Of Creeds and Lean-tos: thoughts on temporary shelters

June 27, 2012 by Bo Sanders 28 Comments

I am a big fan of the early churches’ creeds. I appreciate them for their historical significance, for the trajectory that they provide, and for their value as snapshots in the formation of the tradition.

In fact, as a contextual theologian, I adore them as amazing time-capsules of expressions from a very particular time and a definite location. They tell us so much about what was going on, what was a stake, what was being combated and what was already established and settled.

I actually have no problem with the creeds. My problem comes from what certain folks want to do with ‘the Creeds’ and what they try to make them into. Let’s be clear about what they are not:

They are not timeless and universal expressions. They are very timely and remarkably located.
They are not litmus tests for modern orthodoxy. There is no sense in retreating into ecclesiastic silos, playing pre-modern word games, or burying our head in the historical sand. Too much has happened, too much has changed and there is too much on the line.
They are not houses to live in. They are lean-tos (temporary shelters) that were erected along the way. We are still to continue our journey and travel on in our day – in the world that is – and not set up camp in the imagined past.

This is my word picture. The Creeds are lean-tos. They are not museums designed to preserve nor are the cathedrals to be maintained. They are temporary shelters – built with the best materials that were available at the time and in that place. They aren’t blueprints of how every shelter needs to be constructed nor are they houses to be reinforced and guarded. They fulfilled their purpose and provided shelter on the journey.

Christian who get protective of or defensive about the creeds are like people who are hiking with their family, build lean-to out of love for the family and then get mad at the family when it is time to leave the lean-to and continue hiking.

Or like people who love watching birds so they knock out a wall in their house to install a whole side of windows and sky-lights for bird watching. But then they become so fixated on cleaning the glass then they stopped watching the birds and actually get annoyed at the birds for dropping what birds are prone to drop.

The creeds are great. I am so thankful them as historic documents, as developmental snapshots and as contextual expressions.
What I am not so thrilled about is people who get nasty about them, defensive or aggressive. I think it is so odd that they are about things like God’s love and divine relationship… but that they can make someone behave so unloving and take them out of relationship!

I like the creeds. I just don’t like what they do to people who take them too seriously. Like lean-tos, they served their purpose. They were great. Time to move on. We are still on a journey.

Is it just me?
___________
p.s. I meant to include this in the post but forgot. I have since said it 3 comments – so I decided to add it.

“Like the book of Revelation and the Creeds - we should attempt to do for our culture and day what they were attempting to do for their culture and day.”

Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, post-something, thinking Tagged With: church, Context, contextual, Contextualization, Creeds, history, litmus test, orthodox, orthodoxy, timeless, universal

25 comments

Sort: Newest | Oldest

dangarvin

Nothing we could write or say could ever be the final, or complete, word on anything. And that would have to include the creeds, and even the Bible, being composed, as they are, of words.

Here are some words about words that I thought were apropos.

These are my words: they are the framing timbers

for ideas. It is ideas which destroy worlds.

See: I have pared the rough edges from an experience

and placed its tapestry, its copperplate,

its half convincing fiction before you.

It is a beautiful thing: dig, you may find

some Truth in it. But the shape

is unnatural, it is words only, and the world’s greatness

will not fit within them however well

they are shaped. All that will fit is

ideas, stacking pleasingly upon each other until

they make a great tower, whose shadow is the shape

of a mass grave, a burning forest, the death

of the seas. The day will come again when we will set it

aflame and dance howling around it,

released from words for a short time,

but long enough.

--http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/poetry/tower

theimageoffish

For folks still tracking this awesome conversation, you may be interested in a short 3 post series about creedal thinking that I'm just starting over here: http://theimageoffish.com/2012/07/02/why-creeds-part-1-of-3/

BertBoan

1 Like

The creeds I've read are flawed in their omission of Jesus' life. They all acknowledge his manhood and godhood but not his teachings or example. "Born of the Virgin Mary" then straight to, "died under Pilate." That seems like a big thing to skip.

I've spent the majority of my life skipping it too because the culture under which I was reared skipped it as well. I only began to get interested in Jesus when I was confronted about calling myself a "Christ"ian but not knowing what the "Christ" taught.

There was 33 yrs of life including 3 yrs of teaching and mentoring ministry that showed us how (un)successful his teachings were (they killed him) and that we should follow His teachings to our own sacrifice of life.

I see the creeds as crutches used by people to encapsulate what the believe. Unfortunately it does encapsulate exactly what they believe and not how they act.

BoSanders moderator

1 Like

@BertBoan I heard a famous preacher say one time that the Gospels were the birth death and resurrection. I responded you skipped the life and teachings of Christ! Thank you for pointing this out. You are correct

BertBoan

@BoSanders @BertBoan Well (nothing new under the sun) it was Bruxy Cavey ( http://bruxy.com ) who pointed this out in his teaching. It was a life altering perspective shift for me.

BertBoan

@Father Josh @BoSanders That is some awesome awesomeness. That is art, functional beauty, Brother that is.. speechless.

Father Josh

@BertBoan @BoSanders from the Masai Creed, a local adaptation of the Nicean Creed which includes the life of JC: 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 the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He lay buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, He rose from the grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.

Father Josh

I've been thinking about this post for a couple of days; which means I think the post is successful. I wonder several things about its writing: are the creeds a definition of Christianity? Are they a definition of God? If so, when we begin to walk from them, does that mean we are changing what God and Christianity is? I'm very OK with letting new thinking inform and add to Christian thought; but I'm wondering where the limit might be. Are there any non-negotiables when it comes to innovative and inclusive thinking? If the creed is a lean-to, what is the forest in which we camp? I also wonder if Bo's church recites any creed each week in worship. I ask because saying the creed each and every week has an effect on that community. We (Episcopalians) stand up and tell the story of the Triune God every week! So in a community where the Creed is part of the Liturgy of the Word: Scripture, response, Creedal statement, prayer, and confession and absolution; the Creed is part of a larger act of worship. So might the creed be more of a base camp, to play with your image? Might the creed be something we leave but return to; all to remind us that we are all born in the middle of things and are historical beings that must live in the wake of history?

BoSanders moderator

@Father Josh Great note! Let me answer the two questions you asked and then take us in a different direction :)

"are the creeds a definition of Christianity?" - no they are expression OF christianity

"Are they a definition of God?" - no they are conceptualizations of God

Since I answered 'No' to both questions, then there is less at stake in walking away :)

Base Camp however is an interesting twist in the analogy! It's not a terrible half-way point for an Episcopalian so I will take it! You'll understand however if I return to base-camp far less frequently than you.

In the end my only concern is that we don't A) set up house in them B) use them a weapons against each other C) use them a litmus tests for orthodoxy. But if you like them, pack 'em and carry them around with ya. We all need tents ! -Bo

Da stand das Meer

@BoSanders Hello Bo - thanks for putting the question on the table and for being ready to jump into the trenches to discuss it (many blogs do the former, not so many the latter, which is one of the best things about HBC ...).

I'd basically agree with most of the above: the central problem isn't so much the creeds in themselves as the way in which they have been used. Put another way, in this case HOW you believe is just as important as WHAT you believe; the big temptation has always been to use credal statements as methods of control and exclusion, which tends to lead to religion at its worst - we're still paying the price for that ...

To do justice to the creeds, they're probably best viewed 'apophatically' as 'the least inadequate way of talking about God' (or rather of dealing with a certain range of questions). What is potentially disastrous is to view them as exhaustive 'definitions'. To look at Nicaea, Chalcedon etc. in that way is actually a very modern, car-manual type approach to doctrine which has very little to do with the spirituality of the period that generated the creeds in the first place.

I would however like to throw in a couple of words of caution

i) the creeds, as 'an expression of Christianity' at a time when the Church was still relatively united, are still probably better placed to play some kind of 'regulative function' than anything that came later if what we're looking for is some kind of rallying-point for ecumenical consensus on the basis of 'Christian minimalism' (to adopt Philip Clayton's/Steven Knapp's term in 'The Predicament of Belief' with a slightly different spin).

ii) 'moving on' from the creeds isn't necessarily the same as cheerfully binning their content (that seemed to be Clayton's complaint against Spong in the 'Predicament' book party, and I'm with PC on this one). That's the 'nuclear option' which probably shouldn't be employed until all else has failed, as radical revisionism often solves problems by creating new ones and narrowing the range of one's conversation partners.

So I'm all in favour of trying less confrontational strategies first before embarking on wholesale revisions: linguistic re-formulation of the creeds, re-conceptualization, setting in historical perspective etc. in order to deal with questions where the 'orthodox' view seems to be in tension say with evolutionary science or historical-critical scholarship. I'm convinced that many tensions can be handled by this kind of careful work without the need to jettison the essence of the creeds. A truly 'generous orthodoxy' (to use Brian McLaren's famous terms) perhaps has more resources at its disposal than many people think ... but it does require theological creativity and an unfashionable dose of patience.

Peter B.

Homebrewed Christianity

All I am trying to say is that we attempt to do for our culture and day what they were attempting to do for their culture and day.

jb00m

1 Like

Bo, I'm free associating all over the place this week with your stuff. Though, this won't be entirely off the top of my head, only my initial connection is.

This time, Heidegger and "Building, Dwelling, Thinking". I don't remember the essay well enough, but I think there's an interesting parallel. Building is always related to dwelling. I build and dwell there, for a time. A building is for dwelling (usually, but then we have factories and such, which maybe are something different). And dwelling is a preservation, "the basic character of dwelling is to spare, to preserve… dwelling itself is always a staying with things." Dwelling is a being-with things, staying with them, nurturing them, and so on.

It seems to work similarly with the creeds as linguistic structures, houses made of language. Or, lean-to's. That seems to be the tension, are they great, permanent houses, or temporary shelters? Heidegger would probably say something like, "Every epoch has its own building, dwelling, thinking...as we move through the history of being, different ways of being are disclosed" and so on. So, while perhaps the creeds were not viewed as a lean-to then (and maybe they were), it seems they can only be a lean-to for us now...as we make our way to a new authentic mode in our current situation.

(I should maybe be more consistent with the jargon, but when he used different jargon for arguably the same things over his career, it gets harder to stick with it...yes, rationalizing my being lazy)

BoSanders moderator

@jb00m That was very interesting and looks to be very helpful. Thank you. -Bo

feel free to post on tomorrow's blog as well ;)

dangarvin

1 Like

What I have to say is obviously not original, uncommon or unexpected. Nonetheless:

Certainly we grow and develop in our understanding of the biblical text. Certainly we grow and develop in our understanding of the "progress" of christian thought. This is as it should be. We are most certainly on a journey.

However, this Christianity thing we find ourselves a part of had some bold statements to make about itself in it's earliest days. I think it would be very hard to argue that the formulators of the creeds didn't believe, and mean, exactly what they said. And I think we can be reasonably sure what they meant, even accounting for culture/time/language, etc. For instance, when they said that Jesus lived, died, was buried and rose again, they very simply meant exactly what they were saying. When they said that he would return again to judge the quick and the dead, they very simply meant exactly what they were saying (of course they didn't comment on the timing or manner of that return).

If we progress to the point (which of course many have) where these things are no longer understood in any sort of straight-forward fashion, then what are we left with? I'd say we're left with a form but denying the substance and power.

As my reading and my thinking have tended to take me down quite liberal and/or progressive roads theologically, I keep finding myself haunted by 1 Corinthians 15. For instance:

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

I honestly have to agree with the straight forward reading of that last sentence. And I think it could be applied to all the credal statements. What a pitiable state indeed, to so parse and explain and grow that we no longer even have any hope. I for one apparently need the hope that is inherent in orthodox/credal Christianity. In fact I need MORE hope then is even allowed for in modern Evangelical Christianity. I need the full blown Pauline universalism where Christ is "all in all" and EVERYTHING WILL be reconciled to him. Nothing else will answer the horrors of this existence. The horrors that I have experienced, but even more so the horrors that so many millions of others have experienced down through history. Why would I bother with a Christianity stripped of its universal and inevitable hope? Take that away and you might be left with some interesting philosophy and the intriguing words of a bunch of dead dudes, but that's about it.

BoSanders moderator

@dangarvin ok - I see what you were up to here. I get what you are trying for ... but there are a couple of things that leave my squinting.

- I am with you in the need for greater hope. But rote repetition of the creeds isn't the answer.

- I am with you in the desire for justice and reconciliation down through history... why does view the creeds a contextual documents mean I can't get that?

- lastly, I am with you in that those who wrote the creeds really and truly believed them (like those who wrote scripture) but I am not bound to their understandings, timelines, or other period expectations any more than I am bound to their language (Greek) or their cosmology (geo-centric).

We need to try and state for our day what they were trying to state for theirs. -Bo

let me know

dangarvin

1 Like

I think, again, I'm letting one thing stand in for some other things. In this case I think I'm letting the creeds stand in for credal, or orthodox or traditional Christianity. And of course since I can't even agree with myself on what credal, orthodox, traditional Christianity actually was, is, or should be, that's not really terribly useful.

But on with the story: I have been driven for many years, mostly by theodicy issues, down a road where my faith has been systematically deconstructed. In my mad rush to "get god off the hook" it appears that I may be nearing the point of doing away with god (or at least the christian god) altogether.

So now, as more of an agnostic, as I dip my toes into various spiritualities (for I cannot cease to be spiritual), I am looking to build my lean-to in a place that is intellectually satisfying, spiritually fulfilling, progressive in all the good ways, and so on. To be honest I find certain forms of neo-paganism quite compelling in many ways (fails a bit on the intellectually-satisfying front though).

Even though I find the non-conservative forms of Christianity (liberal, progressive, emergent, etc.) much more intellectually satisfying, and they are certainly more progressive, I just don't see much reason to camp out in them. I've tried, but it's just empty.

Christianity needs to be a ridiculously amazing story. It needs to be Cristus Victor. It needs to be Athanasius on the Incarnation. It needs to be Trinitarian in the fully Perichoretic sense. If it's not all it ever claimed to be, and much more besides, then it's just a flaccid parody of itself.

As to what you were actually saying in the post, I don't think I disagree at all. Just responding, as usual, to a straw-man in my head.

BoSanders moderator

@dangarvin funny note ;) great! -Bo

danhauge

Quick question--out of curiosity: would you say the same thing about Scripture as a whole?

BoSanders moderator

1 Like

@danhauge not quite. I would start down that road but in many respects but scripture is more formative in sense. It has many contextual elements and is indeed a historic snapshot - but not in the same way.

So I would talk in many similar ways about scripture but the creeds are slightly less authoritative, less formative, and more an expression. While scripture contians all those elements, it is more so.

I would say that Scripture and the Creeds are different in both degree and in type.

what say you? -Bo

danhauge

1 Like

@BoSanders Overall, I would agree with this--it's general, but that's fair, we're not going to get precise definitions of these things, and I think we need to be increasingly OK with that. Of course the devil (sorry :) is in the details--one of the questions I am most interested in is just how we each decide what aspects of thought or belief or worldview are understood as eternal, or still applying to our understanding now, and which elements do we decide are "OK for that culture, but not for me." Ultimately we each come down a little differently on each of those.

It's that variability that I think is the incentive for people to make creeds in the first place--we want to be able to say "this is what we all agree on, this is what gives our community definition and form". Learning to embrace community without such strict dividing lines is tough for we "savage primates" but I think it's part of the direction that God leads us toward.

BoSanders moderator

@danhauge Nice. Yeah ... I get that. All I am trying to say is that we attempt to do for our culture and day what they were attempting to do for their culture and day. -Bo

theimageoffish

Great stuff... Makes me want to post a series about "Why bother with theology?" and "Why bother with creeds?" that I wrote but haven't shared. I think I will. Thanks.

Keep eyes peeled.

BoSanders moderator

@theimageoffish DO it !! ;) can't wait.

theimageoffish

@BoSanders Boom. http://theimageoffish.com/2012/06/27/why-theology-part-1-of-2/

Shannon Thomas

Very effective metaphor for how we utilize our most valued and sacred metaphors, otherwise known as "creeds". Creeds as tools, not as final projects, and the final project...well, that's the journey. Still, there is something remarkably pragmatic about this approach to Creeds: which is not entirely a good thing. The practicality of any endeavor is defined in relation to its goal: does this action help us achieve "x"? It is the naming of "x" that is the shaping of Creeds...and in a world of imperial violence and cultural madness, embarking on The Way is not entirely practical: actually, if done correctly, it will get you crucified.

Trackbacks

Context for Creeds | Rudimentary Bible says:

July 2, 2012 at 6:50 am

[...] From Bo Sanders at Homebrewed Christianity… [...]
Weaving History, Context and Innovation into Christianity: a rockin' theology says:

July 9, 2012 at 9:16 am

[...] background is in contextual theology and as I stated two weeks ago in my post about the Creeds as contextual documents (or time/place snapshots) they are neither universal nor timeless. Christian expressions – [...]
Skirting Satan, Walking on Water and Feeding Five Thousand: preaching the text says:

July 12, 2012 at 1:52 pm

[...] is said that those who wrote these texts (and the Creeds … I found out) surely really meant them and believe them to be taken the way that they are [...]

Living the Questions

Of Creeds and Lean-tos: thoughts on temporary shelters

Trackbacks

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

Support the brew