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.
@Gramps49 - if it was a 'loaded' question it was @ChastMastr's question and not mine - although I agree with how he's defined things in his outline of what he considers orthodox, creedal Christianity to mean.
Although we all occupy particular sections or locations along the spectrum as it were, I think we are all trying to think in broader terms than whether this particular Lutheran Synod doesn't accept or recognise another or the internal politics within whatever Church or denomination we are involved with.
We can none of us speak for everyone else of course nor expect our own positions to apply to others - and our respective positions may change over time.
Equally, we can be in a broadly orthodox setting (or a Big O one for that matter) and still drift into excesses or dodgy emphases and so on.
The network of independent charismatic evangelical churches I was involved with for 18 years didn't veer into outright 'heresy' in any creedal sense yet it imbibed all sorts of unhelpful and idiosyncratic emphases and practices that ultimately brought about its splintering and demise.
Would I say they were small o orthodox Christians? Yes - but with heterodox elements.
We are on a slippery slope if we ignore or dismantle received tradition - whether small t or Big T.
Equally, we run the risk of spiritual asphyxiation if we bind the cords too tightly.
I like what the late Tom Smail wrote when he observed that providing we have an elastic band around our waists which secures us to the main 'flow' of received and agreed tradition then we can explore side caverns and passages safely as the 'Ariadne's Thread' of the elastic band will always draw us back.
We wouldn't go caving or potholing without a guide.
Now, the elastic band can be stretched until it snaps of course or else it can be bound so tightly we can't move.
The trick is to work with elasticity within the agreed boundaries.
It just so happens that where I worship the folks are not in much danger of departing from mainstream Christian belief. I do acknowledge that in nonconformist land that’s not always the case.
Do we need Tradition to inform us for example that Hegseth is saying and praying bollocks? I guess some folks do. Just not everyone. For example, Bishop Mariann Budde, whose very appointment to the office of Bishop gives some Traditionalists the heebie-jeebies.
Belief in Tradition is not always a safe protection. Nor is unawareness of it always an inevitable journey to anti-Christian behaviour.
Don't get me wrong. Someone can tick all manner of Tradition boxes and still go awry.
'These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.'
It's not about giving mental assent to a set of propositions.
The Trinity ... [tick]
The Virgin Birth [tick]
Seven Ecumenical Councils [tick]
Or whatever else.
As it happens Tradition would say that what Hegseth is praying and saying is bollocks and mainstream small t tradition would say the same.
I'm not saying that your small t small o orthodox congregation is going to wake up one morning yo find that it has abandoned any semblance of adherence to traditional Christian belief and praxis.
I've had to point out to someone in a PM that I don't regard them as a heretic on the grounds of their church affiliation - nor on any other grounds for that matter.
I may not have expressed myself clearly enough on a previous exchange I had with them and given the impression that I did.
In which case I apologise.
Smail's elastic band analogy applied to the received and agreed tradition we all hold in common if we are mainstream Christians of whatever stripe.
He wasn't thinking of Big T Big O Orthodox Tradition. He had issues with aspects of that and I discussed those with him to some extent on the only occasion I met him.
Do I consider him to have been a 'heretic' on that basis? No.
Would I have considered him a heretic if he'd denied the Trinity?
Yes. Although I wouldn't have burned him at the stake or refused to talk to him or anything like that.
All that said, and please don't take this the wrong way, small t tradition only exists because there was/is an older Big T Tradition from it to derive from or react against or dialogue with in the first place.
There's a mojo from the older Christian traditions and Tradition that flows into and through all Christian communities whether they are aware of it or not.
Your lovely and well-respected non-conformist congregation only has the NT in the first place, for instance, because it has inherited it from Big T Tradition.
Belief in Big T Tradition isn't the same as working that out in practice.
'Faith working through love.'
You can be in a small t Christian tradition, a heterodox Christian tradition and heck, even an 'heretickal' one or have no religious affiliation whatsoever and still live a life closer to the Sermon on the Mount than someone who can tick all the boxes in a cognitive sense but who lives a live completely at variance with the faith they profess.
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.
Yes. Early Baptists and Independents eschewed creeds (the Baptist Union of Great Britain still doesn't have one, merely a short "Statement of Principle", although this comes from a later time) - the result was that many such churches in the C18 became Unitarian. Some reverted to Trinitarianism, others didn't.,
I would not say dogma is medicine. Love is the medicine for the Soul. Piety is eating the right food. Theology is a gym for the thinking soul to train in adoration and thus the love of God. Dogma is the set of "gym"-routines that are known to help build a strong soul in adoration, thus Love of God. Yes, important, but too easily overstated. This is why a yes/no attitude to it is bad, you do not have a can-do/can't-do attitude towards exercise routines in the gym. You start with what you can do, adapt, modify and build towards achieving the end goal, which is a deeper love of God. Just as the aim of gym routines is a fitter, more flexible, stronger body, not performing the perfect squat.
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.
Yes. Early Baptists and Independents eschewed creeds (the Baptist Union of Great Britain still doesn't have one, merely a short "Statement of Principle", although this comes from a later time) - the result was that many such churches in the C18 became Unitarian. Some reverted to Trinitarianism, others didn't.,
Totally agree!
As a matter of interest, I googled the UK Evangelical
Alliance Basis of faith.
It’s Traditional mostly but it has additions which make Traditionals uncomfortable.
What it says about the Bible is a substantial addition to the brief “according to the scriptures “ in the Creeds”.
What it says about the church is not the same as the creedal “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. It’s consistent with “locally visible, but universally invisible” (i.e actual membership known only to God).
And the view of atonement is a Penal Substitutionary extension of “died for our sins”. Which is a problem for many, including me.
As a faith basis I could sign up to most but not all of it. Some of it is more Traditional than others.
But, for example, it would protect Baptists from Unitarianism.
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.
Although we all occupy particular sections or locations along the spectrum as it were, I think we are all trying to think in broader terms than whether this particular Lutheran Synod doesn't accept or recognise another or the internal politics within whatever Church or denomination we are involved with.
We can none of us speak for everyone else of course nor expect our own positions to apply to others - and our respective positions may change over time.
Equally, we can be in a broadly orthodox setting (or a Big O one for that matter) and still drift into excesses or dodgy emphases and so on.
The network of independent charismatic evangelical churches I was involved with for 18 years didn't veer into outright 'heresy' in any creedal sense yet it imbibed all sorts of unhelpful and idiosyncratic emphases and practices that ultimately brought about its splintering and demise.
Would I say they were small o orthodox Christians? Yes - but with heterodox elements.
We are on a slippery slope if we ignore or dismantle received tradition - whether small t or Big T.
Equally, we run the risk of spiritual asphyxiation if we bind the cords too tightly.
I like what the late Tom Smail wrote when he observed that providing we have an elastic band around our waists which secures us to the main 'flow' of received and agreed tradition then we can explore side caverns and passages safely as the 'Ariadne's Thread' of the elastic band will always draw us back.
We wouldn't go caving or potholing without a guide.
Now, the elastic band can be stretched until it snaps of course or else it can be bound so tightly we can't move.
The trick is to work with elasticity within the agreed boundaries.
It just so happens that where I worship the folks are not in much danger of departing from mainstream Christian belief. I do acknowledge that in nonconformist land that’s not always the case.
Do we need Tradition to inform us for example that Hegseth is saying and praying bollocks? I guess some folks do. Just not everyone. For example, Bishop Mariann Budde, whose very appointment to the office of Bishop gives some Traditionalists the heebie-jeebies.
Belief in Tradition is not always a safe protection. Nor is unawareness of it always an inevitable journey to anti-Christian behaviour.
By their fruits shall you know them?
'These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far from me.'
It's not about giving mental assent to a set of propositions.
The Trinity ... [tick]
The Virgin Birth [tick]
Seven Ecumenical Councils [tick]
Or whatever else.
As it happens Tradition would say that what Hegseth is praying and saying is bollocks and mainstream small t tradition would say the same.
I'm not saying that your small t small o orthodox congregation is going to wake up one morning yo find that it has abandoned any semblance of adherence to traditional Christian belief and praxis.
I've had to point out to someone in a PM that I don't regard them as a heretic on the grounds of their church affiliation - nor on any other grounds for that matter.
I may not have expressed myself clearly enough on a previous exchange I had with them and given the impression that I did.
In which case I apologise.
Smail's elastic band analogy applied to the received and agreed tradition we all hold in common if we are mainstream Christians of whatever stripe.
He wasn't thinking of Big T Big O Orthodox Tradition. He had issues with aspects of that and I discussed those with him to some extent on the only occasion I met him.
Do I consider him to have been a 'heretic' on that basis? No.
Would I have considered him a heretic if he'd denied the Trinity?
Yes. Although I wouldn't have burned him at the stake or refused to talk to him or anything like that.
All that said, and please don't take this the wrong way, small t tradition only exists because there was/is an older Big T Tradition from it to derive from or react against or dialogue with in the first place.
There's a mojo from the older Christian traditions and Tradition that flows into and through all Christian communities whether they are aware of it or not.
Your lovely and well-respected non-conformist congregation only has the NT in the first place, for instance, because it has inherited it from Big T Tradition.
Belief in Big T Tradition isn't the same as working that out in practice.
'Faith working through love.'
You can be in a small t Christian tradition, a heterodox Christian tradition and heck, even an 'heretickal' one or have no religious affiliation whatsoever and still live a life closer to the Sermon on the Mount than someone who can tick all the boxes in a cognitive sense but who lives a live completely at variance with the faith they profess.
Totally agree!
As a matter of interest, I googled the UK Evangelical
Alliance Basis of faith.
https://www.eauk.org/about-us/how-we-work/basis-of-faith
It’s Traditional mostly but it has additions which make Traditionals uncomfortable.
What it says about the Bible is a substantial addition to the brief “according to the scriptures “ in the Creeds”.
What it says about the church is not the same as the creedal “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. It’s consistent with “locally visible, but universally invisible” (i.e actual membership known only to God).
And the view of atonement is a Penal Substitutionary extension of “died for our sins”. Which is a problem for many, including me.
As a faith basis I could sign up to most but not all of it. Some of it is more Traditional than others.
But, for example, it would protect Baptists from Unitarianism.
Comments invited!