After explaining that they would be reading through the creed phrase by phrase, Woodward would give the charge:
“When the phrase is something you understand on one level or another, and believe, stand up or remain standing. When the phrase is something that makes no sense to you, or is something you do not believe, sit down or remain sitting.”
The resulting dance, he says, appeared to be something akin “to a rebellious exercise class,” with folks popping up, sitting down and squirming to watch their neighbors as they stood and sat and stood again.
At the end, Woodward would ask what they had observed. “The answers were always the same: No one stood all the way through the creed, and no one stayed seated all the way through, and there was always someone standing for every phrase.”
Clever how they conflated doctrinal truth with spiritual gifts. Many people will embrace the idea, as well, because implicit is the idea that one can believe what one wants to believe and order one’s life accordingly.
God’s name is Jealous for a reason (Ex 34:14). He’s trying to protect us. Though we all stub our toe on hard rock, far better that than standing in quicksand. I’ll take hard doctrine over do-it-yourself ethics any day.
As you say, Kendall+. This is a failure of chatechesis. Whatever happened to, “I do not understand in order to believe. I believe in order to understand.”?
I suppose that nobody bothers with Anselm any more ’cause he championed the idea that [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%207:14-15]Christ’s blood is necessary for our salvation[/url]. [i]Ew, gross![/i]
There is something odd about a church that seems actively to celebrate the unbelief of its members.
Perhaps TEC should have an official position, “Custodian of the Nicene Creed.” Whilst no other member of the church, ordained or lay, need be committed to any article of the Creed, and may select articles to deny or affirm as they please, the “Custodian” will be the “official” believer.
When the church recites, “We believe…”, the canonical explanation will be that, no actual member of TEC, other than the Custodian, is committed to affirming faith in anything by saying “We believe…”. Nevertheless, TEC still accepts the Nicene Creed, in the strictly limited sense that someone, somewhere believes all of this stuff even if none of us do.
Of course, based on the article above it may be impossible to find anyone within the right circles in TEC, who might “officially” believe all the the Creed on our behalf.
Welcome to the Church of “Why bother?”
#2, NWOhio Anglican,
Your citation of the famous saying of St. Anselm is very apt, but I wish you’d continued it a bit longer. The next line goes: “And this I also believe, that unless I believe, I will NOT understand.” Amen, Anselm. So true.
Now can you imagine what might have happened if instead of the Nicene Creed, the author of this experiment had chosen the so-called “Athanasian” Creed to use in its place? This unduly neglected ancient Creed starts with the famous (or infamous) ultra-dogmatic words: “Whosoever would be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except he doth keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly!” (Note to those unfamiliar with this classic western creed, it’s in the “Historical Documents” section of the 1979 BCP). Guessing from the skepticism and lack of understanding displayed in this group about the much more familiar Nicene Creed, which we use at almost every Eucharist, I’m speculating that the Rev. Tom Woodward would himself sit down for that stridently dogmatic statement, and probably everyone else there at that gathering in New Mexico would as well.
Another way of summing up the point of this exercise: “Hey, since none of us believes much of anything anymore, let’s all disbelieve together!”
David Handy+
I can understand being concerned that nobody — or at any rate a distinct minority — in the Episcopal Church actually believes every clause of the Nicene Creed. But I have to object to calling it a failure “to teach the faith effectively.” The implication seems to be that “effective” teaching will inevitably bring people to “proper” belief; that failure to believe in the Nicene Creed can only result from failure to correctly understand it.
Is it not possible that a person can understand the Creed fully and still not believe every phrase of it? And that this disbelief might not arise from self-indulgent willfulness, but rather honest disagreement on principles?
…..and Fr. Kendall, are you not aware that the E. Church is the church where you can believe stuff of not?
That seems to be it highest draw.
Gloria in SC
David+ – It is tradition to read the Athanasian Creed (usually responsively between pastor and congregation) on Trinity Sunday in Lutheran Churches, especially since it is part of the Book of Concord. I like to call it the “Lutheran tongue twister”. Every time I read it I am convinced that the Trinity is truly a mystery that cannot be understood rationally, but simply is a matter of faith. You certainly sit there at the end or reading this Creed and wonder “what exactly did I just say?” But it is Scriptural and thus accepted by the Lutheran Church.
Again with the typo – change “at the end or reading this Creed” to “at the end of reading this Creed”. Obviously proofreading is not one of my better skills! I wish there was a way to edit your own comments!
Sorry, #6, it is [i]not[/i] “possible that a person can understand the Creed fully and still not believe every phrase of it.” See #2 and esp. #5, [i]supra[/i]. If it’s “honest disagreement on principles,” then the honest and principled thing is to leave the Church. But the self-indulgent and willful stay on, in order to tear down.
NRA #5, it’s even more scandalous if you parse it the way I do. “Whosoever would be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith, except he doth keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” I read this not as a threat, but a simple statement of fact, on the order of “unless one puts one foot in front of the other, he cannot walk.”
Ross #6, I understand being unable to grasp or believe everything. I don’t understand being proud of it. “Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief!”
I hope someone does this at a gathering I attend — they would have at least one person standing for each and every phrase.
It’s worth saying that the baptismal covenant begins with the affirmation of God’s nature in the form of the Apostles Creed, beginning, “I believe…” and that Rite I offers the option of affirming faith in the Nicene Creed, also beginning, “I believe…”.
The suggestion that there is a significant difference of content between the singular and plural forms is implausible. For both, faith is something that I affirm. It is an expression of my belief. When we say “We believe..” it just means we believe individually and together. (Just as in the expression, “We the undersigned…”).
One more thing re #5’s completion of Anselm’s quotation: “Unless I believe, I will not understand” is the core of Michael Polanyi’s epistemology — see [i]Personal Knowledge[/i] or his lecture series, [i]Science, Faith and Society[/i].
I’m a convinced Polanyian in epistemology; his understanding of how we learn matches my introspection on the process of learning anything at all.
Harry Edmon (#8 & 9),
It’s nice to have you visiting an Anglican blog again (as you did on SF recently). Yes, I too have maintained the same practice of using the “Athanasian” Creed on Trinity Sunday for years. And it is actually mandated on that Sunday in the Church of England’s official Prayerbook of 1662 (though this is commonly ignored and it’s not used).
However, although the original Anglican Creed, the 39 Articles of 1571, spoke of THREE ancient creeds as summarizing the faith of the Church (including the Athanasian), the Episcopal Church dropped the Athanasian Creed when it separated from England after the Revolutionary War. It’s been optional in America ever since, and the form of the 39 Articles adopted by the Episcopal Church in 1801 likewise dropped mention of the Athanasian Creed as a standard of orthodoxy, probably because of its ultra-dogmatic spirit.
As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, you may naturally see that as representing a typical Episcopal tendency toward laxity and perpetual compromising with regard to doctrine. And I would have to agree. Unfortunately, our problems in TEC with resistance to doctrinal precision and strictness go way back.
FWIW, for those unfamiliar with this precious (even if long and strident) creed, the “Athanasian” Creed has no historical connection with St. Athanasius since it exists only in the Latin tradition (and Athanasius of course, while Egyptian, spoke and wrote in Greek, not Latin). Thus, like the Apostles’ Creed, the Athansian is a purely western creed, unknown in the Eastern churches. Only the Nicene Creed is fully ecumenical, used by both the East and the West.
David Handy+
If organized creatively it could look like the wave that one sometimes sees at sporting events.
NWOhio Anglican (#11 and 14),
I agree with your post #11, though I suggest that both interpretations are valid; it seems like a case of both/and, not either/or.
And as for Michael Polanyi’s epistemology, I also find it compelling. As you probably know, Polanyi was a major influence on the thought of the great theologian and apologist Lesslie Newbigin. It underlies the whole thrust of Newbigin’s lucid refutation of pluralism as an “ism,” in his marvelous book, “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.” I consider Newbigin one of the three or four most influential theologians I’ve ever read.
David Handy+
Check out here for another response on this event!
As long as we’re talking about the opening of the Athanasian creed, I absolutely do not believe that a God who loves both justice and mercy has made it so that every single person in history who has not subscribed to a particular checklist of Trinitarian dogma is damned forever.
David+ – The same laxity can be seen in Lutheranism. For example, some branches of Lutheranism (e.g. LCMS) accept the Book of Concordia as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God. Other accept the Book of Concord “in so far as” it is a statement and exposition of the Word of God. The second view allow you to ignore any portion of the Book of Concord you do not agree with – very similar to the way some in Anglicanism handle the 39 Articles. Also similar to views on the Scripture itself – is it the Word of God, or does it just “contain” some words of God?
Ross – so, what part of the Creed(s) do you disagree with?
Thanks, NRA, but I had never heard of Lesslie Newbigin, to the best of my recollection. I dabble in the philosophy of science and read a little in theology, but I don’t claim an exhaustive familiarity in either field.
#21 — there are few parts of the creeds that I actively disagree with (although the opening of the Athanasian creed is one of those parts.) There are substantial portions that I think are a true way of putting words to an ineffable Truth, but by no means the only true way. There are parts that I think are stated in philosophical categories that most people no longer think in, and so are less useful than they once were. And there are parts that I think are taking firm stands on highly speculative areas that don’t really matter.
More to the point, perhaps, I consider all the creeds to be the human creations, the product of discussion, discernment, compromise, and sometimes outright politics. I take the creeds seriously, but as human truth and not as revealed truth.
Ross, being written in the Lamb’s Book of Life does not depend on scoring a passing on any theology test or even a checklist of credal elements. But if your problem is Trinitarian dogma, while NO ONE truly “understands” the Trinity, the essential belief is quite simple, though plumbing its depths would be the worthy and impossible task of several lifetimes.
Essentially, ONE God who has revealed Himself in Scripture in three distinguishable persons. And though Scripture never uses the term “Trinity”, each person is referred to as God in Scripture while affirming that there is only one Lord God.
Of course the references to the Father as God are found throughout the Bible.
Jesus claimed “I and the Father are one” (One God, not one and the same person but two persons sharing the same Divine nature or essence) and accepted worship, something not even the angels would tolerate. The Pharisees acknowledged Jesus’ claim to divinity by taking up stones against Him, saying, “We do not stone You for good works, but because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God”.
Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as “another comforter”, a phrase which I have heard many Bible teachers assert that in the Greek original means “another like Myself, with the same nature”. Peter in Acts acknowledged the Holy Spirit to be God. When Ananias and Sapphira lied about keeping back a part of the sale price of their land, Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?
“While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
Ross, if your problems are with other parts of the Nicean Creed (or the Athaniasian Creed for that matter), perhaps you should ask yourself why you reject essentials the early church affirmed and continued to be held true widely until this skeptical age. Jesus will gladly reassure your heart if you ask Him to.
[blockquote]More to the point, perhaps, I consider all the creeds to be the human creations, the product of discussion, discernment, compromise, and sometimes outright politics. I take the creeds seriously, but as human truth and not as revealed truth.[/blockquote]
What, God can’t work, or give definitive revelation, through human beings or their discussions, discernments, compromises or outright politics? Whaddaya think we doctrinal conservatives think of the Bible? You can’t seriously believe we think it dropped from heaven. At least I hope not.
My take on the Nicene and Athanasian creeds is the same as Hilaire Belloc’s — they are a tightening of the definitions. They were forced on the Church by the Arian attempt to rationalize the fact that a bunch of self-described monotheists were praying to three persons, not just one.
#24 I don’t really understand the human truth/revealed truth dichotomy. Theological truth is revealed to humans – in the authoritative interpretation of Scripture that is the life of the church – and so by necessity takes the form of human words. The Creeds are, in a sense, shorthand summaries of the church’s authoritative interpretation of Scripture.
I note the difference between apprehension and comprehension. In apprehension I affirm the historic truth of a revealed reality and also its mystery as outside and beyond my understanding. To claim comprehension is closer to a full grasp of the meaning of a statement which is, in the case of the Creeds, beyond me as a mortal sinner. As a Christian, believing in order to understand is an apprehension of the truth claims of the Creeds on their own terms, not a claim to have comprehended or a need to comprehend their full meaning in the infinite mystery of God. I stand all the way if asked if I apprehend that God has revealed Himself in the way the Creeds describe but must sit, as we all must, through all the Creeds if asked if I comprehend fully the ineffable mystery they describe.
Trinitarians fervently accept certain claims about the nature of God, while rejecting with equal fervor the corresponding claims of (say) the LDS Church. This is decidedly curious, because it’s difficult to see any material difference in credibility between the two. Neither is supported by what a critical thinker would regard as anything remotely resembling competent evidence. Both rest essentially entirely on “faith,” which in this context is a euphemism for wishful thinking. That, I would think, not any failure of catechesis, is why Tom Woodward got the results he did in his experiment. I suspect his results could be replicated in many Episcopal and Lutheran churches.
Kendall says in his main posting that “… what it [the article] tells us is that we are a church which is failing to teach the faith effectively and is not doctrinally serious.” That sounds a lot like certain corporations that never seem to be able to meet their sales objectives. Quarter after quarter, these companies make excuses. They flog their sales forces and fire their sales executives. They replace their marketing staffs, looking for the message that will make everything right. They blame their failures on the weather; on the stock market; on anything except the possibility that people simply don’t want their product.
Blimey – D.C. you’ve gone right to the heart of the matter. It’s harsh but true to say that they lacked faith.
NWOhio Anglican (#22),
Well, I’m sure you’re not the only reader of this thread who hasn’t heard of Lesslie Newbigin. He was a Presbyterian missionary to India for many years, and at an early age (I think 37) became a bishop in the newly formed Church of South Inida (which brought together the Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists in a full merger in 1947). He was also a key figure in the early days of the World Council of Churches (before it went down the tubes).
A prolific writer, Newbigin wrote many excellent books. One of my favorites is his brilliant series of lectures on the doctrine of the Church, published as “The Household of God” in 1953. He wrote extensively about the theology of missions (including “The Open Secret”), but toward the end of his life he concentrated on the field of apologetics, and did a lot of groundbreaking work on overcoming the challenge of pluralism and relativism in the western world. I’ve already mentioned “The Gospel in a Pluralist Society,” which is not always easy reading, but is extremely rich and profound. In it, Newbigin is especially good at demonstrating that, contrary to what so many people today suppose, Christian fiath is not merely a matter of our subjective preferences, but involves acceptance of the objective, universal truth claims inherent in Christianity.
That is, our secular humanist society assumes that there is a realm of “facts,” that includes things like arithmetic and the laws of chemistry etc. that everyone is expected to agree with, but that the opposing realm of “values” is just a matter of private preferences. But just as no one would say, “Well, maybe for you 2 plus 2 equals 4, but for me 2 + 2 = 5,” so Newbigin argues that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a “fact,” not just a “value.” This is one of the places where the influence of Michael Polanyi on Newbigin is evident. I hope that’s enough to whet your interest.
Check him out. If I had the power, I would make reading Lesslie Newbigin compulsory for every seminarian. He’s that insightful and important.
David Handy+
#25 and #26 — no, I understand what you believe about the Holy Spirit revealing truth through human words. I’m not convinced that the church (or even the Church) has been given a special charism in that regard, and I don’t regard the creeds as being examples of the Holy Spirit working in this way.
Or, more accurately — I’m sure the Holy Spirit was working in Nicea; but not, in my view, in a particularly different way than it was working in, say, the writing of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps I should have said that I regard the creeds as merely human truth, rather than revealed-truth-embodied-in-human-words.
#24 says:
Well, I certainly don’t think so, but the Athanasian creed says differently. Hence the discussion.
Now, as to Trinitarian dogma — as I suggested in my #23, I don’t think that the Trinitarian model is wrong. I think it’s a partly-true way of describing something that ultimately can’t be described in words — “through a glass darkly,” as it were. But I don’t think that the Trinitarian formulary is the only partly-true way of describing that Truth, and in some cases it may not even be the best way.
My professor for Ancient Christianity likes to put it that the Trinitarian and Christological crises came about because the early church knew certain things in their bones. Among the things they knew were: There is only one God. Only God can save us. Jesus is our savior. (My prof likes to list a few more, but those three capture the basic paradox the early church faced.) Nicea and Chalcedon were how the church resolved the apparent contradiction between these fundamental tenets, and they expressed themselves using the philosophical terminology of Neo-Platonism because that was the categorical toolkit they had at hand. If the church in the 21st century were given the same task de novo, whatever resolution we found would be expressed in different terminology because most people these days aren’t Neo-Platonists. Would the modern creed therefore be wrong, just because it didn’t describe the oneness-and-multiplicity of God in terms of substance, nature, and person?
Ross – do you understand the history of the Creeds? The Creeds were written as concise confessions in response to heresies. One reason they are valuable is that they keep the Church from falling back into those heresies. Yes, in places they try to partially explain difficult mysteries, but what is described is orthodox Christianity in the west. I find them very meaningful and comforting – they are one of the connections between me and other Christians in all times and places. As Luther says at the end of his explanations of each section of the Apostles Creed – “this is most certainly true”.
Of course, that right and it is central to the Christian faith – God uses and authorises human words. I think without the notion that God reveals himself not in ineffable, angelic, utterances but in human words, then you are indeed left with a kind of deist or Plotinian take on the godhead. (Indeed I don’t think you can hold onto the incarnation without thinking that God has elected to reveal himself in words intelligible to human beings).
How we are to speak about God is indeed a pressing theological question. Let me recommend, Denys Turner, Faith, Reason and the Existence of God.
BTW if you are seriously interested in what the processes were like in which Creeds were formed then [url=http://www.amazon.com/Council-Chalcedon-Liverpool-University-Press/dp/1846311004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205115534&sr=1-1]The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon[/url] have recently been translated into English.
I think that Ross, like DC, believes that Scripture and the Creeds are purely human construct. That being the case you are simply talking past each other. You all see an authority there that Ross simply doesn’t recognize.
Thanks #18 I hadn’t seen that.
I think it’s worth trying to work out together whether those differing premises end up. I think the kind of views he takes will not end up with a God that is recognisably christian. I’m not sure whether he knows that yet and whether once he realises it, he will still want to affirm it or think again about the fittingness of his chosen starting points.
One recalls the story of the chaplain telling the young Gene Robinson just to stay silent at the parts of the Nicene creed that he rejects. Gene Robinson has apparently told this story many times. But he has never, to the best of my knowledge, stated which parts he rejected and which parts he still rejects. I would find it refreshing if we gathered the entire TEc clergy together and have them undertake this exercise, so that we could see where they truly stand.
Christianity for the revisionists begins and ends with baptism. Apparently, many of them are crossing their fingers when reaffirming their baptismal vows.
Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. The church fathers, who required a three year catechumenate, would see this as nothing short of a travesty, a mutation, and a departure leading to apostasy masquerading as unity of spiritual gifts.
If people still think this is only about an actively homosexual bishop, they need to look again. At least Kearon seems to understand that the rift is much deeper than this presenting issue. Indeed.
Ross #32,
Sorry but I think your professor may have lead you astray with references to Neo-Platonism, it seems to me that the study of Scripture shows that the Nicene Creed simply expresses the truths revealed in the Bible.
Whenever this subject comes up, I must admit I would wobble at the mention of [i]filioque[/i].
When I read [url=http://tinyurl.com/2adn8v]John 15:26[/url], it seems pretty clear that the Holy Spirit, although sent by Jesus and the Father, proceeds from the Father alone. [the version I link to it KJV, but at BibleGateway, you can check it in numerous other versions.]
In checking my references for this, I also stumbled upon [url=http://tinyurl.com/2z369h]Resolution 6.5 from Lambeth 1988[/url] which recommends:
[blockquote]further thought be given to the Filioque clause, recognising it to be a major point of disagreement, (a) recalling Resolution 35.3 of the Lambeth Conference 1978 and the varied, and on the whole positive, response from those provinces which responded to ACC-4’s request to consider the removal of this clause from liturgical texts, (b) noting that the Report of the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC “Ecumenical Explication of the Apostolic Faith as expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan (381) Creed” bases itself on the original text, (c) believing that it may be possible to achieve unity of action on the part of all the ‘Western Churches’ to adopt the original form of the Creed without any betrayal of their theological heritage, (d) recommending to the provinces of the Anglican Communion that in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause.[/blockquote]
But for the rest, I stand firm.
FWIW Common Worship, the most recent CofE liturgical revision, contains in an appendix a version of the Nicene Creed without the Filioque clause It is intended for use on “suitable ecumenical occasions”.
Crypto Papist (#10) wrote:
[i]If it’s “honest disagreement on principles,†then the honest and principled thing is to leave the Church. But the self-indulgent and willful stay on, in order to tear down.[/i]
I have to admit that I have not read all the rest of the comments, so… While I have no issues with the Creeds and say them easily just about every day, I know that this is not the case with everyone. I know people who are sincerely seeking, sincerely wanting to believe, sincerely wrestling with the issues of a new way to view life and the world. For those people who are not simply and willfully rejecting the statements of belief of the Councils reflected in the Creeds, I am glad that they have a place where they can wrestle with it all. The wrestling may take a month or a life-time. There is a difference, however, in honestly admitting doubt and lack of understanding and in reveling in an unwillingness or inability to make a decision one way or another. (One of the charges of the unit I worked for at a major American university was to help students learn how to make decisions – this is a big problem!)
When I working in campus ministry in Germany, we soon realized that the German students didn’t just immediately say “the sinner’s prayer” and get saved like our experience with many American students. They always spent a great deal of time wrestling with aspects of the faith and challenging the leadership as they considered becoming a Christian. We would wrestle with them at times for well over a year or more. They were very sincere, faithful in attendance, seeking, and wanting to understand the ramifications of their decisions and not commit themselves to something that they didn’t fully understand (as if that is possible at any one moment). When they did make a decision, we knew it was real and we saw an honest turning from one way of living to another. Their faith and commitment lasted over time. The American students who quickly made a decision to be saved generally did not understand the ramifications of the decision and were like seeds falling on rocky and thorny soil.
Faith for some is very difficult. I’m glad we don’t just demand they leave, but will tarry with them as they wrestle to make a decision to come to faith or not.
There is a failing among priests to teach the faith – conservatives and liberals. There is a failing of framing the process of questioning and doubt by the leadership in ways that are honest, yet admitting that, “I will teach or adhere to the tradition until such a time as I can say sincerely yea or nae.” There is a pride in the “process of doubt” that has developed and goes beyond the honest questioning/doubt that we all experience from time-to-time.
There should be times when we may well stand up and sit down, not because we are willfully asserting our hyper-individual right to believe or not to believe, but because of simply being honest that we are having trouble with aspects of the faith at a point in our lives. I’m glad Anglicanism allows for doubt and allows us to be wrong and makes room for those who are wrestling mightily with the faith.
I concurr with 40. We are admitting into full communion and, indeed into leadership positions, people who are not believers. I don’t have any problems with people wrestling with the faith as Bob G. describes, but prior to full membership that catachumen should accept the fundamentals of the faith at least at the creedal level. He or she should know exactly what they are getting into.
For an adult this should take place prior to baptism and for an infant by the time of confirmation. If this causes a problem with our baptisimal theology that baptism makes one a full member of the Church regardless as to whether one believes or not, then we need to rethink this and go back to adult baptism only when one can make a full, complete acknowledge of the faith.
Being a Christian is not an entitlement, rather it should require thoughtfull reflection and acknowledgement as to what one is getting into. And for once I agree with most of what Bob G is saying. But the time to wrestle with the faith is prior to baptism and/or confirmation not after. The expression of doubt is the time to say lets slow down and think about this, not let’s hurry up.
#13 said “…It’s worth saying that the baptismal covenant begins with the affirmation of God’s nature in the form of the Apostles Creed…”
I am not sure why it is worth saying. The so called “Baptismal Covenent” is simply a creation of the Episcopal Church’s Prayer Book of 1979.
It is a document created and put forth in the rewriting of the Book of Common Prayer baptismal service. What is contained, while nice, good, and true, never formed any part of the Baptismal service prior to the new prayer book.
The idea that one can change the faith, whether by wholesale changes to the Baptismal office, or the sweeping theological changes to the faith in the last 40 years which have resulted from the Episcopal Church’s “democratic” voting process is amazing. The faith is not a democratic process.
It is not supposed to be about what we think, but rather about what the church teaches. Unfortunately, the church stopped teaching some time ago, and now spends its time huffing and puffing as it runs to catch up with the world, rather than to lead and teach the faithful.
Merrilyonhigh
considering TEC’s clumsy exegetical gymnastics in “To Set Our Hope”, this creed-stretching exercise seems like a ‘cool down’ by comparison.
#44–I appreciate the possibility, nay, the necessity, of honest struggle as a part of growing in faith. That’s just what Anselm’s is saying with “I do not understand in order to believe. I believe in order to understand.†But there is something quite [i]unfaithful[/i] and really dishonest about creedal gymnastics in TEC. It would be good to remember what Ven. J.H. Newman said, “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”
I BELIEVE I’ll have Mimosas with my brunch at the club after the 10:30 service.
Br. Michael (#45),
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am an enthusiastic proponent of recovering the model of Christian initiation and discipleship found in the ancient catechumenate. In fact I’m writing a book on the subject, called “God Has No Grandchildren: Restoring the Ancient Catechumenate in the Post-Christendom Western World.” This is very much part of what I have in mind when I keep calling for a “High Commitment, Post-Christendom style of Anglicanism.”
David Handy+
Fr. Handy sign me up. I will help however I can. I would love to read your book. Pax.
Becoming a Christian in the 1st Century was a major undertaking. It could lead to your death and was not something to be undertaken lightlly. Conversely the church did not want you unless you took it seriously and were willing to conform you life to the standard proclaimed by the Scriptures. No lip service conversions. A converting Pagan had to give up a lot: Family, friends, a homosexual lifestyle, their jobs (if you were an actor). If you were a slave, not unusual, you ran the risk of your master finding out. If you were a slave owner you had to acknowledge your slaves as brothers and sisters. And who knew where that might lead! But they all knew what they were getting into.
Br. Michael (#51),
Thanks for the encouragement. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the publication of my book. I don’t even have a publisher lined up yet, and it’s only a third written. Moreover, it’s simmering on the backburner, while I work on my other book that deals with our Anglican crisis (“A House Divided Against Itself: Is the Breakup of Anglicanism the Start of a New Reformation?”).
However, I’d be happy to enroll you as a card-carrying member of the elite NRAFC (NRA Fan Club, of course). All dues waived.
David Handy+