Over this last year I have pondered aloud what I should believe about orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy. I have asked whether or not I should affirm any or all of the seven ecumenical creeds (here). In part, this is because I have wondered whether or not the biblical canon is enough to be the final word of doctrine and practice for the church. When I consider that the canon formed over a similar time period as something like the doctrine of the Trinity (here) what would lead me to see the church as correct about the canon and wrong about this or that major doctrine? In other words, why accept that the canon was formed correctly while denying that all or any of the councils were correct ? What is the role of tradition?
As someone considered as part of an “ecclesiastical community” in what sense to I attribute authority to early bishops and councils but not modern ones? Why would I consider Athanaius of Alexandria to be someone I should respect while Bartholomew I as an important Christian leader, but not one whom I ought to submit myself? While I will not rejoice in any divisions within Christianity (here) this does not mean I can come to see the episcopate of Roman Catholicism (here) and/or Eastern Orthodoxy (here) as a necessary, visible means of authentic Christianity. I wish I could, but I can’t. I simply do not believe it. So what is it upon which I base my understanding of orthodoxy?
This is something a good friend asked my the other day. Where to I draw the line? Who do I see as orthodox, heterodox, or heretical? Would I consider a Oneness Pentecostal, a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Mormon to be a brother or sister in Christ? Does the thesis of scholars like Bart D. Ehrman and Elaine Pagels stand true: early Christianity was as diverse as modern Christianity and all forms have a little bit of the truth? Is there an “in” and an “out”? How do we know we are faithful to the doctrine of the apostles or that we are going toward heresy?
The earliest, bare minimum creed we have is the Apostle’s Creed. It is unlikely that it came directly from the apostles, but it does not address later doctrinal debates like we see in the Nicene Creed, for example. This leads most to see it as a fairly early reflection of shared orthodoxy. It states the following:
I believe in God
the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth
I believe in Jesus Christ, his Son, our only Lord
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended to heaven and is seated as the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit.
the holy, catholic church, the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
This would make the minimum requirements for Christian fellowship to be (1) belief in the one God, the Father; (2) his Son Jesus Christ; (3) the Holy Spirit; (4) the virgin conception/birth; (5) Jesus’ historicity as one who suffered under Pilate; (6) the crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; (7) Christ’s descent to the grave and ascension into heaven; (8) his rule in the power of the Father and his role as coming judge; (8) the second coming; (9) the unity of the one, catholic church; (10) forgiveness of sins (atonement?); (11) our resurrection; (12) our eternal life.
Now there is reason for Nicaea, and Constantinople, and Chalcedon and I believe the Spirit guided the church to make right (more accurate) declarations about God, Christ, and the Spirit in order to correct error (or, at least, erroneous trajectories), but I am not sure if I can honestly denounce the Christianity of someone who either (a) doesn’t understand what is at stake when they do not affirm these councils/creeds or (b) does understand, but thinks that the councils/creeds went too far in declaring what is accurate about things that we cannot fully know. If someone cannot line up with the simplicities of the Apostle’s Creed it seems easier to wonder about their Christian confession (though, admittedly, the virgin birth and the descent into the grave may be hard for even the most honest Christian).
This is what twelve months of thinking about the Scriptures, Patristic thought, creeds, and councils has gotten me: I think I am still a doctrinal minimalist when it comes to what constitutes authentic Christianity. This doesn’t mean I don’t have formulated beliefs (e.g. I am Trinitarian and I think Oneness Pentecostals are incorrect in their doctrine; I think believer’s baptism is a more accurate reading of Scripture, but I do not denounce those who affirm infant baptism), it just means that I think experiencing the kingdom of God is more than what we affirm cognitively.
Thoughts?
the archives near Emmaus 
Great article. I agree with this statement – I think I am still a doctrinal minimalist when it comes to what constitutes authentic Christianity – though I still believe in seeking God for the truth in more ‘secondary’ issues, as you seem to agree as well.
@Scott: Indeed. I am not relativistic as any one of my Oneness Pentecostal friends will attest! But neither am I Lord of the Church, so I am comfortable letting Jesus decide who his true servants are while praying to be included on that day!
This is a great article Brian. Quite frankly, timely for me. I am still not a triniatarian yet and believe in Oneness Pentecostal theology on the God head. I’ve been studying the issue for the last couple of months and I’m as confused on the issue now as ever. After studying I feel both arguments have some validity but I need more time. My university school load is not helping me on that front. With that background in mind. I’ve had to ask myself a very hard question since I do still believe in OP theology on this matter, “Am I a heretic?” I don’t want to be but I had a trinitarian friend ask me, “If I make concessions for OP’s on this matter when do you draw the line?” I honestly could not answer that question. This is why I can’t wait to graduate with my undergrad and apply to Western Seminary to study the issue more thoroughly. Thanks for give me more to chew on.
I think the Apostles’ Creed taken alone allows for an inclusive position that opens the doors for those like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. While there is probably a couple of areas they would not subscribe to (one holy catholic and apostolic church and the communion of saints), we could all agree to the rest. If the Apostles Creed was the only creed in existence pre-Nicea, then it is easy to see how proto-Arians, the modalists, and the proto-orthodox could all exist side-by-side without much strife.
I also think that this translation of the Apostles’ Creed is not the best. 🙂
I agree with the minimalist approach and would stand with you in your final paragraph – at the same time, I guess two areas above all else is insistance in belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and in the authority of the Word of God (that is indeed God’s written word to us) – if that is at all in question, then for me it would be hard to move forward in fellowship. But like you I am still in process.
Hello Brian,
Why — even with some qualifications — choose the Apostle Creed? It was formulated by the same Church that gave us the Trinity, the Canon and the Councils. Maybe you should just write your own Creed and embrace the fact that you are a Magisterium unto yourself.
Peace,
John
@Danny: I have a very hard time with much of Oneness theology, but I have family who is Oneness, and I don’t think they are heretics, just incorrect in their cognitive understanding of God. So, while I am a confessing Trinitarian, I don’t think we can necessarily say all Oneness Pentecostals are heretics. Surely, it is a case by case basis. Though I can think of some people who are blatantly heretical (the city of Stockton, CA, comes to mind).
@JohnDave: What would you say is a better translation? I do understand that this opens up the doors so something like Arianism. I wouldn’t preach at their church per se, but I also won’t say every Arian or modern Arian in church history is not part of the Kingdom of God. As I noted above regarding Oneness Pentecostals, I think this is case by case. Only the Lord knows, but this doesn’t prevent us from serious debate with them regarding their need to reform their understanding of certain doctrines, as you know I do.
@Brian F: Yes, I would have a very hard time with someone who denied the divinity of Christ or the humanity. I think this is heresy and that it is implied in the confession of Christ and the Spirit which is what Nicaea, et al,. had to clarify. As regards the Word of God, I don’t think we can even function without Scripture as authority, so true unity would be pragmatically impossible. But I am open to differing views of the canon, though I affirm the Protestant canon.
@John: I am not sure how helpful you find such a statement. It is difficult to know which creed/council stands as authoritative and which do not. On the other hand, what worries me about Catholic dogma, is I do not see how there is any opportunity at reform if the ecclesiastical authorities ever get something wrong. I know we could say they don’t, but I disagree. For example, I think much of Mariology is going too far and I cannot affirm it. But Roman dogma demands that I do. It isn’t as easy as saying that I am just being a pure individualist.
Uh no, the bodily resurrection of Christ is the bare minimum for fellowship.
@Rod: I’d agree that this is the most important starting point. As far as dogma is concerned, the Johannine epistles seem to indicate that (1) acknowledging Christ came as a real human, and (2) unity rather than sectarianism, are important. I think Paul would say we must confess Christ as Lord (which you may see as implied in affirming his resurrection). Thoughts?
@Brian: In terms of fellowship, I see the Apostles’ Creed as adequate and broad enough to include most everyone under the Christian umbrella. I could certainly go to a JW church (and have) or to a Mormon church (haven’t yet) and fellowship with them on this basis. In terms of salvation, I’m unsure yet, although I think a case-by-case basis is fair enough. Here in my opinion is the better translation of the Apostles’ Creed:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by
the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again
from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand
of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge
the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen.
This is the new wording (which is actually a modernizing of the translation pre-Vatican II, I think) of the Roman Missal, which is supposed to be a more literal translation. I’ve grown up with this form of the creed, so this has some sentimental value. 🙂
@JohnDave: It seems the only important differences would be a more direct attributing to the Holy Spirit regarding the act of conception and Jesus’ descent into “hell” rather than to the dead.
@Brian: It is more of a literal translation, which can be problematic for some. There’s also the part “From there [his place at the right hand of the Father] he will come to judge the living and the dead,” which indicates the position of authority. I think those are the only major differences, but I think the more literal translation here is the better one.
Enjoying this post.
My friend, I too have similar struggles. I too am a minimilist. And neither am I too quick to peg others as heretics. I call it theology in the making, however long.
it warms my heart greatly reading ur blogs brian. i enjoy thoroughly ur honesty in where and what and how ur christianity is evolving, i find it insightful your level of commitment in finding the truth of the “matter”; lines being drawn and how far one goes.
in words i am unable to vocalize my appreciation of the concept between strict oneness theology and trinity, though in idea have within me harmonized its conception. i myself am struggling with questions regarding the transformation from a gnostic god to a personal one and how one plays ones role in the kingdom of god and the necessity of assemblage: can one continue to be a follower of christ without assemblage, without fellowship among the “body”? …and who is a part of this body, who is “in” and who is “out”?
after reflection upon reading the comments, i would have to agree with mr. rod. confession of belief that jesus is lord would be the bare minimum, beyond that all i see is a tangle of differences of unknowns. i enjoy the statement of john being “magesterium” (im not sure on the exactness of it i have the notion of it) though that exchanges one weight with another…
i intern at an art gallery and one of the owner’s friends said something very enlightening to me, he said if one is discussing christ for the basis of salvation then we do not have a conversation but if one is discussing christ based on enlightenment then we have a conversation. is it possible that we move from the idea of one entering into our fellowship and the lines drawn n belief to one entering into other fellowships and recieving whatever and whichever is given freely to that one through christ in fellowship- the toe may never be the eye as the ear may never be a finger?
past all the questions and statements, thank u brian, cheers!!
@Brian,
I would agree with your reply. However, I am overtly suspicious of “unity” talk.
@James: I am glad to hear it!
@TC: Agreed, it is important to enjoy the journey. I must often remind myself that I am saved by grace through faith and not my cognitive surety!
@Juven: The task of conceptual bridge building (e.g. “salvation” language to “enlightenment” language) is difficult but worth engaging to discover what matters as concerns the core of the gospel. While I would not be able to find a way to move away from salvation language, since it is core to the history of Israel through to Messiah, this does not mean that you cannot start at the common ground of something like enlightenment. The Fourth Gospel and Johannine epistles speak in language referring to going from darkness to light and the Pauline epistles address going from being blinded by satan to coming to a knowledge of the true God. On those ground “enlightenment” language (see Paul’s prayer in Ephesians) is part of the gospel.
@Rod: I can see where it would cause hesitation, especially when it is a code word for doctrinal hegemony!
Brian, it seems to me that there’s an ambiguity in your post (and in the comments) that makes this difficult to interact with. There seem to be at least three separate issues: (1) what’s necessary for salvation; (2) what’s necessary for fellowship; and (3) what’s necessary for orthodoxy. Though some would argue that the three are the same, it is entirely possible to distinguish between them and have distinct criteria for each.
Personally, while I like the Apostle’s Creed, I don’t find it sufficient as a bare minimum standard for any of the three. The glaring weakness for me is that it says very little (or assumes too much) about the Gospel itself. For example, there’s nothing in the statement to prevent someone from believing that salvation is achieved by works entirely apart from grace. Granted, that’s because the Creed wasn’t written to address this issue, but for me that makes it less than useful for the purpose you have in mind.
@Brian, You read my mind. 😉
If it’s the antiquity of the Apostle’s Creed that makes it the best authority for a good bear minimum why not go even older and more authoritative with the Old Roman Symbol?
@Marc: I’d see it as necessary (mostly) for salvation, though I wouldn’t say someone who lives an unrepentant, immoral life would be saved simply because they affirm the creed. Behavior matters as well if we believe in the sanctification of the Spirit. Someone who is Pelagian, per se, may not be lost just because they wrongly think their works earn God’s favor (many people ranging from Catholics to Pentecostals work with this assumption), but it may eventually lead them to be lost either by destroying their faith or on the last day when Christ says he never knew them.
I’d say “fellowship” while noting, for instance, that this is very nuanced. There are some Catholics with whom I could not fellowship because they may demand I have a certain Mariology or certain Pentecostals because they teach all must speak in tongues or some sort of word-of-faith dogma. Again, I’d say this is case by case.
As far as orthodoxy is concerned, I tend to lean toward at least the first few councils as hitting the mark. I don’t think I have a problem with any of the major ecumenical councils, but I would need to do more study before saying blindly that I affirm all that we find within these creeds.
@Dan: I didn’t even know about that one! Well, I guess I will need to nuance this discussion a bit, but that being said, I think the Apostle’s Creed is at least the best starting point and the Old Roman Symbol is very similar.
with issues of salvation i believe that is left to the believer soley.
@ marc – i agree with ur observation of this thread and when i abstract upon the idea of “assemblage” i find it tricky to maneuver around the lines of being saved alone without accompaniment and maybe orthodoxy which may become twisted. i fear for a layman such as myself that i stand at a precipice deciding how one continues to grow in christ in nominal senses…
@ brian – this is an excellent question “the apostles creed: the minimum of christian fellowship?” i imagine a circle which one enters into and with “proper” idea stays and communes with said fellowship, i find a dilemma though when entertaining the thought of one entering into the circle and then one being outside of it- how is it that one can enter into this circle and then find themselves outside of it, this to me signifies a line that is drawn. now what is this line, it can not be the same line that one first enters through; the apostles creed, for ones theology and orthodoxy to me seems to grow out of it, the first line respectively?
the question arises in me what is less than this apostolic creed in relation to christian fellowship?
@Brian, I think I’m much more like you in that I’m a doctrinal minimalist. Honestly, it’s hard for me to make the determination over whether someone is a true follower of Christ or not. I’m not sure that this is any part of our role as followers of Christ; I think He should be the judge of that one.
When this life passes and the next arrives, I think (and even hope) we’ll be surprised by who’s there. It seems clear throughout Scripture that Jesus looks into something different than our doctrines and theologies.
At any rate, I find it very important to think through the differences we have in beliefs and belief systems, especially what we determine as essential. It makes for a more genuine faith for all involved.
@Juven: This is something that I am willing to leave with God. I do think that we should always push each other toward true doctrine and good works. We shouldn’t settle for the minimum, but if someone has only just entered the truth we shouldn’t shun them due to doctrinal differences and we should always be patient toward each other.
One of my former profs from Multnomah Bible College, Rex Koivisto, wrote (while it is older now) a good book on how to work through your question here Brian. I would recommend it to your reading list for the days to come; it’s called:
One Lord, One Faith: A Theology for Cross-Denominational Renewal
It deals directly with your question here.
@Bobby: Thanks for the recommendation. I wonder if it is in our library at Western.
Brian, I would be shocked if it wasn’t; although it is faculty from the competitor school 🙂
C. Michael Patten wrote a blog on Essentials and Non-Essentials on December 9, 2009:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/essentials-and-non-essentials-how-to-choose-you-battles-carefully-chart-included/
He identifies seven levels:
1. Essential for Salvation
2. Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy
3. Essential for traditional orthodoxy
4. Essential for denominational orthodoxy
5. Important but not essential
6. Not Important
7. Pure speculation
He includes examples for each level and links to related posts. I think he did a pretty good job. You might find if helpful if you haven’t already seen it.
@Paul: That is a helpful taxonomy. I’d agree with his core. One of the weaknesses of this post is that the Apostle’s Creed is vague enough for many illegitimate assumptions. This is one of those subjects that is never easy to contain.
Hello. A little late to join in the discussion? I found your blog while researching the latest translation of the Apostle’s Creed into English. I remember thinking similar thoughts as I searched for the best way to worship God. Many catalysts forced me to face the fact that I was on theological sand because I had no earthly shepherd to teach me. There were simply too many issues for me to sort out in one lifetime. This came to a head as a protestant pastor yelled at me “You are not under authority. You’ve got to get under authority!” “Yes!” I thought, “I do need to get under authority.” His words were true. I also knew for certain that he was NOT that authority. Who could I trust to guide my most valuable treasure- my own soul? When I finally realized that pride was hindering this search, I asked God to show me the authority, He wanted me to be under. I was shocked and a little dismayed (at first ) when He led me directly to the Roman Catholic Church. That was over 16 years ago. With each passing year, I am more thankful and humbled to be part of His flock, with a visible Shepherd to help me sort out today’s moral dilemmas.
The key is not knowing the Early Church Fathers, but embracing what they taught. Obedience to authority (while avoiding sin) is the easiest way to get into Heaven. Jesus lived a life of humble obedience as an example to us.
May I suggest that you and your readers take the time to earnestly ask God what He desires and be willing to do whatever He asks- no matter what the cost. May God bless you all.