What most people miss is that two of the three methods assume that the person is already a Christian and does not need a full initiation into the Body of Christ, even if they have never been a member of the Catholic/Orthodox Church.

I would argue that this shows an interesting balance between insisting on the Truth of the creedal formulations while recognizing that God looks for trust and is willing to work with people while they “learn their theology.” In that canon the Church clearly reemphasizes that Truth is Truth and that it is God’s Truth. But, it also clearly demonstrates that “God so loved the world . . .”

I think that we, too often, separate Truth and, “. . . so loved the world . . .” Then we come up with either a “love” that tolerates non-Truth in inappropriate ways or a Truth that has difficulty with a God who “. . . so loved the world.” The trick is to find a balance that insists on Truth, even to the point of excommunication when necessary alongside a recognition of God’s grace. We need to stop separating the two.

Stan -

I wonder if there mightn’t be a confusion of the map for the territory? By expressing trust in God (using such things as the Nicene Creed) we’re using valuable and historic maps. But the trust expressed is in God - not the in Creed, yes? When churches make changes in the creed (as with the Roman Church did with the Filioque) or refuse to make changes (as the Oriental Orthodox did) or use different words (as the New Zealand prayer book does) are we expressing different trust? or different gods? or different understandings/experiences?

My former parish did not use the Creed in their liturgy, yet I can assure no one’s trust there was without content. But their experience of trust-in-communion is where we find the importance, and the source from where Eucharistic actions flow.

These concerns are much on my mind because of this weekend’s workshop (Music that Makes Community)and from continuing reflection on the community in and through music piece I had on Episcopal Cafe this week:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/music/communication_begins_in_song.php

I’m grateful for this conversation and the quality of listening we offer one another here. Thanks, Huw, for calling us to it.

I don’t think we need to abjure statements of fact or dogmatic articulations. But I do think it’s useful to take the long perspective from which we can see Chalcedonians acknowledging centuries after the fact that the anathemas of Nestorian Christians and Monophysites may have stumbled over words and missed the common faith. How do we talk to one another, take the power of words seriously (and accept it gratefully), but not put precision of words over relationship to one another and continuing discovery of God present among us?

Just back from a month in Malawi, one thing that struck me powerfully this visit is that shaking literally everyone’s hand that happens whenever someone comes into a group (even a meeting that’s underway)isn’t accompanied by much speech. in fact introducing people by name often happens later on, somewhat as needed. But the hand to hand greeting feels necessary to people for the group’s life and work to continue. That’s a rigorous group standard which is about affect and trust (and ritual for that matter). My opinions (and my name even) will belong in the group, but first, we need to know the group.

I agree with you that the Enlightenment made the individual something it hadn’t been before. What began as a possibly inspired assertion of God’s radical and absolute love for each one becomes an idolatry of the separate individual. The conversation about individual rights that sprouted new human hope has grown like a wildly invasive weed. ‘Rights’ now stands as an absolute and it’s extremely difficult to have serious conversation about a common good. This isn’t good for theology.

And, in our critique of this, I think it’s essential we also catch on continuing Enlightenment assumptions that thinking (opinions, arguments, ’statements of fact’) are the substance of faith.

I think that instead it’s trust, it’s trust in God and the community, and relationship.

If anything, that question points more towards a debate that arose at the Enlightenment. The common Western answer has been some type of individualism. One need only look at the results of “scholarship” differences between “European” scholars and “non-European” scholars to see how this has affected discourse.

I would summarize it by saying that the more “individualistic” the culture it, the more your “scholars” will have difficulty with community imposed standards. The more your culture tends towards “group”, the more your “scholars” are willing to accept an authoritative community that can legislate limits.

And, no, I do not have a good way to resolve those interpretative questions. One can look at both Scripture and Holy Tradition and see both “individualism” and “communitarianism.” I will say that I think way too many in the West have rejected any meaningful role for an “authoritative community.”

The difference, then, is that the bimillenial tradition of Catholicism on this matter believes this ‘midrash’ to be revealed and interpreted by the Holy Spirit not for the purpose of ‘protecting Jesus from sinners’ but rather for protecting sinners from themselves and leading them to the love of Christ.

You, Margaret L and I were siting in the office at the table. I asked you: “When I hold up the bread and say, ‘Lizzie, the Body of Christ”, am I saying something about the bread, something about Lizzie, or something else?” And you said, “Yes.”

I’ve been wrestling with that forever in a wonderful way: it’s a seed from which all kinds of things have grown.