I would say that creeds are unfortunately, all-too constitutive; that churches and people like to feel a heightened sense of individuality and superiority, by outlining a creed that defines, differentiates them from all others (by way of an agonistic Derrida-ian “difference.”) But I’d suggest, people choose creeds, churchs, out of much lower motives than you might think; they choose them, like choosing to go to a Central high football game, and be a “Central lion,” vs. Metropolitan High, and being a “Metropolitan bobcat.” It’s a kind of tribal, high school totemism. Creeds and the denominations they define, are exclusivistic. And the buzz that one gets from them, is the buzz of feeling different – and maybe superior. Which leads to wars, even within Christiandom.

In this case, of the Nicean (/aean) Creed, and/or Chalcedon? These councils and the creeds they generated, attemped to distinguish themselves from all others, by setting up an early Christology; to define the exact nature of Jesus; as God or not; as a member of the “trinity.” But earlier we noted philosophical problems with these attempts.

I suggested elsewhere (in the discussion on penal substitution here on this blog, among other places) that the very concept of Jesus as a member of a trinity, and as a being with “two natures” – fully human and fully God; an idea from the era of Nicea and Chalcedon – was simply not right. Was a logical self-contradiction.

But in any case, I now add here, the issue of which doctrine to support, and which creed to follow, was divisive enough, was problematic enough, that Christianity began to split on this issue, and on the creeds related to it: Rome liked the outcome here… but Eastern orthodox Christianity was NOT agreeing to Chalcedon, and its particular characterization of Christology, and the Trinity. And so here the Orthodox church began to split off. Because of differences on this highly problematic idea, after all: the exact nature of christ, and of the trinity. And which creed to therefore, follow.

Creeds were 1) always intellectually, philosophically problematic. And 2) as a practical matter , intellectual battles over creeds lead to practical conflicts, and even wars. Among others, differences over issues articulated at Nicea and Chalcedon with regard to Christology and the Trinity – and associated creeds – lead to the beginnings of the division between Roman Catholic Christiandom, and Eastern Orthodox. So that the Roman Cruaders didn’t mind invading Christian but Orthodox Constantiople (‘Stanbul), as their first target.

A difference over problematic Creeds (relating in turn to highly problematic ideas of the Trinity) often split Christianity in half.

For these and other reasons, I can’t really support creeds or many dogmas at all very strongly. Though they are interesting to study – as examples of historic mistakes.

Well, caution: human beings, enflamed by precisely the different ideas here, eventually caused the first doctrinal split between the Eastern/Oriental Church and Rome. This was the first doctrine to divide Christianity in half. The first council (Chalcedon?) rejected by the East.

But if you’re interested, you might like to check out a debate that is about to start, on the Pen&Parchment (or Parchment & Pen?) blog, on the Trinity.

Much of the support – and much of the resistance – for the idea of a “Trinity,” comes from the exploration of the nature of Christ; whether he was of one or “mono” physical unity with God; or whether he was somehow two natures. (Or if two, then how closely related?).

In the Pen& Parchment debate, many will be looking at pronouncements by Jesus, to see what kind of relationship with God they assume; the relationship of co-equals? Or not? A full knowledge – or not? A separation between Jesus and God? But of what kind? And how is this or that relationship logically possible?

If you’re interested, the debate will be starting soon I think; in April sometime. It’s framed as a debate on Trinitarianism vs. Non-Trinitarian Christians.

When it comes to rejecting Councils I would take the example of the “Robber Council” of Ephesus II (which happens to be part of a paper on which I am currently working). Why do we reject this council? A number of reasons, but in brief: it endorsed Eutychianism, it was rejected by the later (and Ecumenical) Council of Chalcedon, and it was convened not to address doctrine but to do away with enemies who were as much political as theological (it wasn’t wholly unique on that one, just especially bad). Obviously the first point is the most important, that it endorsed the heresiarch Eutyches (and this relates to your second point). Can anyone say objectively that Eutyches was wrong? No, we cannot, we simply believe it. Why do we believe it? Because we believe that through wisdom, good theology, and discernment under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church found him to be wrong. Ultimately any of the figures whom we remember as heresiarchs may have been right, but on the grounds that anyone with a unique idea *may* have been right we ought to affirm anything at all, because those with whom we disagree *may* be right, and then we get into the problem of “what is the point exactly?” Ultimately it is a matter of faith in the traditions of the church and independent theological inquiry. I have investigates Ephesus II, I believe it to have been in error for the above reasons and more, I have sided with the church. Though most Christians are not so fortunate, I can honestly say that I am an Anglican because I am aware of and consciously accept the teachings of Anglicanism (though it was also the church in which I raised, which brings up other issues if one wants to go there, but “there” is well outside the scope of the present discussion).

I can speak to your third point very quickly. Those deaths are what we call “the devices of men.” I think I speak for all when I say that violence over doctrinal difference is one of the saddest parts of the church’s history, and they neither represent the will of God for humanity nor further the search for truth.

You made a point about different denominations, but I dare say that this is moot. Adherence to a particular number of Church Councils is no more of less a determinant of which denominations are more or less correct than any other. We all hold different beliefs about what is true doctrine and what does and does not constitute the church. That my traditions bases some of these beliefs on the creeds is no argument for or against the creeds themselves. I’m not making absolute judgments about which denominations are correct or incorrect, i’m merely proffering a fairly standard Anglican perspective on the question of the role and import of the creeds.

brettongarcia’s points aside, I would offer another thought on the original question.

I think that as a crucial element of our common Christian patrimony the study of the creeds and their historical use and interpretations across denominational lines would be wonderful tool for ecumenical dialogue and bridge-building.

Thanks for expressing the traditional view.

Still, what about:

1) The many councils that were ignored or changed?

The 2) many points of view that were eliminated … that might not be right after all?

The 3) probably millions of individuals eventually killed, in the name of the “right” credo? (As in the 30 Years War?).

The 4) many modern revisions of even the “right” councils, the right credo?

Which might not have been right, after all? Consider after all 5) the many Non-Anglicans out there. Who would hold to some – but not all – of the principles you have outlined.

What should we do with THEM?

Then too, 6) modern Anglicanism is notoriously liberal; is even this church really following these creeds?

Though to be sure, 7) surely any church that was founded by Henry VIII must be good!

The reason for the elucidation of the creeds, like most doctrinal development, is the protection of what the worshiping communities understands to be the truth. The profession of faith of the First Council of Nicaea (the nexus of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed) was written to define the faith in opposition to the Nestorian heresy. The doctrinal definition of the Council of Chalcedon was written to define the nature of the hypostatic union, settling an on-going debate between rival Christological schools and addressing the heresies of Eutychianism and Apollinarianism. When what the community has experienced as truth is challenged that truth is elucidated so that it can be protected from error and proclaimed to future generations. The creeds exist to protect the truths contained therein not for God’s benefit, but for the church’s, so that the church can continue to properly worship God.

The recitation of the creeds is not the point, it is the affirmation of the truths contained therein. Certainly there innumerable benefits to the use of the creeds in worship: the corporate confession of faith strengthens the believers, the recitation of the creed is doctrinally instructive, the creeds provide a tangible link to the faith and practice of the Fathers and past generations of Christians in general, the list goes on. But a church that doesn’t recite the creeds in worship isn’t somehow defective. The creeds remind us of the truths that are constitutive of the church. If a worshiping community can bear witness to that truth without reciting the creeds, and that works for them, good on them. The problem with losing sight of the creeds is that we can also lose sight of their teachings, and therein lies the ultimate reason for reciting them in worship. We are reminded as a worshiping community of the truths in which we have faith and for which we stand as the church.

So the creeds are sort of indirectly constitutive of the church, but they are more than just helpful or “necessary” (as it has been outline here).

Once individual, intellectual experiment and freedom – and progress – was outlawed by loyalty oaths, religious progress either halted; or had to take up arms, to continue to progress into new and better theology.

Many heads have been lopped off, many wars fought, over just one or two changes, just a few words, in creeds like the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicean, etc.

Do you believe in “One holy apolostolic, Catholic church” for example? Differences over just such a single line, caused roughly 400 years of war between Protestants and Catholics.

So that creeds often become extremely divisive.

I too think of such techniques as helpful, and am definitely set against considering them constitutive. But I keep glancing over at necessary, looking for a way to describe a greater sense of continuity. Maybe something like “If your worship services consistently give the impression that you invented all of this, you are failing to give the right impression.” That seems like a step beyond “helpful” because it suggests that it matters that we make use of this help.

Just for the sake of argument, though, lets assume for a moment that no expression of the Christian faith is perfect this side of the consummation, neither Anglican, Free-church evangelical, confessional Presbeterian, etc. So wouldn’t any church tradition, warts and all, seek to reform its worship and church life and to do so in such a way that addresses its chief deficiencies? And wouldn’t McKnight’s remarks here represent a legitamate instance of one particular church tradition (populist evangelicalism) seeking to do just that through the incorporation of creeds in its public worship.

I don’t entirely disagree with your estimation of evangelicalism, and I think you’re on the mark regarding evangelicalism’s focus on education, but it seems unnecessarily uncharitable to the intention behind the proposal.