A couple of weeks ago in my Principles of Biblical Interpretation class (a.k.a. Hermeneutics), we discussed the history of biblical interpretive methodology - sounds fascinating, huh? Well, it actually was, kind of. We discussed the ways in which the church has done well throughout history in its interpretive methods, and the ways it has done poorly. One of the very poor interpretive methods that survived for nearly a millennium (through the period which we call "The Dark Ages"), was the use of "tradition" as an authoritative tool for biblical interpretation. In fact, this is still an established interpretive method in the Catholic Church. To quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia
"The Tridentine Confession of Faith and the Vatican Council (Sess. III, Const. de fide cath., cap. ii) enjoin in a positive form that in 'matters of faith and morals belonging to the building-up of Christian doctrine', the Scriptures be explained according to the teaching of the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
Now by no means do I believe that we should ignore the established teachings of the church, or the way in which the church fathers interpreted the scriptures, considering that they were much closer to the times and culture of the apostles. However, these considerations are just that - considerations. The early fathers gave us some great commentaries on the writings of scripture, but they often differed in their interpretations, they themselves admitted their own inferiority to the "pillar apostles," and from one who has read some of the writings of the early fathers, I have personally noticed that they simply do not have the same ring of authority or inspiration as the writings of the biblical canon.
Well, that was my introduction. The point I wanted to make was this:
It's easy to point the finger at the Catholic Church (especially because I'm not Catholic), but the reality is that we do the same thing. Several months ago I found my way to a Christian forum where someone asked the question: "How do we know what the right interpretation of scripture is? How can we determine it?" This is an excellent question, I think. With all the different denominations, and all the theological disputes going around, with all the varied and diverse interpretations of scripture, how can we be certain which interpretations are true? The thread inevitably led to the discussion of theological "essentials" (e.g. the deity of Christ, that salvation does not exist outside of Christ, etc.) and the "non-essentials" (e.g. role of women in ministry, eschatology, etc.). The "essentials" are so called because there really cannot be disagreement on them without moving into heresy. Whereas the "non-essentials" are debatable without any overly severe consequences. (Whether you believe that the rapture will take place before the tribulation, after the tribulation, or whether you believe that there is no rapture, and that the tribulation is past already, we ALL believe that our faith in Christ assures us of eternal life, no matter how we get there.)
This is where the thread took a very interesting and slightly frightening turn. All of a sudden many of those posting on the forum began saying things like, "Well, if your doctrine agrees with the Nicene Creed/Apostles Creed (one is simply a revision of the other), you're on safe ground," and the like. But is this right? Did you notice the subtle shift from using the Bible as authoritative, to using some creed that is not part of the canon? There is a song that is currently in circulation on the radio performed by 3rd Day, which is basically the Nicene Creed put to music. The chorus says:
I believe what I believe
It makes me who I am
I did not make it, no it is making me
It's the very truth of God,
Not the invention of any man
Is this correct? Is the Nicene Creed really "the very truth of God"? Is it not indeed "the invention of man"? I am not saying necessarily that I disagree with the tenets of the Nicene Creed, but simply that we cannot say that this Creed is itself authoritative. It isn't! It is possible that it has mistakes. It is possible that those who wrote it made a few theological mistakes in the process. I believe that those who participated in writing it were diligently attempting to convey accurate biblical truth (and I think that probably 99% of it is indeed accurate). My point is that as accurate as it may be, it is not authoritative.
I'm sure there are some of you shouting a hearty "Amen!" while others are seriously questioning whether or not I am a true Christian if I am willing to question the authority of one of the most cherished and revered creeds of the Christian faith. So am I heretic? You decide. (But I'm not).
Posts
2 comments:
My wife and I have thought alot about this too. My sister has VERY different views on parts of the bible, and we often ask "whose right". I'm not sure we'll ever know. I have a feeling my sister and I will both get to heaven and we'll both go "DOH!" over things that we realize we got wrong and should have gotten right. I think the questions are always important to ask, though. I think that God can use differing interpretations of the Bible for His glory as well. I think that's part of us being part of the same body. My sister ministers to others in ways that I don't because her beliefs are different than mine. I think it's a miraculous part of being a part of God's body (I STILL think she's wrong on a lot of things, though!) : )
The Third Day song you mentioned is actually a cover of a Rich Mullins song. I have an amazing amount of respect for Rich Mullins as a man who balanced faith and life in such a real way. I should let you read his biography sometime (he passed away in a car accident some time ago). Anyway, in the song, I don't think he's stating that the Nicene Creed in particular is "not the invention of any man", but rather there are truths that govern us and "make us" that are real truths, not ones that are made up by man. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. I do think that you are absolutely right that the members in that forum made the switch from the Bible as authoritative to the Creed as authoratative WAY to easily.
Thanks for the post Jeff. I feel smarter today!
The creeds are always tricky, because they stand in such a long tradition. The Apostles' Creed is so named because it is held to be derived from a very early creed that dates back to the original disciples. And I personally hold the wordings in the creeds to be sufficiently accurate interpretations of the Bible to qualify as quotable.
But much of the Eastern Church rejects even the formulation of the Nicene Creed, which is nearly above reproach in the West. And they are in many ways more conservative that we evangelicals! I do not think it is possible for human brains, fallen and limited as they are, to ever land on any statement about God that it totally true and above reproach. Even the seemingly simple "God is love" admits of so many intperpretations based on our own personal experiences of love and rejection, our own fears of failure, and all of our efforts at raching God through our own actions, that it runs the risk of being meaningless when communicated between 2 people.
Post a Comment