Lesson 11: Creed

The CreedWe often forget creeds are ways to read the Bible. When the early Church disagreed on which parts were important and how to handle contradictions, one thing they did was to develop creeds.

We sometimes see creeds as dividing people by laying rigid lines between who belongs and who doesn’t. Surely, they were used that way when Constantine wanted uniformity that bowed to authority. One reason we don’t use the Athanasian Creed in worship anymore is because it condemns anyone who does not accept its minute distinctions.

Lately, many of our congregations use modern creeds periodically. At first, I thought this demeaned our history. Now I think it can be helpful in putting our beliefs into contemporary wording for addressing modern challenges. Certainly, the Augsburg Confession did this as a response to medieval abuses. These new creeds do not replace the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds that still remain our standards, but they do help us see things in a modern context.

For a hundred years some churches have used the Fundamental creed to express their rejection of the scientific worldview. Remember, Fundamentalism is not only accepting biblical inerrancy. It actually goes back to a 12-volume work commissioned by wealthy oilmen Lyman and Milton Stewart who sent to every religious leader in the USA in 1909. It serves as a creed that presents the essentials or fundamentals of Christianity as 1) the inerrancy of scripture, 2) the deity of Christ which is defined as virgin birth, 3) the substitution atonement of his death for our sins, meaning God’s law demanded someone had to be punished for the sins of humanity, 4) his literal bodily resurrection from the dead, which eventually was defined as believing in Jesus’ literal return in the second coming, and 5) the objective reality of all the biblical miracles.

The militant form of fundamentalism that plagues every world religion these days makes clear the danger of making creeds standards that divide rather than guide. Karen Armstrong in her book Battle for God lists 9 characteristics of these abuses:

  1. A radical individualism in which people are expected to relate one on one with God with no need for religious community or sacraments. In Christianity, this is often defined as making a personal decision for Christ.
  2. A need to accept essential doctrine rather than living in an appropriate relationship with the divine. Belief becomes an intellectual decision rather than a trusting attitude. True believers must accept specific doctrines.
  3. A Holy Land that can be Saudi Arabia for Bin Laden, Israel for Jews, and America for right wing Christians. The last speak of God placing a protective curtain over the USA that will be raised if we do not live by his laws.
  4. Anti-woman positions that insist women must be subservient to men. We see this in the Taliban, Orthodox Judaism, and fundamentalist Christian churches.
  5. Concentration on holy wars. Islam fundamentalists call for Jihad which can involve suicide bombings and terrorism. Political wars are labeled crusades; killing of abortion doctors are justified as saving innocent babies, etc.
  6. The establishment of a religious political government in which separation of church and state is rejected.
  7. Dependence on charismatic leaders rather than democracy. This occurs in everything from Christian mega-churches to Islamic governments. The idea is that God speaks directly to certain chosen people.
  8. The failure to appreciate religious language. The sacred writings are used as scientific and economic textbooks. Islamic religious law is applied to political government, Genesis 1 and 2 become explanation of how the world was literally created.
  9. A drive for purity leads to expelling “nonbelievers” from official positions. Fundamentalists plot to take over denominations, seminaries, mosques, temples, etc.

Hopefully, the future church will not be afraid to develop confessions that express what the faith means in our time and place. We still need the ancient creeds and Bible as standards for these, but we also need modern expressions that people around us can understand.

Tags: , , ,

1 Enlightened Reply

Trackback  •  Comments RSS

  1. Fritz Foltz says:

    I have received more feedback than usual for this lesson, most of it expressing confusion over recent horrors perpetrated by ISIS. In response, I think I’ll post a lesson on Just War next week.

    On the other hand, the whole issue of Fundamentalism is troubling for some of our readers. Scott suggested we add to Armstrong’s list that advocates also try to take over political parties and referenced the Tea Party.

Top

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close