The creeds were a response to their time, were they not? They were, in effect, a highly useful manner of encapsulating truth and allowing orthodox doctrine to be passed onto a community which did not enjoy high levels of education literacy.

Something similar was afoot with the hymns of Charles Wesley and his fellow writers.

Whether either or neither of these were supposed to become eternal, unchanging Cornerstones of the Faith (as far as method goes) is questionable.

There may be parts of the world in which they remain a useful system of communication and identification. However, in highly-educated, highly-literate societies in which there are so many ‘voices’ demanding recognition and response, I think creeds are unlikely to be impactful and useful primary theological tools (their usefulness as secondary or tertiary theological tools is another issue).

I think this is what we need to recognise, Ivan. We are now searching for more appropriate formualations or paradigms with which to comprehend the “conditions of membership” for followers and disciples of Jesus, as I outline in my creeds, truth, faithfulness… hope article. Yes, the boundary lines are made fuzzier by this, at least in theory, but hey, we are now dealing with a potential church of two billion people; the edges are bound to be a bit blurred, n’est pas?

In fact, the idea that this truly is a brand new day, with brand new challenges is what is allowing many people to rejoin the global Messianic / Christian mission with renewed momentum. If it isn’t that and all we have to do is “get back to basics” by simply improving the way we do Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Evangelicalism, even Pentecostalism (now a centurian!), then perhaps creeds are the way to go.

So perhaps the question should be : is this really an unprecedented cultural and social horizon in which the global church is operating? I know the answer many on this site will give. I’d like to hear from those who aren’t convinced this is true though…