A striking feature of the Emerging Church is its apparent lack of conviction. So much twisting and turning on the hook of Scripture. This said, can they honestly say that, without reservation they subscribe to the ancient creeds of the Christian Church without disputing the details?
Twisting and turning
Without reservation? I’ve often heard people of previous generations as well as my own express reservation with phrases like “he descended into hell.” Any human formulation of doctrine is fallible. I don’t know whether we would want to be subscribing to any them “without reservation.” Isn’t the ONLY infallible source of truth the scriptures themselves? “Our only rule of faith and practice” as the creeds say? Subscription without reservation to fallible, human-crafted documents actually sounds a bit heretical when you put it that way.
I found the title of Andrew’s testimony very enlightening: “my ‘tentative’ beliefs.” In how many Christian groups could you say that and get away with it!! But it is honest. I certainly hope that some of my beliefs 20 years from now will be different than they are today, or that will have been a waste of 20 years. I doubt I will ever reach a point where I don’t see the possibility of stating my beliefs more clearly or succinctly. This is not to say that creeds are not valuable and important, or that I want ALL my most precious beliefs to be jettisoned! But in this unique place, I find myself admitting to theological positions that I would probably keep quiet about within my own congregation. It is amazing what one will admit to when there is no authority over him threatening him with discipline!
Still, creeds are essential in establishing guidelines for a community. Are you asking which of the traditional creeds will be adopted by the emerging church? I’m sure I don’t know. Creeds can be descriptive or prescriptive, and I have a sense that the “emerging church” will treat them more as the former. Even so, the Church will always have a need and a desire to stay connected to its own history, and therefore the ancient creeds will never be abandoned.
Keep in mind, though, that today’s revolutionary is tomorrow’s establishment. The “emerging church” will not be emerging forever. We, they, whoever, will become established and creedal and hierarchical and risk-averse. In fact, it sounds like it’s already happening. They’ve been “labeled.”
And we can expect another movement to “emerge” after this one settles down. Semper reformanda.
Shades of Aleister Crowley?
I wholeheartedly agree that the Scriptures are the bedrock of our faith, but my point is that I suspect the Emerging Church would have great difficulty establishing any doctrinal certainties such as those expressed in the ancient Creeds. The unity and trinty of the Godhead, Virgin Birth, death and resurrection of Christ, the future hope of ourown resurrection —- manmade summary, yes, but still certainties based on the authority of the Word of God. The Emerging Church borders on a more Crowley-esque rather than definitively Christian approach of ‘believe what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the Gospel’, or at least that’s the impression given.
A fine line
between conviction and humility. Certainly there are things we need to believe so fiercely that we would die for them. And yet, strong conviction on matters that are less than certainly attested seems oppressive to me, burdening believers with more than should be required of them. Binding their consciences, as it were.
I am tempted to reprise my long-winded discussions on faith and certainty, but I will resist. See posts around this one if you don’t remember…
Most communities of faith have a pretty good idea of where they draw that line. This being a nascent, grassroots community, there seems to be no such line as of yet. I think all young movements seem to have a few rallying points that everyone’s clear on, and a lot of fuzziness about the rest of the “belief system.” The fuzziness gets cleared up once all the rallies have been rallied and the leaders of the movement need something else to do… whether this is a good or bad thing I leave to people smarter than me.
Does it matter?
I think that the creeds (Nicene and Apostolic) are some of the most elegant wordings of the faith that I have yet seen. They line up very well with what I believe, and just about every time I say them, I think I find another nuance in the wording that gets me thinking about a new angle on God I hadn’t considered before.
That said, I don’t know that I really care about a lot of it. Does it really matter if all of the literal details of Jesus’ life are literally correct? I mean, on the simplest level, we have four different accounts of his life that differ on some of the little details. That surely does not keep anyone on this forum from beliving in him (it doesn’t keep me from it anyway). But, I think that the model Jesus provides for human living is so strong and compelling, his teachings are so beautiful and intuitively in line with the way I view the world, and the story is so wonderful, that I just don’t care if it “really” happened. Somebody could have made it all up, and someone could conclusively prove that to me tomorow, but I just don’t think I would care. Even if it didn’t literally happen, for me the ideas and morals are just so spot on, that I think I would continue to try to live by them, study them, and understand them anyway.
Do we even need to have correct beliefs to believe?
Of course it matters!
Can Easter be Easter without a resurrection? That’s the question I think needs to be answered by those who subscribe to an existential faith that is not rooted in the historical life of Jesus.
According to existentialists, it is the experience of faith that counts not the reality of it. A metaphorical interpretation is sufficient not whether an event actually happened.
To me this begs the question. As one commentator I read asked, “How can a non-event (a resurrection which did not occur) be regarded as a symbol of hope or indeed of anything else? If something has happened we try and see what it means, if it has not happened the question cannot arise.”
I say the Creeds with conviction because I believe the details they refer to actually happened! It is because they happened that we have hope for the future. Faith has to be more than wishful thinking or a compelling model for life. It has to be grounded in the reality of this world if we are going to have hope that it will make a difference in the reality of this world.
Mike McLoughlin http://blog.mike.mcloughlin.com/blog
it's just the facts...
I agree… if Christ is not TRULY raised as a fact in history, then I can think of a lot of other things I would rather be doing than being Christian.
Instead, because I believe it to be true, I battle the flesh everyday to strive to be perfect as my heavenly father is perfect. Of course I fail everyday… but that’s another post.
del dominus
Yes
This is a very interesting question.
Personaly I have no problem confessing the Apostolicum. The creeds are not the bible, but I am not so sure we have the right to change these creeds (Niceanum and Apostolicum). Our time is very individual oriented. We can pick and choose of almost everything. our own canon, beliefs and practices.
WHICH "ancient creeds"?
I looked up several ancient creeds to answer this question, and I have to come back with “Which ancient creeds are you asking about?” I can affirm the Apostles’ Crred and Nicene Creed without reservation. Others, however, I’m not sure I even fully understand (particularly when they are trying to nail down one specific formulation of the Trinity).
I am not in favor of using creeds to identify who is “in” and who is “out.” (I am suspicious about what from Scripture is selected for this role, and what is left out; we already have the Bible for such purposes). However, I think creeds are great tools for expressing faith.
Here is my statement of faith:
I believe in one God who created everything; in the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ, head of the church; and in the deity of the Holy Spirit who is actively at work in the world.
I believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible.
I believe that each person was made to have a relationship with God, but our sin has destroyed that relationship. Through Jesus Christ God has offered a way to restore this relationship.
Jesus’ apostles taught those seeking this renewed relationship to trust in Jesus Christ, repent of sin, and be immersed into Christ.
I believe in the unity of all Christians, who are the church established by Christ in the New Testament, that the world may believe.
Maybe I'm too vague/open abou
Maybe I’m too vague/open about this kind of stuff, but I don’t think so. I really think that all the creeds are basically saying the same thing. How is your creed, Chris, different substantialy from the Apostle’s Creed? And, the Nicene, in my mind anyway, it just an extension of the Apostle’s creed with some more legal-type jargon in it. The core faith is identical.
You could arguably extend this idea to even be interfaith…but that’s harder, and maybe there’s something more subtle going on there. Anyway.
Basically saying the same thing? Don't think so.
I don’t think my credo is substantially different from the Apostle’s Creed. But it is substantially different from many Statements of Faith in current use (see http://www.ccci.org/statement_of_faith.html for an example of a creed that is widely imitated in Evangelical circles).
Creeds are used for identity formation. My own statement of faith marks me as a Christian rather than a Muslim, but has not proved satisfying to many other Evangelical Christians—they want to know what kind of Christian I am (or perhaps it really doesn’t satisfy everyone that I even am really a Christian). The Campus Crusade for Christ creed (linked above) is “substantially different” from my own (and from the Nicene Creed, for example), in that an adherent specifies a specific model of inspiration and systematic theology (Calvinist or Reformed). People who use this statement of faith want to make sure that they are not identified with Roman Catholics, Arminians, theological liberals, etc.
It is often useful to have a statement of faith, whether generic or specific. For example, it helps clear up questions one may have in making a decision about who to work with in planting a church, or where one might fit in as a regular church attender. What I object to is using creeds as some kind of test of fellowship, where the categories “Christian” and “the kind of Christian I will accept as a brother in Christ” are not the same. A Baptist may not want to plant a church with a Methodist, but I am offended if he rejects the Methodist per se as a Christian brother.
a creedless church
I think we have to do some unpacking here:
so… a creed is a system of principles or beliefs that an organization or community adhere to.
It is not clear however, what the emerging church is… so if it is a movement, I’m not too sure a “concrete” central belief system is necessary at the moment, but a “movement” does need common principles, and objectives to develop forward.
I do think however, if the emerging church is to be sustained as a devoted community, then there has to be an identity that takes shape — and that identity needs to be some kind of foundational mission statement, hence “a creed” or adherence to “a creed.”
If I walk through the doors of a reformed, Nazzarene, or Unity Church, I have some understanding of the belief system of the community, regardless of the style of worship.
Ivan’s point is valid — without an adherence to a central belief system, the community can only identify with a practice or style — but is that enough for the survival of community of “believers” — what exactly are the believer’s believing without a belief system?
del dominus
Boundary markers of the Christian faith: creed or character?
I suppose a creed is a shorthand for a belief system - but isn’t it a very rough and ready affair? For all the church’s chanting of the apostle’s creed week in week out, James 2:19 tells me that demons are able to do just the same.
I have found over the years that there are Christian people I can find a very close sense of affinity with, in whom the character of Jesus is strikingly evident, but whose official creeds I would have huge difficulties with. Equally there have been those whose creeds (or statements of belief) I would agree with to the letter, but in whom there is a singular lack of the character of Jesus.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, wasn’t the point that the Samaritan (whose beliefs were misguided and incorrect) was more of a true Jew than any of the doctrinally correct Jews who passed the man by on the other side? Wasn’t Jesus talking about character as the defining boundary marker of a true believer rather than orthodoxy of belief?
This tells me that the character of Jesus may be found in all kinds of people whose creeds or statements of faith may be at variance with my own - or with historic Christians creeds.
I don’t actually wish to downplay orthodoxy, but I do seem to have got through over 30 years of being a Christian believer without having to refer to any of the historic creeds, still less chant them on a weekly basis.
At the moment, I’m not even sure there is any one thing that can be described as an emerging church; it seems like just a lot of very disparate people doing things outside normal church structures. I’m not even sure it can be called a movement. I think far more time is needed for people to find each other, decide if they want to do church together, and then figure out what it is in their beliefs that provides a common denominator.
The Origin Of The Creed
With all due respect Peter, I see the character of Jesus in some of my atheist friends, but does this define them as “Christians?” I suppose the bigger question is, What is the definition of someone as “Christian,” or a member of the “people of God?”
Credal or confessional formulas have always been an important aspect to the identity of the community of believers. Some examples include the taditional formula which Paul cites to remind his Corinthian converts of what he had “delivered” to them (1 Cor 15:3), or Justin Martyr’s summary reference to “Jesus Christ, who came in our times, was crucified, and died, rose again…” (1 Apol 42.4).
In the early Church, the Credal formulas were also very prominent as a confession of faith, which constituted the formula of baptism. Candidates for baptism were asked a series of questions as they stood in the water, to each of which they replied “I believe.” The baptismal confession then, was the basis of the individual’s membership in the community and, in consequence, the most fundamental expression of the community’s self understanding.
Soon after, the creedal formulas were formed not as questions, but as direct declarations on the part of the believer. Hence, the formulas were broadly defined in councils to help unify churches around the Mediterranean.
The Creeds then and now, served as an integral part in the membership and identity of the community. — A belief system, to unify and ground the community’s allegiance and self understanding. Without this, we are just a community of people who call the name of “Jesus,” however we see fit to define him, and allegiance to the scriptures, however we see fit to interpret them.
del dominus
Creeds necessarily define the
Creeds necessarily define the objective truth of the Scriptures as opposed to subjective, experimental interpretation, of the kind that we are warned against in 2 Peter 1:20. One only has to look at how the Early Church became fragmented pre-Council of Nice, destabilised by Gnostics (them again!), Docetists, and culminating in the Arian controversy. The Creeds enshrine the ‘bottom line’ of faith. It could be argued, yes, that one could be a Christian by simple faith in Christ’s resurrection, inducing repentance etc. without subscribing to doctrines such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Trinity. But can we really? Does not faith in Christ require us to be a witness to the Truth? Creeds distill this truth to its basics, still leaving plenty of room to debate the nitty-gritty, but guarding against the Church bearing false witness to itself.
Creeds etc
I think there is some evidence for credal statements, or formulae in the N.T.; on the other hand I’m also of the opinion that the age of the creeds was also the age of a state church whose reorganisation of the faith proved, at the least, a mixed blessing. To this day, there are large segments of the church which manage very well without reference to creeds. Just to be able to recite a creed is no guarantee at all of any personal understanding of it, and some of the emphases brought by the ‘apostles’ creed’, for instance, are questionable, if not downright misleading. I’m not convinced that communal identities are formed by creeds, except in a rather bland, parrot fashion sort of way. But I’m sure someone will put me right, and I’m very open to convincing arguments on the subject. I’m sure that, historically, some of the credal arguments were important - for the state church. I’m less sure that holds true today.
creedal credibility?
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…
Canonization Culturally Conditioned - So are the Creeds!
Came across this quote from Johnson on Cannonization. It has application to our discussion here. Perhaps, Ivan, if we changed the question to “Could you say a ‘politically motivated, culturally conditioned, conservative, institutional, doctrinal, misogynist’ Apostolic Creed with conviction?” then we could get at the root of the problem as to why sincere believers may have a problem with saying ancient creeds with conviction.
Mike McLoughlin http://blog.mike.mcloughlin.com/blog
“According to this argument, the most important stage of the canonization process was that of the ratification by the bishops. These bishops, however, were both politically motivated and conditioned by the cultural attitudes of their day. In every decision, they chose that which was conservative over that which was radical; chose institution rather than charism; fought for hierarchy rather than egalitarianism; preferred doctrine to mysticism; and suppressed women in favor of men. The canon we now have, therefore, is not the canon of the whole church, but only of a victorious segment of that church. In this view, all Christians have been shaped by a sectarian canon that, while different, is no less tendentious than Marcion’s.” (Johnson, Luke Timothy, and Todd C. Penner. The Writings of the New Testament : An Interpretation. Rev. ed., Page 607. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.)
This is probably a good discr
This is probably a good discription of the process by which the creeds were written and approved. However, does that mean we are compelled to interpret them this way? As post-modernists, I was under the impression that we believe that the experience of the text by the reader in the present day is the key to its interpretation, not necessarily the original intent.
So, when I read the creeds, I find meaning in them that is not sexist or overly dogmatic. Rather, they remind me of the heritage that lead up to my standing in the church building and reciting it, and the depth of thought that all the christians before me have put into it. I recognize that there are problems with the historical sexism, racism, classism, etc… in the historical church, but since I choose to not read the bible that way, I also choose not to read the creeds that way.
Do we think that just as we take a post-modern view of the bible text, a post-modern view of the creed text is appropriate?
Power Creeds?
Maybe I have to go back and read my Christian history, but the Apostolic creed and the Credal formulas mentioned are pre-constantine. These Bishops were not sitting on their thrones like Caesars playing power politics. Being a bishop in the early centuries was as equivalent to a November farm turkey in modern day America. “Persecution” was a household term for those deemed to be leaders in the Church. Even in Nicaea, shortly after the edict, the bishops showed up scarred with missing limbs. It is in this context that I would prefer to view the Bishops call for unity via a communal faith declaration.
What if we think of Credal formulas in these terms, rather than an ancient authoritative rule to which we must adhere to?
Maybe I am oversimplifying this a bit, but a few posts back in this thread, Chris outlined his personal statement of faith in a form of credal genre. Regardless of the method of communication, I either identify with his personal creed or I do not. And there may be nuances to some of his phrases which I might question, such as what is meant by “authority of the Bible” etc…
Nevertheless, I think I have common ground with Chris… certainly enough to which may be deemed Christian fellowship. Why? Not because of his Character – don’t know the guy. Simply because the essential components of his faith declaration are in unity with mine.
Is this not an important ingredient for a community of believers?
del dominus