|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What's wrong with creeds?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
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.
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?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
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.
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)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
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
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@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.
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
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"?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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"?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Hell in that context means the place of the dead, the grave, Hades or whatever you want to call it.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jante
Shipmate
# 9163
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My blog http://vicarfactorycalling.blogspot.com/
Posts: 535 | From: deepest derbyshire | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
