The Father—Maker of Heaven and Earth

Series illustration:

There’s this old joke that was part of Emo Philips’ stand-up routine in the early 1980s that has actually been voted in the Guardian as the funniest religious joke of all time, so you may have heard it, but it goes like this:

Once, I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

Series Introduction: So, today, we begin our next series, in which we will journey through the articles from the Apostles Creed. Now, don’t let that scare you; we are a general or collective Protestant service, and our pastoral team is just as representative of the diversity of this room and that term. We want to be bold, and that’s our goal. Still, we must do so with graciousness and humility, which is why it’s probably important to explore this topic, which can be divisive and contentious. Acknowledging that we’ve got Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Evangelicals, and so many more denominations and persuasions, I could spend the rest of our time simply listing.

Proposition

It’s my goal today to introduce our series along with some vocabulary, as well as take a look at the first statement we see in the Apostles Creed.

‘Why’:

The point of diving into some doctrine is to build up the body of Christ, equipping the saints for service, because there is some effectual expectation, right? I just kind of paraphrased Ephesians 4:12, verse 11 says some are “called to be apostles, prophets, some to be evangelists, and others to be pastors and teachers.” Paul also tells the Corinthians that there are many parts, but one body, telling them not to desire the callings of or place one’s value above others. While there are many takeaways from corroborating these two passages, one thing I take from it is that this isn’t a spectator sport! Gods stacked the bench with the positions He needs. ‘Riding the pine’ isn’t a position. If you’re not engaged in doing what you’ve been equipped to do—or trying to do someone else’s role, we’ve got a weak link!

But first, there is a precedence for learning, right? How do you do works of service without having first been equipped? And that’s the order we see in Ephesians 4:12.

My hope is that, through exploring the Apostles Creed, we are better equipped to do the work we’re called to because we know the Spirit doesn’t call the equipped—but equips the called, right?

But how much first aid should a first responder know? Especially if it’s the first responder working on you? You probably can’t ever know all of it, but you should always be sharpening your craft. So, having conducted some preparation and keeping the fundamentals fundamental. Because, what good is it to know how to calculate a slope if you can’t add, subtract, and multiply? What’s the point in shooting an azimuth if you don’t have a known location? What’s good is it to be able to commit to memory something you only ever have to do one time?! If we get so transfixed on dogma that we replace our doctrine, what have we done?

Our goal should always be to find ourselves—full of comfort and joy—in Jesus rather than finding a Jesus who reinforces our identity and convictions within our journey of self-discovery. We are the ones that change.

On that note, I want to introduce a term, which is what’s called adiaphora. This is a Greek word that essentially means ‘things about which we can agree to disagree.’

Series Appeal:

There are so many things we can be divisive about. But today, I fear, much more than at any other time throughout our history, we can’t seem to accept another’s hermeneutic, the word which is descriptive of how one’s study and method of interpretation, to be different than our own, or be accepting of any conclusion other than that which we’ve come to, much less, allow the Holy Spirit to reveal anything contradictory to the way that we’ve come to understand. Instead of being the ones that change, we expect Jesus to, or warp His message to affirm our views. That’s not the Gospel. The Good News is that we are wrong, we are guilty, we are utterly depraved, BUT the cross.

Rest assured, there are hills to die on! That’s the point of this series, but there are also things that make us different, but they don’t necessarily mean we have to break communion over. I would say that all creeds probably serve to say, “We are this and not that.” But, they don’t do so at the cost of that wiggle room of diversity, adiaphora, unnecessarily.

Series Point:

Some of you come from non-credal traditions, and that’s fine! Reciting them or not doesn’t change their purpose or make them less or more significant. Creeds—at least the first two, aren’t meant to affirm theologies that draw us apart from association with others who claim the title “Christian,” as the joke I began with has the tendency to do; this is the purpose in the Augsburg Confession of 1520, and further even, when some, who accepted that, from those who adopted the Augsburg Confession of 1530!

Even continuing to today, there are evangelical creeds, the Chicago Statement, the Danvers Statement, and they all aim at further narrowing, ‘we are this and not that.’ I won’t go as far as to say that they serve to divide, but they have that effect in application. Optimistically, they were created in an effort to refine and draw associations with like-minded theologies but capitulate adiaphora. I suspect that’s where many of our ‘non-creedal’ churches come from, a stance to refuse further division. They give birth, however, to some silly statements like “no creed but the Bible,” which is effectively a creed in itself!

The first two creeds, however, the Apostles and the Nicaean, the first being our topic of discussion over the next 12 weeks, serve only as a litmus test for Christianity. They divide orthodoxy and heresy.

Background/purpose:

The main takeaway is that Both the Apostles’ and the Nicaean creeds come from antiquity, one of the criteria for inclusion into the canon, meaning they aren’t new attempts at logical fallacy, such as the “No True Scotsman.”

This is where someone retroactively makes an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss any and all criticisms or inclusion of a ‘would-be Scotsman.’ We commit this when we modify an initial claim in order to protect from the inclusion of others we feel aren’t “true” enough, effectively putting ourselves in the judgment seat.

It goes like this: one person says, “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

But then someone else says: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman, and he puts sugar on his porridge.”

So, the initial claimant, in an attempt to barrier-keep, says: “But no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.” Retroactively modifying the initial definition or claim, appealing to purity as a means to dismiss inclusion.

What I’m saying is that being that there are accounts of the Apostles’ Creed being used as a baptismal confession as early as the first century; although it may not have taken its final shape that we see it in today—its apostolicity, being tied to or having an early tradition of apostolic authorship; it’s orthodoxy or agreement with accepted Scriptures; and wide-spread use in the early church, set it apart from later confessions and uphold its assertions as THE dividing metric between heresy and orthodoxy.

Later creeds serve to say, ‘We LIKE things this and that way.’

I’ll come back to this before we close.

Transition:

But my prayer is that this will suffice as an introduction and allow you to humor our exploration of orthodoxy, especially if you come to creeds with hesitancy, or if creeds are your thing, perhaps you will allow yourself more room to ‘agree to disagree’ on matters that are more dogmatic than doctrinal.

So, my purpose today is twofold: first, to introduce this series, but also to present the first of twelve articles, each of which supports one of three paragraphs or stanzas about a member of the Trinity. Today’s, obviously, the first concerns the first person of the Trinity, the Father, and it’s unique because it is the only paragraph comprised entirely in one sentence.

Article 1:

And it goes, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”

This isn’t hard to accept. If you are here, it’s [time]! I’m sure you have other places you could be… But you’re here.

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God… the one who draws near to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him,” that’s just logic, but it’s also Hebrews 11:6.

This is the oldest and most simplistic belief of the faith we hold that we’ve inherited from our ancestors, the Jews. Moses recorded in Genesis 1:1 that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Being called as a nation in Exodus 3:14, “God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Transition:

We criticize the Jews for not seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, but even the Disciples locked themselves away and were grieved and scared after the crucifixion. They had lost their hope. They didn’t see this coming despite Jesus Himself saying so.

There is, in the synoptic Gospels, a moment of unrecognition of the Messiah after His resurrection when he appears to His disciples on the road to Emmaus. Luke 24 states in verses 44 and 45 that He had to explain to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.” It then says in verse 45, “Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.”

They had a bifurcated view. On the one hand, they understood in their context and from their Jewish perspectives what their Scripture had meant. On the other hand, they had been with Jesus up until and were present at His execution, but they were two different things. They had not connected the dots.

Up until this point, Nathaniel had said, in John 1:49, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel,” after Jesus said in His calling to him, 48 “I saw you while you were still under the fig tree before Philip called you.”

Peter is credited with saying, “‘You are the Messiah’ or ‘the Christ,’” or “The Son of the living God” according to the synoptics’ account of his confession after Jesus prompted them, “Who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:13–20, Mark 8:27–30 and Luke 9:18–21)

But both of those could have varying meanings in application and interpretation; just ask any Muslim who accepts those passages but doesn’t view Jesus as God; clearly, the Jews don’t accept that either. But it was the one with the unfortunate moniker “the doubter,” who should probably instead be “Thomas the confessor,” who was indeed the first to connect the two facts. “My lord and my God,” he says, recorded in John’s account of the Gospel, chapter 20, verse 28.

Anagnorisis (ana•nor•ē•sis) is the $2 theological word for the sudden realization of a reality or nature of a relationship between two previously known—yet unconnected things. When you know facts about both but instantaneously put them together or realize them to be about the same thing or person—an “aha” moment.

Point:

This is why it’s a grammatical error and a little wrong to say, “God’s son, Jesus.”

Jesus, the Son of the Father, IS God; The Father IS God; The Spirit IS God.

The Spirit is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, and the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit. All of those are heresy; this is why our Creed has three stanzas.

This is why nontrinitarians are heretical, and it’s from ancient, apostolic, and wide-spread origin. It’s only a grammatical error—however, to say, “God’s son, Jesus.” And I hear it from the Pulpit every Easter, and it’s cringy—it is, however, very wrong to say, “The Spirit died on the cross.” That is, however, someone else’s task next week, so come on back and hear all about the Second member of the Trinity—next week!

Today’s point is that the Creeds were created to underline Christianity as a monotheistic faith, meaning one Godhead with three co-equal members who are distinct persons.

I only use the word “persons,’ to distinguish them, not to assign rules or limitations to them as people. They are not, in themselves, separate deities; that is another discussion. Suffice it to say it is somewhat like C.S. Lewis’s “Narnia” series; the 4 siblings share a throne. They are none of them alone, a sovereign, but together act as a singular monarchy. The members of the Trinity are fully and equally God. They are equal in divinity, glory, majesty, and power.

This fact is present in Scripture. That’s the purpose of but not necessarily outright claimed; that’s what the Apostles Creed is for and why it’s important.

Transition:

There are two Essential Elements of Faith and Belief:

Knowledge, which is a body of data concerning facts and their meaning, history, and its theological interpretation.

AND

Assent – personal agreement with this body of historical and theological truth. That these things happened, and that they mean what Scripture says they mean.

James 2:19 says, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” That’s knowledge. As shared by the Brother of Jesus, it’s very clear that this is not enough. Knowledge isn’t salvific. Gnosticism, the subscription to the idea that secret knowledge, or some idea that knowing is believing, or effectually salvific in some way, shape, or form—James says, is not enough. He says you do well; it’s a start. But it’s our assent. Now, I’m not going to get into a Calvinistic debate about human response v. predetermination; they both attempt to preserve God’s sovereignty in different ways, and I cannot underline this enough, they ARE NOT CREEDAL ISSUES.

Let me pause here to say that when I say something is not a creedal issue, what I am, in fact, saying is that—salvation is not at stake here.

I’ve given you a lot of facts today, introduced a lot of vocabulary—it’s my deepest conviction that pastors are called to feed God’s sheep. I’m all about challenging a congregation to grow, but the primary difference between preaching and teaching is that preaching involves exhortation, admonition, encouragement, and conviction; again, as in any calling, “to build up the body of Christ, equipping the saints for service.”

Application:

So, what’s the purpose? We’ve already got the point: We believe in God the Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth. He’s not the Son or the Spirit; he reveals Himself in terms of intimacy and immediacy in the titles He gives Himself and the way in which He relates to other members of the Godhead.

How’s this more than teaching points? What are we supposed to do with this?

Illustration:

In Dr. Strange, a Crippled Dr., Steven Strange looks for healing and hope in a mysterious community when traditional medicine fails him. He soon discovers that the force he seeks is the subject of a fierce fight in which two invisible powers struggle.

Strange first set out on this path after uncovering in medical records of one of his Patients’, Johnathan Pangborn, who should not have progressed as far in his recovery as he seemed to have experienced. The Ancient One describes Pangborn as “a humble man of small goals… After mastering enough magic to treat his injuries, rather than seeking true enlightenment and further power, he settled for his small miracle of being able to walk and decided to return to his normal life.”

Dr. Strange then must decide whether to abandon his life of wealth and prestige in order to protect the world as the most potent sorcerer in existence or to keep it all, as many have done before.

Summary:

It’s our faith in action, like James says.

If you take nothing else away from today’s message or this series, my hope for you is to imagine Heaven a little bit bigger. I hope it’s big enough to include both you and me and to understand exactly what the ‘essential elements of faith’ are.

As Paul wrote to the Corinthians in his first letter, chapter 15, 1 “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

The good news is not judgment or divisiveness; that’s not the good news at all! But that God has, indeed, become flesh, taken on our sins, died for them, and overcome death that we may now participate in his resurrection as heirs with him.

It’s why the liturgical calendar is 50% Jesus; December is Advent, Christmas is a season, 12 days ending on January 6th; Epiphany goes through February—that’s the visit of the wise men; Lent lasts for 40 days ending with Easter which is the celebration of the resurrection; followed by Pentecost, which celebrates the Spirit’s release 50 days later around late May! The other 6 months, June to November, are referred to as ‘ordinary time;’ that’s when we read about the rest of the story of the people of God. That’s when many people miss church due to sports, vacations, travels, or moves.

Most people who are going to attend a church service, be it for New Year’s resolutions, Christmas and Easter, they get the opportunity to encounter the story of Jesus.

A question I often ask myself in my sermon preparation is, “What’s at stake if we get this wrong?” I think you know as well as I—we get all those reasons most people don’t come anymore. We’re judgy, hypocritical, legalistic, legalistically-hypocritical, focused on our differences, proclaiming “it’s about faith”—using the example of the thief on the cross next to Jesus—all the while being preoccupied with personal conduct and secretly jealous of those who die right after coming to the faith. Let me tell you, that judgment won’t have any place in Heaven.

Jesus made his apostolic Church the bulwark against heresy, not the Bible. If you are in this room right now, i.e., you’re not Catholic, you don’t understand Mattew 16:18-19 to be Jesus installing Peter as the first Pope. We believe Jesus is talking about the confession Peter just made about him being the Messiah.

It would be incongruent to understand His words this way if we didn’t also see the body of believers as the defense against heresy.

Because Jesus says in verse 18, “You didn’t get that answer out of books or from teachers.” My Father in heaven, God himself, let you in on this secret of who I really am.”

On this confession, I will build my church. And it’s like everything else Jesus did, they didn’t understand it yet because it’s unlike anything they’ve had before; the ministry of Jesus was paradoxical; in the Old Testament, God’s people were called to be fruitful, now, bearing fruit is spiritual, reproducing ideologically, growing the faith. Jesus said He’d rebuild the temple in 3 days; where is it? It’s not physical, well, at least the building the Jews referred to as the ‘Temple;’ it was Him. The New Israel. There are differing interpretations here, so for the sake of our agreement, we are the Church, the people of God, His chosen people. And it’s not a building, not a government, it’s an idea—it’s covenantal; “the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Again, it would be incongruent to understand His words any other way if we didn’t believe Him to be saying the body of believers is the defense against heresy, because anything physical is fallible. Even our Scriptures are used by heretics and the Devil himself. So prevalent in our society right now is this sense of moral superiority—and it’s in the Church, too. To my knowledge, most of the denominations have not recanted on anything creedal; again, praise God for the Creed—but many other doctrines!

Don’t take this as a statement one way or another; this is the boundary where I must respect our space as a General Protestant Service.

In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter speaks about Paul’s letters praising him but acknowledges that they “are hard to understand” saying specifically, “ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures.” He’s supporting a point he made in the first chapter of his letter, don’t trust your own interpretation. The church father Irenaeus uses this argument too, in his work, “Against Heresies,” where he says, “Scriptures belong to the Church.” No one has any authority to do interpretation outside of its fellowship. He’s saying the litmus test is the truths the church proclaims, not the distortions people have made. This is why Titus 1:7-9 says overseers should be appointed to teach sound doctrine and refute heresy. It’s the work of the Church.

So long as we keep it.

Challenge/Close:

It’s the Good News we’re responsible for. As in the original call to Abraham, the latter half of Genesis 12:3—it was the point in the beginning, and it’s the point today, “all people on earth will be blessed through you.”

In my introduction, I compared 1st Corinthians 12:12 and Ephesians 4:11, two Pauline epistles, to draw one concise theological point that is still true today. Again, there is no room on the bench. Gods stacked the field with the positions he needs. This isn’t a spectator sport. I don’t come from a tradition where everyone gets a title, but I’m not poo-pooing on it either. It’s of crucial importance to see yourselves as leaders. Just like the military, everyone’s a leader! In some form or fashion, we’re all responsible for the charge in Titus.

If you’re not engaged in doing what you’ve been equipped to do or trying to do someone else’s role, You’re the weak link!

Our job isn’t convicting people; it’s not in hashing out the things we can ‘agree to disagree’ over, but traditioning to the next generation, stewarding what we’ve received—dividing essential elements from adiaphora, doctrine, and dogma.

(Both as a way of preparing ourselves for communion and serving as a private alter call right where you are)

Christians, what do you believe?