The Creeds

[RomansFiveEight]

Do you recite the Apostles, Nicene, or some other Creed during worship? Even occasionally? If not; have you been exposed to them?

What are your thoughts? What do they mean to you? Are they important? Could they be replaced with something else?

One glaring question; do they mean as much today, since they are so simple? They don't speak about marriage, speak little about the Bible if at all (depending upon the creed), they don't answer questions on creation (only state that it happened), nor human sexuality nor marriage, nor church governance or the roles and responsibilities of the lay people in the church. They are hopelessly simple. While the UM Book of Discipline is more than 600 pages long in it's hard-back form the Apostles Creed fits in it's entirety inside a bulletin flap.

For me, that's what's great about these creeds; they are simple. There's still a need for more in depth doctrine (of course); but they are great because they establish a 'baseline' of what it means to be a Christian. In another discussion it was mentioned that Christians who have different perspectives on guns, sexuality, abortion, etc., are often deemed 'non-Christian' by the opposing clan but in the Apostles Creed (for example), one is asked to affirm only a few very basic, very important things in order to be deemed "Christian" under that umbrella. It's a beautiful thing in a divisive world. But I wonder if any of you have a differing opinion?

The Creeds themselves, despite being simple, can be controversial. The Nicene creed contains a component called the fililoque that isn't universally accepted amongst Christian circles and was added later; leading many to remove it. The Nicene Creed also goes in depth on issues of Christology that not all Christians affirm. In the Apostles Creed, the line "and decended into Hell", referring to Jesus, is omitted intentionally from the United Methodist Hymnal based upon a prevailing believe among United Methodists, shared with many other Christians, that there's no support for the concept that Jesus Christ ever entered Hell, or that there was any such belief for those 4th Century apostles. The statement, sometimes translated "Descended into Death" (including how I've heard it read in the Roman Catholic Church) speaks more about Christ's total humanity facing every aspect of humanity, even death, and says nothing about a purported time in "hell". For some Christians, the line is modified, for United Methodists, it's often dropped. So they aren't, perhaps, as Universal as one might assume.

Your thoughts? I'm preaching on the Apostles Creed soon and wanted some broader perspectives than my own to help me understand where others might be coming from.

 

[MystyRock]

Actually, I knew nothing of the creeds until a couple years ago when I met a Methodist.

We recite the Apostles Creed at communion each month. Listening to this, I think back to the OT when the Israelites celebrated Passover and retold the story of their Exodus from Egypt. It is, or should be, the same story each time because we, as humans tend to forget. Not everything needs to be updated and modernized - we just need to remember.

 

[Dave-W]

I am currently attending an Assembly of God and the creeds are not recited there. ever.

In my previous Messianic congregation we recited the Kaddish and Alenu. (likely recited in Our Lord the synagogues in the first century) Both are very similar in structure to the Our Father aka Lord's Prayer. While they are actually prayers, there is creedal content in each one, especially the Alenu.

I read a book about a year and a half ago (name escapes me) that had a history of the "filioque." It was amazing. It was an important piece in the story of the schism between Rome and Constantinople.

I have given some thought to the Nicean creed's wording of the description of the Trinity. Noted Messianic leader/author Dan Juster stated once that while the description of the Trinity was correct, the wording seemed to be engineered to off-put Jews who were interested in the claims of the Gospel. IOW it seemed to avowed monotheists to sound more like tri-theism; which was not that far from Greek polytheism. Romans says the gospel is "to the Jew first;" but this makes it to the Jew last if ever.

I have thought about it some but have not come up with a more Jewish-friendly wording to say the same thing. Neither has Juster to my knowledge.

Anyway - just my thoughts.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That's something that will come up in this series; the anti-semitism that has creeped up in the church in the past. It's almost ingrained in the DNA. Gentiles were utterly rejected by most Jews without a hope of conversion even if they wanted to. Then Christians began to evangelize to them and even show a willingness to modify their own practices to suit the gentiles. We have no indication any of the Apostles ever stopped their rigid Jewish practices, yet Paul freely licensed gentiles to ignore many of those laws (with some scriptural support). The seeds of drawing a wedge between Gentile-Christians and Jews that failed to convert were sown in the earliest days of Christianity and by the 4th Century, anti-semitism became a reality.

In preparation for an earlier series on Paul I read an article written by a Christian historian who suggested there was quite a bit of unity between early Jews and Christians; perhaps in the way there is today. But it was Paul who drove that wedge by not rigidly following Jewish law and by actively seeking Gentiles to invite to the fold. I'm not sure if it was just Paul or perhaps Christianity as a whole claiming it's own identity outside of being a sect of Judaism; but there was definitely a divide that was being created.

The Nicene Creed definitely has more controversy than the Apostles creed. "Apostolic" is a term many of my Southern Baptist friends wouldn't like; perhaps your Assemblies circles either. Apostolic tradition is something traditionally rejected by those circles. Though I do appreciate that it acknowledges "one Baptism" (something else the Baptists would oppose). Some take it to mean "No re-baptism" but the context appears to me to be more indicative of the concept that a Baptism in the Christian church is a Baptism into the Christian church. Those Baptized as Roman Catholics need not be re-Baptized as United Methodists and so on. This is a shared belief amongst many of Christianities liturgical churches. Though it is rejected by Southern Baptists; who tie so much emphasis on the local church that in the polity of many, including the churches in this community; you must be re-baptized by the LOCAL CHURCH in order to join it; even if you were previously Baptized in ANOTHER Southern Baptist Church.

 

[Dave-W]

It is interesting to read Eusubius (writing about 300 ad) on the Ebionites (who really were heretics) and then the Nazarenes (Equivalent to Messianic Jews of today) who he says are orthodox in both belief and practice but because they lived a Jewish lifestyle they were as much heretics as the Ebionites; and then lumps them both together for the rest of his tirade. It was his writings that meant the Nazarenes were not invited to the Nicean council in 325.

Had the Nazarenes been there, I wonder how much different the creed might have been.

 

[Celticflower]

I attend a non-denom in TN (husband's decision, not mine). No creeds, no prayer of confession, no Lord's prayer, no corporate prayer - and I miss them all. There is a sense of connection and community with each of these that is missing from my current worship experience.

 

[circuitrider]

We use the Apostle's Creed whenever I have a baptism. That probably comes out to about once a month. I will occasionally use another affirmation of faith in worship but not often. It isn't really a part of the tradition of the congregation I'm serving.

 

[JCFantasy23]

My church does not say the Nicene at service. Actually, come to think of it, my past three churches have not. I did try a church that has before, but nothing I've stuck with.

If you want my point blank honest answer, I don't care much about the creed. I didn't know it existed until I came to the Christian forums. I was raised a Christian, always considered myself on good standing with God, but didn't get formal theology training or much active church participation growing up. This area I live in seems rather ignorant with some of what this forum considers all Christians to know. I was surprised how many Christians here don't know anything about communion when I try to talk to them about it. They don't know the differences between denominations either. No big deal as long as they love God and follow Him, not all pursue theology training or expose themselves to denominational differences.

But that explains my answer. I realize it's importance now that I'm aware of it, but it doesn't' cross my mind unless someone brings it up on CF.

 

[circuitrider]

The Nicene Creed is dealing more with issues of Christ's divinity and his place in the Trinity. The arguments in it are kind of esoteric and it was written to answer questions of another day that people really aren't struggling with or spending much time on now. So that's what I think it isn't a popular creed to use.

The Apostles' Creed is clear, simple and direct even if unpacking on the meaning of the creed also gets into heavy theological issues.

I like the basic nature of the Apostles' Creed both for what it says and what it doesn't say.

It seems to be a preoccupation of American Christians to try to narrowly figure out what all Christians should believe while the Apostles' Creed just hits the high points, those things that are basic Christian understandings.

I like it when we can hold to the basics without expecting everyone to agree on a lot of modern issues that really aren't part of what it basically means to be a Christian.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Thanks CW! Actually you've basically written the "synopsis" of my series. I really wanted to address "This person isn't a Christian because they believe...", and so I thought breaking down the Apostles Creed was fitting. I appreciate your comments on the Apostles vs Nicene because that's similarly why I chose it; that and it's 'simpler'.

 

[Dave-W]

R-5-8; I do hope you make either the audio files or the text notes of your sermon series available.

I would love to read or listen.

 

[Maid Marie]

My current church doesn't say the Nicene creed. It might have said the Apostles' creed at the annual baptism service.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

R-5-8; I do hope you make either the audio files or the text notes of your sermon series available.

I would love to read or listen.

I'll send you a PM.

 

[circuitrider]

Thanks CW! Actually you've basically written the "synopsis" of my series. I really wanted to address "This person isn't a Christian because they believe...", and so I thought breaking down the Apostles Creed was fitting. I appreciate your comments on the Apostles vs Nicene because that's similarly why I chose it; that and it's 'simpler'.

I preached a series on the Apostles' Creed when I first got to my new appointment. It was well received.

 

[Dave-W]

A little over 20 years ago I got a CD of a worship concert done at Belmont Church in Nashville. It was quite good. One of the songs on it was a musical rendition of the Apostles' Creed. (not exact but covers several of the main points) So we decided to try it out at the independent charismatic congregation I was leading worship at then. It was well received (after some people got over the title).

We moved from Michigan a few years later to the DC area and we met the pastor of that church, Don Finto. (he is wearing an off white suit and is reading the lyric here at the 13 second mark) Anyway - hope you enjoy this:

 

[circuitrider]

The Christian rock band Petra and also the band Third Day have versions of the Apostles' Creed.

 

[Dave-W]

The Christian rock band Petra and also the band Third Day have versions of the Apostles' Creed.

That is cool. I wonder if they go to that same church. Almost every CCM artist in Nashville goes there along with a HUGE gaggle of studio musicians.

Kinda cool for a Church of Christ (vocal music only) campus chapel. At least that is what it WAS when Finto took over the pastorate. (late 60s)

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Someone suggested we play the "Petra" song in worship, ha! I said no, not because I don't like the song, but because I dislike "playing" music in church like that. I don't think it contributes to worship. If I could get my musician to somehow play it and get someone to sing it? (Or the Third Day song), I'd be all for it. I've had suggestions before to play YouTube videos of a song or play music from an iPod during worship. I think that's insulting to our very accomplished, lifetime trained and well educated music director, and I don't think it's what worship is supposed to be. (Our gifts shared with God. Not someone elses gifts shared through speakers). Maybe I'm just a stick in the mud, I don't know. In fact, though I'll concede to CD accompaniment tracks for the hymnal when the pianist is away, I'd actually rather we go "vocal only" those Sundays. Not necessarily because I am THAT adamant about not having pre-recorded music, but because I really dislike the accompaniment CD's. They don't sound very good and as my pianist puts it, "They are played exactly as the hymns are written, to a tee". Which sounds like a good thing, but when you're used to someone who puts their heart into it, it's just such a stale robotic sound coming out of the speakers.

But then, believe it or not, I actually LIKE Vocal Only worship. I wouldn't want to do it every Sunday or even for every hymn, but I do like it once in a while. Again, not for any spiritual reason, I just like it. It sounds cool.

 

[Celticflower]

Romans - you sound like me! I am often asked why I don't sing with the choir and mainly it is because I don't like singing to recorded tracks. If I am doing a solo piece I always find someone to play for me, a thing that was pretty rare when we first started going to this church. I just can't figure out why if you go to a bar and sing with recorded music people laugh and call it karaoke, but if you get up in front of a church full of people and sing to recorded music it is "special".

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Glad I'm not the only one!

I have a woman in church who wants more contemporary music, I do too. Her solution though, is to play YouTube clips of contemporary music for us to sing along to. That's just not worship. And we don't have the copyright authority to do that anyway.

The pianist is quite capable of playing contemporary songs (or ANYTHING, we have the best pianist of any church I've ever worshipped in), and we do mix that in! The songs are meant to be played with a band but the right ones work well with just a piano. The church I serve actually would love a blended worship style mixing contemporary and traditional; but we lack the resources or talent to do that in earnest (i.e., finding someone to play other instruments).

Worship, for so many, has become so much about performance that nobody bats an eye at recorded background tracks. Note that I'm not AGAINST it and won't be holding any picket signs anytime soon; BUT, I do think there are much better opportunities that allow us to express our talents in worship and share those with God and one another. Rather than just trying to entertain the congregation.