In an effort to bridge the gap between emergents and traditionalists, Jim Belcher offers a third way that while addressing many of the important questions of the emerging church still reaffirms the orthodox beliefs of our faith and allows us to celebrate our unity and benefit from our diversity instead of splintering ourselves into a multitude of groups.
One of the ways Belcher (and others such as Scot McKnight and Robert Greer) suggest is developing a tiered theological system. The idea is that the different tiers would have give us a basis to have conversations without having to challenge our orthodoxy, motives, or heresy. It would celebrate what unifies and allow us to learn from each other in humility about our different ways of understanding God for the rest.
Belcher suggests that the first tier should consist of the creeds of the church. Belcher includes the Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene Creed, and he even adds the Athanasian Creed for its trinitarian content to this bottom tier. If we all can agree that we believe in these creeds is this enough to affirm our unity and to give us a basis for constructive relationship?
What do you think? Could we actually abide by such a reality or will we continually want to add our own litmus tests for orthodoxy to the creeds?
November 18, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Greg,
Except for maybe Oneness Pentecostal’s, the creeds may be a tier 1 starting point of some kind, but I think that they are way too broad to establish full orthodoxy and the basis for a “constructive relationship”. As I have witnessed, it is quite possible for a person to say that they agree with the content of one or more of these creeds and, at the same time, deny the existence of Hell, substitutionary atonement, biblical inerrancy/authority, etc.
The other problem that I see with this approach is that churches already have a tier 1 basis for unifying their local body. Churches have a Statement of Faith or a Doctrinal Statement. Specifically, the Nazarene Church has the Manual. Are you advocating that church members ignore their church’s written doctrinal statements in favor of this different and proposed tiered theological system? Should local church’s throw out their doctrinal statments in order to achieve “unity” with folk of another church?
Don’t we already have a unifying document in Scripture? It seems, to me, that, to avoid ambiguity and argument, we should use specific scriptural references for the construction of our tiered theological system.
And…I didn’t think that ECers liked theological systems. Will they accept one?
November 19, 2009 at 8:48 am
Paul you have hit the nail on the head in a couple of ways.
First, are the creeds too broad? I would contend that they are not, but we have established so many layers of doctrinal appropriateness on top of them that they seem way too broad. This is why the creeds were created, after all, to fight heresy and to hold unity in a diverse church. Maybe we can learn more about God and his church by considering what unity in the church could be if we limited ourselves to using the creeds as our basis for orthodoxy, how would this change our view of others within the church. It is really challenging to think about.
I am not suggesting, however, that we can’t still have our own doctrinal statements, (the beloved Manual and such) and maintain our own identities. I am simply talking about finding a way to view each other within the church and to find more humility in the face of the diversity of those who are part of our faith. It is just so easy for all of us to get lost in our own small part of the church.
Scripture is certainly a unifying document, but we have clearly demonstrated that simply saying we believe in scripture doesn’t avoid ambiguity or argument. I think that the creeds are a beautiful starting point because their historical value for the church is in outlying what the church believes about scripture and what it teaches. That is helpful in any conversation about unity.
Many emergents, especially among some of the most well known teachers might resist any sort of system, and if so that is where I think we fail. But I think the idea of establishing creedal orthodoxy as a starting point would be very well received. If we can’t construct anything of significance together as a place to begin then we won’t ever get anywhere.
November 23, 2009 at 12:11 pm
First, are the creeds too broad? I would contend that they are not, but we have established so many layers of doctrinal appropriateness on top of them that they seem way too broad. This is why the creeds were created, after all, to fight heresy and to hold unity in a diverse church.
I disagree. If one can say that they agree with the creeds, but then question the content of the Gospel, state that homosexuality is not a sin, do away with inerrancy/authority of Scripture, and etc., etc., etc., then the creeds are, at this current time, and in this current culture, not useful in producing biblical unity.
And…What is biblical unity? How is it defined?
Should Christians really unite with those who believe falsely about salvation? Wouldn’t this unity work in opposition to the Great Commission? Wouldn’t it work in opposition to the Kingdom? As ECers define the “Kingdom”, who belongs to the “Kingdom”? Do those who adhere to a false gospel belong to the “Kingdom”?
How can Christians be biblically united with another faith that believes in a false gospel, which states, among other dogma, that those who believe in justification by faith are eternally damned?
In order for this proposed third way unity (the only way that it will work), the “traditionalists” will have to elevate these creeds above their doctrinal statements and forego them. Why would they do this? If a biblical answer cannot be given, then, from the start, the third way is over.
Scripture is certainly a unifying document, but we have clearly demonstrated that simply saying we believe in scripture doesn’t avoid ambiguity or argument.
Simply saying that we believe in Scripture wasn’t what I proposed. I think that we need to get very specific in regard to the essentials of the Faith.