Q & R: "Why don't the creeds include the life of Christ?" Brad Jersak

Question:

 

I have a question for you about the Nicene Creed... and all the creeds for that matter. It seems that they leave out the human part of Jesus' life on earth, as shown us in the gospels. They jump right from his birth to Pontius Pilate. Do you have an idea why that is?

 

Response:

 

A good (and popular) question, but partially based on a definition problem and two context issues.

 

1. Definition: the word "Incarnation" can be mistaken for "Conception/Birth" because the creeds say Christ "became incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Virgin." That sounds like a nativity statement, followed by 33 years of silence.

 

But "became Incarnate" includes both "became" (Christ's conception) and "incarnate" (Christ's whole life on earth ... and actually, to this moment). In other words, the entire life of Christ is the Incarnation because HE is the Incarnation. 

 

2. Historical Context: Granted, the architects of the creed could have clarified by adding a phrase about Jesus' life and ministry, but that wasn't really the pressing question they were addressing at the moment. The question was, "WHO is Jesus?" And the errors they were challenging were "Jesus was not fully God" or "Jesus is less than God" and secondarily, "Jesus was not fully human or was only partly human." So the issues the creeds raise include both an insistance that Christ was God in the flesh--truly divine (why they mention the HS) and also, actually flesh (why they mention Mary), rooted in real human history (why they mention Pilate), and that he really suffered and died (again, to say he was truly human).

 

So the creed is expressed not merely as a summary of what Jesus did, but more specifically about his dual nature. There was no argument about whether he lived and ministered. That was assumed.

 

3. Liturgical Context: That said, liturgical context is also huge. The creed was never pronounced in isolation. It was and is part of the broader liturgy, which lays out the entire drama of redemption, from Adam to the life of Christ, Pascha and the final judgment (every Sunday). The creed is embedded in that drama, never apart from the

Gospel readings that tell the story of Christ's life and ministry; never apart from reading the Beatitudes, never apart from the whole story.

 

So the problem isn't that the creed leaves out the life of Christ. The real problem occurs when we pluck the creed from the whole story--by abandoning the very liturgy that always faithfully tells the story. That is, when we isolate the creed to the neglect of the story (the liturgical drama) in which it is found, we can't blame the creed for not telling the whole story. That would be a bit like isolating John 4 out of the Bible and then asking why Jesus didn't mention the Cross to the woman at the well.

 

By all means read, memorize, cite and pray the creeds. But remember do so, even privately, in the context of a Gospel reading, a recitation of the Beatitudes and gratitude for the whole life of Christ. The creeds will serve to enrich the whole experience.  

Comments

[eric h janzen]

Thank you for sharing the link to your article, Andrew. I enjoyed it very much. I admit that I have always been more naturally drawn to a spiritual life where spirituality and theology are intertwined or two parts of one whole. It is refreshing to read about far more intelligent and spiritual people who felt the same and lived their life in God this way. I particularly liked this quote from your article: "For Gregory, the nucleus of Christianity is ontological or existential rather than epistemic:65 “The Lord does not say it is blessed to know […] something about God, but to have God present within oneself.”66 Such emphasis on “onto-behavioral” Christianity resembles early Anabaptist emphases." My family comes from a long line of Anabaptists, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to find this inner reality where my experience of God and my theology walk hand in hand. Thank you for sharing.

cheers,
eric

[Andrew Klager]

I'll also add that, in terms of the historical context, not only does the content of the Nicene Creed reveal the context -- viz., that the person of Christ (and his relation to the Father by extension) was specifically what was under scrutiny and required a dialectical theological refinement and clarification, but it also reveals that the life of Christ and its implications (nonviolence, care for the poor and vulnerable, submission to an alternative kingdom of God of meekness and peacemaking rather than to the kingdoms of this world and empire, etc.) was taken for granted so much that this didn't need to be clarified with a Creed. This is to say, its omission from the Creed reveals its ultimate importance because it was already so central that it didn't need to be clarified.

But for more on this question and a more academic response, my article here might help: https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/publications/conrad-grebel-review/issues/fall-2008/st-gregory-nyssa-anabaptism-and-creeds