Well I just listened to Doug Pagitt's podcast. The topic was basically a 3-4 minute rant on creeds. More specifically on what creeds are: They are not summation of Christian faith..creeds are understanding within a certain contextual context.
I think that is one of the better understanding of creeds that i have come across.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah, I listened to that podcast as well. I agree with Doug on this one, that creeds are not once-and-for-all synopses of the faith, but rather answers to the questions that our spiritual ancestors were asking.
As a further thought, I wonder if creeds are often responding to questions that we postmoderns are not asking. For example, much of our Church doctrines (3rd C. Christology, the doctrine of the Trinity) is cast in concepts borrowed from Greek philosophy, and often these concepts are very remote from us. They simple are not speaking to the questions we're asking...
...one further thought on creeds. I would also agree with Pagitt that to talk this way about creeds is not to deny them, but rather to put them in their proper context. Also I think we should be careful about absolutizing doctrines like the Trinity, as if the only way to 'get God right' is to speak of God in Platonic categories. The Trinity is one way to speak of God, and it has proven to be helpful and provide clarity, but we need to be careful we don't equate "God" with "concepts about God." From my understanding, that's the theme of Pete Rollins book, isn't it?
Post a Comment