Discussion Forums

Creeds are about uniformity, orthodoxy and control. I never say them, never use them in worship and see no need of them within the world in which we live. For those who want to use the creeds, that’s fine by me but if I happen to be in a service led by another, should a creed be used [even a modern creed] I remain silent. We all have an experience of the sacred but our words can never describe beyond our experience and whatever ‘god’ is will always be greater than our explanatory fictions. I see my role as an ordained minister not to tell people what to believe but to offer my own explanatory fictions based upon contemporary biblical scholarship and personal experience and then to support, encourage and affirm the rightness of the experiences of others. I grow with them. As I will be saying in my sermon this coming Sunday regarding Doubting Thomas, “Why is it that some Christians are afraid of questioning Christian orthodoxy? Is it because these Christians think that Christian orthodoxy was introduced by Jesus himself and therefore has to be swallowed hook, line and sinker?... The strength of Chrisatianity should have been its ability to hold together diverse beliefs but all too often diversity has ended in schism, ex-communication and blood shed…. How long will it be before the Christian Churches realise that they can never capture ‘god’ or that they can stop spiritual enquiry, discussion and investigation by claiming to have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?... But Jesus was not calling us to a belief in Christian creeds or doctrines. These came later as the Christian churches developed and fought over what would become orthodoxy. Jesus was calling Thomas, and continues to call us today,to live his life of servant hood and sacrifice finding something in life that is worth dying for.” etc etc….

Jesus was asked, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” His response was, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbour as yourself.” Surely then, Christianity, if it is true to Jesus, must be about a transforming relationship of love and trust and a way of giving oneself self-sacrificially to others. The test of it is in our daily lives, in the way we are in our homes, at work and in our social life rather than in any checklist of beliefs.

The creed makes no mention of the love that what Jesus taught was the heart of faith nor of the commitment that discipleship demands.  It is literally “love”-less.  It was designed to show who is “in” and who is “out”, who is with us and who is against us, and even who is for God and who is against him. (In the past heretics being against God could be tortured and burnt alive.)  It is by nature exclusive and divisive; if you can’t say the creed with conviction, you don’t belong.  It plays the same role that the Jewish purity laws played in Jesus’ time – defining who is acceptable to God.  We know what Jesus, who seemed happiest in the company of the sinners and those excluded by the religious leaders of his day, thought of the Pharisees’ exclusiveness.

Yes, you can reinterpret the words to mean something that’s relevant to you, but I wonder how that works, if everyone else present thinks that you are assenting to the literal meaning of each phrase in the creed.  Why can’t you just say where you personally stand in plain words?  When my grandson was baptized recently, my daughter avoided all the local mainstream churches because she would have to have made statements that she couldn’t make with integrity – and she wouldn’t make them with her fingers crossed behind her back.  She found an ecumenical church where she could make a personal statement of faith that she wrote herself. 

If you do want a reinterpretation, try Hans Küng’s book, “Credo – The Apostles’ Creed Explained for Today.”  (SCM 1993.)

What worries me is the impact that the dead hand of a 4th century creed is having on the development of Christianity.  How can Christianity be a living vibrant faith that grows and develops, if we keep it boxed in with doctrines? A living faith will, like all living things, grow and develop, adapt to its environment and evolve. When traditionalists tell me that the “historic faith” consists of beliefs that are set in stone, I have to reflect that the things I know set in stone are fossils – and they’re dead.

There are several members of the local village church who find it hard saying the creeds.Some will say them anyway because it is expected of them,others leave gaps.Personally I find it increasingly upsetting and can quite understand those who leave rather than having constantly to cope with the dichotomy between their brain and the words they are supposed to say.
I do so wish the church would take notice of the work of modern theologians such as Geza Vermes, Gunther Weber and many others and,if we must have creeds, introduce ones that all church goers can say with their integrity intact.

rgaines - 14 December 2009 12:45 PM

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.

Coming belatedly to this discussion, I’d like to add my enthusiastic agreement with so much that has been said. As an Anglican Lay Reader, taking services in different churches, I find it possible to include the Creed quoted here whenever I am writing the service - and find that this triggers lively discussion with a normally conservative congregation, which has opened up into something valuable… at the least this has been “Thank you, this has made me think harder about what I am saying”

I also think that Creeds are like a method of defining who’s in and who’s out of the church. We should not give so much pressure on this topic.
acai berry diet

I don’t count myself as a Christian but a Unitarian, and as such have been invited to belong to this forum, so please accept me on those terms.  The creeds used in the Anglican Church were one of the things that turned me away from Christianity in around 1980 and I have never been able to call myself a Christian since.  As another has already said, there comes a point where the tension between “what we are asked to say” and “how things seem to us” becomes too great and we have to leave to preserve our integrity.

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 leterally 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.

Des:

I think what you describe is exactly the problem I found with the Church of England and is one of the things that drove me away from it.  There is a wealth of accreted knowledge and study, and deep personal thought, about the liturgy as it has developed over the centuries. You cannot form a meaningful understanding of it merely by going to church for an hour every Sunday. And yet, if that contact with the Church is all you have, then you go away at the end of it either thinking that everyone else around you believes in the literal truth of the words that you have all just heard (or even spoken), or that there are lots of people round you who say words they don’t mean, and are therefore hypocritical.

I think a crucial role of priests today is as interpreters, offering over successive Sundays a succession of alternate meanings that can be read into the liturgy. If the words were opened up as metaphor then sooner rather than later the penny would drop and people would realise that they were free to set their own meaning to the liturgy, and experience their own relationship with the divine through divine service.

I am a Unitarian. The mark of Unitarians is that they attest to the central call to love and from there work out what they are capable of believing rather than believing a given faith, one handed them by another with the instruction that “it is THIS that you are to believe.”  I have been away from the Church of England since the 1980s and it is only since 1998 that I discovered the Unitarians that I found there was another way to approach a community of faith (and indeed, faith itself). Since then my journey of exploration (supported by others who challenge doled-out beliefs) has allowed me a partial reconciliation with the CofE.  But I won’t be coming back to it while there is the possibility that were I to say “I am a Christian” it could be read that I believe the creed. Getting rid of the creed would be a major step forward.

And yes, I do hold that you have a major responsibility to explain the historicity of the creed to your congregation, and in fact the whole of the liturgy.  If you don’t, who can?

Best wishes and thanks for being honest. Thanks for giving me the chance to say this in reply.

Thanks for this continuing thread re the Creeds. In my opinion and experience, the sooner we rid ourselves of the Creeds the sooner we may find new companions on the spiritual journey - from across the religions! I have dealt with some of these issues and concluded that compassion and not Creeds will be the transformative power that we desire - if interested see my sermon for 6th February on http://www.permissiontospeak.org.uk And keep the exploration going….

I have just joined the Forum.  What made me decide to opt in?  I saw the first post on the topic of the use of the traditional creeds in worship from John Davis.  He commented that, at one stage, he had almost reached the point of deciding to throw in his lot with the Unitarians as a visit to their website showed that, for him, they “ticked all the boxes”.  I am someone for whom the Unitarian way seemed to offer the kind of religious traditon I was seeking.  So, two years ago I left my Anglican roots, for which I shall always be grateful, and feel I have now found a real spiritual home within my local Unitarian chapel.

I have to admit to only having briefly looked at the post on this thread but have been really encouraged. When I first came back to faith about a year ago after a 15 year break I tried something different from my original non denominational background and started attending C of E churches. Initially the creeds were really hard to swallow because I felt the claims were too exclusive and too rigid. However, I began to recall the training I had had with a tibetan buddhist and tried looking at the creeds or any liturgy as a means to an end rather than the end itself. I think there is a lot to be said for looking at the mystery that exists in the creed which pertains to the undefinability of God. in this way, regardless of why the creeds were written, you’re actually letting God be God by giving the mystery back to Yahweh which translated means “I will be who I will be.”

I have also taken to reading up a lot on origins of throw away spiritual words used in most churches that are used all the time but which have lost their whole meaning or power.I always likened religious language to the story of the peat bog man. This was the bronze age man who was perfectly preserved in a peat bog. To me religious language can be like a peat bog with God. They surround something which is perfectly preserved but otherwise dead and useless. That is unless we start going back to original meanings or start using secular language to give tastes rather than definitions of this mystery we are a part of.

Like Carol above, I am too someone for whom the Unitarian way offered the kind of religious tradition I was seeking. I joined the Unitarians a year ago, and would strongly encourage anyone who really values a thinking faith to do the same.  Unitarianism is non-credal, and the answer to the problem of creeds is obvious when you think about it - it’s firmly to consign the traditional creeds to the dustbin of history. Actually for me they do have a negative use - they’re an excellent summary of everything I don’t believe!

It gives me great pleasure to see the word “Unitarian” appearing frequently in the posts on this thread.  I hope that others who have found a home with this spiritual tradition may be encouraged to add their voices to the debate.

I am also really encouraged. I am not a Unitarian but I have always been saddened at the fact that this group of very honest and thoughtful people are sidelined from the Christian tradition. Great to see you here.

One of the most important ideas to Unitarians is that we must change (as we grow).  It is expected that one will need to evolve one’s set of beliefs in the light of new insight and experience.

One of the passages that most reflects where I am at present, and which could be seen, I guess, as a sort of creed, is this passage from Rev Dr David Doel (from “The Man They Called The Christ” ISBN 978-0-557-23841-5, published by the Unitarian Christian Association):

Salvation does not lie in anything one might do or not do; in the acceptance or non-acceptance of any formal teaching, dogma or creed; in any place of birth, in race or social position; in belonging to any church or religious community.  Salvation lies, rather, in the internal, experiential recognition, knowledge and acceptance of this astonishing love at the heart of all things and at the core of what it means to be human.  It is this love, the free gift of God to everyone without distinction, whcih restores and transforms us, re-uniting us with the very ground of our being.  The Jesus of the gospels warrants the title “Christ” because of his discovery of this love and his surrender to it, so that the Love of God became his love, as it flowed through him, and God’s will became his will - the hypostatical union available to all people at all times through a self-emptying which allows the knowledge of the Love of God, the bliss of peace and love, to possess the soul.
Inasmuch as they reveal to us through their life and teaching how we may surrender, as they have done, to this love and suffer transformation as they have suffered transformation, the great religious teachers of the world - and one clearly thinks at once of teachers of the stature of Jesus of Nazareth and Siddharta Gautama (the Buddha) - become “Christs” and “Saviours”.

This figures large in my thinking for now.  But ask me in five years’ time whether I would still count it as near to being my creed and no doubt I will say I have moved on!

Thanks for that quote, Lucy.  One of my favourites is the following from Cliff Reed’s book ‘Sacred Earth’. Cliff is a Unitarian minister in Ipswich.  It’s entitled ‘The Christians Who Move On’, precisely what we Unitarians are (and, no doubt, the reason why we aren’t accepted by the main stream churches, who in the main don’t want to move on!).
We are the Christians who move on,
leaving behind what cannot be retained:
the creeds written to cement a long dead empire;
the justification for slavery, genocide, and witch-burning;
the refusal to hear another’s truth;
an idolised book, a man diminished to a god.
We leave these behind and move on,
not in arrogance, not unaware of tradition’s worth,
not creating new bigotries as bad as the old ones,
or so we hope!
We move on,
carrying with us the free and timeless heart of Jesus,
faithful to what was said and done, in love, for liberty - 
by him, by those who follow him, by those who give
his spirit voice and flesh in every time and place.
We are the Christians who move on,
leaving even the name behind, maybe,
a name that Jesus never knew.
We are the Christians who move on,
seeking and sharing the divine heart
in everyone, as Jesus did.