On 24 April 2014 broadcaster Krista Tippett interviewed the eminent now deceased Christian historian Jaroslav Pelikan about why he believed the Christian church needs to continue the practice of reciting in public worship the ancient Creeds of the early centuries of the Christian church.
In his arguments Pelikan presents, it seems to me, a powerful case for why we in the church might want to question the continued use of Creeds in public worship. This is not a question of whether the content of the Creeds should continue to be normative for Christian faith, but whether their proper place is in contemporary Christian worship.
Tippett began by observing:
There’s a question Jesus asks again and again in the New Testament: “Who do you say that I am?” That question is asked again and again in every different culture. That’s an important question.
http://onbeing.org/program/need-creeds/211
Pelikan replies:
At some point you have to be what and who you are in the only culture you are ever going to live in, in the only century in which you are ever going to live and die. And, in that century, you have to answer with whatever linguistic and philosophical equipment you have, you have to answer the question “Who do you say that I am?”
The church is in grave danger when it fails to listen sensitively, carefully and attentively to the context in which we are called to live and embody Christian faith. It is a legitimate question at least to ask whether fourth century Creeds are the best way to enshrine in liturgy the communal expression of Christian faith for people of the 21st. century.
Pelikan goes on to comment on the origin of the ancient Creeds saying:
My father used to say that the difference between a dialect and a language is that a language has an army and a dialect is just spoken by people. And so what we call the Nicene Creed was adopted by a Council called and directed by the not-yet-baptized Emperor who said to the bishops, “All you are bishops and I too am a bishop. I am a bishop for things outside the church and you are bishops for things inside the church.” But by the time he was done the Emperor was running things… This was what scholars came to call Caesaropapism – the the Emperor is in fact the Pope.
So, at one level the reason for the universal authority of the Nicene Creed is the political and military authority it carried. Each conquest by the Roman Empire, also brought the Creed.
Constantine’s mother St. Helen came to Jerusalem and it was she who found the sepulchre of Christ and found the true cross. And in the true cross were nails which she sent to Constantine. He had them melted down into a bit for his warhorse. “Onward Christian Soldiers Marching as to War.” And, as he marched and conquered, the Creed came right along with it.
So centuries later in the great modern expansion of Christianity, during the 18th and especially the 19th century which is the great century of colonialism. So, the religion of the white man which brought sanitation and the money economy and all the advantages and disadvantages of being modern also brought with it the Creeds.
Whether we like it or not, reciting the Creeds connects us to the armies of Constantine and the colonialism of the 19th century missionary movement. Do we want to speak in the “language of the army” or the “dialect spoken by the people”?
Pelikan concludes his comments discussing the possibility of communication between worlds:
My late friend Stephen J. Gould who insisted with dogmatic fervour that he wasn’t a believer, was a member of the Handel and Hayden Society in Boston. So he sang all this music. And, in an interview several years ago we were both involved in, he was asked about communication with other planets and other worlds and how should we try to reach people who don’t know our language or anything else. And he said we should play the Bach B Minor Mass. And say, in as many words and in as many languages, “This is the best we have ever done.”
One wonders how the people of ancient Aztec culture, or continental India might feel about the Bach B Minor Mass being broadcast throughout the universe as “the best we have ever done.” It is this kind of cultural imperialism that may be the strongest reason to call into question the use of ancient Creeds in contemporary Christian public worship. Is a 4th century creedal formulation really “the best we have ever done” at embodying for 21st century communal expression the salient points of Christian belief?
Pelikan’s comments seem to indicate that it may be worthwhile in the church of the 21st century at least to be willing to have a thoughtful conversation about whether the cause of the Gospel is best served by the repetition of these ancient dogmatic formularies.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 26, 2015 at 9:01 am
elbie
These are really good questions … I can’t help wondering what words we’d use to replace the Nicene Creed? Is it possible to remove the creed and start again from scratch … organically from the earth and soil we live on and the culture we find ourselves in? What I mean is … can we really deny our history and how we as a church came to be standing here on this soil of Victoria, Vancouver Island (even the names we’ve adopted for this place are colonial and embedded in this culture) …
When I visited East Berlin just after the Berlin Wall was taken down, what was surprised and unsettled me travelling from Western Europe and West Berlin to East Berlin, was the complete lack of Coco-Cola signage. I knew then that I was in a foreign territory and hadn’t realized just how ubiquitous and familiar, and yes, comforting, the Coco-cola signposts were … and how much of a subliminal impact this had on me. I couldn’t wait to return to West Berlin … where I equally didn’t understand the language … but the glitzy shopfronts and Coco-Cola signposts offered some kind of familiarity.
It always seemed to me that the Nicene Creed and Coco-cola sign stood in opposition to each other. Now, from what Pelikan is saying, they always stood hand-in-hand ….
I don’t know what I’m trying to say here … but I have this weird vision of the vaccuum left by removing the Nicene Creed being replaced by Coco-Cola signs … yuck!
I love the idea of starting afresh with a clean slate … quietly and discretely removing the creed, but to do this would also be to create a vaccuum and deny who we are, where we come from historically,our cultural and how it is we as a church came to be standing here in a (still) privileged position … our colonial heritage and mindset and Coco-cola signs displacing and creating havoc for the original peoples of this soil who even today are still struggling and trying to come to terms with colonialism.
We who are not First Nation, don’t see or live or understand the very real impact colonialism had had and continues to have on people’s lives right here and now where we live … a world we can’t possibly see because our own world view is formed and our culture so subliminal and embedded in almost every daily aspect of our own lives …
I don’t mean to be standing on a soapbox … but it seems to me there is also a risk in denying who we are individually and as a church and how it is we came to be here … this brave new world isn’t so new …
If we are truly to understand who we as a church are, surely we need to embrace the limitations of what we can possibly understand ? Like, how do we even do that?
May 26, 2015 at 9:55 am
tressbackhouse
I also like your comments Elbie!
May 26, 2015 at 8:16 pm
anarchistfish
To assign all powers and influence of colonialism to the creeds is to make all the bishops of history cartoonish doctor claw figures conspiring for world domination. Which might stand to reason if you’re only looking at roman or England beaches, but when you factor in the existence of things like the Ethiopian orthodox church, liberation theology, the tensions with the early church, like Constantine banishing athanasius, things look far less monolithic. This is one fairy tale told in place of another, I mean the church has its colonial past, but the doctorine of inclusivity, where we add exceptions like a ship taking on water, is the way of banality, where we affirm nothing and fall into the societal status quo of concensus by non- offensive. The creeds make God matter. Which makes Jesus matter, which makes our struggle for Salvation matter. As dosteovsky said: without God all things become permissible. Truly this is an age without God, where banality and evil walk hand in hand, an age in desperate need of creedial affirmation.
May 26, 2015 at 10:55 pm
elbie
Hi anarchistfish, if I understand what you’re saying correctly, I think we both agree that it’s not a great idea to summarily dismiss the creeds … albeit perhaps coming from different perspectives … maybe?
One point I’m confused about and am wondering if I might challenge you a bit on wording or at least my understanding of your wording sequence? You say “the creeds make God matter”? This suggests the creeds come first and the influence, existence and power of God is somehow dependent on the influence, existence and persistence of the creeds.
I suspect this isn’t quite what you had in mind … or is it? Care to clarify?
May 27, 2015 at 12:48 pm
anarchistfish
By no means is God dependent upon our creeds, but I mean when we change our worship structure we change the way we believe. The creeds anchor us in how we believe – and part of that belief is that the Church is an institution founded by God. In our post-structural idealism, we generally don’t like that idea because it mixes the perfect divine with his corrupted humans, and it’s really easy to poke holes and find expectations, but then that was rather what Our Lord had in mind, to build a troublesome bridge.
May 27, 2015 at 9:48 pm
elbie
Anarchistfish, when you say ‘when we change our worship structure we change the way we believe’ … do you mean we change ‘what’ we believe? Sorry, I’m probably being dense here …
May 27, 2015 at 10:23 pm
elbie
I wonder if I can maybe ask you, anarchistfish, not necessarily related to this discussion, but rather to ask you as someone who believes in God and is a Christian… if someone asked you ‘to take a leap of faith’ … what would this mean to you? I mean, as someone who believes in God and is a Christian? It’s just that someone asked me this the other day …
May 28, 2015 at 8:43 am
jaqueline
I am interested in this leap of faith idea: I think it comes from Kirkegaard originally, and despite what it has come to popularly mean, it is not a leap in the dark, it is a leap to reach out to what has been shared about who Christ is.
We have the gospels, we have creation, we have the sense of presence within ( and if that sense of presence is not there it is perfectly fine to ask for it: ” I have heard that you dwell within all of us, but I cannot sense that within me, I mean assuming you are real, I shall ask you directly, could you reveal your presence in my life please?”)
Ultimately it is no leap at all, it is a step toward deciding that to the best of your knowledge, what we know about Jesus is true, and choosing to believe it, it can then confirm or correct itself.
Jesus does not call us to blind faith, he calls us to informed faith, based on who he is. ” Believe in God, believe also in me.”, he said.
I mean no-one can look at Jesus and say he was a not a good man, a great teacher and loving…so why would he say such a thing unless this good, kind powerful man, thought it was a true and good thing to say and believe.
May 29, 2015 at 12:44 am
elbie
Hey Jaqueline 🙂 Thanks for this! Then I think I might have gotten the first part right … “it is not a leap in the dark” … I said it is not jumping off a bridge and hoping for the best, but then I got stumped and mumbled something about synergy, signs and symbols and hoped I wouldn’t be questioned too methodically … which luckily I wasn’t.
I like what you say here and can ponder on this part especially … “Jesus does not call us to blind faith, he calls us to informed faith, based on who he is” … Jesus as a person adds this other layer, which is something I hadn’t considered, but is very relevant to the other conversation I’m having … Thanks!
May 29, 2015 at 12:56 am
elbie
Totally different context, but I’m quickly realizing now this is the missing piece I was looking for. Thanks, Jaqueline!
May 28, 2015 at 8:31 am
jaqueline
“Whether we like it or not, reciting the Creeds connects us to the armies of Constantine and the colonialism of the 19th century missionary movement. Do we want to speak in the “language of the army” or the “dialect spoken by the people”?”
I am not comfortable with saying the Nicene Creed, and I generally refuse to when it is recited, or neglect certain lines; but it is not the only creed- there is Apostles’ Creed.
May 28, 2015 at 3:34 pm
John
I can’t say I’ve found either of the classic Creeds (Nicene, Apostolic) agreeable or even remotely qualifying as ‘Words With Power’ as Northrop Frye would say. To me, both are historical antiques at best, and outdated. If I’m not mistaken, moreover, the Nicene Creed ought to be read as a political rather than religious – let alone a spiritual – document, as it’s creation was tied up in Roman politics and establishment of hegemony. I’ve heard and recited newer Creeds, Anglican and otherwise, that are much more alive and open and less patriarchal and, well, catholic …