Litigious Creeds

I remember in High school (or was it middle school?) when my Roman Catholic friends were trying to memorize the Nicene creed. While I certainly had read it before, and knew the basic tenants of which it spoke, I was certainly thankful that my church had no such requirement. Not only because I'm a little lazy, but because I don't feel the need for such an extensive creed. I do understand the desire for specificity, but I can confidently assert that it is doctrine which has caused most of the conflict within the church, as well as a great deal of its apathy. As the church expends energy on developing a more accurate mission statement, it loses sight of its actual mission.

I'm not saying that anything goes: just because something is permissible it does not make it beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23). I really do believe in minimum standards and the need for discernment. However, from what I see in the Bible, God prefers to have some room to do crazy things no one expects. As creeds move from being general to specific, they attempt to limit what God can do, and that's always a bad idea.

The early Church, while perhaps not thrilled with diversity of opinion, was accepting of it. The Sermon on the Mount was used as the basic instructional material for new converts, people were expected to believe that Jesus was an important guy, that how one lives is more important than simply that one lives, that it is crucial for all of humanity to act in love towards one another, and some other general rules. People could debate details on all of these (and they did endlessly), but as long as people stuck to the general rules, and were willing to discuss matters, the details were ultimately irrelevant.

In many ways, I think Greek Life is a good example of how the Church should look. Being a fraternity man myself, I realized early on that despite plenty of problems, the Greek system overall had the right idea. There are hundreds of different organizations: some national, some regional, some local. Each of these groups has a specific focus, unique rituals, bylaws, and leadership. However, no Greek would deny that members of a different house are not Greek. Every Greek knows that people outside the system don't care if you're a Theta Chi or a Tau Kappa Epsilon. Sure, some chapters do things they shouldn't do, and are rightfully punished both from within the Greek system and outside of it, but at no point is the issue not a Greek issue.

The Church desperately needs this kind of unity. Sure, different denominations operate different ways, have a different style of worship and a different creed, use different standards for leadership, but they are still part of the same Christian family. Honestly, does it really matter if I think that God created everything in 6 literal days or not if I accept Christ and prayerfully seek to express compassion to the world? Does it really matter if I believe the Bible to be precise and literal or to be divinely inspired if, in either case, I take it to be the most accurate representation of God's will for humanity? I really doubt that on judgment day we'll be given a scan-tron test full of questions about doctrine and Bible knowledge. God really doesn't strike me as the standardized test type. I think He's much more interested in whether or not we fed the hungry, gave water to the thirsty, visited those in prison, and overall heeded His instructions for us. One of the most revered men in scripture is Abraham. The question I ask is this: was Abraham a hero for attempting to sacrifice his son, or because he did what God told him to do? The difference is between legalism (one of the great sins of the Pharisees) and faith. From what I can tell, faith always wins.

Honestly, I think Christian infighting is more about fear than anything else. So long as we don't agree on what God wishes, we can't be expected to enact it. If we keep changing the goal, we can never be behind schedule in accomplishing it. Lengthy and specific creeds not only give us something to fight about, but make it so that when we're not fighting, we're trying to figure out what the creed actually means. I love debating theology, and I do have an elaborate and somewhat specific set of principles which I believe, but I would never codify them and expect everyone to live by them or face judgment. According to Romans 14:5-10,

"One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one days special does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."

We will all answer to God, not to the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles Creed, or any church mission statement or doctrinal document. There is absolutely nothing wrong with particular beliefs, seeing one day as more sacred or some kind of food as inappropriate. What is wrong is believing that you are God, and can declare these things to be true for all.