Useless Creeds

There are those who would argue "No creed but Christ", a self-refuting statement because it is a creed. There are those who would argue that creeds are helpful in laying out basic biblical doctrine. There are those who would argue that creeds are necessary in pinning down what people do and don't believe. "Do you agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith? Okay, then, you're a Calvinist." Or something like that. Me? I see real value in creeds. They do indeed break down complex biblical doctrine and set it in helpful formats to give clear statements. I think that creeds are biblical -- you can, in fact, find them in Scripture. I am absolutely certain that doctrine itself is biblically mandated, and creeds are simply a support of biblical doctrine. So, to me, creeds are a good thing.

And then I read something like this. Apparently two professors at Calvin College (located in Grand Rapids, MI, it touts itself as "Distinctively Christian, academically excellent, always reforming") have decided that "Adam and Eve are strictly literary figures -- characters in a divinely inspired story about the imagined past that intends to teach primarily theological, not historical, truths about God, creation, and humanity." "Strictly literary figures", you know, like Sherlock Holmes, Gandalf, or Fagin. Certainly not historical characters. And, of course, since they were figurative -- not literal -- neither is the theology they spawn. "They propose that Adam and Eve are purely symbolic literary figures, that there was no historical fall into sin, and that the doctrines of original sin, Christ’s atonement, election and eternal punishment need major revision." They recognize, of course, that Paul regarded Adam as an actual, historical person, but, well, he was just wrong. We know better now. Original sin, they say, is simply a product of evolution. Evolution has predisposed us to selfishness and, thus, to sin. Strike that whole "fall of Adam" thing. And since there was no actual "fall", the whole "atonement" concept is out. One writes, "These intuitions about grace have very important implications for Christian thinking on the matter of eternal damnation, which is very hard to integrate well into theology as integrated with evolutionary science, and is also very difficult, if not impossible, to sustain within successful Christian theodicy." Throw out "eternal damnation" and embrace universalism. And, of course, that whole concept of biblical inerrancy has got to go. That's a given.

That there are those who would stray like this is no news at all. Scripture itself promised it. That it would come from the world of academia is equally not surprising. It has been thus for a long time. What disturbs me is neither the heresy nor the source, but the environment. Calvin College is a self-professed Christian college. Further, it is a Calvinist college. For instance, Rule #1 of their Faculty Membership Requirements says this:

Calvin College faculty members are required to subscribe to three historic Reformed forms of unity -- The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort -- and pledge to teach, speak, and write in harmony with the confessions.

Good creeds, all. But these creeds mandate a historical view of Adam and Eve and the Fall. That is, it is not possible to both "subscribe to three historic Reformed forms of unity" and deny them at the same time. So, in this environment -- Calvin College which requires faculty to subscribe to specific creeds -- we have two outspoken professors denying the creeds.

At this point, creeds become useless. Like recent cases of pastors of Christian churches who are atheists or the ongoing cases of churches whose denomination upholds traditional creeds but whose pastors deny fundamental truths like, oh, I don't know, the historicity of Christ or the fact of the Resurrection and the like, we have a good thing (the creeds) made useless. There are no consequences. There is no accountability. There is, in fact, precious little reasoning. "Yes, yes, I can completely subscribe to these creeds while denying them entirely." Yeah, that works -- NOT.

Creeds are good things. The fact that we don't care at all is a bad thing. I suppose, however, that the fact that we too often don't much care if the pastors of our churches are believers or the professors of our seminaries and Christian colleges actually subscribe to the beliefs we are expecting is a really bad thing. The failure of the college is one thing, but the failure of the church to provide the discipline mandated by Scripture is a shame. The purpose of such discipline is love. The failure is one of love. That's a very bad thing.