So, if you read my last blog, the one where I give a very
tongue in cheek account regarding what I learned during my first year in
seminary, I need to warn you: You're about to think I'm schizophrenic. I want to say, first, that while I enjoy
incredible community among my colleagues and I have never felt so affirmed
regarding my call into ministry, I spent the majority of my first year in
seminary really pissed off. I was prone
to bouts of foulness and one never knew when I would just up and start howling
at the moon. And now, about three weeks
past clicking send on that email to my professor containing my final paper for
the semester, I thought I could just
move past the "angry me", but I'll be damned if she didn't
show up again today...of all places on my front porch...while I was
reading...theology.
I should explain. One of the sources for my anger during
this past year was a class called History of Christian Thought, better known to
Candler students as HT501 and HT503; don't ask me what happened to 502 because
I have no idea. Anyway, during semester
number one we had the laborious task of muddling our way through 1500 years of
church history...Two. Times. You would think that once would be enough, but
after we had a skeletal framework of the historical timeline, we then went back
and read primary documents from the Church fathers with a few female voices like Mechtilde of Magdeburg mixed in so we could hear about how she mystically made love to the Divine and wrote some trippy God porn, but I digress. It was during
this time that we studied the church early church councils. Now, I know that no one really likes church
assemblies or synod meetings, and these councils were no different. The Council of Nicaea that happened way back
in 325CE was called not to celebrate Christian unity and charity but to codify
the rules surrounding Christianity.
These rules were crafted by the powerful lest any "heretics" go around
spreading some "bad" theology. Decisions had to be made regarding who was in and who was out. Unfortunately,
this action of in-ing and out-ing never stopped.
It still happens, it is still ridiculous, and it still sucks. So, to be
at a place where I'm supposed to be learning how to be an instrument for unity,
a place where we're all like "rah-rah we're all one body", and be confronted with a
history of heresy was to say the least, frustrating.
Fast forward back to today and me being pissed
off...again. I have been reading
"Take This Bread" by Sara Miles.
Miles converted to Christianity in a unique way. She is Episcopalian, founded several food pantries in the San
Francisco area, and is a proficient swearer. Thus, I loved her book. Anyway, as Miles was not a cradle Episcopalian, and did
not attend a traditional church that followed a formal liturgy, she never said
the creeds. Not the Nicene, not the
Apostle's, she did not say them, nor does she.
Reading about the experiences of Sara Miles was liberating. Someone else out there did not say the creeds
because they found them divisive. During worship over the past six months when it came to the place in the liturgy where the
congregation recites the creeds together, I have either not been able to
breathe, or I have said them through gritted teeth and tears in my eyes. People may want to argue for the communal
aspect of saying the creeds, but one cannot deny that these statements which some see as beautiful statements about what the church, catholic, believes about our Lord and Savior are codifications. They represent rules that have become
fetishized rituals that often serve to separate more than they unite. So, while I'm not entirely sure how this will
play out with an ordination board I do not think I will be able to say the
creeds. There have to be other people for whom going
through the motions because of tradition is not an option. I don't think I'm the only one. There have to be more people like me out there. I hope there are.
Well. I don't have the energy to get too worked up about the Creeds. True I find the Nicene Creed to be antiquated. True the congregation recites the Creed rote with no real sense of care. True I have said that if someone finds a sermon to be heretical in content, well then the Nicene Creed stands as the orthodox correction to the heresy. True I often say (all this saying takes place in church on Sunday morning and at other times) that many people find the Nicene Creed to be difficult, that it no longer conveys an understanding of the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to people in the 21st century. True I also say that it is a historical document that connects us to the Church through the ages.
ReplyDeleteSo, yeah, I'm there with you. But I'm not angry about having to say the Creeds. I am angry about many injustices in the world. This just isn't something I see as unjust. ANd besides it also offers the opportunity to have conversations just like you have invited us to have. Thanks!
Second.
DeleteI think you are 100% right in your assessment… except where you aren't. And that, I think, is both the need and the power of confessing the faith as it has been preserved through the history of the church. Falible, erring people have left us some really crappy thoughts that we are supposed to venerate but which in many ways make us a little crazy. But not all of those people were divisive, and not all of those people were playing theological "duck, duck, goose." There were, I know, at least one or two Sara Miles's sprinkled in the bunch; honest, God-fearing, folk who did their very best to share the light of the gospel AS THEY UNDERSTOOD IT AT THAT TIME. We may feel like we are getting things straightened out in so many ways in the contemporary, main-line church. But 250 years from now they will very likely be cursing us through gritted teeth for all the stupid things we did and said, and all the baggage we've left them to carry. But just as the creeds and confessions we use today allow us to celebrate the fact that the church survives despite itself, so will our mistakes and missteps allow future generations to acknowledge that somewhere back in time Sara Miles––and you and me and many others––did their best to live in faithful obedience. So don't let the fact that we are mired in sin obscure from you the fact that, by God's grace, we are still at it, still striving, still getting it wrong but somehow still getting it right. Blessings on you in your struggle. The ELCA will be a better denomination for your presence.
ReplyDeleteFriends: Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your wisdom as I continue to wrestle.
ReplyDeleteGood write Slapstick. I think you bring up lots of good points. Although this is not something that strikes me as hard as it strikes you, I think you offer up lots of good points to consider as we mindlessly go through the creeds each week. Keep the sarcasm coming.
ReplyDeleteLevi: there are many things that strike me harder than they do you. As someone who witnessed several of my angrier moments, I'm surprised you do not have PTSD.
DeleteFirst, I don't think we were "muddling our way through 1500 years of church history." To me, it felt more like an epileptic 100 metre mad dash through 1500 years. I imagine the flailing arms of Kermit the Frog as we ran through the more substantial parts of Church history. Of course, anyone who sat by me in the Commons while studying knows my not-so-charitable opinions of our HT501 textbook that shall go unnamed in this post. But that's nothing to say about HT503. How in God's good name someone thought they could teach reformation theology without even touching on the Anglican Reformation is beyond me. Yeah, let's teach Wesley without ever mentioning the 200 years of Anglican thought that formed him. So help me...
ReplyDelete*cough* Sorry. I'll get back to the topic at hand.
So, that being said, the creeds and the history around them have always fascinated me: how they came about, the politics that surrounded them, their use and intention throughout the Church's history, etc. Bishop Whitmore (I think) once explained to me the substantial difference between being a creedal Church vs. a confessional Church. For the latter, a confession of faith is what defines who you are and the moment of your salvation and ontological transformation. For us, however, salvation happened on Good Friday (if not at the very moment of creation, depending on how you view transcendence and imminence). Our ontological change begins with God's love of Her creation, and is made visible at baptism. Our belonging to the Church is not a narrowly defined confession of faith. Instead, the creeds (and this is the image that I think Bishop Whitmore used) act more like the bumper guards on a bowling alley. We are given a great deal of freedom to explore our faith and flail about trying to encounter God (only the foolishly prideful or respectfully contemplative will try to "describe" God - the former as an ending point, the latter as a starting point). The creeds are there just as a means to try and keep us within the boundaries that 2,000 years worth of our fellow theologians have already explored.
Does this mean that that are iron clad? Well, that depends on how you interpret them. If you take the scholastic view that insists on a single interpretation of a word, then I, for one, am S.O.L. If, however, we can interpret the creeds as a space of mystery, a point of personal exploration and relationship with God, then I've got a far better chance. And like all relationships, there is always more to discover along the way than what we encounter right from the start. The creeds can be an invitation into that mystery - seeing how they can speak for us, without necessarily claiming what the original authors strictly had in mind. That's the continual work of the Holy Spirit in action! John 16:12-13 (And yes, an Episcopalian just cited scripture. I only did it because it was fresh in my mind from having preached on it this past Sunday. I will now offer repentance by saying one Our Father and drinking two Bloody Marys.)
Now, THAT being said, I also hold the creeds lightly in my hands, always keeping a healthy dose of reality when it comes to the history of our Church. After all, remember that at one time those pesky Arians outnumbered the Trinitarians. Most of Europe at one point was Arian. There were Arian emperors and empresses. In 451, the Church split because of a single iota. Now we can look back and recognize that it probably had more to do with a breakdown of translation between Syriac and Greek thought than it did any clear distinctions between differing theologies.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest thing that brings me back to the creeds, even when I call Holy Spirit "She" in a parish that drowns me out with a whole lot of "He's", is that Jesus prayed for us to be one in unity, not uniformity. There is a huge difference between those. And, as I approach the creeds as a mystery (you know, that word that never really came up in our Church History classes but used to be a fundamental part of Church Theology?), I find far more freedom for unity in faith reaffirmed by the creeds than I do in faith defined by confessions.
So, looking back, I see that I probably should have just made my own post instead of trolling yours (am I even using that term correctly? You kids and your technology. I have no idea). But, long story short (I know, too late), if you're wrestling with the creeds, arguing with the creeds, then that probably means you're doing something right in your relationship with God. And ultimately, isn't that the whole point of being part of the Church that we call the Body of Christ?
bro. kenneth: thank you for your perspective and snark. i probably should have sat next to you in class. i might not be so irritated over the whole thing. in the future i will try to not take the heresies so seriously. but, like i said above, it is the fact that the creeds were created over in-ing and out-ing, and that it still happens that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
DeleteSo, as a former Baptist and generally uninformed about church history (not in seminary), I have to say that I don't even know what the creeds are. The extent of my attendance outside of Baptist or otherwise evangelical-based church was in Catholic churches in Spain...in Spanish, so I'm not sure that really counts. Apparently somewhere along the way there was a decision for the Baptist to not require anyone to recite or memorize anything. Perhaps that's why I never really committed to it.
ReplyDeletei was raised in the evangelical tradition, thus the creeds are new to me; within the last 10 years. i was good with them until i took a christian history class. the fighting over heresies seems all too familiar to my evangelical background and some of the exclusivity in christianity that i still see.
Delete