Is there uniformity on how Anglicans view the creeds?

[tbstor]

I have been studying Anglicanism for a few weeks now and am curious to know how the creeds are viewed (or even if the views are uniform). I've primarily been looking into the evangelical tradition of Anglicanism, so I will speak to that. The REC lists four "authorities" on their website:

• Holy Scripture
• The Creeds
• The Ecumenical Councils
• The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

Regarding the ecumenical councils, their website states the following:

The historic Anglican position maintains that no council of the Church- general or otherwise - can claim immunity from error or corruption, and indeed that all councils "may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God." The historic Articles of Religion of the Church of England go on to affirm that all churches and councils of the church are subject to the scrutiny of Holy Scripture, so that "besides the same ought not [the Church] to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation." (Cf. Article 21, 1662 BCP).

For these reasons, Anglicans have been manifestly reluctant to definitively enumerate those general or ecumenical councils claimed to have universal affirmation, though the first four ecumenical councils have always been held in special regard within historic Anglicanism.​

This appears to be a rather level-headed position to take. I have been reading some of W.H. Griffith Thomas' writings and he speaks in a similar manner:

If it be said that these Articles and other documents of the sixteenth century are incomplete, and do not provide an adequate statement of belief, it may be pointed out that the same is true of the Creeds. There are many subjects unnoticed in the ecumenical documents of our faith, and we believe this is one of the instances in which the Church has been definitely guided by God. The Church Universal is only committed to a comparatively few fundamental realities, and we might as well complain of the incompleteness of any of the three Creeds as criticize the incompleteness of any of the sixteenth-century Confessions of Faith. They mus be judged in the light of the circumstances which gave them birth, and with strict and constant regard to their specific purpose.​

With all of this being said, to what degree can deviation occur? I understand that there is quite a bit of interpretive freedom when it comes to the thirty-nine articles. What prompted this question was my reading into eschatology and the general condemnation of something like full/hyper-preterism. Now, I do not intend to make this a discussion about eschatology or the merits/short-comings of preterism. I bring it up because some condemn this eschatological view based on the creeds.

Apostle's Creed:

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.​

Nicene Creed:

And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come. Amen.​

Athanasian Creed:

Who suffered for our salvation : descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty : from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies : and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting : and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the Catholick Faith : which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved​

All three of these creeds take a view of future fulfillment and a bodily resurrection. Again, without getting into the weeds and actually debating preterism, could a preterist reject these portions of the creeds (legitimately)? Afaik, preterists hold their views for Scriptural reasons (i.e., they aren't coming to their conclusions based on philosophical considerations, which is typically the case with unitarians). And, to quote Griffith, the creeds "must be judged in the light of the circumstances which gave them birth, and with strict and constant regard to their specific purpose." I'd say it is quite obvious that both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds do not have eschatology as their express purpose. I suppose a stronger argument could be made on behalf of the Apostle's Creed, but I am not so sure.

So my question boils down to this: Is there uniformity on how Anglicans view the creeds?

 

[Albion]

So my question boils down to this: Is there uniformity on how Anglicans view the creeds?

Just the creeds? If that is the question, I don't think that there's much disagreement among Anglicans.

As for Preterism, if that is your particular concern, I'd call that rare among Anglicans. I, for instance, have never met an Anglican who told me that it was his belief.

On the other hand, there are many different Anglican jurisdictions. Some of them are well-known for being theologically liberal and diverse, so if you are a believer in some version of Preterism and also feel attracted to Anglicanism, The Episcopal Church would not give you any grief over it.

 

[tbstor]

Just the creeds? If that is the question, I don't think that there's much disagreement among Anglicans.

As for Preterism, if that is your particular concern, I'd call that rare among Anglicans. I, for instance, have never met an Anglican who told me that it was his belief.

On the other hand, there are many different Anglican jurisdictions. Some of them are well-known for being theologically liberal and diverse, so if you are a believer in some version of Preterism and also feel attracted to Anglicanism, The Episcopal Church would not give you any grief over it.

I wouldn't consider myself to be theologically liberal. My most liberal theological positions would be an embrace of biological evolution and my generally symbolic view of demons, the devil, and satan. While preterism could perhaps be classified as liberal theologically, I am hesitant to classify it as such simply because it derives itself from a high view of Scripture (as opposed to innovative theology in the liberal sense of it).

Where would you say you personally fall in the spectrum?

 

[Albion]

I wouldn't consider myself to be theologically liberal. My most liberal theological positions would be an embrace of biological evolution and my generally symbolic view of demons, the devil, and satan. While preterism could perhaps be classified as liberal theologically, I am hesitant to classify it as such simply because it derives itself from a high view of Scripture (as opposed to innovative theology in the liberal sense of it).

I'm pretty conservative, but I don't want you to misunderstand the point of my using the term "liberal" in my earlier reply.

By that, I only meant that some church bodies are tolerant or welcoming of a wide range of beliefs.

The Episcopal Church is one such. It is, to be sure, also usually considered to be liberal in its theology overall, but the point was only that if you are in general agreement with Anglicanism except for the question of Preterism (which is, as you noted, not supported by the Creeds), don't hesitate to look more closely at that church.

If you feel drawn towards Anglicanism and see yourself as overall too doctrinally conservative to consider TEC, consider such other Anglican bodies as the ACNA (with which the REC is currently affiliated).

For that matter, don't be afraid to have a discussion with a priest of almost any Anglican church. Anglicans as a rule are not very sharp-edged or scary in their manner, even when there are questions raised about doctrinal differences that are quite controversial.

 

[tbstor]

I'm pretty conservative, but I don't want you to misunderstand the point of my using the term "liberal" in my earlier reply.

By that, I only meant that some church bodies are tolerant or welcoming of a wide range of beliefs.

The Episcopal Church is one such. It is, to be sure, also usually considered to be liberal in its theology overall, but the point was only that if you are in general agreement with Anglicanism except for the question of Preterism (which is, as you noted, not supported by the Creeds), don't hesitate to look more closely at that church.

If you feel drawn towards Anglicanism and see yourself as overall too doctrinally conservative to consider TEC, consider such other Anglican bodies as the ACNA (with which the REC is currently affiliated).

For that matter, don't be afraid to have a discussion with a priest of almost any Anglican church. Anglicans as a rule are not very sharp-edged or scary in their manner, even when there are questions raised about doctrinal differences that are quite controversial.

I appreciate the responses!

Yes, I do plan to shoot an email to my local REC pastor. I have been in touch with him for a couple of weeks and he has been most helpful in answering my questions. Preterism is just something I have been researching recently and, while I do find it interesting, I can't say that I currently have a conviction one way or the other. Eschatology has always been my least favorite area of study.

 

[Paidiske]

I think - and I'm not sure that this is quite answering your concern, but see if it's helpful - that there is a big gulf between what views may be held by Anglicans in the pews, and what views are formally put forward by the church.

What I mean by that is, never mind preterism, I have known an atheist to be a full and active member of an Anglican church, singing in the choir, on the parish council, all the rest. But at least where I am, clergy (and I think also those laity who hold licences as lay preachers) are required to assent to the 39 Articles; which doesn't necessarily mean that you personally hold them to be a perfect distillation of correct theology, but that you agree to keep your public ministry within the boundaries of those statements. (So you might personally be open to the possibility that purgatory exists, but you would never say so from the pulpit; if that makes sense?)

 

[tbstor]

I have known an atheist to be a full and active member of an Anglican church, singing in the choir, on the parish council, all the rest.

I follow what you are saying. Though in the instance of an atheist, wouldn't it be inappropriate to knowingly provide communion to someone who rejects the Lord? There must be some tension between the "correct theology" and the "lay theology," if you will.

 

[Paidiske]

I follow what you are saying. Though in the instance of an atheist, wouldn't it be inappropriate to knowingly provide communion to someone who rejects the Lord? There must be some tension between the "correct theology" and the "lay theology," if you will.

Perhaps; I hadn't thought about it because at that time it wasn't my call.

My point was really just that there is no real policing of what people in the pews think or believe; there is only some limitation of what those exercising authority in the church do with that. If that makes sense.

 

[tbstor]

Perhaps; I hadn't thought about it because at that time it wasn't my call.

My point was really just that there is no real policing of what people in the pews think or believe; there is only some limitation of what those exercising authority in the church do with that. If that makes sense.

Absolutely. I appreciate your responses.

 

[Shane R]

You may be interested to know that the US Episcopal Church had a rocky relationship with the Athanasian Creed. That document was essentially ignored and unused, not even being printed in the Prayer Book until the 1979 edition. There are still parishes where it never makes an appearance in the liturgy.

 

[tbstor]

You may be interested to know that the US Episcopal Church had a rocky relationship with the Athanasian Creed. That document was essentially ignored and unused, not even being printed in the Prayer Book until the 1979 edition. There are still parishes where it never makes an appearance in the liturgy.

Interesting. What was their concern with it? And what changed?

 

[PloverWing]

What was their concern with it?

To my ear, one big concern is the insistence on correct belief as a prerequisite to salvation. The Trinity is one of the most philosophically difficult doctrines in Christianity. It rests on some Greek and Latin technical terms that are translated into English as "substance" and "person" -- but with meanings different from the common English usage of those words. It also includes metaphorical uses of the words "begotten" and "proceeding". I think the Church Fathers' formulation of the Trinity doctrine probably does hold together as an explanation of God who has been experienced both in "oneness" and in "threeness", but the Fathers' formulation isn't intuitive to my 21st-century ears.

So when the creed says "Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" and "He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity", it's troublesome.

My parish said the Athanasian Creed this past Trinity Sunday, and I just couldn't finish it, with the condemnations of people to hell at the end.

 

[tbstor]

My parish said the Athanasian Creed this past Trinity Sunday, and I just couldn't finish it, with the condemnations of people to hell at the end.

Interesting. So your objection would be its hardline stance/insistence on the trinity being necessary for salvation?

 

[PloverWing]

Interesting. So your objection would be its hardline stance/insistence on the trinity being necessary for salvation?

Its hardline stance/insistence on correct belief in the Trinity being necessary for salvation, yes.

I'm hair-splitting a little, but I want to be clear. The Trinity does belong in the body of Christian doctrine, and it's appropriate for this doctrine to be in our creeds. But I don't think that Christians who fail to understand the Trinity -- who accidentally veer too much into "oneness" or "threeness" -- are damned on account of that lack of understanding.

 

[tbstor]

Its hardline stance/insistence on correct belief in the Trinity being necessary for salvation, yes.

I'm hair-splitting a little, but I want to be clear. The Trinity does belong in the body of Christian doctrine, and it's appropriate for this doctrine to be in our creeds. But I don't think that Christians who fail to understand the Trinity -- who accidentally veer too much into "oneness" or "threeness" -- are damned on account of that lack of understanding.

Gotcha. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this. I would say I am in agreement with you, as that has been my understanding as well: a saving faith doesn't necessitate correct theology.

 

[Deegie]

Interesting. What was their concern with it? And what changed?

I refuse to use the Athanasian Creed liturgically, although I have taught on it. The problem for me is the statement that all who do not hold "the Catholic Faith...whole and undefiled" will "perish everlastingly". It's a shame, because I rather like the rest of it except the first two lines.

Edited to add: my problem with the notion is perhaps a bit deeper than the one described up-thread. I simply refuse to condemn all non-Christians to Hell. I don't think that's how God works. Not to mention it's a major stumbling block for our ecumenical community work.

 

[tbstor]

I refuse to use the Athanasian Creed liturgically, although I have taught on it. The problem for me is the statement that all who do not hold "the Catholic Faith...whole and undefiled" will "perish everlastingly". It's a shame, because I rather like the rest of it except the first two lines.

Edited to add: my problem with the notion is perhaps a bit deeper than the one described up-thread. I simply refuse to condemn all non-Christians to Hell. I don't think that's how God works. Not to mention it's a major stumbling block for our ecumenical community work.

Is it the case that clergy must affirm the creeds whole sale?

 

[Deegie]

Is it the case that clergy must affirm the creeds whole sale?

In TEC, an ordinand must promise to "conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church". I think there would be pretty broad agreement that the Nicene and Apostles Creed are covered by that vow but that the Athanasian Creed is not.

As support for my belief, I would cite Canon IV.2 which defines "Doctrine" as follows:

Doctrine shall mean the basic and essential teachings of the Church and is to be found in the Canon of Holy Scripture as understood in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and in the sacramental rites, the Ordinal and Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer.

 

[Paidiske]

Is it the case that clergy must affirm the creeds whole sale?

As I mentioned up thread, in Australia we must assent to the 39 Articles; which includes:

"Article VIII

Of the Three Creeds

The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture."

I myself would certainly feel that the opening and closing statements of the Athanasian Creed are open to some interpretation and historical contextualisation; as a statement of orthodoxy, and the necessity of orthodoxy, over against heresy; without necessarily making a pronouncement on the eternal fate of any particular individual person.

 

[Basil the Great]

To my ear, one big concern is the insistence on correct belief as a prerequisite to salvation. The Trinity is one of the most philosophically difficult doctrines in Christianity. It rests on some Greek and Latin technical terms that are translated into English as "substance" and "person" -- but with meanings different from the common English usage of those words. It also includes metaphorical uses of the words "begotten" and "proceeding". I think the Church Fathers' formulation of the Trinity doctrine probably does hold together as an explanation of God who has been experienced both in "oneness" and in "threeness", but the Fathers' formulation isn't intuitive to my 21st-century ears.

So when the creed says "Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly" and "He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity", it's troublesome.

My parish said the Athanasian Creed this past Trinity Sunday, and I just couldn't finish it, with the condemnations of people to hell at the end.

I visited a Lutheran church (ELCA) in the suburbs of a MidWest city in the late 1980's. A visiting pastor chose the Athanasian Creed. When it came to that final condemnation line, 97% of the congregation went silent and refused to profess said condemnation, including myself.