Can Progressive Christians Reclaim Ancient Creeds?
Until last year, creeds played no role in my personal religious life. I grew up Baptist, then moseyed over into non-denominational evangelicalism as a teenager, then ran for cover under the United Church of Christ as a young adult. For the past year, I have been serving as the pastor of a Presbyterian church, and in keeping with its Reformed tradition, this church recites a creed (usually the Apostles’ Creed) every Sunday. True confession: I didn’t know that this was a thing for Presbyterians until after I signed the papers and became this church’s pastor.
Photo by Jay Ragsdale
When I learned that I was expected to lead the Apostles’ Creed on a weekly basis, part of me wanted to push back. Turns out, I’m still a bit of a Southern Baptist, muttering under my breath, “We don’t need them creeds — the Bible’s good enough, dammit!” Even more so, though, I am a progressive Christian, mindful of the baggage that creeds carry and the pitfalls that they can open up.
Here are just three illustrations of what I mean by baggage and pitfalls:
Throughout history, the powers that be have used creeds as tyrannical tests of faith, whereby sincere people of God have been sanctimoniously labeled “heretics,” denied fellowship, and even murdered.
Creeds can easily become idols made of words. People assume that their creed of preference perfectly conveys divine truth, assume that finite language is somehow equivalent to infinite mystery, assume that God can be conveniently contained in their doctrinal boxes. But God won’t stay put in collections of words anymore than God will stay put in carvings of wood or stone.
Creeds can unintentionally communicate to religious seekers that if they are uncomfortable saying any phrases or words within any given creed, then they are not fully welcome in that place of worship.
As a pastor, I’ve seen first-hand evidence of this last one. A man who has regularly attended our church for almost a year now told me that the words “born of the virgin Mary” in the Apostles’ Creed deterred him from officially joining our church. Enthusiastic as he is about faith and about our community, when he sees all of the other worshippers saying those five words without ambivalence (or so it seems), he can’t commit in good conscience to becoming one of them.
While commending him for his authenticity, I tried telling him that belief in a literal virgin birth is not a requirement for membership in our congregation or our denomination. Presbyterian pastors fought this fight and won it a hundred years ago, I said. Even so, he just isn’t comfortable becoming a member. The idol has cast too long of a shadow.
Knowing that there are so many others like this man, and knowing that my congregation isn’t going to give up its practice of creedal recitation anytime soon, I have sought to make friends with creeds — someway, somehow. And actually, I think that I have managed to do so.
In the United Church of Christ, all creeds and confessions are described as testimonies of faith, rather than tests of faith. Whereas a creedal test aims to ensure that everyone believes “the right answer” and pressures congregants into theological conformity, creedal testimonies aim to describe and commemorate what belief in God has looked like in times past (and, for those of us who are so inclined, what belief in God can look like today). Creedal testimonies invite congregants to look back, to honor those who have gone before them, and to see themselves as inheritors of the spiritual quests that gave birth to these ancient words of faith.
So, most weeks, when I stand in the pulpit and introduce the Apostles’ Creed, I preface it with something like this: “These words have come to us from our kindred in Christ of ages past. When we recite them, we re-connect with previous generations of our faith; we remind ourselves that in forming our beliefs, we have not been left to our own devices; and we rejoice in the assurance that we do not walk this journey of faith alone. In that spirit, I invite you to join me in reciting the Apostles’ Creed.”
“Okay, that’s nice, but why bother?” Feeling no impetus to salvage the ancient creeds, many progressive Christians would still choose just to chuck them. While I can empathize with this sentiment, I myself don’t want to do that anymore — precisely because I am a progressive Christian.
Sadly, so many of our conservative kindred don’t consider us to be legitimate members of the Body of Christ. As a gay man, I am especially familiar with such treatment. Strange though it may sound, this experience of exclusion fuels my current friendship with ancient creeds. Nowadays, when I recite the Apostles’ Creed in our church, I do so in conscious defiance of the conservative naysayers and would-be gatekeepers. Every Sunday, when I commence that chorus of confessing voices (all saying the same words, all meaning slightly different things), I feel grateful for a ritual that situates me squarely in line with the Christian faith. When I say, “I believe,” I am proclaiming that I too have a spiritual home here. And as a pastor, that is what I most want my congregants to believe.
William Stell is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Bordentown, NJ. He has written for Huffington Post’s Queer Voices section, Religion Dispatches, Geez Magazine, and www.religioussocialism.org. Connect with him on Twitter: @wmstell .
-------------------------------
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
401 visitors
In the United Church of Christ, all creeds and confessions are described as testimonies of faith, rather than tests of faith. Whereas a creedal test aims to ensure that everyone believes “the right answer” and pressures congregants into theological conformity, creedal testimonies aim to describe and commemorate what belief in God has looked like in times past (and, for those of us who are so inclined, what belief in God can look like today).
I have always been dismissive of creeds, for two reasons:
- They are too often used as tests of dogmatic conformity,
- They were invented long after Christ's death, and I tend to skepticism in that circumstance.
I am not fully convinced by Rev Stell's arguments... but I'll surely be more open in the future.
So the " Bible " is the sole authority?
So the " Bible " is the sole authority?
IMNAAHO, there is no simple answer to your question.
For my own faith, I am a great deal more restrictive than "the Bible". I do not think there is need for anything more than Jesus's biography (to illustrate His humanity) and His sermons (to develop His Message). I am fully aware that these things were written down decades after the Crucifixion, and recopied / retranslated over and over, across the centuries, leaving zero probability for the accuracy of any given detail. The bio and the Message must by read with perspective.
OTOH... I love History with a capital "H", and I consider historical context to be necessary for understanding almost all the knowledge we try to integrate. Jesus lived in a particular moment of History; he came from a particular Historical tradition; His story was written during a particular period of History.
So... to understand that context, I prefer to "know" a lot more of the Bible, both OT and NT, than the strict minimum.
08/27/17 04:23:29AM @bob-nelson:
So the " Bible " is the sole authority?
So... to understand that context, I prefer to "know" a lot more of the Bible, both OT and NT, than the strict minimum.
So then cutting the " Long to Short " care to tell me, what parts of the Bible are acceptable and what parts are not,, and why?
care to tell me, what parts of the Bible are acceptable and what parts are not,, and why?
This topic can be a semantic minefield, EA... so we must advance with great care.
In order to answer you, I need to know what you mean by "acceptable".
I can read any and all of it for historical context, just as I can read the Gilgamesh epic...
I can read the Abraham story for religious-historical context, because it introduced the notion of a contract between God and Abraham... which was a huge novelty in the world. Until then, the gods were random actors in the universe; worshipers could try to assuage (bribe) them, but with no guarantees.
... and so on...
Different parts of the Bible are "acceptable" for different reasons.
08/27/17 04:34:28AM @bob-nelson:
read the Gilgamesh epic...
E.A Interesting, true about " minefield " So lets start simple...
Gilgamesh is about " One God Killing the Other and the Universe, being the entrails, " you think that can be true?
See also:
Different " thread for a reason "::
08/27/17 04:29:28AM @eagle-averro:
08/27/17 04:23:29AM @bob-nelson:
What is "true", when speaking of mythology?
Again... we must be very careful about the words we use...
Answer the question about Gilgamesh, then we be ably to proceed to the next
I'm sorry, EA, but in my first Reply to you, I warned about semantics, and I must insist. I cannot use a word like "true" unless I'm sure we agree about its meaning.
"scientific truth"
"historic truth"
"religious truth"
...
I can use any definition you prefer... but if I use one while you use another... we probably will end up in a mess!
08/27/17 04:38:06AM @eagle-averro:
08/27/17 04:34:28AM @bob-nelson:
read the Gilgamesh epic...
E.A Interesting, true about " minefield " So lets start simple...
Gilgamesh is about " One God Killing the Other and the Universe, being the entrails, " you think that can be true?
E.A " Truth " as what is the Probability, that what is stated can Occur under ANY circumstances
" Truth " as what is the Probability, that what is stated can Occur under ANY circumstances
The Song of Gigamesh is long, with lots of chapters. If your question is:
Is every detail of the Song factually exact?
the answer is obviously "No".
If your question is:
Is there a kernel of truth in the Song?
the answer is obviously "Yes".
There is no simple yes-or-no answer to a complex question.
See also:
Different " thread for a reason "::
08/27/17 04:29:28AM @Eagle-Averro:
08/27/17 04:23:29AM @Bob-Nelson:
I don't understand.
Answer the Question, you will in time
08/27/17 04:23:29AM @bob-nelson:
I am fully aware that these things were written down decades after the Crucifixion
Is that not true, with ALL of historical " facts "?
Care to tell me in Museums world wide, is there evidence to prove whom?
Jesus Christ?
Napoleon?
Alexander the Great?
Is that not true, with ALL of historical " facts "?
It's even trickier than that. The notion of "History" didn't exist. In the 1st century CE, there was no distinction from mythology or "science" or simple story-telling. It was perfectly acceptable to embellish...
So for all "History", we must do our best to use multiple sources, scholastic exegesis, and so on...
08/27/17 04:38:48AM @bob-nelson:
Is that not true, with ALL of historical " facts "?
. The notion of "History" didn't exist. In the 1st century CE, there was no distinction from mythology or "science" or simple story-telling. It was perfectly acceptable to embellish...
E.A that is obviously False, as archeology has shown over and over that even Cave man/woman understood the need to preserve what they experienced, and in part that is History " Geologist and Anthropologists, as well as Scatologist,[ Study or petrified excrement ] can verify as to the authenticity!!
What was the purpose of cave paintings, EA? do you "know"? We can conjecture that they were to honor the hunters, or perhaps to worship the spirits of the animals killed for sustenance, or perhaps...
We do not "know" why those paintings exist, so it is futile to ask detailed questions on "why".
Was there a great warrior named Gilgamesh, who did great deeds? Probably, since that's how legends usually start. Did he do everything that the Song says? Probably not... but even that statement would need lots of qualifiers since (for example) Gilgamesh may have met the sage Utnapishtim... but that worthy probably did not survive a universal flood...
Is Gilgamesh's story important for what it tells us about his world? Yes, definitely.
What do you mean by "true"?
waste of time
End
To all Threads, I wonder why this seed has been posted!!!
I wonder why this seed has been posted!
I have always been dismissive of creeds, for two reasons:
- They are too often used as tests of dogmatic conformity,
- They were invented long after Christ's death, and I tend to skepticism in that circumstance.
I am not fully convinced by Rev Stell's arguments... but I'll surely be more open in the future.
The reason for the seed was explicitly cited in the first Comment.
You chose a different topic. That's OK, yours is an interesting one, too... but I have participated in this kind of conversation many, many times, so I know that semantic clarity is essential to mutual understanding.
I'm sorry that you feel frustrated, but believe me, the alternative is to quickly spiral down to one-line zingers... which, I am sure, don't interest you any more than they interest me.
Maybe next time...
08/27/17 04:29:28AM @eagle-averro:
08/27/17 04:23:29AM @bob-nelson:
Waiting for a reply
I told you I don't understand, so you will wait a long time...