"in the sense of being creedal"

One of my favourite parenthetical phrases from last year's General Synod. Speaking of creedal, here's the creed used at the recent Toronto Youth Synod:

We believe in the God of Life, who creates and loves people, who acts in history and who promises never to leave us alone.

We believe in Jesus of Nazareth, who is our brother, who wants not to be idolized but to be followed.

We believe that we dwell in the presence of the Holy Spirit; without her we are nothing; filled with her we are able to become creative, lively, and free.

We believe in the Church of Jesus Christ, a community where we find companions and courage for the struggles of life, where we grow in our understanding of the faith, through worship, prayer, nurture, and service.

We believe that God has a use for us in this time and place, that though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we are called to be instruments of God's presence.

We believe in living, hoping, laughing, and enjoying the good of the earth;

We believe that people can change, and God keeps pulling us to life and to a new world of joy and peace. Amen.

I'm curious as to what the intent and meaning is of the second sentence. 

Comments

[Malcolm+]

On the face of it, I think it is an admonition that worshipping Jesus is not sufficient if we do not follow Jesus - not unlike James's admonition to be doers of the word and not hearers only.

It isn't clear who wrote this, but (your point about sentence two aside) it isn't a bad attempt at sumarizing what it means to be a Christian.

[Preston Parsons]

First thing that pops out to me is the use of the third person plural aside from the "we believe" formula. There is a "we" or an "us" in every article but one.

cp. the Apostle's: none.

And Nicene: "us" and "our" once each in the Christological article, where the benefit is salvation, and then crucufixion for our sake.

Hmmmmm. If I were to be particularly ornery I would say this "creed" is far more concerned with what we believe about us than a statement about who God is.

But maybe I'm just ornery.

[Malcolm+]

I think you may be reading more into it than is there. While the Apostles' Creed, as a baptismal affirmation, is written in the first person singular, most translations render Nicaea in the first person plural. And it is inevitable that any credal formula will reflect and reveal what we believe about ourselves at least as much as what we believe about God.

Some young person / young people have attempted to articulate what Christians believe. Apart from the lack of clarity about the person of Jesus (which doesn't read like a denial of Jesus as Son of God, but which does fail to affirm it), I think s/he / they did a pretty good job.

[Jack]

I don't think that there is any lack of clarity re. the meaning of the second sentence: Idolatry has a bad connotation as it is usually applied to worship of false gods including movie stars, sports heros etc. However its denotation is "worship", and unless we have dethroned Jesus (making him simply human), He is to be worshipped as our Lord.
Perhaps the Toronto youth got their "inspiration" from Michael Ingham's "Mansions of the Spirit" in which orthodox Christians are called "jesusolators"!

[Quinn]

"Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'"(Matthew 28:16-18)

The disciples worshipped him. Then Jesus came along. Did he say, 'Stop worshipping me'? No, he said, 'all authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.' How could one fail to idolize the one in whom all authority in the universe rests? How could one fail to follow him?

'IDOLIZE: Admire, revere, or love greatly.' (New Oxford Dictionary). I'm curious about the basis of the idea that Jesus doesn't want us to idolize him. How do they know this? Are there scriptural passages in which Jesus forbids or discourages anyone from idolizing him? Certainly he says to Mary Magdalene, 'Do not hold on to me,' (John 20:17) but I don't think his intent was to discourage her from idolizing or worshipping him. If the intent of the phrase 'We believe in Jesus of Nazareth, who is our brother, who wants not to be idolized but to be followed,' is simply to suggest that we shouldn't only set Jesus up as an idol and then fail to follow and obey him, then I agree. But that doesn't mean that Jesus doesn't want us to idolize him. I wholeheartedly believe that he wants us to do both.

[Susan]

Thank you, Jack. I had a post written and didn't post it and you have said more clearly what I was trying to say. Which was basically, Preston, you are being way too charitable and Malcolm you are delusional.

This thing is just awful, period. We believe in living, hoping, laughing? Gag me with a spoon. No God the Father, just some fuzzy God of Life. No God the Son. Just a guy who got it right and wants us to follow him but please, please no worship thing, that would be idolatry! No God the Holy Spirit ( but we get the Earth Mother of course). No Trinity. No Church, just a comfortable social club where we can have friends and learn how to feel good about ourselves. No Judge of the quick and the dead. No Incarnation. No Cross. No Resurrection. No Ascension. Nothing remotely Christian at all. Lex orandi. Lex credendi. Anyone reciting this sad excuse for a Christan creed is teaching themselves unitarian, new age, fuzzy wuzzy garbage and may Almighty God have mercy on their souls.

[Jack]

Susan, yours is a much more complete analysis of the "creed" and I appreciate you pointing out its many flaws. I confess that usually I only look at such writings from the perspective of what they say about Jesus. Thanks!

[Tim]

Well, I believe the Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed, but I must admit to having some sympathy with the second clause.

Contemporary Anabaptist writers such as Stuart Murray Williams and the late John Howard Yoder point out that the formative period of the great creeds coincides with the beginning of Christendom. One of the shifts in the beginning of Christendom is indeed a lesser emphasis on following Jesus and a greater emphasis on worshipping him. Please do not misunderstand me; I am not advocating that we stop worshipping Jesus. But the Jesus of the New Testament has some rather uncomfortable things to say which do not sit well with the government of an empire that wants to be nominally Christian but not actually change the way it does anything. Things about loving your enemies, about living simply and caring for the poor, about the one who wants to be first of all being the servant of all, and so on. Under Constantine, for the first time, Christian bishops were lionised as important figures of state, huge basilicas were built, and financial benefits were given to the Church. Many analysts (not just Anabaptist) suggest this was the beginning of a huge perversion of Christianity.

Constantine wanted a united religion to use as a basis for uniting his empire. So he, an unbaptised person, presides over a theological council with this in mind. And what is the result? Creeds that emphasise the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but say nothing whatsoever about his revolutionary teaching or subversive lifestyle. Please note, once again, I'm not speaking against the doctrine expressed in the great creeds. I'm a firm believer in it. I simply have doubts about their adequacy as a basis for radical discipleship. They are a great basis for uniting a Christendom empire around orthodox doctrine. But they have never given a so-called 'Christian' country a moment's pause about going to war against another so-called 'Christian country' - or about using these same creeds in worship services praying that God will bless them and prosper their righteous cause against their enemies (also Christians).

'Why do you call me Lord, lord, but do not do what I say?' The remedy is not to stop calling him Lord, but to do what he says. I agree that this 'youth creed' is unbalanced and inadequate. I would simply submit that the great creeds also have an imbalance, and on this one issue this creed has identified it.

[Abigail Ann Young]

I can't say that I exactly like this "youth creed" -- but I think I see what they were trying to get at with their second clause, and I think it was a good thing. I suspect that Tim has it right when he said above "'Why do you call me Lord, lord, but do not do what I say?' The remedy is not to stop calling him Lord, but to do what he says."

Nowadays especially, with shows like "Canadian Idol" being so popular, I think the word "idolize" has an association with pop stars and the whole celebrity culture. I think they were likely trying to say that there is more to Jesus than that, that we have to follow him, not just make him a pop cult celebrity.

Did they get it all right? Well, I don't think so. But were they trying to express something important about their faith? Yes, I think they were, and I think we should be generous in our interpretation of their intentions.

[scott]

The problem when writing a creed (and the issue in critiquing one) is that you have to hold to a higher standard of authorship.

You only have two hundred words to use, and the expectation is that they are the *most meaningful* two hundred words you could possibly come up with. You have to 'trim the fat' because if you don't, people will assume that the finer details you include are actually core pillars of your theology. Sins of omission ;) come into play.

@Quinn
I can't hold with the new oxford on this, because there's a very well established Biblical definition of what idolatry is and what it means to idolize. In the context of a Christian creed I'm not sure you can ever expect any other definition to be used.

I read 'idolize' as to make an idol (false god/graven image) out of something. That is, to elevate a created element to a divine status.

For me, to 'idolize' Jesus is non-sense, because he's not a created element.

[Malcolm+]

I find it a trifle presumptuous to be accused of being "delusional" because I decline to assume that a group of young people are motivated by a desire to destroy orthodox Christianity. I suppose delusional is a step up from "troll," which was the last baseless ad hominem you used to write me off without having to engage.

I don't think there is a particular point in writing "new creeds," nor do I think that the second clause in this one can stand on its own without editing.

But I see no evidence to support Susan's apparent conviction that this "new creed" is part of some nefarious plot to unGod the person of Jesus.

[Leslie]

The trouble with youth writing a creed is it puts more of an emphasis on their intentions...or feelings.

Creeds were once documents that were put together with painstaking care. How long did it take them to write this? Is it safe to imagine they got together and 'brainstormed'? Nice to see them passionate about their faith, and I suppose the fact that they're looking at creedal statements is a bit of a nod toward the importance of truth that usually arises from them, but getting together and putting *their own spin* on it speaks to where we look to find the truth.

The truth is now a personal act of creation rather than subservience to an outside force.

[Tim]

It doesn't actually say that the kids wrote it. It says that it was the creed they used at the youth synod. Going back to the original post the author doesn't say there who wrote it. It is simply described as the 'prayer they used'.

[Susan]

Hey. Sorry about the ad hominem, Malcolm. I really do need to figure out how to post stuff cold, not as though I am in a face to face conversation. I really don't believe you are a delusional troll. If we were sitting down having a chat, I'd just say "you're delusional!" and then you'd tell me I was crazy and we'd go from there and have a good and rousing discussion.

I do not assume that a bunch of Toronto youth were motivated by a desire to destroy orthodox Christianity. I do suspect that these Toronto youth would be unable to formulate an orthodox Christian creed because they may not have any idea what that would look like. Which would be the fault of whoever was responsible for their Christian formation. Oh. And you are correct in your description of a "nefarious plot to unGod the person of Jesus". There is such a plot and has been for rather a long time. It is nefarious, ie, wicked, and we all know who the ancient plotter is.

And Tim. I agree with much of what you say. If the worship of God becomes mere formalism and not the natural response of my personal relationship with my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, then of course I will not be living a discipled life. And that would be the fault of me together with whoever is responsible for my Christian formation. And I also suspect that these kids didn't write this. Looks like something from one of our many Church House committees to me.

[Malcolm+]

Apology accepted.

Now to the substance - I don[t actually see what is unorthodox about this statement (really calling it a creed is a bit much) apart from the second clause. And I really am convinced that the point of the clause was not to un-divine Jesus but to emphasize that we must be doers of the Word and not worshipers only.

It's not particularly profound, overall. But what (apart from the need of judicious editing of one poorly framed clause) is wrong with it?

[Leslie]

My apologies to the author of this piece for falsely assuming it was written by youth.

[Jack]

Malcolm, I cannot support your position: the ACoC is where it is today because theological colleges and bishops have allowed erroneous teaching to creep into the church. And while this creed (any statement that begins "we believe" is a creed of some sort) does not appear That Bad, it is in error, and left unchallenged, could become accepted by some. It is the classic problem of the frog in a pan of cold water on a hot burner: we need to declare this creed "too hot" and "jump out" rather than find ourselves immersed in "another gospel".

[Preston]

I guess I meant 1st person, not 3rd.

Anyway, it's all just so tepid, and hardly robust believing. It's the kind of stuff that makes me feel like I'm not in church, but purgatory, waiting for it to end so we can get to the real strong stuff.

[Malcolm+]

Look, calling it a creed was unhelpful. I certainly wouldn't do it.

But as an attempt to articulate the faith, apart from the need for an edit of one problematical sentence, what is wrong with it? Where is it erroneous?

You seem to be saying that the error is in writing such an articulation at all.

[Winston]

As always, a fascinating discussion from the perspective of a Christian with a Baptist-Alliance background and a Sceptic bent. By way of context, I don't think I'd even heard of the Nicene Creed until I was thirty.

My reaction to reading this "creed" was similar to the reaction I have to the entire parenthetical/referential/footnote/endnote/sidenote edifice built up around the actual Gospel in various editions of the Bible. Do I just take it as "the gospel truth" just because it is presented alongside The Gospel Truth as the "right" interpretation. Even the silly little chapter titles I find obscure as often as illuminate the message of the Word.

So does this "creed" take on added authority just by being labeled a creed? Does it contribute to "bad theology" any more or less than what's found in a student study Bible? Or is their truth and learning to be had not only in the words themselves, but their study as we are doing now?

This last might be taking this a little off topic now, but for anyone who is interested, see if your local library or university special collection has a copy or facsimile of Eric Gill's The Four Gospels. It is a beautiful typographic treatment of the gospel without any additional textual elaboration, not even verse numbers. It's a fascinating experience and may add a different layer to your thinking in this matter. If you're in Edmonton, the U of A's Bruce Peel Special Collections Library has one.

[Jack]

Malcolm, you asked "But as an attempt to articulate the faith, apart from the need for an edit of one problematical sentence, what is wrong with it? Where is it erroneous?"

It would be a major undertaking to develop a comprehensive answer, but here are some of the issues:
1) No mention of God the creator of everything. For #1 sentence, I could qualify as a "god of Life": I have created (or participated in creating) and loved people, I have acted in history (my creations constantly remind me that I am an historical relic) and I can promise never to leave you alone (I won't do it, but I can make that promise). My point is that this "god of Life" is not very powerful.
2) Sentence #2 makes clear that Jesus has No divinity (no mention of God here at all).
3) Sentence #3 is annoying to me (using the wrong gender), but doesn't describe his true work: to comfort and to convict...
4) Skipping #4 and #5 as they is unclear to me what the author is trying to say except putting in a plug for the institutional church and for some form of personal ministry
5) #6 sounds like a plan to party all the time. No suffering, no repentence.
6) #7 is a "and they lived happily ever after" sentence.

Sin/ repentence / forgiveness are not even in the picture.

And like a dog with a bone, I will not back away from calling this document a creed: Its structure is like the Apostles and Nicene creeds and each sentence is a claim of belief. The difference of using "We" instead of "I" is very anglican: "I don't have a clue what we am claiming, but since I am using the plural form "we", it is OK to say it because I am sure that someone else here knows and understands what is being said."

[The Sheepcat]

To use a medical diagnostic analogy, a creed should have high sensitivity and high specificity. Actual Christians should be able to sign on to it with few, if any, false negatives; actual non-Christians should feel compelled to say, "Sorry, can't go there, mate."

The trouble with this creed, and the United Church's New Creed, is not so much any heresies they might endorse, but the heresies they fail to exclude. Someone who, like Arius, considered Jesus less divine than the Father would, with regard to this, find nothing to shrink from in this creed. That's one doozy of a false positive if this is supposed to be a Christian creed.

As for the line about following Jesus instead of idolizing him, I heard almost exactly the same words from Rev. Brent Hawkes of Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto a few years ago. I told him then and I'll say it again now: idolatry is as to treat as God something or someone that is not God. We may be the worst hypocrites in the world, but it is impossible for us (or anyone else) to idolize Jesus. God cannot be idolized. He can only be worshipped, or not.

[Donald]

I agree with Malcolm that this really isn't a creed at all. The question I find myself asking is: If that is the case, why is it being used as one?

Is the choice of terminology (calling it a creed), a reflection on the writer's belief in it as a coherent statement of belief, or, is it a case that when they designed the liturgy for the youth synod that this prayer was called a creed because that's what you call the thingummy that comes after the proclamation of the word?

I'd really like to see an outline of the synod's liturgy.

[Malcolm+]

Historically, creeds were always created to address specific heresies. The original Nicene Creed was largely a rejection of Arianism and the subsequent revisions at Constantinople to exclude the hair-splitting of the semi-Arians.

Part of the problem with this as a creed is that it doesn't generally seem to be addressing anything - except in the one clause where the wording is problematical. In clause 2, the "heresy" they seem to be addressing is that of those faith does not work itself out in action.

Jack, thanks for the specific response. I'll answer point by point as well.

1. The whole thing isn't very powerful, but the fact that a statement doesn't mention something is not the same as denying it. The Apostles Creed doesn't mention that Jesus is of the same substance as the Father. That doesn't invalidate the Apostles Creed. While much more could doubtless be said about God, nothing I see that is there is incorrect.

2. I don't agree that the second clause "makes it clear" that Jesus has no divinity. But it worded poorly and can easily be inferred that way. I have already agreed that this is problematical and would require a major edit. It does, however, and as indicated, address - and reject - a particular "heresy" of our present age.

3. There are sound linguistical reasons to use the feminine when referring to the Holy Spirit. Again, the fact that a sentence does not capture every part of what the Holy Spirit does is not a denial of other things. If so, I'd have to say that your summary of the Spirit's work is likewise in error since that work is far more than comfort and conviction.

4. I think 4 is clearly about affirming the traditional catholic view that being Christian is not merely about a personal relationship with Jesus, but also about being part of a community. And 5 is clearly about the responsibility all Christians have to fulfill the ministries to which God calls them.

5&6 - I'd have to dispute you. The reference to the possibility of change is related to repentance. People can change is actually quite a profound notion. Or at least St. Paul seemed to think so.

[scott]

A few thoughts:
As an attempt to articulate *my* faith, this text fails spectacularly. What it says is all very nice, but it doesn't say any of the things which constitute my faith.

I have to agree with SheepCat with regards to specificity and sensitivity. This document could be sworn to by nearly any generic god fearing monotheist. As such, it says something about what generic god fearing monothiests believe, but almost nothing about what Christians believe.

Specific Nitpicks:
"...who acts in history..."
I'm befuddled. Suggestions, anyone?

"We believe that we dwell in the presence of the Holy Spirit;"
Why not say that the presence of the Holy Spirit dwells in us? I'd call that more profound. It's certainly more valuable in describing the essence of our faith - many religions acknowledge omnipresent deities or spirits.

"...that though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we are called to be instruments of God's presence."
True. I'm sure there's more meaningful scripture which makes the point without being yanked out of context. It says nothing of *how* we are instruments of God's presence - that we have died to sin and God has recreated us; made us saints. Is God's presence anything like his Kingdom?

"We believe in living, hoping, laughing, and enjoying the good of the earth;"
I have difficulty understanding what this is trying to say. I know what it means to live, hope and laugh; I understand what it means to *value* these things. I don't have difficulty with the sentence "We believe living, hoping etc. are a nutritious part of this complete metaphysical breakfast."
Does this mean that:
"We believe such activities exist." ?
"We believe they are healthy lifestyle choices." ?
"We believe they are necessary and sufficient for salvation." ?

This non-creed doesn't say very much at all - it's an atrociously bad attempt at summarizing what it means to be a Christian.

[Jack]

Thanks Malcolm for your response. I can believe that creeds were introduced to address specific heresies. Unfortunately this one allows for the introduction of all kinds of heresies as Sheepcat has pointed out (or to use the liberal terminology "draw the circle wider").
Responding to your points:
1 I will concede you 1/2 a point there in that if something is not specifically mentioned it is not necessarily denied (or affirmed). Unfortunately that is the very same position as the ACoC on SSB (and I have come to understand that anything the ACoC says is tainted with mis-information).
2 Again others have said it better (here and in the Essentials blog)- idolizing in its correct sense is worshipping - and sentence #2 is a clear denial of that.
3 I was not trying to summarize the work of the Holy Spirit, only to point out two of the far more significant works. And I can't find anything about being "creative, lively and free" as part of the work of the Holy Spirit in scripture.
4 I think that your are correct, except that you are being generous with the traditional catholic view: generally the personal relationship with Jesus is ignored or even denied.
5&6 What an obscure way to introduce repentance (and sin if it has not been left out by deliberate omission).

When you consider what is omitted in the creeds (including Apostles and Nicene), comparatively, this creed provides an extremely poor picture of biblical christianity. But if one says it often enough with conviction, other may begin to believe it.

[Tim]

'Who acts in history'.

I'm surprised that you're befuddled, Scott - I'd say that's one of the major distinctives of orthodox Christianity. We believe that God is not just an object of inner, mystical experience - not just something that a person does in their privacy - but has actually changed the course of history: by calling Abraham's family, by rescuing Israel from slavery in Egypt and bringing them into the promised land, and supremely through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, through the gift of his Spirit and through the creation of the church as a counter-cultural society bearing witness to the reality of God's Kingdom.

Constantinianism is delighted with a religion which is only relevant to a person's inner mystical experience - such a religion makes no challenge to the power-structures and injustices of society. A God who works in history is a threat to those structures. Not surprisingly, they'd like to keep him and his work a secret.

[joseph]

Just a a side note, the Romans were strong believers in god(s) who "act in history". By the time of Christ, and certainly by the time of Constantine, this was popularized in such influential works as Virgil's Aeneid, in which the gods act in history both to overthrow Troy and to refound it anew as Rome. But that idea raises a whole set of other questions which can be found more neatly addressed in Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1832). For those who really have time on their hands, look at his notes on the differences between the Greek religions (idealists) and the Roman religions (practical).

[Troy]

"to overthrow Troy"

That is one thing, for sure, I do not wish to believe.