|
Expressions of Faith by The Rev. Hartshorn Murphy
Some weeks ago, one of our longtime members who is essentially a life long Episcopalian, asked Laura why we no longer said The Creed in worship. Laura answered that question well and appropriately but it occurred to me that this would be a good discussion for the whole community. One caveat: We do say the Nicene Creed at the 8:00 a.m. service while omitting it at 10:30. That early morning service, while it occasionally receives visitors, is essentially an "insider" service which speaks powerfully to those persons who are already members of the church and who prefer "traditional" (i.e. Elizabethan) language. The 10:30 "main service" is a more public worship with a dual focus which seeks to speak both to members as well as to visitors, to convicted Christians as well as "searchers and seekers." This is not insignificant. For example: we use an outline bulletin at 8:00 a.m. while we print out the whole service (text and music) at 10:30, to make the 10:30 worship more accessible for visitors who are often confused by juggling two or more books (prayer book and hymnal) as well as the bulletin and its inserts. Such a production is both expensive and time consuming to produce each week but we think it's worth it because it lowers the barriers and hopefully allows the first time worshipper to feel more at home. Lowering barriers is also key to why I, at least for now, have chosen to omit the Creed. A Personal Story: I grew up in the Episcopal Church saying the Creed in unison with the worshipping community at St. James, Baltimore and then successively in a number of other congregations in various places. I'd never given it much thought. It was simply a part of worship. This began to shift for me some dozen years ago while visiting a newly planted church the Diocese sought to establish in the Inland Empire. As Archdeacon and visitor, I had preached and then the local pastor invited the congregation gathered to continue the worship with these words: "Let us now stand and say what we believe." And we continued with the Nicene Creed. It struck me then in this newly forming church of people from a variety of religious backgrounds − including no background whatsoever − what if some of these people don't believe? What if they believe some of these ancient statements but reject others? What if they are simply confused? And what is "belief" anyway? Belief as Commitment: The way we typically use the word, belief means an intellectual assent to a particular statement of truth. But some statements can be interpreted either literally or metaphorically (i.e. the Virgin Birth) and so are we saying that the sign of faith is the willingness to profess a belief in things which are unbelievable? For example: Orthodox theologians, in defending the Virgin Birth of Jesus, argued that Mary's hymen was temporarily ruptured at Jesus' birth but then instantaneously regenerated. For many people, such an assertion of a miraculous "biological intervention" is unremarkable given the power of God. For those with a more rationalist mindset, such an assertion is a huge stumbling block and an impediment, rather than enabler, of faith in God. Such theological gymnastics leads more to ridicule than to conversion. In this post-Christian age, the question becomes: Is this essential? I recall well a conversation some years ago with one of our members who told me that when she came to a troubling phrase in the Creed, she would either cross her fingers or simply refuse to join in reading it aloud with others. Thus a liturgical practice aimed at creating unity has become an occasion for disunity and for some, those who have no religious background or who come to us from non-liturgical Christian traditions − an occasion of confusion. There is an irony here. A Creed is born: The counsel of Nicea was an ecumenical counsel of the whole church summoned to Nicaea in 325 by the Emperor Constantine who sought unity for his newly adopted State religion which he hoped would create unity for a divided Roman Empire. The original statement of belief, based on the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, contained four anti-Arian anathemas which sought to correct the so-called Arian heresy. Two bishops refused to sign the Creed and they were deposed and banished. A revised and expanded Creed would emerge after the Counsel of Constantinople in 381 and was added to the worship of the Eastern Churches about 480 but was not adopted by Rome until 1041. Given this genesis, it is not surprising that the Creed is obsessed with clarifying the nature of Christ. Arius had argued that Jesus was not co-eternal with God but was created by God and thus was not God by nature but that his divinity was bestowed on him by God because of Jesus' righteousness. Thus in the Creed, we read that Jesus is "the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father," "begotten not made, of one being with the Father" through whom all things were made. And we believe in the Holy Spirit "who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified." What's missing in this document are any statements about what Jesus did or taught. For the Creed, Jesus "came down from heaven" and was born of a Virgin and became a man and was crucified by Pilate, died and rose again. The healings, parables, miracles, exorcisms and sermons are all omitted because the concern of the Creed was to forge unity against that which threatened it: diversity represented in Arian misinterpretations. Creed: Source of Unity? Now it's interesting to note that a place of conflict between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Latin (Roman) Church is in a revision to the original language of the Creed by the Western Church − The Roman Church added to this sentence: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, The giver of life, who proceeds from the Father…" The words "and the Son." This "filioque" clause was not a part of the original Creed and has been an impediment to the reunification of the Roman and Orthodox churches − and a bane to clergy in their ordination exams… So here's the question: Why should we continue to recite an ancient document which sought to resolve Christological arguments (what is the nature of Christ) of the 4th Century, which emerged at the beginning of the Age of Christendom; here and now in this post Christian age? Or to ask it another way, Does the church need a statement of belief at this time in its history in which belief is being re-examined and even re-negotiated? Credo: I have shared with our community oftentimes before that the word "Credo" (I believe) does not in fact mean simple intellectual surrender. "Credo" does not mean, ‘I believe' in the sense of intellectual assent to this or that proposition. It means, ‘I give my heart to this.' It is an expression of my heart's commitment and my life's orientation." (Fr. "Encountering God" by Diana Eck). What are those things we give ourselves to as Christians seeking to live lives faithful to Christ in this age? Can we seek lives of integrity grounded more in right behavior (compassion or mercy) − what I have come to call ortho-praxis − rather than in right thinking or orthodoxy? Is it not likely that in our age, we will interpret with great variety our biblical heritage and yet remain true? We may not always agree and yet we may see in such diversity a richness rather than poverty and yet still find ourselves under the same imperatives to faithful living? (e.g. you may interpret the feeding of the 5,000 literally and I may take it metaphorically, but in our context, the question is how do we respond to the hungry and homeless men, women and children on these unforgiving streets?) Lex orandi, lex credendi: "The rule of prayer is the rule of belief." This ancient Latin insight suggests that as we pray, so shall we believe. Our prayer shapes our doctrine. For this reason, the Book of Common Prayer has been constantly revised since its inception in 1549 in order to reach each new age. Today, new Christian communities are creating new statements of faith to express the giving of their hearts. One such "Creed" which seeks to inform the belief of an emerging generation, comes to us from the Iona community in Scotland. We have used it here in the past but as you read it now, perhaps ask yourself whether the rhythms and tones of this expression of faith speaks to your heart's commitment in these days in which we live and move and have our being. Expression of Faith:
Copyright © 2007 St. Augustine by-the-Sea
|
