No, not the band, but the very thing that ties our beliefs together. Let's start at the Apostles Creed. Here is a traditional version of it to read:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.
How is this speaking into the Hot Tub? How might we interpret some of this? Maybe it is the very reason we are here discussing our faith. do you think that parts may have been influenced heavily and possibly too "Catholic" in some ways (communion of saints not the word catholic itself). what do you think?
Let's discuss Creeds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
First of all, I don't think Jesus "descended into hell." The sciptural evidence just isn't there, nor do I think ther is a hell to descend to in the way that they are saying there is (literally lowering down into the flaming bowels of the earth). Bring it.
Second, I like creeds because they can provide unity and a starting point for theological conversation and communion.
Third, I dislike/hate creeds because they draw lines and split apart the body of Christ. Look at when and why most creeds were written: one group is splitting from another because of its heretical beliefs, and it's "creed" is actually one half creed, one half an "in your face" to the group it is splitting from.
There's my initial thoughts. Let's fight. C'mon, c'mon. Feel it, feel it (that's Marky Mark).
I have a love/hate relationship with creeds also. I love them because they cover most of the bases as far as what the collective group believes, but at the same time they split some away.
I think that it's kind of like when a church splits over carpet color. One thing splits them.
I also don't think that Jesus descended into hell. If it did happen, I imagine it to be a lot like Aslan when he runs around freeing frozen people...but I don't believe it still.
We should write a hot tub creed, and divide before we even meet together. It will be like the sharks and the jets where nobody will know why this fight started.
Creeds,
I grew up saying creeds like this etc. at the local Methodist church. I understand what they mean now but then. I was like, what the heck is this thing we always say. I'm not Roman Catholic? I don't intend to fallow Roman Catholic Church anything. The other thing I always thought was funny was the part about suffering under Pilot. That's like adding GW Bush into your mission statement or something. As we have been visiting churches around Whatcom County some still use Creeds or a modification of the one I remember as a kid. Nothing seems to change those that attend are comfortable reciting this out of memory, but do people even pay attention, it sounds like a bunch of clones or zombies are repeating something they were told they had to say. That is how I remember it as a kid and it seem that it hasn’t changed. Where I stand on the whole thing is that with anything that is historical it should be explained and the value should be exposed or it becomes irrelevant unless no one new shows up at the church. Similar to communion, I would say communion is explained every time it is done as a ritual. Like I said if a church is going to use creeds or other historical element then people need to know what the heck is going on and why it is done. Church vs. political side of religion. A word comes to mind from something that I have been reading “contextualization” (something to talk about another time)
Hell, I agree. I am more bent toward a metaphorical symbol for eternal separation from God and not a geographic place, unless eternal separation is on God's road map somewhere like Custer or some obscure place. I hope I never really find out for sure.
first of all to Matt, i think the biblical idea behind "decended into hell" is a way of affirming that he truly died. Our understanding of hell is very different now, and how we understand it now doesn't make sense, but whatever happens to people when they die actually happened to Jesus. I just don't know what that really is, and all i can understand are the temporal implications.
I am not worried about the division creeds can cause, because i think it is actually people who cause it. In a perspective that church should be led by community, or that we all bring what we bring and it is not just authoratative leadership, there is a huge weakness. The point of the community is to find unity in a place of agreement. Creed should not be a dogmatic expression of absolutes, but a confessional that is mixed with mystical understanding.
Also i like the idea of creedal statements because they give a core to work with, a sense that this is part of what i believe, and sense that these are the things i need to try to figure out. If we came up with a hot tub creed i think it would be cool if it was all questions, central ideas that we have to ask as essential to our formation.
I don't know, I just think that in the postmodern reaction to modernity it is actually the deepness and richness of tradition that holds the keys to our way out of the mire and a creed may provide a compass.
I'm just not so sure that the creed's authors had the "biblical idea" of hell in mind when they wrote this. Because if they did, I think they would have just said "experienced death" rather than "descended into hell."
One of the biggest issues I have with creeds is that a word like hell can mean different things to different people. Or something like Jesus condemned under Pilate makes me think that a creed has poliitcal implications, whereas for many this is not the case. I guess I'm saying that even with a creed there can still be a lot of division. Agreements aren't always as real as they seem.
I guess what I'm saying is that I need some more convincing.
wording in creeds is a little crazy because semantics are so deconstructable, even if we were in the middle of these conversations we probably wouldn't be able to say all the people thought the same thing when they said the same thing. The other thing is that this is pre cause and effect thought, pre enlightenment, and so there understanding was in pictures and stories and the story of Jesus going to hell made sense of the idea that Jesus really did die and really did pay for sin.
The thing about a creed is unity, which is arguably hugely important in Christianity, the collective conscience, the collective faith, unified. So maybe specific words as absolute confessions aren't what we need, but unity of confession within a framework of belief and values is important and traditionally it is a core part of the church and even predates the new covenant community to Israel who had tons of liturgy which serve in the same way as a collective confession. I don't know, i guess i just believe that unity is part of individual identity and the spirit of the community being expressed in creedal form can be a good thing
Ok. first of all I like something that Kurt said "a confessional that is mixed with mystical understanding". No matter what we repete or recite I think the mystical part is the most important and understanding is equally as important.
I think that there is something else going on here that we are missing. I think we are trying to look at creeds in todays context. Does anyone know when the first representation of a Creed was made or when there was a title given to such a thing? Was this part of a church split that needed to define a distinkt separation?
I found a couple resources that might give some background. This helped me. For all of you bible scholars this may be old hat.
Try this link:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/christian-history.html#creeds
Or specifically to the:
THE APOSTLES' CREED VERSUS GNOSTICISM-
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creed.apostles.txt
I'm down with unity, Indy. If that's what we are looking for, I'm all in.
Rob, I'll check out those links soon...
I like the idea of tradition. Creeds to me are a part of our christian tradition which I think that some people are so ridiculously against the church that they toss creeds out.
I'll use creeds in worship services to verify the unity of worshipping as a community. I usually use the nicene creed which is way longer, but at the same time it is worded a little more precisely.
I agree with the thought that hell may be simply a metaphor for dying. But why did they say hell? Why not sheol or the mountain of skulls or whatever it was that Jesus spoke of. Maybe its that hell is the man made thought, where as in Jewish tradition Sheol was the ocean...I think. If it is, then descending makes more sense to me.
peace,
ron
today i was also thinking that one reason we have a negative reaction sometimes is that creeds and unity have been used to by some to gain power. They treat the agreement as blind submission and misuse that agreement to influence and manipulate. In a world where power has been so misused, especially in our faith, anything that might put power into someone elses hands is scary. I could be wrong, but i think one reason i have avoided creeds is it feels like a pledge of allegiance, only the pledge isn't to God its to a form of church government or something. I am still trying to work this out.
What do you guys think about the communion of the saints, i guess it does seem at least plausible and definately orthodox in light of historic Christianity that we can commune with the saints and that their prayers can be given for us, revelation seems to imply that they are somewhere offer up prayers for us, I don't know it seems weird but so do angels yet i have prayed at lots of times that angels would protect or surround something or someone and i believe in some cases it has happened. Supernatural stuff is hard because its borderline magic just like our worship services. The Old Testament is clear that we do not envoke the presence of God or of the dead so i don't know what do you guys think
I found the verse that they got the whole descended to hell thing from, thanks to good ol bishop tom. 1 peter 3:19 says that Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison, which implied the Jewish idea of the underworld which was given the name hell which may not have meant all that it means now.
Post a Comment