Gender in the Creeds
Modernity has taken and molded our
understanding of hermeneutics to make texts devoid of meaning by separating the
definition of a word from the language of the word. An example of this is the
word “Father” as it is used to define one of the three persons of the trinity.
The person arguing for the removal of the word “Father” from the creeds would
say that the aspects of what a Father is can be kept, but the fact that a
Father is male has no place in the definition of God. Issues of gender
exclusivity and inclusivity are hot topics in the linguistic world of
post-modernity and post enlightenment America[1].
I specifically name America because issues of gender in language do affect some
cultures, but many languages use male dominated pronouns with the understanding
of inclusive language. Language and its use is an integrally important facet of
the construction of the creeds during the main councils that came to shape and
form the main creeds from the council of Nicaea in 325 to the council of
Chalcedon in 451. Language is under attack in America and we are seeing the
affects of progressivism in the way that a reader understands a text,
attempting to make the text mean whatever the reader desires. In order to
understand what the church fathers meant in their writing of the creeds, namely
the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, we must read the text through the eyes of
the church fathers, seeking to understand how they would have read the creeds
formed through the councils. This however, on a large scale would be too great
a scope for the parameters of this paper, so we will follow the same conceptual
idea with the focus of gender and sexuality in the creeds.
Roberta C. Bondi, in her article,
“Some issues relevant to a modern interpretation of the language of the Nicene
creed, with special reference to ‘sexist language’” writes with the intention
of gender neutralizing the Nicene Creed. She makes several convincing arguments
that center around hermeneutical principles, the mystery of God’s nature, the
formation of the Nicene Creed with respect to baptism, the use of biblical
language in non-biblical texts, negative attitudes towards women in scripture,
and the race for gender equality in the modern church. These arguments need to
be addressed especially if the church Fathers were truly guilty of the
accusations that Roberta claims for the Nicene Creed.
More importantly than addressing
Roberta C. Bondi[2],
we must look for ourselves at the main creeds of the church, taking a larger
pool than merely the Nicene Creed, but also considering the Apostles creed, and
the Chalcedonian definition of faith. How did the church fathers use the gender
language of the creeds? What did they intend by including this language? Is
this language inclusive or exclusive language? How do we understand the
formation of the creeds in light of sex and gender?
In
this paper I will show that the language of the Nicene, Chalcedonian, and
Apostles creed was intentionally used to combat the heresies of its time, while
being centered primarily on scripture in order to teach and catechize the
church and to denounce heretical claims while remaining entirely gender
inclusive primarily due to the context in which the creeds were written. Yet
a question may be posed: How does contemporary society affect the way we use
creeds in the church today and how should our language reflect our culture? To
address these points I will need to briefly look at the intention of how and
why creeds were formed and then move to commonly held objections to traditional
uses of the creeds, which will include articles from Roberta Bondi[3],
Melanie May[4],
T.M. Berger[5],
and S. Mark Heim[6].
After answering liberal objection to the creeds I will then offer suggestions
to how the creeds are to be correctly interpreted through the lens of gender
and lastly suggest how one can best use the creeds in modern liturgy.
The use and formation of
the Creeds:
In
general a council is the, “Gathering of clergy to decide questions of doctrine
and discipline in the church; synods.”[7]
The first council for the purposes of this paper is the council of Nicaea in
325. The council of Nicaea was formed and presided over by Constantine[8]
with the main achievement being the condemnation of Arianism. This led mainly
to the formation of the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed distinguished the
trinity emphasizing the oneness of God.[9]
The second main council is the council of Constantinople in 381, which dealt
with issues of rivalries between Rome and part of Jerusalem as well as tackling
Apollinarianism. The famous line by Gregory of Nazianzus, “What was not assumed
was not healed”[10]
helped to nail down the final argument against Apollinarianism. The Council of
Constantinople emphasized the threeness of God. The next main council was the
council of Ephesus in 431. Nestorianism was anathematized and Cyril of
Alexandria was recognized by the council as orthodox and Cyril’s theology
helped to deal with the heresy of Nestorianism.[11]
There was a further council at Ephesus in 449, which was not considered
ecumenical by the larger church. The council of Ephesus dealt primarily with
the oneness of Christ. Lastly the council of Chalcedon took place in 451 and
was interested in the twoness of Christ, or that Christ is both human and
divine but these two natures are not separate. The council condemned the
Monophysite heresy, which says that Christ has only one nature. Pope Leo the
first gave honor to the five great sees of the church being Rome,
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.[12]
Creeds were not necessarily handed
down verbatim, but the early church fathers were mostly interested in the
substance of the creed than the particular wording. This is not to say the
wording was not carefully considered, actually the wording was highly
important, but the value of the creed was found in what the creed communicated
especially in relationship to the particular heresy of the time[13].
The Creeds from the 325-451 were created to confirm a particular teaching or
doctrine of the church as well as coincide often with a particular council. The
creeds could be polemical in nature, but also positive in bringing unity to
established beliefs of the church at large. Two of the most notable creeds are
the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed[14].
The Apostles Creed was first found c.390[15]
and was surrounded by a history that the twelve apostles had created this
creed. It is thought that the Apostles
Creed developed from an older creed called the Old Roman Creed[16]
which stems from Matthew 28:19 and was also thought to come from the Rules of
Faith during the 3rd century. The Nicene Creed came out of the
Council of Nicaea in 325 and offers a polemic to Arianism as well as defining
the trinity by including the word homoousious,
being of the same substance. It was probably based on the Baptismal Creed
of Jerusalem[17]. This creed in some way is better considered
the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed because since the time of Chalcedon it has
been regarded as the creed of the council of Constantinople.
So we see that the creeds between
325-481 were not primarily written concerning gender, rather they were written
with concern of positively stating what the visible church affirms concerning
the main platitudes of scripture. The reality is that gender per se was not in
the minds of the church fathers, yet as we will see, liberal theologians have
anachronistically placed gender concerns in the minds of the patriarchs,
labeling them as misogynistic, sexist, and unconcerned with women. Let us now look at some of these objections.
Liberal Objections to
Gender in the Creeds
Bondi[18],
Heim[19],
Berger[20]
and May[21]
all take issue with one central word that occurs in the Apostles,
Nicene-Constantinopolitan, and Chalcedonian creed, which is the use of the word
“Father.” They all make convincing arguments which center on hermeneutics,
linguistics, historicity, equality, baptism, culture, patriarchy, and the use
of the modern church. Essentially each of their arguments, as do all arguments,
come down to an issue of linguistics and how we are to read and interpret the
creeds. The reason for this is that every person comes to the creeds reading
through a particular lens, but as I have previously expounded, the very
intention of coming to the creeds through the lens of gender is to misread the
creeds because it was not the intention of the church fathers. Rather their
intention was focused on addressing the heresies of their time and also in
teaching the laity what concepts of Christianity are central to
the
faith[22].
Linguistically the argument for the liberal scholar truly comes down to their
understanding and lens through which they read the Bible.
The reason many liberal scholars
take issue with gender in the creeds is because they don’t view the creeds as
truth coming from scripture, rather they understand the creeds to be a double
interpretation of a dubious book (read Bible) written thousands of years ago by
misogynist men. Now consider the conservative view of the creeds from someone
reading the creed through the lens of scriptural inerrancy. Clearly the issue then becomes one of
linguistics rather than gender. If it is the case that scripture has no
authority and is not the inerrant word of God, then by all means we must remove
our understanding of God as Father from the creeds and make God whatever we
would like him to be, but if Holy Scripture informs our understanding of who
God himself claims to be, then we must allow the creeds to reflect the truth of
Scripture. Essentially this means keeping the use of “Father” because that is
how Scripture will often speak of God’s character. There have been attempts
like in Heim’s article to separate the idea of Father from its gender, but
again this is to misconstrue how Scripture defines “Father.” There is however,
much I want to affirm in these four liberal articles concerning gender in the
creeds.
Bondi brings up good points in
addressing other aspects of the creeds in relation to gender that others in
prior centuries have never discussed. For example Bondi, May and Heim all
discuss the use of feminine imagery of God in scripture[23][24]
(Is. 49:14-18, Mk. 4:30-32, Deut. 32:11-12,18, Is. 66:13, Is. 42:14, Mt. 23:37,
Hos. 13:8, Jer. 44:25). Their point is that the church should see that God is
neither male nor female, but Spirit, and while this is true, feminine imagery
is the vast minority of ways in which God describes himself. Also God never
once refers directly to himself as female, rather he uses feminine imagery to
help describe his character. What is true and good from their observation of
these passages is that God does use feminine imagery to describe himself and
that we as the church should recognize these aspects of God. Another good point
they address is how we are to use creeds in modern liturgy, but this will wait
for the last section of this paper.
How to read the creeds:
So
then how is it that we should read the creeds? First we must read the creeds
within their historical context and in light of their historical culture[25].
Klager gives an example in regard to the heresies of the time when he writes,
“However, the particular components of the Rules seemed intent on combating
heresies whose syncretistic belief systems threatened this ethico-soteriological
nucleus of Christianity, this life in Christ”.[26]
Essentially Klager remarks that the heresies played a huge part in why the
creeds are written which is part of the historical context. Regarding feminine
imagery, the church Fathers seemed concerned not with being culturally
sensitive, rather they sought to combat heresy and affirm scripture. Parsenios[27]
makes the point that because the word “Father” is mentioned so few times in the
creed, that this word wasn’t a central thought in the writing of the creed, so
consequently feminine imagery never made it into the discussion. How else
should one read the creeds?
John McTavish makes a great point when he
writes, “I believe in, credo in, means that I am not alone.”[28]
Part of reading a creed is a reminder that the reader is part of a greater
belief and structure, something that many people believe in and affirm; so then
we ought to read the creeds corporately. Why this matters is due to aspect;
rather than reading the creeds anthropocentrically, we read them
theocentrically as one body proclaiming who and what it is we worship. A creed
also should be read as light to illuminate our understanding of scripture. Parsenios writes, “I would argue that the
Bible and the Creed are inherently connected at many different levels.”[29]
He goes onto explain their intricate levels of connectedness and why they are
so intertwined. Creeds always derive primarily from scripture, and as it is
helpful to read commentators on a Biblical text, so it is helpful to use the
creeds to grasp the overall story of scripture[30].
So how then can we use creeds in light of the feminist movement, modern
liturgy, and to truly be sensitive to those offended by the gender imagery in
the creeds?
Modern Creedal Development:
I
was surprised when finishing my research on this topic that my modern
understanding of the liturgical use of creeds has changed since beginning this
project. Originally I was obstinate against changing anything in the creeds,
but since reading my liberal counterparts I have realized that the importance
of the creeds lies in their ability to communicate the truth of scripture, so
here are the conclusions of my research of how to handle gender sensitive
issues in the creeds:
1. The creeds are designed to convey truth
but must be changed over time to accommodate the way that language changes over
time so the meaning of the creeds can be best understood. Bierma[31]
writes about the Heidelberg Catechism and lays out reasons to change and modify
the catechism so that modern readers can understand what is being written. The overall point of his article is that
language and syntax must make sense to the contemporary reader, so for example
I find it appropriate in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed to change “for us
men” to “for humanity” because it is conveying the meaning of men in a way that
is sensitive to both the men and women of the church while retaining meaning.
2. We cannot change “Father” from any of the
creeds, the reason being consistent with my first point; “Father” is how the
scriptures describe God, so it is not a word that can be altered or even parts
of the meaning extracted and separated. This is because “Father,” is not merely
a word that conveys aspects of begetting, rather “Father” as used in scripture can
convey the love of a father, which every person will consent to being different
than the love of a mother. There is in fact a masculine personality to our God.
3. That being said, although “Father” is not
negotiable to be changed, I believe it would be helpful to go through the
current Creeds and make the meaning semantically clear as possible. Reynolds[32]
makes this point in his article concerning the word “Again in Creeds and the
Bible” where he takes the stance that our modern understanding of “again” would
better be replaced with a word such as “up” i.e. “He rose up.”
4. If we then should use scripture as the
support and protection for the creeds, then what about scripture that depicts
the feminine imagery of God? I would suggest incorporating this into the
liturgy of the service as is appropriate for the context of the congregation. I
do believe that Mary as the Theotokos is very appropriate in the creeds and
should give some support to the positive scriptural position of women. I also
am convinced that feminine imagery should ideally be used in proportion to any
other imagery that describes God. For example if say the Bible discuses God as
fatherly 80% of its occurrences and God as motherly 20% of its occurrences then
we should reflect scripture in giving an accurate portrayal of the characteristics
of God proportionately.
Conclusion:
To summarize this discussion, we have
introduced the issue that is raised by liberal scholars of appropriating gender
in the creeds to fit a modern context. We have discussed the intention of the
creeds and their formation as well as the intention of the original creators of
the creeds in conveying meaning and purpose. We then gave observation,
critique, and praise to the liberal scholars on the subject of gender in the
creeds while evaluating their articles in light of the historicity of the
creeds. Then we discussed how creeds should be read as is befitting a theology
of scriptural inerrancy and concluded several points that elevates and necessitates
the use of creeds in modern liturgy. Lastly we gave particular ways in which
the creeds can be modified while still retaining, if not improving, meaning
while also being sensitive to the gender oriented discussion.
Again I am surprised in the way that my
own opinion of how to use the creeds in modern society has changed, but I am
also thankful that my understanding and appreciation of the creeds has grown.
If one day I am to pastor a church, I will use and incorporate the creeds into
the liturgy, inculcating them upon the hearts of the congregants. Even the
ancient Jewish people have spoken the great creed from Deuteronomy 26:5-9
reminded them of God’s great work in redeeming them and bringing them to the
promised land. We are a forgetful people, so let us use the creeds to remind,
teach, and remember that we are not alone.
Bibliography
Berger, Teresa.
Gender differences and the making of liturgical history: lifting a veil on
liturgy's past. Farnham; Burlington, Vt: Ashgate, 2011.
Berardino, Angelo Di, ed. Encyclopedia
of the Early Church. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 1992.
Bierma, Lyle D.
"A critique of the CRC's new translation of the Heidelberg
Catechism." Calvin Theological Journal 43, no. 1 (April 1, 2008): 111-122.
Bondi, Roberta C. “Some Issues Relevant to a Modern Interpretation
of the Language of the Nicene Creed, with Special Reference to ‘sexist
Language’.” Union Seminary Quarterly review (1985).
Cody, Aelred.
"Little historical creed" or "little historical anamnesis"?."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68, no. 1 (January 1, 2006): 1-10.
Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, USA, 2005.
Ferguson, Everett, ed. Encyclopedia of
Early Christianity. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Routledge, 1997.
Ferguson, Everett. Church History.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.
Heim, S Mark.
"Gender and creed : confessing a common faith." Christian Century
102, no. 13 (April 17, 1985): 379-381.
Editor: Jerald C. Brauer. Associate editors:
Brian Gerrish [and. The Westminster Dictionary of Church History. Philadelphia:
Westminster John Knox Pr, 1971.
Klager, Andrew P.
"St. Gregory of Nyssa, Anabaptism, and the creeds." Conrad Grebel
Review 26, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): 42-71.
Ludlow, Morwenna.
"The Apostles Creed: the Apostles Creed and its early Christian
context." Modern Believing 52, no. 1 (January 1, 2011): 82-83.
Mankowski, Paul V. “A Fig Leaf for the Creed.” Touchstone
7.2 (1992).
May, Melanie A.
"Conversations on language and the imagery of God : occasioned by the
community of women and men in the church study." Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 40, no. 3 (January 1, 1985): 11-20.
McTavish, John.
"Karl Barth and the importance of creeds." Touchstone 29, no. 3
(September 1, 2011): 30-37.
Parsenios, George
L. "The Creed: The Symbol of the Faith." Theology Today 67, no. 4
(January 2011): 391-404.
Pickstock,
Catherine. "Asyndeton, Syntax and Insanity : A Study of the Revision of the
Nicene Creed." Modern Theology 10, no. 4 (October 1, 1994): 321-340.
Reynolds, Stephen
M. "The word "again" in creeds and Bible." Westminster
Theological Journal 35, no. 1 (September 1, 1972): 28-35.
Reuther, Rosemary
Radford "Misogynism and Virginal Feminism in the Fathers of the Church.”
In Religion and Sexism. Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions.
Ed. Rosemary Radford, New York Simon and Schuster
1974 150-183
West, Charles C.
"Max L Stackhouse : Creeds, society and human rights: a study in three
cultures." Occasional Papers On Religion In Eastern Europe 5, no. 4
(August 1, 1985): 19-24.
[2] Bondi,
Roberta C. “Some Issues Relevant to a Modern Interpretation of the Language of
the Nicene Creed, with Special Reference to ‘sexist Language’.” Union
Seminary Quarterly review (1985).
[3] Ibid
[4] May, Melanie A.
"Conversations on language and the imagery of God : occasioned by the
community of women and men in the church study." Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 40, no. 3 (January 1, 1985): 11-20.
[5] Berger, Teresa. Gender
differences and the making of liturgical history: lifting a veil on liturgy's
past. Farnham; Burlington, Vt: Ashgate, 2011.
[6] Heim, S Mark.
"Gender and creed : confessing a common faith." Christian Century
102, no. 13 (April 17, 1985): 379-381.
[7] Ferguson, Everett, ed. Encyclopedia of
Early Christianity. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Routledge, 1997 page. 296
[8] Editor: Jerald C. Brauer. Associate editors:
Brian Gerrish [and others], The Westminster Dictionary of Church
History. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Pr, 1971), page. 239
[11] Editor: Jerald C. Brauer. Associate editors:
Brian Gerrish [and others], The Westminster Dictionary of Church
History. (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Pr, 1971), page.. 253
[12] Ibid p. 239
[13] Berardino, Angelo Di, ed. Encyclopedia
of the Early Church. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 1992,
page 207
[14] F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, USA, 2005), page 434.
[15] Ibid p. 90
[16] Ibid p. 1188
[18] Bondi, Roberta C. “Some Issues Relevant to a
Modern Interpretation of the Language of the Nicene Creed, with Special
Reference to ‘sexist Language’.” Union Seminary Quarterly review (1985).
[19] Heim, S Mark.
"Gender and creed : confessing a common faith." Christian Century
102, no. 13 (April 17, 1985): 379-381.
[20] Berger, Teresa. Gender
differences and the making of liturgical history: lifting a veil on liturgy's
past. Farnham; Burlington, Vt: Ashgate, 2011.
[21] May, Melanie A.
"Conversations on language and the imagery of God : occasioned by the
community of women and men in the church study." Union Seminary Quarterly
Review 40, no. 3 (January 1, 1985): 11-20.
[22] Klager, Andrew P.
"St. Gregory of Nyssa, Anabaptism, and the creeds." Conrad Grebel
Review 26, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): p. 45
[23] Bondi, Roberta C. “Some Issues Relevant to a
Modern Interpretation of the Language of the Nicene Creed, with Special
Reference to ‘sexist Language’.” Union Seminary Quarterly review (1985)
p. 28.
[24] Heim, S Mark.
"Gender and creed : confessing a common faith." Christian Century
102, no. 13 (April 17, 1985): p. 381.
[25] Ludlow, Morwenna.
"The Apostles Creed: the Apostles Creed and its early Christian
context." Modern Believing 52, no. 1 (January 1, 2011): 82-83.
[26] Klager, Andrew P.
"St. Gregory of Nyssa, Anabaptism, and the creeds." Conrad Grebel
Review 26, no. 3 (September 1, 2008): p. 45-46
[27] Parsenios, George L.
"The Creed: The Symbol of the Faith." Theology Today 67, no. 4
(January 2011): 396.
[28] McTavish, John.
"Karl Barth and the importance of creeds." Touchstone 29, no. 3
(September 1, 2011): 32.
[29] Parsenios, George L.
"The Creed: The Symbol of the Faith." Theology Today 67, no. 4
(January 2011): 391-404.
[30] Pickstock, Catherine.
"Asyndeton, Syntax and Insanity : A Study of the Revision of the Nicene
Creed." Modern Theology 10, no. 4 (October 1, 1994): 321-340.
[31] Bierma, Lyle D. "A
critique of the CRC's new translation of the Heidelberg Catechism." Calvin
Theological Journal 43, no. 1 (April 1, 2008): 111-122.
[32] Reynolds, Stephen M.
"The word "again" in creeds and Bible." Westminster
Theological Journal 35, no. 1 (September 1, 1972): 28-35.
posted by Joseph at
8:37 PM
0 Comments
