Individual and Church – What about Creeds and Confessions?

-

 

Individual and Church – What about Creeds and Confessions?© 

George G. Epp 

Early Anabaptism in Switzerland wasn’t even slightly similar to a tent-meeting spiritual revival nor to a protest movement like Black Lives Matter. It was much more like the proverbial snowball rolling down a hill, gathering a bit here, a bit there until an identifiable mass was observable. The people we associate with this early, tentative movement—Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, George Blaurock—survived only the initial few years of a fledgling development, leaving small pockets of adherents drawn mainly by the argument for adult baptism, for discipleship and—probably—by disaffection with municipal and church authoritarianism. 

But there came a time when those drawn into the movement would be shown to disagree on one or more of the myriad questions that face a purpose-bound, developing community, Christians’ obligations to the state, for example. The over-arching sensibility was bound to become, “Which differences matter and which don’t?” Today, we work to agree on goals and statements of purpose for our communities and denominations; the sense that this was needed became obvious to early reformers. What was sought was a Confession of Faith or Creed which would standardize the group’s reason for being a community distinct from other communities while giving itself an identity and giving its adherents a sense of belonging 

Whether we call it a Creed or a Confession of Faith or a Statement of Purpose, we’re in the same ball park. We want a firm footing to stand on, a guide for teaching the upcoming generation, a statement that will affirm our faith and beliefs. The word meaning springs to mind. One problem in the writing of these is that they can’t come to pass unless considerable scriptural interpretation and spirit-led discernment takes place first in an atmosphere of respectful collegiality. Congregational Hermeneutics, seminarians in the Anabaptist stream might call it. 

Early confessions embraced by Anabaptists included articles mandating the ban, forbidding oaths and calling for personal nonresistance to violence, all of which are easily supported with reference to specific scripture passages. But the Bible taken as a whole is equivocal about the Christian as citizen in a state and in the world, so the authors of the Schleitheim Confession,[i] for instance, had to extrapolate from a number of Biblical sources to come up with a statement in that regard. Refusing to take up arms at a nation’s call is, of course, a form of resistance to the “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” admonition and this conundrum wasn’t easily resolved, has never been completely put to rest. Among Mennonites in the Rosenort Church in Saskatchewan during WWII, nearly as many young men went into active service as chose the alternatives.[ii] 


One of the downsides of creedal documents has been their tendency to be used in a binary or dualistic manner. They project a view of “in or out” based on adherence to their precepts. The Bible does present a creedal worldview in places as well, particularly when we get down to Levitical Law where even prescribed punishments accompany named transgressions with very little recognition of mitigating circumstances or nuances. But as a whole, the Biblical story is less into law and punishment than it is about justice, mercy and humility. 

Binary thinking gives credence to the concept of sinfulness as a primary human condition. For as long as I can remember, the conjecture about what is sin and what isn’t has required a yes or no answer; it’s a sin and not OK, or it’s not a sin and so, OK. In my denomination, smoking wasn’t, then was a sin. The nature of the act was scrutinized through written creeds (under headings of “discipline” or similar) plus unwritten understandings commonly held.[iii] 

Nationally, creeds or confessions of faith are called Constitutions, under whose guidance laws and bylaws are legislated. As with church denominational creeds and constitutions, they seem easily to take up a place of authority in the minds of citizens, congregants. The NRA and its supporters have successfully convinced successive USA governments that the Second Amendment is non-negotiable, thereby rendering action to curb gun violence undoable. It’s a clear case of being held hostage . . . by yourself. 

The preamble to the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective makes clear that a constitution replaces neither scriptures nor congregational discernment in authority but is always a snapshot of the understanding of the time in which it’s promulgated.[iv] In other words, confessions can and must be subject to revision when their precepts are overtaken by new revelation, new circumstances or a consensus that a confessional precept has outlived its efficacy. The alternative is the “breaking” or “keeping” of confessional guidelines, acts over which many a division has resulted. A future history looking back on our time will no doubt include sections on the slow, painful transitions regarding women in ministry, divorce and remarriage, the meaning of Christian marriage, the nature of membership along with others. 

It may be that the time for defining our faith in new ways—or our national social contract for that matter—has arrived. Documents that turn into rule books too easily no longer constitute a model that works well. It’s hard to argue that we haven’t swung in our worldview from communal to individual freedom and responsibility, from group determination to self-determination. Given this new environment, and given the fact that functioning churches, functioning national politics will always require some standards of conduct to survive and prosper, perhaps a new wineskin must be found to contain this new wine. To that end, I ponder, for instance, the following statement to take the place of a Confession:

 

“Members and adherents to this congregation live and breathe in subjection to the precepts and guidance of the gospels. They live their lives openly and are willing to dialogue with fellow congregants on theological and life-style matters. Such discerning dialogue will always begin with a review of Matthew 22:37-41: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all you mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it, Love your neighbour as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.’           

Thus, questions of faith and life seek answers to three questions:

1)      (Love of God) Does the thing in question foster or hinder our own and our neighbours’ journey toward the Kingdom of God as taught by Jesus?

2)      (Love of neighbour) Does the thing in question enhance our calling to contribute toward care for others, as it is taught by Jesus?

3)      (Love for the church) Are we able to continue in unity if various understandings cannot be reconciled?”

 There exists, of course, a longing for certainty in many of us, possibly most of us. The suggested “confession” above doesn’t provide this kind of deductive guide to issues. What it does, though, is to maintain the focus on core faith values and the power of communal prayer and discernment. In effect, it echoes the New Testament imperative of love over law. 


[i] Wenger, John C. and C. Arnold Snyder. "Schleitheim Confession." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1990. Web. 21 Sep 2020. https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Schleitheim_Confession&oldid=143737

[ii]Rempel, John G. Die Rosenorter Gemeinde in Saskatchewan in Wort und Bild, p. 111.

[iii]Probably because they were always present as temptations, smoking, drinking, dancing, sex between unmarrieds fell outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour in the confessions and in general communal consensus. Many of these taboos could be defended as things associated with people of the world, hence the “Come ye out from among them, be ye separate” would support abstention from these real or imagined markers of worldliness.

[iv]  “In this connection, a written statement should support but not replace the lived witness of faith”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Democracy or bust

-
Image
  Politics . You can tell how people relate to this word by the way they use it. “I’m not much interested in politics,” for instance, equates it with the day-to-day news about our current government, elections, party dynamics, etc. A narrow definition.                By whatever word we use, it’s clear that the setting and enforcing of the principles under which we form community—and function as community—existed before the word was coined. In families, in schools, in workplaces, on the roads, in the economy, the making and respecting of agreed-to behavioural expectations in a community is the necessary defense against chaos.                How behavioural expectations come to be, how they are altered, how they are enforced … and most importantly by whose authority … is fundamental. The “benevolent dictator” model has a long history: give...
Read more

Do I dare eat a peach?

-
Image
  All the talk of Joe Biden’s unfitness for the position of president of the USA must have others of his age—80 plus—wondering about their own fitness. Most of us octogenarians are well aware of our physical limitations, I think, but mentally? How can I know, for instance, if the lines I’m writing are logically sound, or if they fall somewhere between inane and gibberish? How can I know if my diminished capacity can be trusted to make such a judgment? And what if my friends are too kind to tell me when to close my laptop? Hearing an aging loved one tell the same stories to the same people every day has the able-minded nodding knowingly and cluckingly (that’s a word, isn’t it?). We’re obviously too kind and too hip not to know that people experiencing obvious dementia deserve to be “handled with care,” and we’ve devised places and strategies to preserve for them whatever dignity is still possible. But it’s not dissimilar from the pain-relieving, ointment applying, chair-exercisin...
Read more

Stories We Live By

-
Image
  David Brooks, writer, philosopher and journalist, said in a recent speech to the Aspen Ideas gathering that the current divisive, belligerent mood among the people of earth can’t be attributed to our real-life situations. We have space, food, water, shelter, healthcare enough for everyone, and more. We don’t fight because we need to, he said, but because we carry stories in our heads to which we respond. It's clear that he doesn’t mean story in the same way I meant it when I published a collection of short stories , but there’s something to be gained in connecting the two, particularly when behaviour is guided by, for instance, The Holy Bible , or the Quran , each telling a story by which adherents understand life and by which their actions are governed. Scientists, as a rule, act according to a very different story of life, their exploration guided very much by the saga of evolving nature and the incontrovertible principles that govern all things. Our stories —I think Broo...
Read more