Doug Pagitt recently posted a video on his site in which he ranted about Creeds. Below is a portion from his rant (but you should go listen to it for yourself):
Creeds are not summations of Christianity – they’re not summations of faith. Creeds are articulations of particular understandings inside of a certain contextual context. There were questions being asked – and there were responses to those questions. What do we believe? We believe these particular things as these people in these places. And that doesn’t mean at all that I’m suggesting that I wouldn’t hold to them. What I’m suggesting is they’re not to be used as summations, they’re to be used as particular beliefs. So if we talk about creeds as summaries, and we suggest that you have the scriptures and then you have the summary of all of that in this little package, in this little thing and all you have to do is look to that and have that be the shortest most simple amount of agreement that you can find…it de-bowels creeds of their life and their strength.
As someone who generally attends worship at Presbyterian (USA) churches, this is something that I think is important to wrestle with. Why do we use the creeds in worship. And do we use them to connect ourselves with the history of the church or do we indeed use them as summations of our faith? It seems that when we preface the congregational reading of the creed with “People of God, what is it that you believe?” we are continuing to perpetuate the idea that the creed we recite is a total summation of what it means to be a Christian.
The Calvin Institute of Christian Worship has an interesting article entitled “The Case for Reciting Creeds in Worship.” The article offers a few different reasons for the purpose of reciting creeds in worship:
- “Saying the creeds in worship links us to the church of past ages and connects us to the worship of future ages.”
- “Saying creeds in worship makes me feel so at home among believers, no matter where I am.”
- The biblical authority of creeds—reinforced by reciting them together in worship—“safeguards thoughtful worshipers from being led astray by every wind of doctrine.”
- Brushing up on historic creeds will prepare you for conversations about what Christians believe and why.
If there is one reason to recite creeds in worship, I think it may be to help connect the local congregation to believers in the past and in the future – to help one understand that the faith they confess has been confessed by multitudes in the past and will be professed by multitudes in the future as well. However, one must not believe that the faith will look exactly the same as it did for the early church or for the Reformers. And this is one of the potential downfalls of creeds, as Doug mentioned in his rant. If we do present the creeds as the summary of what Christians believe, we miss out on a lot.
For example, take the Apostles’ Creed. The Presbyterian Church (USA) Book of Confessions writes: “Although not written by apostles, the Apostles’ Creed reflects the theological formulations of the first century church.” The last I checked, we were not still living in the first century. The text for the Apostles’ Creed is below:
I BELIEVE in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.
Are these things that I would subscribe to? A belief in God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost? Yes, of course. These are things that Christianity has historically held to since the first century. However, if we present this creed to the congregation in the form of “What do you believe?” and if it is understood as a summation of the Christian faith – we are doing an injustice. Where does the creed talk about the God who is a radical liberating God, a God who cares about the poor, the downtrodden, the social inequalities? Where does it talk about the kingdom of God in the Apostles’ Creed? Where does it talk about humanity’s call to partner with God in the creating of God’s kingdom here on earth?
Obviously, a short creed recited in church will not be able to hold all of the things we believe it is important to believe as a Christian – not even the Apostles’ Creed. That being the case, it is even more important that we do not let the creeds serve as summations of Christian belief. I don’t think they should be thrown out, or that there may not be an appropriate use for them in worship, but I think it’s important to stop to reflect on what we think about the creeds. When we choose to put them in the Order of Worship for Sunday – what is our goal in doing so? Do we stick it in there simply because the PCUSA Book of Common Worship suggests we do? Do we insert the creed so that people can “brush up on” what are the most important things Christian believe? Do we want to recite the creed so that people will feel connected to Christians across time and space? Are there other ways to do that, perhaps other rituals?
I think it’s time to rethink the use of creeds in worship. Does your church use creeds in worship? What do you think about when you recite them (if you think about anything)? Do you think lay people have a strong understanding of their purpose in the liturgy? What does everyone else think?
Related posts:
- A Theological Statement for Your Critique
- Rethinking Church: If Jesus can be wrong…
- Dana Decker – When We Sing: Music for Liberal Worship
- Emerging Worship Environments
Share This Post:
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
A member of my Dad’s church refuses to recite the creed, whatever it is, if the pastor invites the congregation by saying something like, “Let us confess what we believe.”
The creeds are not what each individual members believes, says this parishoner, but what the Church believes. So, a better invitation would be, “Let us confess what the Church believes, using the words of the ______ creed.”
I find this distinction important, for it speaks to exactly what Pagitt is wrestling with. Creeds are not, and I would argue, haven’t been understood for a long time, as summaries of Christianity. They are, of course, like every single statment we make, products of culture and particular context. This is good to remember, I suppose, but it doesn’t speak to the irrelevance of creeds, but to the power they have to inform our understanding of God.
No matter what our individualistic culture would like to believe, we would not believe in Christianity without the witness of the saints of the past–the same saints who wrote the wonderful complex creeds of the church.
Adam, this understanding is very Presbyterian since the ordination vow asks if a candidate “adopts the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of the church…” “Essential tenets” as the PC(USA) is finding at the moment, is debatable, but it is certainly not every jot and tittle of the confessions.
As a Baptist Creeds are generally something you run from, but I did work at one country Baptist church in rural NC that did use the Apostle’s Creed. The first time it was used it needed to be explained because no one knew they even existed, but the senior pastor did a good job using it to help connect the church to our entire history. The best thing he did was go through the creed line by line for two months during wednesday night bible study. After that the creed, when it was used on Sundays we had the Eucharist, was meaningful to many in the congregation.
I do agree that the creed misses much of the gospel. I like the addition Moltmann suggested putting after ‘and was made man’:
“Baptized by John the Baptist, filled with the Holy SPirit: to preach the kingdom of God to the poor, to heal the sick, to receive those who have been cast out, to revive Israel for the salvation of the nations, and to have mercy upon all people.” (p150 in ‘The Way of Jesus Christ’)
You might be interested in my recent book Beyond Creed: From Religion to Spirituality (iUniverse 2006) available as an ebook or paperback. It is a challenge to what I call creedal-messianism and argues that there is a spiritual way that Jesus taught that was severely distorted as the church established itself institutionally. In the 60s I wrote a book called the Grass Roots Church which lacked this theological aspect — the product of many intervening years of thinking. I remain part of the UPUSA as an elder at Trinity Church in Manhattan.
Well, Adam, I basically agree with the insight that creeds come from contexts, but it is inaccurate to say they are not summaries of the faith — why? Because some are just that.
Some are specific issues — Nicea responds to homo/homoiousion and Arius; Ephesus got together to discuss Nestorius; but the Apostles’ creed is more of a summary of some central elements and some basics, though not everything (that is left to theologies). Others in the history of the Church, say Westminster, is much more complete.
No?
Adam,
Is this my second comment here? I know I was one of the first commenters once.
I grew up in a christianity that was made on the go. Ancient creeds were not part of my spiritual formation. The version of christianity i was taught was as old as our senior pastor.
Later on in life as I joined a congregation that recites the creed (Episcopal Church) I learned that this christian thing is older than me. The creeds revitalized christianity for me.
As for me the creed point to something that is older than the senior pastor, reformation, or the latest fad/flavor of the day in christianity.
I understand the need for reconsidering our context and the use of the creeds. I am even willing to participate in that discussion. But I am afraid I am too young (32), too short sighted, too distracted to discard something that have withstand the trials of time.
I just got a phone call from a member of the last vestiges of adult “Sunday School” in our congregation asking that we return to a recitation of The Apostles’ Creed. He believes it’s important to “state what we believe” prior to leaving worship. I realized that I lead a double life.
It’s funny that in talking about creeds, worship, and context, you never address the context of worship in forming creeds. For example, why does the Apostle’s creed start with ‘I’ instead of ‘we’? Quite simply, because it was a baptismal creed.
Asking the question of how did the creeds fit into worship in the life of the tradition, opens up the possibility of newer and (in my opinion) more interesting questions. For example, maybe rethinking the use of creeds in worship should point us toward asking about anemic ecclesiologies or views of the sacraments.
Something to throw in to the mix of things related to the topic.
To me, a creed is not all of our beliefs. It’s a core of beliefs. It’s sort of the same idea that the Mission Statement is not the same as the Annual Report.
Having said that, the creeds are important to me because they are Presbyterian Catechism – a reinforcing of our beliefs.
Our church uses a different thing every week. Some are from the Book of Confessions, and others are from other writings. They are read in unison by the congregation. It’s not the Apostle’s Creed (or the Nicene Creed) every week.
Perhaps we should remember that the creeds were written to articulate the orthodox Christian faith in order to defend against heresy. (They also summarized Biblical themes – very important!) Therefore, they are confessional, not merely products of cultural contexts.
Let’s assume they are simply products of the patristic era, this does not automatically presume they are irrelevant for the modern era. This is a genetic fallacy.
Creeds (confessions) are vital to the re-tell and to live in the midst of the communal (church) story. It identifies the Church from those outside.
I do think it’s very important to say the creeds together. If anything it communicates to those who gather to say them that not just anything goes in the church. I especially like the idea of prefacing them by saying what the church believes.
People in my estimation are fairly uninformed about their faith. The creeds can help them begin to work through some things.
What better way to provoke thoughtful discussion than to say something together like “he descended into hell.” I mean, what in the world does that mean?!?
The late Jaroslav Pelikan said of the creeds and their role in Postmodern worship: “I am not being asked ‘what do you believe as of 10:15 this Sunday morning?’” Our faith life fluctuates through cycles of doubt, passion, ennui, clarity…what we are saying when we recite the creeds is that I am a part of a community that for nearly 2,000 years has affirmed these things. I think that’s indispensible.
Jerry’s statement, “Perhaps we should remember that the creeds were written to articulate the orthodox Christian faith in order to defend against heresy,” is at least partially incorrect. If he means, form people so that they don’t become heretics, I’d agree, but if he means creeds were something by which to measure those outside a particular Christian community, then he misses the role they played in Christian worship and Sacramental liturgy.
I guess even the latter sense would be true closer to the great schism and certainly given the animosity surrounding the Reformation.
Steven–thanks for the quote! I’m still saddened by his death.
Dan,
I agree with your assessment of my thought regarding the role of creeds in early Christian theology, particularly the liturgy. However, we cannot forget that those who did not confess the creed (Apostle or Nicean) to be true (even partially) were recognized as heretics and therefore outside the church (e.g. Arius). So the distinction you are trying to make that they somehow weren’t a measuring rod is only paritally correct, because in condemning one a heretic, one is using the creed (among other rods) to do so.
I hope I don’t need to remind anyone that the Apostles Creed is mandated for Baptism (both in our Book of Order and in the theological tradition of entering the covenant community).
If the Creed is tied to our entrance into the community, and is personalized (“I believe…”), then is it really just a matter of cultural memory? Or is it tied to God’s acts of salvation set before us in Jesus Christ, into whom we are baptized?
As a member of a non-confessional denomination (the United Methodist Church has the Articles of Religion, but it has no universally-agreed-upon formal statement of belief in the way the Reformed and Lutheran Churches do), I find the discussion here interesting. You are not asking about the efficacy of creeds in church life; you are just asking whether you feel comfortable “reciting” them in worship. What about them as the basis for the teachings of a church or Church? Consider the Augsburg Confession – if you want to know what Lutherans believe, here you go! Creedal recitation is a reaffirmation of where a church stands, and on what it will take and make its stand. Personally, I refuse to recite the whole “virgin” thing in the Apostolic Creed, because I couldn’t care less one way or another whether or not Mary was a virgin, or remained so. When I had trouble with the resurrection of the dead, I refused to recite that, as well (I have changed my mind so now I include it).
To me, it is participation in the great ebb and flow of the life of the church, going back to those cramped little rooms all over the eastern Mediterranean; the Great Cloud of Witnesses (the communion of saints in the Creed) becomes something real to me, even when I don’t agree with everything.
Finally, affirmation of fatih is not an individual thing, nor is it a question of one person’s or another comfort-level with this or that element of a creed (I doubt anyone knew I was omitting “the resurrection of the dead”), but the Church as the Body of Christ stating as simply as possible, as clearly as possible, “This is who we are as a people together.” Church belief has never been unitary or conformed to only one particular formulation; that is why the creeds are as general and vague as they are, despite there previous use as positive statements against heresy. The words allow for a lot of weaseling!
Wow, Adam, I have taken way too much space. Sorry.
Go Steve Good…best response of all.