Sunday, February 27, 2011
Sunday Reflection: Speaking of Creeds
[photo by Micah Marty]
Tomorrow, I will be having a public discussion at St. Thomas with Susan Stabile on the subject of creeds. As a Catholic, she supports a liturgy which includes the Nicean and Apostles' creeds. Consistent with my own Anabaptist leanings, I don't say those creeds, even when they are part of a service I am attending.
Don't get me wrong-- I am fine with reciting a set of common beliefs during a church service, and in fact I cherish that opportunity. However, my preference is that what we recite be nothing more or less than the words of Christ. Here are my three favorite creeds of that type:
-- The Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13, also in Luke)
-- The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-11, also in Luke)
-- The Two Great Commandments (Matthew 22:37-40, also in Mark)
What I love about each of these is that they not only reflect our common belief, but direct action. The Lord's Prayer recognizes the glory of God, but also commands us to forgive. The Beatitudes express God's grace, but also tell us what we need to do to be blessed-- to be pure in heart, to be merciful, to be peacemakers. The Two Great Commandments so elegantly recognize both our duty to God and our duty to one another. Each defines an active faith, and challenges us to do good even as we believe what is right.
Given that we have these, why in the world do we need the Apostles' and Nicean Creeds? These three are more ancient, more clearly the revealed word of God, more challenging, and bring both our hands and hearts to Christ when we say them.
There is a profound irony to favoring the Nicean Creed or the Apostles' Creed to these three. That irony is this: Those creeds focus on proofs of the divinity of Christ, but don't we better show our belief in His divinity by making His words the test of our faith, our unison prayer? If we believe Jesus to be God revealed to man, as those creeds claim, the way to show it would be to give priority to his teachings when we recite our beliefs and pledge our actions.
The creeds we say in unison have two important functions: They reflect our common belief, and they also identify which beliefs are most important (or else we wouldn't be saying them every week). For Christians, should not the direct commands of Christ be our highest imperatives, even if they are not our only Imperatives? Shouldn't the Two Great Commandment be more important than the rote recitation of the council-written creeds (which include things like the non-Biblical claim that Christ descended into Hell)?
Where, truly, does our treasure lie? If it is with Christ, then the words of our risen Lord should be our solemn, common vow-- nothing more, and nothing less.
[... and yes, I realize that the preceding screed is tipping my hand to Susan Stabile, Neil Alan Willard, and the other creedalists I will be facing tomorrow!]
Comments:
<< Home
I wish I could attend tomorrow, but I think that Neil is secretly glad that I can't, as he's already afraid that I'm turning into a Mennonite despite my Anglo-Catholic upbringing. I look forward to hearing a recap.
Good luck!
Good luck!
As an outsider, I'd like a bit of clarification. I'm familiar with the several creeds that you mention. But I've always considered any system of beliefs, at least fundamental beliefs, within the definition of a creed.
Is your issue solely with the creeds that you mentioned, or do you object to Faiths enumerating fundamental beliefs in general?
Is your issue solely with the creeds that you mentioned, or do you object to Faiths enumerating fundamental beliefs in general?
Craig, I think that's a great question because I believe that all of us live by a creed, written or unwritten, inherited or original. Furthermore, as the late Jaroslav Pelikan once joked about - somewhat - in an interview with Krista Tippett, "the only alternative to tradition is bad tradition."
By the way, it was a Baptist Professor of New Testament, Charles Talbert (formerly of Wake Forest, now at Baylor), who taught me that the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds should be thought of as the spectacles through which Christians read the scriptures. They bring the God's story into focus, pointing to the Incarnation. It's a good thing.
By the way, it was a Baptist Professor of New Testament, Charles Talbert (formerly of Wake Forest, now at Baylor), who taught me that the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds should be thought of as the spectacles through which Christians read the scriptures. They bring the God's story into focus, pointing to the Incarnation. It's a good thing.
# posted by 
: 7:31 PM
: 7:31 PM
Osler I think you make the mistake of assuming that more emphasis or more priority is given to these creeds. In fact, as you state, Christ's teachings and words are the foundation of our Church. Furthermore, there isn't a time, that I can recall, at any event, when we don't recite the Lord's Prayer.
You have to understand that there are principles that guide us as a Church and a community that expand on what Christ has done. To say tha we believe he died and rose again in church doesn't put it ahead of what He said, just that having the common belief/creed brings us together as a Church. Just like the belief that when we take communion it IS the actual body and blood of Christ makes us one Church, so do the beliefs in the creeds.
You have to understand that there are principles that guide us as a Church and a community that expand on what Christ has done. To say tha we believe he died and rose again in church doesn't put it ahead of what He said, just that having the common belief/creed brings us together as a Church. Just like the belief that when we take communion it IS the actual body and blood of Christ makes us one Church, so do the beliefs in the creeds.
# posted by : 8:10 PM
: 8:10 PM
With respect to “the non-biblical claim that Christ descended into hell,” one of my favorite contemporary theologians, the German Protestant Jürgen Moltmann, wrote this in his book The Coming of God (Fortress Press, 1996):
‘The gospel is preached to the dead’, says the First Epistle of Peter (4:6), for after death ‘Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison’ (3:19). The point of the talk about Christ’s descent into hell (or into the realm of the dead, as the modern German version of the creed puts it) is to say that through his solidarity with the dead, Christ avails himself of his salvific possibilities for them, and thus brings the dead hope. In that world the gospel also has retrospective power. Those who died earlier can also arrive at faith, because Christ has come for them.
The fellowship of Christ encompasses this experience of the divine possibilities to which death can impose no limits. Who is more powerful, death or the risen Christ? So the dead also have time - not, certainly, the time of our present life, which leads to death, but none the less Christ’s time, and that is the time of love, the accepting, the transfiguring, the rectifying love that leads to eternal life.
‘The gospel is preached to the dead’, says the First Epistle of Peter (4:6), for after death ‘Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison’ (3:19). The point of the talk about Christ’s descent into hell (or into the realm of the dead, as the modern German version of the creed puts it) is to say that through his solidarity with the dead, Christ avails himself of his salvific possibilities for them, and thus brings the dead hope. In that world the gospel also has retrospective power. Those who died earlier can also arrive at faith, because Christ has come for them.
The fellowship of Christ encompasses this experience of the divine possibilities to which death can impose no limits. Who is more powerful, death or the risen Christ? So the dead also have time - not, certainly, the time of our present life, which leads to death, but none the less Christ’s time, and that is the time of love, the accepting, the transfiguring, the rectifying love that leads to eternal life.
# posted by : 9:30 PM
: 9:30 PM
Credo is simply, "I believe". Everyone believes something or in something or in someone. To say that you are "non-creedal" is not so. Even the person who says, "I don't believe in creeds" has a faith statement which is "I don't believe in creeds."
Actually, my "non-creedal" friends are among the most strong believers I know. They believe in the goodness of God and in the deep power of humility, forgiveness, repentance, etc.
Mark, even when you speak of a risen Lord, you are offering a creed. First, you confess him as Lord which itself is a word rich in meaning. Also, you refer to the Easter event with "risen"; from this word also, we can deduce betrayal and crucifixion. Thus, with your two word creed we are drawn into a consideration of the Paschal mystery of the Three Great Days.
Actually, my "non-creedal" friends are among the most strong believers I know. They believe in the goodness of God and in the deep power of humility, forgiveness, repentance, etc.
Mark, even when you speak of a risen Lord, you are offering a creed. First, you confess him as Lord which itself is a word rich in meaning. Also, you refer to the Easter event with "risen"; from this word also, we can deduce betrayal and crucifixion. Thus, with your two word creed we are drawn into a consideration of the Paschal mystery of the Three Great Days.
When some Congregationalists and Baptists for instance, say they are a covenantal Church and not a creedal one, they are inherently making a creedal statement. They believe in a God who covenants with them. First, they believe in one God and second they believe that God promises them and that that God is somehow related to Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ itself is a creedal statement.
Also, liberal Congregationalists who rejected the idea of creed in the 19th Century were really rejecting the Calvinism of their forebears which they found monstrous in its views of atonement and redemption. Specifically, it was an utter rejection of the Five Points of Calvinsim and the Young Turks of the 18th century who followed Jonathan Edwards.
Unitarianism is at its core creedal: "The Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of Christ, and the neighborhood of Boston." Unitariaism is the flowering, if you will, of the liberal advent of early 19th century Congregationalism and though it claims to be the great champion of "non-creedal" faith, its "non-creedalism" is itself a creed. What was once the rejection of "monstrous Calvinism", in the 20th century, and now in the 21st, is a rejection of the religious right.
Baptists too are creedal with their various strongly held beliefs on "soul liberty", or perhaps the "sufficency of the Bible", or alterantely the "Infallability of the Bible", congregational Church government; all of these touch upon what we would call creedalism.
Perhaps, the greater issue is not with statments of faith/creeds such as the Apostles' and Nicene, but with the catechisms and further adumbrations of what these creeds mean. Perhaps, the issue is with how, when, where, and why the Chrisitan Church has made these tests and not testimonies of faith.
The Apostles and Nicene-Constantinopian Creeds are not perfect in any way, shape, or form, they are not "Gospel Truth", but they point us to the Gospel and in themsleves, they are faithful and fruitful reflections upon the stated truths of the Gospel. Also, they draw our attention to the mysteries, message, and witness of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (creddal statement), and for that reality alone they deserve our consideration and use.
Yet, I would not compel people to use them or not use them, rather I would ask people to consider their import. Utlimately, what does it mean to you to confess that Jesus was born for you, lived for you, died for you, and was raised for you (and for the world because we are not going to be super duper Calvinist here)?
Just some thoughts, sorry that they were not better organized.
Also, liberal Congregationalists who rejected the idea of creed in the 19th Century were really rejecting the Calvinism of their forebears which they found monstrous in its views of atonement and redemption. Specifically, it was an utter rejection of the Five Points of Calvinsim and the Young Turks of the 18th century who followed Jonathan Edwards.
Unitarianism is at its core creedal: "The Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of Christ, and the neighborhood of Boston." Unitariaism is the flowering, if you will, of the liberal advent of early 19th century Congregationalism and though it claims to be the great champion of "non-creedal" faith, its "non-creedalism" is itself a creed. What was once the rejection of "monstrous Calvinism", in the 20th century, and now in the 21st, is a rejection of the religious right.
Baptists too are creedal with their various strongly held beliefs on "soul liberty", or perhaps the "sufficency of the Bible", or alterantely the "Infallability of the Bible", congregational Church government; all of these touch upon what we would call creedalism.
Perhaps, the greater issue is not with statments of faith/creeds such as the Apostles' and Nicene, but with the catechisms and further adumbrations of what these creeds mean. Perhaps, the issue is with how, when, where, and why the Chrisitan Church has made these tests and not testimonies of faith.
The Apostles and Nicene-Constantinopian Creeds are not perfect in any way, shape, or form, they are not "Gospel Truth", but they point us to the Gospel and in themsleves, they are faithful and fruitful reflections upon the stated truths of the Gospel. Also, they draw our attention to the mysteries, message, and witness of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (creddal statement), and for that reality alone they deserve our consideration and use.
Yet, I would not compel people to use them or not use them, rather I would ask people to consider their import. Utlimately, what does it mean to you to confess that Jesus was born for you, lived for you, died for you, and was raised for you (and for the world because we are not going to be super duper Calvinist here)?
Just some thoughts, sorry that they were not better organized.
Spot--
Why recite something every week that "points me to the Gospels" when I have the Gospels there in my hands?
Why recite something every week that "points me to the Gospels" when I have the Gospels there in my hands?
Mark, because they are faithful and fruitful reflections; they are testimony and witness from our forebears and we ought to recieve them as such, just as we receive testimony from one another today. It is true that creeds do not save us ( a person does), yet as reliable and sure and faithful testimony they ought to be received.
I must share that I probably take a slightly different view of the creeds, than others do. I look at the creeds, particularly the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed, as poetical in nature. Whereas we can love what is beautiful, without appreciating or reciting or writing poetry, our vision is expanded exponentially by doing so.
Creeds are not merely, and some would say not at all, about propositional truths. They give contour, shape, context to our lived faith. The ministry of Jesus himself, for instance, is offered in an attempt to live out the truth of Israel's creed recorded in Deuteronomy 6.4.
Creeds and deeds do not need to be in opposition to one another, nor should creeds be employed in an uncharitable way (as admittedly the often have been and sometimes still are).
I still believe in the primacy of Scripture, but I also confess: "No Bible, No Church" and "No Church, No Bible."
Post a Comment
I must share that I probably take a slightly different view of the creeds, than others do. I look at the creeds, particularly the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed, as poetical in nature. Whereas we can love what is beautiful, without appreciating or reciting or writing poetry, our vision is expanded exponentially by doing so.
Creeds are not merely, and some would say not at all, about propositional truths. They give contour, shape, context to our lived faith. The ministry of Jesus himself, for instance, is offered in an attempt to live out the truth of Israel's creed recorded in Deuteronomy 6.4.
Creeds and deeds do not need to be in opposition to one another, nor should creeds be employed in an uncharitable way (as admittedly the often have been and sometimes still are).
I still believe in the primacy of Scripture, but I also confess: "No Bible, No Church" and "No Church, No Bible."
<< Home
