Alan Richardson's Creeds in the Making was first published more than forty years ago, in January 1935. After ten reprints, it went out of print in 1975 to make way, we hoped, for a new work which would reflect the scholarship of a new generation. There is, however, still no short inexpensive paperback available which illustrates the early development of the creeds and Christian doctrine to a general audience in quite the same way as this does, with its freshness, charm and that almost timeless quality of writing and judgment which was so characteristic of its author. So we are happy that it should be reissued for the 1980s, as an introduction to those coming to creeds and doctrine for the first time, and as a fitting memorial to a great modern pastor and teacher. From the first reviews Mr Richardson has a true teacher's gift, that of making his subject live and relating it to modern experience and modern knowledge of the universe. He tells a story, and tells it well. Nor is he content with he explains. He takes the principal doctrines of the Christian creed, shows how they came to be defined and what is their lasting value' (CEN). `In six chapters, Mr Alan Richardson covers the theology of the creed down to the article of belief in the Holy Ghost. What he gives us is very like a course of lectures to theological students, carefully worked out, scholarly and full, yet simply expressed' (Church Times). Alan Richardson, who died in 1975, was Dean of York and before that Professor of Christian Theology in the University of Nottingham.
This short book affirms the resurrected person of Jesus as the focus of history, and the separate-but-equal nature of the Trinity, both good things - and the overview of Docetism (Phantomism) and other heresies was valuable. (To me, Docetism will always mean ‘Jesus the hologram on Earth as the ultimate holodeck’ because I watched Star Trek at a formative age.) The Gnostics’ habit of secret mysteries and passwords turning into complete gibberish sounds like the curse of Babel applied to their unworthy movement to make God more remote than He wishes to be (why else send the Holy Spirit?).
I’m so with Tertullian on Greek philosophy as ‘bridal gift of the fallen angels to the daughters of men’, and have met some followers of Clement (or close enough). The Person of Christ as the Logos (Word) separated out as a kind of fourth member of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Reason) might make baptism more cumbersome than necessary. So I don’t think I’ll become an Alexandrian anytime soon. “After the Arian controversy of the fourth century, the Church tacitly ceased to interpret the Person of a Christ by means of the Logos philosophy.” And a good thing too.
So -points gained on heresies. Points lost, however, on the poor and prejudiced overview of Atonement theory. Dancing around the necessity of final judgment doesn’t make Revelation any less true, nor does hiding behind the We Know Better Today mantra. (He might as well add an Appendix saying, “And in a few hundred years, my musings might be counted as heresy because Theology Will Have Advanced. Sorry!”
A noble if flawed effort - but I wish theological writers would be forced to turn their writings into lectures. It would shorten said writings to a reasonable and readable length!
This book was published in 1935, and no other book since has dealt with the subject in such a clear and concise way. It stayed in print until 1975 and by then the publishers felt that it had had a long life and it was time to make way for others. In 1979 it was clear that there were no others, and it was reprinted.
The book not only explains how the creeds came about, how it was decided what Christians believe, but what was decided. It is invaluable in setting out the key doctrines of Christian belief: the Trinity, the person of Christ, the atonement, and the Holy Spirit. Highly recommended.
At 128 pages, this is a brief explanation of how the Early Church Fathers fought to preserve the basic tenents of Christianity and to protect the Church from heresy. Richardson is spot on when discussing history, but a little off center in his own views (universalism).