The Apostles’ Creed: A Critical Loyalty

September 20, 2007

In a previous post, I offered an interpretative approach to the Credo: critical loyalty. In that post, the critical aspect was defined as dogmatics: the exploration of whether or not the Church is comprehending and expounding the Word revealed by God. Given that the Credo is often said in unison by the Church, in the context of Christian worship, it is important to wonder whether or not the Credo is a statement that is true to the Word revealed by God.

In the second post regarding the interpretation of the Credo, I offered a way of thinking about the Bible. The question: why is the Bible the privileged standard by which the truth of the Church’s proclamation is measured? It was answered: The Bible is a collection of texts through which God continues to speak…in a particular way, about a particular subject, namely, God’s self.

Each of these posts presupposes loyalty to God. The Gospel cannot be apprehended by human reason alone; knowledge of the Gospel is possible only on the basis of God’s prior act of reconciliation. Knowledge of the Gospel requires that God close the distance between God and humanity, that is, that God enable human being to acknowledge and know God. Where this revelation occurs, loyalty to God is necessitated and made possible. It is logically consistent, then, to argue that one must know God prior to being able to ask: is the Church being faithful to the Word revealed by God? In addition, one must know God prior to one being able to recognizing the Gospel in the biblical texts. The sixth point offered (here) in relation to the Bible is the main point: knowledge of God requires an encounter with Jesus–who opens to understanding the sacred writings, the good news proclaimed by God.

But what is meant by loyalty to God in relation to the Creed? The work of Theodore Jennings (I have, on occasion, mentioned his work: here and here), Loyalty to God: the Apostles’ Creed in Life and Liturgy, is helpful at this point.¹

~ ~ ~

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

~ ~ ~

0.3: Critical Loyalty:

Jennings contextualizes the Credo: the Apostles’ Creed is most often said in Christian worship.² “I believe that if we begin with the Creed in worship and pay attention both to the liturgical action and to the questions that arise in the midst of this action, we may gain important insight into the nature of this confession and affirmation.”³

Jennings observes that the Creed does not begin with “we believe” but with “I believe.” In this way, the Credo bears a certain resemblance to other speech acts. Jennings notes as examples the Pledge of Allegiance and the wedding vow.⁴

Read More?

The Pledge is a vow of loyalty. When the Pledge is said, the speaker is testifying: “I will be loyal to the flag and, therefore, to the nation for which it stands.” Jennings notes that “further words of the pledge serve to specify what nation is meant: one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. It is to this nation, and not to some other, that we pledge our loyalty.”⁵ The Pledge, like the Credo, begins with “I” because the commitment being made cannot be made on behalf of someone else…the commitment must be “a personal act of will.”

Married people understand the wedding vow as a pledge of loyalty. Jennings observes that a group is not saying the marriage vow in unison, but the situation is similar to that of the Pledge. Marriage requires that “I” will be faithful to this particular one. The person saying, “I do” is making a vow of loyalty, a vow, that is, to forsake all others vying for the particular love s/he has for the other to whom she is pledging to be loyal.

In light of the above examples, the Credo as a vow of loyalty is more clearly seen. However, there is a third, and explicitly Christian, context in which one makes a vow of loyalty.

Jennings notes that it is widely accepted that the Creed “is a reflection of the early baptismal practice of the early Christian community.”⁶ “Credo,” the opening Latin word of the Creed, was the response given to certain questions by those to be baptized: “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty…?” Response: “Credo.” “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord?” Response: “Credo.” Jennings, citing the work of W. C. Smith, notes credo comes from “the roots cor (heart) and dare (to give or render). This etymological evidence suggests that the Creed is a giving of the heart [...] to another.”⁷

But what is helpful about suggesting the Creed is a vow of loyalty to God? Several points are raised in this connection:

1. The interpretation of the Credo (and Scripture) begins where the Creed begins: with belief in God. The Credo does or does not make sense given God’s prior act of reconciliation/revelation.⁸

2. Connected to the point above, the one grasped by God is free in relation to the Creed (and the Bible) and any previous or current interpretations of the Credo. One is free to assess various interpretations and is free to ask: is there a positive relationship to what is being said by and regarding the Credo and the Word revealed by God?

3. What is at stake regarding the Creed is not assent to or belief in certain propositional content. If it is thought that the Credo stands in positive relationship to the Word revealed by God, what is being done when the Credo is spoken is the re-giving of one’s heart to the One, the Wholly Other, to whom the Creed is attempting to bear witness. Jennings notes the Creed was not written for several centuries because it served as a type of password. There was a time when it was dangerous and subversive to be a Christian. There was a time when Christians refused to give there loyalty to a President or political party or church or theology Caesar. When one spoke “credo” at baptism, one was saying, “No!” to all other claims to her/his loyalty/heart.⁹

With these three posts in mind (0.1; 0.2; 0.3), it is possible to approach the Credo with some confidence. Of course, many more posts regarding how to interpret the Creed may be constructed; however, it is my contention that one’s hermeneutic stands or falls in the act of interpretation.

Footnotes:

1. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992.↩
2. He does, however, note that the creed is (becoming) an endangered species/element in Christian worship.↩
3. Loyalty to God, 12; and note how we are placed squarely in the context of the Church.↩
4. ibid. , 13-15.↩
5. ibid. , 13, 14.↩
6. ibid. , 15.↩
7. ibid. , 16, citing Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s Faith and the Creed (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 76. ↩
8. I am beginning to see these terms as related…given what I am learning from Trevor Hart’s exposition of Karl Barth’s understanding of revelation. See Hart’s “Revelation” in the Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 37-56.↩
9. Loyalty to God , 16-18.↩

Posted by Tony Posted in Books, Posts by Tony, Queer / Theology, The Church