Many professing
Christians of our generation do not seem to enjoy attending church services or
other church activities.[1] Church has
become boring for them. No wonder the church leaders want to make the church
lively and relevant to the attendees, which is good. However, they have
substituted the biblical church traditions for contemporary traditions. Some
churches would like to present themselves as having nothing to do with the
traditions of the church as if the problem of the church lies in its traditions.
After all, they are simply embracing the new traditions. Everyone follows
traditions, though one may deny it. There are good and bad traditions. There
are biblical and non-biblical traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We must hold
on to good and biblical traditions. The problem of the present church arises
from their unawareness and negligence of the biblical traditions. Therefore, to
have a lively church and activities, the church’s biblical traditions must be
revived.
I am grateful for Carl Trueman’s
book, ‘Crisis of Confidence: Reclaiming the Historic Faith in a
Culture Consumed with Individualism and Identity,’ which argues for the
modern church to reclaim biblical church traditions: the familiarization of
Creeds and Confessions. The title of the book itself reveals three great
subjects: 1. There is a crisis of confidence in the church. Professing
Christians lack confidence in the church for their various problems to be
solved, and the church leaders lack confidence in effectively resolving their
problems. 2. There is a Historic Faith in Christianity, which is succinctly
expressed in Creeds and Confessions. These have been adopted by faithful
churches across the centuries. 3. There is a crisis of identity in the present
culture. It tends to deconstruct church beliefs and consider church teaching to
be less sophisticated and irrelevant. How are these three connected? Well, the
problem of the modern church multiplies exceedingly due to its lack of
knowledge of the Bible.[2] People no
longer know theology, so they do not enjoy God anymore, nor do they know how to
live biblically. The Bible is a big book to learn and to teach. Creeds and
Confessions serve as a systematic and concise summary of the truth of the whole
Bible. They will equip Christians to live a doxological life, which is godly
and joyful. The crisis of identity among the present generation, which has also
brought a crisis of confidence in the church (organized church and its people),
can be tackled when the church reclaims Creeds and Confessions, and its people become
familiar with them again.
Carl Trueman is a
public intellectual, an acclaimed author, a historian, a college professor, and
an ordained church leader.[3] This is one
of his recent books (if not the most recent book), being published in 2024.
However, this is a revised edition of his earlier book, The Creedal
Imperative (2012). The 2024 version (second edition) has six chapters.
Interestingly, all the chapters relate to the letter “C”: Cultural case,
creedalism, church, classical Protestant, confessions, and creeds and
confessions. It contains 173 pages of content and six pages of appendix + v
pages of preface (a total of 184 readable pages). Carl Trueman is convinced
that the church should have more than ten or twelve statements of faith, which,
unfortunately, is the trend of modern churches (xiii). He argues that the
church should have “confessions that seek to present in concise form the
salient points of the whole counsel of God” (xiii).
Trueman writes that
“Christianity involves a creed, a code, and a cult” (xiv). The creed is the
belief of the church; the code is the moral vision, reflecting God’s character
here on earth; and the cult is “the way in which Christians are to worship God”
(xiv). Trueman sees “expressive individualism” as the modern creed, which
believes that the real “me” resides in inward feelings, desires, and emotions
(xv). You are most truly yourself or authentic when you express those inner
feelings outwardly.[4]
“The modern self is the expressive individual self” (xv). The problem with the
modern self is that it grants “overwhelming authority” to those feelings,
whereas Creeds and Confessions locate authority outside of us, in God, who has
given His word by which we must live (xvi).
It is a call to affirm the old creeds (creeds and confessions) over the
new creeds (modern self of expressive individualism), which is how Trueman titled
the preface, too.
In the introduction,
Carl Trueman presents a man or a pastor who believes in “No creed but the
Bible.”[5] He brings
up this cliché several times throughout the book to hammer the point that
Creeds and Confessions are neither extrabiblical nor unbiblical; rather, they
are the summarized forms of the whole counsel of God. Trueman considers such a
person to be ignorant or disingenuous because when they begin to teach the
doctrine of the Bible, one can see where they get certain ideas, such as the
“Trinity,” without attributing the source (91–93). To be charitable, such a
person would like to escape the baggage that comes with the traditions (good
and bad ones) and make the church less divisive by abstaining from past
controversies. However, he is also excusing himself from any judgment or accountability
to which confessions or doctrines hold him. The Bible itself has a “pattern of
sound words” (2 Timothy 1:13), which Trueman argues to be a form of creed and
confession by which Timothy and all other Christians must be measured.
Trueman presents
himself as a confessional Christian (2). The adjective confessional is
important. It means he abides by the confessions of the Presbyterian Church as
stated in Westminster Standards. He further explains that it means “creeds and
confessions is not only simply a matter of intellectual interest” but also that
he is “committed to the notion at a deep, personal level” (3). Trueman sees the
spirit of anti-confessionalism among evangelicalism closely related to the
rejection of traditions (4). He argues that tradition is not the issue, for it
should not be tradition versus Scripture but scriptural tradition versus
unscriptural tradition (5). He also points out that an issue like “heresy” is
meaningful only when connected to a church that has a specific confession (7).
I agree with Trueman that when a church is not confessional (subscribing
and teaching the historic confessions with or without slight modification),
that church (leaders and members) places itself at a permanent disadvantage in
holding fast to the “pattern of sound words” (8). Several churches have only 8
to 12 doctrinal statements, and they are independent, with no affiliation to
denomination or subscription to any historic confessions. Who are they
accountable to in matters of sound doctrine? And how are they communicating
(teaching) the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27)?
Chapter 1 presents the
cultural case against creeds and confessions. Trueman identifies at least five
phenomena that pitied against creeds and confessions: Expressive individualism,
Devaluing the Past, Suspicion of words as a reliable means of communication,
Antiauthoritarianism, and Fear of Exclusion. Interestingly, Trueman argues that
these phenomena are shaping the pastor who proclaims to have “no creed but the
Bible” more than he realizes (34). To counter these cultural cases, Trueman
postulates four assumptions: 1. Humans are not defined by feelings but by God,
who made us in His image (10). Thus, the image of God is what makes us common
and different from other creatures. 2. The past is important and has things of
relevance to teach (10). Creeds and Confessions transmit the church’s teachings
from generation to generation, which the outside world can testify. 3. Language
is an appropriate vehicle of transmission (10). 4. An institutional body must
compose and enforce creeds and confessions (11). He calls these assumptions the
presuppositions of confessionalism (11).
Ironically, the
Reformation that should have made people love the church more has led to doubt
the authority of the church (12). Religion has become a personal choice, and
with the rise of technology, people are developing a sense of autonomy,
culminating in the modern phenomenon of expressive individualism (13). Science
assumes that the present is better than the past and the future even better
(14). Scientific progress displays more knowledge and sophistication than in the
past (15). Technology has reversed the flow of knowledge: young people now have
to teach older people how to use the latest technology (16). No wonder people have
begun to doubt whether the past has anything to teach the modern individual.
Trueman sees that
“Christianity is a way of life and not a set of propositions” to be a
destructive form of philosophy, though there is some enough truth in it (22).
Emotions rather than words have become the “locus of truth” (22). Trueman also recognizes the excessive rise of
pragmatism in modern times. Several books and conferences have pragmatic
themes. A book on sex or a marriage conference will attract people, but a book
or conference on the importance of the Trinity is neither published much nor
popular (26). Such a culture will not value creeds and confessions.
The present culture
rejects external authority that comes from institutions (church), such as the
teachings of family hierarchies and traditional moral values, but they readily
affirm some of the views of pop stars and celebrities (27). Trueman also observes the rise and popularity
of “parachurch institutions over and above the church” make creeds and
confessions appear irrelevant (33). They have minimal statements of faith “to
keep in the tent all the various sects of which the clan chiefs approve” (33). Thus,
vital doctrines such as baptism, which are essential in confessions, are
excluded so as not to exclude others with different views (33).
In Chapter 2, Trueman
attempts to analyze how biblical is “no creed but the Bible” position (37). He
presents four foundations of creedalism: the adequacy of words to understand
God’s revelation; human essence coming from God; creed-like statements being
found in the Bible; and the biblical church government in the NT (37). God
speaks words, and all things that exist come into being through them (38). Trueman
sees Mark 15:38, wherein the temple curtain is torn in two, more likely to be
“the outward movement of God from the Holy of Holies” rather than the opening
for people to the Holy of the Holies (41). Trueman contends that if we understand
human nature as fixed concerning the image of God imparted by Him, then human
beings remain essentially the same even as we are separated by geography and
generations (48). In other words, humanity is not a relative social construct
but made and defined by God. Trueman sees Genesis 2:18 as revealing we are not
autonomous individuals but relational individuals to God (vertically) and
others (horizontally) (51).
The biblical church has
a creed-like statement, as seen in 2 Timothy 1:13. Trueman paraphrases it,
“Timothy, make sure that your teaching is sound by using the standard of
teaching you see in my ministry as the basic rules” (59). Trueman sees the
importance of the forms of the words as well, not just the conceptual
content, because specific vocabulary is important, such as the word “Trinity,”
which the church has developed and handed down to us (59). Trueman also writes
of the advantages of affirming accepted and established terminology for
instance, when someone preaches against the Trinity, Atonement,
or Incarnation, even people without theological degrees will recognize
they are not hearing a form of sound words (60). Trueman cites Philippians
2:5–10, 1 Timothy 3:16, and 1 Timothy 1:15 as creed-like statements in the
Bible (61). Then, Trueman brings up the examples in the Scriptures (1
Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20) where Paul asked the church to exercise
authority (discipline) over certain individuals (63).
Chapter 3 presents the
important creeds and ecumenical councils of the early church. I appreciate how
he traces the development of subsequent church ecumenical councils from the earlier
ones. They were not only logical but also theologically edifying. Trueman
states that creed-like formulations have two aspects: they have contents
(doctrinal concern) and they are bindings upon the church (ecclesiological
concern) (67). Trueman traces the development of the “Rule of Faith” in the
writings of Irenaeus, Marcion, and Tertullian before the 4th century, which has
many similarities to the Apostle’s Creed (75). Creeds seem to be local
documents before the 4th century but later developed into the need for the
church to have agreed-upon and binding creeds (74).
Trueman presents the
development of seven ecumenical councils. The First Council of Nicea, 325, was
against the Arian Controversy (78). The important word coined in that council
was homoousion “of the same substance”: Jesus is of one substance with
the Father. This understanding affects one’s worship of Christ. In the third
century, the subordination of Christ to the Father in terms of His being was
acceptable because the implications of that position were not fully realized
(82). The church realized that there was more accurate terminology to be used,
and consequently, there was a need for change of certain inadequate words (83).
The First Council of
Constantinople, 381, dealt with the identity of the Spirit (81). “That God can
be legitimately described as existing in three hypostases, that the Holy
Spirit is fully God (80). Creeds not only solve particular issues through
specialized vocabulary, but they also generate new problems (83). The First
Council of Ephesus, 431, dealt with the nature of Jesus again. Having
established that Jesus is God, how do the two natures of Christ (divine and
human) relate to each other? (83) Is it a combination of the two that is
neither human nor divine? How can two natures unite without having two persons
in Christ? The council affirmed the two natures of Christ in one person. In
other words, the question of the number of the persons of Christ is settled:
one (85). The council of Chalcedon, 451 marked four boundaries: Christ is fully
God, fully human, two natures are not mixed to form a hybrid or either
disappear into the other, and the two natures cannot be separated in the unity
of the one person (86). It improves upon Ephesus in that the two natures of
Christ are affirmed.
However, Chalcedon
generated a new problem: Does Christ have two wills? (87) A person has
only one will. Since Christ is one person, what will does He lack? If He
lacks human will, can he be said to be fully human? This led to the
Third Council of Constantinople, 681 which resolved that Christ has two wills,
but they both work in perfect harmony (87). Trueman notes that Scripture does
not teach that there are two wills of Christ, however, when one understands the
history of the church and how it wrestled with theological issues, there is a
need to formulate it (87). A pastor with no creed but the Bible has to replace
something if he rejects the words or answers of these councils as the issues
they raised and solved are relevant to this day (91). Trueman also observes
that those who “reinvent the wheel invest a lot of time either to come up with
something that looks identical to the old design or something that is actually inferior
to it” (91). Moreover, he calls for the modern church not to be content with
only the creeds of the early church but also the confessional developments in
the 16th and 17th centuries (93).
Chapter 4 presents the
classical Protestant confessions. The three important documents of Anglicanism
are the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Homilies (97).
For the Lutherans, the confessional document is the Book of Concord, adopted in
1580 (101). For the Reformed church, the Three Forms of Unity are the
confessional standards, which are the Belgic Confession, 1561; the Heidelberg
Catechism, 1563; and the Canons of Dort, 1619 (105). For the Presbyterians, the
Westminster Standards are their confessional documents (11). They comprise the
Westminster Confession of Faith, the Westminster Larger Catechism, and the
Westminster Shorter Catechism.[6] For some Baptists,
the 1689 Baptist Confession, a slight modification of the Westminster
Confession, is the confessional standard (115).[7] Trueman
observes that all these confessions affirm the Trinitarian and Christological
framework of the early church creeds (115). Furthermore, there is a “remarkable
degree of consensus” in the matters of salvation and “significant points of
divergence” in baptism and the Lord’s Supper (116). In concluding this chapter,
Trueman returns to the idea of confessional, stating that to be a
confessional, “one must specify to which confession one adheres and in what
specific church context one does so” (118).
Chapter 5 is titled
‘Confession as Praise.’ Trueman shows that confessions are not dry statements
of belief concerning the Faith but rather are of Christian praise and doxology
(119). Trueman writes, “Historically, one could make the argument that
Christian theology as a whole is one long, extended reflection upon the meaning
and significance of that most basic doxological declaration, ‘Jesus is Lord!’
and thus an attempt to provide a framework for understanding Christian praise”
(119). To appreciate creeds and confessions, one must recognize the idea of Christian
praise and doxology in them. “Jesus is Lord!” is a confession that has both a
public declaration of praise and a “declaration of doctrinal commitment” (120).
Trueman also cites scripture passages such as 1 Timothy 1:15–17 as a
“remarkable example of how doctrine, personal testimony, and praise can be
wonderfully intertwined in words spoken by a Christian” (122). Henry Newman regards
the Athanasian Creed “in form, a Psalm or Hymn of Praise to the Blessed
Trinity, rather than a Creed” (125). Trueman comments on the issue of biblical
inerrancy that the Bible should not be reduced to a collection of truthful
propositions, but its aesthetic forms in which they are expressed must be
appreciated (127).
Trueman addresses the
issue of anti-tradition and anti-creeds, those who prefer spontaneity. Churches
that claim to be without traditions and conduct their worship services
spontaneously, however, “look very much like last week’s” (131). Therefore,
“the lack of explicitly stated forms does not mean the same basic routine
[tradition] is not followed week in, week out” (131). “Spontaneity is more of
an appearance than a substantial reality” (132). Trueman also highlights the
aspect of Creedal Doxology: a summary of the Bible’s teaching, its countercultural
nature, and ascribing to God what belongs to Him and Him alone (135–9). He
concludes the chapter with a question, “Why would we not use them?” instead of
“Should we use them?” (141)
In chapter 6, Trueman argues
the position of “no creed but the Bible” to be not taken too seriously (144). He
states that such a person has invested more absolute authority in his private
creed than even the Roman Catholic Church (144). Because when asked what the
Bible teaches, he is unlikely to recite Genesis to Revelation; rather, he would
come up with some teaching summary, which is his belief (private creed). Thus, Trueman
argues that everyone possesses creeds and confessions. Many people perceive the
church and its leaders to be overwhelmingly authoritative; confession delimits
the power of the church (147). Leaders and the members of the church are
measured by their faithfulness to the confessions. Trueman also makes an
important point regarding confessions, stating that they represent the maximum
competence that can be expected from a Christian (162). Thus, it is not a means
to exclude people when they fail to uphold a specific statement of the
confessions, rather, it allows the church to exercise patience and grow
together as a church.
The appendix deals with
revising and supplementing the Confessions. Trueman thinks that one does not
need to revise them unless they are found to be wrong or fail to teach the
whole counsel of God (175). It should not be “simply on the grounds of verbal
clumsiness” (177). There is always a place for occasional documents or statements
that do not need to be confessional binding documents (179). After all,
Confession is the property of the corporate church and not the product of an
isolated believer (175).
Three strong impressions I have as I read this book:
1.
The tendency of
the modern church to distance itself from tradition to present itself as
contemporary, relevant, and lively. As Trueman argues, they are substituting
modern traditions for the biblical traditions. Creeds and Confessions are the
products of godly theologians of the past and have been affirmed by the church
over the centuries. It’s the most biblically illiterate generation that wants
to do nothing with the traditions of the church without understanding the
difference between scriptural tradition and unscriptural traditions. After all,
it is not about scripture versus tradition as much as it is about scriptural
tradition versus unscriptural traditions.
2.
The church
should not have only 10 to 12 statements of faith. It should have statements
that present the whole counsel of God. Furthermore, to be reliable, it
(confession-like statements) must be the property of the church, binding to all
its leaders and members. And the church must also demonstrate the authority to
enforce it. For churches that are content with minimal statements of faith,
they should affirm and teach some of the creeds, confessions, and catechisms of
the early church and of the 16th century. Should an independent church join a
denomination that has confessions? Probably not. Should they subscribe to the
Confessions of the 16th century? Probably not, but such confessions must be
made known to the church and be familiar with them. Confessions of Grace
Community Church and Bethlehem Baptist Church are good enough, but do they have
the binding effect on their members just as the confessions of the 16th
century? Are they effective, and will they endure? Or will they be prone to modification
and change over the years?
3.
Confessions are
not merely the propositional truths of the Bible, they are the expressions of
praise and worship. We worship and praise God as we declare the confessions/
doctrinal statements.
Am I a confessional Christian? In Trueman’s understanding, I am not. First, I do not belong to a confessional church. Second, I do not believe there is a doctrinally sound confessional church I am most likely to join. Third, having a non-confessional church upbringing, I do not feel burdened to adhere to any form of the confessions of the 16th century. There are good modern confessions, such as that of Grace Community Church, to which many churches have also subscribed. Such can be a good and adequate confession to begin with. However, I am for confessions. A church should have confessions that express the whole counsel of God in summarized and succinct form. And I believe that the church should teach and be familiar with the creeds and confessions of the past. For instance, I appreciate Heidelberg Catechism and have used it many times to teach others; however, there are some points with which I significantly disagree. Still, I teach those points with warning and correction. After all, “No creed but the Bible” seems more like a product of culture than a prescription of Scripture.
[1] According to a New York Times article, ‘young men are
now more religious than their female peers’ among the Gen Z.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/23/us/young-men-religion-gen-z.html.
[2] Albert Mohler observed that our
generation is the most biblically illiterate generation. He has a good article
on it: ‘The Scandal of Biblical
Illiteracy.’
[3] Albert Mohler (President, SBTS)
esteems Carl Trueman to be “one of America’s premier public intellectuals.” https://eppc.org/news/noted-reformed-theologian-and-intellectual-historian-carl-trueman-joins-eppc/
[4] Look at this
article by the same writer, “What Does It
Mean to Be Your True Self?” Or watch the video.
[5] Trueman calls
such a person a “biblicist,” one who rejects the creeds and confessions (92–93).
Many would define “biblicist” differently. An article by GotQuestions, “What is
Biblicist”
has a different take on it. If Trueman’s definition is to be taken, a Biblicist
is not good, but if GotQuestions’ definition is considered, it is good. It is
important to explain what “biblicist” is before one affirms or denies it.
[6] See Westminster Standards. Some will include other documents such as the Directory for
Public Worship and the Form of Presbyterial Church Government. See Ligonier's article on it.
[7] There are
several Baptist Confessions such as the 1644 Confession and Philadelphia
Confession of Faith. The Baptists also have the Baptist
Catechism.
For some other forms of Confessions, see John Piper’s Desiring God Affirmation of Faith and John
MacArthur’s Grace Community Church Doctrinal
Statement.