In a message dated 12/30/2004 7:19:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quoting DavidMiller:
>We do not establish creeds for things that we know with certainty to be
>true. Who has ever heard of a creed that establishes that 2+2=4 or that a
>triangle has three sides, the hypotenuse of which equals the sum of the
>squares of the two remaining sides? We don't mindlessly quote creeds every
>week that says, what goes up must come down due to the force of gravity, or
>that the sky is blue, or that the earth rotates around the sun, etc. In
>other words, truth that is known to be true never has any need for a creed
>in order to establish them. From this observation, we must conclude that
>creeds are an immature way of forcing the realization of an idea upon
>others.
John responds:
Creeds are an attempt to solve problems and in that light, can hardly be viewed as immature. Often these solutions (offered in the form of sectarian opinion with the force of Holy Writ) were used to force "unity" and punish the heretic. The tragedy of the creed was not in the credd itself -- after all, solutions are good things.
The tragedy of all this is found in man's penchant desire to root out the "heretic" and punish him. And why? All in the name of the Lord, this rooting out (something swine do, as well) establishes the reigning authority (Church Council, Pastoral Staff, congregational leader[s] and the like), as the power of consequence. Such is never the reason offered, of course. Creeds may be written documents produced as the result of counsel -- even spiritual and well intentioned counsel. Or, they may be nothing more than the flagrant imaginings (oftern called teachings) of those who simply must be in control. When we write or say "You MUST believe this or that," you have prepared a creedal statement. Such may be a good thing. "Must believe" may be the author's opinion that one will answer to God -- that God, Himself, is in control or, it may mean that "God has appointed me (us) and He is in control through me (us)." In the end, the irony of this is found in the question -- who, really, is the heretic.
Jesus prayed for unity and, in fact, saw it as a primary witness to the effectual Presence of the Lord (John 17). Forced unity is no witness and runs counter to the words of this prayer. The only unity that can be considered a testament to the Love of God is that which brings us together in spite of our differences (i.,e. Romans 14). We all have been called to the ministry of reconciliation. Isolating the "heretic" is seldom in line with this ministry vision. Christ patiently walked and talked those who did not understand and, consequently, thought wrongly about a number of issues -- not the least of which was the Resurrection and His own claim to Diety.
I do not think for a minute that the disciples (the 12) had a clue when it came to this "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." They could say the words or share in their pronouncement, but doubt was a much stronger consideration than this truth -- until this Resurrection became a fact. And that is why no one was present at His trial.
After the Resurrection, these men, so afraid of their own wishes and convictions, played out an unified witness (unto death) they were not willing to commit to before the event of the Cross. Had Christ rejected them for reasons of "doctrinal incorrectness" or "spiritual immaturity," His mission would have failed !!! The Christian Faith would have been doomed apart from His patient partnership with an errant apostleship.
His beliefs were creedal, in nature. He left us with the only example that provides creedal opinion (read: God's "truth") the opportunity to work its good in the believer.
Creeds, in and of themselves, are more good than not, I suppose. How we manifest the insecurities we feel when others disagree with these creedal statements or thoughts is the real concern.
John
