these standards were sufficient for communion. My point is that all creedal standards, from the first beginnings of a “rule of faith” in the NT right up to statements people make today, are about defining the core beliefs of a community and thus clarifying who does and does not belong to it. A creedal standard is “sufficient” for this purpose insofar as it addresses the controversies that have arisen
up to that point in the history of the community. When further controversies arise, the old standard needs to be supplemented if the community is to clarify its position on this controvery.
Now one can make a case (in some moods I’m disposed to accept it, in others not) that this process should not be open-ended (as it is in the RCC), but that the ancient Creeds are sufficient for all future needs. Later controversies, in this view, should not divide the community as the controversies with the Gnostics and the Arians did. But that doesn’t constitute return to some ancient principle we have abandoned. It constitutes “freezing” the natural process of boundary formation at a particular point in antiquity, and declaring all later controversies to be on a much lesser level.
I’m sorry if I’ve confused you. This is more or less the ground that John Henry Newman traversed in his *Essay on Development of Doctrine, *which led him to abandon Anglicanism for “Roman” Catholicism. I’ve been vacillating between these two positions for a long time now. . . .
Im not sure what any of that has to do with the Creeds.
Creedal statements are the container for the distinctive, counter-cultural story about the world that is the Gospel. They keep that story from getting totally mixed up with all the other stories out there.
Specifically, I was replying to a statement you made. That’s how these discussions go. I’ve noticed that you seem to forget what I’m replying to and instead jump back to the “original,” general point. That makes for frustrating discussion. You had said that Christians are crucified to the values of the world. You made it sound as if it were automatic–any real Christian is crucified to the values of the world, period. Instead, I’m arguing that Christians are forever compromising with the values of the world, and that the sharp boundaries of orthodox Christianity help us do this less totally than we would otherwise be inclined to do. Jesus said that He came to bring a sword, and this is how I interpret it. Christianity is one thing and not another. It’s important to clarify what that one thing is, and which other things are incompatible with it (not all other things are–much that is in the world is good and comes form God).
I think the church should preach the Gospel Message that Jesus taught and not label people as if we are all-wise.
But preaching the Gospel message–if it is in fact a particular message and not something vague and generic–creates division, because people either accept it or reject it.
I am not sure what is the point you are making anyway.
The point is that “not excluding people” sounds nice. But if you follow that policy you will have a church that simply believes and practices whatever the culture around it believes and practices, perhaps with a bit of a twist of its own. Wherever the demands of the Gospel clash with the mood of the culture, you will have people who want to bring the culture into the Church in a way that compromises the Gospel. Creedal statements and church discipline are there to slow down this inevitable process, keeping the Church at least sort-of faithful until the cultural mood shifts and a different set of temptations emerge. At which point everyone scratches their heads and wonders how their ancestors in the faith could possibly have been so silly as to be tempted by such obviously outdated and flimsy heresies. But the creedal statements, meanwhile, are there in the bedrock of the Church, shaping its life and worship and preparing it for the day when those particular “outdated” heresies become popular again.
This is the reality that lies behind what looks to many people like an arbitrary exercise of power. I know you don’t get it. I wish I could make it clearer.
Perhaps they might have done better if they had reasonably discussed differences rather than call names?
I’m not sure that “reasonably discussing differences,” admirable as it is, is the most needed virtue in these sorts of situations.
Loving those we consider heretics well enough to lay down our lives for them, and being willing to see their humanity and even their holiness in the midst of our differences–that would be doing better indeed. But reasonably discussing differences is cool too.
Since the christians of that time quickly turned to persecuting others as they had been pesecuted I am not sure if they really avoided becoming that “mirror image.”
My point is that we never wholly avoid it. We are always more or less captive to our culture. But in order not to become wholly captive to culture, the Church needs to be able to name heresy and exclude it.
The problem is that the particular cultural mood of our time emphasizes the need for tolerance or exclusion. So the very act of condemning heresy appears to many people as the worst heresy. I think that’s why we’re talking past each other.
I share this cultural mood too. I don’t think it’s entirely wrong–few if any cultural moods lack something good. I agree that the way Christians have treated each other is appalling. But because I’m an orthodox Christian, I can’t take that to the extent of saying “therefore we should never call heresy out and exclude it from the teaching and worship of the Church.” At the point at which I’m tempted to say that, I recognize that I’m being influenced by the mood of my culture in a way that clashes with the historic faith of the Church.
Edwin
