I have been wrestling a bit. What do you guys think of the Apostle's Creed? How does it stack up to the Nicene Creed? I can read, so try not to state the obvious, please. I am wondering, for example, how they are interchangable in the ECUSA, what the ELCA uses etc. I know that the A.C. is a reformed creed. The Orthodox churches certainly do not use it. Nor do the RC's. The East and West split 1000 years ago about the "filioque clause" ("We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.") in the Nicene Creed. Creeds have a way of throwing people for a loop.
My questions stem from two sources. One, Cliff has a bit of a dialogue going on at his site about what the purpose of worship is.
Premise:Worship is solely directed God-ward.
Corollary:
Thus, worship is for the Church and not for those outside the Church. The gathered community at worship is not to be used as a tool for evangelism.
Two, yes two, is an ongoing conversation with Megan about ABC faith claims. We should be able to claim the Apostle's Creed. We in the ABC, however, give a lot of room for questioning, growth and the stretching that the Spirit may demand of an individual or community. Thus there are more and less little-o orthodox stances. There are liberals and conservatives. There are polemics within polemics. We try to allow for variation...especially within worship. This is a struggle to say the least.
So, do you guys think that worship is didactic. Is this a good thing? How is the didactic nature of worship more than glorified brainwashing? Or is this where we fail in our worship? Is this where we fail in our evangelism/catechesis?
Let me know what you think.
Posted by tripp at January 30, 2004 11:12 AMI think the premise needs another corollary: although it is soley directed God-ward, it still benefits men and women. or something like that.
it's not glorified brainwashing. it's glorified heartwashing
Posted by: bobw at January 30, 2004 11:58 AM"it's glorified heartwashing"
I like this. I like the transforming aspect. "Brainwashing" (love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul) would work the same if it were not for the negative connotation.
As a Baptist I wrestle with this. Creeds, no matter what scriptural truth they enliven/enlighten always feel like human documents to me...one to afirm or not at your leisure. It is an issue of authority, you know?
Posted by: Tripp at January 30, 2004 12:07 PMIf I've ever said the Nicene Creed during worship, it was probably at Duke. At my current church we say the Apostle's Creed whenever there is a baptism, since that is what it was originally used for. We say it as Q & A: do you believe in God the Father? I believe in God the Father almighty...
I think the creed, the Lord's Prayer, reading Scripture, etc. are both devotional and didactic. Perhaps we can use the word formational? I think you're on the right track. The liturgy praises and glorifies God by telling the story of our salvation. Telling this story over and over forms us as disciples.
Gotta go to lunch, but I'll mull this over some more. Good questions!
Posted by: Jennifer at January 30, 2004 12:51 PMI grew up with the Niscene Creed, and have to sort of cheat when I go to church now. I don't say the "We beleive on one holy catholic and apostolic church, one baptism for the the forgiveness of sins..." etc. I don't, and I can't say that I do. I'm o theologian, so I don't know how this affects my chances of going to hell (although my long association with Lotti is much more likely to send me Hades-bound.)
Posted by: Sarah at January 30, 2004 05:01 PMIn the Episcopal Church, and in the ELCA with which I am also familiar, the Nicene Creed is used on all Festivals (note that all Sundays are festivals of the Lord). The Apostles' Creed is used on other occasions (such as the daily office, or a baptism). Note that the creed is often omitted altogether from daily Eucharists.
If you "know" that the Apostles' Creed is "reformed" you should go back to CLT 1. Don't tell AKMA. The Apostles' Creed is, indeed our oldest creed (in the Western Church). It developed within the first four centuries (as the Nicene Creed did in the East).
As always, I will offer up a book suggestion. It's dated, but still valuable. Schaff's three-volume "The Creeds of Christendom" is an excellent place to start (though more recent scholarship will have an important perspective.
I'll end with a quote from Schaff: "[The Apostles' Creed] has the fragrance of antiquity, and the inestimable weight of universal consent. It is a bond of union between all ages and sections of Christendom. It can never be superseded for popular use in church or school." (15)
Posted by: Micah Jackson at January 30, 2004 06:52 PMMicah, you have the sense of it. This is why the Reformers latched onto it, I think. They sought ou truth in the earliest works of the Church. It sound s alittle familiar. Hmmm...I wonder what the Ekklesia Project is about.
Posted by: Tripp at January 30, 2004 10:05 PMI'm not really comfortable with the devotional/dichactic split, or rather even frame it that way (although I do think both elements are there). as has been said above, I lean toward worship as formation (emotionally, intellectually, imaginatively). the question really is the telos of the worship from a human perspective, where are we going, what is going on? Propositional recitation, or emotional rapture, are components, but the goal is to enter into the Gospel (salvation history) anew which by my definition has to change us, not just pump us up, or affirm our beliefs. anyway, i'm hungry, caffine and sleep deprived...sorry if i sound grumpy...
Posted by: Geoff Holsclaw at January 31, 2004 10:51 AM