Well, as a Big O Orthodox Christian I must have a bigger O than everyone else ... 😉
As far as the Ship goes, I'm not sure that the proportion of small o orthodox to heterodox or agnostic or atheist or whatever else has changed drastically. It's simply that there are fewer of the old guard left.
The Ship has tended to have a more liberal inclination as a whole and even though I remain fairly conservative theologically I don't mind that.
Heck, I'd be embarrassed if a bunch of hyperdox Orthodox turned up and ruined it all for everyone else.
My own 'journey', to use a dreadful cliché, is similar to that of @Barnabas62 , the only real difference is that I moved away from non-conformist and low-church Anglican settings to a Big O Orthodox one.
That doesn't mean I don’t value or respect my former affiliations.
I used to bang on and on and on and then on some more about my charismatic evangelical phase - which lasted a long time - but I think I've come to terms with that and am less inclined to diss it than when I was closer to it.
I'd still consider myself evangelical in terms of a commitment to the Gospel and charismatic in the sense that I still believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in all manner of ways and means and in all settings too.
I do find myself feeling 'closer' to those Shipmates who hold more explicitly, shall we say, to historic creedal Christianity but that doesn't mean I close my mind to what others have to say who don't adhere to that.
If we are to have an orthodoxy of any kind, a small o or Big O one, then we have to ensure it's a generous one.
Of course, as soon as there's a creed or a 'Statement of Faith' or even commonly agreed shared values then there's an 'in' and an 'out'. Are you inside or outside the tent as it were.
Managing that without rancour or resentment is something we have to strive towards.
People shift their position on things. Some move away from faith. Others move towards it.
I would add, 'Do our 'beliefs', credal or otherwise, inspire and help to nurture the Fruits of the Spirit'?(Love, joy, peace, patience etc ....) if they do, there ain't much wrong with them, whatever they are.
I must confess that this is increasingly my view. I've known too many people who claim to be "true believers" and yet were overflowing with pride, greed and disregard for others. And I've had the pleasure of knowing people whose concept of their faith could only be described as "vague" and yet were fountains of compassion and gentleness. I know who I would rather spend eternity with...
Middle of the road Anglican here. Yes I ascribe to the Nicene and Apostle's creeds and I think I mean what they say. In some ways I view them as "committee-speak" -a statement agreed upon at the time where those who came to that agreement may well have wanted to say a great deal more or less than that, but reached a middle ground that they could agree on, and none the worse for all that.(Having studied early mediaeval history at university, I could talk about Christological controversies at length if asked!)
I do see how creeds can be exclusionary for some but personally I see them as a framework that can allow a freedom (not all that some Christians believe is even mentioned) as well.
I would add, 'Do our 'beliefs', credal or otherwise, inspire and help to nurture the Fruits of the Spirit'?(Love, joy, peace, patience etc ....) if they do, there ain't much wrong with them, whatever they are.
I must confess that this is increasingly my view. I've known too many people who claim to be "true believers" and yet were overflowing with pride, greed and disregard for others. And I've had the pleasure of knowing people whose concept of their faith could only be described as "vague" and yet were fountains of compassion and gentleness. I know who I would rather spend eternity with...
I think there are a lot of us who are pretty orthodox around here still as well as a lot who aren't. Episcopalian who is happy to say the Nicene and Apostle's creeds.
Thank you for the link. I knew of the major creeds in the mainline churches, but there was one listed in the Lutheran section entitled the Saxon Visitation Articles. Now that one is a new one to me although it was written around 1592. It is not included in the Book of Concord, which all US Lutheran Seminaries use in their Basic Confessions course.
Not putting a link to it. Just noting it is very polemical against the Calvinists.
With me, the problem is the single word "believe". All phrases apart from that I have studied, argued with, and come to some understanding of what they mean, even if in some cases that does not align perfectly with the original meaning and found myself led into deeper adoration of the divine through it. If that is belief, then I believe. I find saying it a useful communal focus on the core mysteries of the faith. It is as much about what is not said as what is said.
However, belief is a slippery word. Some there will say it because they mean "I belong to the Church, therefore I believe..." , some will mean "These are things I am prepared to dies for", some will mean "these are as true as the grass is green..." some will mean "I trust these to be true..." and it goes on. Who am I to judge them, a word is only as its usage.
"Believe" is to me pretty much a synonym of "Think" - they're the same word in French and some Welsh dialects so I don't think I'm too left field there. "I believe Paris is the capital of France" to me is a statement exactly parallel to "I believe Jesus rose again on the third day".
For me it has nothing to do with belonging, except inasmuch as some groups require one hold certain beliefs to be a member of the group, but then it would be the belief enabling the membership, not membership driving the belief.
I can't make sense of your first paragraph I'm afraid. It's probably a limitation of the way my mind works but it just doesn't convey anything.
But it's not in English, French, Hebrew, Latin, or Greek. "I believe in" in these languages is closely related to trust and loyalty to what follows. You can see this because "I believe in " can be followed by a person's name. When you say I believe in John, you do not mean I think in John; that is nonsense. Rather, you mean something closer to I trust John.
Just a note: I learned, here on the Ship, that neither the Apostles' Creed nor the Athanasian Creed are officially recognised by the Eastern Orthodox. So I feel quite happy to disregard the preamble to the Athanasian Creed (which is nothing to do with Athanasius).
With me, the problem is the single word "believe". All phrases apart from that I have studied, argued with, and come to some understanding of what they mean, even if in some cases that does not align perfectly with the original meaning and found myself led into deeper adoration of the divine through it. If that is belief, then I believe. I find saying it a useful communal focus on the core mysteries of the faith. It is as much about what is not said as what is said.
However, belief is a slippery word. Some there will say it because they mean "I belong to the Church, therefore I believe..." , some will mean "These are things I am prepared to dies for", some will mean "these are as true as the grass is green..." some will mean "I trust these to be true..." and it goes on. Who am I to judge them, a word is only as its usage.
"Believe" is to me pretty much a synonym of "Think" - they're the same word in French and some Welsh dialects so I don't think I'm too left field there. "I believe Paris is the capital of France" to me is a statement exactly parallel to "I believe Jesus rose again on the third day".
For me it has nothing to do with belonging, except inasmuch as some groups require one hold certain beliefs to be a member of the group, but then it would be the belief enabling the membership, not membership driving the belief.
I can't make sense of your first paragraph I'm afraid. It's probably a limitation of the way my mind works but it just doesn't convey anything.
But it's not in English, French, Hebrew, Latin, or Greek. "I believe in" in these languages is closely related to trust and loyalty to what follows. You can see this because "I believe in " can be followed by a person's name. When you say I believe in John, you do not mean I think in John; that is nonsense. Rather, you mean something closer to I trust John.
But despite the fact the creeds use the formula "I believe in", they are lists of propositions about God to either accept or reject.
I'm sure that we've been here before, but when someone says "I believe in God/I don't believe in God", the primary meaning to most listeners is "I believe God exists/I do not believe God exists" - not "I trust God/I don't trust God.
What "I believe in John" means rather depends on whether John's existence is contested, IMV. I mean, when people say "I believe in UFOs", or "I believe in ghosts" they are expressing an opinion on whether these things exist, not proclaiming a trust in some Galactic Federation or Friendly Helpful Ghosts.
'I believe' is a statement about identity. If you identify with your knowledge, then so is 'I know', but that is about how your identity is constructed, not the meaning of the word.
You can believe that something exists without giving assent to it: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2:19).
You can believe that something exists without giving assent to it: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." (James 2:19).
Quite. That's what "I believe in God" means, as opposed to "I put my trust in God".
Orthodoxy (large O or small o) and orthopraxy should go together of course.
Sadly...
@Dafyd, it's not that the Orthodox 'reject' the Apostles Creed or the Athanasian Creed so much as we don't regard them as 'authorised' for liturgical use in the way that the Nicene Creed is.
They are regarded as essentially 'sound' expressions of historic Christian doctrine in a Western context, but they aren't 'essential' or 'necessary' in the way we believe the Nicene Creed to be.
Plenty of Orthodox wouldn't go as far as Athanasius - if indeed it was he - in condemning anyone to eternal perdition for not believing the right things about the Trinity.
There'd probably also be plenty of fierce and scary monks on Mt Athos who'd be with Athanasius on that one - as well as other 'zealots' and the more ranty convert types.
We can be pretty prescriptive on some things but there's plenty of scope for different views on other issues, as indeed there are in most churches.
Generally speaking, the Orthodox would say it's none of our business but God's who is 'in' or 'out' as it were.
@Stephen - being Welsh and inclining towards the Orthodox view on the filioque means you aren't far from the Kingdom of God ... 😉
Joking aside, whilst we'd like to see the offending clause dropped, many of us would concede that Western Christians don't understand it to mean what we accuse them of meaning by it - and it became more of a political than a theological sticking point.
Most people don't think about the filoque at all, but it's become a bit of a 'badge' of loyalty as it were - something to define ourselves against.
I think I'm right in saying that St Theodore of Tarsus, the second (?) Archbishop of Canterbury had no difficulty with it when he moved from the eastern Mediterranean to that odd island off the coast of northern Europe.
I'm sure he wasn't the only Saint recognised by the Orthodox to do so.
All that said, the historic creeds are definitely a litmus-test for the Orthodox but we aren't saying that those who don't adhere to them or accept them are hell-bound for not doing so, whatever ranty types post online.
Gal. 5! There's a song - I learned it in a Crusader class about 45 years ago, and I'm very grateful for it. (The song ended 'for such there is no law' rather than 'against which', which seems to appear in most English translations. I thought as a kid that 'for such' meant that there was no compulsion or legal stuff about those virtues, they were all spirit! I guess that class had me well-prepared, and I wish that was really in the text).
Another mainline Christian here. I lost my faith entirely in my 30s, and found it again after a few years hard reading (which didn't help much but kept me busy), by which time it was 'mine'. It's one of those things which sounds post-hoc but which feels genuinely providential, the whole of it.
Currently struggling with a rather woke minister, and some rather right-wing friends. Here I am, stuck in the middle.
I’ve been noticing for a while that it seems like only a very small number of people here nowadays seem to believe in orthodox/traditional or credal (Nicene/Apostle’s/Athanasian/etc. Creed) Christianity. How many of us are there? Not that people have to believe this to be nice people or anything, but I feel like what used to be a lot more people who did on the Ship have been reduced to a tiny handful. Is this correct? Does anyone know what happened or why? (Obviously some older people have sadly passed away.)
I've gone back and forth rather wildly over the years, but find myself gravitating to a more traditional sense of Christianity.
Mind, I can do that because I have a very particular understanding of these things, which I suppose makes me a proper Episcopalian. Seminary helped that process along a lot. I understand the Nicene Creed more as a compromise that holds the church together than a divinely inspired mandate.
I think fundamentalists made it hard for people because they demanded "literalism or bust!" and that makes a lot of folks (like me) choose "bust." On the other hand, it does take a particular kind of education to really get into the creeds and appreciate them for what they are. We don't really think in the worldview anymore in which they make sense, so it's easy to feel like they're not "relevant" to modern affairs. I think there's a similar problem with philosophy in general.
I'm an orthodox credal Christian of the Lutheran variety.
Ditto, except I’m of the Reformed/Presbyterian variety.
We do have confessional statements written over the last century, in addition to the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds and Reformation-era confessional statements and catechisms.
I just realized I should lay my own cards on the table and say, though I have said so before, that I am an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto, as orthodox as I know how to be.
To unpack this, when I say “Anglo-Catholic” here, I am thinking in terms of Sacramental theology, not in terms of liturgical style or the number of candles on the altar or things like that, and thinking in terms of the Anglican as well as Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as having definitive Apostolic Succession. (The “dash of Shinto” part is the simplest way to express some things which are unusual by modern, especially materialist/secular/anti-supernaturalist standards, but not incompatible (as far as I have been able to sort out) with a thoroughly Christian worldview.)
And I definitely believe in the traditional creeds. The one part about having to hold the doctrines to be saved, as someone else here pointed out, I am not convinced of. I trust that all who are saved, are indeed saved by Christ through His death and resurrection, but that need not be limited to those who have heard of Him or consciously know Him in this life.
Oh, and yes, one of the points of doctrine, as I understand it, is that yes, correct/true/accurate doctrine matters very much, but one of those very doctrines is that love matters more—indeed most of all. The sheep and the goats are not classified based on who understands the nature of the Trinity more!
Yeah, thinking twenty impossible things before breakfast is easy compared with loving the awkward person in the office who has just hung his sweaty post squash socks on the radiator to dry.
No, that is not ironic, or at least the irony is against myself as much as anyone, because I find it tough too to love that guy.
Speaking of which, decades ago (the late 90s? A little later?) I was wrestling with staying in the Episcopal church, or leaving for one of the breakaway groups (the ACA, etc.), since in my view the Episcopal Church often had issues on theology and related things—at the time I had not yet been convinced of the validity of the ordination of women to the priesthood/episcopate, though I have since (in 2001–there’s even a thread on the old Ship about it!), which for me brought up all kinds of concerns about the sacraments and such. So from my point of view, I was wrestling with going to a church that would have definitively accurate theology and definitively valid sacraments… But the attitude that I perceived there did not seem to have love in it at all. Whereas in the Episcopal Church, even when I thought that various clergy or bishops or what have you were terribly wrong about certain things at times, at least they seemed to be making those mistakes by trying to be kind to people. So I decided to stick with the Episcopal Church, and honestly, I believe I made the right decision. (A close friend of mine (at the time) left for the ACA, and I’m sorry to say that he went down what I consider a very bad path.)
(I think if I had to leave the Episcopal Church for some reason, I would go back to the Roman Catholic Church (when I first converted to Christianity around the age of 15–16, that was the one I originally chose. Not many people got baptized at that age…)
Oh, and yes, one of the points of doctrine, as I understand it, is that yes, correct/true/accurate doctrine matters very much, but one of those very doctrines is that love matters more—indeed most of all. The sheep and the goats are not classified based on who understands the nature of the Trinity more!
Amen. The Good Samaritan seems to be about just that. Now I've written it, that looks like a contender for most redundant comment on the internet today
This probably isn’t a side issue but we’ll see how it goes. Why do you think “journey” is a dreadful cliche? I think it’s just shorthand for journey of understanding. Or learning.
There are two aspects of the word disciple. They are follower and learner. As followers of Jesus we continue to learn what that means. Our understanding changes, hopefully deepens. Once we stop learning we start dying.
I like the way Bob Dylan put it. “He who isn’t busy being born is busy dying”.
I’ve found studying the Creeds a big help in that. Yes, I think there’s something in the notion that in their formation there was a certainly a degree of that. I suppose they represented a victory of sorts (of orthodoxy over heresy). But I think the long and often fierce arguments over the meaning of faith were themselves also a learning journey. Studying early church history I was fascinated by how much passion those arguments generated, how important it was to people to get things right.
I think that other point, that we no longer live in that mindset, is very important as well. In order to “get” the Creeds it helps a great deal to “get” that mindset.
Believing without necessarily understanding that may be of great value to some. For me, I find pure recitation without understanding doesn’t work. Liturgy is not intended to be just rote, but it can be.
In the context for following the Living Word, we don’t just learn things. We know him better.
It’s nicely put in “Day by Day” from “Godspell”.
Day by day, day by day
Three things I pray
To see thee more clearly
Love thee more dearly
And follow thee more nearly
Day by Day
Isn’t that the journey we’re on, individually and together?
This probably isn’t a side issue but we’ll see how it goes. Why do you think “journey” is a dreadful cliche? I think it’s just shorthand for journey of understanding. Or learning.
There are two aspects of the word disciple. They are follower and learner. As followers of Jesus we continue to learn what that means. Our understanding changes, hopefully deepens. Once we stop learning we start dying.
I like the way Bob Dylan put it. “He who isn’t busy being born is busy dying”.
I’ve found studying the Creeds a big help in that. Yes, I think there’s something in the notion that in their formation there was a certainly a degree of that. I suppose they represented a victory of sorts (of orthodoxy over heresy). But I think the long and often fierce arguments over the meaning of faith were themselves also a learning journey. Studying early church history I was fascinated by how much passion those arguments generated, how important it was to people to get things right.
I think that other point, that we no longer live in that mindset, is very important as well. In order to “get” the Creeds it helps a great deal to “get” that mindset.
Believing without necessarily understanding that may be of great value to some. For me, I find pure recitation without understanding doesn’t work. Liturgy is not intended to be just rote, but it can be.
In the context for following the Living Word, we don’t just learn things. We know him better.
It’s nicely put in “Day by Day” from “Godspell”.
Day by day, day by day
Three things I pray
To see thee more clearly
Love thee more dearly
And follow thee more nearly
Day by Day
Isn’t that the journey we’re on, individually and together?
Wasn't that prayer originally by Richard of Chichester?
This probably isn’t a side issue but we’ll see how it goes. Why do you think “journey” is a dreadful cliche? I think it’s just shorthand for journey of understanding. Or learning.
There are two aspects of the word disciple. They are follower and learner. As followers of Jesus we continue to learn what that means. Our understanding changes, hopefully deepens. Once we stop learning we start dying.
I like the way Bob Dylan put it. “He who isn’t busy being born is busy dying”.
I’ve found studying the Creeds a big help in that. Yes, I think there’s something in the notion that in their formation there was a certainly a degree of that. I suppose they represented a victory of sorts (of orthodoxy over heresy). But I think the long and often fierce arguments over the meaning of faith were themselves also a learning journey. Studying early church history I was fascinated by how much passion those arguments generated, how important it was to people to get things right.
I think that other point, that we no longer live in that mindset, is very important as well. In order to “get” the Creeds it helps a great deal to “get” that mindset.
Believing without necessarily understanding that may be of great value to some. For me, I find pure recitation without understanding doesn’t work. Liturgy is not intended to be just rote, but it can be.
In the context for following the Living Word, we don’t just learn things. We know him better.
It’s nicely put in “Day by Day” from “Godspell”.
Day by day, day by day
Three things I pray
To see thee more clearly
Love thee more dearly
And follow thee more nearly
Day by Day
Isn’t that the journey we’re on, individually and together?
Wasn't that prayer originally by Richard of Chichester?
Yes, it was and if you visit our beautiful Cathedral here in Chichester you'll hear it prayed throughout the day on the hour.
But I'm talking about "believe" having a primary meaning of "think", not "know".
I agree. In some contexts I use "I believe" to mean "I infer from the information available to me"
E.g. Our church records state that this communion cup was made in 1821 from two older damaged communion cups. I believe the two cups which were melted down were the cups gifted to the church in 1638 by Lady X
I base this belief on two facts:
There is no record I've found so far as to what happened to the 1638 silver.
I know of no other silverware which might be the "damaged cups" of 1821.
I might be wrong. But I believe that I have deduced correctly.
I’m OK with a reverent copy. I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that Godspell (an interesting play on Gospel) made the original better known.
Maybe it should have been better acknowledged? That’s always an issue with uncopyrighted (or no longer copyrighted) stuff. It’s pretty hard to do it in the middle of musical drama.
Should I have done it? Probably. It’s just one of millions of things I didn’t know when I wrote.
I think too we need to remember that - contrary to popular opinion - the opposite of "faith" isn't "doubt" but "certainty". That's because faith, by definition, has to include a certain measure of provisionality; however there's no need to have faith in something that's been empirically proved to be true (eg "This chair is made of wood").
However there is an overlap between faith and certainty: the bridge I'm walking across may have been designed to proven engineering standards, built by skilled people using good quality materials and comprehensively stress-tested before opening. I also have seen 40-ton lorries crossing it with no problem. There are therefore very good reasons to believe that it won't collapse under me - yet, ultimately, I'm still exercising a tiny modicum of faith whenever I cross it.
I'm credal, I think that they are part of the core of Christianity:
If you like a distillation or even crystallisation of the content of scripture on what were historically disputed points.
They to me are lifegiving to reflect on and pray through.
I respect that people can find them difficult for a range of reasons.
For me they are a post to rest upon rather than a stick to hit others with.
I also very much note the importance of fruit in ones life. Which in theory should follow from being connected to the realities which the creeds attempt to describe.
Do you get stroppy? Or are you wondering if others do?
I don’t. I think that the language and utility of liturgy needs to be considered in terms of its comprehensibility to folks on the edges or outside the faith.
Sure it may cause them to ask questions. Or just leave, wondering what on earth is the value today of such pronouncements.
I think too we need to remember that - contrary to popular opinion - the opposite of "faith" isn't "doubt" but "certainty". That's because faith, by definition, has to include a certain measure of provisionality; however there's no need to have faith in something that's been empirically proved to be true (eg "This chair is made of wood").
However there is an overlap between faith and certainty: the bridge I'm walking across may have been designed to proven engineering standards, built by skilled people using good quality materials and comprehensively stress-tested before opening. I also have seen 40-ton lorries crossing it with no problem. There are therefore very good reasons to believe that it won't collapse under me - yet, ultimately, I'm still exercising a tiny modicum of faith whenever I cross it.
I've heard that edict about the opposite trotted out a fair few times but I'm never convinced.
Doubt is important, I would agree, but only insofar as it is a motivation for investigation. If doubt just festers, then it can turn into unbelief.
Unjustified certainty is, pardon the double use, certainly bad. But certainty can be useful as a firm foundation. For example, I am certain that there exists no rational number whose square is 2; I can prove it.
Instead, I would posit that the opposite of faith is disloyalty. It's knowingly acting in a way not in accordance with the ways of those to whom I have professed my faithfulness. For example, if I say I am faithful to my employer, but am looking for another job and neglecting my current role, that means that I haven't really put my faith in my employer to provide a reliable workplace where I can do my best work.
I’m OK with a reverent copy. I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that Godspell (an interesting play on Gospel) made the original better known.
Maybe it should have been better acknowledged? That’s always an issue with uncopyrighted (or no longer copyrighted) stuff. It’s pretty hard to do it in the middle of musical drama.
Should I have done it? Probably. It’s just one of millions of things I didn’t know when I wrote.
Do you get stroppy? Or are you wondering if others do?
I don’t. I think that the language and utility of liturgy needs to be considered in terms of its comprehensibility to folks on the edges or outside the faith.
Sure it may cause them to ask questions. Or just leave, wondering what on earth is the value today of such pronouncements.
I was interested in your comment here Barnabas. I like to think I am alive to and opposed to church jargon, for the reason you state. But it might be just that I am alive/opposed to jargon which isn't my thing (prayers in KJV-lite in my university UCCF CU years ago used to really wind me up) whereas perhaps those bits that are my thing (chunks of the Methodist service book, I am a little ashamed to admit) don't count, to me, as jargon - so get a pass.
We have a new minister who a generation ago might have been described as 'modern' and who now might be 'woke'. She uses 'novelty' in the liturgy, and I find myself feeling like I object to it for the same reasons you mention a possible objection to something very old - I am not sure it helps a visitor. 'It is right to give our thanks and praise' is old, shares something with many other denominations, and stands as a compact, bald statement of something one has to get used to even as a newbie if one thinks about the invisible, it-just-is God. 'It is right to give our thanks and praise for Black History Month' left me scratching my head (and feeling stroppy).
I’m not much in favour of modernisation for modernisation’s sake. Trying to make Christianity fashionable or conform to various modern political positions is a fool’s errand.
That’s not the same as seeking to find the best way to proclaim, understandably, our eternal verities.
Also, in terms of worship, I think it is the duty of every minister to be aware of the diversity of their audience. In any congregation there will be conservatives and radicals, folks in different places on the faith journey, introverts who need silence. extroverts who are uncomfortable with it, folks who are happy, folks who are miserable, folks who know why they are, folks who aren’t, folks who have no idea why they are there at all!
It’s a big challenge to bear those things in mind yet do things which help a significant proportion to “see Him more clearly”. Never mind “love Him more dearly” or “follow Him more nearly”.
Probably like me, I find there are some services when I don’t really connect, others where the connection is real and profound. And everywhere in between! Last Sunday’s service in my local congo was a very profound for me but I don’t expect them all to be like that.
I've heard that edict about the opposite trotted out a fair few times but I'm never convinced.
Doubt is important, I would agree, but only insofar as it is a motivation for investigation. If doubt just festers, then it can turn into unbelief.
@Barnabas62 - it's my fault but I find I'm often taken more literally than I intend on these boards.
I don't have any problem with the idea of a 'journey'. Nor am I suggesting we simply recite Creeds by rote without thinking about them. Far from it.
It's simply that I've heard the term 'journey' bandied around in a somewhat glib way and in some quarters it can mean, 'You don't have to believe anything much it's all about the journey ...'
I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you've posted.
@Baptist Trainfan - yes, I often quote the 'opposite of faith isn't doubt but certainty' thing. I've heard it attributed to an RC source.
I’m not much in favour of modernisation for modernisation’s sake. Trying to make Christianity fashionable or conform to various modern political positions is a fool’s errand.
That’s not the same as seeking to find the best way to proclaim, understandably, our eternal verities.
Last Sunday’s service in my local congo was a very profound for me but I don’t expect them all to be like that.
That's a good way to put it. I like old hymns (the older, the more I tend to like them!) but / and I also like 'The Message'. Those differences multiplied across a room full (OK, half full) of people from all over the world, creates a big challenge. And sometimes a visiting preacher who I have struggled with before, will say something which makes me ashamed that I was expecting to struggle with them again.
Another observation may be helpful. I’m not a fan of modern “I”-centred “Jesus is my boyfriend” contemporary worship songs. But they aren’t all like that.
I met and got to know Matt Redman in the 90’s. Liked him a lot. Talented, thoughtful, modest. He’s written some good stuff. His lament “The heart of worship” contains an eternally true statement.
“I’m sorry, Lord, for the thing I’ve made it”.
Yes indeed. A truth that can be applied to both ancient and modern. Worshipping worship is not helpful.
I dislike the phrase ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ to describe contemporary worship songs as I think it belittles Christians, such as myself, who have a non-traditional worship style. It is not exactly inclusive, on a thread which discusses core Christian beliefs which unite us.
A question: my reading of the Athanasian text implies the filioque.
And it is not a creed as such, not "I believe", but "believe this or else".
Back to the Creeds. Yes.
I need to unpack things a bit ...
As far as I understand it, the Orthodox appreciate the attempt the Athanasian Creed makes to explore/explain or expound the Trinity in principle - we would see it as representative of a particular view in the Latin West at a particular point in time.
I've heard that a modified version exists in some Russian prayer books but with any dint of 'double-procession' edited out.
I s'pose the main difference is that we would see the Nicene Creed as definitive with others being of interest but only carrying any real weight and substance to the extent that they correlate with Nicea. That might be an oversimplication but that's the essence of it.
In a similar way we wouldn't necessarily object to Western hymns or contemporary worship songs such as those written by a Matt Redman of a Tim Hughes etc. It's just that we wouldn't sing them in church because they aren't part of our Tradition.
We wouldn't stop or 'police' anyone from singing them in the car, in their own homes or wherever else. Nor would we seek to proscribe or prescribe what songs other Christians should or shouldn't sing in their churches.
That said, we might find them rather sentimental or subjective for our tastes but we wouldn't say they were 'heretical' or off-the-wall unless they contained something that contradicted Nicea or historic Christian belief in some way.
I'll sing Wesleyan and other Protestant hymns when I'm in the house or out and about as well as some of the choruses I remember from my charismatic evangelical days - particularly those that have more explicitly scriptural content.
I've sounded off about some of these songs on these boards in the past but I'm less inclined to do so these days for the reasons @Heavenlyannie states - it can be disrespectful towards other Christians and I know I've upset people when I've done it here and in real-life.
Comments
As far as the Ship goes, I'm not sure that the proportion of small o orthodox to heterodox or agnostic or atheist or whatever else has changed drastically. It's simply that there are fewer of the old guard left.
The Ship has tended to have a more liberal inclination as a whole and even though I remain fairly conservative theologically I don't mind that.
Heck, I'd be embarrassed if a bunch of hyperdox Orthodox turned up and ruined it all for everyone else.
My own 'journey', to use a dreadful cliché, is similar to that of @Barnabas62 , the only real difference is that I moved away from non-conformist and low-church Anglican settings to a Big O Orthodox one.
That doesn't mean I don’t value or respect my former affiliations.
I used to bang on and on and on and then on some more about my charismatic evangelical phase - which lasted a long time - but I think I've come to terms with that and am less inclined to diss it than when I was closer to it.
I'd still consider myself evangelical in terms of a commitment to the Gospel and charismatic in the sense that I still believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in all manner of ways and means and in all settings too.
I do find myself feeling 'closer' to those Shipmates who hold more explicitly, shall we say, to historic creedal Christianity but that doesn't mean I close my mind to what others have to say who don't adhere to that.
If we are to have an orthodoxy of any kind, a small o or Big O one, then we have to ensure it's a generous one.
Of course, as soon as there's a creed or a 'Statement of Faith' or even commonly agreed shared values then there's an 'in' and an 'out'. Are you inside or outside the tent as it were.
Managing that without rancour or resentment is something we have to strive towards.
People shift their position on things. Some move away from faith. Others move towards it.
'Judge not lest ye also be judged ...'
Anglican but on the side of the Orthodox regarding the Filioque.
I must confess that this is increasingly my view. I've known too many people who claim to be "true believers" and yet were overflowing with pride, greed and disregard for others. And I've had the pleasure of knowing people whose concept of their faith could only be described as "vague" and yet were fountains of compassion and gentleness. I know who I would rather spend eternity with...
Matthew 7:15-20
By their fruits will you know them
I do see how creeds can be exclusionary for some but personally I see them as a framework that can allow a freedom (not all that some Christians believe is even mentioned) as well.
Thank you. Blessings!
Thank you for the link. I knew of the major creeds in the mainline churches, but there was one listed in the Lutheran section entitled the Saxon Visitation Articles. Now that one is a new one to me although it was written around 1592. It is not included in the Book of Concord, which all US Lutheran Seminaries use in their Basic Confessions course.
Not putting a link to it. Just noting it is very polemical against the Calvinists.
But it's not in English, French, Hebrew, Latin, or Greek. "I believe in" in these languages is closely related to trust and loyalty to what follows. You can see this because "I believe in " can be followed by a person's name. When you say I believe in John, you do not mean I think in John; that is nonsense. Rather, you mean something closer to I trust John.
But despite the fact the creeds use the formula "I believe in", they are lists of propositions about God to either accept or reject.
I'm sure that we've been here before, but when someone says "I believe in God/I don't believe in God", the primary meaning to most listeners is "I believe God exists/I do not believe God exists" - not "I trust God/I don't trust God.
What "I believe in John" means rather depends on whether John's existence is contested, IMV. I mean, when people say "I believe in UFOs", or "I believe in ghosts" they are expressing an opinion on whether these things exist, not proclaiming a trust in some Galactic Federation or Friendly Helpful Ghosts.
I recite the Apostles' Creed twice daily when doing the Daily Offices form the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and assent to every word.
Occasionally say the Nicene Creed. I believe that as well.
Quite. That's what "I believe in God" means, as opposed to "I put my trust in God".
Sadly...
@Dafyd, it's not that the Orthodox 'reject' the Apostles Creed or the Athanasian Creed so much as we don't regard them as 'authorised' for liturgical use in the way that the Nicene Creed is.
They are regarded as essentially 'sound' expressions of historic Christian doctrine in a Western context, but they aren't 'essential' or 'necessary' in the way we believe the Nicene Creed to be.
Plenty of Orthodox wouldn't go as far as Athanasius - if indeed it was he - in condemning anyone to eternal perdition for not believing the right things about the Trinity.
There'd probably also be plenty of fierce and scary monks on Mt Athos who'd be with Athanasius on that one - as well as other 'zealots' and the more ranty convert types.
We can be pretty prescriptive on some things but there's plenty of scope for different views on other issues, as indeed there are in most churches.
Generally speaking, the Orthodox would say it's none of our business but God's who is 'in' or 'out' as it were.
@Stephen - being Welsh and inclining towards the Orthodox view on the filioque means you aren't far from the Kingdom of God ... 😉
Joking aside, whilst we'd like to see the offending clause dropped, many of us would concede that Western Christians don't understand it to mean what we accuse them of meaning by it - and it became more of a political than a theological sticking point.
Most people don't think about the filoque at all, but it's become a bit of a 'badge' of loyalty as it were - something to define ourselves against.
I think I'm right in saying that St Theodore of Tarsus, the second (?) Archbishop of Canterbury had no difficulty with it when he moved from the eastern Mediterranean to that odd island off the coast of northern Europe.
I'm sure he wasn't the only Saint recognised by the Orthodox to do so.
All that said, the historic creeds are definitely a litmus-test for the Orthodox but we aren't saying that those who don't adhere to them or accept them are hell-bound for not doing so, whatever ranty types post online.
Gal. 5! There's a song - I learned it in a Crusader class about 45 years ago, and I'm very grateful for it. (The song ended 'for such there is no law' rather than 'against which', which seems to appear in most English translations. I thought as a kid that 'for such' meant that there was no compulsion or legal stuff about those virtues, they were all spirit! I guess that class had me well-prepared, and I wish that was really in the text).
Another mainline Christian here. I lost my faith entirely in my 30s, and found it again after a few years hard reading (which didn't help much but kept me busy), by which time it was 'mine'. It's one of those things which sounds post-hoc but which feels genuinely providential, the whole of it.
Currently struggling with a rather woke minister, and some rather right-wing friends. Here I am, stuck in the middle.
I've gone back and forth rather wildly over the years, but find myself gravitating to a more traditional sense of Christianity.
Mind, I can do that because I have a very particular understanding of these things, which I suppose makes me a proper Episcopalian. Seminary helped that process along a lot. I understand the Nicene Creed more as a compromise that holds the church together than a divinely inspired mandate.
I think fundamentalists made it hard for people because they demanded "literalism or bust!" and that makes a lot of folks (like me) choose "bust." On the other hand, it does take a particular kind of education to really get into the creeds and appreciate them for what they are. We don't really think in the worldview anymore in which they make sense, so it's easy to feel like they're not "relevant" to modern affairs. I think there's a similar problem with philosophy in general.
I just realized I should lay my own cards on the table and say, though I have said so before, that I am an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with a dash of Shinto, as orthodox as I know how to be.
To unpack this, when I say “Anglo-Catholic” here, I am thinking in terms of Sacramental theology, not in terms of liturgical style or the number of candles on the altar or things like that, and thinking in terms of the Anglican as well as Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as having definitive Apostolic Succession. (The “dash of Shinto” part is the simplest way to express some things which are unusual by modern, especially materialist/secular/anti-supernaturalist standards, but not incompatible (as far as I have been able to sort out) with a thoroughly Christian worldview.)
And I definitely believe in the traditional creeds. The one part about having to hold the doctrines to be saved, as someone else here pointed out, I am not convinced of. I trust that all who are saved, are indeed saved by Christ through His death and resurrection, but that need not be limited to those who have heard of Him or consciously know Him in this life.
No, that is not ironic, or at least the irony is against myself as much as anyone, because I find it tough too to love that guy.
(I think if I had to leave the Episcopal Church for some reason, I would go back to the Roman Catholic Church (when I first converted to Christianity around the age of 15–16, that was the one I originally chose. Not many people got baptized at that age…)
And it is not a creed as such, not "I believe", but "believe this or else".
Amen. The Good Samaritan seems to be about just that. Now I've written it, that looks like a contender for most redundant comment on the internet today
This probably isn’t a side issue but we’ll see how it goes. Why do you think “journey” is a dreadful cliche? I think it’s just shorthand for journey of understanding. Or learning.
There are two aspects of the word disciple. They are follower and learner. As followers of Jesus we continue to learn what that means. Our understanding changes, hopefully deepens. Once we stop learning we start dying.
I like the way Bob Dylan put it. “He who isn’t busy being born is busy dying”.
I’ve found studying the Creeds a big help in that. Yes, I think there’s something in the notion that in their formation there was a certainly a degree of that. I suppose they represented a victory of sorts (of orthodoxy over heresy). But I think the long and often fierce arguments over the meaning of faith were themselves also a learning journey. Studying early church history I was fascinated by how much passion those arguments generated, how important it was to people to get things right.
I think that other point, that we no longer live in that mindset, is very important as well. In order to “get” the Creeds it helps a great deal to “get” that mindset.
Believing without necessarily understanding that may be of great value to some. For me, I find pure recitation without understanding doesn’t work. Liturgy is not intended to be just rote, but it can be.
In the context for following the Living Word, we don’t just learn things. We know him better.
It’s nicely put in “Day by Day” from “Godspell”.
Isn’t that the journey we’re on, individually and together?
Wasn't that prayer originally by Richard of Chichester?
“Oh, dear Lord”.
Whoops!
Yes, it was and if you visit our beautiful Cathedral here in Chichester you'll hear it prayed throughout the day on the hour.
I agree. In some contexts I use "I believe" to mean "I infer from the information available to me"
E.g. Our church records state that this communion cup was made in 1821 from two older damaged communion cups. I believe the two cups which were melted down were the cups gifted to the church in 1638 by Lady X
I base this belief on two facts:
There is no record I've found so far as to what happened to the 1638 silver.
I know of no other silverware which might be the "damaged cups" of 1821.
I might be wrong. But I believe that I have deduced correctly.
Maybe it should have been better acknowledged? That’s always an issue with uncopyrighted (or no longer copyrighted) stuff. It’s pretty hard to do it in the middle of musical drama.
Should I have done it? Probably. It’s just one of millions of things I didn’t know when I wrote.
But I still think it’s pretty good!
However there is an overlap between faith and certainty: the bridge I'm walking across may have been designed to proven engineering standards, built by skilled people using good quality materials and comprehensively stress-tested before opening. I also have seen 40-ton lorries crossing it with no problem. There are therefore very good reasons to believe that it won't collapse under me - yet, ultimately, I'm still exercising a tiny modicum of faith whenever I cross it.
Get stroppy when the creed is left out or changed, or if a newfangled version of the Lord's Prayer is used. *yuk*
If you like a distillation or even crystallisation of the content of scripture on what were historically disputed points.
They to me are lifegiving to reflect on and pray through.
I respect that people can find them difficult for a range of reasons.
For me they are a post to rest upon rather than a stick to hit others with.
I also very much note the importance of fruit in ones life. Which in theory should follow from being connected to the realities which the creeds attempt to describe.
Do you get stroppy? Or are you wondering if others do?
I don’t. I think that the language and utility of liturgy needs to be considered in terms of its comprehensibility to folks on the edges or outside the faith.
Sure it may cause them to ask questions. Or just leave, wondering what on earth is the value today of such pronouncements.
Doubt is important, I would agree, but only insofar as it is a motivation for investigation. If doubt just festers, then it can turn into unbelief.
Unjustified certainty is, pardon the double use, certainly bad. But certainty can be useful as a firm foundation. For example, I am certain that there exists no rational number whose square is 2; I can prove it.
Instead, I would posit that the opposite of faith is disloyalty. It's knowingly acting in a way not in accordance with the ways of those to whom I have professed my faithfulness. For example, if I say I am faithful to my employer, but am looking for another job and neglecting my current role, that means that I haven't really put my faith in my employer to provide a reliable workplace where I can do my best work.
Yes. Koine Greek or GTFO, right?
I still love this video:
Day by Day
I was interested in your comment here Barnabas. I like to think I am alive to and opposed to church jargon, for the reason you state. But it might be just that I am alive/opposed to jargon which isn't my thing (prayers in KJV-lite in my university UCCF CU years ago used to really wind me up) whereas perhaps those bits that are my thing (chunks of the Methodist service book, I am a little ashamed to admit) don't count, to me, as jargon - so get a pass.
We have a new minister who a generation ago might have been described as 'modern' and who now might be 'woke'. She uses 'novelty' in the liturgy, and I find myself feeling like I object to it for the same reasons you mention a possible objection to something very old - I am not sure it helps a visitor. 'It is right to give our thanks and praise' is old, shares something with many other denominations, and stands as a compact, bald statement of something one has to get used to even as a newbie if one thinks about the invisible, it-just-is God. 'It is right to give our thanks and praise for Black History Month' left me scratching my head (and feeling stroppy).
Very good post!
I’m not much in favour of modernisation for modernisation’s sake. Trying to make Christianity fashionable or conform to various modern political positions is a fool’s errand.
That’s not the same as seeking to find the best way to proclaim, understandably, our eternal verities.
Also, in terms of worship, I think it is the duty of every minister to be aware of the diversity of their audience. In any congregation there will be conservatives and radicals, folks in different places on the faith journey, introverts who need silence. extroverts who are uncomfortable with it, folks who are happy, folks who are miserable, folks who know why they are, folks who aren’t, folks who have no idea why they are there at all!
It’s a big challenge to bear those things in mind yet do things which help a significant proportion to “see Him more clearly”. Never mind “love Him more dearly” or “follow Him more nearly”.
Probably like me, I find there are some services when I don’t really connect, others where the connection is real and profound. And everywhere in between! Last Sunday’s service in my local congo was a very profound for me but I don’t expect them all to be like that.
I don't have any problem with the idea of a 'journey'. Nor am I suggesting we simply recite Creeds by rote without thinking about them. Far from it.
It's simply that I've heard the term 'journey' bandied around in a somewhat glib way and in some quarters it can mean, 'You don't have to believe anything much it's all about the journey ...'
I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you've posted.
@Baptist Trainfan - yes, I often quote the 'opposite of faith isn't doubt but certainty' thing. I've heard it attributed to an RC source.
That's a good way to put it. I like old hymns (the older, the more I tend to like them!) but / and I also like 'The Message'. Those differences multiplied across a room full (OK, half full) of people from all over the world, creates a big challenge. And sometimes a visiting preacher who I have struggled with before, will say something which makes me ashamed that I was expecting to struggle with them again.
Indeed!
Another observation may be helpful. I’m not a fan of modern “I”-centred “Jesus is my boyfriend” contemporary worship songs. But they aren’t all like that.
I met and got to know Matt Redman in the 90’s. Liked him a lot. Talented, thoughtful, modest. He’s written some good stuff. His lament “The heart of worship” contains an eternally true statement.
“I’m sorry, Lord, for the thing I’ve made it”.
Yes indeed. A truth that can be applied to both ancient and modern. Worshipping worship is not helpful.
Back to the Creeds. Yes.
I need to unpack things a bit ...
As far as I understand it, the Orthodox appreciate the attempt the Athanasian Creed makes to explore/explain or expound the Trinity in principle - we would see it as representative of a particular view in the Latin West at a particular point in time.
I've heard that a modified version exists in some Russian prayer books but with any dint of 'double-procession' edited out.
I s'pose the main difference is that we would see the Nicene Creed as definitive with others being of interest but only carrying any real weight and substance to the extent that they correlate with Nicea. That might be an oversimplication but that's the essence of it.
In a similar way we wouldn't necessarily object to Western hymns or contemporary worship songs such as those written by a Matt Redman of a Tim Hughes etc. It's just that we wouldn't sing them in church because they aren't part of our Tradition.
We wouldn't stop or 'police' anyone from singing them in the car, in their own homes or wherever else. Nor would we seek to proscribe or prescribe what songs other Christians should or shouldn't sing in their churches.
That said, we might find them rather sentimental or subjective for our tastes but we wouldn't say they were 'heretical' or off-the-wall unless they contained something that contradicted Nicea or historic Christian belief in some way.
I'll sing Wesleyan and other Protestant hymns when I'm in the house or out and about as well as some of the choruses I remember from my charismatic evangelical days - particularly those that have more explicitly scriptural content.
I've sounded off about some of these songs on these boards in the past but I'm less inclined to do so these days for the reasons @Heavenlyannie states - it can be disrespectful towards other Christians and I know I've upset people when I've done it here and in real-life.