September, 2008 Calendar In This Issue: A Fond Farewell Reflections on the Women's Retreat Alternative Creeds A Bishop's Visitation Adult Formation Class A Policy Regarding Marriage for Same Sex Couples at St. Augustine's Parish Dear friends, Thank You Lambeth Reflection

by The Rev. Hartshorn Murphy

The week in which I write these words, one of the candidates for the office of President was interrupted during a town hall speech by a heckler complaining that the Pledge of Allegiance had been omitted. The pundits opined that this was a "perilous moment" fraught with "opportunities for a misstep" but that in the end, the candidate handled it smoothly and deftly (they stopped and said the Pledge). Why does this political season feel more like a car insurance commercial − the one in which a salamander addresses three mature women golfers as "older drivers" before recovering smoothly to address them as "more experienced" ones? (The narrator replies: "well played.")

But the flap over the Pledge, flag lapel jewelry and hands-over-the-heart and the like is code language for a far deeper question about symbols and realities of patriotism in the on-going Culture Wars. Which got me thinking about the Creeds and how they function both as a concise statement about doctrine and also as a symbol of affiliation and belonging. This has always been the case. The ancient creeds were used as a confession of beliefs (concise summary) for converts undergoing initiation through baptism but also they were defining statements about what was acceptable and what was unacceptable to believe (affiliation). Those who could not get with the program, were defined as heretics i.e. as those who held oppositional beliefs and were thus worthy of being excluded (ex-communicated) until they recanted.

{Orthodoxy − from the Greek orthos = straight + dosa = opinion (right belief) vs. heresy − from the Greek hairesis − thing chosen (making the wrong choice in beliefs.)}

More profound may be the fact that what were deemphasized − or at least not seen as topics essential to a Creed − were statements about what it all means. This surely overstates the case. After all, the contention was over the nature of Christ rather than his preaching and teaching. The christological conflicts of the 4th century were seated in a 300 year old Christian movement hungry for greater clarity about just who this Jesus was and is. That Christian movement carried with it certain ethical and moral presuppositions about how people were to live in the world as followers of Christ. On this, there was consensus among those who followed "the Way."

But since the Enlightenment and the emphasis in this age of modernity on "facts", it seems that it has become essential to affirm the Creed itself as a statement of factual truth divorced from questions about political and moral behavior. Those who believe the right things in the right way (literally rather than metaphorically) will be welcomed and saved and others are excluded and condemned. This is about symbolic functioning: those who affirm the Creed are "insiders"; those who can not do so in its entirety− or who struggle over particulars − are "outsiders."

The Creed is silent about what Jesus did and taught. For the Creeds, it is sufficient that Jesus was born at a certain time and in a certain place and in a certain way and then died, similarly in a certain way. The intervening events − the mission and ministry − are on holiday. It seems enough that we believe (give intellectual ascent to) how he came and went rather than be concerned with why he came and for what reason he was so murderously exited.

(Political critics would argue that the "issue" of the Pledge of Allegiance says more about who is and who is not an American patriot based on whether and with what fervor they say the Pledge rather than any clear sense of what it means to live as a American citizen grounded in our foundational documents - like the Constitution − which the Flag and Pledge symbolize.) Some cultures have developed alternative Creeds to the one from Nicea which are worthy of reflection. This one is a contemporary one from Africa.

"We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created man and wanted man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the earth. We have known this High God in the darkness, and now we know him in the light. God promised in the book of his word, the Bible, the he would save the world and all nations and tribes.

We believe that God made good his promise by sending his son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left his home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing that the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He was buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, he rose from that grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.

We believe that all our sins are forgiven through him. All who have faith in him must be sorry for their sins, be baptized in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love, and share the bread together in love, to announce the good news to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen." - The Maasai Creed, composed around 1960 by Western missionaries to the Maasai people.

This Creed strikingly refers to the "rules of love." What might those be?

Three scriptural references might serve here.

Creeds were composed to speak to the challenges of their time and to answer questions of the people in their context. What might a Creed look and sound like for our generation?

Copyright © 2008 St. Augustine by-the-Sea