|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What's wrong with creeds?
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Isn't it self-evident? They were written by the victor's in the theological wars to exclude the vanquished.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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..."
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jante
Shipmate
# 9163
|
Posted
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
--------------------
My blog http://vicarfactorycalling.blogspot.com/
Posts: 535 | From: deepest derbyshire | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
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
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...Common Worship provides lots of alternative, shorter creeds....
It bloody would, wouldn't it?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
I would have to sit on my hands as well to keep me from giving Spong a great big hug.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@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?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
