Comments on: Response to Elizabeth’s Little Blog

By: Ron Robinson

Ron Robinson — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:30:08 +0000

I don’t by any means want to speak for all UU Christians here on this, despite my job and despite the fact that I’d be laughed out for even attempting to do so, but…it is interesting, though, to have jetissoned the creedal language for so much of my UU 30 plus years, including a lot of that as a Christian among UUs, and then to return to it and find spiritual nurture and kinship there. Sort of like what I did with the Lord’s Prayer 15 plus years ago. Maybe I should replace my daily meditation using the Lord’s Prayer and substitute the Apostles or Nicene Creed for this practice and see where the Spirit churns.

Reminds me too of those great Creedal placards, or whatever you might call them, adorning the sanctuary at Kings Chapel. And something I was taught about the free church doesn’t reject creeds for what they say, maybe, as much as for how they are misused. At least that’s my approach.

You do point to one of the reasons why I find more affinity with Borg than Spong…

Hmmm. Maybe a rereading the creeds for the first time kind of workshop is in the works for UU Christianity 202.

Thanks all for the discussion too.

By: Trouble

Trouble — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:00:37 +0000

i have a hard time with creeds. reciting creeds in worship is something that i have chosen not to do. if i say them with any conscious whatsoever, i find myself leaving out lines and changing others. i think that we as christians say the apostles’ and nicean creeds as a mindless chant. we want it to be something that binds us, so we stop analyzing it at that level. if we want it to feel good, we can’t think about it too much.

By: Christian

Christian — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:52:40 +0000

Chut, (can I call you that?)

Having read your response, and then the response of Elizabeth, and then your comments on Elizabeth’s page… (whew)

How about this: While there never has been a “normative” Christianity (despite the ardent attempts of creeds and some historians to create/impose one or another), we can recognize the (ongoing) discussion of “What it means to be Christian” as heavily influenced (bounded?) by the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds. However, the Creeds have been around so long and, particularly in our charged theo-political climate today, have gained several layers of successive meaning - a history not always teased out or discussed by less-than-Ph.D. candidates-in-the-History-of-Christian-Thought. It seems entirely reasonable to me that the language used in the Creeds (or in the translations) can gain a life of its own, and therefore someone’s hesitancy to use this or that title for Jesus, to use this or that phrase echoing the Creed, could be an honest reaction to (popular) culture’s hold on our language (and resulting toehold on our ideas).

Frankly, Jesus is too big to limit ourselves to the Creeds. (We must remember that we have diversity preserved in the canon - four gospels and several letters from differing perspectives.) And possibly, God is too big to limit ourselves to “theism.” (I’m just throwing that out there.)

The discussion of what it means to be Christian is important - but I see it today taking much more the shape of how we act, how we are in the world, what we do and how we can transform the world in an encounter with the Reign of God; rather than the arguments of yesteryear over doctrinal statements and creedal qualifications for inclusion in the community.

Just my two cents. Peace.

By: UU Soul

UU Soul — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:51:44 +0000

I tend to agree with Elizabeth. As I understand what you are saying, societal power structures are the ultimate arbiters of our religious identities. I can be a follower of Jesus, but I cannot authentically identify as Christian if I don’t conform to the parameters defined by the dominant group. Somehow I have a hard time seeing Jesus agreeing with your restrictive view. Peace :)