Comments on: “I believe”: A few thoughts on confession & creeds

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:18:17 +0000

Yes and I would think the actual order of the Creed (Father, Son, Spirit and only then the church as the people in whom and through whom the Spirit is active) would be precisely the solution to the problem that worried you: “over emphasize loyalty to the church itself”.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:16:25 +0000

Woops. You’re right.

But in my defense, I’d have to honestly say that the way I was introduced to the Creed, was in short excerpts … headed by the “believe … in … Church” clause.

Honestly, the way it was presented to me by the Church, gave me the impression that loyalty to the church was indeed, first on the agenda.

Glad to be reminded that the Creed itself put its values in a slightly different order.

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:18:39 +0000

Joe, no the Apostles Creed does not begin that way. Rather, “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord…” The confession regarding the church comes later under a confession regarding the Holy Spirit.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:49:48 +0000

I would agree that sometimes, for practical purposes, you need to explicitly link this or that church itself, to God, in order to justify your work there to churchgoers. Still, one problem with many creeds in general, is that they over emphasize loyalty to the church itself.

The Apostles’ Creed for example, begins (from memory): “I believe in one holy aposotolic church.” This creed does not begin by swearing loyalty to God, note, but to a church. (Of course, God comes in later. But only in second place, so to speak).

That would be the problem.

No doubt, the practical needs of pastoring a church, and explaining to people why they need to be there every Sunday (if they do), requires at times, valorizing the church itself. Still, I submit we should never forget the idea of a God who after all, transcends all our human ideas and institutions.

With precisely the kind of “transcendence” that you yourself have commented upon, earlier.

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:38:20 +0000

I understand the tension Warren. Having ministered in settings where the creedal heritage of the church was almost entirely unknown to the community of faith, I have struggled to discern the best remedy. It seems to me that it must at least include a process of education in which the relationship between Scripture, experience, and tradition is not only discussed/explored but lived out in practice through the ‘liturgy’ of the worshipping community. When the heritage of the church (i.e. tradition) is given voice within the worshipping body as the encounter of God with brothers and sisters of the faith in ages past, rather than dead relic, there opens up many possibilities. For this reason I find Webster’s move to recognize the tradition of the church as instances of God’s movement among his church as entirely helpful.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 07:04:45 +0000

I want both, and in an effective way, but I just don’t know how to do it. I find that the more relevant a contemporary creed the less appeal it has to a wider audience, and the more sectarian its feel. But the traditional Apostles/Nicean approach doesn’t seem to generate the kind of passion amongst people in general that the sectarian kind does precisely because it is general (and often also unintelligible). So I have to admit to leaving creed/s out whenever possible!