So, why were certain things left out of the creeds (see my previous post)? I really liked the two replies that I received for some of the reasons listed. Let’s summarize:
- I agree with David. The creeds were responses to circumstances at their time and place. They dealt with then current controversies. There is usually no reason to write a creed about something which is not a problem because everyone agrees on the theology. So, if there is no controversy no one writes about a certain subject. This is why trying to make arguments from silence is so dangerous. Sometimes the reason there is silence is not because the Church had no opinion, but because the opinion was so clear to everyone that there was no need to write about it.
- Some converts do spend too much time on the Councils. Because we come out of the West, we tend to think juridically. That means that we make everything into a law. We have an extremely difficult time differentiating between law, rule, principle, and common sense. We treat every one of those classifications as “law.” And, so converts read the Council canons and try to mine them for the “laws” of Orthodoxy. But, that is not how it worked. In fact, just like the Greeks had four words for “love,” so they had more than one word to deal with the idea of regulation. In particular, a law was a “nomos,” but, they had a word called “kanon” that spoke to something that was more than just a nice principle but less than an unbreakable law. And, when one actually reads the church fathers on the subject of canons, one finds out that they treated theological canons different than what are called disciplinary canons. Over and over again, one finds Church Fathers from Chrysostom to Basil writing about exceptions to the disciplinary canons and about not necessarily enforcing them as written. Moreover, later councils, and even synods, made free to change some of the disciplinary canons approved by Ecumenical Councils. And, approved canonical commentators, such as Balsamon, not only recognize that the disciplinary canons changed, but even approve of it. Orthodox converts need to quit trying to mine the canons of the Ecumenical Councils for the laws of Orthodoxy. That is not really how it works.
- Many theologians argue that the Early Church was concentrated on defining the Trinity and the Person of Jesus. So, Terry has a point in noting that the Nicene Creed is essentially Christological. Much of its time is spent on defining who is Jesus.
But, there were some controversies that never made it into the creed, why not? For instance, there were discussions that were akin to our current creationism / not-creationism controversy. Some of the Early Church Fathers believed in six-day creationism while others saw it as merely a poetical or allegorical passage in the Book of Genesis. At the other end of the Creed, there were arguments over the end-times. In fact, millenarianism was eventually declared to be a heresy. So, why did these subjects not make it into the Creed?
Well, I would suggest that when we meet with subjects that were debated, but over which no decision is reached, it means that we need to tread lightly before we declare what God wants us to believe. Yes, that means that no Orthodox Church is going to declare itself to be a creationist church. But, more than that, it means that many of us converts had built an entire set of arguments about the “truth” of Scripture based on a doctrine which the Early Church never defined other than, “maker of heaven and earth.” That is, the Early Church did not see creationism as being a lynchpin in a debate over Scriptural truthfulness, despite the fact that it was discussed. What about the end-times? Well, in spite of the arguments about millenarianism, and its being declared unbiblical, nevertheless, it did not rate high enough on the priority list to make it into the Creed. All that is said is that Our Lord Jesus will return again. In other words, the debatable details were not important. So, the Early Church did not see a particular eschatological viewpoint as being a lynchpin in understanding God’s plan for us.
When the Creed (or the other canons of the Ecumenical Councils) fail to talk about a subject that was being discussed by the Early Church Fathers, it should warn us that it is probably not a subject that we should make into a “lynchpin” subject in our theology. Mind you, the subject may end up defined a little later in Church history. But, unless that definition is present a little later, we probably need to be very cautious in declaring it a necessary doctrine.
And, so, the silences in the Creed (and the other canons) in the presence of an ongoing discussion between the Church Fathers, generally means that we should take care and not be too dogmatic in our pronunciations on that subject.
Well, they did work in a bit in the Creed itself rejecting the idea that when Jesus returned there would be a thousand year reign that would then end for something else.
“whose Kingdom shall have no end”
But yes, it’s generally true that there were lots of areas of debate that they didn’t feel needed to be nailed down.
Good point on the phrase about the Kingdom! I will have to do some additional research to see whether they meant that it would have no end in the sense that Satan would never again have control or that it would have no end meaning that millenarianism is not the right option.
Thank you Scott!
Yes, it would be interesting to hear the take on millenarianism.
The protestant preacher in me, which sometimes refuses to lay in the grave where I put him, plays word games that probably lack precision enough not to be repeated in public but do keep my thinking in line. Here’s one.
Orthodoxy is right-glory or worship, not right-doctrine. While it’s true that the Church’s doctrine is correct (though I’m told that Arians might have outnumbered Niceans at one point, and I’m sure many believers though-out the ages have suffered with a heretic priest or bishop) the emphasis is on the life in Christ as experienced in discipleship to the Apostles. The doctrine arises from the life of the Church and not the other way around.
The Church came up with this theological language to explain and defend what was happening in the Church. They were aware of what salvation was and who was responsible for it as it played out in the services and prayers and even culture of the people. St Athanasius essentially said “we know what salvation is, therefore Christ cannot be what Arias said he is”.
If I look at it this way, I remove the burden that the protestant carries to be some sort of expert in the intellectual side of Christian life. It the inductive vs deductive sort of thing. The Church doesn’t define a bunch of Platonic ideals and then we all try to conform to them, but rather the Church looks at what is and tries to draw principles from it.
This means the autistic child can be an equal participant in the body as the learned professor. Contrary-wise if one could only live rightly by first obtaining secret or at least lofty knowledge such a child remains a second class citizen. This seems to fail St Paul’s test in Corinthians about the least being necessarily salvific for the greatest.
I’m probably taking this too far. But this mindset keeps my tendency to be self-sufficient and gnostic in check, and refocuses me on worshiping the Father, in the Son through the Holy Spirit. My spiritual father calls this the existential revelation of the Trinity.
I would agree with you that Orthodoxy is focused on right-glory (worship). It means that the least theologically trained, least intellectual person on Earth can still be one of the most saintly Orthodox people around.
Sometimes Protestantism gets very gnostic. Protestants major on teachers (and preachers) and the most erudite person is among the most admired. In reaction to that, some of the charismatic movement emphasized “opening” oneself to the Holy Spirit, with concommitant signs and wonders. So, the most admired is the one with the most signs and wonders.
Neither of those two options truly admires the saintly person who lives an exceptional life of service. I have to remind myself that the Fathers argued that the one who does theology without a witness of life is not a true theologian.
In other words, we have more reason to be united than divided? I think I’ll start a denomination based on that belief. 🙂
Hey Steve! I would at least argue that certain groups have more reason to be united than divided. For instance, the differences between a member of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a member of a Presbyterian Church of America, and a member of the Christian Reformed Church are not that strong. From my view several of the issues do not rise to the level of requiring a division between them.
The same would be true between a couple of the Lutherans. For instance, I am not quite sure what keeps the Wisconsin Synod and Missouri Synod Lutherans separate.
Among us Orthodox, there should be little reason for the SCOBA jurisdictions to remain apart. And so on . . .
But, I also appreciate your sense of humor on this issue. GRIN.