Discussion Forums

Hi everyone

I’d be really interested in peoples’ views on this issue.  I am a serving Anglican priest…though in full-time industrial chaplaincy rather than parochial ministry at the present time.  I lead worship around my deanery, and elswhere, at least twice most Sundays and find that I am increasingly unhappy with the recitation of the traditional creeds, as prescribed within the Church.  They seem so intellectual rather than being a heart-felt affirmation of belief and far-removed from people’s experience of the Divine….at least that is how I feel.  Not only that, I find that I am having to find evermore ingenious ways of re-interpeting them as I recite them because, at the mind level, I find them difficult to accept at face-value.  There are times when I feel that the Unitarian option is preferable; when I look at their website, it “ticks all the boxes” for me.  However, I really don’t want to give up on and leave my own tradition and culture which has sustained me for nearly 60 years…does anyone know of any book, or other resources, which might help me to comes to terms with the form of words that I am bound to use?

Glad to have this forum to discuss these things!

John

Creeds feel to me like a method of defining who’s in and who’s out of the church, so it seems to me that they are intentionally divisive.  I don’t feel that Jesus would have gone in for creeds. He’d be more likely to be on the outside with those rejected, than feeling smug on the inside.

I feel the same way.  I’ve not found a book that really adequately addresses the issue yet but I’m currently reading “God Without God: Western Spirituality without the Wrathful King” by Michael Hampson which has a section on the creeds. It doesn’t fully address the issues for me, but it’s been quite helpful. If anyone know of anything better please post so I can read it too.

Isn’t this a two-fold problem? One, that the creeds, certainly the Nicene Creed, were “written by a committee” in order to try to produce a consensus, and therefore tends to represent the end-result of the power-politics of the time, and Two, that churches (and I’m not - any more - an Anglican but a Presbyterian) can’t or won’t see that NOTHING devised 1700 years ago is going to meet the needs of a post-enlightenment, post-industrial revolution population. The change needed isn’t tinkering with the language (you for thee, etc.) but divining the essence within the creed and re-interpreting it for today. But this requires a much wider discussion and starts to bump into the major faultlines between liberals and literalists.

I think all sermons should be about putting Jesus’ teachings into action and not just talking about it. Visable action! Check out: https://www.marshill.org/ Rob Bell’s the man. They have downloadable podcasts. I haven’t heard of anything better than what they are doing.

Bonzo - 03 November 2009 01:39 PM

Creeds feel to me like a method of defining who’s in and who’s out of the church, so it seems to me that they are intentionally divisive. I don’t feel that Jesus would have gone in for creeds. He’d be more likely to be on the outside with those rejected, than feeling smug on the inside.

I am in complete agreement with you, Bonzo. Furthermore, I don’t think Jesus even believed in (or cared about) many of the doctrines referred to in the creeds. I speak as a recently-committed Unitarian (with a free church background). I think the creeds are still used to perform an excluding function. Recently, 2 Unitarian young people were refused places at a CofE secondary school. Frequently, Unitarian Churches are barred from participating in Walks of Witness or ecumenical Women’s World Day of Prayer Services. In many areas, Unitarin church leaders face an uphill struggle involving their congregations (usually very small) in local ecumenical work, with the Unitarians’ refusal to affirm the creeds or the traditional doctrine of the trinity cited as the most common reasons for their exclusion.

Unitarians allow their members to explore other faith traditions; this is what today marks Unitarians apart from Progressive Christians. Some Unitarians would object to being called Christians, but my feeling is that many others see themselves as followers of the teachings of Jesus, which I would arbitrate as being Christian.

If that wasn’t enough of a plug, the website of the Unitarian Christian Association can be found under http://www.unitarianchristian.org.uk , which PCN members may find interesting.

PS: I hope you liked the national Unitarian website. It was recently revamped by volunteers (although I don’t claim any credit for it!)

I’ve been doing some research into the views of people in church and beyond about things like the creeds, what it is that folk actually believe. Several church people tell me that they say them with their fingers crossed, others that they cannot say them at all, others that they see them only as metaphor, and still others tales of what bishops have suggested people should do to allow themselves to say the words without meaning them. What is lacking here is honesty. There is a deal of compassion behind that, in that people do not want to upset others who may believe these things as written. But the truth seems to be, in the inherited and traditional churches at least, that there is a substantial number who cannot say the creeds with any integrity. Where does that leave us? Confused but afraid to face up to our confusion, perhaps.

Hi Pronter.  I think this gets the nearest so far to addressing the original question.  I share anecdotal evidence of what you have found and I think it’s sad that people would rather tip-toe around the substance of the creeds for the sake of maintaining familiarity, or feeling they are not able to speak out and question a part of the traditional liturgy that so much hangs on.

There are alternative creeds around, or a congregation could have a go of making their own sumplified, broader statement of belief or purpose. I appreciate, however, that replacing or removing the “Apostles’” or Nicene creed may not be possible in many communities.

Is there anyone here who will stick up for the traditional creeds? Are there any examples of good practice from Progressive churches using liturgical worship?

Thanks Timonline2000. I have worked with young people in the past on writing our own “Bible” and have used a number of more acceptable (to me anyway) “creeds” in public worship that have gone down OK,perhaps because I made no great issue of them, and perhaps because we Methodists (some of us anyway) don’t say the creeds as often as others. Part of the issue is how we use creeds, and indeed all the texts of Christianity. Several people in my recent investigations suggested that it would be a shame to lose the creeds and other traditions of the church, representing as they do the thought of the church over the years, but one suggested that creeds, for example, should be put into the back of hymn books where they could be useful perhaps for meditating on or as discussion starters. A fellow minister sees creeds as metaphorical but as I said to her, I’m not sure that others within the church and certainly beyond, see them that way. Many believe we are dealing in the creeds (as again in our other great texts) with statements of fact, and there we begin to come up against the whole issue of the use of language, what we mean by truth, the science / faith divide and so on. Without an open and free discussion of these things in our churches we shall not make progress but, sadly, it is not always possible to do that. Several people have said to me that they fear the reaction of people if they said what they truly thought, and given the sort of reaction I have had, I can’t blame them, although if there were more of us orepared to speak out, perhaps we wouldn’t feel so alone. there is huge institutional pressure to conform here also. There is much to do.

With greatest respect to your ministerial colleague, I think it’s a cop-out to suggest that the creeds are a metaphor.  The creeds aren’t poems: they were intended to be actual affirmations of belief, and continue to be presented as such in today’s Anglican and Catholic liturgies.  As you have pointed out, most Free Churches don’t say creeds regularly, but they are still valid as position statements (with the exception of Uniarians and Quakers).  As an saide, one of the things that finally pulled me away from the URC and into the Unitarians is that the theological pluralism found within different congregations is not explored, and I found it repressive.

I think discussion starters or meditations on the creeds are two of the ways forward.  It is up to the leaders of churches to introduce such discussion and to steer them so they are safe for people to reflect critically.  I am against the use of traditional creeds in collective worship or as a condition of acceptance into membership, but I accept that congregations may find different, and equally valid solutions.  One thing’s for sure: traditional creeds cannot be ignored, as they have been a decisive factor in bringing us to the Christianity we have today, for better or worse.

The starting point for me as an Anglican is that the creeds will always be at the heart of the Church and of the liturgy, no matter what I may think of them. There would never be any consensus for their significant adaptation, or removal to a less prominent position.

So I have to find a way to live with them in generosity. To say the words through clenched teeth will do no one any good.

This topic has caused me to sit down and read the Nicene Creed and reflect on my relationship with it over many years. I’ve realised that this relationship has been constantly evolving - something that I have only now seen clearly looking back.

Like many of us, I suspect, I first said the words by rote. Then I started thinking about their meaning and rebelled. Now we have made peace again - which was only possible because of the long period of difficulty. The struggle has given a quiet confidence that something beyond the words, far beyond their literal meaning, is reaching out through them.

Words and their meanings matter - but only up to a certain point. I am aware of the literal meaning, but this is set against the vast mystery that permeates and surrounds the words. It has been the quiet growth of this sense of mystery that seems to have brought peace.

Perhaps this sense of the deep, vibrant unknown allows the words to be seen from another, less worldly perspective.

The Nicene Creed is most certainly the product of a sordid political process in the early church, and has been much misused since, but I now have a deep feeling that God is at its heart nevertheless.

When I say the creed now, I relate to it as part of the rhythm of the whole liturgy, which is gradually opening my consciousness (and those around me) to the presence of the numinous. For this to work, I have to let go into the journey, without holding back.

I am also uplifted by being able to join with a group of very disparate people in seeking God - even if we would each understand the words we say a little (or very) differently. Viewed from a bit of distance, this is a beautiful thing.

As an Anglican Lay Minister I regularly have to use the traditional creeds, which I interpret in the light of a ‘realised’ theology (e.g. the ‘risen’ Christ is alive, not in ‘heaven’ but in the living body of his followers)  To be honest it’s not just the creeds that are the problem.  Take the collect for this week (Advent 3) which tells us to ‘prepare and make ready your way by turning the hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just,that at your second coming to judge the world we may be found an acceptable people in your sight   ‘-  not germane to the modern age, in which such a literal view of the second coming is no more than apocalyptic mythology.  My answer to this one is to use the alternative collects where possible and appropriate - this week’s talks instead of ‘courage to speak the truth,to hunger for justice,and to suffer for the cause of right’ which is much more in tune with the modern age.  If I’m doing a Service of the Word I use the following for the creed which avoids the theological conundrums and the biological impossibilities of the traditional creeds and accords quite well with the ‘realised’ theology that I would wish to promote.

We believe in God the Father,
from whom every family
in heaven and on earth is named.

We believe in God the Son,
who lives in our hearts through faith,
and fills us with his love.

We believe in God the Holy Spirit,
who strengthens us
with power from on high.

We believe in one God;
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Amen.

It’s not altogether without problems, but it is an ‘approved’ alternative, and it does have some good features, not least that it is a good deal simpler that the formal creeds.

For anglican liturgies in an ecumenical congregation, I used for many years this adaptation of the ASB Baptismal Creed:

  We believe and trust in God the Father who made all things.
  We believe and trust in his Son, Jesus Christ, who redeemed the world.
  We believe and trust in the Holy Spirit, who gives life to the people of God.
  This is the faith of the church, this is our faith:
  We believe and trust in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Dawn - 06 November 2009 12:41 PM

I feel the same way.  I’ve not found a book that really adequately addresses the issue yet but I’m currently reading “God Without God: Western Spirituality without the Wrathful King” by Michael Hampson which has a section on the creeds. It doesn’t fully address the issues for me, but it’s been quite helpful. If anyone know of anything better please post so I can read it too.

Contemporary atheism and the Nicene Creed do battle here, then make friends after all (the full text of the book is online): http://www.michaelhampson.co.uk

I’m fortunate in being a retired Anglican priest who spent most of my ministry as Industrial Chaplain, therefore slightly at arms length from the parochial ministry. Nowadays I conduct worship almost solely in the Methodist Church, which allows me a good deal of flexibility with regard to worship content. I also act as chaplain on cruise ships during the Christmas and Easter fortnights, so again I have (almost!) free rein with regard to content. This current discussion about creeds rings so many bells with me that I’m deafened! I’ve found a few alternatives which I use, because I can no longer say the creeds, since they no longer say what I think I believe. So for your interest, here are the ones I’ll be using next week round the Canary Islands!
This is from the United Church of Canada:

We are not alone,
we live in God’s world.

We believe in God:
who has created and is creating,
who has come in Jesus,
the Word made flesh,
to reconcile and make new,
who works in us and others
by the Spirit.

We trust in God.

We are called to be the Church:
to celebrate God’s presence,
to live with respect in Creation,
to love and serve others,
to seek justice and resist evil,
to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen,
our judge and our hope.
In life, in death, in life beyond death,
God is with us.

We are not alone.
Thanks be to God.

I can’t remember where this one came from, but I’ve tweaked it a bit:

We believe in God,
creator of all that is,
of all that has been
and of all that ever will be,
from whom every family
in heaven and on earth is named.

We believe in the Christ of God,
the Word of God made flesh in Jesus,
who lives in our hearts by faith
and fills us with God’s love.
We believe in God’s Spirit,
who strengthens us with God’s power
and leads us in The Way
for all our days.
Lord, we believe: help us where faith falls short.

Another one from somewhere!

I trust in God, who is love,
and who has given the earth to all people.
I trust in Christ, who heals us and frees us
from all forms of oppression.
I trust in God’s Spirit, who works in us
and through all who turn towards truth.

I trust in the community of faith,
which is called to be at the service of all people.
I trust in God’s power to transform,
fulfilling the promise of a new heaven and a new earth
where justice and peace will flourish.
We commit ourselves to following Christ,
to one another as brothers and sisters,
and to the work of God in the world,
through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.

Lastly, one from a RC parish in France, translated:

We believe in God our Creator,
whose word upholds human life,
for God is life;
whose tenderness longs for the freedom of humanity,
for God is love.

We believe in Jesus, the Word made flesh,
who came to share our life
and to lighten our darkness.
Born among the poor, he showed us God’s love.
Freely accepting death, he destroyed death.
Rising again, he is the wellspring of life and hope.

We believe in God’s Spirit,
who brings us to birth in the life of God,
and floods us with strength and gladness
in the struggle to be faithful.

We believe in the Church, servant of all,
bringer of good news,
in whom we witness to God in the world.
We believe in eternal life.
We look for resurrection
in the hope of a new world
where all humanity will be one in union with God,
who is now, and is to come for ever.
Amen

I’ll be interested in your reactions to these. When I use them in worship in churches or on ships, I usually get favourable responses, mainly because the words are fresh and need thinking about. Which I think is what they’re for!

As an Anglican priest from a non-conformist background but with Russian Orthodox experience I find the Creed hateful and fascinating at the same time. Generally I try and avoid using the Apostles’ Creed in worship opting instead for the Baptismal creed if it is remotely appropriate. I have on occasion used a time of quiet response to a sermon in lieu of the creed reasoning that making a response to God is a good alternative to making a statement of faith (especially given that the Creed is seen by many in my congregations as a chance to state allegiance more than doctrine or fact). My Orthodox experience, however, reminds me of the historicity of the creeds - not that they are historical documents per se but that they are documents of history, calling to be understood as of their time. So when I say ‘God the Father’ I understand how that was meant when written and I can affirm that view as not the same as mine but one that was valid then and I have a valid equivalent now. Likewise with ‘Jesus, born of a Virgin’ I don’t believe that for a minute in my understanding of birth and virgin but I understand that a virgin birth was an affirmation of greatness and I can affirm that Jesus holds such greatness for me even though I wouldn’t consider his birth to have been scietifically impossible (had he been a she, that would be a whole different ball game!)
My great frustration then is not with the creed itself but rather with my sense of deception. Am I deceiving people by not explaining this when the creed is said? Am I allowing people to take it literally because I do not address the issue of historicity? Am I in danger of helping people think ‘that is a load of rubbish’ because it makes little or no sense in today’s mindset; this is not limited to visitors but to regular worshippers.