The Nicene Creed and Christianity
Jonathan Rowe on Sep 22nd 2006
Those labels and boxes. Sometimes coming forth with proper criteria for “line-drawing” can be difficult. Indeed, the “deconstructionist” left specializes in using that difficulty to argue that all categories and consequently all Truth are simply social constructs, decided by those in power. The following is an email I received from a Mormon reader. We discussed the criteria for “what is a Christian?” The discussion started because of my labeling the key Founders as “not Christian” (even though many of them like Adams and Jefferson claimed to be) because they rejected creeds central to orthodox Christianity, most notably the Nicene Creed, which Jefferson and Adams bitterly ridiculed as the ultimate “corruption” of Christianity. An interesting parallel thus can be drawn between our “Unitarian” Founders and Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses who likewise reject the Nicene Creed (and therefore some would say reject Christianity even though they call themselves “Christian”).
I gave the reader, as examples of orthodox Christian bloggers defining Christianity according to the Nicene creed one of Clayton Cramer’s posts (I also mentioned a few of Joe Carter’s). The reader’s email responds to Clayton Cramer.
In Mr. Cramer’s blog, he sets out to show that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian religion. That’s interesting given the name of the church. Bit I digress. During a meeting Mr. Cramer explained that all faiths are defined by core values.
“I explained that are certain core values that define various faiths, and trying to gloss over those differences is silly. I gave as an example of a core value of Christianity–really, a lowest common denominator definition– the Nicene Creed.”
I think what Mr. Cramer meant was faiths have core tenets not values. A tenet is “the fundamental tenet of Marxism principle, belief, doctrine, precept, creed, credo, article of faith, axiom, dogma, canon; theory, thesis, premise, conviction, idea, view, opinion, position; (tenets) ideology, code of belief, teaching(s).” (Oxford American Dictionary)
It is interesting that he chose the Nicene Creed as the basic tenet of Christianity. The Creed wasn’t created until 325 when Constantine, Emperor of Rome, told the Christians church leaders to get their act together and settle the issue of the nature of God. There were several groups all proclaiming their understanding of the nature of God. Each claimed their understanding correct. The upshot was dissentions within Christian community. This was unsettling for the Empire and the emperor wanted it to stop. The problem facing Christian leaders was trying to reconcile the Old Testament doctrine of one God with the New Testament’s Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For quite some time there was no universally accepted way of reconciling these two statements about God. The issue revolved around two questions: Was Jesus subordinate to the Father and if not how do you describe such a union.
The councils who decided the issue were packed with those who rejected the subordination of Jesus. For them, the challenge was how to describe the nature of such a union. People had tried for a very long time to come up with a formula but all failed. Finally through the use of Greek philosophical terms hypostases and ousia a formula was created to describe the Trinity. They had to turn to Greek philosophy because the concepts did not exist in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. So, under the direction of the Roman Emperor and using Greek concepts rather than Christian these councils were able to hammer out a definition of the Trinity the Emperor could enforce. And the rest, they say, is history.
Now proponents of the Nicene Creed say the creed only formalized what had been taught in the Bible. If that is so, why couldn’t the councils simply take these concepts rather than importing Greek philosophical concepts? Take out the Greek terms and the whole thing falls apart. There is another problem with using the creed as a benchmark of orthodoxy. If you claim that all those who don’t believe in the Nicene Creed are not Christians, what of those members of the Church which lived prior to the creation of the Nicene Creed? They couldn’t have believed in the creed because it hadn’t been created yet. So do you stamp all the early Church fathers living before 300 AD non-Christians because this creed wasn’t around to be accepted?
However, Mr. Cramers assertion that the Nicene Creed is the lowest common denominator definition of what it meant to be a Christian runs into a far more serious problem. If Mr. Cramer’s assertion was true, then we should be called Trinitarians rather than Christians. Christians are not termed Christians because they accept the Nicene Creed. They are defined as Christians because of their faith in Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah. The common denominator which defines what it means to be a Christian is the belief that Jesus is the promised messiah and redeemer of the world. This was the good news of the New Testament. It was this that the Apostles preached to the world after His death and resurrection. It seems to me that those who have accepted Christ as their messiah and their redeemer and follow his example should properly be called Christians, even if they believe in the Nicene Creed. :)
As for my thoughts, as an outsider to the label “Christian,” on the matter….When I “literally” read the Bible I see it as an “open-ended” text full of potential contradictions and alternate interpretations. I would agree that the Bible absolutely supports theological unitarianism as much as it supports trinitarianism. There are some passages which clearly seem to say that Jesus is inferior to God the Father (Proverbs 8:22, Colossians 1:15, and John 14:28), and others which support the concept of the Trinity (2 Corinthians 13:13, Jude 20-21, and Matthew 28:19). See David Holmes, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, pp. 74-5. Likewise, I see as much Biblical support for the concept of theological universalism (that all will eventually be saved) as for eternal damnation. (See this website by a Princeton theological seminary student making the Biblical case for universalism).
And theological unitarianism and universalism were central tenets to our key Founders’ (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and a few others) theistic rationalist creed. These founders were influenced by unitarian and universalist ministers (many of them from the Congregational Church, some Episcopalian though) who made Biblical arguments for these doctrines. See for instance, Samuel Clarke, an Anglican unitarian who was nearly defrocked for peddling his unitarianism within the Church, and whom James Madison lauded. Founding era universalist ministers were so numerous and influential in making Biblical arguments for universalism that they converted Benjamin Rush, an other-wise orthodox Trinitarian, to the doctrine.
I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists in favor of the Universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of Universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Revd. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient calvinistical, and newly adopted Armenian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White,Chauncey, and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of these authors future punishment, and of long, long duration.
But whatever the Biblical support for unitarianism and universalism, our key Founders made it clear that man’s reason superseded biblical revelation, that man’s reason ultimately determined that Jesus was not God and that people don’t burn in Hell forever, and therefore they could “cut out” those passages of the Bible which contradicted unitarianism and universalism, and focus on those passages which support their unitarian-universalist doctrines. Revelation was designed to support Reason, not the other way around.
Now, after reminding of all this, we ask the question: Were they Christians? They were members of Christian Churches. Many of them (Jefferson and Adams) claimed to be Christians. And perhaps unitarianism and universalism have as much “right” to the name “Christian” as trinitarianism and eternal damnation. David Holmes’s comments, I think, help: “Since the late fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity has been synonymous with orthodox Christianity.” Like it or not, that’s the way it is.
Look, we can define these labels like “Christian” however we want to. The problem is, we need some definite criteria or else a label like “Christian” defines so broadly that it loses much of its meaning. In its broadest sense, the term “Christian” can mean anyone with any kind of connection to a Christian Church. In that sense, virtually all of our Founders were Christians. And, as Catholic who never went beyond baptism and doesn’t go to Church and rejects Catholic dogma, I could too. I don’t call myself “Christian.” So what about any person who calls himself a “Christian”? That would include not only Founders like Jefferson and Adams, but also present day figures, gays like Andrew Sullivan and Gene Robinson, and liberals like Howard Dean, Gary Wills, and Phil Donahue — cafeteria Christians who believed God created gays as gays and would like to see them married in Christian Churches. Certainly, those who thunder we are a “Christian Nation” don’t want the word “Christian” defined that broadly.
I think judging purely by historical standards, the Nicene Creed (as well as some of the lesser creeds) is a “reasonable” place to define the faith. Defining Christianity by these creeds does lead to some odd “categorizing” results though. For instance, because Andrew Sullivan accepts the basic creeds, according to Joe Carter, one of the most influential conservative Christian bloggers, Sullivan gets to be a Christian; but because Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and our key Founding Fathers reject the Trinity, they do not. In all fairness though, I know many evangelicals who would claim that liberal Christians like Sullivan et al. along with the non-Trinitarians aren’t real Christians either.
Filed in The Belfry
As an interesting aside, Jonathan, when I was in Catholic HS, I was taught that to be a “Christian” church, the faith had to be linked directly back to the apostles (and that did not include Paul, as he never met the living Jesus). That meant that Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Christian Science all were non-Christian heresies. Interesting, it also meant that Southern Baptists and most, if not all, of the evangelical/fundamentalist churches we now have, which trace their roots back to the “Great Awakening” of the early 19th century, were also considered psuedo-Christian cults. I am not sure where the Unitarians were classified, but the Lutherans, Methodists and Anglicans only “counted” as Christian because they were considered offshoots, even in rebellion, of Catholicism. Of course, the other reason to reject Mormonism as Christian is the fundamental belief in a single God (whether in the Trinity or not). As I understand it, Mormons believe all “good” Mormon men become gods of their own worlds after death, so our God is just one of many.
I’m not sure how the criteria can be defined, but think it is a fairly easy thing to do for most folks to define what is Christian — and I’m talking about in the social sense. I drive to work past methodist, lutheran, catholic, baptist, anglican and episcopal churches, all usually right near each other. Their members work with one another, live next to each other and their sons and daughters marry one another. I’m pretty sure, having lived all across the “Bible Belt” for my life in several of its major cities, that this is a common state of affairs in America.
Given that this state of affairs came out of a founding era whose climate Jonathan intelligently describes, I’d say most folks define Christian pretty simply: a belief that Jesus was the Messiah and an accepting of the golden rule as a a guiding principle for life. Indeed this simplicity probably is due in part to the Universalist bent of our founding fathers, but I will say I believe Jesus meant it to be this simple. So I think the reasons all these people can get along socially is because at a fundamental level they define Christian simply.
From my experience, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Christian Science have always been seen as outsiders, mostly because in those 3 sects there is substantial adding to/detracting from the New Testament. The message of those 3 adds other elements which most of the quite more established sects don’t have or don’t emphasize. Christians either want to believe just the bible (Protestants) or the bible plus the living history that is the connection back to the time of Jesus, the Catholic Church.
Most of this post was well-written and reasoned. However, I wanted to clarify this one issue you raise:
There is another problem with using the creed as a benchmark of orthodoxy. If you claim that all those who don’t believe in the Nicene Creed are not Christians, what of those members of the Church which lived prior to the creation of the Nicene Creed? They couldn’t have believed in the creed because it hadn’t been created yet. So do you stamp all the early Church fathers living before 300 AD non-Christians because this creed wasn’t around to be accepted?
Those who lived before the Nicene Creed was written need not say ‘I believe in t e Nicene Creed,’ they merely needed to accept it’s tenets. The Nicene Creed did not reveal anything new; it merely condensed the essence of Christianity into one creed. Those before the Nicene Creed of course were still Christians if the believed what the creed would later say.
After reading your post, I can’t understand why you would open it by dismissing (as you seem to do) the habit of “the ‘deconstructionist’ left” of “using that difficulty [of categorization and definition] to argue that all categories and consequently all Truth are simply social constructs, decided by those in power.”
I agree that this deconstructionist argument does not wash in the end, but this particular post strikes me as an argument for it rather than against it. How do we decide whether the key criterion in defining “Christian” should be acceptance of the Nicene Creed, or belief in Jesus as the Messiah, or (as I prefer) acceptance of the radical pacifism and antimaterialism of the Sermon on the Mount, or whatever? What “truth” could possibly establish one definition as right and the others as wrong? To what transcendent fact can we appeal to settle this dispute?
None that I can see. The question is only which contestant has the cultural power to make its definition stick. And the only reason the question is important at all is because some sects (such as the Mormons) want to cash in on the social legitimacy (which of course is a form of power) conferred by the word “Christian,” while the sects that already enjoy that legitimacy want to maintain their edge by preventing any dilution of the brand.
In this particular dispute, there simply is no truth at stake. Only power is at stake.
That’s why my own preferred definition of “Christian” turns on whether one accepts the pacifism and antimaterialism of the Sermon on the Mount. In discussions with Christian students and colleagues, I argue that Jesus really and literally meant all that stuff about turning the other cheek and selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor, and that if you reject these prescriptions you reject Christ himself and cannot call yourself a Christian. But I only make this argument because I know that my definition would strip a bit of cultural authority, a bit of power, from the millions of bigots (from the president on down) who currently are able to use the term “Christian” to their advantage. Why else would I possibly care about the question? Not because my answer is the truth, but because it is useful.
That’s a great comment, Dave. I don’t think I meant to dismiss this deconstructionist technique as it applies to the subject matter of this post. Rather, I wanted to raise the issue to challenge the reader’s mind to think about whether Christianity has any transcendent meaning or whether it’s just something decided by those in power. I accept the Nicene Creed as one of the tenets for the traditional or “orthodox” Christianity for historical reasons. But what it boils down to is that those in positions of historical ecclesiastical power get to call the tune.
One other thing though: “In this particular dispute, there simply is no truth at stake. Only power is at stake.”
But, many Christians — I’m sure many readers and commentors here — absolutely believe there *is* Truth at stake. That is, they will argue that the Bible clearly teaches the Nicene Creed, that that is the Truth. And the other folks, like the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, and theological unitarians, are reading themselves out of Christianity by ignoring what the Bible says. I don’t agree with that argument; but some certainly do believe in the sentiment.
I agree with both your responses, Jonathan.
A good vehicle for exploring these questions right now is what’s going on with the LDS Church as it tries to redefine itself (”We’re not wacky polygamists who believe we will someday become gods on our own planets, we’re just good, clean-living, patriotic Americans like Mitt Romney”) while still honoring its commitment to what it considers transcendent truths (”We’re not JUST Christians, but the only TRUE Christians, the only church with the ecclesiastical authority to ensure postmortem exaltation, etc.”) at a historical moment that makes such brand-management extremely difficult (what with “Big Love” on the tube and Warren Jeffs–who in truth is a lot more like Joseph Smith than Gordon Hinckley does–on the front pages).
(When evangelical Christians try to delegitimize the LDS Church by dredging up polygamy, it seems rather like Pepsi challenging Coke by pointing out that the latter once contained cocaine. True enough–but today BOTH products are really just artificially flavored sugar-water, not real food. And when Coke DID contain cocaine, that’s when it was truly distinctive, just as Mormonism was most genuinely distinctive when it sanctioned polygamy. Back then it created a radically different society rather than today’s only marginally distinctive suburban cultural conservatism.)
In some ways it’s like the complex situation that gave rise to the Nicene Creed, with (to quote from your reader) “several groups all proclaiming their understanding of the nature of God” and each “claim[ing] their understanding correct.” The key difference is NOT that nowadays there is some transcendent criterion to which the disputants may appeal. Theology is not like science in this regard; it never discovers any facts upon which genuine progress may be founded. The difference, rather, is that nowadays there is no overarching political authority like Constantine to settle the dispute. As a deconstructionist would say, in the absence of such a political authority, any “final” interpretation of the (biblical) text is endlessly deferred.
I always enjoy reading your posts, Jonathan, even if I only rarely respond.
Thanks much. And I always enjoy your comments!
Jon,
I think the mention of 2 Corinthians 13:13 is a typo. In that verse Paul says “All the saints send their greetings.” Unless by “All the saints” he means “the Father, Son and Holy Spirti,” and by “send their greetings” he means “are an eternally co-equal Triune God,” I don’t see that passage as much of a coup for trinitarianism.
2 Corinthians 13:13. Holmes has it: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.”
It seems to me two categories of definition are being argued: external and internal. The internal argument goes, “According to most Christians, they are not our kind of Christian.” The external argument goes, “What differentiates Christians from Jews or Hindus.” Scof’s posting exemplifies both kind of definitions. 1. “Jesus is the messiah.” This would separate the Christians from Jews and Hindus. 2. “Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Christian Science have always been seen as outsiders, mostly because in those 3 sects there is substantial adding to/detracting from the New Testament.” In other words, as seen from within the Christian community they are seen as outsiders.
The problem comes when you use an inside definition for an outside purpose. If you tell a Hindu that Christians are differentiated from other religions because they believe in the Trinity of the Nicene Creed, he may well ask, why aren’t they called Trinitarians rather then Christians? The problem was caused by using an internal definition for an external explanation. If you told a Hindu that Christians are those who believe that Jesus Christ saved men from sin and death, he can say, “I don’t believe that, therefore, I’m not a Christian.”
This is the weakness I see in Jon’s argument. Even though he may or may not be a Christian, he is using an internal definition in order to solve an external issue. Jon’s objection that “belief that Jesus is the messiah” is too broad is an internal objection. In other words, it doesn’t discriminate within the Christian community, i.e. an internal objection. As an external definition, the statement is extremely functional as it separates Christians from other religions. Or, we can state it another way, it separates Christians from non-Christians.
I have another quibble with Jon’s argument. It is his use of the term Unitarian. It seems to me there are two types of “Unitarians”. There is the lower case “unitarian” meaning those who reject the Trinity of the Nicene Creed. Then there is the upper case “Unitarians” meaning a collective religious body. Rather than repeatedly using ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ I will call upper case Unitarians Socinians (as they were called in England). It is Jon’s contention that Socinians were not Christian because they didn’t believe in the Nicene Trinity. The problem with this is that there was a strong unitarian movement within the Calvinist faith itself. It began with Jacob Arminius, a Dutch Calvinist reformer. He lived at the turn of the 17th century. A number of Puritans brought to America unitarianism in the form of Arminian Calvinism. Are we then to say when Arminius subjected the Son to the Father he suddenly ceased to be a Christian? And all those Arminian Puritans who sailed to America, they also were not Christians? I think you can see the absurdity of using unitarianism as a touchstone for who is and who is not a Christian. As for Socinianism, it didn’t officially arrive in America until 1790s. By that time, a large portion of the Calvinist Congregationalist had had a long history of Arminian unitarianism.
Rich
I like your post, Rich, because it identifies two of the most useful things a definition can do and proceeds from there. It brought to my mind an instructive parallel with Judaism. The orthodox Jews (insiders) might not consider someone like me to be a real Jew, because I’m not observant and my mother was not a Jew, only my father. But an outsider like Hitler would consider me a Jew. There’s something quite useful about the way you’ve framed the question.
Rich,
You may be right that theological unitarianism, arminianism, (and theological universalism, I might add) didn’t originate with the Enlightenment. But the fact is the Enlighteners tended to embrace unitarianism over trinitarianism, universalism over eternal damnation, and Arminianism over Calvinism.
Certainly Issac Newton, a man of the Enlightenment, was a Unitarian. So likely was Locke (and perhaps Milton).
Most importantly, they embraced man’s reason over revelation. And it was man’s reason which told them that Jesus wasn’t God and that people didn’t burn in Hell forever.
It was this looking primarily to Reason and Nature, over Biblical Revelation that made our key Founders Enlightenment rationalists.
The “strict” Deists took this theory to its ultimate conclusion by looking ONLY to Reason and Nature, disbelieving ENTIRELY in Revelation, and concluding that God doesn’t intervene in Man’s Affairs.
Our Founders’ unitarianism was more of a middle ground between Deism and Christianity, with Reason/Rationality acting as the “trumping” element.
Jonathan,
I’d like to communicate privately with the Latter-day Saint whose comments on the Nicean creed, were posted in http://positiveliberty.com/2006/09/the-nicene-creed-and-christianity.html#more-1777
Would you kindly forward this request to him?
Thanks,
Tracy Hall Jr.
Provo Canyon, Utah
hthalljr’gmail’com
The Adam & Eve story is taken from a Chaldean myth. It never really happened. Christians say we need a savior, since those people in the garden were disobedient. Since the Adam & Eve story never really happened, we DO NOT need a savior. We are our own savior. By trying to live a righteous life, we progress thru many lifetimes to a perfected state.
LOVE TO ALL
[...] Though I am a baptized Catholic and not an atheist, I don’t consider myself “Christian,” hence I’m an “outsider” to this theological debate. I’ve dealt with this issue before. I’m not trying to insult Mormons, but rather give a very specific understanding to the term “Christian.” [...]
I feel so sorry for you people
I find it interesting that Clayton Cramer knocks the Nicene Creed for being formulated in 325 AD, but at the same time accepts the canon of the New Testament which was finalized LATER.
This is one example of many logical inconsistencies and false assumptions Cramer makes.