I should mention that I'm not completely conflating little-o orthodox and credal Christianity, though I think that the credal includes the little-o orthodox, but not the reverse, in terms of Venn diagrams. I'm thinking of little-o orthodoxy as including such doctrines as Jesus being really truly the incarnate Son of the one God Who made everything, Who died and was resurrected to (in some sense) save us all from sin and death, and so on, as opposed to (say) that Jesus was just a nice guy with some good ideas and wisdom, but nothing more, or even that there is no God at all. When I started the thread, I was thinking that there were a lot fewer of us (and certainly the minority now) on the Ship nowadays who hold to little-o orthodoxy or even specifically credal doctrinal /dogma orthodoxy. Whether the creed in question includes the filioque or not, I'm thinking of the rest of the basic Christian doctrines about the Trinity common to Anglican, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Roman Catholic, etc.
A denomination can call itself creedal when it anchors its faith and worship in the historic declarations of the Christian tradition. The ELCA does this by receiving the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as faithful summaries of the Church’s teaching, not as optional add‑ons. Being creedal doesn’t mean rigid literalism; it means locating ourselves within the shared story the Church has confessed for centuries. The creeds provide continuity, theological clarity, and a common language across diverse congregations. They keep us rooted without preventing thoughtful interpretation, allowing worship to be both historically grounded and pastorally alive.
I agree. And it's worth thinking about what it means to be "non-creedal". Without that historical grounding, it's possible for people to reinvent Christian faith in all sorts of bizarre and potentially harmful ways. If, instead of "this is what the Church believes", the key thing is "this is what I believe", then the door is opened to allow pretty much any interpretation of the Bible.
I would suggest that this is what we see in the likes of Hegseth and the Christian Nationals. They can come out with all sorts of crazy stuff without any regard to how Christianity has been understood and practised over the past 2000 years.
I don't like the idea of the creeds as a straitjacket, forcing you into a very constricted faith that permits no questions or expansion. But I think we need the creeds as guidelines that help us say "we may go in this direction but not that way".
A denomination can call itself creedal when it anchors its faith and worship in the historic declarations of the Christian tradition. The ELCA does this by receiving the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds as faithful summaries of the Church’s teaching, not as optional add‑ons. Being creedal doesn’t mean rigid literalism; it means locating ourselves within the shared story the Church has confessed for centuries. The creeds provide continuity, theological clarity, and a common language across diverse congregations. They keep us rooted without preventing thoughtful interpretation, allowing worship to be both historically grounded and pastorally alive.
I agree. And it's worth thinking about what it means to be "non-creedal". Without that historical grounding, it's possible for people to reinvent Christian faith in all sorts of bizarre and potentially harmful ways. If, instead of "this is what the Church believes", the key thing is "this is what I believe", then the door is opened to allow pretty much any interpretation of the Bible.
I would suggest that this is what we see in the likes of Hegseth and the Christian Nationals. They can come out with all sorts of crazy stuff without any regard to how Christianity has been understood and practised over the past 2000 years.
I don't like the idea of the creeds as a straitjacket, forcing you into a very constricted faith that permits no questions or expansion. But I think we need the creeds as guidelines that help us say "we may go in this direction but not that way".
Splendidly put! The 'Creeds' of themselves can't give us life, but they help us keep to the tried and tested path.
Comments
Tra la la, tra la la la… 🎶 ❤️
As a side note, please remember Sid Krofft, who was involved in the series, who just passed at 96 the other day.
I am sure that He/They would say “Likewise.”
Indeed, it’s arguably Gnostic—the idea that knowing the right stuff is what saves.
I miss the Onion Dome! O @mousethief, you made such a cool thing!
I agree. And it's worth thinking about what it means to be "non-creedal". Without that historical grounding, it's possible for people to reinvent Christian faith in all sorts of bizarre and potentially harmful ways. If, instead of "this is what the Church believes", the key thing is "this is what I believe", then the door is opened to allow pretty much any interpretation of the Bible.
I would suggest that this is what we see in the likes of Hegseth and the Christian Nationals. They can come out with all sorts of crazy stuff without any regard to how Christianity has been understood and practised over the past 2000 years.
I don't like the idea of the creeds as a straitjacket, forcing you into a very constricted faith that permits no questions or expansion. But I think we need the creeds as guidelines that help us say "we may go in this direction but not that way".
Splendidly put! The 'Creeds' of themselves can't give us life, but they help us keep to the tried and tested path.