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