Yoder and the Creeds

Samuel Powell, in his The Trinity in German Thought, (Cambridge U. Press 2001, ch. 1), points out the oddity that Protestants of impeccable Trinitarian orthodoxy, as well as deniers of the doctrine of the Trinity, both hearkene back to the writings of Luther and Melanchthon for support for their positions. His discussion of their writings on the authority of the creeds reveals considerable ambiguity. Luther was convinced that councils had erred and that creeds, therefore, could not be presumed to be true automatically. Yet, they could not be presumed to be wrong either. So he proposed to test each statement of each creed by means of Scripture in order to see if they are true or not. Protestantism has been in confusion ever since. As Powell says:

". . . the fact that Melanchthon came finally to disclose in an express and unambiguous manner his adherance to the doctrine of the Trinity does not in itself settle all questions. Something had entered into the stream of Protestant Trinitarian thought that would prove difficult to control and unpredictable in its consequences. In spite of intentions to the contrary, an idea had been introduced that would in future generations make the doctrine of the Trinity a matter of suspicion. Luther and Melanchthon had unwittingly driven a wedge between creeds and the Bible by insisting that creeds are subject to inspection and criticism according to their agreement with the Bible. . . The reformers allowed such a contradiction in the case of medieval creeds and councils; these they found quite contrary to Scripture. It would be for later Protestants to extend this principle and claim that even the ancient creeds and councils had gone awry by thoroughly misconstruing the Bible's teaching. " (22)

In a post entitled "The Creedal Protectionist Reading of Yoder" R. O. Flyer seeks to understand my (alarming to him) conservativism:

"In some of the conversations about Craig Carter, the accuracy of his interpretation of Yoder has been called into question. Some of us have spoken of a “shift” in Carter’s theology, because many of us had read and enjoyed his book on Yoder. Now, Carter himself admits of such a shift, but one cannot help but wonder whether there are seeds of this shift in his earlier work. . . .

In his introduction Carter I think rightly states that pacifism is “not the point” of Yoder’s theology, rather “Jesus is the point.” Carter, however, goes on to say that, “Not only is Jesus the point, but protecting, declaring, and unpacking the claims of classical Christology is what Yoder is about” (17). In contrast to the early Anabaptist theologians who did not have the leisure of developing a systematic theological account, according to Carter Yoder is “a thinker who is steeped in the writings of the church fathers and the Reformers, who has a firm grasp of the history of Christianity, and who has a deep respect for the creeds and historic Christian orthodoxy” (17). Now, certainly Yoder read deeply, but he is by no means uncritical of the “classical” tradition, even to the point of being critical of creedal tradition. Now, that is not say Yoder did not have a “deep respect” for the creeds, but he was decidely not overly concerned with “protecting, declaring, and unpacking” the Christology of classical orthodoxy especially if this meant abstracting from the particular narrative of Jesus of Nazareth. Yoder did think his Christology was in line with the creeds, but he certainly was not in the business of deriving his Christology from the creeds. . . .

Further, I find it odd that Carter would associate such commitment to the creedal tradition to the survival and flourishing of the church’s witness to Jesus Christ in a post-Christendom era. I think we begin to see “seeds” of Carter’s shift in his reading of Yoder here. I think the sort of protectionist mentality and survival mode of thinking that Carter reads in Yoder is really problematic. Such an approach seems to me to be the very antithesis of what Yoder’s nonviolent method and style was all about. Moreover, such a mentality seems to be at the heart of Carter’s conservatism, concerned as it is most fundamentally with the protection and survival of Christianity against the onslaughts of liberalism."

I thank R. O. Flyer for trying to understand me and I think he is right on most points. First, he is right to see the seeds of my current thought in my earlier work; I have not actually changed much. Second, he is right to view me as trying to interpret Yoder as a conservative theologian insofar as I imply that he accepts the authority of the creeds. Third, it is fair to question my interpretation of Yoder at this point. I think it is a questionable (not necessarily wrong) interpretation; I hope I'm right but I do acknowledge the weight of counter evidence. Fourth, he is correct in linking the theological issue of creedal authority and my unease with political liberalism. I am definitely unsympathetic to the questioning of the ecumenical consensus of the early, undivided Church on Trinitarian and Christological dogma and I do not think that this ecumenical consensus should be seen as being on the same level as the formulations of medieval councils or doctrine developed by the divided Western Church, let alone the opinions of modern theologians. Fifth, however, I would need textual evidence to accept R. O. Flyer's contention that Yoder was critical of the creedal tradition. I don't see it; perhaps the meaning of "critical of" is the ambiguity. (see below) Sixth, I think that what he terms a: "protectionist mentality and survival mode of thinking" is standard NT fare (see I Cor. 15:1-11, Tit. 1:5-2:2), so I don't see why Flyer has such a problem with it. I find it odd not to connect the flourishing of the Church's witness to creedal orthodoxy.

The problem with the Protestant tendency (from Luther to Yoder) to subordinate the authority of the creeds to that of Scripture is that this risks enshrining the private, individual interpretation of Scripture as the highest authority (i.e. the papacy of the professors). Luther's concern was to deny that Popes and Councils could never err and most (all?) of the actual errors he was concerned about came from the medieval period, not the first five centuries. Actually, Powell points out, Luther singled out the first four councils for praise because (unlike later councils close to Luther's day) they did not introduce any new articles of faith. (Powell, 15)

The problem is that the creeds were intended to be summaries of apostolic (biblical) faith, but also as authoritative guides to reading Scripture in future. If you want to be with the Church Catholic from the 4th century on, then you must interpret the Bible according to the tradition enshrined in the creedal tradition (at least the Apostle's & Nicene Creeds). The early Church was adamant that both the creeds and the New Testament faithfully preserved and guarded the one apostolic tradition. Believing the Nicene Creed is to adopt one particular (non-Gnostic, non-Arian etc.) interpretation of the apostolic tradition and of the New Testament itself. Canon and creed go together in a mutually reinforcing manner. To suspend judgment on the Nicene creed, or leave it to the tender mercies of the higher critics, is to open the door to many heresies.

I think that Yoder does comes very close to falling into the Protestant trap of relativizing the creeds of the first five centuries by subordinating their authority to the private interpretation of Scripture, but it is unclear whether he does so or not in the end. It is probably safe to say that he does so no more than Luther does. For Yoder, “The doctrine of the Trinity is a test of whether your commitments to Jesus and to God are biblical enough that you have the problem the doctrine of the Trinity solves.” I take that to mean that he thinks the doctrine of the Trinity is biblically warranted and should be regarded as settled orthodoxy.

Let me say this clearly. Whatever Yoder tells us he really meant when we get to heaven, my position is as follows.

I think that the early creeds (specifically Apostle's and Nicene) are the unanimous testimony of the early Church Catholic and are the right way to read Scripture. All ways of reading Scripture that deny what these creeds say are heretical and unfaithful to apostolic tradition and there were plenty of such ways of reading Scripture in the early church, some of which are being revived today like classical nineteenth century Liberal Protestantism, neo-Gnostics like Elaine Pagels, the anti-creedalism of John Spong and many others. I do believe that the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is taught in the Bible and I am highly suspicious of anyone who wants to drive a wedge between the Bible and the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity by insisting that we must endlessly discuss, investigate and "prove" that the Nicene doctrine can legitimately be derived from the Bible. Instead, I take the Nicene fatih as settled doctrine.

That is why Tyndale University College & Seminary, in the preamble to its recently revised Statement of Faith makes specific reference to the Apostle's and Nicene Creed as defining what we believe. This was the addition that I, as a revision committee member, was most pleased about. The Nicene Creed is not a hypothesis awaiting the judgment of contemporary theologians; it is simply what Christians believe. Protestants need to make up their minds about what it means to confess orthodoxy. For me, it means confessing the Nicene Creed as the right interpretation of Scripture.