Thread: What's wrong with creeds? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027444
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
I was having a discussion with someone from a Restorationist church background who was saying that he thinks creeds are wrong. Not that he has a problem with any specific creed, just that the concept in general is wrong, and that we should just rely on the Bible. He finds creeds divisive.
Given how many people read the same Bible and come to totally different conclusions, this is a less straightforward proposition than my friend thinks.
I think creeds are important for a few reasons:
1) definition of what the church believes, against which doctrine and theology can be tested
2) historical link to the ancient church without being colored by contemporary interpretations of Christianity and the Bible
3) a unifying statement of belief that allows a wide diversity of Christian practice with a shared core
In my experience churches that reject creeds tend to A) have an unwritten or implicit one and B) be more susceptible to drifts from orthodoxy at the hands of charismatic leaders.
I'm curious what other Shippers think about the concept of creeds and whether they are good or bad for the church.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
I'm a creed sceptic. They are very good things and serve a good purpose, but that doesn't mean an uncritical use of them is always healthy.
For starters, one might ask: Which creed?
What criteria might you have for choosing one over another? Is it more beautiful, more true or more in accordance with your own belief.
One should recognise that they are a product of their time and reflect the debates of those times, which aren't necessarily the same as the debates as we have today, though they may serve as sources of illumination. But that is quite different from being normative statements by which one determines 'who is in and who is out' which they are often used as, in my view erroneously.
Any debate of this sort will inevitably come round to how one views theology. The nature of a creed is inherently aligned more to a systematic view of theology, whereas the bible is far more narrative in nature. Rather than play off the two against each other as with a creed-led or sola scriptura-led approach, the two need to go hand in hand, not eyeing one another suspiciously from across the room.
You mention their unifying action. I had a discussion with an anglican vicar about this some time ago. In nonconformist churches, unity is found in the person of Jesus - that is what we gather around and, as with those who are more inclined to the restorationist point of view, we devote ourselves (as in Acts 2) to teaching, fellowship, communion and prayer.
The creeds are but one set of expression of what that unity points towards, but to be united around the creed is then like being focused on the signpost rather than heading for where the signpost is pointing towards.
In their defence, they are great summaries and starting points for study. For an example on how they serve as such a starting point, see Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline.
So while I wouldn't advocate scrapping them they probably need to be taken off quite such a high pedestal that the traditionalist churches have put them upon.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Who is talking about 'uncritical' use of creeds?
Even if we were, how is that any different to what the Restorationist of the OP is doing?
They are relying on an uncritical assumption that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.
At least with the creeds there is more than one person involved.
In the instance of the Restorationist in the OP there is too - but they don't realise that yet.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I'm a creed sceptic. They are very good things and serve a good purpose, but that doesn't mean an uncritical use of them is always healthy.
So while I wouldn't advocate scrapping them they probably need to be taken off quite such a high pedestal that the traditionalist churches have put them upon.
And what should we put on the pedestal instead? Your opinion? The opinion of the church round the corner or the one down the road?
It doesn't solve anything by holding loosely by the creeds, because all that happens is that you put something else on the pedestal instead - almost invariably one's own personal opinion which is fondly imagined to be commensurate with 'what the Bible teaches'.
It might be, but that can only be thrashed out and agreed in the context of some community or other.
So, either we have macro - all encompassing creeds - or we end with with micro-versions - whether written or unwritten - that suit a particular niche or section.
I don't see any way around that.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I suppose this isn't a flaw, it's more of a bias but to me creeds and statements of faith are very good at defining theology but they are pretty awful at explaining praxis.
Christianity which is too creed-focussed might therefore neglect the right practice and prefer to emphasise right belief due to a desire to believe precisely the right thing about Jesus and the Church before actually following him and doing the basic stuff which should form the basis of our transformation in the Christian life.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
And yet the churches that accept and use the creeds regularly seem to be less focussed on right belief than the sola scriptura churches that reject them.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Christianity which is too creed-focussed might therefore neglect the right practice and prefer to emphasise right belief due to a desire to believe precisely the right thing about Jesus and the Church before actually following him and doing the basic stuff which should form the basis of our transformation in the Christian life.
I agree - but I view creeds as statements of what the church, as an institution and a corporate body of individuals - believes in common. No more, no less.
I wouldn't expect necessarily that every Catholic or Anglican agrees with 100% of the creeds, but I would expect that the church as an institution affirms them as the basis of the faith.
How the Christian life is lived out and practiced is pretty much where the denominations part ways, which is why they aren't covered by the creeds.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And yet the churches that accept and use the creeds regularly seem to be less focussed on right belief than the sola scriptura churches that reject them.
How so?
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I'm a creed sceptic. They are very good things and serve a good purpose, but that doesn't mean an uncritical use of them is always healthy.
So while I wouldn't advocate scrapping them they probably need to be taken off quite such a high pedestal that the traditionalist churches have put them upon.
And what should we put on the pedestal instead? Your opinion? The opinion of the church round the corner or the one down the road?
Christ. Anything else is idolatry. Church, tradition, scripture, songs - all secondary.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Christ. Anything else is idolatry. Church, tradition, scripture, songs - all secondary.
But this is extremely vague. It's possible to love and revere Jesus while thinking he was a wise moral teacher or a prophet. And yet few Christians would see Unitarians, Baha'i or Muslims (who have those types of beliefs about Jesus) as fellow believers. Perhaps you do and so you find the creeds divide us from groups like that?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
Some form of creed will be necessary for a community that understands itself in terms of belief. For independent churches that define themselves this way, they'll need a creed.
For institutions with a broader purpose, say to embody or reflect Christian tradition in a universal catholic sense, creeds can only ever be snapshots of belief from one time and culture. If an institution were able to build that into how it used creeds, they could provide useful reference points to its history. But that hasn't happened. The traditional creeds have acquired permanence, political significance, and an importance out of all proportion to their actual value in representing the essence of the tradition.
For me that essence has two parts: the Jesus story and its background as recorded in the Bible; and the communities through history that have used that story to connect life in the here and now with what might lie beyond. Commitment to a particular set of beliefs is peripheral. The story is about what values have eternal significance.
So I think creeds are a distraction. Let's find better criteria for building Christian communities. Something like, perhaps, a desire to identify with eternal values?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I find the ancient creeds useful to my praxis. Yep, that thar is the Nicene Creed. I believe its outline of my faith. That's out of the way.
Now, what to do, what to do? Hmm. Love God with all my heart? Love my neighbor as myself? Working on the Great Commandments pretty well fills my calendar(s) for my lifetime.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It sounds all very pious to claim that we are centred on Christ and that everything else is secondary, The Aliethophile.
Good for you if you can claim that and dismiss the rest of us mere mortals as idolaters ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Spiritual pride is among the worst of sins.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How do you know that you and your church are more centred on Christ than the church down the road or around the corner is?
That seems to involve some value judgements and not a little self-righteousness to me.
I'd love to think that I were focussed on Christ and that everything else was secondary. But I suspect that if I took some kind of litmus test to establish whether this was the case then I'd find I came out less well on some aspects and possibly better on others.
I don't even think it's for me to judge the extent that I or anyone else genuinely reflects or is centred on Christ.
All I can do - and all that any of us can do - is to try to live up to whatever light I have received.
That doesn't involve sitting in judgement on anyone else as to the extent to which they are doing so compared with me. To their own Master they stand or fall.
I'm sorry, The Aliethophile, I'm sure you don't mean to sound pompous and self-righteous but that's how I'm finding your posts here.
We could decline a verb here:
'I am centred on Christ and not creeds.'
'You are centred on creeds and not Christ.'
The whole point of creeds is to point us to Christ - to define what we believe about him.
They aren't ends in themselves.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
All creeds are nothing more than a pledge of allegiance to the group that is held in common. The phrases and details are unimportant to the affirmation of the group.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I agree that creeds seem to work as a kind of glue to reinforce a shared heritage and identity within the group. They don't ensure a shared doctrine.
My old organist said she liked creeds because they helped her establish what she didn't believe!
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
All creeds are nothing more than a pledge of allegiance to the group that is held in common. The phrases and details are unimportant to the affirmation of the group.
I think this is complete nonsense.
You're describing the creed as though it were a football chant, and gives the bodies in the pews a warm fuzzy feeling from all chanting the same thing together, rather like the Gooners getting feelings of warmth and love for their fellow man by chanting "We hate Tottenham".
When I recite the (Nicene) creed, as I do on a regular basis, it has nothing at all to do with pledging allegiance to my local church, or to the whole TEC, or anything, and whilst there are certainly warm fuzzy feelings involved in being one of a crowd all doing the same thing together, that's not the point.
The words are important. It's not about warm fuzzy kumbaya - it's about God. This is who God is, this is the faith of the Church, this is what we believe.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Leorning Cniht
You're describing the creed as though it were a football chant, and gives the bodies in the pews a warm fuzzy feeling from all chanting the same thing together, rather like the Gooners getting feelings of warmth and love for their fellow man by chanting "We hate Tottenham".
It's not just the warm fuzzys; it's the tribal feeling of certainty buried in our amygdala.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The Creed is necessary, especially in these times, that we confess the same faith as the ancient Church and as a defence against heresy.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I was having a discussion with someone from a Restorationist church background who was saying that he thinks creeds are wrong. Not that he has a problem with any specific creed, just that the concept in general is wrong, and that we should just rely on the Bible. He finds creeds divisive.
Well, that reflects much more on Restorationist culture than it does on creeds. I think the issue is that Restorationists instinctively see most things that are traditional as part of dead-orthodoxy, similarly for all their harping on about the bible alone they are remarkably wooly in a lot of areas and so wouldn't actually be able to put together something as detailed as most creeds. So in their context a creed *would* be divisive, because the common uniting factor is a belief in the group itself.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, what Lyda Rose said and what Chris Stiles said.
With some of these groups, having an 'anti-creedal' stance has almost taken on a creedal quality.
It's a kind of anti-creed thing in the way that Dawkins has become the anti-evangelist.
Essentially, it can boil down to a sense of spiritual superiority.
'We are too spiritual to require creeds. Those are for those worldly or lukewarm Christians down the road, not for cutting-edge Restorationists like us. God speaks to us directly. We have our Bibles and the Holy Spirit, we don't need no education, we don't need no creeds, we've got it all sussed without fleshly and unspiritual things like creeds ...'
At worst it's prideful bollocks.
At best it's just bollocks.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The whole point of creeds is to point us to Christ - to define what we believe about him.
I'd say the whole point of the creeds was to define who was 'in' and who was 'out' (specifically, who was 'out'). Even more so with the ecumenical councils. They were about drawing boundaries.
Whether drawing boundaries is a good or bad thing is the next question. Another question is "is there a way to draw boundaries in a non-excluding way?"
I'm with TheAlethiophile - following Christ is what unites us, not the creeds. Now, obviously, as you & seekingsister say, how we understand that is foggy and complicated - but that doesn't mean it's not the right way.
I think that creeds are symptomatic of a larger attitude - the need to define "us" and define "them". I'm not anti-creeds. I am, however, anti-exclusivity. Jesus was and is inclusive. So, how we understand the creeds in their context, and use them in our worship is important. It's all part of the wider issue of Christians having a unique and precious gospel, yet being called to be inclusive in our attitude towards our siblings in (and outside) Christ - i.e. being the light of the world; being blessed to be a blessing, and so on.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences. I'm sure I can hear the St. Nicholas turning in his grave.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think that creeds are symptomatic of a larger attitude - the need to define "us" and define "them".
See, I don't get this at all. When I go to church and say the Apostle's Creed, it never ever occurs to me to decide whether people who don't say it are saved. I find it helpful as a center for my own belief. The assumption that people who use the creeds use them for something beyond themselves is baffling. Of course some people do. There are always 'some people' who do all kinds of moronic things. Some people use being non-creedal to exclude too.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
If we're using the "signpost" analogy, we need to recognise that not all signposts point to Christ. All theological exercises are ultimately signposts to Christ. The question is, does a description of Christ that does not include His divinity or His humanity point to Christ, or something else? The early church was faced, as we are today, with a range of understandings and descriptions of Christ, pointing in all sorts of directions. They were faced with deciding which signposts pointed (more or less) in the right direction, and which didn't. Those signposts that they decided did point to Christ were summarised in Creeds, with in some cases clauses added to explicitely declare some signposts to be pointing in the wrong direction.
Of course, a similar process went on with selecting books for the canon of Scripture. The books of the Bible are also signposts to Christ. And, there were a large number of books that were in circulation that some also considered to point to Christ. In drawing up the canon, the early church went through a process of identifying those texts that pointed to Christ and rejecting those that pointed elsewhere.
Since selecting texts for the canon of Scripture and summarising belief in Creeds was done for a simialr purpose - to identify signposts that point to Christ - it follows, IMO, that it is fallacious to reject one set of signposts but not the other.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm with TheAlethiophile - following Christ is what unites us, not the creeds. Now, obviously, as you & seekingsister say, how we understand that is foggy and complicated - but that doesn't mean it's not the right way.
But there are many people who follow Christ, whose churches don't have the same faith that the majority of Christian churches do. Mormons follow Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses follow Christ. Do I regard individuals in those groups as Christians? I'd say yes. Do I regard their churches as part of the Christian church? For that I use the creeds to check against those groups' beliefs and I would conclude that they are outside of orthodox Christianity based on that.
SO while my love and fellowship with people from different groups is unrelated to the creeds, my willingness to worship at a group with beliefs that differ significantly from them is diminished. And I know this because of the creeds.
It's worth noting that many of these heterodox groups flourish in the United States, where Christians tend overwhelmingly to be suspicious of creeds and/or anything that comes from the old European churches.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's worth noting that many of these heterodox groups flourish in the United States, where Christians tend overwhelmingly to be suspicious of creeds and/or anything that comes from the old European churches.
I think that's mostly to do with historic factors - and the ability in a large land for each group to set up shop in it's own region. Mormons in Utah is no different than Norwegian Lutherans in the Dakotas or Scots/Irish Presbyterians in Tennessee.
Within themselves each group tends to be very strict about who is in and who is out.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think that creeds are symptomatic of a larger attitude - the need to define "us" and define "them".
See, I don't get this at all. When I go to church and say the Apostle's Creed, it never ever occurs to me to decide whether people who don't say it are saved. I find it helpful as a center for my own belief. The assumption that people who use the creeds use them for something beyond themselves is baffling.
I think you're conflating your own experience with the question of why the creeds were written.
My personal experience is similar to yours. I too find the creeds useful and helpful, and when I say them I'm not thinking about who is in or out. And I doubt that most people today do either.
However, when they were written, they were very much about including and excluding. I think this is something to be aware of. Hence:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Do I regard individuals in those groups as Christians? I'd say yes. Do I regard their churches as part of the Christian church? For that I use the creeds to check against those groups' beliefs and I would conclude that they are outside of orthodox Christianity based on that.
I'm asking whether this desire we have to conclude whether a church or an individual is inside or outside of orthodoxy is a wholly good thing. Of course, some false teaching can be dangerous, and it is laudable to try to protect people from that. But I think this need to define the indefinable says as much about our own insecurities as it does anything else.
To define orthodoxy as "do you accept the creeds?" is far too simplistic. Before the creeds, "heretics" like Nestorius and Arius were orthodox. It was a tightening of definition that pushed them outside the realms of orthodoxy. And Origen was within the creeds, even defining orthodoxy himself, until a couple of generations later when orthodoxy was further redefined and Origen excluded. And do Mormons reject the creeds anyhow? I can't think of anything in Mormon belief that contradicts the creeds.
Orthodoxy is incredibly hard to define, and different people will define it in different ways. I'm comfortable with that; that its boundary is only vaguely discernible. IMO the question "What is orthodoxy?" is no less vague than "Who is a follower of Christ?". And I'd rather concentrate on the latter as a more useful question than the former.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Seekingsister seemed manly to be using the creeds as a criterion as to whether she wanted to worship with a church. I note she was careful to say that such people often are Christian. Most of the time I have considered myself Christian I had hardly heard of a creed and probably thought them something weird and not-of-us, but I would not have intentionally entered such a service. Still wouldn't generally. I don't see what any of that has to do with creeds. (For the record, I am happy to accept that people in such groups are saved, so one cannot take this as a statement that I would exclude anyone who denies the divinity of Christ. I also wouldn't intentionally attend a service full of electronic music.)
And yes the creeds were written to decide who was in and who was out, but I don't think that's what they are used for. We also don't burn heretics anymore. They are statements of belief. I suspect that 95% of people who object to the creeds view them as suspiciously Catholic, and would be uncomfortable in a Catholic service too. Lord knows low-church Christians are just as good at excluding as the rest of us, so the creeds can't be the problem there.
[ 09. July 2014, 15:26: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks.
Yes, it's vague and fluffy. No, it's not "believe whatever you like". It's a recognition that reality is often more complicated than the simple binary judgements we humans like to make.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
You need to unpack this more. What we believe does have consequences. However, the ultimate attitude behind the formation of the creeds is the one that leads to this:
#1 joke from the laugh judgement
And I say this as someone who accepts and believes the creeds. However, what happened? The church started excluding, and ultimately murdered those who did not assent to the creeds or its own current definition of orthodoxy (a definition that is fluid, and has been in constant flux - think of the Spanish Inquisition). This is most definitely not a red herring.
I believe there is a way to be a distinctive, holy, chosen people, without having an attitude of exclusion. It was the challenge set to the Jews - one they ultimate failed. And now it's the challenge to the church. Sadly, many Christians would rather reject than accept, be blessed to be blessed (rather than be blessed to be a blessing), and keep their light safe under a bushel, rather than be the light of the world. For me, all that stuff is tied together with the Gospel that chooses to reject "us and them" thinking and instead embraces "some of us for all of us" (to use a Brian McLaren phrase).
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
And yes the creeds were written to decide who was in and who was out, but I don't think that's what they are used for. We also don't burn heretics anymore. They are statements of belief. I suspect that 95% of people who object to the creeds view them as suspiciously Catholic, and would be uncomfortable in a Catholic service too. Lord knows low-church Christians are just as good at excluding as the rest of us, so the creeds can't be the problem there.
This is all true, Gwai. I'm sure many of the people who reject the creeds do so for the same kind of exclusivist attitudes and reasons as those that wrote them.
I'm of the opinion that Christian tradition is a huge treasure trove of struggles, growth, success, failure and learning. The creeds are part of that. I think that "we should just accept the creeds" without understanding the good and bad reasons they were written is simplistic. As is "the creeds are bad". The creeds are part of our story, and therefore are important. The danger of Restorationism is that it discards 95% of our story and tries to begin again at Chapter 2. The danger of Traditionalism is that it says the book is finished, and there are no more chapters to be written.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
And it leads where? Define the spiritual consequences, rather than just vaguely making reference to them in a twisty-turny way like a twisty-turny thing twisting and turning.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Agreed then, since I have no interest in unthinking acceptance of anything. (Heck, there's a line of the Apostle's Creed I can't say without stretching the meanings of the words rather much.)
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
To define orthodoxy as "do you accept the creeds?" is far too simplistic. Before the creeds, "heretics" like Nestorius and Arius were orthodox. It was a tightening of definition that pushed them outside the realms of orthodoxy. And Origen was within the creeds, even defining orthodoxy himself, until a couple of generations later when orthodoxy was further redefined and Origen excluded. And do Mormons reject the creeds anyhow? I can't think of anything in Mormon belief that contradicts the creeds.
Orthodoxy is incredibly hard to define, and different people will define it in different ways. I'm comfortable with that; that its boundary is only vaguely discernible. IMO the question "What is orthodoxy?" is no less vague than "Who is a follower of Christ?". And I'd rather concentrate on the latter as a more useful question than the former.
It's a start for me, not being a theologian. Where can I worship as a Christian? Here, or there? What does this church believe as basics? The creeds get quite a long way in that exercise, for me.
LDS believe God and Jesus are fully separate corporeal beings, and that the church fell into apostasy after the Apostles. So "of one being with the Father" and "one holy and catholic Apostolic church" are against their beliefs.
The Restorationist group I spent many years in rejected the same point on the church and this particular issue is the source of a great deal of dangerous doctrine about who is saved, who is not, whose baptism is valid, etc. In my view the creeds protect Christians from groups that have moved away from the historical faith.
I do agree with you that not all controversial positions can be routed by the creeds - for example Pelagianism.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
And it leads where? Define the spiritual consequences, rather than just vaguely making reference to them in a twisty-turny way like a twisty-turny thing twisting and turning.
Hell.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, Goperryrevs, the Creeds were drawn up to indicate who was in and who was out. Granted.
It depends whether we use them as a framework or as a strait-jacket.
As has been said upthread, a non-creedal stance can be used to exclude too.
Restorationists tend to be pretty exclusive. If they don't exclude people on a Creedal basis they'll have some other basis for doing so.
I'm with Tom Smail who enlikened an historic, creedal understanding to an Ariadne's Thread or a whopping big elastic band around our waists. As long as the elastic band is in place we can wander up side-tunnels and side-alleys to our heart's content, but as soon as we stray or stretch too far, the elastic band will pull us back towards the centre of the classic tradition.
I agree with Seekingsister, it's the groups who have wandered the furthest from historic Christianity which are in danger of becoming the most exclusive.
Ok, so we can accuse the RCs or Orthodox of being exclusive on the basis of closed communion, but in practice the historic Churches do seem to be more inclusive and accepting than certain of the newer outfits.
At least in theory ...
Of course we all seek to follow Christ. Some do so in a creedal setting and context, others do so in a non-creedal one.
The issue, then, is whether the Christ we follow is the Christ of the Creeds or one of our own imagining and construction. Of course, the Creeds themselves are 'constructs' - they didn't fall out of heaven ready-formed any more than the scriptures did.
And yes, there was a lot of politicking involved. Everyone acknowledges that. Things could easily have gone in other directions ...
I think the Origen case that you cite isn't as simple as it sounds - as far as I understand it some aspects of Origen are still considered to be Orthodox by the Orthodox and other aspects aren't. Rather in the same way that they are comfortable with aspects of St Augustine of Hippo's thought and yet not other aspects ...
Yet he is still the 'Blessed Augustine' ...
I would contend that there is some stretch and wiggle-room in the Creeds - but at the same time they can be used in an overly rigid and prescriptive way.
But do we really want to say that Arianism is acceptable and that Arianism should be embraced and tolerated in our churches and fellowships?
Arguably, there's a lot of Arianism going on on the quiet in many ostensibly Trinitarian settings. No doubt about that.
But at least with the Creeds there is a bench-mark to assess things by.
I'm not saying that people have to dot every i and cross every t in a creedal sense to be considered followers of Christ - but there is a lot at stake and that's why I believe the Creeds are important.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hell.
Well thanks for not beating around the bush!
I wouldn't have spoken so strongly but in principle I agree with you. We are expected to guard ourselves against false teachings as Christians - therefore we need to know where the boundaries are in order to assess those. It can be spiritually dangerous to be undiscerning in this regard.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ad Orientem calls a spade a spade.
I admire that but also find it off-putting at one and the same time.
That said, I'm thoroughly Trinitarian. Cut me anywhere and you'll find Trinitarian theology running through me like a stick of rock.
I'm also an Orthophile and whilst they can annoy the heck out of me in lots of ways, their Trinitarianism impresses me time and again.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And yet the churches that accept and use the creeds regularly seem to be less focussed on right belief than the sola scriptura churches that reject them.
The two largest bodies that accept and use the creeds are the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Both seem pretty focused on right belief to me.
The mainline churches which use the creeds may be less focused on right belief, but I hardly think that's a result of having creeds; many of them seem to view the creeds as they would a beloved but wandering older relative, fondly regarded but little heeded.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
And it leads where? Define the spiritual consequences, rather than just vaguely making reference to them in a twisty-turny way like a twisty-turny thing twisting and turning.
Hell.
So my comment wasn't a red herring at all was it. It was spot on.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
And it leads where? Define the spiritual consequences, rather than just vaguely making reference to them in a twisty-turny way like a twisty-turny thing twisting and turning.
Hell.
So my comment wasn't a red herring at all was it. It was spot on.
It was. You were raving on about burning people at the stake.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
I find the Nicene Creed centres my faith, my Christianity far more than the Bible.
I can agree with all of the Nicene Creed which is about 80% more than the Bible!
Both were drawn up by men for political reasons so I'll take the shorter one every time.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Creeds are supposed to be divisive. Why would you have a creed if you didn't think what you believed was important? Unless you accept biblical interpretation as equally valid, just the Bible is divisive. Accept all biblical interpretation as equally valid and the Bible can mean anything and in meaning anything means nothing. No, even the just the Bible people eventually get around to statements or confessions of faith that go into more detail than those of us content with the Nicene Creed. A creed by some other name is still a creed.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I'm a creed sceptic. They are very good things and serve a good purpose, but that doesn't mean an uncritical use of them is always healthy.
So while I wouldn't advocate scrapping them they probably need to be taken off quite such a high pedestal that the traditionalist churches have put them upon.
And what should we put on the pedestal instead? Your opinion? The opinion of the church round the corner or the one down the road?
Christ. Anything else is idolatry. Church, tradition, scripture, songs - all secondary.
Who is Christ?
What is so special about him anyway?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Care to give an example?
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
Isn't it self-evident? They were written by the victor's in the theological wars to exclude the vanquished.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I think that there are two issues here.
a) The significance of the Creeds themselves
b) Whether they need to be affirmed each Sunday
a) The significance of the Creeds themselves
At times, the Creeds feel like a restriction (in the wrong sense). It is too easy to shut down lines of theological inquiry by simply quoting the Creed. "This is what you must believe. Anything else is wrong" is not usually helpful.
I like the idea of the Creeds as a statement of what the Church has come to believe - as long as we understand that this only came about through years of intense debate and disagreement.
Like the Bible, the Creeds should be open to questioning and probing about what they really mean.
b) Whether they need to be affirmed each Sunday
This may sound shocking to some, but I am increasingly unsure that the Creeds are absolutely necessary each week. (OK - I know that I am speaking from an Anglican and liturgical context here)
I wouldn't lose them from worship altogether. Perhaps the worship could include them once a month?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't have an issue with the creeds being used liturgically.
For some reason, though, it annoys me intensely when our vicar does his customary preamble about only saying the words of the Creed 'if you really mean it' or 'if you believe it' or some such - or even, 'don't feel you need to say it if you don't believe it, we don't want to make you into a hypocrite, but if you do believe it then say it out loud and confidently ...'
Like as if the rest of us aren't hypocrites ...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
b) Whether they need to be affirmed each Sunday
This may sound shocking to some, but I am increasingly unsure that the Creeds are absolutely necessary each week. (OK - I know that I am speaking from an Anglican and liturgical context here)
I wouldn't lose them from worship altogether. Perhaps the worship could include them once a month?
Why?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't have an issue with the creeds being used liturgically.
For some reason, though, it annoys me intensely when our vicar does his customary preamble about only saying the words of the Creed 'if you really mean it' or 'if you believe it' or some such - or even, 'don't feel you need to say it if you don't believe it, we don't want to make you into a hypocrite, but if you do believe it then say it out loud and confidently ...'
And let's not forget the lovely weasel words : "And now, let us affirm our Christian heritage in the words of the Nicene Creed..."
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Care to give an example?
Well, the Council of Nicea was organised by the Emperor Constantine in a fury after the enemies of Arius used the death of the Bishop of Antioch as a pretext to condemn Arianism. Which was fair enough but Constantine wanted to impose his own will on the Church, hence his annoyance at the anti-Arians.
So he called Nicea, which Constantine presided over and, in some cases, led the debates.
Everyone decided Arianism was bad and the council started to put together the Nicene Creed, which declared Christ, the Son, was of one substance with the Father.
But it was definitely political in nature. As were the councils that decided on the composition and translations of the Bible.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
One reason why Quakers don't have creeds is that creeds are divisive. Of course, as some have pointed out, if you think theological orthodoxy is important, you want a creed to make divisions: between the true and the untrue.
But another important reason is this: Quaker faith is experiential. I have no experience of the Virgin birth. I have experience of something which, for me, resonates with the phrase "risen Christ", but I don't actually know what happened at the point of resurrection. And I don't think what you believe about obscure events two thousand years ago matters: in the end, the Good Samaritan was justified and held up as an example to practising Jews. The sheep weren't divided by the goats on the basis of what they did or didn't believe, or did or didn't say about what they believed. So creeds are both divisive and pointless IMHO.
Well, you asked.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, it was political, deano, but I don't think it was quite as simple and straight-forward as you have portrayed it to be.
@Qlib - sure, I can understand why Quakers aren't creedal. But you do have the Quaker Book of Discipline or whatever it's called.
People might not have formal 'creeds' as such but any group of whatever kind has some kind of agreement as to what they are all about. Heck, I'm chair of a local arts group and we have a written constitution and so on.
Posted by Jante (# 9163) on
:
Interesting that you have been having this discussion with a restorationist. I was in a restoration church for 20 years and back in the late 90's Bryn jones- the then leader of part of the restoration Movement, wrote a creed to be used in all his churches one Sunday. I no longer have the creed but I do remember that it was a basic declaration of Trinitarian faith
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
I believe they are indeed the basic summary of the main theological doctrines of the Christian faith, and I would not say them if I did not believe them.
It doesn't mean that other things, like the action/will of loving God and our neighbors, don't matter more than intellectual assent. (Satan knows the doctrines of the Creeds first-hand, after all.) But knowing true things is important too.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Well, I have no experience of Paris, but I trust the accounts of people who've been there to communicate what they've seen and done. And even if I had personal experience of Paris, I might be well served by trusting other people's narrations of their experiences as well.
Likewise, God is bigger than my personal experience. And as far as division goes, no matter how radically inclusive we might wish to be, the truth of A generally implies the untruth of ~A.
Posted by deano (# 12063) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, it was political, deano, but I don't think it was quite as simple and straight-forward as you have portrayed it to be.
I'm not saying it was. Beeswax Altar asked for an example so I provided one. The Council or Nicea has spawned hundreds if not thousands of books, doctoral thesis and academic papers. If you want the full story consult one of those. I gave what was asked for.
I reckon a search on this site would turn up far more learned discourse than I know about!
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Isn't it self-evident? They were written by the victor's in the theological wars to exclude the vanquished.
Er, no.
The Nicene Creed was written in the very thick of the theological wars. Arianism was very much a going concern after it was written, and wasn't fully gone until the 7th century or so (it survived in the Germanic/Gothic kingdoms for a while). The orthodox objected to Arius' teaching, and the Creed was the result of their attempt to articulate their point of view over against that of Arius. Constantine's successors (his sons, the Con-men Constans and Constantius II) were both Arians. In fact, the throne and administration of the Empire were not free of Arians until about 50 years after Nicaea I was convened.
The Apostles' Creed is at least as old as AD 390, but its origins are obscure--possibly it is a composition first used in baptisms.
The Athanasian Creed is almost certainly not by Athanasius and almost certainly a product of the Medieval West.
The "vae victis" theory of history can be oh-so-tempting, I know, but it is often oh-so-wrong.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I was having a discussion with someone from a Restorationist church background who was saying that he thinks creeds are wrong. Not that he has a problem with any specific creed, just that the concept in general is wrong, and that we should just rely on the Bible. He finds creeds divisive.
Because just relying on the Bible is not divisive at all.
In my experience people who say we should just rely on the Bible usually have an agenda to push, and an idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible to support it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Two thoughts.
1. I'm not clear who's Restorationist and who isn't. But an awful lot of freelance churches have websites that include 'this is our statement of faith' and it usually covers a lot more things even than the traditional creeds.
2. I like the creeds. I find it reassuring that the church has already answered some questions, that even if I wanted to reflect on whether the Son was of one substance with the Father or a different one, I don't need to. The answer's already there.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'd say the whole point of the creeds was to define who was 'in' and who was 'out' (specifically, who was 'out'). Even more so with the ecumenical councils. They were about drawing boundaries.
Are you arguing that the doctrinal differences were used as an excuse to draw boundaries? That Athanasius thought that he really didn't care about the homoousion, but that it was as good a place to draw a line as any?
That seems implausible.
Certainly it was not Constantine's agenda. If you want a state church you want as many people to sign up to it as possible. As an Emperor you've already got outsiders to exclude: foreigners, upstart generals, disloyal governors. You don't need any more outsiders. There's no point in a state church that excludes people who would otherwise support you.
Constantine tried to throw his weight behind a compromise solution as far as he could. In so far as he had an effect on the Council it was the opposite of exclusionary: he attempted to find a form of words that as many people could sign up to as possible.
One can object that the creeds are a political stitch-up by Constantine. One can object that they're an attempt by one faction of the Church to define itself against outsiders. What the creeds can't be is both.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Isn't it self-evident? They were written by the victor's in the theological wars to exclude the vanquished.
A creed serves as an identity marker, so of course, it is going to exclude people who don't believe its' content. Moses' Shema "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" excluded those who believed in more than one god.
Any form of identity marker necessarily excludes people. The Christian New Testament does not contain the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of St Mary Magdalene. The "victor" indeed excluded them from the Canon.
And yes, there was politics involved in the formation of the creeds. But the question is, does the politics negate the theological substance? I agree that nasty things were done to Arians which were unChristian and evil. I also disagree with Arians in their understanding of Christ and believe that the Creed got it right when it affirmed that the Son is equal to the Father.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Gosh, Jante, I used to be involved in 'R1' and was in one of the Covenant Ministries churches for 18 years ...
I can't remember Bryn Jones devising his own creed for use one Sunday. When was that?
I'm glad to hear it was solidly Trinitarian, though.
In his book about the Restorationist 'new churches' Dr Andrew Walker observed that the restorationists were only 'nominally Trinitarian' - a view derived, I suspect, from the lack of formal liturgy and Trinitarian formularies in many of the prayers and songs.
I was aghast and outraged at that when I first read it in 1985 - 'What? We are fully Trinitarian ...'
Yes, I believe we were, but, like a lot of evangelical charismatic settings the tendency was more Christocentric than anything - and the 'Lord we really just ...' prayers don't particularly help with catechesis ...
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Care to give an example?
The Nicene Creed.
--Tom Clune
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
This idea that by slapping Arius, jolly old Saint Nick was being some champion of orthodoxy is absurd. By resorting to that unchristian behaviour he wasn't being progressive, he was being regressive. He set a precedent of violent retort being justified as a defence of doctrinal purity, which was tragically fulfilled throughout the years of Christendom with uncountable evil acts of barbarism, murder, abuse and repression.
People still do the same kinds of things. Defending society against the evils of homosexuality supersedes the principle of loving your (homosexual) neighbour. Theological differences mean that we stop treating our Christian siblings with respect. People get their priorities wrong, and sacrifice the greatest commandments for lesser issues. Ironically, in doing so, they are not being followers of Christ (i.e. of his Way, his example), despite believing that they are defending him.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Any form of identity marker necessarily excludes people.
This is so obviously true on the surface that I think many people don't dig deeper. There is, however, a deeper truth. There are ways that we can form our identity that are inclusive, and there are ways that are exclusive. Jesus' way was to subvert, and to include. In his "first shall be last, last shall be first", he is consciously excluding the "ins" and including the "outs". By making a Samaritan the hero of a story, he was subverting the whole self-identity of who is "in" and who is "out". The Samaritans were the theologically wrong or Jesus' time. The equivalent challenge to Athanasius's gang would have been to tell a story with an Arian as a hero.
In fact, one of the defining identity markers of Jesus is that he was inclusive. In his social behaviour, in his attitude to theological correctness, he didn't act like we often act.
Either our boundaries of self-definition can be like castle walls, excluding those outside of us, or they can be something different. Following the way of Jesus is like saying "inside this boundary there is a party going on, and anyone is welcome to come in, and anyone passing through will be treated with hospitality".
There are many ways that, as the Church, we can define ourselves. Making a list of beliefs that members must subscribe to is one of many. I think it's ultimately unhelpful, whether as a 'creed', a 'statement of faith' or whatever. There are good things about it, sure. But there are much better kingdom of God ways to self-identify.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But do we really want to say that Arianism is acceptable and that Arianism should be embraced and tolerated in our churches and fellowships?
But what does this really mean in practice? If one of your friends at church confides in you, telling you that they've thought about it a lot, read the scriptures and through prayerful consideration, can't accept the doctrine of the Trinity, what do you do next? Ostracise them? Report them to leadership? Exclude, anathematise, excommunicate them? Is that really the way of Christ?
Essentially, I'm saying yes, it should be tolerated. Otherwise we just end up with a bunch of people in self-denial, giving verbal assent to something that they don't really believe. What goes on on a leadership level perhaps has a different dynamic. But again, even if the dynamic is different, it does not mean that we throw out the standards Christ calls us to, of loving our neighbour, patience, tolerance, respect etc.
The question that Christ calls us to answer is not "what do we do about these difficult Arians / Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons / Jews / Muslims?". It is "how do I love my XYZ neighbour?", and "how do I reveal Christ (and his truth) to my XYZ neighbour?"
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not saying that people have to dot every i and cross every t in a creedal sense to be considered followers of Christ - but there is a lot at stake and that's why I believe the Creeds are important.
For me it's whether the primary thing that defines us is a list of beliefs, or whether it is something deeper than that. Obviously what we believe is important. However, our attitudes, our motivations, our actions, our choices - they are far more important in the Kingdom of God. Obviously our beliefs inform those things, but ultimately there is a very simple but important issue here: we cannot change our beliefs. Willing yourself to believe something will not make you believe it, and to think we can is just self-denial. However, we can change our attitudes, our actions, our choices.
If we really believe we have the Truth (and I do), then I believe that it will persuade people in its own way, and in its own time. Forcing consent from outside is counter-productive in this. This is not an 'anything goes' attitude towards belief, but a firm conviction that the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth, and that we are open towards doubt, questioning and disagreement, realising that these are the very things that lead us further into Truth. And the Holy Spirit does not lead us into truth by calling us subjugate (or slap) our theological "enemy". He does it the same way Christ accomplished his mission - power through weakness.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Ah! The either or fallacy! Orthodoxy, the Creed etc equals not loving your neighbour. Lowest common denominator, heterodoxy, no duty to protect your flock from the wolf in sheeps clothing (yes, this is how St. Nicholas, for instance, saw Arius) equals best buddies with God.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Ah! The either or fallacy! Orthodoxy, the Creed etc equals not loving your neighbour. Lowest common denominator, heterodoxy, no duty to protect your flock from the wolf in sheeps clothing (yes, this is how St. Nicholas, for instance, saw Arius) equals best buddies with God.
1. I didn't say (and don't think) that orthodoxy / creed = not loving your neighbour.
2. I don't think (and didn't say) that we have no duty to protect our flocks from wolves.
3. I'd dispute whether Saint Nicholas was right to see Arius as a wolf, and had he seen him instead as a lost sheep, his attitude and behaviour might have been different. Had he done so, perhaps their would have been a better outcome than the schism and separation that resulted.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
This may sound shocking to some, but I am increasingly unsure that the Creeds are absolutely necessary each week. (OK - I know that I am speaking from an Anglican and liturgical context here)
I wouldn't lose them from worship altogether. Perhaps the worship could include them once a month?
Common Worship provides lots of alternative, shorter creeds. So we have different eucharist booklets for different seasons and rarely say the whole Nicene Creed.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
And what would that have been? Heterodoxy, lowest common denominator. Let's not define anything just incase it upsets someone. That's straight from the devil and nothing to do with love. Sod what is the faith of the Apostles, it seems.
[ 10. July 2014, 13:23: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Care to give an example?
Well, the Council of Nicea was organised by the Emperor Constantine in a fury after the enemies of Arius used the death of the Bishop of Antioch as a pretext to condemn Arianism. Which was fair enough but Constantine wanted to impose his own will on the Church, hence his annoyance at the anti-Arians.
So he called Nicea, which Constantine presided over and, in some cases, led the debates.
Everyone decided Arianism was bad and the council started to put together the Nicene Creed, which declared Christ, the Son, was of one substance with the Father.
But it was definitely political in nature. As were the councils that decided on the composition and translations of the Bible.
Arianism was condemned again at the Council of Constantinople. The Roman Emperor at the time was an Arian. The idea that Orthodox Christianity was foisted upon Christians by the Roman Empire is a bunch of nonsense.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
And what would that have been? Heterodoxy, lowest common denominator. Let's not define anything just incase it upsets someone. That's straight from the devil and nothing to do with love. Sod what is the faith of the Apostles, it seems.
So Nicholas slapping Arius was a loving act, done from a position of love for him? That was the best Nicholas could do?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Let's not define anything just incase it upsets someone.
I never said let's not define anything. I said there are inclusive ways of defining things and exclusive ways of defining things. The former follows the way of Christ, and is helpful. The latter is ultimately counter-productive.
So far you've only created straw-men of what I said and slammed them. That's three now, (four if you count the "sod the apostles" comment) in two short paragraphs. I'd love to see some genuine engagement with what I posted.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...Common Worship provides lots of alternative, shorter creeds....
It bloody would, wouldn't it?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The question that Christ calls us to answer is not "what do we do about these difficult Arians / Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons / Jews / Muslims?". It is "how do I love my XYZ neighbour?", and "how do I reveal Christ (and his truth) to my XYZ neighbour?"
There's nothing "we" have to do about any of these other groups - other than to know whether or not they practice Christianity or if they practice something else, so that we can be sure what we are getting into if we choose to worship with them, or join as members, or participate in their sacraments.
The point of creeds isn't to divide needlessly but to draw clear lines on what our faith consists at its purest core. It prevents doctrines that can lead to spiritual abuse and hardened hearts.
I spent many years in a Restorationist church tradition that claims "no creed but Christ" (Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ/Christian churches) and they are possibly one of the most schism-happy groups in America and believe that 99% of self-professed Christians have been baptized incorrectly. You get people in these churches (and in some other non-denominational churches in the US) getting baptized over and over again because they're not sure they did it correctly the first time.
This is what happens when you don't believe that there is one baptism, or that there is a catholic apostolic church.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Let's not define anything just incase it upsets someone.
I never said let's not define anything. I said there are inclusive ways of defining things and exclusive ways of defining things. The former follows the way of Christ, and is helpful. The latter is ultimately counter-productive.
So far you've only created straw-men of what I said and slammed them. That's three now, (four if you count the "sod the apostles" comment) in two short paragraphs. I'd love to see some genuine engagement with what I posted.
No, you're merely full of vague, fluffy sound bites. Let's get back to the Arian controversy. Just how would you in practice have solved that? You know, without appealling to the lowest common denominator or saying, let's just agree to dsagree, sweep our differences under the carpet, let's all be friends and pretend to be one even though we believe two different faiths? I've got it, you're saying we should all just become Anglicans.
[ 10. July 2014, 14:11: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Let's not define anything just incase it upsets someone.
I never said let's not define anything. I said there are inclusive ways of defining things and exclusive ways of defining things. The former follows the way of Christ, and is helpful. The latter is ultimately counter-productive.
So far you've only created straw-men of what I said and slammed them. That's three now, (four if you count the "sod the apostles" comment) in two short paragraphs. I'd love to see some genuine engagement with what I posted.
No, you're merely full of vague, fluffy sound bites. Let's get back to the Arian controversy. Just how would you in practice have solved that? You know, without appealling to the lowest common denominator or saying, let's just agree to dsagree, sweep our differences under the carpet, let's all be friends and pretend to be one even though we believe two different faiths? I've got it, you're saying we should all just become Anglicans.
Or we could just slap people and call it a day.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The question that Christ calls us to answer is not "what do we do about these difficult Arians / Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons / Jews / Muslims?". It is "how do I love my XYZ neighbour?", and "how do I reveal Christ (and his truth) to my XYZ neighbour?"
There's nothing "we" have to do about any of these other groups - other than to know whether or not they practice Christianity or if they practice something else, so that we can be sure what we are getting into if we choose to worship with them, or join as members, or participate in their sacraments.
The point of creeds isn't to divide needlessly but to draw clear lines on what our faith consists at its purest core. It prevents doctrines that can lead to spiritual abuse and hardened hearts.
I spent many years in a Restorationist church tradition that claims "no creed but Christ" (Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ/Christian churches) and they are possibly one of the most schism-happy groups in America and believe that 99% of self-professed Christians have been baptized incorrectly. You get people in these churches (and in some other non-denominational churches in the US) getting baptized over and over again because they're not sure they did it correctly the first time.
This is what happens when you don't believe that there is one baptism, or that there is a catholic apostolic church.
Thought I'd made a typo but I hadn't!
[ 10. July 2014, 14:20: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Let's get back to the Arian controversy. Just how would you in practice have solved that?
Honestly, I don't fully know. Prayerfully and patiently. Remember, before the council, the church was one, with Arians and 'orthodox' living and worshipping side-by-side. So you're wrong, at that time, there wasn't two different faiths. There was one more diverse faith. So in that context, I know what I wouldn't have done - treat those I disagreed with as 'the enemy' (in my view, this was the biggest flaw in the format of the ecumenical councils, every wonderful new theological understanding necessitated a new anathema - it doesn't have to be that way). I would have trusted the Holy Spirit to lead others into Truth in his own way, and at his own speed, and attempted to follow His prompting, through dialogue and prayerful consideration. I wouldn't have slapped anybody.
I believe that despite the human failures of the Church Fathers at the time, the Holy Spirit still did that. I'm also a Trinitarian and love the teachings of Chalcedon. But that doesn't mean that the way they went about it was correct.
I am reminded of a story from the Heavenly Man. I have no idea how true it is, but it illustrates the point. In it, Brother Yun describes how the five housechurch denominations in China were in a state of theological enmity. They finally met together to talk through their differences, but it wasn't going well, there was bitterness and argument. Then, one leader got up, and washed the feet of all the others. The dynamic of the meeting changed entirely, and after that the churches worked together more closely.
This is what it is about: believing that we have an example in Christ worth following. It's not vague and fluffy - it's hard and self-sacrificing. The Way of Jesus isn't the same as the way of the world, and too often the church has chosen the latter in the way it deals with things.
It's not saying "let's just go for the lowest common denominator". I've no idea how they went about resolving their still-existent theological differences following that meeting, and those differences hadn't gone away. However, it is about approaching those differences with the attitude of Christ, not of Man.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
other than to know whether or not they practice Christianity or if they practice something else, so that we can be sure what we are getting into if we choose to worship with them, or join as members, or participate in their sacraments.
This kind of assumes that everyone in a church or denomination (including the leadership) believes pretty much the same things, or that they agree with what their church teaches from the front. In my experience, this is very far from the truth.
Also, I think the creeds are far too wide-reaching to do the job you describe above. That a church accepts the creeds tells one very broadly that it's a 'Christian' church. I'd need to know a hell of a lot more before I was sure what I was getting into by becoming a member etc. This isn't a bad thing. I like that the creeds are broad. It's much better than the restrictive "statement of faith" documents that you often get in evangelical churches and organisations.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This kind of assumes that everyone in a church or denomination (including the leadership) believes pretty much the same things, or that they agree with what their church teaches from the front. In my experience, this is very far from the truth.
The creeds are what the church believes. You can be a member of a church and not be able to say every line with a straight face - but that doesn't change what the church believes.
I've said already that I would use them as a way to determine if a religious group teaches orthodox Christianity - not as a way to figure which individuals are Christians.
The church could well not use the creeds at all - but if the lead pastor says "Hmm, I'm not sure if Jesus was born of a virgin, or died on the Cross, or if there's a Holy Spirit" then I know that's not where I'll be spending my Sundays. Even if they are nice loving people who care for their neighbors.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
goperryrevs,
The controversy existed before the council otherwise they wouldn't have called the council. The council was called precisely because it was proceeded by innovation and controversy on behalf of the Arians. The anthemas are necessary. You can't define the truth without anathematising the error.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
The church could well not use the creeds at all - but if the lead pastor says "Hmm, I'm not sure if Jesus was born of a virgin, or died on the Cross, or if there's a Holy Spirit" then I know that's not where I'll be spending my Sundays. Even if they are nice loving people who care for their neighbors.
This is all good and true, but the theological issues brought up in the creeds reflect the issues of their times. They are not a litmus test for Christianity (despite being treated as such).
In the same way as you say, if a lead pastor starts advocating the prosperity gospel, I'm out of there in a flash, and probably faster than if he/she said that they doubted Mary's virginity. The creeds say nothing about the prosperity gospel, because it wasn't a contemporary issue. That doesn't mean the creeds aren't useful - they give us a great insight into the development of Christian thought. But I struggle with the notion that they are some timeless statement of faith directly relevant and central to all Christians of all times.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You can't define the truth without anathematising the error.
It is this view that I strongly disagree with, and that's the reason I posted all those vague fluffy soundbites: to engage with the question How do you define truth without anathematising the error? (i.e. excluding)?. I believe it's possible. I see it in the conduct of Jesus.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ad Orientem will undoubtedly disagree with me but I've always understood the story of Good Old St Nick whacking Arius across the chops to be a pious legend which illustrates how serious an error Arius was in.
Likewise the story of John the Evangelist (I think it was) fleeing from a bath-house when a Gnostic heretic was in there lest the roof cave in on top of them ...
Both stories preserve something of Truth, but equally they can be taken too far. We need to smack heretics across the face or kick them in the nuts, we need to shun anyone who disagrees with us ... etc
It's a tricky issue and on balance, though, I would take a strong line of this sort of thing. But stop somewhere short of smacking someone in the face.
I was aghast one Sunday when our vicar allowed some very off-colour and highly non-Chalcedonian things to be said after some small groups had gathered to discuss something or other.
A newcomer spouted complete and utter heresy and was applauded for it.
I remonstrated - very gently - with the guy afterwards (purely because the vicar hadn't said anything) and then got into trouble with the vicar because I might have 'frightened him off'.
There are ways of handling these things and ignoring it - as our vicar did - isn't one of them.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In the same way as you say, if a lead pastor starts advocating the prosperity gospel, I'm out of there in a flash, and probably faster than if he/she said that they doubted Mary's virginity. The creeds say nothing about the prosperity gospel, because it wasn't a contemporary issue. That doesn't mean the creeds aren't useful - they give us a great insight into the development of Christian thought. But I struggle with the notion that they are some timeless statement of faith directly relevant and central to all Christians of all times.
I'm just talking about the core of Christian faith, not the full entirety of it. At a bare minimum any church I would consider Christian must explicitly or implicitly agree to the creeds. After that there are a very long list of things that would make me personally unwilling to worship at a church - nonetheless I would still regard it as a
Christian church.
[ 10. July 2014, 16:44: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Remember, before the council, the church was one, with Arians and 'orthodox' living and worshipping side-by-side.
That wasn't the case for long. The Bishop of Alexandria deposed Arius after Arius had condemned the Bishop's statement that the Father and the Son were similar. Once the heresy began to spread outside of the Alexandrian diocese, the bickering was nonstop, and that's why Constantine called Nicaea I.
I don't regret the suppression of the Arian error one bit. I can't even bring myself to regret Nicholas' bitch-slapping Arius, as counter-productive as it probably was. If I ever came face to face with Jack Spong I'd probably have to sit on my hands.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
I would have to sit on my hands as well to keep me from giving Spong a great big hug.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
BTW, I'm not suggesting that we go around slapping heretics but rather I used the example to show how dimly the holy fathers of the Church viewed heresy. And they did so for good reason. We should have nothing to do with it. If we want to lead people to Christ it's not by tolerating heterodoxy. If, for instance, one believes that Christ is a created being then that is not the Christ who saves and such are doomed. In which case if such persit in their error, such as Arius did, then it's better to cut them off unless they infect the rest of the body and doom that too.
[ 10. July 2014, 18:54: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm just talking about the core of Christian faith, not the full entirety of it. At a bare minimum any church I would consider Christian must explicitly or implicitly agree to the creeds.
Sure. But what I'm saying is that the core of the Christian faith is not equal to the confession in the creeds. Of course there's a lot of overlap. But the creeds are better described as some core aspects of the Christian faith in the context of the pressing issues and debates of the centuries in which they were written. They were written to answer the questions that were being asked then.
Because of the overlap, in practice I don't see much wrong with your approach. I'm just pointing out the nuance.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
The unease some protestants have with the creeds is, I think, due to them being a rival source of authority to the Bible. If you're playing authority top-trumps, a reminder that the church came first, and preserved and canonized the scriptures themselves, is the last thing you need.
I've no problem with the creeds being recited in liturgy as part of the church's heritage, but have no time for them (or any other document) being used as a source of authority. The argument from authority is a fallacy for good reason.
For me, the creeds record what the early church believed. No more.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Fr. Weber: quote:
I can't even bring myself to regret Nicholas' bitch-slapping Arius, as counter-productive as it probably was. If I ever came face to face with Jack Spong I'd probably have to sit on my hands.
But remember: quote:
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. Matt. 5:43-48
You really should only bitch-slap somebody whose tastes run that way. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
[ 10. July 2014, 20:35: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I thought Hell was the place for that on these boards, not Purgatory ...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If, for instance, one believes that Christ is a created being then that is not the Christ who saves and such are doomed.
I nearly commented earlier, in agreement with goperryrevs' push-back against your comment about declaring anathemas. So let me jump in here - why should our eternal destiny rest on having a precisely correct understanding of the nature of Christ?
If we must understand Christ to be creator, not created, in order to be saved, then what other matters must we have the correct view on? If we use an erroneous analogy for the Trinity, are we doomed? Must we adhere to one specific view of the atonement, or else be doomed?
For me, Christian faith rests on our relationship to a person, not on our correct interpretation of the exact nature of that Person (or of any other point of theology). And I suppose this is why I'm wary of creeds - I don't quite see what they're for, and their use as a marker of who's in and who's out is not the way of Jesus, ISTM.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
If, for instance, one believes that Christ is a created being then that is not the Christ who saves and such are doomed.
I nearly commented earlier, in agreement with goperryrevs' push-back against your comment about declaring anathemas. So let me jump in here - why should our eternal destiny rest on having a precisely correct understanding of the nature of Christ?
If we must understand Christ to be creator, not created, in order to be saved, then what other matters must we have the correct view on? If we use an erroneous analogy for the Trinity, are we doomed? Must we adhere to one specific view of the atonement, or else be doomed?
For me, Christian faith rests on our relationship to a person, not on our correct interpretation of the exact nature of that Person (or of any other point of theology). And I suppose this is why I'm wary of creeds - I don't quite see what they're for, and their use as a marker of who's in and who's out is not the way of Jesus, ISTM.
As I said, such a Christ does not save. It is not the same Christ but a different one, one who has no efficacy whatsovever. Such do not have a relationship with the true Christ but a fake Christ. That's not to say that we must understand everything fully but that's different to holding an erroneous belief about him. Only the truth saves.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Some form of creed will be necessary for a community that understands itself in terms of belief. For independent churches that define themselves this way, they'll need a creed.
Obviously, if a church doesn't have a creed which sums up their version of "belief", then they will have to have a mission statement, which will lead them into management-speak, many meetings and a vague, unsatisfactory paragraph that will have cost them many fights.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@South Coast Kevin,in a mild kind of way you nice, cuddly Vineyard types will have your own way of sussing out who is 'in' and who is 'out' as you put it. My guess would be that you would look for evidence of 'new birth' - of a personal relationship with Christ.
How do you assess that? How do you tell?
Do you go by people's 'say so'? Or does it depend on them saying and doing things that approximate to some kind of formulae you have in mind?
Before pointing the finger at those who use creeds and so on it might be an idea to sit down and think for a few minutes - if we are less creedally defined - as to how our groups and fellowships decide who to accept into 'membership' and so on.
Because there'll be some criteria there, as sure as eggs are eggs.
Would you accept a Hindu or a Buddhist into fellowship at your church?
You'll have some measure or some criteria. So why is yours any better (or worse?) than what is already available in the historic creeds?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Incidentally, if my understanding of it is correct, the Orthodox aren't saying that people can only be saved if they have an absolutely pukka 100% water-tight understanding of the Trinity or any other Christian belief. Far from it.
But what they are saying is that if we call ourselves Christians we do have to take 'right belief' seriously. Which, for them, involves a creedal understanding.
Which is fair enough, it seems to me.
They're not saying that you are going to burn in everlasting torment simply because you might have a different take on things.
That said, as our friend Ad Orientem demonstrates, they can be robust to the point of rudeness when it comes to rejecting doctrines they consider heretical, heterodox or harmful.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As I said, such a Christ does not save. It is not the same Christ but a different one, one who has no efficacy whatsovever. Such do not have a relationship with the true Christ but a fake Christ. That's not to say that we must understand everything fully but that's different to holding an erroneous belief about him. Only the truth saves.
'Only the truth saves' but you don't believe we must 'understand everything fully'. ISTM you've made an assessment of how much truth someone must have in order to be saved. This is problematic for me; why is, say, 75% truth good enough, but 25% insufficient?
And isn't it interesting that Jesus always (I think) talked about distinguishing people based on what they do rather than what they believe? Jesus seemed remarkably relaxed about people's doctrinal accuracy.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Before pointing the finger at those who use creeds and so on it might be an idea to sit down and think for a few minutes - if we are less creedally defined - as to how our groups and fellowships decide who to accept into 'membership' and so on.
Yeah, fair point. I'm just saying I think membership, fellowship or what-have-you might be better defined in terms of praxis rather than doctrinal belief. Some kind of modern reinterpretation of the old monastic 'rules of life', or something based on the fruit of the Spirit perhaps.
Jesus said 'follow me'. He didn't say 'sign up to this doctrinal statement about me'. I think our approach to creedal statements and the like should start with that point, that's all.
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
Large numbers (but certainly not all) of non-conformist/ new churches have a statement of faith which pins down requirements for belief before membership.
ISTM that this is like having a creed but even more prescribed as to the finer details of the faith. Think Jesus "He will come again...." compared with the detailed pre-millennial stance(s) on how he will come again which I have encountered here in Kenya in some quarters.
I like reciting the Nicene creed. For me it is an aid to worship, gives me my boundaries and I believe encapsulates the key points of the historic faith. I hate it when creeds, Scripture or anything else are used to decide who's in or out or as an offensive weapon rather than as something which draws people in to a deeper understanding of the faith.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Jesus said 'follow me'. He didn't say 'sign up to this doctrinal statement about me'. I think our approach to creedal statements and the like should start with that point, that's all.
Absolutely. And your point above about doing rather than being is also spot on. And, no, that doesn't mean we're saying Salvation is by Works. At least, I'm not.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And yet the churches that accept and use the creeds regularly seem to be less focussed on right belief than the sola scriptura churches that reject them.
Bit of a blanket statement here I think.
The Salvation Army - a very conservative church according to
Our Doctrines (NB Doctrine 1 which focuses on Scripture) nevertheless subscribes to all the creeds - Apostolic, Nicene and Athanasian - and prints them in full in our handbook of Doctrine. We also include the Lausanne Covenant.
It's true that we don't recite the creed in worship but that is not to say that we reject the creeds at all!
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Care to give an example?
Well, the Council of Nicea was organised by the Emperor Constantine in a fury after the enemies of Arius used the death of the Bishop of Antioch as a pretext to condemn Arianism. Which was fair enough but Constantine wanted to impose his own will on the Church, hence his annoyance at the anti-Arians.
So he called Nicea, which Constantine presided over and, in some cases, led the debates.
Everyone decided Arianism was bad and the council started to put together the Nicene Creed, which declared Christ, the Son, was of one substance with the Father.
But it was definitely political in nature. As were the councils that decided on the composition and translations of the Bible.
Would one also suggest that many of Paul's writings are 'political' in that they were written in response to the Judaizers and the Gnostics who, in various places, were in danger of taking over the leadership and direction of belief of various churches in Asia Minor?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The question that Christ calls us to answer is not "what do we do about these difficult Arians / Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons / Jews / Muslims?". It is "how do I love my XYZ neighbour?", and "how do I reveal Christ (and his truth) to my XYZ neighbour?"
There's nothing "we" have to do about any of these other groups - other than to know whether or not they practice Christianity or if they practice something else, so that we can be sure what we are getting into if we choose to worship with them, or join as members, or participate in their sacraments.
The point of creeds isn't to divide needlessly but to draw clear lines on what our faith consists at its purest core. It prevents doctrines that can lead to spiritual abuse and hardened hearts.
I spent many years in a Restorationist church tradition that claims "no creed but Christ" (Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ/Christian churches) and they are possibly one of the most schism-happy groups in America and believe that 99% of self-professed Christians have been baptized incorrectly. You get people in these churches (and in some other non-denominational churches in the US) getting baptized over and over again because they're not sure they did it correctly the first time.
This is what happens when you don't believe that there is one baptism, or that there is a catholic apostolic church.
Interestingly, one can believe in one baptism and in the one holy, catholic and apostolic church and subscribe to the historic creeds and not actually have water baptism at all ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Jesus said 'follow me'. He didn't say 'sign up to this doctrinal statement about me'. I think our approach to creedal statements and the like should start with that point, that's all.
Absolutely. And your point above about doing rather than being is also spot on. And, no, that doesn't mean we're saying Salvation is by Works. At least, I'm not.
But it's a false dichotomy. By insisting on orthodoxy it doesn't mean that we can stop loving our neighbour, yet this is often the picture painted by the...how should I call it?...the doctrinally lax. If we're going to go down that route then I might argue that the doctrinally lax are the purveyors of loose morals. What we believe has a direct affect on how we act and to demonstrate this I would point to the saints of the Church and the holiness of their lives.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But it's a false dichotomy. By insisting on orthodoxy it doesn't mean that we can stop loving our neighbour, yet this is often the picture painted by the...how should I call it?...the doctrinally lax. If we're going to go down that route then I might argue that the doctrinally lax are the purveyors of loose morals. What we believe has a direct affect on how we act and to demonstrate this I would point to the saints of the Church and the holiness of their lives.
The point that you seem to be ignoring is that the Church got along stunningly well half-Arian and half-Athanaian for the first four hundred years. The historical dishonesty of the post-Nicene Creed Church is that somehow Arianism was a new and invasive cancer in the body of the Church that needed to be excised for theological reasons. This just doesn't pass the smell test or give proper credence to the historical reality. This was a political struggle for control of the body politic, not a divine necessity to save the body of Christ.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Well, think that if you want, but as others have pointed out, it's bollocks. If they got on fine how did the controversy begin? Neither can you show that half the Church was Arian for the first four hundred years, as you put it. I'd like to see you try.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, South Coast Kevin. But as soon as you get into monastic style 'rules of life' and so on then you are getting into 'creedal' territory to a certain extent - even if these are loosely defined.
As far as the 'fruits of the Spirit' go, then there are plenty of non-Christians who demonstrate 'love, joy, peace, faithfulness, kindness, goodness ...' etc.
Sooner or later you are going to have to draw some lines, otherwise you'd say that anyone who demonstrates admirable qualities or one form or other are all welcome.
I'm sure if someone turned up at your church and said, 'Let me in, I'm a good bloke and show lots of patience and loving kindness towards my fellow human beings,' you'd want rather more than that.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Those of you who work for larger companies invariably will find there is a company "mission statement" and a "statement of company values". You don't get burnt at the stake for not following but you may get fired.
How is this different from a creed? Both are about what is to be believed and lived.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Interestingly, one can believe in one baptism and in the one holy, catholic and apostolic church and subscribe to the historic creeds and not actually have water baptism at all [/QUOTE]
Yes, one can. But the question is, why would you?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
It's a bit like saying I believe in holidays by the sea and in taking a dip in the briny but remaining on the pier or the beach rather than actually having a go myself.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The point that you seem to be ignoring is that the Church got along stunningly well half-Arian and half-Athanaian for the first four hundred years. The historical dishonesty of the post-Nicene Creed Church is that somehow Arianism was a new and invasive cancer in the body of the Church that needed to be excised for theological reasons. This just doesn't pass the smell test or give proper credence to the historical reality. This was a political struggle for control of the body politic, not a divine necessity to save the body of Christ.
This is an overstatement. The opposite claim that the Apostles were in perfect possession of Trinitarian orthodoxy is also an overstatement. But not, I think as much of an overstatement.
The early Church had not been blessedly free of doctrinal controversies. Sabellianism, for instance, had been declared a heresy before Constantine came along. In fact, the anti-Athanasians accused the Athanasians of being Sabellians.
Apollinarius, who was an ally of Athanasius against the Arians, was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople for his heretical opinions (namely that Jesus had no human soul). In general you can tell that political considerations override doctrinal considerations when intellectual faults by ones own party are treated as merely unfortunate overstatements. (See the phenomenon in modern US evangelicalism whereby speakers can be extreme as they like and receive merely a few tut-tuts, but woebetide anyone who compromises on sexuality or politics.) That was not the case in the Arian controversy.
It is probably true to say that the question of whether the Word is created or uncreated had not come up prior to the Arian controversy. Therefore it's not true to say that theologians prior to Arius would have given the now orthodox answer. But nor is it true to say that any of them would have given the anti-Athanasian answer. What both sides agreed upon once the question had been raised was that the answer was important. There's no evidence of tolerance of diversity on this subject at any stage.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Interestingly, one can believe in one baptism and in the one holy, catholic and apostolic church and subscribe to the historic creeds and not actually have water baptism at all
Yes, one can. But the question is, why would you?
It's a bit like saying I believe in holidays by the sea and in taking a dip in the briny but remaining on the pier or the beach rather than actually having a go myself. [/QUOTE]
Well, historically, the bottom line is that TSA celebrated the ordinances of the Lord's supper and infant baptism but, because of the intransigence of some in the Anglican church and because we didn't see ourselves as a church (though we do now), it was felt appropriate to cease the practice of the 2 sacraments.
BUT we remain part of the Church that does practice them
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sooner or later you are going to have to draw some lines, otherwise you'd say that anyone who demonstrates admirable qualities or one form or other are all welcome.
I'm sure if someone turned up at your church and said, 'Let me in, I'm a good bloke and show lots of patience and loving kindness towards my fellow human beings,' you'd want rather more than that.
If you're talking about welcoming people into the church fellowship then, no, I wouldn't want rather more than 'Let me in, I'm a good bloke...'. In fact, I'd be content with much less than that. 'My life is a right mess and I'm a selfish, violent narcissist, but I like being amongst your community and might like to become part of it' will do fine for me.
However, once you get to leadership positions (e.g. housegroup leader, children's work leader, pastor / minister etc.) then, yes, I suppose there has to be some kind of 'vetting'. Even then, though, I'd really want to look first at the extent to which the person is seeking to emulate Christ, and a distant second at whether they are willing to sign up (metaphorically or literally) to this or that doctrinal statement.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those of you who work for larger companies invariably will find there is a company "mission statement" and a "statement of company values". You don't get burnt at the stake for not following but you may get fired.
How is this different from a creed? Both are about what is to be believed and lived.
I think the difference is that company employees usually have to act in a way which harmonises with the company's mission statement. It's action-focused, not theoretical belief-focused.
ISTM most companies would be happy for a staff member to be unconvinced about some point on the mission statement, as long as they acted as if it were true. It's up to each individual worker to deal with whatever internal conflict they have as a result of being asked to behave in a way they think isn't right or sensible.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Mudfrog, of course I know the SA's stance on this, I was simply winding you up ...
@South Coast Kevin. Sure, I'd be content with no strings attached whatsoever in terms of welcoming people to enjoy fellowship and hopefully benefit from it.
I 'spect everyone here will be glad I'm not a minister or priest or church-leader or even a house-group leader of some kind. But if I were, I'd like to think that I would try to ensure that whatever I said or taught publicly would cohere with the overall thrust of historic, creedal Christianity.
That's a non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. Sure, there's plenty of elbow-room there - I wouldn't be asking anyone to sign up to this, that or the other view of eschatology or pneumatology etc.
But as a basis for what we can gather round and believe then I don't see any mileage in sitting loosely with the historic Nicene/Chalcedonian formularies.
Sure, there was politics involved - as Mudfrog has observed, there were politics involved when Paul wrote his epistles. Where there are people, there are politics. There's no way around that. The miraculous aspect is that God has - for reasons best known to Himself - chosen to work through fallible and sinful human beings. I wouldn't have done that if I were Him, but I'm not Him ...
Acknowledging the politics and the contingencies doesn't mean that we should sit loosely by these things.
Provided we aren't going round burning people at the stake or kneeing them in the nuts over these things, then I can't see the problem.
I tease Mudfrog at times, but the common ground we both share in terms of the overall Nicene-Chalcedonian formularies and historic Creeds far, far outweighs any disagreements we might otherwise have.
That doesn't mean that I wouldn't or couldn't get on with Mudfrog if he were a Mormon or a JW - but it would mean that that common creedal heritage as no longer there and that we weren't part of the same faith.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It is probably true to say that the question of whether the Word is created or uncreated had not come up prior to the Arian controversy. Therefore it's not true to say that theologians prior to Arius would have given the now orthodox answer.
Yeah, I think this is closer to the truth. The idea that Christianity was all orthodox until the Arians started disagreeing with everyone is inaccurate. People didn't have an answer until they started asking the question.
Same with the Nestorian situation. It was only when people started asking "so, if Jesus was God, was he God when he was a foetus, or did he mature into his divinity?" that the church divided again, into Nestorian and orthodox.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sooner or later you are going to have to draw some lines, otherwise you'd say that anyone who demonstrates admirable qualities or one form or other are all welcome.
I'm sure if someone turned up at your church and said, 'Let me in, I'm a good bloke and show lots of patience and loving kindness towards my fellow human beings,' you'd want rather more than that.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I'd be content with no strings attached whatsoever in terms of welcoming people to enjoy fellowship and hopefully benefit from it.
Gam, I'm struggling to reconcile these two statements. And I think these issues are the heart of what I'm trying to get at. How, in practice, do we treat each other, if we want to be faithful to both the inclusiveness and the distinctiveness of Christ?
Thinking back to you describing your church where the guy started spouting the non-trinitarian stuff is key to this. Letting it slide (as happened) isn't a good way of dealing with it. But nor would an approach of "NO! That's the wrong answer! Here's what you should believe!". I'm not sure your approach of (even gentle) remonstrating the guy is the right one, especially given that he was a newcomer. My concern of language you've used on this thread: "take a strong line", and asking whether things should be "tolerated" and whether they're "acceptable" is the wrong focus, and I can understand why your vicar might be concerned you've scared him off. Why not commend the guy for being interested in Trinitarian theology, and point him towards some good and helpful books, or invite him to chat further about it? Dialogue, asking questions, inviting questions is surely more fruitful?
Like when you asked "would you accept a Hindu or a Buddhist into your church?" Again, my answer would be that if they want to come, why the heck wouldn't we? If people have to believe all the right things before they're welcomed into our churches, then our churches will end up empty. Hopefully people are welcomed into our churches, and then, once they're there, discover the truth. Expecting someone to come in with a fully-formed orthodox faith is totally unrealistic.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd like to think that I would try to ensure that whatever I said or taught publicly would cohere with the overall thrust of historic, creedal Christianity.
There's a massive assumption there, though, even if it is almost a given in many church circles. Why should church leaders "teach"? Historic Christianity is what it is. It has delivered a version of the tradition to some particular time and culture whenever we happen to engage with it. Why do churches need to give it an "overall thrust"?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Same with the Nestorian situation. It was only when people started asking "so, if Jesus was God, was he God when he was a foetus, or did he mature into his divinity?" that the church divided again, into Nestorian and orthodox.
Just to be pedantic (what, pedantry on Ship of Fools!? whatever next?)... the issue isn't whether Jesus matured into his divinity. I think Nestorius would say that Jesus was as much God in the womb as he was when adult. Nestorius would have objected as much to saying e.g. that the Samarian woman at the well gave God water to drink. The Nestorians maintain that if you say God was in Mary's womb, you're implying that God's nature changed in the incarnation. Chalcedonians maintain that if you say God was not in Mary's womb, you're treating Jesus as if Jesus the human being weren't really the same person as God. (Both sides agree that Jesus' humanity doesn't affect his divinity and Jesus' divinity doesn't alter his (unfallen) humanity.)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those of you who work for larger companies invariably will find there is a company "mission statement" and a "statement of company values". You don't get burnt at the stake for not following but you may get fired.
How is this different from a creed? Both are about what is to be believed and lived.
I think the difference is that company employees usually have to act in a way which harmonises with the company's mission statement. It's action-focused, not theoretical belief-focused.
ISTM most companies would be happy for a staff member to be unconvinced about some point on the mission statement, as long as they acted as if it were true. It's up to each individual worker to deal with whatever internal conflict they have as a result of being asked to behave in a way they think isn't right or sensible.
Sounds rather like mainstream unfussy CofE for most of, what, the last 150 years at least. Do we all understand exactly every thing that we are saying we believe in? Probably not. If we do, do we all believe in every bit of it in the same way and to the same extent? Probably not. But the Creed defines the broad ground of our belief and for all sorts of perfectly good and decent reasons to do with cohesion and culture and recognising that we are part of something larger than our individual selves, we at least assent to it all. I see nothing wrong with that.
[ 11. July 2014, 16:03: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Those of you who work for larger companies invariably will find there is a company "mission statement" and a "statement of company values". You don't get burnt at the stake for not following but you may get fired.
How is this different from a creed? Both are about what is to be believed and lived.
I think the difference is that company employees usually have to act in a way which harmonises with the company's mission statement. It's action-focused, not theoretical belief-focused.
ISTM most companies would be happy for a staff member to be unconvinced about some point on the mission statement, as long as they acted as if it were true. It's up to each individual worker to deal with whatever internal conflict they have as a result of being asked to behave in a way they think isn't right or sensible.
Except this is exactly how I (a heretic am I suppose*) approach the creeds. I don't know about the resurrection of the body for instance, virgin birth, judging of living and dead. I go along with it all. Pray tell me what the difference is?
* a bishop told me not to worry about such things, that we grow into things over time, and up front commitments, while beloved of certain people are not necessary, and it is a Christian life, not a Christian diploma of achievement.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Except this is exactly how I (a heretic am I suppose*) approach the creeds. I don't know about the resurrection of the body for instance, virgin birth, judging of living and dead. I go along with it all. Pray tell me what the difference is?
I don't know what the difference is for you, but the difference for me is that I don't have to pretend to believe the parts of the creed i don't believe in. I often don't say the line about the virgin birth from the apostle's creed. It's a very small church, so if the people sitting around me cared--they don't--they probably know I don't say that line sometimes. Certainly the pastor knows because I've discussed the topic with him. None of that would be possible with a work mission statement.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
My point was that most workplace mission statements don't require you to say 'Yes, I fully subscribe to this'; they simply require you to act in accordance (or at least not in contradiction) to it.
Whereas the creeds are all 'We believe...' kind of statements, aren't they? Which means if you don't actually believe it you have to do as Gwai does and not recite the bits you don't believe, or you treat it as an aspirational statement and, when you say 'We believe' you imagine it as 'I want to believe'.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, I keep shtum during the recitation of the Creed in Anglican churches when it comes to the filioque clause - 'and the Son' - because I tend towards the Orthodox view on that one.
That doesn't mean that I'm uncomfortable with everyone else saying it. Although Ad Orientem and others might wonder why I don't change Churches on account of it ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'd be interested to know - not for the purposes of exclusion - which aspect of the Creeds you feel uncomfortable with, South Coast Kevin.
Is it simply that there is one (or several)?
Or are there particular clauses in the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed that you feel you can't say or sign-up to in all conscience?
The Creeds aren't meant to be exhaustive - in that they purport to outline the sum total of Christian belief - but they are intended to act as a framework.
I don't have a problem with the traditional creedal statements. I find them helpful.
That doesn't mean that you should, of course, but I would be interested if there was anything there you found objectionable. Give us a for instance if there is.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Except I don't actually imagine I want to believe in some of it with creeds. At all.
I find myself on some of these information/cognitive/believe-this types of questions to have a basic problem. It makes me think of Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited:
quote:
Charles: “But, my dear Sebastian, you can't seriously believe it all."
Sebastian: "Can't I?"
Charles: "I mean about Christmas and the star and the three kings and the ox and the ass."
Sebastian: "Oh yes, I believe that. It's a lovely idea."
Charles: "But you can't believe things because they're a lovely idea."
Sebastian: "But I do. That's how I believe."
We know some of what the creeds say are factually suspect, and we may hold them to be true because, like Sebastian, they are Lovely, for reasons of history, or even aesthetics and beauty. But true in the sense that there was a factual crucifixion death of Jesus? I don't think so.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM most companies would be happy for a staff member to be unconvinced about some point on the mission statement, as long as they acted as if it were true. It's up to each individual worker to deal with whatever internal conflict they have as a result of being asked to behave in a way they think isn't right or sensible.
Well, there are parallels in confessional churches. In that there will be parts of the confession which will be compulsory - and parts which you will be able to state that you stand in exception to. The latter may not even rule you out from a teaching position as long as you were able to state that you would nevertheless not teach something that was contrary to the beliefs of the denomination.
Besides, the contrast with companies doesn't hold water. Often 'acting as if it's true' includes never speaking in any way critically of the value in question.
[ 11. July 2014, 21:26: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think you'll find that many historians would agree that the crucifixion was an actual historical event.
Whatever the case, we only have the Christ of faith to go on rather than the elusive 'Jesus of history'. The creeds are what they are - creedal statements - statements of belief.
We can't 'prove' them or demonstrate them scientifically. Sure, we may believe we have good grounds for accepting them but we can't run a video of the crucifixion or resurrection.
That's why the creeds start with 'We believe ...'
'Credo ...'
That's what a creed is. A statement of belief.
If I didn't believe the creeds then I wouldn't say them or accept them. I can't come round to your house and 'prove' them.
Otherwise we'd be saying, 'We know ...' rather than 'We believe ...'
I don't see what's so sinister about having creedal statements or why it's such a big deal - unless we are going round torturing and killing people who don't hold to them in the same way as some of us do. Sure, that happened at one time, but it doesn't happen now - other than in extreme instances such as radical jihadists shooting people who can't recite verses from the Quran.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Goodness! Believing that all that credal stuff is true might mean that God actually exists as a transcendent Being who is active in human history, and that our choices have eternal consequences!
Who would want that ?! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Recitation of the Creed means that we explicitly believe what it says. How can it be anything else? It has an historical context, yes, which is a defence against Arianism. Just as apt today as it was then. How anyone can recite it an not believe it, I don't know.
What we understand we believe explicitly, that which we don't we believe implicitly, and that goes for the whole faith, not just the Creed. That is the nature of faith.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Except I don't actually imagine I want to believe in some of it with creeds. At all.
I find myself on some of these information/cognitive/believe-this types of questions to have a basic problem. It makes me think of Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited:
quote:
Charles: “But, my dear Sebastian, you can't seriously believe it all."
Sebastian: "Can't I?"
Charles: "I mean about Christmas and the star and the three kings and the ox and the ass."
Sebastian: "Oh yes, I believe that. It's a lovely idea."
Charles: "But you can't believe things because they're a lovely idea."
Sebastian: "But I do. That's how I believe."
We know some of what the creeds say are factually suspect, and we may hold them to be true because, like Sebastian, they are Lovely, for reasons of history, or even aesthetics and beauty. But true in the sense that there was a factual crucifixion death of Jesus? I don't think so.
Eh? In otherwords, wtf? What do you mean by "factually suspect"?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Eh? In otherwords, wtf? What do you mean by "factually suspect"?
The virgin Mary may have had sex before or after Jesus was born (I hope she did and enjoyed it and had some more kids). There's nothing biblical to support the idea she did or didn't. We don't really understand the manner in which the holy spirit is related to God and Jesus, though we claim to and battled about in history. We don't really know of a communion of saints. Obtusely, I would very much know what God's right hand looks like or if God has hands really at all.
I take it as symbolic language that has been reified (reification) over time. When things like this are asserted as necessarily true, I tend to start agreeing with the ideas about politics expressed upthread.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We know some of what the creeds say are factually suspect, and we may hold them to be true because, like Sebastian, they are Lovely, for reasons of history, or even aesthetics and beauty.
The category "factually suspect" is trivial as applied to creeds, since they are (as the name says) about matters of faith. Faith chooses a side where "objective evidence" cannot compel one to do so. Hence all creeds are by definition "factually suspect", that's actually their point: they select out of the factual possibilities what one has chosen to assume as true. While I agree that a certain kind of "spiritual aesthetics" can be very important in choosing what one has faith in, I think the creeds are not really a particularly impressive demonstration of such "spiritual aesthetics". They are more like a blueprint or a quick sketch, they are not like the fully realised work of art.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But true in the sense that there was a factual crucifixion death of Jesus? I don't think so.
AFAIK, the vast majority of (secular) historians would agree that there was a historical person Jesus of Nazareth, and that he died on the cross.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Unusually, I find myself in agreement with IngoB.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel : I tease Mudfrog at times, but the common ground we both share in terms of the overall Nicene-Chalcedonian formularies and historic Creeds far, far outweighs any disagreements we might otherwise have.
Ok, Gamaliel, but all you are saying is that you share the common heritage of Chalcedonian Christianity, (as do most of the contributors to this post), because you are both rooted in the traditions of Western European Christianity. Chalcedon, however, did not settle matters across the whole of Christianity, and proved schismatic. Finding common theological ground amongst Christians, even excluding the plainly daft, has proved an impossible quest, and there is no reason to think it will not continue to be so.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'd be interested to know - not for the purposes of exclusion - which aspect of the Creeds you feel uncomfortable with, South Coast Kevin.
This might sound weird, but I don't know the Creeds well enough to say off the top of my head if there's anything in any of them that I disagree with or find difficult.
However, that's not really what I'm trying to get at. My point is that ISTM the call to follow Jesus, to become his disciple, is a call to a certain way of life, not to signing up to a set of propositions. So I think we should put much more emphasis on right practice than on right belief.
(I'm referring to belief in the modern sense, meaning something like 'giving mental assent to'. AFAIK, the New Testament Greek word translated into the English 'belief' actually means something rather stronger and more related to behaviour.)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But true in the sense that there was a factual crucifixion death of Jesus? I don't think so.
AFAIK, the vast majority of (secular) historians would agree that there was a historical person Jesus of Nazareth, and that he died on the cross.
Precisely. That is a verifiable fact where some of the other things are not.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So creeds should only include verifiable facts, then No Prophet?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You are beginning to sound like a certain Shipmate who hasn't been around for a while who was always claiming that we could 'prove' faith claims empirically.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I think maybe some things are open to interpretation and explanation:
'He descended into hell?'
No he didn't
'One baptism for the forgiveness of sins'?
Yes, but which 'one baptism' are we talking about?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Precisely. That is a verifiable fact where some of the other things are not.
You've been misunderstood, I suspect.
I think quite a few people (including me) read you as saying:
"Do I think the crucifixion was a factual historical event? No I don't."
Whereas your last comment suggests that what you meant us to read was more like:
"Do I think some parts of the creed, like the virgin birth, have the same factual and historical support as, for example, the crucifixion does? No I don't."
Have I understood you correctly now?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'One baptism for the forgiveness of sins'?
Yes, but which 'one baptism' are we talking about?
Doesn't this echo Ephesians 4:5?
Maybe it is against:
a) those who get rebaptised
b) those who insist on a second 'baptism in the spirit'
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think maybe some things are open to interpretation and explanation:
'He descended into hell?'
No he didn't
Didn't he? The what the heck was St. Peter talking about then?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
'One baptism for the forgiveness of sins'?
Yes, but which 'one baptism' are we talking about?
Doesn't this echo Ephesians 4:5?
Maybe it is against:
a) those who get rebaptised
b) those who insist on a second 'baptism in the spirit'
Well indeed - I would suggest that in the context of 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' the one baptism is the baptism of the Spirit by whom we were baptised into the one body.
see the words 'I baptise you with water but one coming shall baptise you with the Holy Spirit.'
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think maybe some things are open to interpretation and explanation:
'He descended into hell?'
No he didn't
Didn't he? The what the heck was St. Peter talking about then?
I think there is a confusion between Sheol, the place of all the dead - righteous and unrighteous - and hell, the ultimate destination of those who were judged at judgment day.
The Scriptures speak of the first place as being Jesus' destination, not the second. Jesus descended to the place of the dead, not the place of the damned.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Hell in that context means the place of the dead, the grave, Hades or whatever you want to call it.
Posted by Jante (# 9163) on
:
quote:
Gosh, Jante, I used to be involved in 'R1' and was in one of the Covenant Ministries churches for 18 years ...
I can't remember Bryn Jones devising his own creed for use one Sunday. When was that?
I'm glad to hear it was solidly Trinitarian, though.
In his book about the Restorationist 'new churches' Dr Andrew Walker observed that the restorationists were only 'nominally Trinitarian' - a view derived, I suspect, from the lack of formal liturgy and Trinitarian formularies in many of the prayers and songs.
I was aghast and outraged at that when I first read it in 1985 - 'What? We are fully Trinitarian ...'
Yes, I believe we were, but, like a lot of evangelical charismatic settings the tendency was more Christocentric than anything - and the 'Lord we really just ...' prayers don't particularly help with catechesis ...
I was in Restorationist (R1) churches from 1982 until 2001. If my memory is serving me correctly the 'creed' we used was when I was in Glasgow and therefore about 1995/6. I may be misremembering it coming from Bryn, but don't think it was just an idea of the local leader of the church at that time- I'm sure I remember his saying that Bryn (or possibly Keri) was encouraging all their churches to use it that week. I don't remember us ever saying it again.
having said all that we are talking about almost 20 years ago so my memory may be playing tricks but I know that 8 years ago when doing a course for St John's Nottingham I used it as an example in the Creeds module.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hell in that context means the place of the dead, the grave, Hades or whatever you want to call it.
Exactly my point: "...some things are open to interpretation and explanation."
An uniformed reader upon reading the creed for the first time might, without informed explanation, assume that Jesus went to Hell, the final abode of the damned wicked. We know that he didn't and that hell is a most unfortunate and inaccurate word in the context of the pre-resurrection Christ's whereabouts.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Hell in that context means the place of the dead, the grave, Hades or whatever you want to call it.
Exactly my point: "...some things are open to interpretation and explanation."
An uniformed reader upon reading the creed for the first time might, without informed explanation, assume that Jesus went to Hell, the final abode of the damned wicked. We know that he didn't and that hell is a most unfortunate and inaccurate word in the context of the pre-resurrection Christ's whereabouts.
Calvin, in my understanding, did write that Christ entered Hell when he was suffering on the Cross, as in he experiences the torments of the damned in terms of the full wrath of God.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
the difference is that company employees usually have to act in a way which harmonises with the company's mission statement. It's action-focused, not theoretical belief-focused.
I think this is close to the heart of it.
No-one objects to a church having a summary of 4th-century belief in the archives somewhere. It's not about having a creed. The question is about what we do with a creed and what sort of statement is in it.
Seems to me that the two things churches do with creeds are:
- make everyone in the congregation recite them as part of the service
- use them as an admissions process to certain categories or levels of church membership.
Those who think either use a Bad Thing are trying here to say why.
I tend to think both uses would be legitimate if the creed really summed up what the church is all about, if it were an accurate "mission statement", if it set out the values that individuals have to hold in order for the longer-term relationship between them and the institution to be a fruitful one.
The RSPCA is all about caring for animals. If every branch meeting were to start by everyone reciting a pledge to care for animals, what's the problem ? If benefits of membership are conditional on individuals expressing a desire to care for animals, what's the problem ?
So the problem with the creeds is that the content - what they ask people to affirm - is neither necessary nor sufficient to what the church is supposed to be about.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Coming back to a point raised by South Coast Kevin, I'm certainly not suggesting that holding to historic, creedal Christianity is all about being able to recite certain formularies and nothing at all about ways of life and conduct.
Far from it.
I'd also agree that we need to discuss/debate these issues beyond the limits of Western Christianity - with the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox for instance - the so called Oriental Orthodox. They're often left out of this kind of debate.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Sure, but that's what we've got. We can't go into an alternate universe, or run a simulation starting at 325 A.D., and see what the world would be like if someone else had won. Our civilization was built by people who'd said the same creeds we say. All things considered, I for one kinda like the result. Wouldn't want to move to Teheran or Mumbai, thanks. And I do suspect that some alternative beliefs which have fallen by the wayside did so not as the result of a power play, but simply because they were not coherent enough to stand the test of time.
A few faithful church people whom I love and highly respect have admitted that they aren't so sure about one tenet of the creed or another. But they at least continued to ponder it, and in some cases could recite it more confidently later. Meanwhile they agreed to act as if. To my mind, there is nothing whatsoever inherently insincere about that.
Of course congregants should feel free to say it or not say it. Perhaps the pastor who regularly announced this rather obvious point got one thing right and one thing wrong: right in that it should not be taken as compulsory; wrong in making the distinction too binary and potentially divisive. As the choirmaster of various not (yet) churched children, I regret not having pointed out to them often enough that saying the creed was not part of their job the way singing hymns was. One might even suggest that the choir faces east for the creed so that the congregation will never know which of them is saying it or not. I once lost a very bright and talented nine-year-old after his first service, because he was offended at a perceived obligation to say something he didn't believe. That was a sin of omission on my part. The lad's integrity was unimpeachabe.
Finally, the ancient creeds are significant for what they don't say as well as what they do say. (E.g. dead horse issues which some people consider "basic" sine qua nons but the ancient creeds leave moot.)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
the difference is that company employees usually have to act in a way which harmonises with the company's mission statement. It's action-focused, not theoretical belief-focused.
I think this is close to the heart of it.
No-one objects to a church having a summary of 4th-century belief in the archives somewhere. It's not about having a creed. The question is about what we do with a creed and what sort of statement is in it.
Seems to me that the two things churches do with creeds are:
- make everyone in the congregation recite them as part of the service
- use them as an admissions process to certain categories or levels of church membership.
Those who think either use a Bad Thing are trying here to say why.
I tend to think both uses would be legitimate if the creed really summed up what the church is all about, if it were an accurate "mission statement", if it set out the values that individuals have to hold in order for the longer-term relationship between them and the institution to be a fruitful one.
The RSPCA is all about caring for animals. If every branch meeting were to start by everyone reciting a pledge to care for animals, what's the problem ? If benefits of membership are conditional on individuals expressing a desire to care for animals, what's the problem ?
So the problem with the creeds is that the content - what they ask people to affirm - is neither necessary nor sufficient to what the church is supposed to be about.
Best wishes,
Russ
Nicely stated.
The issue of what the lines of the creeds and concepts therein would be interesting to fully discuss. The ancient reasons for some parts of it may have disappeared from our collective consciousness.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Maybe for some. At least in the Orthodox Church we celebrate the ecumenical councils in our liturgy, culminating in the feast of The Triumph of Orthodoxy.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
One issue is that how we understand the Creed differs over time.
Whenever I recite the Creed, I imagine the Son of God coming down from heaven and jumping into the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The cosmology is that of a three-decker universe with heaven out there and earth down here, God up there, and we down here.
This visual aid helps me understand the Incarnation, but I don't think the aid fully encapsulates or reveals the entirety of the divine mystery. God is not physically "up there", God is everywhere. The Incarnation is not just about a nice space trip for God the Son.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Whenever I recite the Creed, I imagine the Son of God coming down from heaven and jumping into the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Can't wait for the cartoon or graphic novel version of this.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Whenever I recite the Creed, I imagine the Son of God coming down from heaven and jumping into the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Can't wait for the cartoon or graphic novel version of this.
I'm pretty sure that if you look at enough early Renaissance paintings of the annunciation you'll find some showing this.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
What heresy is that then? You make it sound like Mary was incubating a parasite!
[ 16. July 2014, 07:51: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course the Orthodox Church celebrates the Ecumenical Councils in its Liturgy. What the Orthodox Church is - essentially (although it's also a lot more than this, of course) - is a 3D version of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.
The Orthodox are walking versions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils ...
So the whole thing, the Liturgy, iconography the various clerical orders and so on, all point to that. Of course, they point beyond that to Christ Himself, of course - or to the Triune God we should say - but to all intents and purposes Orthodox Liturgy on the ground is a ritual 'enactment' if you like of historic Creedal Christianity as understood in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0