no creeds
Emergent as an organisation have are increasingly needing to deal with critics. One issue that seems to be big is the issue of whether emergent should have a document that outlines a set of beliefs. Emergent have responded to this in their latest email newsletter by resisting such suggestions.
In my opinion, which is very much forged by my Campbell Stone heritage in Churches of Christ this is a good move. Churches of Christ have a slogan that says - no creed but Christ and is driven by the same feeling contained within this statement by emergent:
“Jesus did not have a “statement of faith.” He called others into faithful relation to God through life in the Spirit. As with the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, he was not concerned primarily with whether individuals gave cognitive assent to abstract propositions but with calling persons into trustworthy community through embodied and concrete acts of faithfulness. The writers of the New Testament were not obsessed with finding a final set of propositions the assent to which marks off true believers. Paul, Luke and John all talked much more about the mission to which we should commit ourselves than they did about the propositions to which we should assent. The very idea of a “statement of faith” is mired in modernist assumptions and driven by modernist anxieties”
May 5th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Yes and no.
I agree that Jesus didn’t have statement tucked away in his pocket that defined his misison. At the same time, the Jesus Creed (See Scott McKnight) could easily be taken as such - love God and love others.
The Baptitsts have had the same “No Creed but Christ” thingo. Which in itself has become a creed. It has meant that anything that has even smelt creedish has instantly been disregarded, no matter how powerful or beautiful the idea might be. That’s a shame.
I would never want a human derived statement to define who I am or what I believe. I reckon Emergent would say the same. But the quote you have posted above reads like a creed and they’ll stick by it.
IN the end, it’s another way to argue about words. There’s probably enough of that already…
May 5th, 2006 at 10:06 am
I think its a shame to even need any more creeds. Is it a need to validate oneself within the judgements of the mainstream? Can’t people be happy with, “We’re the same as you guys …. no need to invent fancy phrases to describe who we have all been for 2000 years”?
May 5th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Formal creeds just smell to me like another of the ways to exclude/include people. You don’t ascribe to this set of beliefs? You’re out.
I reckon we should be saying, “You don’t believe the same as me? Cool, let’s talk about it. Welcome!”
Full disclosure: I come from the same Campbell-Stone-Churches-Of-Christ heritage as Phil
May 5th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Phil
I am in agreeance with what Emergent has said. If we say a creed but do not live it then it is nothing but words.
Have also grown up with the Stone Campbell heritage - then I guess that I just do not have any real understanding of the need for creeds.
For me Jesus is enough.
Cheers
May 5th, 2006 at 10:55 am
I guess it’s all a question of how much you should pander to the requirements of people who don’t like you much anyway. Emergent’s critics will narrow in on some vague doctrinal statement as being absolute proof of heresy, so it’s probably not worth compromising and formulating a creed.
There’s a lot of people out there that claim to follow Jesus (emergents, liberals, evangelicals) who Jesus might say “I never knew you” to. But once again, that’s a relational issue rather than a doctrinal one.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:17 am
The requirement for creeds I think comes from a need to define peopoe as either in or out. Jesus I think believed in a mission where everyone was in. I know I’ll be howled down for that one because yes Jesus did say woe to you pharisees - but look at it - the pharisees where the ones in that era who were loking for everyone to believe the ‘right stuff’
May 5th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Whether a creed is written down or not, people in a particular church are still united by what they believe, or possibly can be divided by differences in belief. If the (essential) beliefs are not clearly documented, how can anyone properly cast someone out on the basis of difference of belief? Sounds very close to the model some police states may run with.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
If the (essential) beliefs are not clearly documented, how can anyone properly cast someone out on the basis of difference of belief?
What if you donpt want to cast out? What if you actually want to identify with people rather than find ways of excluding them?
May 5th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
So it’s ok to document important but peripheal stuff such as polices on handling sexual abuse or equal employment opportunites, handling money, etc but the really core, essential beliefs that define your organisation should remain undocumented.
If you have a documented creedbut don’t act on it, then it is nothing but words. What, leaving it undocumented gives you licence to optionally follow it?
May 5th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
I worship in a tradition that recitres te creed every Sunday and every Suandy I have to remain silent during parts of it. A creed isn;t someting to follow..it’s something to be believed and accepted. A creed is useful for some people I guess.
Dose everyone who lives in Melbourne have to believe te same things ? Does Melbourne actually hyave a creed? Christians are a community of believers (just like Melbourne is a community) Variety and differences are what make it interesting - If God felt so strongly about creeds I imagine the bible would be a whole lot clearer on a lot of topics!
May 5th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
some of pauls writings directly quote creeds that the apostles creeds were built on .. so they obviously have some use.. primarily not to keep people out but to keep heresy at bay such as the arian heresy and gnosticism
May 6th, 2006 at 8:09 am
abtruth, I am interested in what you say that Paul quotes creeds. Can you expand on this?
May 8th, 2006 at 9:30 am
you’ve caught me without my bible at hand and the other resources i found it in .. but..
part of the evidence for the verification of the earliest documents of the NT, combating the arguement that they were written much later than Christians would accept and acredited to different authors, involve, as you would know, fragments of documents that accord with the scriptures we have today… etc etc etc…
in Pauls writing however there are elements that are obviously creedal. He is repeating the core tenents of the faith in regards to Christs virgin birth miracles, death and resurrection in a formulaic way, things that he was not a direct witness to…
this of course i would take for granted as not everyone was literate and the printing press was 1400 yrs away. so a creed for repetition stating the core elements of the faith would have been essential and was used in my understanding for combating the rumours that the pharasees (sp) were spreading that the body of Christ had been stolen.. therefore creeds were needed specifically to combat heresy..
when i get a bit more time i will try and find a particular one for you
May 8th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Isnt it the case that creeds were established at later times(nicaene concil, Ephesus, constantinople) using bilbical literature to thrash out positions against current heresies?
The scandal caused by Paul insisting that Gentiles be included in Gods church, is surely evidence enough that “creeds” are attempts to formalise and protect what is at the time considered sacred to the Church? It seemed to be a work in progress, more than something that is the bedrock foundation of everything from day one. So why shouldnt it be that way today? It is a little threatening to entertain the thought that the bedrock of belief might begin to shift..
Also the Christological creed, formulated against heriesies?
Seems that this evolves over time as scholarship etc.. reinterprets scripture in relation to the times and new belief systems begin popping up within/ on the edges of the church. Some might argue that the basic position of the Church never shifts.. and that this is what the creeds acheive, But Im not sure.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:28 am
The problem with non creedal groups is that they usually have an unsaid creed which you often only discover when you deviate from it publicly, then it’s goodbye to you. I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s better for a community to be up front and open about their core beliefs. Such doctrinal statements can be abusive or they can be freeing. The “why can’t we all get along” stance works for a while until serious disagreements do inevitably arise. Arguments over core beliefs of a community do need to be settled, and that’s how the creeds arose. It doesn’t necessarily mean those that deviate from a creed aren’t part of the community any longer. It certainly doesn’t in ours.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:44 am
So Leith, do you think creeds could be worded in a manner that allows for diversity of belief.
So instead of a statement like “We believe in X” it could be worded as “The majority believe in X but any belief in the range of X-delta to X+delta is acceptable”.
Also, creeds don’t have to be a frozen document. Can’t they be changed as ideas and language changes?
I think you are correct in that undocumented creeds are a method of consolidating power. And power in the worst “police state” format.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Such a document may also reduce the need for regular church meetings - especially the sermon part, and bible studies. Sermon’s and bible studies could be replaced by extraordinary meetings to consider credal changes or the addition of new insights. This would free up church goers’ time to actually spread the good news.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:59 am
I think on some things you could have diversity in the creeds, yes. The thing with creeds is that they were written for controversies at certain points in history. Even though what they say may be biblical, they focus on what was the hot topic of the day. Therefore contemporary creeds may include different statements to challenge contemporary contoversies, and therefore differ from early church creeds at some points.
May 8th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
The history of creedal statements is a huge field and one fraught with many complexities. However, I think we should remember that they were born as the result of Christians trying to defend thier understanding of who Jesus was against those whom they identified as herectics!!
Yet in a more simplistic form, they are what we would today call ‘Statements of Faith’. That is, what do I as an individual or group believe. However, we must also realise that such statements by their very nature are exclusive!!!
This exclusiveness can even be seen in the life of Jesus, did he not say ‘No-one can come to the Father except through me’ Jhn 14:6. You see Jesus was inclusive when it came to ethnicity, or religous beliefs, anyone was welcome as long as they conformed to his message!! It was either Jesus’ way or the highway.
So where does that leave us? I think that ‘Statements of Faith’ have to be upfront and honest, making our beliefs and practices clear. They shoud be biblically based and they should not be dismissive of historcal creeds just because they are historical. They should be fluid, open to changes and updates as we become wiser, more or even less educated!!! They should be inclusive in that the Gospel of Jesus and his community of believers is open to all people. Our ‘Statements of Faith’ must also be exclusive, that is in our decree that Jesus is the only way, ther is no other!!!
Yet, no matter how careful we are, we must recognise that any creed or ‘Statements of Faith’ will be exclusive in a negative sense, we will turn away people often without even knowing it. The need here is to limit this as much as possible, let us not abandon creeds, ‘Statements of Faith’ or the like, but let us embrace them and do the hard yards and make them tools of freedom and not obsticles of faith!!
May 8th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I can appreciate the ‘no creeds’ thing. I have always disliked creeds, as by their nature they reduce God down to something we can put into a sentence. I don’t think you can turn God into a formula, A + B + C = GOD, God is bigger than our creeds, not even the Bible gives us all the answers to who and what God is and isn’t, who are we to try and do that? Yet perhaps DonaldDuck is right, maybe an emergent creed could be worded in a way that is more inclusive of a diversity of opinion.
I actually quite like Brian McClaren’s Jesus Creed.
“The Jesus Creed
This creed was originally shared at the Emergent Convention, Nashville, May 2004.
By Brian McLaren
We have confidence in Jesus
Who healed the sick, the blind, and the paralyzed.
And even raised the dead.
He cast out evil powers and
Confronted corrupt leaders.
He cleansed the temple.
He favored the poor.
He turned water into wine,
Walked on water, calmed storms.
He died for the sins of the world,
Rose from the dead, and ascended to the Father,
Sent the Holy Spirit.
We have confidence in Jesus
Who taught in word and example,
Sign and wonder.
He preached parables of the kingdom of God
On hillsides, from boats, in the temple, in homes,
At banquets and parties, along the road, on beaches, in towns,
By day and by night.
He taught the way of love for God and neighbor,
For stranger and enemy, for outcast and alien.
We have confidence in Jesus,
Who called disciples, led them,
Gave them new names and new purpose
And sent them out to preach good news.
He washed their feet as a servant.
He walked with them, ate with them,
Called them friends,
Rebuked them, encouraged them,
Promised to leave and then return,
And promised to be with them always.
He taught them to pray.
He rose early to pray, stole away to desolate places,
Fasted and faced agonizing temptations,
Wept in a garden,
And prayed, “Not my will but your will be done.”
He rejoiced, he sang, he feasted, he wept.
We have confidence in Jesus,
So we follow him, learn his ways,
Seek to obey his teaching and live by his example.
We walk with him, walk in him, abide in him,
As a branch in a vine.
We have not seen him, but we love him.
His words are to us words of life eternal,
And to know him is to know the true and living God.
We do not see him now, but we have confidence in Jesus.
Amen.”
May 8th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
[…] This creed by Brian McLaren was posted up in this thread by Nilmot. […]
May 8th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Leith, (#15)
What about the Macro creedal diviergence within the Church? For example, Catholicism/protestantism. Are they not still part of the same body? Yet some significant differences exist in relation to vital theological “creeds” that both protestant and catholic alike, I believe, would say are foundational to the faith.
But though these significant schisms exist, we would still agree that we should as far as possible to be in unity, would we not?
Then there are many other similar examples.. from the eastern church etc… How many protestants do we know who venerate icons? Or ask the Holy mother for intercession and grace? Most, I think would either scoff, or downright dismiss, Perhaps even judge these as “heretical”
Are the creeds becoming relativist? Has the body of Christ finally succumbed to the evil beast of Post modernism?
That might be what Mclaren is on about with his post prodestantism.. Ive never heard him speak or read his books, only a little taste on line…
But personally, I like the idea of post Protestantism.. the only “creed” left that is worth having is Jesus.
Jesus the man
Jesus the God
Jesus the sacrifice
Jesus the truth
Jesus the life
Jesus the way
May 9th, 2006 at 3:19 am
yes urban but what does that mean?
the life? what life?
the way to what?
sacrifice for what?
May 9th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Yeah, good point ab, buty I dont think that some charter of belief that measures you up as in or out is needed to answer those questions. at the end of the day, if I meet somebody that calls Jesus friend and saviour, and God Father, then they are my brother or sister.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Urbanmonk, yes they are all part of the global body of Christ. I guess I was referring to denominations etc. I’m a bit rusty on all this but don’t prot/east/Rome all affirm the early creeds? All would affirm God Creator/ Trinity/ Christ as Saviour/Son of God/ Truly God/Man ? The differences lie outside these “fundamentals” I also think these differences have been shrinking over the last 50 years. And yes I consider them my holy siblings too, even when they might not call me theirs!
May 9th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Urbanmonk, you ask: “Has the body of Christ finally succumbed to the evil beast of Post modernism?”
Well, i don’t know about he body of Christ, but, having skim-read McLaren’s, “A New Kind of Christian – A tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey”, i am absolutely convinced that he is entirely sold out to the Post-Modernist philosophy. His hero Neo, reminiscent of the Matrix, embraces all paths to God, mocks only at fundamental Christians and, to my way of thinking is one of the most dangerously deceiving pieces of anti-christ literature. With love, of course!
May 9th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
I was being a little fecitious jimbo.. But it seems that the global church already is post modern. This was what I was trying to get at. The divergence in foundational creeds( re:beleifs) is a reality. Where is the council to rule out pugatory? Or Icons? Or the infallibility of the pope? Or speaking in tounges as a sign of salvation? or contraception for happily rooting protestants with out the consequence of a brood of rugrats? Or… need I go on?
We are faced with a context wher we need to accept these divergences.. this is not the fourth century.. It is pointless to do other wize, unless we are going to start some twenty first century crusades… And therefore, the church HAS succumbed to the beast of post modernism. What choice does it have?
May 10th, 2006 at 1:38 am
Monk you say,
“but personally, I like the idea of post Protestantism.. the only “creed” left
that is worth having is Jesus.
Jesus the man
Jesus the God
Jesus the sacrifice
Jesus the truth
Jesus the life
Jesus the way”
Rather like your creed; but i would expect the post-modern creed to read something like:
Jesus can be a man if you want to believe he is
Jesus can be a God to you if you want to believe he is
Jesus can be your sacrifice if it pleases you to see him that way
Jesus can be your truth
Jesus can be your life
Jesus can be a way, your way if you like just along as you respect that there are many ways that are all equally valid and all equally lead to God.
As i understand, there is no place for in post-modern philosophy for absolute truth. This is one reason why post-modern christians can so embracive of each other. Unity sounds great, but at what cost: the cost of all absolutes, including the singleness of the Cross, the uniqueness of Christ and so it goes.
Now i accept that no denomination has absolute truth - most of us methinks struggle to find much truth at all. But that does not mean, as the post-modern philosophers would have us believ, that absolute truth does not exist. Nor do i deny that other world views may contain some truth and wisdom - the unsaved are often wiser than believers in Christ. But i do agree and do assert: Jesus is The Man, The God, The Sacrifice, The Way, The Truth … Accordingly, i am rejected by post-modern society and in turn i repute post-modern philosophy.
Nor am i a Modernist as McLaren incorrectly tags the conservative fundamentalist christian. …
May 10th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Post modernism isnt just another Philosophy, its the dominant reality of our culture, like it or not james. the church finds itself being irrecvocably enmeshed with this reality, unless your prepared to reconsider taking up my offer of setting up a community of exiles in the simpson desert… ( you thought I was joking didnt you?)
in regard to abtruth ( not the signposter, but the beast itself) and unity: Judging from your position, then there never will be unity in the body of Christ, because each branch of the church ( i call them branches coz I think the three main streams are much bigger than what most of us understand as “denominations”) holds to certain”creeds” that the others reject. Not prepared to accept the infalliblity of the pope? neither am I. But why are so many protestants turning to ancient Catholic practices like Lent? Or the painting of Icons for meditation? twenty years ago, there would be no such acceptance.. or even knowledge of other traditions save for consigning them to being a sect that exists “outside” the one “true” Church.
Jesus is still the capstone, as i understand it James. Still the only thing left within all creeds that is foundational to ALL. Is that a coincidence? maybe… Can we possibly be built into a temple that is holy and pleasing to God? If so, how? with so much foundational division? Perhaps post modernism isnt the beast we think it is.. perhaps your more of a modernist than you think James?
May 11th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Monk, im a bit tired and have an early start in the morn; if i could just posit a few thoughts in response to #29.
The early church was persecuted because the message of Christ was at odds with the philosophies of the day. The gospel was rejected by the culture of the day.
The Pope’s not infallible …. oh nooooooooooooo~
Re abtruth, iron sharpens iron! Better to have heated debate than luke warm unity.
Why are so many prostestants turning to all forms of law? Observing Lent, painting icons, tithing, looking to pastors as priestly mediators … all justification WITHOUT faith.
Simpson desert? Only if we get “home and away” on widescreen
“Can we possibly be built into a temple that is holy and pleasing to God? If so, how? with so much foundational division?” This is demands a more thoughtful response. On the one hand, post-modernism would have unity at the expense of truth; there is no absolute or objective truth - only subjective truth and we can have unity only by affirming the subjective truth of all others. Here we have unity founded upon the rejection of all absolute truth, especially the rejection that Christ is The Way, The Truth, The Life. Unity, but not pleasing to God.
On the other hand, we have Christian denominations founded upon their creeds. The creeds may contain truth - but God did not found the church upon any creed, God has given us His Word. In the words of the hymnwriter, “the churches one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord …” I submit Christ Himself as the only foundation upon which we may build both unity and also be pleasing to God. Methinks that our main problem is we are not willing to accept simplicity of the gospel - man wanting to be wise before man, we make ourselves foolish before God.
Am i at all modernist? I may not hold to past traditions per se, but i would argue that truth has not changed: Christ the same today, yesterday and forever. … anti-modernity.
Monk, i would be interested in your thoughts on the post-modernisation of your “creed”.