No Creed But the Bible?

The Nicene Creed has been recited in churches all over the world for over 1500 years. (There are some small variations over time and across branches of the church, but the differences need not concern us here.) I grew up going to Protestant churches—many different ones. But, I had never even heard about the Nicene Creed, let alone recited it until I was an adult.

How did that happen? My experience is quite common. Of late in American evangelical churches there has been a massive rejection of the historical creeds. “No creed but the Bible!” is the rallying cry. My best guess about why this happened was that it was part of the rejection of all things Roman Catholic in evangelical circles—the baby goes right out with the bathwater. It’s a loss. I really like the Nicene Creed, both the content of it and the idea of it. I wish I had grown up with it as a part of my church experience.

Carl Trueman thinks the abandonment of the creeds is an even larger problem than simply missing out on something beautiful. He thinks churches which have abandoned the Creeds have taken a very wrong path. Crisis of Confidence: Reclaiming the Historic Faith in a Culture Consumed with Individualism and Identity (an update of his 2012 book, The Creedal Imperative) argues that if your church does not recite and teach the creeds, if it does not refer back to the historical confessions of the church, then your church is in serious danger.

First, though, why is reciting a creed like the Nicene Creed above such a valuable thing for a church?

“In reciting the creeds, the purpose is not simply to declare a set of propositional truths. Rather, the action is somewhat richer than that: to state the obvious, in reciting the words of the creeds together, each member of the congregation publicly identifies with every other member in expressing a corporate unity of belief in a common gospel. They are also expressing their common belief with every other Christian throughout history who has used these words to witness to Christ. Further, they are reminding themselves and each other of who God is and what he has done. In other words, the creeds, in liturgical context, become a means of fulfilling the public declaration that Romans 10 demands of believers: the confession (a document) becomes a confession (an act of pointing toward Christ before the church and the world).”

That is a perfect summary of what I have discovered to be true about reciting the Creeds in the decades since I found out about the practice. Reciting the Nicene Creed is the single best way to remind myself that I am united with Christians around the world and throughout time in a single universal catholic church, that this is what we, all of us, believe, that while we disagree on many things, we all share in believing this. The Nicene Creed is an incredible reminder that what unites Christians across the globe and across time is vastly more important than what divides us.

So, why did the Creed get abandoned? Why are there churches who feel virtuous in abandoning these historical statements of faith? Trueman believes it is a symptom of the modern age’s obsession with what he dubs “expressive individualism.” Look at society and it is hard to escape the fact that we have built an entire culture around the idea that you are in charge of defining every aspect of your own life and that nothing should get in the way of your ability to express your own individuality. Ironically, as Trueman points out, churches have embraced expressive individualism with their assertion that every local church congregation is free to set up its own list of maxims of what will define Christianity. Every local congregation stands alone.

This doesn’t mean every church has wandered into heresy. Many churches which have replaced a universal creed with an individualized statement of faith have merely replicated creedal theology with a freshly worded version of the same thing. Many churches have made minor modifications to the content of the historical creeds, but have stayed within the bounds of orthodoxy. But, even still, Trueman is concerned. Once a church or a pastor has set itself up as the sole definer of theological accuracy, it is in real danger of slipping into heresy.

Christians who grew up in church like I did are unaware there is even an alternative way to think about theological orthodoxy. Trueman’s book spends significant time giving an overview of the development of the creeds and confessions of the faith. This is not a side note to Trueman’s argument:

“Historical theology, the genealogy of doctrinal discussion and formulation, is thus an important part of Christian education and should be a part of every pastor’s and elder’s background. It should also be a central part of the teaching ministry in all churches.”

I have long lamented that such things were not a part of my education in the church.

In other words, I completely agree with Trueman’s argument. I completely agree that he is rightly emphasizing the importance of constantly acknowledging the central theological doctrines of the church and that the best way of doing so is by joining Christians around the world in churches very different than my own in reciting common language.

Since I agree so strongly with Trueman’s conclusion, I was quite disheartened about the manner in which Trueman made his argument. The conclusion is sound, but the arguments for his conclusion were shockingly weak. As a book preaching to the choir, it was nice, but I cannot imagine the book persuading anyone who disagrees.

Throughout the book, Trueman takes aim at pastors who proudly assert they have no creed but the Bible. Imagine you are trying to persuade such a person that the creeds are incredibly useful, that the pastor’s church would be stronger and healthier if it used the creeds. Imagine trying to convince someone that using an extra-Biblical text like a Creed is a way to strengthen, not weaken, the centrality of Christ and the Bible. How would you persuade such a person?

Trueman’s approach completely misses the mark. Consider some examples. Trueman points to 2 Timothy 1:13, where Paul writes “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” Trueman points to the fact that Paul emphasizes the form of words, not just the content of the words. Then in 2 Timothy 1:15, Paul writes “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Trueman notes: “Here it seems abundantly clear that Paul is using previously established phraseology, a form of sound words, to capture in a nutshell the gospel.” Trueman points to many passages in the Bible just like that. Philippians 2:5-10, Romans 1:3-4, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Peter 3:18-21.

Again, I don’t disagree with Trueman here. But, imagine someone who believes that Christians should have No Creed but the Bible. Does providing a list of passages in the Bible which seem to rely on other sources prove that there are things which are not in the Bible which are important? The whole argument of “No Creed but the Bible” is that if Paul wrote it, then it becomes authoritative. Similarly, “No Creed but the Bible” fully agrees that the form of words matters, and the right form is whatever is in the Bible. Similarly, saying “No Creed but the Bible” does not mean a dismissal of everything written in the past; the Bible was written in the past. Again, saying that churches need the creeds because they need something that explains what the church believes misses the point that every “No Creed but the Bible” church has a written Statement of Faith, based on the Bible, setting forth what the church believes.

Reading the book imagining I disagreed with it was a very unsatisfying exercise. I had a hard time imagining being persuaded by the arguments in this book. Trueman argues: “The question is not so much ‘Should we use them?’ as ‘Why would we not use them?’ They do nothing but ensure that biblical content and priorities are kept uppermost in the public worship of the church.” I love that way of framing the matter. I agree completely. But, if I didn’t, there is sadly nothing in this book that compels the conclusion that Trueman and I both believe.

Related Posts:
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich The Cost of Discipleship “Follow Me”
Eliot, T. S. Christianity and Culture “Preserving a Culture”

(Governments have things like creeds too. Here is one: Crossway sent me this book so I could review it. Not quite a beautiful as the Nicene Creed, is it?)