Hat tip to Michael Daley.
The following is a letter to the editor that was published in the Diocese of Calgary’s newspaper, The Sower.
Questioning the Creed
Dear Editor,
What a relief! I finally attended service at an Anglican church in Calgary where I did not have to deal with the moral dilemma of whether or not to join in the recitation of the Nicene Creed. Even though the service was from the BCP, a hymn was sung in place of the creed. This creed does not reflect my Christian beliefs (or that of many church members I know). Surely it is time to have a public conversation about the relevance of repeating week by week a creed from the fourth century whose language of expression belongs to an entirely different intellectual era. I am concerned that the words of the creed are a deterrent for enquirers (both young and older) into the Anglican church and would welcome comments and or ideas about this.
Sincerely
Jan Heath
Just to refresh our memories, here is the creed that doesn’t reflect Ms. Heath’s “Christian” beliefs:
I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all worlds; God, of God; Light, of Light; Very God, of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; Through whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, The Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. And I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the Life of the world to come. Amen.
So, my rhetorical question is, how can you be a Christian and not be able to recite the Nicene creed? More to the point, why would you want to call yourself a Christian if you can’t recite the creed without crossing your fingers? What is left of Christianity if you remove the beliefs that are stated in the Nicene creed? When I went through a crisis of faith, I went through a period of time where I had a great deal of difficulty reciting the creed; I wondered if I truly believed what I was saying. It seems to me that this letter to the editor is symptomatic of a huge crisis of faith that the institution of the Anglican Church is undergoing; however, instead of recognizing it for what it is, the Anglican Church of Canada is trying to redefine what it means to be an Anglicann Christian, and in the process, eviscerating itself.
Update
This is lifted from the comments – written by Jonathan – this is exactly what I was trying to say, and put much more eloquently than I did:
It seems to me that there was a time when the Anglican liturgy wasn’t ‘recited’ because everyone agreed with everything that was said, but because it was supposed to be forming them. Anglicans gathered for corporate prayer, and that corporate prayer was what was supposed to shape them for their personal devotional life. The shift has been that now people’s personal devotional life (which seems to consist of anything, from the many available options) is shaping what they think they’re corporate prayer should be. I doubt Hooker would have approved – though I also doubt that many of this mindset would care for his approval anyways. If this is a person’s mind, then the creed is expendable, along with many other things.
It seems to me, however, that the liturgy is a gift from God that is intended to form us as Christians, rather than the other way around – and that this is modelled, to some extent, on the witness of Scripture. We read Scripture, and it forms us – it forms our faith. The theological viewpoint that we can, somehow, ‘correct’ the Bible (or ‘fix’ it) is a much larger issue than the liturgical revision – but both are symptomatic of the same problem:
People don’t want to be fixed by Scripture, or by liturgy (people don’t want to admit they’re broken); so they ‘fix’ (read: sabotage) these instead.
Ah yes, the Sower. Colloquially know as the Sewer around here
I would be very curious to know which Anglican church that was it
tho I must admit I might have a idea
Wow
I think that this attitude to the Creed is fairly common in the Anglican Church of Canada. Last summer I visited a church in Toronto and was surprised that the Creed was not said in the service. Afterwards I spoke to the Rector and asked why he did not say the Creed. He replied ” It raises so many awkward issues, so we leave it out “.
I guess the awkward issues are the basic beliefs of the Christian faith. But it underscores the slow drift by the ACC away from traditional Christian beliefs towards a type of Unitarian theology – which in its most extreme form says that we and all creation are one under the Great Creator. Jesus, Mohammad and Buddha are equal prophets, Jesus did not rise on the third day and the Holy Trinity does not exist. I think that you would find many current Anglican theologians who would not find fault with those beliefs !
The words of Paul have come to pass:
“For the time will come when men will no longer put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Tim. 4:3 (NIV)
I didn’t know that there were Canadian Anglican churches that refuse to say the Creed. I guess it is the logical extension of the current drift in church theology and teaching though.
I was at a United Church with my grandmother over Christmas and we didn’t say a confession or the Creed, which did not surprise me at all. Why even pretend to be a Christian if you can’t recite the Creed, taking ‘believe’ to mean ‘believe’. Spong even recites it, though he openly denies every verse. He just hopes that Chalcedon will be revisted. No more “very God, and very Man” for Jack!
I hope other young people see through this duplicity. A ‘church’ without Jesus is no church at all.
It is a sad thing, when churches stop saying the creed. When I was in seminary, I had a classmate who attended and did her work-placement at an Anglican church in Toronto where they did not see the creed. The reason was that the parishioners didn’t believe it anyway (well, that was the reason given, at any rate). Now, I don’t remember which church that was – nor am I aware of which church in the Diocese of Calgary (where I am currently serving) is failing to recite the creed at its services. I do know which church in Calgary I attended for Easter vigil, which failed to crack open a Bible for any of the three lessons given – preferring, instead, the written prose interpretations of three lessons that were given by people associated with the parish. I promptly left (and the readings they did have weren’t even that bad – just not what I felt should have been appropriate, and gone without saying). At any rate, none of these will be named (2 because I cannot, one because I will not).
It seems to me that there was a time when the Anglican liturgy wasn’t ‘recited’ because everyone agreed with everything that was said, but because it was supposed to be forming them. Anglicans gathered for corporate prayer, and that corporate prayer was what was supposed to shape them for their personal devotional life. The shift has been that now people’s personal devotional life (which seems to consist of anything, from the many available options) is shaping what they think they’re corporate prayer should be. I doubt Hooker would have approved – though I also doubt that many of this mindset would care for his approval anyways. If this is a person’s mind, then the creed is expendable, along with many other things.
It seems to me, however, that the liturgy is a gift from God that is intended to form us as Christians, rather than the other way around – and that this is modelled, to some extent, on the witness of Scripture. We read Scripture, and it forms us – it forms our faith. The theological viewpoint that we can, somehow, ‘correct’ the Bible (or ‘fix’ it) is a much larger issue than the liturgical revision – but both are symptomatic of the same problem:
People don’t want to be fixed by Scripture, or by liturgy (people don’t want to admit they’re broken); so they ‘fix’ (read: sabotage) these instead.
Right on, Jonathan!
Jonathan is probably a memebr of the Prayerbook Society, or should be.
I think I am a member of the Prayerbook Society – or at least, I have been at some point in the past few years. I actually came to Essentials through ARM Canada, and was raised on the BAS in various charismatically-oriented Anglican churches. I think a healthy appreciation for what things are/can be/should be is a good thing.
The Nicene Creed is one of the only things that all three branches of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant) have agreed on over the centuries. It is a test of Christian orthodoxy at the most fundamental level and rejection of it means one is not a Christian (Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject it). That said, many evangelical churches that do not recite it as common practise.
If there’s no Creed, and no Confession … then it really would be just another “feel-good” event. Screwtape’s about, I suspect. (And I’m not a member of the Prayerbook Society, but I agree with everything Jonathan said. You can revise liturgy without turning it into nonsense.)
Jonathan, once they have you there is only one escape from the mafia of the PBSC. They keep sending subversive liturature and beg for money incessantly. You are lucky you have not had them knocking on your door in the wee hours. Take cover man, they now know you are loose.