There is a new trend in the Evangelical vlogosphere among progressive Christians, in particular over at Phil Vischer’s “Holy Post Podcast.” Well, perhaps it is more a tactic than trend. It’s a fairly simple tactic yet, when employed against the uninformed and ill-equipped, it can be an effective one. The tactic is to affirm the ecumenical creeds of the Christian faith– usually understood as the Apostle’s Creed (325 AD), the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (381 AD), and the extended Chalcedonian Creed, or Definition (451 AD)– while rejecting unpopular moral teachings of the Bible. In so doing, one can still claim orthodoxy while believing things very different from the historical, ecumenical Church.
As to the affirmation of the ecumenical creeds, one could add the Athanasian version of Chalcedon to the mix. Athanasius did not author this version (he died much earlier), but it was named in his honor. Regardless, here is the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, which is sufficient to make the point I’m looking to make:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets; and one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Recently, Vischer (of VeggieTales fame), and his Holy Post gang, Skye Jethani and Kaitlyn Schiess, posted a clip on X about affirming the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed. According to Vischer, some people on social media were “grilling” him about his theology. Apparently this was done too harshly for Vischer’s taste. In response, the genius behind Buck Denver (I really mean that) said, “I am completely on board with the Nicene Creed.”
Vischer apparently thought that this answer would suffice to appease his interlocutors. But, unfortunately, it did not. In the same clip, Jethani and Schiess then go on to righty point out that if one “says the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed,” then one is “in lockstep with the global church throughout all of history.”
So far so good. All this is certainly true. The creeds certainly set an authoritative standard for a basic or “mere” Christianity–the sine qua non of Christian faith (well, sort of).
“Creeds Only” Christianity’s Mistake: Confusing Metaphysics and Morality
Immediately after pointing out the function of the creeds, however, Jethani goes on to make the tactical move now being employed by progressive Christians, namely, to suggest that affirming the creeds is simply “not enough for today’s fundamentalist, evangelical American MAGA world.” Apparently, for these kinds of Christians, there are other necessary things to affirm over and above the creeds. Per Jetahni, some of these other things relate to where one stands on “politics and social” issues. And, so the argument goes, to think one must have certain stances on political and social issues to be a faithful Christian is a novel or uniquely American, fundamentalist way of thinking about the Christian life. Moreover, to do so is to add to what Christians must believe to be “orthodox” and, therefore, not heretical (as the title of the post alludes to).
Jethani continues saying that MAGA Christians have “lifted [the political and social] issues up to creedal importance,” and, in so doing, have “cast out the majority of believers in the world.” Jethani ends by saying, almost absurdly, that “Fundamentalism increases the number of things you have to believe to be considered a sister or brother in Christ.” Schiess then weighs in, reaffirming Jethani and Vischer’s claim that all that matters is affirming the creeds to be considered brothers and sisters in Christ. The conclusion being that those MAGA fundamentalist Christians are, because of their political and social views, excluding people from the community of Christ–the family of God. This is, after all, just what fundamentalist do.
Well, I must say, this is not good. In fact, it is about the most theologically and historically inept comment I have seen out of Vischer and crew in some time. And that is saying a lot, given how inept much of their other content has been in recent years (in the post-Denver era).
First, all three of these highly trained theologians make the fundamental error of confusing metaphysical and historical claims with moral claims. While it is true that the ancient creeds speak of essential metaphysical and historical claims of Christianity, none of them, however, presents a single moral claim necessary for Christian faith or practice. In fact, none of them presents a single moral claim whatsoever!
On the logic of Jethani, Vischer and Schiess, then, so long as one affirms the necessary metaphysical and historical contents of the faith, everything else seems to be up in the air. Jethani accuses other evangelicals, those MAGA ones, of adding “social and political” claims to the creeds, but social and political beliefs are themselves moral beliefs. This move seems to suggest that moral beliefs are irrelevant to the Christian faith, because they are not found in the creeds.
Well, that would surely be news to the early church fathers who authored the creeds. Actually, it would be news to Jesus (and Paul, and John, and Peter, and everyone else). According to Jethani, at least in this clip, one could go an a murderous rampage, or be a serial rapist, yet if they affirmed the ecumenical creeds they would have to be considered a “sister or brother in Christ.” On this view, Jeffrey Dahmer could have gone on eating people, and so long as he believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father [and the Son] we would have to welcome him into the fellowship of our church: “Hello Brother Jeffrey, did you have a nice breakfast this morning?” Egad!
The Real Reason Behind the Holy Post’s Theological Ignorance
But we know why Vischer, Jethani, Schiess, and others, like Randal Rauser, are making this tactical move. The fundamentalist controversies of the early 20th century are no longer over metaphysical or historical claims. As the West becomes more open to religion again, especially Neopagan and New Age religion, and even to the person of Jesus Christ, the willingness to embrace the metaphysical and historical claims of Christianity has increased. In the 1920s and 30s, the heyday of enlightenment Scientism, cowering Evangelicals felt pressed by the culture to capitulate on the metaphysical and historical essentials of the Christian faith. They were, after all, too unscientific (at least according to the hard sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, or the von Rankische historical sciences).
Now, however, the social sciences have usurped epistemic hegemony in the culture. Thus, today’s cowering Evangelical has no beef with the metaphysical or historical beliefs of orthodox Christianity. Social scientists, after all, kind of have their own religion, and for the longest time the social sciences have been quite open to religious belief and practice. But the sociologists and psychologists also now tell us that Christian ethics– the moral content of the Bible– is unhealthy and oppressive. Biblical morality restricts us from expressing our true or genuine self, and hinders psychologically healthy behavior. Metaphysical claims about Jesus’ full deity, or historical claims about his death and resurrection, alone say nothing about whether we should identify as gay or straight, sleep with our partners before marriage, or abort babies in the womb.
The sundering of the creeds from the moral content of the Bible, from Jesus’ ethical teachings, is a slick move by Vischer and company. However, it will not pass muster with those who know the Bible or, who know it and respect its moral teachings (the VeggieTales trio certainly knows the Bible’s moral content; whether they respect it is another matter). Of course, this is not to say that all moral teachings on every current hot button political issue are clearly laid out in Scripture. Some inferential work may have to be done, like connecting Exodus 20:13 to the practice of abortion just as the early church did:
But the second commandment of the teaching is this: 2 “Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery”; thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic; thou shalt not use philtres; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide;
Didache, Chapter 2
As to any difference in the kind of murder, it is certainly the more cruel way to kill by drowning, or by exposure to cold and hunger and dogs. A mature age has always preferred death by the sword. In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance.
Tertullian, Apology, IX
However, even these have life, each of them in his mother’s womb. Elizabeth exults with joy, (for) John had leaped in her womb; Mary magnifies the Lord, (for) Christ had instigated her within. The mothers recognise each of their own offspring, being moreover each recognised by their infants, which were therefore of course alive, and were not souls merely, but spirits also.
Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, XXVI
How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God s for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it;
Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, XXXV
The new progressive move to claim orthodoxy on account of creedal affirmation, while downplaying, marginalizing or ignoring the moral content of the Bible, Jesus’ own moral content, will simply not do. At most, what it shows is that one is technically not a heretic. But not being a heretic does not mean one is genuinely following Christ. The one simply does not follow from the other. And, if one is not following Christ, as orthodox as their metaphysical beliefs may be, it remains questionable as to whether they should be called “sister or brother in Christ.”
Perhaps Vischer should submit this as a “Big Question” to Buck Denver? We might get a better answer from the puppet, than from his puppeteer.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In