Why do we need creeds and confessions?
Michael Brown
in Ecclessiology, Creeds & Confessions
|
20 Comments
We have the Bible, so why do we then need these documents written by mere men? Why do Reformed churches put so much emphasis on what they confess? Perhaps those are questions you have asked at some point. I hope to help answer those questions in a series of short posts beginning with this one.
Consider this statement printed on the back of Christ URC's weekly bulletins:
As an historic Christian church, we believe that the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds summarize the Biblical doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ.
As a Reformed and Protestant Church, we believe that Scripture alone is our only guide for faith and life, that we are saved from sin and eternal wrath only by God's grace alone, because of the perfect righteousness of Christ alone, which is received not by our goodness but through faith alone, and all this is according to the glory of God alone. To summarize the Reformation doctrines we confess the "Three Forms of Unity," which are the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort.
We wholeheartedly believe that these creeds and confessions faithfully summarize the "faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).
This is an important statement for our church to make because, as a Reformed church, our most important distinctive is that we are a confessional church. That is to say, we stand with the Protestant Reformation and historic Christian faith by confessing certain doctrines to be true. These doctrines are summarized in ecclesiastical statements known as creeds and confessions. Without those creeds and confessions, we are not a Reformed church.
This might, however, seem a little strange to some folks. Why all this emphasis upon uninspired and fallible documents written by men? After all, if we have the Bible, which alone is the inspired Word of God and the only rule for our faith and life, why should Christians bother with things like the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort? In short, we do so because they serve Christ’s church by preserving, protecting, and providing: they preserve the church’s unity in the truth, protect the church from heresy, and provide the church with instruction.
In the next post, we will look at the first of these three reasons, namely, that creeds and confessions preserve the church's unity in the truth. What do you think? Can a church remain unified in the truth without expressing in a formal way what it believes? Could the church be unified without creeds and confessions?
Reader Comments (20)
It is so interesting how we even have to ask these questions. I think that we do underscores the victory of experiential, privatized, personal religion.
Aye. You are spot-on, Zrim. Have you ever read Nathan O. Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity?
Coming from an OPC perspective, first of all, only elders and deacons are required to "hold" to the confession of faith. Second, elders and deacons take exception to the confession without admitting they take exception to it. Third, many people who do the repeating in church services do not understand the meaning of what they are saying.
Personally since I hold to a view that says God regulates worship, I do not believe that the creeds and confessions should be part of our worship. They actually displace the Word of God. I don't doubt their possible usefulness in some situations (like teaching church history).I find the use of creeds during worship a negative, and the supposed usefulness of confessions vastly overstated. Looking forward to hearing more on this topic.
Eliza,
Do you understand that you just rejected the foundation of the Churches use of the confessions and creeds to begin with, they represent what the Church believes Scripture to teach.
You misunderstand. I absolutely love the WCF. I believe it reflects Scripture teaching in almost every area (then there's the American version vs. the English version which I won't discuss). Where I differ from the blog is that although elders rhapsodize about following the creeds and confessions, in reality you will find that they don't really agree with them, in fact some don't even understand them (and don't have the courage to take exceptions), some elders that I know claim that the WCF is ambiguous,that the supposed unity of the church brought about by the confession cannot therefore be real (because of my first point), the recital of creeds during worship displaces God's Word, and furthermore that many "parishioners" don't understand the creeds and confessions and therefore it's a formality to use them, even apart from the regulative use of God's instructions for worship. I thoroughly understand where you are coming from. Please, please tell me where I am mistaken.
Eliza,
I think that I see the difference, you see, in the URCNA, we believe in full subscription of both the elders, pastors, and parishioners. So, to not agree in part or total excludes you from church membership and the ability to hold office. I grieve that that has been your experience in the OPC. But that is part of the difference between the Three Forms of Unity of the continental reformed churches and the Presbyterian churches, the Three Forms is much easier to subscribe to and is possessed with more brevity, pastoral warmth and I think that it is perhaps a bit more clear.
Thus, I think that you differ from the blog due to your situation rather than the veracity of it. Hopefully I have better understood you and I apologize for not seeing that clearly the first time around.
Elizabeth,
Stay tuned...
I really appreciate this series and would love to use them in our Reformation Voice newsletter.
Howard,
Id this a newsletter for your church? If so, which church is this?
I believe that having a creed recited during worship is a violation of the regulative principle. Thus, I believe the creed should be recited before the call to worship.
What do you guys think? Am I being too scrupulous?
Victor,
Are you saying that the creed recited by the congregation is a violation of the RPW? In your interpretation of the RPW, do you think it is permissible for the minister to recite the creed in worship?
I believe the purpose of the recitation of the creed, either by the congregation or minister, is to unify the people of God in doctrine. However, this has no place in the conversation that takes place between God and His people during worship. I have no problem with the creed being recited either congregationally or by the minister, as long as it is performed before the call to worship.
I do believe any recitation of any creed during worship is a violation of the RPW since I do not believe it is scripturally warranted as an element of worship.
Victor,
Interesting. Well, you certainly have a different interpretation of the RPW than Calvin, Bucer, Knox, and most of the Puritans, all of whom included the creed in their liturgies.
So, let me ask you this: would it be a violation of the RPW, in your interpretation, for the minister or the congregation to pray the words of the creed?
Mr. Brown,
I don't think it's a matter of having the creed in the liturgy per se. I agree that a creed should certainly be part of the liturgy. What I do believe however, is that it does not belong in the liturgy AFTER the call to worship. Once the call to worship is announced that holy conversation between God and His people is underway until His benediction. Think of announcements for example. Just because they're in the liturgy does not make them an element of worship. A creed is recited to unify the people of God in biblical doctrine and call them to mind the God we worship. It is, as it were, a reminder between the people of God.
I believe that prayer IS part of that conversation wherein the congregation speaks to God. Whether it is spontaneous or recited.
I'm sorry if I'm being too scrupulous with this. I certainly do not make it a point of division with my brethren.
Victor,
I wholeheartedly agree with your concern not to violate the Divine dialogue in worship. But you didn't answer my question. My question wasn't what do you believe about prayer. My question is: would it be a violation of the RPW, in your interpretation, for the minister or the congregation to pray the words of the creed?
I thought I had answered the question. Maybe you can clarify it a bit further for me. What do you mean by the "minister or the congregation to pray the words of the creed?" Do you mean to pray in accordance with it? Do you mean to recite phrases of the creed? To recite words the creed uses? Are you implying that the recitation of a creed is a form of prayer offered to God?
Victor, I mean praying the words of the creed the sameway the historic Christian church has prayed the words of the Lord's Prayer. Do you think that using those words for a prayer is, in your interpretation of the RPW, is it sinful or otherwise a violation?
I don't think it is. If it is being used as a form of prayer, i.e. Lord's prayer.
Perhaps you can see where I am going with this. If it wouldn't be a violation of the RPW and dialogical principle to pray the words of the AC in worship, then why would a corporate confession of the same be a violation? That is the way in which I understand the role of the confession of faith in the liturgy. As the people of God, we are confessing our faith before him. While it does include a certain element of "teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom," it is ultimately directed God-ward as a form of prayer.
I see.