------------------------------------------
Read the Apostles Creed (page 30 in McGrath) and the Nicene Creed (it can be found on many online sites). They represent rare times when the entire church got together (representatively) and agreed on such a statement of belief. Do you think it is appropriate to accept them as the yardstick by which Christianity is defined? Why or why not? What would you add or delete?
----------------------------------------------
The Apostles Creed is a good and sound summary
of Christian doctrine and very similar in wording to the Nicene Creed. They both share the quality of outlining the
basic tenets of the Church. The word creed stems from the Latin “credo” which
means “I believe” and emulates the purpose of both statements: to express the beliefs of the faith in a
succinct and structured manner. To that
end, regardless of the creed which is used, both serve the same purpose of
pronouncing belief in the faith of the Church.
However, when the creeds originated, there were not
nearly the number of divisions and denominations as there are today so I’m not
entirely certain we can (or should) say as a blanket statement that “the entire
Church is in agreement.” Is the “entire
Church” the same in its entirety as it was then? Not even close. Much like the Constitution
has not changed in wording since it was originally penned yet many, many individuals
no longer hold to what it decrees, I feel some may argue this correlation with
regard to the Apostles Creed/Nicene Creed.
That aside, both creeds absolutely can and should be utilized as the
yardstick by which Christianity…at its
basic premise…can be measured.
At first blush, I have always been inclined to want
to remove “the holy Catholic church”; however, upon further investigation and
thought, my original inclination is what should actually be removed. The “holy Catholic church” does not refer to
the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today.
The word catholic used here
means “universal.” The true “catholic”
church is all those who have placed their faith in Jesus for salvation, thus both
defining and unifying Christians and further cementing the acceptance of the
creed(s) as an appropriate definition. The
unified Church and body of believers is where all those who are stirred by the Holy
Spirit and are faithful to God come together in sacred community. The Church is ‘catholic’ because it is
all-embracing; it is not “an enclave within a profane godless world, but rather
the movement, initiated by God, to communicate perfect salvation to all
nations.”[1] It is ‘holy’ when it is imbued and sanctified
by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, while I would not delete anything from
the creed(s), I do think it is worth considering what has been left out, and that
is, Jesus’ ministry. There is no mention
of His work or teachings in the world and instead moves straight from birth to death. I believe it is The Liberation Theologians
who made kind of a big deal about this omission. Their view is that it leaves out the most
radical and prevailing components in the life of Jesus, which has extensive
(mostly political) relevance for the poor and marginalized today, as well as
how we grasp what discipleship entails.
Perhaps one sentence or reference to Christian praxis would be a welcome
and compelling addition to both creeds.
You will buy the book, right? (Yeah...I'll change names...no worries, you. Or, (ew) you. And...definitely not Y-O-U.)
[1] Urs von Balthasar, Hans. Credo: Meditations on the Apostles Creed. New
York, Crossroads, 1990. p.84.
No comments:
Post a Comment