Nicaea and the Church’s Teaching Authority —The Nicene Creed for Noncreedal Christians Post #4

 

Alexander Campbell

            In my previous post, I asked whether imperial involvement in the two ecumenical councils at Nicaea and Constantinople tainted the creeds these two councils produced, with the latter being the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed that is used by churches in East and West even today. Noncreedal churches, like the one I am ordained in [The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)] prioritize personal responsibility in interpreting the Scriptures. This is, in many ways, an extension of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. However, it does raise problems at times, when private interpretation takes people in directions that can be destructive to faith and much more. For Disciples, the specter of Jim Jones and People’s Temple still haunts us. It’s not just the Nicene Creed, it’s authoritative church teaching that is at issue.

The Disciples, like other non-creedal churches, have a restorationist heritage, that assumes Scripture is determinative and does not need tradition or a magisterium to teach. Unfortunately, the Enlightenment roots of this view have not held up well. The idea of the perspicuity of Scripture, such that it can be read and interpreted through common sense reasoning has failed. Scripture is a lot more complex than our spiritual ancestors thought. Now, the General Assembly of the Christian Church does offer guidance to the churches, such that it does have a certain level of teaching authority. Nonetheless, many in the churches still hold on to the idea that we are free to believe whatever we wish to believe.

One of the leading Disciple ecumenists and theologians, Michael Kinnamon, has argued for a stronger teaching authority within the churches, one that is sensitive to our heritage. He offers six points that can faithfully allow for authoritative teaching among Disciples. This might be helpful for other noncreedal churches struggling with this question. Here are the six (there is more explanation in the article, but for now the first sentence or two will be sufficient.

1.      “Authority for Disciples, must always be dispersed and shared. The Spirit, we argue, is given to the whole church and, thus, the discernment of truth needs to take place through the interaction (as opposed to the individualistic judgments) of all its members.

2.      “Authoritative teaching will always seek to be faithful to the witness of Scripture.”

3.      “Authoritative teaching will encourage diversity.”

4.      “Since Disciples strongly affirm that the church of Jesus Christ is one, authoritative teaching among us will pay close attention to the voice of the universal Christian community (as expressed, e.ge., through instruments and statements of the ecumenical movement.”

5.      “Authoritative teaching in the Disciples can only be understood as a process of guidance and reconciliation that does not, except in extreme cases, imply sanction or exclusion.”

6.      “Disciples will also insist that all decisions made by, or teachings offered by, the church are fallible, reformable, and ultimately subject to God’s judgment.”  [Michael Kinnamon, “The Place of an Authoritative Teaching Office in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ,” in Ancient Faith and American-Born Churches:Dialogues Between Traditions, Ted Campbell, et all, eds, (Paulist Press, 2006), pp. 217-218.]

 

Whether it is the Nicene Creed, Apostles Creed, or other ecumenical statements, such as the Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry document that the Disciples affirmed, they should not, except for extreme circumstances exclusionary. As noted above, the question concerns the exceptions. A good example is Peoples Temple. They were a Disciple congregation with standing. Thus, Jones had standing. We’ve tightened things up, but usually on grounds other than theology (boundary training or anti-racism training).

                When we talk about the Nicene Creed and other similar faith statements, we’re talking about something that transcends denominational lines. Like Scripture, they must be interpreted. Since the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is a fourth-century product, we must ask how it speaks to the contemporary situation. We must first acknowledge the context and purpose of that creed. At one level the two councils were called together by the Roman emperors because they hoped Christianity could be a binding agent in the empire. To do that, they would need a united Christian community. As to the second level, that was theological. The issue before the councils related to the developing doctrine of the Trinity. There was more than one view on this matter, with the most pressing challenge in the fourth century centering on Arius. The question that Arius raised had to do with Christology—the divinity of Christ. While the Holy Spirit was on the table at Nicaea, it wasn’t until Constantinople that a more fully developed understanding of the Holy Spirit came into play. Here the key figures were the Cappadocian fathers, Basil of Caesarea, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend, Gregory of Nazianzus, who, as the Bishop of Constantinople, presided over the Council of Constantinople.

When considering the teaching authority and the role of creeds, particularly the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, it is important to recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity may be challenging for those in noncreedal churches. The reason given is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully revealed in Scripture. Rather it is a later development, and to impose it on Christians is inappropriate. That is because, though it can be argued that the doctrine reflects biblical precedent, it isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture. This leads to the question of whether a doctrine like the Trinity should serve as a test of fellowship. Here again, we get back to the question of the content that makes up apostolic teaching and how it should be taught. While the Disciples and other non-creedal churches often have anti-clerical sentiments, should not ordained ministers provide some form of authoritative teaching? This brings us back to the question of whether there is a theological baseline on which to stand. Since Disciples look back, to some degree, to the founders, including Alexander Campbell, it is worth noting his baseline. Writing in the Christian System, he declares:

The only apostolic and divine confession of faith which God, the Father of all, has laid for the church—and that which Jesus himself said he would build it, is the sublime and supreme proposition: THAT JESUS OF NAZARETH IS THE MESSIAH, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. This is the peculiarity of the Christian system its specific attribute. . . . Of this foundation Paul has said, “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” God himself laid this corner, this tried and precious stone, as the foundation of the temple of grace; and therefore with his own lips pronounced him his beloved Son; and sealed him by the visible descent and impress of his Spirit, as his Messiah, the Messenger of life and peace to a condemned and rebellious world.  [Alexander Campbell, The Christian System, (1866), (Salem, NH: Ayer Company Publishers, 1988), pp. 58-59].

Since we often hear in Disciples' churches, especially among the laity, that one can believe whatever one wants in a Disciples' context, might Campbell’s word here serve as a starting point for our conversations about apostolic teaching and the importance of making that message clear in the contemporary context. Of course, that means interpreting the words we read in Matthew 16:16. Might we add that if this is true then Jesus, not Caesar is lord—both ancient and modern Caesars.


Image Attribution: By Colton, Zahm & Roberts, N.Y. - http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.05692/Published by R.W. Carroll & Co., February 28, 1872, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46733729

Comments

Popular Posts