creeds

In a previous meeting we had looked at the doctrine of the trinity, this led us on to looking at creeds and how the idea of the trinity developed and became fixed (to some extent) in the ancient creeds that we still say in church today.

We decided to follow on from this by looking at what is a modern example of a creed, and that is the Basis of faith of the Evangelical Alliance.

This had been revised in 2005, the previous version had been written in 1970. 

It was interesting both to look at the content of the latest statement but also to compare the two and think about what had caused the compilers to change their ideas.

There were many differences, not least in terms of language, the 1970 statement used language that was not even usual for it's time being very formal and legal. The 2005 version used far more ordinary language. The 2005 version was also more inclusive re. women and men, the 1970 version spoke entirely about 'man' and 'men'. The 2005 version was quite a bit longer and often, it seemed, more explicit. We thought that perhaps this was as some ideas had being challenged since the 1970 statement was drawn up. For example there was no mention of Jesus' virgin birth in the 1970 statement but in 2005 it was mentioned, is this because in the gap between these statements people had questioned the idea of the virgin birth? In addition to being more explicit it introduced ideas about how evangelical christians should act, ie. to have concern for creation, justice and love, the 1970 version was almost entirely concerned with what evangelicals believed (should believe?).

There was a feeling that as soon as you try and put belief into a statement like this you create problems of interpretation, that you are both forced to try and be very precise without ever actually being able to completely nail down a meaning.

Personally I think that by their very nature creeds & statements of faith have the effect of excluding certain people (those who cannot sign up for it) from the group that has produced it. They are about defining who is in and who is out, who is orthodox and who is not. Much like the issues we currently have in the Anglican Communion in which different groups find it impossible to accept that others believe different things about, for example, woman being bishops. 

Certainly there were some members of our group that would not have been able to sigh up for the whole of the Evangelical Alliance's Basis of Faith.

-----

Next meeting we'll be thinking about poverty, what is it and what can/should we do about it?

wwjvf?

Who Would Jesus Vote For?

Not a serious discussion of which party Jesus would have supported at the recent election but a way into thinking about the election and how we as christians should decide how to vote.

An interesting, and robust, discussion followed and in particular highlighted different approaches to support for poorer people in society. On one had seeing this as principally the Government's responsibility (through taxation) and on the other hand the responsibility of society as a whole with a special responsibility on those who are wealthy to intervene.

Poverty is a topic we will come back to at a future meeting.

sayings from the cross

For our first meeting after lent we looked at the seven sayings from the cross. As an exercise we had the sayings printed out on separate pieces of paper and were asked as a group to match them to the four different gospels. The seven sayings (in alphabetical order!):

• I thirst
• It is finished.
• Father forgive them, for they know not what they do
• Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.
• My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
• My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
• Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise
• Woman, behold your son: behold your mother

I know there are 8 here, but one is in two gospels.

We scored about 50% how well can you do?

My thoughts in doing this exercise were to highlight the way we can conflate the gospels into one and that perhaps this is not always a good idea as each gospel is telling the story of Jesus in a particular way. In the end we only scored about 50% (not sure what we would get if we just randomly assigned the sayings, Jane or Doug any thoughts?).

lost gospels

At our meeting before lent (yes ages ago I know). We watched a programme about the many gospels that didn't make it into the bible. Many of these were written much later than the gospels that we find in the New Testament. Although the early church did not consider that these gospels should be included in what became the New Testament it was still interesting to see what kind of picture they painted of Jesus. What came across was the extent to which different writers 'saw' Jesus differently and told his story in a particular way to make a particular point. Something that we can see in the very different accounts we get in the four New Testament gospels as well.

This could be seen as a problem, eg. which of these accounts is the 'correct' one or it could be seen as an advantage as it shows there is not one orthodox way of seeing and understanding Jesus and his significance.

the trinity

At our meeting on the 2nd June we we looked at the Gospel reading from the previous Sunday (John 16.12-15), which was Trinity Sunday. We had an interesting discussion about the development of the doctrine of the trinity and how long this took to become the established view of the church, finally being decided at church councils 325 and 381.

This lead to a discussion of creeds and how and why they were formed. To some extent at least they were concerned with defining who was and was not an orthodox christian. This still happens today and we looked at an example of a modern day 'creed'. The Evangelical Alliances Basis of Faith Statement, which we look at in more detail next week.

Below are some thoughts of Katharine Jefferts Schori the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Churtch in North America.

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004388.html

The willingness to live in tension is a hallmark of Anglicanism, beginning from its roots in Celtic Christianity pushing up against Roman Christianity in the centuries of the first millennium. That diversity in community was solidified in the Elizabethan Settlement, which really marks the beginning of Anglican Christianity as a distinct movement. Above all, it recognizes that the Spirit may be speaking to all of us, in ways that do not at present seem to cohere or agree. It also recognizes what Jesus says about the Spirit to his followers, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:12-13).