Misusing a creed
14/01/16 05:16
In our community there are at least two organizations of good people seeking to serve others in our community that require participants to sign the Apostle’s Creed in order to become members. Since at the time that this requirement was made the two organizations shared some common leadership, I suspect that the requirement has to do with the concerns of one or two individuals. I’m not sure that I understand the concerns, but I have been told that the requirement was put in place to prevent non-Christians from becoming members. I don’t think that there is much danger of people who are not Christian taking over the organizations. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists make up a very tiny portion of the citizens of our community. There are a few people who claim to be atheist or agnostic and a whole lot more people who gladly accept the title Christian but who do not participate in regular Christian worship or the ministries of local congregations. Those folk, however, are unlikely to suddenly want to become active in the leadership of these particular organizations. I’m fairly confident that the organizations would remain Christian both in name and practice whether or not the requirement of signing a particular creed was in place.
Furthermore, I am not sure what the risk would be if a person who didn’t give intellectual assent to the creed were to become active in either organization. South Dakota, like most other states, required loyalty as a fiduciary responsibility of board members of non-profit organizations. That means that those in leadership have to abide by the constitution, bylaws and mission statements of the organizations.
Still, there seems to be a fear that something bad might happen if, for example, a Jew were to become involved in the organization. I’m not sure what might happen, but I guess the leaders feel that the organization might be tempted to compromise its values or mission if it had a member whose theology varied too far from the Apostle’s Creed. I did have one conversation with one of the leaders about the fact that the requirement excluded participation of Unitarians, who would not agree to the trinitarian formulas of the Apostle’s Creed, and that leader thought that such an exclusion was probably a good idea.
I agree with the Apostle’s Creed. I like its use in worship, though I serve a congregation and a denomination that is very careful about using creeds only as testaments of faith and not as tests of faith. I say the words of the creed without hesitation. But I am uncomfortable with the use of any creed to exclude people from participation. I guess I fit in my congregation and denomination pretty well.
It seems to me that the requirement to sign the creed is focused on a kind of intellectual asset or agreement. Saying that a particular set of words expresses what one believes is not a declaration of faith, but rather giving agreement to a set of ideas. Faith is more than the ideas one holds in one’s head. It is a commitment to a relationship that goes much deeper than agreement.
To take it one step further, I treasure the fact that the congregation I serve contains people with different perspectives, different ideas, and different interpretations. I have enjoyed spirited conversation about ideas in our church where the participants have huge areas of disagreement. Still we are able to unite in the same congregation around the practice of worship and the mission and outreach in which we engage.
Let me offer one well-known organization as a contrast to the ones that require signatures of the creed. Habitat for Humanity is an organization that is clearly Christian in its founding and mission. It grew out of a deep religious experience of a Christian and it has attracted thousands of Christian volunteers. It does not, however, exclude non-Christians from participation at any level. Non Christians can donate, volunteer, serve on committees and become homeowners. Habitat for Humanity has specific non-discriminatory statements that prevent the use of belief as a filter to determine who does and who does not become a part of its programs. A few years ago our local Habitat affiliate benefitted greatly from a group of Jewish youth who traveled to our city and volunteered their time. I had the opportunity to work side-by-side with the work campers for several days. The core values of Habitat for Humanity, which are founded on Christian principles were in no way threatened by the gracious volunteer service of non-Christians.
I remain wary of the use of creeds as ways to exclude people from organizations. Discrimination in any form can lead to violence. In the case of the organizations in our community, I suspect that the requirement to sign the creeds has very little practical impact. The prominent use of the word Christian in the names of the organizations makes the beliefs of the leaders clear. I doubt if anyone who wanted to become involved has felt excluded because of an inability to sign a document. Furthermore, I suspect that most of the volunteers and members of the organizations signed the creed without giving it much thought at all. They recognized the words from their use in worship and thought, “yea, my church says that,” and signed without going through the creed word by word to make sure that they were in complete agreement. They participate in the organization for the work that the group does and the fellowship that comes from working with others.
It might be that it is no big deal at all.
Except I feel excluded from both organizations. I have joined neither, though I support the mission of both. It isn’t that I have a problem with the words of the Apostle’s Creed. It is that I have a problem with using this great historic document of our faith as a test to exclude those who might not agree. I am not attracted, in fact I am repelled, by the attempt to create an organization where everyone agrees.
I wonder if any Unitarians also feel excluded. Perhaps they just closed their eyes and signed the statement and didn’t give it another thought.
Furthermore, I am not sure what the risk would be if a person who didn’t give intellectual assent to the creed were to become active in either organization. South Dakota, like most other states, required loyalty as a fiduciary responsibility of board members of non-profit organizations. That means that those in leadership have to abide by the constitution, bylaws and mission statements of the organizations.
Still, there seems to be a fear that something bad might happen if, for example, a Jew were to become involved in the organization. I’m not sure what might happen, but I guess the leaders feel that the organization might be tempted to compromise its values or mission if it had a member whose theology varied too far from the Apostle’s Creed. I did have one conversation with one of the leaders about the fact that the requirement excluded participation of Unitarians, who would not agree to the trinitarian formulas of the Apostle’s Creed, and that leader thought that such an exclusion was probably a good idea.
I agree with the Apostle’s Creed. I like its use in worship, though I serve a congregation and a denomination that is very careful about using creeds only as testaments of faith and not as tests of faith. I say the words of the creed without hesitation. But I am uncomfortable with the use of any creed to exclude people from participation. I guess I fit in my congregation and denomination pretty well.
It seems to me that the requirement to sign the creed is focused on a kind of intellectual asset or agreement. Saying that a particular set of words expresses what one believes is not a declaration of faith, but rather giving agreement to a set of ideas. Faith is more than the ideas one holds in one’s head. It is a commitment to a relationship that goes much deeper than agreement.
To take it one step further, I treasure the fact that the congregation I serve contains people with different perspectives, different ideas, and different interpretations. I have enjoyed spirited conversation about ideas in our church where the participants have huge areas of disagreement. Still we are able to unite in the same congregation around the practice of worship and the mission and outreach in which we engage.
Let me offer one well-known organization as a contrast to the ones that require signatures of the creed. Habitat for Humanity is an organization that is clearly Christian in its founding and mission. It grew out of a deep religious experience of a Christian and it has attracted thousands of Christian volunteers. It does not, however, exclude non-Christians from participation at any level. Non Christians can donate, volunteer, serve on committees and become homeowners. Habitat for Humanity has specific non-discriminatory statements that prevent the use of belief as a filter to determine who does and who does not become a part of its programs. A few years ago our local Habitat affiliate benefitted greatly from a group of Jewish youth who traveled to our city and volunteered their time. I had the opportunity to work side-by-side with the work campers for several days. The core values of Habitat for Humanity, which are founded on Christian principles were in no way threatened by the gracious volunteer service of non-Christians.
I remain wary of the use of creeds as ways to exclude people from organizations. Discrimination in any form can lead to violence. In the case of the organizations in our community, I suspect that the requirement to sign the creeds has very little practical impact. The prominent use of the word Christian in the names of the organizations makes the beliefs of the leaders clear. I doubt if anyone who wanted to become involved has felt excluded because of an inability to sign a document. Furthermore, I suspect that most of the volunteers and members of the organizations signed the creed without giving it much thought at all. They recognized the words from their use in worship and thought, “yea, my church says that,” and signed without going through the creed word by word to make sure that they were in complete agreement. They participate in the organization for the work that the group does and the fellowship that comes from working with others.
It might be that it is no big deal at all.
Except I feel excluded from both organizations. I have joined neither, though I support the mission of both. It isn’t that I have a problem with the words of the Apostle’s Creed. It is that I have a problem with using this great historic document of our faith as a test to exclude those who might not agree. I am not attracted, in fact I am repelled, by the attempt to create an organization where everyone agrees.
I wonder if any Unitarians also feel excluded. Perhaps they just closed their eyes and signed the statement and didn’t give it another thought.