This is in response to the comment left by Nan two posts ago, under "Community of Individuals." Be warned: I care very much about this particular subject, and got carried away.
***
Thank you for the detailed info, Nan!
Horrible "creed". You're correct to put it in quotation marks because it's an interpretation of a creed, rather than a creed itself. An orthodox creed (literally, a creed of "right praise") is founded on historic facts--on God's saving deeds in history--rather than on our interpretation of those facts. Interpretations change; God's deeds are set. What He does for us must always flow out of what He did; sermon, music, and prayers may direct us to what He does from the starting point of what He did, but we have lost our bearings if our creeds forget what He did. God knows where we'll end up then.
Furthermore, a guiding purpose of the creeds was to tell what God was NOT, to safeguard us from heresy, rather than to define what He was. Thus the Nicene Creed speaks of Jesus as "God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God", protecting us from the idea that Jesus is somehow less than God but not really letting us in on who God is, apart from what He does.
Your instincts are right, to question what is "not there", what has been left out. When we begin to use our creeds to define our own understanding of what God is, we risk leaving out a very important attribute. For example, in the creed you offered, in the bit about the Holy Spirit, the H.S. breathes, draws on us, encourages, exhorts, comforts, nourishes, and inspires. It sounds like an exhaustive list and suggests that it is meant to be read as an exhaustive list, but it entirely leaves out that the H.S. also judges, rebukes, reveals, glorifies God, etc., etc. Your creed's list is deceitful. It could misguide people in a number of ways.
It also insults the Holy Spirit. Usually, when people get it into their heads to make up their own creeds in order to glorify God, they end up diminishing God. That is because their creeds tend not to focus on God's saving deeds in history but on their own extremely limited understanding of what those deeds mean.
By the way, it is the same situation in marriage vows. When we make up our own words, new and fresh and unique and individual for every new and fresh and unique and individual pair, we end up shrinking the meaning of that marriage from the transcendent and universal to the mundane and particular, what it is for John and Jean, a miniature world unto themselves. It's also dangerous: people vowing magnanimously and recklessly to "always be there for each other" or to be the other's "shoulder to cry on" and "friend to laugh with" are thumbing their nose at God. The God who witnesses their vows cannot be pleased when they inevitably turn away instead of "always being there." It behooves us not to promise too much, or too little.
7 comments:
I see some shortcomings in the historical creeds--for example, the absence of anything on the life of Jesus between Christmas and Good Friday. Not that this is a reason to try to completley replace them, but perhaps they at least need to be supplemented or balanced by new creeds. No single creed can contain the fullness of God's action in history.
Adam
What does it matter what Jesus did between Christmas and Easter if you don't believe He is the Son of God, One with God himself in the mystery of the Trinity.
The creeds are one part of the Divine Liturgy, which if taken as a whole contain those things you are seeking-the lessons -old and new testament, the preaching of the Word/Gospel. Look at the words of the great hymns that cronicle the life of Christ at each moment--from the hymns alone you could learn the whole of the Gospel.
And why do we think tht once we reach a certain age, for Lutherans this is often confirmation, that we can cease our study. I know many churches have replaced good, solid Bible study whith "what's on your mind" kind of classes, but there are always other places to go for more in depth learning.
The creeds are meant as a statement of belief, which is one teaching tool, but also to guard against false teaching and to help the average person to know when he is being sold a bill of goods.
God help us if we don't remember with what price they we bought with.
For people who follow Christ, knowing what Christ did is essential. I agree with you that hymnody is a valuable way to allow the congregation to recite the life of Christ together. Unfortunatley I come from a non-liturgical tradition, so for us, hymns really do constitute our 'liturgy.' I apologize if my remarks seemed insensitive to those of you who hold to the creeds with a deep passion. Perhaps I should have phrased my remark as a question instead.
I appreciate this blog and this opportunity for some eccumenical learning.
Adam
Thank you for your comments, Adam and Nan!
Adam, I think you're right that "no single creed can contain the fullness of God's action in history." The two creeds I use--the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed--were intended to safeguard against the Big Wrong Ideas and to affirm the Big Right Ideas of who God is and does: sort of a highlight or summary of the essentials. (Have you read anything on how they were developed? If not, I can probably suggest some titles.)
The creed that upset Nan REDEFINED the essentials, with almost no mention of what God did as the basis for what He does.
We are people tempted to define good and evil on our own terms and to become like gods; without constant reference to what God did in history, we very quickly swing toward making up God in the way that we personally define goodness. Nan may be seeing this happen in her church.
I would be very cautious against--OK, I would be vehemently opposed to!--supplementing the historic creeds with ANY new creeds. But I think you're on to something important: there's a gap in current church teaching about the life of Jesus and too much focus on His death. He died in order to bring us the kind of life He lived!
My husband reports that N.T. Wright, in a recent address to an emerging church conference, suggests that Jesus may have done miracles not because He was God but because He was a perfect MAN. Perhaps Jesus was showing us what a human living in right relation to the universe, under God, can do.
Yay! I love hearing from both of you, because you obviously have not been content with resting your minds once you've reached a "certain age", as Nan says.
In reply to Adam's second comment (posted after my first response to Adam and Nan): what a remarkably kind note! Thank you for your graciousness.
I do hope you feel welcome on this blog, no matter your church (or non-church) background.
How did you find the blog?
I found your blog via the Hymn Society web site.
Thanks again (to both of you) for this thought-provoking discussion.
Adam
Adam,
Please forgive my knee-jerk reaction to your original post. It's been instructive to me how the situation in my own church denomination, ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) is starting to work it's poison in unanticipated ways in my own life. God forbid that I would let this situation color every thing anyone says or does. I should have asked more about you and why you felt the way you did.
It was uncharitable to assume anything. It was me that was insensitive.
Thanks rebecca for your insights and for pinch hitting for me until I saw what I had done. It was extremely kind of you when I deserved more of a rebuke.
I hope that as Adam says this can continue to be opportunity for learning from others who come from different traditions.
Post a Comment