baptists and creeds

3 Reasons for reciting the Nicene Creed

/ MurrayCampbell

People enjoy a big celebration. Whether it is a family birthday, school anniversary or national holiday, people swing into the mood and remember significant milestones: often with food, music and fireworks.

This year, Christians worldwide are commemorating the 1700th Anniversary of one of Christianity’s pivotal moments: the Council of Nicaea. I’m not anticipating fireworks, but this is an anniversary worth celebrating.

I get it, 1700 years sounds and feels like an awful long time ago; that’s because it is! But this length of time doesn’t mean that Nicaea is irrelevant or unhelpful to us today. At Mentone Baptist this year, we’ll be joining with churches from Edinburgh to Egypt, as we affirm the Nicene Creed together and find helpful ways to reflect upon this historic event.

Some people love history, and others not so much. That’s ok. Not every Christian needs to read up on Athanasius and Basil, but neither is if sound or safe for churches to divorce themselves from the hard work these early theologians fought and affirmed, for the benefit of Christ’s mission in the world. 

One of the basic rules of life is that who we are today is shaped by what has happened in the past. If we want to understand today, learn history. If we want to secure our churches in something more concrete than the latest weather predictions for Melbourne, ground our people and ministries in the deep truths of the faith, revealed by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, and helpfully posited in these documents known as Creeds.

To this day, churches around the world affirm four Creeds, all 4 were written in the first centuries AD. The Creeds don’t hold the same authority as the Bible, but they are nonetheless accepted as faithful and authoritative documents for churches, whether Anglican or Baptist, Charismatic, Orthodox or Catholic. Creeds are not the only theological statements that churches value. In addition to Creeds, down the centuries churches have produced Confessions; these were predominately written during the Reformation and post-Reformation centuries. It may surprise some readers to learn that it’s not the Presys who stood at the front of this queue, it is the Baptists who produced more Confessions than anyone! Confessions don’t sit in opposition to the Creeds nor do they claim similar standing, but they often provide further details on not only central doctrines but also secondary matters (including church polity). On a third and more local tier,  denominations and Christian organisations normally have their own statement of faith, which marks out basic requirements for joining. 

There are some church traditions today that still value the Creeds and where discipling new believers includes at least recognition of the Creeds. For many other churches, Creeds have largely fallen behind the pew and are collecting dust. What I want to do here is suggest 3 reasons why we should shake off the dust, copy and paste into PowerPoint and declare as churches ‘what we believe’.

1. Creeds are a way to summarise key Christian beliefs.

Creeds are not essays or sermons, they are a set of short and carefully worded statements that summarise foundational Christian beliefs, especially in regard to the nature of our Triune God.

It shouldn’t surprise most readers that I’m a sola Scriptura kind of guy. I wholeheartedly affirm the complete truthfulness and sufficiency of the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the final authority for matters pertaining to life and doctrine. But as theologians will rightly note,  the reformation principle isn’t solo Scriptura, as though we only carry a Bible around with us and ignore the law or medical textbooks or systematic theologies. 

When a visitor comes to church and asks what Mentone Baptist Church believes, I could simply hand them a Bible without uttering a word. We love giving away Bibles to people, to the joy of the office who are constantly replenishing our supplies. A visitor might ask, what do we believe about the incarnation or about the Holy Spirit? Straight away, as I speak,  I am offering an explanation in using words and summarising the Bible’s teaching on that topic. I am synthesising in a pithy way (or convoluted as can be the case) what the Bible teaches. I’m already systematising and trying to explain our church’s beliefs.  One of the benefits of Creeds (and statements of faith) is that they lay out in short form, what we mean by particular important doctrines. There are wiser heads than me who have done the hard work and created these useful summaries.

2. Creeds are a way to guard churches against false doctrine and the misuse of Bible words. 

As one of the leaders at my church said recently, Creeds are useful for exposing cults and making clear distinctions between Christianity and other religions. For example, we are Trinitarians, not Muslims or Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

How often have I heard someone say, ‘I believe in the Bible’ but when we’ve unpacked their ideas, I discover that they are misusing Bible verses and words. 

Reciting a Creed as a church communicates something important to a visitor and it reminds church members of what we do believe. It’s easy for us to forget or even subconsciously drift from sound teaching. Creeds can serve as a useful reminder and correction.

The Creeds function not only to guard against what is false, they are primarily positive documents of what we affirm. For this end, they are helpful catechising tools and encouraging congregational reminders.

The Nicene Creed, for example, addresses particular theological issues that were being debated at the time. Nicaea didn’t create Christian beliefs about the Trinity and Jesus’ nature, rather they articulated and affirmed the Scriptures. Nicaea was important for drawing a line between Christian faith and Arius and his buddies (who were denying key aspects of Jesus Being and of the Trinity). This time situation doesn’t make Nicaea culture and time-bound like a  Cyndi Lauper song.  The Nicene Creed was universally adopted and quickly became a key document for churches to spell out what we believe. 

Any quick read of the Creeds and we notice there are important issues not addressed. For example, not much is made of what has become today a massive issue: anthropology; what does it mean to be a man and a woman? No one says that the Creeds are saying everything important or that the only definition for who’s in and who’s out are the Creeds.   Although I suspect, where Christians drift from the Bible on anthropology, they have probably already fallen away from Nicaea at some pivotal junction. 

 

3. Creeds are a way to avoid cultish tendencies and express unity with churches across time and space.

In other words, we are not claiming special knowledge or being the only faithful church. We are not making up what we believe or deviating from the Christian faith, but are in line with historic and orthodox Christianity.

Carl Truman makes the interesting observation,  that today’s expressive individualism is one reason why Christians are uncomfortable with Creeds and Confessions. The idea that there is a standard to which Christians should conform and shape their lives, is anathema to a culture that values ‘my truth’ over truth. This is one of the mistakes that some Baptists make when they place personal liberty and freedom of conscience as the highest value. Freedom of conscience is important, but it should not reign above God or be used to justify explaining away what God has spoken. Freedom of conscience for the Christian necessarily sits under the authority of Scripture.

I find it amusing that some who suggest, ‘no Creed but the Bible’, often don’t believe their own 5 word confession. Such anti-creedalists can often be found arguing for the Holy Spirit speaking new words outside of and beyond the Bible. How often have I heard the ‘no Creed but the Bible’ crowd argue for changing doctrine because of human experience and using current ethical theories as the key interpretive grid for reading and even removing parts of the Bible.  

At the other end of the spectrum, are neo-fundamentalists, who with their KJVs (not knocking the translation, just the ‘KJV alone’ fan club), claim to be among the few remaining faithful believers on the planet. Creeds protect churches from cultish tendencies, like a road that keeps cars from swerving into houses and rivers and other obstacles.

There is something Gospel-minded and positive about recognising and giving thanks for Christ’s Churches scattered around our cities and countries, and throughout history. We are not the only holders of the truth. We stand with and stand on millions of churches and saints who have gone before us. Being a follower of Jesus can be isolating and lonely (join a church!). By declaring the Creeds we are reminding one another that we are not alone, but there is a great chorus heard even in heaven, of millions upon millions affirming the wonders of God and his salvation. Of course, we can do all this without Creeds, but these historic documents of the living faith will certainly add to this universal and joyful union.

Have you considered talking about and even reciting the Nicene Creed at your church this year?

Do we need another Creed?

/ MurrayCampbell / 1 Comment

A new declaration,  ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity,’ was launched late last year. I hadn’t heard of this Sex Creed until a friend on Facebook made a comment before Christmas, and another friend messaged me about it. Since then, I’ve read the website and asked for friends’ opinions. One question that immediately came to mind is, do we need another Creed?

I love and appreciate a good Creed. Indeed, to this day, the universal church subscribes to four formal Creeds: The Apostles, The Nicene, The Athanasian, and Chalcedon.

Despite the rumours, Baptists affirm the ancient Creeds. To be sure, some baptists insist upon the mantra, ‘no creed but the bible’, but they do so ignoring much of Baptist history and overlooking the Creedal material found in the Bible itself. Leaving aside that in-house debate, what do I think of the ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’?

First, I want to commend the idea of addressing biblical anthropology.  There is merit (if not necessity) for churches, denominations, and paragroups to clarify and confess a Christian understanding of sex, gender, and the Gospel. What it means to be human is one of the biggest issues of our time. It is one reason why theologians like Brian Rosner and Carl Trueman are writing important volumes on the subject. Scholars like Dani Treweek and Christian apologists including Rebecca McLaughlin are speaking to vital questions surrounding human sexuality and being.  It isn’t hyperbole to say that our society is confused about what it means to be a man and a woman. Even more basic,  we live in an age that is increasingly unclear about what it means to be human. This haze easily hovers over and influences Christians in the pew. It is not easy to be a Christian in the workplace or at school and believe what the Bible affirms about marriage and sex.

It is the role of pastors to preach the full council of God, and with grace and gentleness teach the Bible’s vision for human sexuality and gender. It is incumbent upon denominational heads and Christian organisations to ensure we are guarding the faith and protecting the people under our care by providing sufficient affirmation of and clarity on these topics. 

Churches need greater clarity and conviction on the Bible’s teaching on humanity, not less. We need better discipling in our churches to help people think in a Bible and Gospel way about what it means to be human. Accompanying truth, we need oceans of grace, kindness and patience. How we draw lines in the sand matters.

So what about the, ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’? 

There are a number of church and parachurch leaders who have signed the document, although that number remains tiny in comparison to the actual number of denominational and church leaders across the country. Several notable evangelical leaders have signed, as well as a number of friends of mine, men for whom I have great respect and personal friendship. 

(As a quick aside, I was amazed as I read the list to note how many Christian organisations exist in Australia. I had never heard of some of the organisations.  It feels as though every Bob, Jane, and pet dog has its own registered ministry organisation, which all sounds very significant and important!  The list also includes Roman Catholics, secular professionals, and a few from overseas.)

At this stage, I have 4 questions/observations, which I have asked of others and haven’t yet found adequate answers.

First, who wrote the Creed? The authors’ names are not published anywhere. From what I have gleaned after asking a friend who signed the Creed, a group called the Canberra Declaration is behind it. Apparently, there are so many people involved, that they didn’t wish to identify specific authors. That doesn’t quite wash given that if 100 people were involved, there would yet only be a small handful of people editing and finalising the end product. Knowing who is behind the document is important.

Second, while there is good theology contained in the statements (for which I’m thankful), where is the Gospel? The final article mentions forgiveness, but for a document that is supposed to summarise the Christian view on sexuality and gender, there is little weight given to the Gospel of grace and no attention offered to the eschatological vision for human sexuality and gender. In these two ways, the statement is lacking. 

Third, I find the language of ‘Creed’ problematic. A Creed by definition is authoritative and formal and is universally recognised. This is one reason why in the history of the Church, the number of recognised Creeds is incredibly small: fourto be exact. Throughout history, other types of important documents have been written. For example, there are Confessions of Faith, which are more numerous than Creeds, and which hold weight for Christians within particular denominations or movements. Creeds, however, are considered more weighty. Even during the Reformation, which produced countless Confessions and Statements, the Reformers didn’t propose further Creeds. In the waves of 20th Century liberalism, where almost every Christian doctrine has been attacked or undermined by progressivism, Churches have not written a new Creed.

According to their website, the category of Creed is deliberate. On more than one occasion they refer to the Nicene Creed and assume a similar position for ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’.

“Every era has its particular heresies. In the 21st century, heresies abound in the area of human sexuality. The church has not been immune to these errors. We believe the time has come for a new creed that affirms the timeless teachings of the church regarding sexual integrity, and that articulates God’s glorious design for sex and marriage as revealed in Holy Scripture.

Our hope and prayer is that the Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity will gain global approval from biblically orthodox leaders in the Catholic Church, the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Orthodox Church, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, and many more besides. We also welcome the support of Christian schools, charities, para-church ministries and missionary organisations.”

Lest anyone think that this Murray Campbell is hiding behind his laptop and unable to affirm a biblical anthropology, the record shows that I have been more vocal on these issues than many.  In 2021 I featured on the front page of The Age newspaper for standing up to the Victorian Government which introduced dreadful laws that stifle Christian speech and practice about sexuality. Several years earlier, I received numerous lovely fan letters for advocating the classical view of marriage on the ABC. So, no, I’m not one of these compromising or complicit chaps. I do, however, disagree with using the category of ‘Creed’ for such a statement. 

I note this 2024 conversation between Al Mohler and Carl Trueman. Trueman is no slouch when it comes to upholding Christian orthodoxy and he’s no poor student of history. He made these comments about the ascendancy of anthropology as a mark of Christian faithfulness, 

“I still believe that the best way for churches to preserve the faith and to make sure it’s communicated in a stable way, both to the people in the pew today and for future generations, is to have creeds and confessions, or the equivalent thereof, in our churches functioning as a way of capturing the essence, the deposit of the faith. I think what has changed in the last couple of, well really in the last decade, the whole question of identity has become much more pressing, and that’s raised a whole host of issues that I didn’t anticipate at the time I wrote the first book, but which I think confessionalism also addresses. In addition to the stuff that I did cover, I would use an example, for example, gay marriage that popped up really. It was brewing, but it became a big thing sort of 2013 to 2015 in the United States, and I remember a lot of friends saying, “Do we need to add, say a chapter to the Westminster Confession, or the second London Baptist confession to address the issue of gay marriage?” And my answer was always, I don’t think so.

I think what we need to do is first of all use our confessions and apply them to the issues that arise today. But I also became aware in answering that question that way, that one of the things that confessions did that I think has become very, very important is precisely because they give a summary of the faith. They also show how different elements of the faith interlock and interconnect with each other, and they show the broad framework of Christian doctrine that then allows us to address, for example, questions of sexuality or identity by realizing that, well actually, we’re not looking for a Bible verse on this. We have to think in terms of holistic structure of Christian doctrine, and creeds and confessions really do help us, I think, see that sort of architectonic structure that is very, very helpful in facing the crazy stuff that we’re addressing at the moment.”

Unfortunately, by claiming ‘Creed’, the document comes across as a little pretentious, like some other recent declarations that claim to offer a prophetic voice to the Australian Church and society. I’m generally wary of such posturing. 

If the aim is to be a truly national Creed, why not take proper time to work through formal processes? This comes to my fourth point, 

Fourth, this document hasn’t gone through the necessary rigour and ecclesial channels to hold the weight of ‘Creed’.

Historically, Creeds were the outworking of ecumenical Councils where Church leaders attended and worked through presenting theological issues. Unless I’m mistaken or missed the invite in my inbox(!) this Creed has not undergone any such Synod or Conference.

My biggest issue with ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’ is that it purports to be something that it is not. It’s like claiming a PhD without going to university or driving on the road without a licence simply because you know how to drive. This Creed claims too much, and it lacks a transparent and considered pathway for instituting such weighty words. Perhaps these are among the reasons why the majority of Reformed evangelical leaders have not signed it.

Others have noted certain ‘nationalistic’ overtones on the Creed’s website and explanatory notes.  The website authors themselves highlight a conscious decision to incorporate the Australian flag colours in the logo and to launch the Creed on the same day as the Australian Lighthouse Charge at Beersheba. Why draw such parallels? When one realises some of the groups who are putting their names to the Creed, their reputation of signalling Christian nationalism and anti-everything is telling, and unfortunate. 

I understand the pull to sign a document. Christians are looking for clarity. Christians are looking for leadership. As we feel the assault of culture that is taking one blind turn after another, and causing grief and harm to people we care about, we want to see people healed and protected and coming to know the Lord Jesus.  Had we not been in the situation where many Christian leaders have been reluctant to stand on Holy Scripture*, we may not find ourselves in a place where a group of unordained individuals have grabbed the bullhorn and produced a less than satisfactory piece of writing. 

I appreciate that not everyone will agree, but there are better ways forward. I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise, but at this point in time, my view is that we don’t need another Creed. Statements, yes. Updated polices, Yes. We need ongoing clarity and commitment to biblical anthropology by faithfully teaching and living out God’s words and ways, and by Christian denominations finding constructive ways to affirm what God has ordained in his word. 

—————————-

*this statement needs some qualifying for there are Christians leaders who have stood firm with pastoral conviction and love)