|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What's wrong with creeds?
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
I was having a discussion with someone from a Restorationist church background who was saying that he thinks creeds are wrong. Not that he has a problem with any specific creed, just that the concept in general is wrong, and that we should just rely on the Bible. He finds creeds divisive.
Given how many people read the same Bible and come to totally different conclusions, this is a less straightforward proposition than my friend thinks.
I think creeds are important for a few reasons:
1) definition of what the church believes, against which doctrine and theology can be tested
2) historical link to the ancient church without being colored by contemporary interpretations of Christianity and the Bible
3) a unifying statement of belief that allows a wide diversity of Christian practice with a shared core
In my experience churches that reject creeds tend to A) have an unwritten or implicit one and B) be more susceptible to drifts from orthodoxy at the hands of charismatic leaders.
I'm curious what other Shippers think about the concept of creeds and whether they are good or bad for the church.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I'm a creed sceptic. They are very good things and serve a good purpose, but that doesn't mean an uncritical use of them is always healthy.
For starters, one might ask: Which creed?
What criteria might you have for choosing one over another? Is it more beautiful, more true or more in accordance with your own belief.
One should recognise that they are a product of their time and reflect the debates of those times, which aren't necessarily the same as the debates as we have today, though they may serve as sources of illumination. But that is quite different from being normative statements by which one determines 'who is in and who is out' which they are often used as, in my view erroneously.
Any debate of this sort will inevitably come round to how one views theology. The nature of a creed is inherently aligned more to a systematic view of theology, whereas the bible is far more narrative in nature. Rather than play off the two against each other as with a creed-led or sola scriptura-led approach, the two need to go hand in hand, not eyeing one another suspiciously from across the room.
You mention their unifying action. I had a discussion with an anglican vicar about this some time ago. In nonconformist churches, unity is found in the person of Jesus - that is what we gather around and, as with those who are more inclined to the restorationist point of view, we devote ourselves (as in Acts 2) to teaching, fellowship, communion and prayer.
The creeds are but one set of expression of what that unity points towards, but to be united around the creed is then like being focused on the signpost rather than heading for where the signpost is pointing towards.
In their defence, they are great summaries and starting points for study. For an example on how they serve as such a starting point, see Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline.
So while I wouldn't advocate scrapping them they probably need to be taken off quite such a high pedestal that the traditionalist churches have put them upon.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Who is talking about 'uncritical' use of creeds?
Even if we were, how is that any different to what the Restorationist of the OP is doing?
They are relying on an uncritical assumption that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.
At least with the creeds there is more than one person involved.
In the instance of the Restorationist in the OP there is too - but they don't realise that yet.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I'm a creed sceptic. They are very good things and serve a good purpose, but that doesn't mean an uncritical use of them is always healthy.
So while I wouldn't advocate scrapping them they probably need to be taken off quite such a high pedestal that the traditionalist churches have put them upon.
And what should we put on the pedestal instead? Your opinion? The opinion of the church round the corner or the one down the road?
It doesn't solve anything by holding loosely by the creeds, because all that happens is that you put something else on the pedestal instead - almost invariably one's own personal opinion which is fondly imagined to be commensurate with 'what the Bible teaches'.
It might be, but that can only be thrashed out and agreed in the context of some community or other.
So, either we have macro - all encompassing creeds - or we end with with micro-versions - whether written or unwritten - that suit a particular niche or section.
I don't see any way around that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I suppose this isn't a flaw, it's more of a bias but to me creeds and statements of faith are very good at defining theology but they are pretty awful at explaining praxis.
Christianity which is too creed-focussed might therefore neglect the right practice and prefer to emphasise right belief due to a desire to believe precisely the right thing about Jesus and the Church before actually following him and doing the basic stuff which should form the basis of our transformation in the Christian life.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Christianity which is too creed-focussed might therefore neglect the right practice and prefer to emphasise right belief due to a desire to believe precisely the right thing about Jesus and the Church before actually following him and doing the basic stuff which should form the basis of our transformation in the Christian life.
I agree - but I view creeds as statements of what the church, as an institution and a corporate body of individuals - believes in common. No more, no less.
I wouldn't expect necessarily that every Catholic or Anglican agrees with 100% of the creeds, but I would expect that the church as an institution affirms them as the basis of the faith.
How the Christian life is lived out and practiced is pretty much where the denominations part ways, which is why they aren't covered by the creeds.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
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.
How so?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I'm a creed sceptic. They are very good things and serve a good purpose, but that doesn't mean an uncritical use of them is always healthy.
So while I wouldn't advocate scrapping them they probably need to be taken off quite such a high pedestal that the traditionalist churches have put them upon.
And what should we put on the pedestal instead? Your opinion? The opinion of the church round the corner or the one down the road?
Christ. Anything else is idolatry. Church, tradition, scripture, songs - all secondary.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Christ. Anything else is idolatry. Church, tradition, scripture, songs - all secondary.
But this is extremely vague. It's possible to love and revere Jesus while thinking he was a wise moral teacher or a prophet. And yet few Christians would see Unitarians, Baha'i or Muslims (who have those types of beliefs about Jesus) as fellow believers. Perhaps you do and so you find the creeds divide us from groups like that?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
Some form of creed will be necessary for a community that understands itself in terms of belief. For independent churches that define themselves this way, they'll need a creed.
For institutions with a broader purpose, say to embody or reflect Christian tradition in a universal catholic sense, creeds can only ever be snapshots of belief from one time and culture. If an institution were able to build that into how it used creeds, they could provide useful reference points to its history. But that hasn't happened. The traditional creeds have acquired permanence, political significance, and an importance out of all proportion to their actual value in representing the essence of the tradition.
For me that essence has two parts: the Jesus story and its background as recorded in the Bible; and the communities through history that have used that story to connect life in the here and now with what might lie beyond. Commitment to a particular set of beliefs is peripheral. The story is about what values have eternal significance.
So I think creeds are a distraction. Let's find better criteria for building Christian communities. Something like, perhaps, a desire to identify with eternal values?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I find the ancient creeds useful to my praxis. Yep, that thar is the Nicene Creed. I believe its outline of my faith. That's out of the way.
Now, what to do, what to do? Hmm. Love God with all my heart? Love my neighbor as myself? Working on the Great Commandments pretty well fills my calendar(s) for my lifetime.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It sounds all very pious to claim that we are centred on Christ and that everything else is secondary, The Aliethophile.
Good for you if you can claim that and dismiss the rest of us mere mortals as idolaters ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Spiritual pride is among the worst of sins.
--------------------
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
How do you know that you and your church are more centred on Christ than the church down the road or around the corner is?
That seems to involve some value judgements and not a little self-righteousness to me.
I'd love to think that I were focussed on Christ and that everything else was secondary. But I suspect that if I took some kind of litmus test to establish whether this was the case then I'd find I came out less well on some aspects and possibly better on others.
I don't even think it's for me to judge the extent that I or anyone else genuinely reflects or is centred on Christ.
All I can do - and all that any of us can do - is to try to live up to whatever light I have received.
That doesn't involve sitting in judgement on anyone else as to the extent to which they are doing so compared with me. To their own Master they stand or fall.
I'm sorry, The Aliethophile, I'm sure you don't mean to sound pompous and self-righteous but that's how I'm finding your posts here.
We could decline a verb here:
'I am centred on Christ and not creeds.'
'You are centred on creeds and not Christ.'
The whole point of creeds is to point us to Christ - to define what we believe about him.
They aren't ends in themselves.
--------------------
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
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
All creeds are nothing more than a pledge of allegiance to the group that is held in common. The phrases and details are unimportant to the affirmation of the group.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I agree that creeds seem to work as a kind of glue to reinforce a shared heritage and identity within the group. They don't ensure a shared doctrine.
My old organist said she liked creeds because they helped her establish what she didn't believe!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
All creeds are nothing more than a pledge of allegiance to the group that is held in common. The phrases and details are unimportant to the affirmation of the group.
I think this is complete nonsense.
You're describing the creed as though it were a football chant, and gives the bodies in the pews a warm fuzzy feeling from all chanting the same thing together, rather like the Gooners getting feelings of warmth and love for their fellow man by chanting "We hate Tottenham".
When I recite the (Nicene) creed, as I do on a regular basis, it has nothing at all to do with pledging allegiance to my local church, or to the whole TEC, or anything, and whilst there are certainly warm fuzzy feelings involved in being one of a crowd all doing the same thing together, that's not the point.
The words are important. It's not about warm fuzzy kumbaya - it's about God. This is who God is, this is the faith of the Church, this is what we believe.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Leorning Cniht
You're describing the creed as though it were a football chant, and gives the bodies in the pews a warm fuzzy feeling from all chanting the same thing together, rather like the Gooners getting feelings of warmth and love for their fellow man by chanting "We hate Tottenham".
It's not just the warm fuzzys; it's the tribal feeling of certainty buried in our amygdala.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The Creed is necessary, especially in these times, that we confess the same faith as the ancient Church and as a defence against heresy.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
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.
Well, that reflects much more on Restorationist culture than it does on creeds. I think the issue is that Restorationists instinctively see most things that are traditional as part of dead-orthodoxy, similarly for all their harping on about the bible alone they are remarkably wooly in a lot of areas and so wouldn't actually be able to put together something as detailed as most creeds. So in their context a creed *would* be divisive, because the common uniting factor is a belief in the group itself.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, what Lyda Rose said and what Chris Stiles said.
With some of these groups, having an 'anti-creedal' stance has almost taken on a creedal quality.
It's a kind of anti-creed thing in the way that Dawkins has become the anti-evangelist.
Essentially, it can boil down to a sense of spiritual superiority.
'We are too spiritual to require creeds. Those are for those worldly or lukewarm Christians down the road, not for cutting-edge Restorationists like us. God speaks to us directly. We have our Bibles and the Holy Spirit, we don't need no education, we don't need no creeds, we've got it all sussed without fleshly and unspiritual things like creeds ...'
At worst it's prideful bollocks.
At best it's just bollocks.
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
The whole point of creeds is to point us to Christ - to define what we believe about him.
I'd say the whole point of the creeds was to define who was 'in' and who was 'out' (specifically, who was 'out'). Even more so with the ecumenical councils. They were about drawing boundaries.
Whether drawing boundaries is a good or bad thing is the next question. Another question is "is there a way to draw boundaries in a non-excluding way?"
I'm with TheAlethiophile - following Christ is what unites us, not the creeds. Now, obviously, as you & seekingsister say, how we understand that is foggy and complicated - but that doesn't mean it's not the right way.
I think that creeds are symptomatic of a larger attitude - the need to define "us" and define "them". I'm not anti-creeds. I am, however, anti-exclusivity. Jesus was and is inclusive. So, how we understand the creeds in their context, and use them in our worship is important. It's all part of the wider issue of Christians having a unique and precious gospel, yet being called to be inclusive in our attitude towards our siblings in (and outside) Christ - i.e. being the light of the world; being blessed to be a blessing, and so on.
--------------------
"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
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences. I'm sure I can hear the St. Nicholas turning in his grave.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think that creeds are symptomatic of a larger attitude - the need to define "us" and define "them".
See, I don't get this at all. When I go to church and say the Apostle's Creed, it never ever occurs to me to decide whether people who don't say it are saved. I find it helpful as a center for my own belief. The assumption that people who use the creeds use them for something beyond themselves is baffling. Of course some people do. There are always 'some people' who do all kinds of moronic things. Some people use being non-creedal to exclude too.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If we're using the "signpost" analogy, we need to recognise that not all signposts point to Christ. All theological exercises are ultimately signposts to Christ. The question is, does a description of Christ that does not include His divinity or His humanity point to Christ, or something else? The early church was faced, as we are today, with a range of understandings and descriptions of Christ, pointing in all sorts of directions. They were faced with deciding which signposts pointed (more or less) in the right direction, and which didn't. Those signposts that they decided did point to Christ were summarised in Creeds, with in some cases clauses added to explicitely declare some signposts to be pointing in the wrong direction.
Of course, a similar process went on with selecting books for the canon of Scripture. The books of the Bible are also signposts to Christ. And, there were a large number of books that were in circulation that some also considered to point to Christ. In drawing up the canon, the early church went through a process of identifying those texts that pointed to Christ and rejecting those that pointed elsewhere.
Since selecting texts for the canon of Scripture and summarising belief in Creeds was done for a simialr purpose - to identify signposts that point to Christ - it follows, IMO, that it is fallacious to reject one set of signposts but not the other.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm with TheAlethiophile - following Christ is what unites us, not the creeds. Now, obviously, as you & seekingsister say, how we understand that is foggy and complicated - but that doesn't mean it's not the right way.
But there are many people who follow Christ, whose churches don't have the same faith that the majority of Christian churches do. Mormons follow Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses follow Christ. Do I regard individuals in those groups as Christians? I'd say yes. Do I regard their churches as part of the Christian church? For that I use the creeds to check against those groups' beliefs and I would conclude that they are outside of orthodox Christianity based on that.
SO while my love and fellowship with people from different groups is unrelated to the creeds, my willingness to worship at a group with beliefs that differ significantly from them is diminished. And I know this because of the creeds.
It's worth noting that many of these heterodox groups flourish in the United States, where Christians tend overwhelmingly to be suspicious of creeds and/or anything that comes from the old European churches.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's worth noting that many of these heterodox groups flourish in the United States, where Christians tend overwhelmingly to be suspicious of creeds and/or anything that comes from the old European churches.
I think that's mostly to do with historic factors - and the ability in a large land for each group to set up shop in it's own region. Mormons in Utah is no different than Norwegian Lutherans in the Dakotas or Scots/Irish Presbyterians in Tennessee.
Within themselves each group tends to be very strict about who is in and who is out.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think that creeds are symptomatic of a larger attitude - the need to define "us" and define "them".
See, I don't get this at all. When I go to church and say the Apostle's Creed, it never ever occurs to me to decide whether people who don't say it are saved. I find it helpful as a center for my own belief. The assumption that people who use the creeds use them for something beyond themselves is baffling.
I think you're conflating your own experience with the question of why the creeds were written.
My personal experience is similar to yours. I too find the creeds useful and helpful, and when I say them I'm not thinking about who is in or out. And I doubt that most people today do either.
However, when they were written, they were very much about including and excluding. I think this is something to be aware of. Hence:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Do I regard individuals in those groups as Christians? I'd say yes. Do I regard their churches as part of the Christian church? For that I use the creeds to check against those groups' beliefs and I would conclude that they are outside of orthodox Christianity based on that.
I'm asking whether this desire we have to conclude whether a church or an individual is inside or outside of orthodoxy is a wholly good thing. Of course, some false teaching can be dangerous, and it is laudable to try to protect people from that. But I think this need to define the indefinable says as much about our own insecurities as it does anything else.
To define orthodoxy as "do you accept the creeds?" is far too simplistic. Before the creeds, "heretics" like Nestorius and Arius were orthodox. It was a tightening of definition that pushed them outside the realms of orthodoxy. And Origen was within the creeds, even defining orthodoxy himself, until a couple of generations later when orthodoxy was further redefined and Origen excluded. And do Mormons reject the creeds anyhow? I can't think of anything in Mormon belief that contradicts the creeds.
Orthodoxy is incredibly hard to define, and different people will define it in different ways. I'm comfortable with that; that its boundary is only vaguely discernible. IMO the question "What is orthodoxy?" is no less vague than "Who is a follower of Christ?". And I'd rather concentrate on the latter as a more useful question than the former.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Seekingsister seemed manly to be using the creeds as a criterion as to whether she wanted to worship with a church. I note she was careful to say that such people often are Christian. Most of the time I have considered myself Christian I had hardly heard of a creed and probably thought them something weird and not-of-us, but I would not have intentionally entered such a service. Still wouldn't generally. I don't see what any of that has to do with creeds. (For the record, I am happy to accept that people in such groups are saved, so one cannot take this as a statement that I would exclude anyone who denies the divinity of Christ. I also wouldn't intentionally attend a service full of electronic music.)
And yes the creeds were written to decide who was in and who was out, but I don't think that's what they are used for. We also don't burn heretics anymore. They are statements of belief. I suspect that 95% of people who object to the creeds view them as suspiciously Catholic, and would be uncomfortable in a Catholic service too. Lord knows low-church Christians are just as good at excluding as the rest of us, so the creeds can't be the problem there.
[ 09. July 2014, 15:26: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks.
Yes, it's vague and fluffy. No, it's not "believe whatever you like". It's a recognition that reality is often more complicated than the simple binary judgements we humans like to make.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
You need to unpack this more. What we believe does have consequences. However, the ultimate attitude behind the formation of the creeds is the one that leads to this:
#1 joke from the laugh judgement
And I say this as someone who accepts and believes the creeds. However, what happened? The church started excluding, and ultimately murdered those who did not assent to the creeds or its own current definition of orthodoxy (a definition that is fluid, and has been in constant flux - think of the Spanish Inquisition). This is most definitely not a red herring.
I believe there is a way to be a distinctive, holy, chosen people, without having an attitude of exclusion. It was the challenge set to the Jews - one they ultimate failed. And now it's the challenge to the church. Sadly, many Christians would rather reject than accept, be blessed to be blessed (rather than be blessed to be a blessing), and keep their light safe under a bushel, rather than be the light of the world. For me, all that stuff is tied together with the Gospel that chooses to reject "us and them" thinking and instead embraces "some of us for all of us" (to use a Brian McLaren phrase).
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
And yes the creeds were written to decide who was in and who was out, but I don't think that's what they are used for. We also don't burn heretics anymore. They are statements of belief. I suspect that 95% of people who object to the creeds view them as suspiciously Catholic, and would be uncomfortable in a Catholic service too. Lord knows low-church Christians are just as good at excluding as the rest of us, so the creeds can't be the problem there.
This is all true, Gwai. I'm sure many of the people who reject the creeds do so for the same kind of exclusivist attitudes and reasons as those that wrote them.
I'm of the opinion that Christian tradition is a huge treasure trove of struggles, growth, success, failure and learning. The creeds are part of that. I think that "we should just accept the creeds" without understanding the good and bad reasons they were written is simplistic. As is "the creeds are bad". The creeds are part of our story, and therefore are important. The danger of Restorationism is that it discards 95% of our story and tries to begin again at Chapter 2. The danger of Traditionalism is that it says the book is finished, and there are no more chapters to be written.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
And it leads where? Define the spiritual consequences, rather than just vaguely making reference to them in a twisty-turny way like a twisty-turny thing twisting and turning.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
To define orthodoxy as "do you accept the creeds?" is far too simplistic. Before the creeds, "heretics" like Nestorius and Arius were orthodox. It was a tightening of definition that pushed them outside the realms of orthodoxy. And Origen was within the creeds, even defining orthodoxy himself, until a couple of generations later when orthodoxy was further redefined and Origen excluded. And do Mormons reject the creeds anyhow? I can't think of anything in Mormon belief that contradicts the creeds.
Orthodoxy is incredibly hard to define, and different people will define it in different ways. I'm comfortable with that; that its boundary is only vaguely discernible. IMO the question "What is orthodoxy?" is no less vague than "Who is a follower of Christ?". And I'd rather concentrate on the latter as a more useful question than the former.
It's a start for me, not being a theologian. Where can I worship as a Christian? Here, or there? What does this church believe as basics? The creeds get quite a long way in that exercise, for me.
LDS believe God and Jesus are fully separate corporeal beings, and that the church fell into apostasy after the Apostles. So "of one being with the Father" and "one holy and catholic Apostolic church" are against their beliefs.
The Restorationist group I spent many years in rejected the same point on the church and this particular issue is the source of a great deal of dangerous doctrine about who is saved, who is not, whose baptism is valid, etc. In my view the creeds protect Christians from groups that have moved away from the historical faith.
I do agree with you that not all controversial positions can be routed by the creeds - for example Pelagianism.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
And it leads where? Define the spiritual consequences, rather than just vaguely making reference to them in a twisty-turny way like a twisty-turny thing twisting and turning.
Hell.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Goperryrevs, the Creeds were drawn up to indicate who was in and who was out. Granted.
It depends whether we use them as a framework or as a strait-jacket.
As has been said upthread, a non-creedal stance can be used to exclude too.
Restorationists tend to be pretty exclusive. If they don't exclude people on a Creedal basis they'll have some other basis for doing so.
I'm with Tom Smail who enlikened an historic, creedal understanding to an Ariadne's Thread or a whopping big elastic band around our waists. As long as the elastic band is in place we can wander up side-tunnels and side-alleys to our heart's content, but as soon as we stray or stretch too far, the elastic band will pull us back towards the centre of the classic tradition.
I agree with Seekingsister, it's the groups who have wandered the furthest from historic Christianity which are in danger of becoming the most exclusive.
Ok, so we can accuse the RCs or Orthodox of being exclusive on the basis of closed communion, but in practice the historic Churches do seem to be more inclusive and accepting than certain of the newer outfits.
At least in theory ...
Of course we all seek to follow Christ. Some do so in a creedal setting and context, others do so in a non-creedal one.
The issue, then, is whether the Christ we follow is the Christ of the Creeds or one of our own imagining and construction. Of course, the Creeds themselves are 'constructs' - they didn't fall out of heaven ready-formed any more than the scriptures did.
And yes, there was a lot of politicking involved. Everyone acknowledges that. Things could easily have gone in other directions ...
I think the Origen case that you cite isn't as simple as it sounds - as far as I understand it some aspects of Origen are still considered to be Orthodox by the Orthodox and other aspects aren't. Rather in the same way that they are comfortable with aspects of St Augustine of Hippo's thought and yet not other aspects ...
Yet he is still the 'Blessed Augustine' ...
I would contend that there is some stretch and wiggle-room in the Creeds - but at the same time they can be used in an overly rigid and prescriptive way.
But do we really want to say that Arianism is acceptable and that Arianism should be embraced and tolerated in our churches and fellowships?
Arguably, there's a lot of Arianism going on on the quiet in many ostensibly Trinitarian settings. No doubt about that.
But at least with the Creeds there is a bench-mark to assess things by.
I'm not saying that people have to dot every i and cross every t in a creedal sense to be considered followers of Christ - but there is a lot at stake and that's why I believe the Creeds are important.
--------------------
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 Ad Orientem:
Hell.
Well thanks for not beating around the bush!
I wouldn't have spoken so strongly but in principle I agree with you. We are expected to guard ourselves against false teachings as Christians - therefore we need to know where the boundaries are in order to assess those. It can be spiritually dangerous to be undiscerning in this regard.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ad Orientem calls a spade a spade.
I admire that but also find it off-putting at one and the same time.
That said, I'm thoroughly Trinitarian. Cut me anywhere and you'll find Trinitarian theology running through me like a stick of rock.
I'm also an Orthophile and whilst they can annoy the heck out of me in lots of ways, their Trinitarianism impresses me time and again.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
And yet the churches that accept and use the creeds regularly seem to be less focussed on right belief than the sola scriptura churches that reject them.
The two largest bodies that accept and use the creeds are the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Both seem pretty focused on right belief to me.
The mainline churches which use the creeds may be less focused on right belief, but I hardly think that's a result of having creeds; many of them seem to view the creeds as they would a beloved but wandering older relative, fondly regarded but little heeded.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
And it leads where? Define the spiritual consequences, rather than just vaguely making reference to them in a twisty-turny way like a twisty-turny thing twisting and turning.
Hell.
So my comment wasn't a red herring at all was it. It was spot on.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that is vague and fluffy, believe whatever you like, bollocks. Yes, the creed is there to define who is in and who is out because what we believe has consequences.
Well, it did in centuries gone by when believing the wrong thing could get you burnt at the stake. And in some parts of the world it still does. But the idea that God decides who gets bliss and who gets the eternal rotisserie depending on which creedal statements they agreed with seems a bit daft to me.
Red herring.
Is it? Then do expound on what the "consequences" of having the wrong beliefs are.
Spiritual consequences. When St. Nicholas slapped the arch heretic Arius it wasn't because he thought he was an idiot but because he knew where his heresy led.
And it leads where? Define the spiritual consequences, rather than just vaguely making reference to them in a twisty-turny way like a twisty-turny thing twisting and turning.
Hell.
So my comment wasn't a red herring at all was it. It was spot on.
It was. You were raving on about burning people at the stake.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I find the Nicene Creed centres my faith, my Christianity far more than the Bible.
I can agree with all of the Nicene Creed which is about 80% more than the Bible!
Both were drawn up by men for political reasons so I'll take the shorter one every time.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Creeds are supposed to be divisive. Why would you have a creed if you didn't think what you believed was important? Unless you accept biblical interpretation as equally valid, just the Bible is divisive. Accept all biblical interpretation as equally valid and the Bible can mean anything and in meaning anything means nothing. No, even the just the Bible people eventually get around to statements or confessions of faith that go into more detail than those of us content with the Nicene Creed. A creed by some other name is still a creed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
I'm a creed sceptic. They are very good things and serve a good purpose, but that doesn't mean an uncritical use of them is always healthy.
So while I wouldn't advocate scrapping them they probably need to be taken off quite such a high pedestal that the traditionalist churches have put them upon.
And what should we put on the pedestal instead? Your opinion? The opinion of the church round the corner or the one down the road?
Christ. Anything else is idolatry. Church, tradition, scripture, songs - all secondary.
Who is Christ?
What is so special about him anyway?
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Creeds are and were politcial documents. A bit like victor's justice.
Care to give an example?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
