Comment by Doug Bennett on 2nd mo. 11, 2013 at 9:47am

Reading through this post this morning I was reminded of Tom Hamm's  short piece "Friends United Meeting and its identity," which contains an excellent brief summary of the n0w-125 year history of whether the Richmond Declaration should be taken as a creed. You can find Hamm's piece here: http://www.nyym.org/nurture/fum/hamm-hist.html. 

Comment by Howard Brod on 2nd mo. 12, 2013 at 9:15am

It is interesting to note that wholly FUM affiliated yearly meetings have experienced schism after schism. This speaks volumes of the detrimental effects of creeds. I suspect they are a human contrivance that has little to do with the Spirit of God.

Comment by Kevin Mortimer on 2nd mo. 12, 2013 at 2:31pm

The statement of early Friends was the 'transformed life' and their written 'creed' was the whole of sacred scripture. For two of the most helpful readings besides Robert Barclay's Apology (1678) and Elizabeth Bathurst's Truth's Vindication (1683) I have found "The Guide to True Peace" and Irene Lape's Leadings (2003) the most insightful concerning the Biblically informed nature of Life with God.

Comment by Vonn New on 2nd mo. 13, 2013 at 12:31pm

When speaking of creeds, it's important to keep in mind that there are both official creeds and personal creeds.  This article speaks primarily of official creeds - those that a group insists that its members believe. 

For me, an even more important part of my faith is to avoid personal creeds as much as possible.  In order to do that, I have to separate belief from faith.  Beliefs can blind me because I have already decided what is true.  Even if my consideration is thoughtful and sincere, once I state a belief it becomes a personal creed and I will filter my experiences to support the belief.  In my lexicon, faith, on the other hand, is being open to the truth whatever it turns out to be. Belief limits prophetic vision, faith expands it.

This is relevant to Friends of all stripes, those in Yearly Meetings struggling with official creeds like the Richmond Declaration, and those in liberal meetings who feel bad because we can't articulate a shared core belief.

Comment by Liz Opp on 2nd mo. 13, 2013 at 6:06pm

On the recommendation of a Quaker friend, I'm reading the Pendle Hill Pamphlet Matthew 18: Wisdom for Living in Community.  The first few pages return to the theme that if we wish to seek reconciliation, we must be like the child--humble, trusting, and open.  Seems to me that formal or informal creeds too easily get placed at the center of our spiritual life, pushing out the centrality of the Living Presence and causing the rending of our shared tapestry...

Blessings,

Liz, The Good Raised Up

Comment by Aaron J Levitt on 2nd mo. 15, 2013 at 4:09pm

My greatest objection to religious creeds is that they seem like the absolute height of human arrogance. Whatever the content of the creed, the implication is unavoidable, and always the same: I, a mere human, am possessed of such perfect knowledge that I presume to dictate ultimate truths.

It makes the hubris decried in ancient Greek myths look like harmless trifles. After all, those characters were only claiming to have a god's beauty, weaving prowess, or the like. The givers of creeds lay claim to God's own  wisdom!

Comment by John Potter on 4th mo. 18, 2013 at 12:10am

I have found it best to say that my creed is Christ.  It affirms Scripture and the Savior.  

Creeds and statements of faith are difficult, but necessary.  There are some essential things that Christians must agree on like the divinity of Christ.   There are non-essential things like worship preferences and dietary practices where flexibility and liberty should be given.  Romans 14 is a good example of the NT church struggling with non-essential matters.  Non-essentials deserve liberty so that all might follow their consciences under the Word and Spirit.   But in all things, however, there must be love or charity “which binds everything together in perfect harmony” Col. 3:14.

If we follow the adage, in essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity, we can reflect and honor our Risen Savior.

Comment by David Nelson Seaman on 4th mo. 18, 2013 at 5:09pm

The human history of creeds would seem to argue that the net effect of forming group doctrines augments divisiveness and argument, to which end we are then asked, "Whose God interpetation is True" ?   I  imagine that there is no answer other than the mystery of creation itself begging the question, lighting the spark of our imaginations and forcing communal discourse about the very mystery for which no one person was ever given the answer.   Here's an out take from one of John Greenleaf Whittier's poems;

 

I know how well the fathers taught

What work the later schoolmen wrought;

I reverance old-time faith and men,

But God is near us now as then...

And still the measure of our needs

Outgrows the cramping bounds of creeds....

 

Imagine how differnet it would be if every meeting, church, temple, or mosque took down its symbol and signs and left to the arriving guest only a open door..... 

 

 

 

Comment