I Believe In God: A Personal Credo Developed In Conversation With The Apostles Creed.

Prepared for Dr. Sallie McFague Paul Thiessen April 11, 2007

The Apostles Creed I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

I believe Amidst all the words that have been spoken and written in defense of or disagreement with various interpretations of any or all of the propositions enumerated within the Apostles Creed, these two seemingly innocuous words are rarely addressed. Yet they form an integral part of the Creedal statement for the interpretation we attach to these words sets the tone for everything that is to follow. Every time we recite the creed or reflect on it, we face a choice do we see this creed as the beginning of a conversation or the end of one, as an exploration of the mysteries of our faith or as the definitive boundary that separates true believers from all others, as an expression of awe and amazement or as a club with which to beat others into submission. Of all the ecumenical creeds,1 the Apostles Creed is the most personal, and the only one that begins with the personal pronoun I rather than the communal we. By making it a personal statement, it affirms that we have a responsibility to critically engage and evaluate that which has been passed down to us rather than blindly accepting what our tradition has claimed to be central and essential for a life of faith. This is not to suggest that we become cafeteria Christians where we accept or reject various elements of our tradition simply on the basis of what appeals to us, but where we engage our long tradition and wrestle out what it means to claim to be a follower and disciple of Jesus the Christ; where we accept that while tradition is not something to be easily discarded, neither is it something that is always and in all contexts right (consider how long women where treated as property or slavery was accepted as normative). I think it is important to remember that the very name of the community in

Few Christians see the irony in calling any of the traditional creeds ecumenical when every line in the creeds was developed as a particular position on a disputed point within the developing Christian tradition. Each element of The Apostles Creed was developed over several centuries as one voice in what often were very spirited conversations between parties who disagreed substantively with each other, but continued to engage each other. The Nicene Creed on the other hand was a political creed from its very origin and was designed specifically to stifle debate. The council that produced it was not called by church leaders concerned about church unity but by the Emperor Constantine and took place at his palace at Nicaea. The creed produced at this council had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the unity of the church (which has never existed except as it was enforced by the sword see the disputes Paul had with James and Peter among others and disputes that existed throughout all of the first 300 years of the Church) but with using Christianity to provide social and political stability throughout the Roman. How with any degree of integrity can disputed items be called statements of unity? It seems to me that the creeds can only be described as ecumenical if we accept the premise that all Christians believe them because this is what all real Christians believe, which in itself is one of the best examples of the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.

which Jesus was born, lived, thought, taught and died was called Israel, a name that literally means one who fights or argues with God and prevails.2 The importance of belief lies at the heart of Christianity, and is addressed in almost every book in the New Testament. But within a Christian context, what does believe mean and what is it we are to believe? In our modern world, belief is frequently defined as to give mental assent, to accept something as factually true and indeed throughout most of Christian history belief was, and for many people today still is, seen as giving mental assent to a variety of doctrinal propositions.3 Throughout the centuries giving mental assent to the very details of the creeds was specifically how one proved they were a Christian with lethal consequences reserved for dissenters.4 However, we get a very different picture of belief when we look at the communities that gave us the documents that have formed the New Testament. Throughout the gospels, Jesus is constantly advocating that people follow him by living justly and by exercising mercy. We have no examples of Jesus requiring any recipient of his mercy to believe any specific doctrinal position, and indeed the only example of Jesus explicitly addressing doctrine within the gospels is to castigate those who were sure of their understanding of Gods doctrinal requirements.5 Throughout his various epistles the Apostle Paul continually exhorts people who never met Jesus to believe in Jesus but remains strangely silent about any biographical details of Jesus life. He doesnt even mention Jesus birth let alone a virgin birth, and while the concept of the resurrection remains central for him, he provides scant physical details about it instead focusing on how the resurrection was Gods vindication of Jesus ministry. While Jesus focused primarily on the excluded within the Jewish community, Paul brought Jesus message to the Gentile community by emphasizing that the resurrected Christ was alive in the community of his followers. Throughout his epistles he refers to believers as The Body of Christ. Most Christians today continue
2 3

Gen 32:28. Consider for example both the number and the content of the propositional statements contained in The Declaration of Anglican Essentials as produced by the conservative wing of the Anglican Church of Canada anglicannetwork.ca/pdf/montreal_declaration_aec.pdf that make explicit doctrinal claims that were not developed until many centuries after Jesus. 4 On October 27, 1553 Michael Servetus, an early Unitarian, was burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal heresies. As he was being burned alive, he cried out 'Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me, After his death, his executioner commented that Servetus might have been saved by shifting the position of the adjective and confessing Christ as the Eternal Son rather than as the Son of the Eternal God. Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf Inc. 1962) 327. 5 For example, in Mark 7 Jesus specifically condemned the religious leaders of the day for teaching human precepts as doctrine(7:7, NRSV) and of teaching people ways of keeping Gods law as a way of perverting justice (7:9-13). In all three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, Luke 6:1-5) Jesus asserted that the law of the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the law. The law and doctrine are means to justice, not an end in themselves.

to give lip service to this assertion but few actually explore the implications of this declaration. In the book of Acts, which is generally consider to be the first history of the church, Luke paints a picture of the relational and communal transformation that accompanied belief in the resurrected Christ when he notes that in contrast to the economic system of the day which depended upon shame and honour, they held all things in common. The belief that mattered to these early followers of Jesus was not merely intellectual assent, but a belief that produced a complete reordering of lifes priorities. The author of the Epistle of James specifically notes that even the demons believe.6 For Jewish followers of Jesus it meant believing that God preferred mercy to the outcast over an emphasis on ritualistic and /or doctrinal purity. For Gentile followers of Jesus it required a change in allegiance that was proven by action where the life and values Jesus espoused became the foundation of life rather than the values of Caesar and empire. The first community of Jesus followers chose to call themselves Followers of The Way by emphasizing the life and teachings of Jesus and used his resurrection as proof of Gods validation of his message. When Jesus followers began to be persecuted, it was not because of their doctrinal positions. The Roman Empire was remarkably tolerant of foreign religions, and even protected many different religions, including the Jewish religion, by law. What got the early followers of Jesus in trouble was their understanding of temporal justice they preached strongly against the excessive gulf between rich and poor (see the writings of John Chrysostom in particular7 ) and their refusal to align themselves with the interests of the state, both politically and militarily, instead professing that loyalty to the kingdom of God meant they could not pledge loyalty to Caesar and consequently refused to engage in any military or potentially lethal activities, even in self defense. The statement Jesus is Lord was an overtly political statement sending the clear message that from their perspective Caesar was not. Service, mutual support and sacrificial love were the hallmarks of the early followers of Jesus Way with a wide diversity of doctrinal beliefs existing from the very beginning.

6 7

James 2:19. John Chrysostom proclaimed: This is robbery: not to share ones resourcesNot only to rob others property, but also not to share your own with others is robbery and greediness and theftThe rich are in possession of the property of the poor, even if it is a patrimony [inheritance] they have received, even if they have gathered their money elsewhere. as quoted in Charles Avila Ownership: Early Christian Teaching (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1983) 132. John Chrysostoms words were no more popular in his day than they are in ours.

In God

Beyond affirming that God created the heavens and the earth and is the father of Jesus, the Apostles Creed says nothing about God. Perhaps this is good. What can we really say about God or even about the non-material realm? By definition, the non-material is not subject to empirical evaluation and no falsifiable hypothesis regarding the non-material can be constructed that can be evaluated by independent observers8. Yet our social, legal, educational and even our familial structures9 are all predicated upon at least some notion of a non material realm by recognizing that we are more than just the flesh, blood, bones and chemicals that make up our physiology. Within each life there is an I that interprets the present through the weight of the past as it imagines a variety of future possibilities and makes a choice of which one to pursue. The whole truly is greater than the sum of its parts. Theology has traditionally called this the soul. And across a vast range of human traditions this concept of the soul has been held to be in conversation with a larger non-material realm the other commonly referred to as God. Within the Christian tradition, the apophatic stream acknowledges that we can in no way actually describe God at best we can say what God is not. God is not just a bigger better smarter version of ourselves God truly is other. All of our speculations about God are merely ways of being wrong that attempt to address other ways of being wrong.10 After observing the multiplicity of views concerning the nature of God contained within the Biblical texts and throughout Christian history, the mid 19th century German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach observed that the only God available to humanity is a God constructed through human imagination. Since Feuerbachs time many theologians have taken his assertion as the impetus to actively engage the serious ethical consequences of prior imaginations by re8

Yet from a pragmatic perspective strict materialism is virtually indistinguishable from a strong view of predestination. They differ in their assumptions regarding the original cause, but both assert that that every action is governed by its previous state - there is no genuine freedom in the moment. Materialists will state that our all we do, including our choices and our emotional state is based on a combination of stored memories along with a delicate balance of hormonal chemicals while predestination advocates will say that God has foreordained all that is. Neither allow for any internal evaluation of evidence and choice on the part of the human actor. 9 Our social contract, particularly in participatory democracies, is governed by the assumption that people can, do and will makes choices, with considerable time and effort spent in influencing these choices. Our criminal legal system is based on the notion that we are not compelled to break the law. Every criminal could have done otherwise. Our educational system likewise is governed by the notion that the human mind can be trained to think for itself. 10 Quote from an email conversation with Dr. T. Siverns

constructing different models of God. Even some relatively conservation theologians, speaking within a quite orthodox understanding of God, have engaged in this task by re-imaging some core Christian doctrines. The importance of this task arises from the premise that if our engagement with the other is to actually allow us to live with authenticity, we cannot merely acknowledge Gods non-definable existence but must develop models of God for they will shape both how we see ourselves in relation to God and the rest of creation. In this vein, Joan Chittister observes that the point of this line in the creed is simply to recognize that I am not God.11 If God exists, God is beyond us; God is more and other than we could ever imagine.12 Expanding on her idea, it seems to me that we have focused our attention on God as a noun, as a being with specific existential attributes, for far too long. Without denying that God is frequently portrayed as a being (the models of parent and lover dominate both the Jewish and the Christian experience of God), the Hebrew Bible also says God is the I AM; God is existence or reality itself. The New Testament says that God is love. Not God acts lovingly, but God is love. These are existentialist verbs.13 It is interesting to observe that the Hebrew Scriptures were create within a culture where names were used to define that which they were attached to, and when something significant changed in someones life they were frequently given a new name14. Yet from our earliest Hebrew records and continuing to this day Jews refuse to say the name of God. If God exists, then God is beyond our definitions of noun and verb. As Paul Tillich observed, God is not a being but God is the ground or source of all being.15 While the creed itself makes no comment about the nature of God, debates surrounding the nature of God have been a core staple of theological discourse throughout the centuries and we can see the eternal dance between theology and practice by the observing the interdependence between the evolving understanding of God and the role of The Church in the world. The first followers of Jesus, in very different ways, saw their call as a prophetic call against the might of empire. Every claim that Jesus is Lord was also an emphatic counter claim that Caesar was not. The Apostle Paul, whose
11 12

Joan Chittister In Search of Belief (Liguori, Missouri, Liguori Publications,1999), 42-43 There is a God. There is no God. Where is the problem? I am quite sure there is a God in the sense that I am sure that my love is not an illusion. I am quite sure that there is no God in the sense that I am sure that there is nothing that resembles what I can conceive when I say that word. - Simone Weil, Waiting for God (New York: Harper & Row, 1951) p 32 13 In Rabbi John Cooper God is a Verb, Rabbii Cooper explores this idea through the Jewish Kabalistic tradition. 14 Abrams name was changed as as was Jacobs based on a significant encounter with God. 15 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Volume I, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951)

epistles are the earliest extant record of the Jesus community, boldly advocated the egalitarian nature of his understanding of the gospel of Jesus. The overriding theme of all of the uncontested letters of Paul is that the purpose of the church is to announce the reconciliation of God with all of creation through the death and resurrection of Jesus. According to Paul we, as the church the Body of Christ, are to boldly challenge the world when it works against Gods reconciliatory purposes and to be witnesses of the good news16 that Gods love is available to all and can transform all, empire included. The Johannine texts, on the other hand, are an explicit call to reject the lure of empire and build a picture of the community of Gods people as a contrast to the world around them. But in both cases, God is represented as the antithesis of earthly power with the churchs role described as a model of this theology. The phrases omnipotent and omniscient are nowhere to be found in the Bible, even though the terms were well known in Greek philosophy during the writing of the New Testament, but became associated with Christian belief as patristic-era theologians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE sought to reconcile their theology with the philosophical insights of the broader philosophical community of their world.17 During this formative period this hybridization of Greek and Jewish traditions resulted in many new theological positions being proposed that significantly expanded the models of God available for consideration. However, by the fourth century the dominant picture of God that emerged in the postConstantine world was one modeled upon an emperor and ultimately lead to descriptors such as immutable, omnipotent, unmoved mover and others where God was seen as a perfect and unchangeable being who knew everything, past, present and future, and who was (and is) accountable to no one, least of all his18 subjects, and is able to deterministically accomplish whatever he wants to accomplish. Furthermore, with the rising political power afforded the Church by the merger of church and state

16 17

the word gospel literally means good news Plato proposed in the Republic that God being perfect means he cannot change not for the better, since perfect means there cannot be a better, and not for the worse, since by definition, change for the worse is an imperfection. Plato The Republic of Plato- Translation and notes by Francis McDonald Cornford (London, New York: Oxford University Press, c 1945 24th printing, 1964) pp 72-74. In the 11th century, St Anselm refined the definition of Gods perfection as that which nothing greater (or better) can be conceived.17 These definitions of perfection are deeply entrenched within much of the Christian tradition to the point that God is often depicted as an omni- cube (omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient) that is absolutely perfect, controls everything and needs nothing. 18 In this view God specifically is male.

interests, this model not only became the dominant one, but the exclusively authorized one, with all others being condemned as heretical. 19 The theological changes cemented by the merger of state and church interests by Constantine did not happen overnight as much of popular culture would have us believe, but grew from the seeds sown in the 1st20 and 2nd21 century CE. However, the end result of this evolution was that the church ceased being perceived as a dissident minority group and came to identify with the social order and make use of and express itself through the institutions of the social order. Rather than posing a contrast or a challenge to the social order, church officials could now use imperial structures as allies if political authorities sided with the particular church officials on the issue in question or bring their increasing social and political pressure to bear if the political authorities resisted them. There came to be a marked change in the status of the church. No longer was it a minority, oppressed structure. With emperors and lesser political officials now taking sides in theological disputes and backing the decrees of church councils, the church came to encompass the social order as a whole. A kind of culmination was reached when Emperor Theodosius made the results of the Council of Constantinople the official theology of the empire. It is the situation that is anachronistically called a "Christian society." Among other things, the exercise of the sword can represent the change in the status of the church from a contrast to an accommodation of the social order. Whereas before, Christians did not wield the sword and pagans did, now Christians wielded the sword in the name of Christ. Rather than defining what Christians did on the basis of what Jesus said or did, the operative norm of behavior for Christians became what was good or necessary to preserve "Christian society." And in determining what was good for society, the emperor rather than Jesus became the revelation of the nature of God and the means to accomplishing Gods purposes.22 During this era, the ultimate form of power, either ecclesiastical or political, was seen as the ability to enforce ones will over the widest possible area in short to make it so. The word

19

While this view goes back to at least Augustine, The First Vatican Council (1870), as quoted in Sallie McFague The Body of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993) 136, specifically identified God in this way and declared that this was the only way genuine Christians could conceive of God. 20 We see hints of this hierarchical and authoritarian structure in the pastoral Epistles. 21 In the 2nd century CE St Ignatius wrote his Epistle to the Ephesians where he urged believers to be attuned to their bishop like strings on a harp and we ought to regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself. 22 J. Denny Weaver The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001).

sovereignty, as it is used in standard, everyday English terms23, refers to a specific type of power or authority, typically referred to as monarchical power, where the holder of sovereign power is able to make his or her will come to fruition without being hindered by external forces. Indeed the word we continue to use for the royal head of a state is sovereign. A truly sovereign king is accountable to no one, least of all his subjects, and is able to deterministically accomplish whatever he wants to accomplish. When we apply this attribute to God we end up with the Greek notion of omnipotence, which effectively says that God must be perfect and complete in every respect and therefore unchangeable24. For the majority of Christian history, God has indeed been seen as omnipotent, deterministic and immutable. However, while this model reflected the understanding of power that dominated the political landscape at the time, there are many theological difficulties with it. For example, a sovereign king may in fact have a relationship with his subjects, but it is a very specific type of relationship, namely where the subjects are valued on the basis of what they do for the king with blind obedience being the highest virtue. Some suggests that a king, a good king at least, acts with care and concern for his subjects.25 However, even if this is the kings primary goal, it completely removes any freedom or choice from his subjects, and therefore the more power he has to accomplish this the more his subjects become automatons. A benign dictator is still a dictator. Even a benign king still has deterministic power and to the degree that the kings subjects have either freedom to choose other than that which the king desires or the ability to influence the king, to that degree he is not sovereign. If God truly is sovereign, we are mere puppets. The God of traditional theism is indeed a static perfect immutable being where any relational connection we might have with God only exists within the limits of Gods absolute perfection and our evil nature becoming in accordance with his being. But this God is far removed from the one revealed both in the Old Testament and in the life of Jesus the Christ. While there are a multitude of voices and theologies presented within the Biblical texts, above all other types of relationships, Christianity has postulated that the type of relationship we have with God is founded on the premise of love. God loves
23

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sovereign One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit; having supreme rank, power, or authority; supreme; preeminent; indisputable; greatest in degree; utmost or extreme; Self-governing; independent; not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state". Synonym: autonomous or independent. 24 Charles Hartshorne Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany: State University of New York, 1984) 2. 25 Sallie McFague Life Abundant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) 139.

creation and is relationally connected to it. It is not the model of the dictator / subject, but that of a parent / child or lover / beloved that are the primary biblical metaphors of our relationship with God. In the Old Testament, the nation of Israel is called Gods spouse, with the prophets, in the name of God, making accusations of adultery when Israel wanders from the relational path God has called them to. 26 Throughout both testaments, God is called Father. While God is described as powerful throughout the Biblical texts, frequently using both positive and negative emotional language, the deistic power we find within the canonical scriptures is not deterministic power but persuasive power, a call that we are invited to respond to rather than a command we are deterministically forced to comply with. When absolute power controls the others choice, it contradicts love, at least the type of love described in I Cor 13. Both the Biblical texts, and my own experience tell me that we do have choices and that our choices have real consequences, whether they are for good or not. Was the Holocaust part of Gods sovereign plan for the world? Unless we are willing to postulate that God actually wills evil, I cannot see how we can believe that God has deterministic power. Machines can be programmed for compliance, living beings cannot. Obedience can be demanded. Love cannot. A marriage where one party causally determines what the other part will or will not do, even if all the choices are made with the best of intentions, is by definition a dysfunctional and unhealthy one. Wise and loving parents do not try to control or predetermine every action their child takes, but rather create opportunities where the specific gifts of the child can be developed. As the child matures, the parent interferes less and less, even when the decisions the child makes are other than the ones they would have made. God gives each of us the freedom to discern Gods purposes and either work with God to create a world that supports and nurtures all of creation or work contrary to Gods purposes by focusing on our own goals and desires while ignoring the relational consequences for the rest of creation. Regardless of our choices, Gods love for all of creation, including but not limited to us, is ongoing, with new possibilities for restoration and reconciliation in every decision that impact both God and us. Give the explicit importance of love in the Christian message, I must further ask is it even possible to love without being impacted and changed by that love? Does rejection of love not hurt? Does a loving response to love not engender joy? How can God be said to love if our response to his love matters not to him? How can it be said to matter if God is the same whatever our response? How can an immutable God love? In every experiential

26

Jeremiah 3:6-9, Ezekiel 23:37, Hosea 4:15,

10

example we have, love is a dynamic relationship where both parties are shaped and changed by the exchange. How can we postulate that God is different? Consequently, as I attempt to live into the real world implications of the theology I profess, I have come to the position that the most helpful model of the God/creation relationship is one founded on love27 and freedom rather that the coercive determinism of tradition theism. Furthermore, it seems to me that God and the world are inextricably related to each other. God needs creation and creation needs God. While God does have power, the type of power God has is persuasive power rather than coercive or deterministic power. Gods power extends to all situations, not as a means to enforce his will, but as a call, as the divine lure, to encourage us to chose rightly, to offer us redemption in any and every choice we make, whether it is a choice he would have preferred or otherwise. A non-controlling God who does not get everything God wants, but rather actually suffers with us in our wrong choices even as the divine lure continues to call us to redemption, to relational restoration. In both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, God cannot be imagined as separate from the world. Creator and created are inextricably linked in both the grime and the glory. As Sallie McFague observes: God is not an extra added onto life, but life itself.28 God is.

27

From my perspective the best definition of love is found in I Corinthians 13 where the Apostle Paul describes love as desiring the best for the object of our love and based on mutuality and reciprocity. Love directed to the self is narcissism, which can hardly be called love. But the other extreme, of self-hatred or loathing is not helpful either. In Jesus greatest commandment we are told to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. Genuine love is reciprocal. 28 Sallie McFague Life Abundant (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 21.

11

the Creator of Heaven and Earth In spite of saying that God is the creator, the Apostles Creed also says nothing about the creation God made. However, from its earliest memories the Hebrew tradition has affirmed that the world in which we live is part of a real universe filled with both actions and consequences and most of the early Christian communities embraced this idea of a real world with real consequences.29 It is not an experiment in the mind of God like a very complex chess game where God is playing both sides and knows in advance exactly how it will all work out. But it also is not a world where God is an absent watchmaker who set the universe in motion and now sits back to watch. The world is real where the choices we make have real consequences, for good or evil, but a world that is inextricably linked to God who suffers with us in our pain and rejoices with us in our joy. Gods love, joy, grief, pain and anger at the various actions of his beloved as described throughout the narratives and poetry of the Hebrew Bible and the emerging Christian community described in the New Testament are completely at odds with the notion of an immutable deistic God who causally determined the affairs of humanity and watched the unfolding drama from a distance. In contrast to the creation myths of the empires that surrounded them where violence is embedded within the act of creation30, the first creation myth in Genesis describes God calling into the cosmos, and the chaos responding with a wide diversity of life. And in response to this response,
29

There were Gnostic Christian communities that taught that the good spiritual realm was trapped by an evil material realm with Marcion in particular positing that the evil God of the Old Testament was opposed and defeated by the God in Jesus. However, these views were premised on Greek theology far removed from the Jewish roots of Jesus and his first followers. Many of the disputes in the early church centered around this issue with the proto-orthodox leaders such as Irenaeus, Polycarp, Tertullian and many others focusing much of their apologetic efforts in this direction. 30 For a comparison of two very different creation myths see Walter Wink Engaging the Powers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992) pp 13-49. In his adaptation of Paul Ricoeurs commentary on the Babylonian myth, Wink explains that the gods Apsu and Tiamit (the sweet and salt-water oceans) meet and bear a young god Mummu (the mist). They also bear other gods, and the playing of these young gods angers the older ones who cannot sleep, and so they decide to kill the young ones. The plot of the elder gods is exposed, Ea, a young god, kills Apsu and his wife Tiamat plots revenge. Ea and the other young gods turn to Marduk for their salvation. He extracts a steep price: if he succeeds, he must be given chief and undisputed power in the assembly of the gods. Having extorted agreement, he catches Tiamet in a net, drives an evil wind down her throat, shoots an arrow that burst her distended belly and pierces her heart. He stretches her corpse full length, and from it creates the cosmos. Creation is a violent victory over an enemy older than creation. After the world has been created, the other gods imprisoned Marduk. Marduk and Ea escape and execute one of the captive gods. From his blood the human race is created to serve the gods and their regents (the earthly kings and priests). In these myths cosmic order demands the suppression of the feminine and creates a religious and political model where order must imposed on chaos and must be maintained by force. It is the beginning of the myth of redemptive violence. Alternatively, the biblical model in Gen 1 presents a good God who creates a good creation. Good precedes evil. Neither evil nor violence is part of creation, but rather evil enters through the free choice of part of creation. A basically good creation is corrupted by the free choice of its inhabitants. In this far more complex model, evil first appears as a problem to be solved rather than being taken for granted as preexisting creation.

12

Genesis declares: And God saw that it was good. And then God made another call, which resulted in another response And God saw that it was good. with this cycle repeating for six iterations. 31 Finally, on the seventh day God created the Sabbath, which prescribed that everything, including all humans (even foreign slaves), domesticated animals and even the land, deserved rest and deserved justice.32 Within this model of call/response, creation is not something that God did back then, but an ongoing reality where we are invited to become collaborators with God in the ever unfolding work of creation. In the second creation myth in Genesis Adam is described as living in an ongoing relationship with God, when God notices: it is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18). Even in a pre-sin state humanity was designed for human relationship and is incomplete without them. So God creates a partner for Adam, and in an ironic inversion of roles, the man gives birth to the woman. According to the Hebrew account we were created for relationships. It was only through wrong choices that evil and violence appears in the story and it is through love and compassion that relational restoration happens. Furthermore, unlike most other creation myths, ethnic diversity lies at the heart of the Jewish tradition. Gods universal care and concern for the entire world is part of the very essence of the Hebrew story. In fact in the redacted compilation of the various Hebrew sources, none of the stories of creation directly involve the Jewish people. All of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, allegedly covering several millennia, deal with the history of the world before the story of the Hebrews even begins. From the very beginning the Jews have known that they were one people among many, and that while they had a special covenant with God, God was still the God of ALL the nations; that while they were the elect, they were the elect for a purpose. When God first made his promise to Abraham, God promised to bless Abraham and his descendants so that they would be a blessing to the nations33 and the call to remember this purpose echoes throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Gods care for the whole world is revealed in the foundation of the covenant with Abraham. Mutuality, diversity and justice for all have been a core element within the Hebrew tradition from the very beginning.

31

See Creation as Call and Response in Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki Divinity and Diversity: A Christian Affirmation of Religious Pluralism (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003) 28-33. 32 John Dominic Crossan, God & Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2007), 51-54, 33 Gen. 12:1-3

13

and in Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord The Apostles Creed uses 62 % of its words to talk about Jesus.34 And for Christians, it is beyond dispute that Jesus is central to our understanding of God. But when discussing Jesus, the creed leaps directly from the virgin birth of Jesus, to his death and bodily resurrection but completely ignores the life he lived and the message he preached. It says nothing about his concern for the marginalized or his revelation of the nature or character of God. There is no mention of love of brother let alone love of our enemies, of the importance of transformation, forgiveness and reconciliation,35 or of compassion, liberation or justice for the oppressed even though Jesus claimed these as the mandate for his ministry.36 Even though Jesus defined his ministry as a ministry of compassion to the poor and the outcast and quoted the prophet Hosea by asserting that compassion was more important than sacrifice, at least from Gods perspective,37 there is absolutely nothing in any of the creeds that gives even a hint of this or of the abundant life that Jesus offered.38 Instead, Jesus message of Good News of liberation and compassion is replaced with speculative metaphysical theories used to decide who is in and who is out. According to the gospel accounts, wherever Jesus went he saw the world through eyes of compassion. While compassion and mercy had always been at the heart of the Jewish tradition, it rarely seemed to find its way into the public forum. Imitatio dei was no slogan for Jesus nor was it for most serious Jews. It was the very essence of their lives, but where many Jewish leaders saw the emphasis on holiness and purity, Jesus saw it in terms of compassion. In the Sermon on the Plain Jesus concludes his teaching on the love of enemy with the statement Be compassionate as God is compassionate39, a clear reference to the Mosaic Law which said: You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.40 and thus equated holiness with compassion as the key characteristic of God. Part of Jesus offensiveness to the observant Jews of his day was his acceptance of the morally impure (the woman caught in

34

The Apostles Creed is comprised of 111 words: God the Father (15), Jesus Christ (69), the Holy Spirit (6), Various Doctrines about the Church (20) and the Conclusion (1). 35 Matt 5:24, Matt 6:12, Luke 11:4. 36 Luke 4:17-21. 37 Matt 9:13. 38 John 10:10. 39 Luke 6:36. 40 Lev. 19:2.

14

adultery41), the racially impure (the Samaritan woman42), the occupationally impure (Zacchaeus43), and the physically impure (the woman with the issue of blood44). In fact Jesus was so accepting of the impure, so focused on expanding the boundaries of the kingdom of God, that he made them his regular meal companions in a culture were who you ate with indicated your acceptance of them in all spheres.45 The tragedy of defining the significance of Jesus by the two endpoints of his life is that we miss the portrait of God revealed by Jesus, and is especially obvious when we consider how the creed has been used throughout history.46 People could and did believe the creeds to be absolutely factually true and saw no contradiction between their literal and certain belief in the creedal assertions and in torturing and killing their enemies (the Crusades), in claiming that burning heretics at the stake was a form of mercy (the Inquisition), in setting up a secret police force to enforce a particular interpretation of biblical morality (John Calvin), in advocating the same national polices that Hitler used in his attempts to exterminate the Jews (Martin Luther), in painting God as a vicious tyrant who absolutely despised us and was only prevented from destroying us by the intervention of Jesus (Jonathan Edwards), in arguing that American slavery in 19th century America was an important evangelistic tool, because even the most horribly abused slave in America had access to the eternally salvifc message of Jesus atonement and thus was better off eternally than any of his relatives who remained wild and free in Africa47 and countless other examples. The horrifying legacy of the creeds is that much of Western European history is written in the blood of those who didnt believe the right things. My point is not to vilify all those who believe the creeds to be literally true but to show that a genuine and sincere belief in the details of the creeds by itself does nothing to give us the new birth or transformed heart that Jesus promised. Early Quakers and Anabaptists also believed in the literal truth of the creedal propositions, but it was the life and teachings of Jesus that formed the basis of their theology
41

John 7:53 -8:11. Most scholars agree that according to the manuscripts available this story was not originally part of this gospel. But many find evidence that it is part of a much older oral tradition and thus still belongs in our traditions about Jesus. 42 John 4:1-42. 43 Luke 19:1-10. 44 Mark 5:24-43. 45 For a detailed discussion on Jesus views surrounding purity, holiness and compassion see Marcus Borg Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press International, 1984). 46 Hans Kung examines the political nature of both the birth and the passion narratives, but the historical context within which these narratives were first told is rarely considered part of the story today, and thus what truly is an amazing portrait of God with us is frequently reduced to biological details. See Hans Kung Credo: The Apostles Creed Explained For Today (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 33-47, 62-94. 47 Kelly Brown Douglas, The Black Christ (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994), 13 14.

15

and it was their belief in the importance of Jesus life that got them in trouble with the orthodox Christians of the day. William Booth of the Salvation Army and John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, believed in the facts of the creeds but separated from the Anglican Church over issues of how they looked at the despised and outcasts. Many evangelicals such as William Wilberforce remained theologically committed to the doctrinal assertions of the creeds, but looked to the life and ministry of Jesus as support for their abolitionist dreams. People clearly can believe the creeds to be factually true and be genuine followers of Jesus, but historical evidence clearly indicates that a belief in the creeds divorced from the teachings of Jesus results in lives lived diametrically opposed to the values of the God revealed by Jesus. Neither is it my point to deny the cross. The Jesus popular within much of contemporary society, who adored children, instructed people to love each other and told intriguing stories interspersed with witty sayings as he wandered about the countryside is not a Jesus who would have been crucified. The Jesus we find revealed in the texts of the New Testament is one who was born in a world where Jewish and Roman theological, technological and economic policies combined to create an increasingly hostile environment for Galilean peasants. The establishment of a monetized economy was not intentionally created to oppress the poor, but was needed to support Romes global expansion abroad, Herods elaborate building programs in Galilee, and the Hasmonean highly structured religious hierarchy. However, it also meant that subsistence level family farming, which had been a staple of Galilean life for many generations, quickly gave way to large-scale agricultural programs owned by absentee landlords. As a result, many peasants were exiled from their land into a homeless and itinerant existence where they were forced to move away from kin and community in search of what meager employment opportunities existed. It was within this fermenting cauldron of competing ideological and regional factions that an itinerant Jesus announced his vision of the imminent basileia of God and that placed him squarely against the established order of the day. Jesus support of the oppressed was an overtly political act that incurred the wrath of the Hasmonean priestly dynasty, the Herodian royal dynasty and the Roman Empire. Ultimately Jesus was charged with sedition, convicted by the Romans on the basis of the political threat he posed and executed by the Romans as a political statement. The life of Jesus lead to the cross, and it is this willingness to face the harsh realities that Jesus calls us to emulate. But the story of Jesus does not end there.

16

Each New Testament account creates a unique and highly stylized story of Jesus agony, betrayal, arrest, trial, conviction and death on Friday and the devastation this caused his followers, but they also tell us their story of the joy and surprise (and fear and confusion) of Easter Sunday. Largely as a result of these accounts the resurrection has become the focal point that has sustained those who claim allegiance to Jesus ever since. In the scriptural accounts we not only see and identify with Jesus Friday experience of the sense of betrayal as everyone, including God, abandoned him in the hour of his greatest need, but we also see Peters Friday experience of fear, betrayal and confusion, Mary Magdalene s Friday of despair and grief and Sauls Friday of misplaced certainty. Peter initially misunderstood what was required and then when he did understand, his courage failed him. Mary had loved and lost, and Saul well he was just going in the wrong direction. But then we read of Jesus creating a Sunday that met each of their needs and of their response to this unmerited act of grace. In addition to Gods affirmation of Jesus via the resurrection we also read of Jesus gentle and loving appearance to Mary in the garden, of Jesus forgiveness, affirmation and acceptance of Peter on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and of Pauls dramatic experience of the resurrected Christ on the Damascus road. The various accounts affirm that God will meet us where we are, but also affirm that the story does not end there. There is life beyond the tragedy of Friday.

17

Sin, Justice and Salvation and Gods presence in the world.

As anyone who looks either inward or outward at the relational and interdependent world in which we live, the hurt, destruction and devastation visited upon each of us is obvious and inescapable. The same force of gravity that allows an airplane to fly also causes people to die when they fall off of cliffs. Tides and seasons function in predictable ways because of it, but avalanches, earthquakes and hurricanes also destroy because of it. Nature often seems to conspire against us, and we, as socially connected human beings, frequently volitionally add to the pain of the world and receive the pain of others actions, intentional and non intentional, against us. Then to compound the problem, we are born, live and die within social structures that institutionalize these oppressive patterns. There is no escape. We create and live within hell here on earth all the time. Ask a victim of domestic abuse or a recovering alcoholic or a refuge from Darfur or a Holocaust survivor if a real hell exists. Many question why God created such a universe but it appears to me to be a logical necessity that consequences must always apply, not only when we would like them to. God cannot create a world where actors and their actions are real without also creating a world where actions have consequences. God cannot stop every rape without also stopping cause and effect. If every time we got into difficulty we cried out that theologically sophisticated prayer HELP!!!! and God intervened to stop the impending disaster (rape, falling down a cliff, whatever) what would happen? How could a world where none of our bad choices mattered not result in a world dominated by the self? Without denying the very real benefits technology has produced, one of the side effects has been that by divorcing choice from consequence we are destroying ourselves and our world: For many people Lipitor means I can eat all the junk food I want without worrying about my cholesterol. Globalization means I can enjoy the benefits of slave labour while remaining morally opposed to slavery. The rape of third world environments means I can enjoy spectacular coffee while remaining opposed to environmental destruction at home. The examples go on and on. I can think of no surer way of ensuring hell on earth and relational destruction than to give people choice without consequences which is what would happen if God intervened on our command. In the face of this real world, both the Jewish and the Christian tradition have affirmed that God not only hears our cries, but also suffers with us and calls us to become agents of restoration. While

18

there is disagreement within the academic community on when and under what circumstances the understanding that justice was for every member of the community first arose, 48 there is almost unanimous consensus that from its earliest memory, Israel, first and foremost, was a community founded on a covenant with a God who cared for the weak, the poor and the oppressed. Their entire communal consciousness is shaped and formed by the epic tale of their collective delivery from slavery in Egypt as it is told and retold from generation to generation to this day.49 But even in this foundational narrative, God does not act unilaterally, but through a human agent. And this collaborative vision of justice between Gods call and human action continues through the Levitical laws surrounding economic justice and the prophetic calls to return to justice when the community wandered from its covenantal relational commitments. Real egalitarian justice for all is not some little detail buried in a footnote of an obscure corner of Hebrew history, but is the key to understanding the Hebrew people, their history, their faith and their Scriptures, particularly the pre-exilic prophets such as Isaiah, Amos and Hosea. Jesus, echoing the Prophets throughout the Hebrew Scriptures,50 took seriously the idea that God calls his people to work towards the vision of justice articulated by their ancestors even if contemporary society refuses the vision. However, much of Christian orthodox theology has been developed upon the antithesis of the vision of justice Jesus and the prophets proclaimed. Rather than praying for Gods justice, the focus shifted to escaping the justice of God and reached its peak in St. Anselms substitutionary theory of atonement.51 Heaven as a destination, rather than justice, became the goal, and in the process Christianity legitimized and glorified the role of the victim with the result that many Christians, especially women, blacks and other marginalized people became even more oppressed. The view that

48

The egalitarian nature of their understanding of justice can be seen in their insistence that all were equal before the law (Deut. 16:18-20, Lev. 19:15), that they considered judicial corruption among the gravest of offenses (Ex. 18:21, Chron. 19:7) and viewed advocacy and representation of the weak and vulnerable as commendable (Job 29:14-16). 49 Throughout the various laws that form their understanding of Gods ways are repeated reminders to not forget that they were once slaves in Egypt, and that is was God who rescued them. e.g. Exodus 20:21 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery., See also Lev. 25:42, 26:13, Deut. 5:6, 5:15, 6:12, 6:21, 8:14, 13:5 and many more. 50 Jer. 34:14, Luke 4:16-20. 51 The substitutionary theory of atonement, developed by St. Anselm in the 11th century clearly reflects the hierarchical view of justice common in his day, where the severity of a particular offense was directly related to the gulf in status between the offender and the victim and thus because the God was infinitely superior to humanity, any offense against God was equally infinite and deserved an infinite punishment that could only satisfied by an infinitely perfect sacrifice. It continues to be the most popular theory of atonement for sin today even though its advocates, by and large, no longer accept the understanding of justice that gave birth to this theory.

19

Jesus was silent as a lamb before his shearers is still frequently paraded about as the evidence of the value of suffering in silence. Especially when combined with an obsessive focus on a salvation available only, or even primarily, in the afterlife, the mantra becomes one of enduring to the end and thus Jesus, who claimed to come to set the captives free, is used as justification for the continued bondage of the oppressed where they are told: God loves you and if you suffer now, well dont worry, heaven will just be all the sweeter. In that sense Marx was right. Religion has become the opiate of the masses. It pacifies both the oppressed and the oppressors so that injustice is seen as normative. . In the process of making my inherited faith my own faith, I have come to see that while very real, sin is not primarily about doing bad things or about offending a pure and holy God and salvation is not about getting into heaven and most certainly not about escaping Gods justice. At its heart, sin is about violence and destruction directed against Gods creation, and salvation is about the restoration and redemption of that creation. Sin is about a relational breach with God, our neighbour (whoever he or she may be) and the rest of Gods creation.52 Grace and forgiveness truly are the scandal of the gospel, but neither of them are the equivalent of a get out of jail free card but rather are the price that must be paid to heal and restore the relational breach that sin has caused. Sin really and truly matters and for there to be forgiveness there must be restoration and reconciliation. It is in the process of forgiving both those who have offended us and ourselves that God is able to transform our lives. Consider the words of the Lords Prayer: Forgive us as we forgive those who sin against us It is not that God is not willing to forgive us if we dont forgive others but rather that Gods forgiveness works in the soil of our forgiveness. According to Jesus, as described in the synoptic gospels,53 salvation is found in the establishment of Gods kingdom in the here and now as we choose to act in ways that affirm well-being. Gods salvific purpose is the restoration of a good creation that includes, but is not limited to, us. In Romans 8:18-25 Paul describes how all of creation is groaning through the pangs of childbirth as Gods salvific purposes are being created anew every moment. Even
52

For an excellent exploration of seeing sin as relational destruction see Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki The Fall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology (New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 1999) and Barbara Brown Taylor Speaking of Sin: The Lost Language of Salvation (Cambridge MA: Cowley Publications, 2000). 53 After Zacchaeus responded to Jesus economic challenge Jesus said Today salvation has come to this house. (Luke 19:9). When asked: What must I do to inherit eternal life, Jesus responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan and concluded with Go and do likewise. (Luke 10:25-37) Salvation for the Lucan community was for the here and now, and found in response to Gods redemptive call to relational restoration.

20

though history is filled with pain, each moment is a new moment of choice, a new opportunity to respond to the divine lure of God and give birth to the presence of the Kingdom of God. When we chose to return good for evil, we break the cycle of destruction and embody the scandal of grace as we respond to Gods continuous redemptive call that enables us to love our enemies and forgive those who oppress us so that they too can be restored. I find it interesting how often Jesus combined healing and forgiveness of sins. How much of the sin in our life is the result of a lifetime of hurt? We need to be healed so that we can become an agent in others healing.54 Salvation comes not when God rescues us from the consequences of a real world, but when we are transformed in a real world; when we turn to God in the midst of the pain and destruction of our world as we seek to become agents of redemption and work towards living in such a way that affirms the flourishing of all of life.

54

See Andrew Sung Park The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993) for an excellent exposition on the relational costs of sin from the victims perspective.

21

Amen In spite of their difficult birth, the creeds have often been used as a source of inspiration for many of the spiritual giants throughout the history of the church. However, they have also been used to justify much evil during this same history, when they were used to force allegiance with the threat of death or torture. We face the same choice. Do we use the creeds as a springboard to explore the eternal mysteries of God, with awe and wonder in our hearts? Do we use them as the light of tradition to reflect on the awesome idea that God truly is immanent and present in every rock, flower, animal and person while also recognizing that Gods glory transcends all of creation? Do we always remember that the creeds are at best a reflection of truth, not truth itself, acknowledging that God cannot be contained within human language? Or will we use them as a club to attack those we disagree with, thereby becoming the modern (post modern?) equivalent of those who burned the heretics? It seems to me that if we insist on dismissing the dissenting voices from the past and silencing those who question the creeds today we are left with a claimed factual statement concerning an eternal mystery that in itself is as wrong as the heresies it tries to counteract. By definitively stating God is Jesus is and the rest of the creedal statements in factually absolute terms we assert that God can be contained within the constructs of human language and thereby reduce both God and Jesus to our own creation, which is a heresy (in the standard definition of the term) in itself. Along with Paul I take the perspective: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.55 I have come to the conclusion that while Jesus does indeed reveal the heart of God, the how is a mystery that fills me with awe and wonder, but not understanding. I stand with a long line of those who have echoed the heart felt cry of the father of the epileptic child Jesus healed. O Lord I believe; help my unbelief.56

55

56

I Cor. 13:12 Mark 9:24

22

I believe in God I believe in God Oh Lord I believe Help my unbelief. I believe in God Who called the chaos of the depths to life, and responded with delight when the chaos became the diversity of existence that we call our universe. Who continues to call all that is to the ongoing work of creation, and who continues to rejoice when the universe affirms the flourishing of all life. Who, like a parent, dreams of what we might become, and who, like a parent, grieves when sin and destruction tear us apart. Who is alive and known in every culture and in every community, and whose wisdom comes to us in many different languages and voices. Who is incarnate in every pocket of the universe, from the darkest corners of the hell of despair we often find ourselves in, to the majesty and beauty of creative love in all of its infinite manifestations. And whose transcendent grandeur undergirds all of creation. Oh Lord I believe Help my unbelief. I believe in God Who is revealed in the life, message, death and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah and our elder brother. Who, in contrast to other Son of God claimants, both Roman and Jewish saw that genuine justice could only come by transformation, not force Who said the greatest commandment was to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength and the second that was like unto it: to love our neighbour as ourselves. Who taught that reconciliation and forgiveness of our human relationships was directly related to being reconciled to God Who was known as a friend of sinners alienated from their community of faith and promised all who followed him the bread of life and the water that truly satisfies. Who preached that mercy to others was more important than sacrifices to God and said that his followers would be defined by their love for each other. Who taught that God's kingdom is established now as it is born anew in each of us, and is threatened now as it is opposed by any of us. Who defined his ministry as one of compassion to the poor and the outcast and of liberty and justice for the oppressed. Who practiced an open table where all were welcome and told us to follow his example. And Who consequently was executed as an enemy of the state and the religious hierarchy but continued to believe in Gods justice even in the face of death and was vindicated by God through his resurrection to new life in the community that bears his name. Oh Lord I believe Help my unbelief.

23

I believe in God Whose ever-present Spirit envelops us in the mystery of the never failing love of God that is found amidst the pain, suffering and devastation of life in the shadows. Who breathes energy, life and hope into souls who are weary, lost, confused and despairing. Who is incarnate in the least of us and whose glory transcends the greatest of us. Oh Lord I believe Help my unbelief. I believe in God Oh Lord I believe Help my unbelief.

Paul W. Thiessen April 2007

24

Bibliography Books and Articles Avila, Charles. Ownership: Early Christian Teaching. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1983. Borg, Marcus. Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press International, 1984. Brown Douglas, Kelly. The Black Christ. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994. Brown Taylor, Barbara. Speaking of Sin: The Lost Language of Salvation. Cambridge MA: Cowley Publications, 2000. Chittister, Joan. In Search of Belief. Liguori, Missouri, Liguori Publications,1999. Hewitt Suchocki, Marjorie Divinity and Diversity: A Christian Affirmation of Religious Pluralism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003. _________________ The Fall to Violence: Original Sin in Relational Theology. New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 1999. Kung, Hans Credo: The Apostles Creed Explained For Today. New York: Doubleday, 1993. McFague, Sallie Life Abundant. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. Nigg, Walter. The Heretics. Alfred A. Knopf Inc. 1962. Sung Park, Andrew. The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993. Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Volume I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.
Weaver, J. Denny The Nonviolent Atonement Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

Wink, Walter. Engaging the Powers. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Internet Citations The Montreal Declaration of Anglican Essentials available on line at anglicannetwork.ca/pdf/montreal_declaration_aec.pdf from - the Anglican Renewal Ministries of Canada last accessed April 9, 2009

25