My "I Believe..." Paper for Systematic Theology

What I am now posting is a MONSTER of a paper that has kept me up for a few days now. It is called a credo paper, and I had to write it for my systematic theology class. The word "credo" can be translated "I believe", and that is what this paper is about. In it I used the Nicene Creed as an outline as I described what I believe about God, Creation, Humanity and all that good stuff.
So I am opening it up to all of you; to critique, to question and to ponder. I am ready to discuss this and get into some real questions of faith and belief.

By the way, this isn't EVERYTHING I believe (couldn't fit that in 20 pages), but some core beliefs. Also this is only half the paper, the other half is written next semester...

Here goes...

Credo Statement
Michael Beiber
based on The Nicene Creed
(Taken from the United Methodist Hymnal)
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic Church.We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The sections of the creed in italics are the sections that have not been covered in the following paper. Everything else has either been discussed or at least has been referenced in the discussion.




“I believe…”
The Nicene Creed, one of the most widely used confessions of the Christian faith, serves as an excellent outline for one to build a statement of their own personal beliefs upon. As it is presented in the United Methodist Hymnal, each major section begins with two words: “We believe” and both of these words in this simple phrase contain so much meaning. To proclaim personal faith using the word “we” certainly illuminates the corporate nature of Christianity, that we are the body of Christ and to be the body requires unity in belief, at least to some degree. However, I will be rephrasing the statement as “I believe”, not only for simplicity’s sake, but also to recognize the fact that the community in which we have been discussing Christian belief (our Systematic Theology classroom) is comprised of a variety of people with a variety of beliefs, and some of these beliefs differ from mine. Some even are outside of the boundaries of what the Nicene Creed states. Therefore, I will only be making “I believe” statements out of sensitivity towards others in the class.
Indeed this is a credo (translated, “I believe”) paper, and to say that I believe in something merits some explanation. What does it mean to believe in something? I believe that to truly believe in something requires an active and vibrant faith. In class, we discussed faith as fides qua creditor (the faith by which one believes; the act of believing or trust) and fides quae creditor (the faith which is belief; the content of what is believed). Honest and true belief requires both aspects of true faith, what one believes in must be the subject of belief to guide our faithful responses and also must be the object that thus receives this response.
“I believe in one God…” – how it is I believe
It is notable that I say one must respond to whatever one believes in. This idea most likely finds its origins in who it is I believe in. As the creed states I believe in “One God”, and if anything, the rest of the creed as it speaks of creation, of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Spirit and of the Church, tells about how this One God has chosen to reveal God’s self. And indeed I believe that God has given us revelation throughout human history; that God desires to know us and be known by us and has taken certain steps to make this happen. Therefore, my belief in God; my faith (qua creditor and quae creditor) is indeed a response to God’s revelation.
Christian theology in particular is a response, in the form of a network of beliefs, to the revelation of God in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This then begs the question; can God only truly be known through the special revelation of Jesus Christ? Or is there such a thing as general revelation, wherein at least something of God can be known through the witness of created order and human rationality or conscious? I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life; that no one can truly know God except through Him, and I am attracted to Karl Bath’s argument that since all things were created through the Eternal Word, that all revelation is specific to Christ.[1] In this view, there is no general or specific revelation, there is only revelation.
Human reason can take this revelation either towards the true God of the gospel or away from God towards other false gods, idols or complete unbelief. This statement hints towards some of my beliefs regarding other religions and the merits of human reason. I believe other religions are the result of humankind’s faltering contemplation upon God’s revelation. Therefore, while not being the truth; other religions contain some merit since they are based on the good and free action of God that is revelation. However, I do not believe that any of these religions are pathways to the deep knowledge that is relationship with the true God; that is, the God of Jesus Christ, nor are they means of coming into any type of saving relationship with God. This is a further manifestation of my belief in “one God”; that there is only one God and it is the God illuminated by the gospel.
If human reason can take us towards or away from this God, then what is it that successfully steers humanity towards God as we muddle through God’s revelation, when humanity has so often gone astray in their contemplation upon it? I believe in a God who speaks. The Bible gives witness to a God who communicates through word. We see this as God creates through speech, as God calls the patriarchs by speaking to them, we see God speaking through the prophets and “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:2 NIV). The Word of God is what illuminates the gospel for us. And again, it is Karl Barth who has influenced me, particularly with his doctrine of the Word of God wherein the Word is active in three forms; revealed in the person of Jesus Christ (the Eternal Word incarnate), written in the Holy Scriptures and proclaimed in the Christian community through witness, fellowship, preaching and sacrament.[2] I believe this, not simply because I like Barth, but because it resonates with my personal experience. I have come to know the true God of the gospel as I’ve come into deeper relationship with the person of Jesus Christ, and I have done this through the reading, study and meditation of the Bible, and I have done that in the community that is the Church, where the Word of God has come to me in so many varied and wonderful ways. I truly believe that reason; that thinking about what we believe in, that testing our beliefs and ideas about God, is a vitally important aspect of faith and belief. I do not believe that simple fideism is anything close to true belief. However, there is a proper object of our belief, and it is the Word that guides us to it and keeps us there. I believe this is how we should apply our reason to our faith. Indeed it is Anselm’s idea that resonates with me most; that thinking and contemplating upon what you love is truly an act of love.[3] Therefore we should seek to love God with deep, probing thought that follows the direction of God’s Word.
I believe, and I believe in one God. This belief is not founded in myself, but is a response to the revelation of God that has been guided by God’s Word and has led me to a belief in the one God of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
“I believe in One God…” – Who I believe in
There is another dimension of this belief in “one God” that is reflected in the very structure of the Nicene Creed. Regarding God, there are three major sections, each beginning with “We believe”; “We believe in one God, the father”, “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ”, “We believe in the Holy Spirit”. The triune nature of this one God in which I believe is built into this creed. I believe that God is three in one; Father, Son and Spirit. All three persons are equally God, are co-eternally God and are unified in an eternal and dynamic love relationship and therefore all three persons are active in every work of God. I believe that the oneness found in the “three-ness” of God must be attested to in the Christian witness lest we lose sight of the uniqueness of a God who is three in One.
Unfortunately, I also believe that the structure and language of the Nicene Creed deprives us of this witness to some extent. If I were to come to it without certain pre-established beliefs regarding the Trinity, then I see how I could be misled. It starts with “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty…”. The Father is one person within the Trinity, but alone is not the One God as the creed’s language and structure could lead one to believe. However, this is corrected to some degree in the next “We believe” statement that says “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” This statement makes it fairly clear that Jesus is also God, especially where he is described as having “one Being with the Father”. However, the two statements put together are still somewhat ambiguous and confusing. Jesus is described as the Son of God, begotten of the Father, God from God. While these statements are entirely true, they so often lead people into perceiving the Father as God, and Jesus as less God, there is a sense in our reading of this of the primacy of the Father, and the secondary nature of the Son.
The Nicene Creed arose out of a controversy over the Nature of Christ. That is why there is so much language dedicated to describing Jesus Christ as God. However, the Holy Spirit was not part of that debate, and the language used to describe the Spirit’s place in the trinity is even vaguer. The creed states “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified”. Naturally we can assume that if the Spirit is worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son, then the Spirit must also be God just as the Father and the Son are both God. However the creed lacks any language regarding the spirit that identifies it as part of the Godhead as it does for the Son. Furthermore, the first thing that is said regarding the Spirit in relationship to the Father and Son is that it proceeds from them. This also is completely true, but such a description contributes to the misconceived idea of the Trinity as a kind of hierarchy, with the Father on top, the Son just below and the Spirit below both.
This misconception most likely is the result of human beings attempting to understand the relationship that is the Trinity temporally, when the truth is the triune God exists in eternal relationship. As the creed states the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father…begotten, not made”. These words were put in place to correct the heresy Arius and his followers proclaimed at the time of the Nicene Council, wherein they stated that the Son was the first of all God’s (the Father’s) creations. Indeed, the Son does come from the Father, and if we were to understand this temporally, then “made” would be appropriate, but again we are describing eternal relationships. Therefore, the Son is begotten of the Father and is eternally begotten. The word filiation can be used to describe this relationship. And regarding the Holy Spirit the creed states that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. We can use the word spiration to describe this relationship wherein the Spirit is breathed forth eternally from the Father and the Son, which is reflected in scriptures such as Genesis 2:7 and John 20:22.
Depending on the scriptures for a picture of the Trinity is a tricky thing, for the Bible never uses the word Trinity and never outright describes these relationships. Nevertheless, the Bible does give witness to the triune nature of God and the Church has taken this witness, and has traditionally understood the Trinity in the Western church and the Eastern Church in two separate ways. In the Western conception of the Trinity, the Father begets the Son and both breathe forth the Holy Spirit. For the Eastern Church the Father begets the Son and breathes forth the Holy Spirit through the Son. Both pictures of the Trinity address the concerns of the communities in which these ideas arose. However I take issue with the fact that the Holy Spirit is given a very passive role in both conceptualizations, and I do not believe that matches the scriptural witness and it certainly does not correspond to my own personal experience.
What I have encountered in my faith journey naturally has brought tremendous bearing on how I think of the Trinity. What is unfortunate is that it does not seem as if most of the people sitting in church pews today encounter the challenge that is the idea of a Triune God. Thomas Weinandy in “The Father’s Spirit of Sonship” claims that there is renewed interest in the doctrine of the Trinity, and perhaps there is in academia, but honestly, I have not seen it in the rest of the Church.[4] In the churches that I have served and visited, people seem to learn a primary trinitarianism, that is they learn about the Father, Son and Spirit through the life and ritual of the Church, but they are not encouraged to go deeper into the mystery.[5] However, I had a wonderful pastor that would not let me simply accept that God was triune and stop thinking there. What was illuminated for me, and what is at the core of my belief regarding the Trinity to this day, is that God exists in relationship. We say that God is a relational God not just because of God’s relationship with humanity, but because of the relationships within God; the bonds of love that make God One.
Perhaps this is why Thomas Weinandy’s thesis appealed to me so much. Weinandy states that the Father, in or by the Holy Spirit begets the Son, who in or by the Holy Spirit loves the Father in return.[6] To me, this pattern of relationship does not seem so linear or so finite; it seems much more circular and eternal. Also, like Weinandy, who is more Pentecostal than most Catholics, I am a bit more Pentecostal than most United Methodists. Because of this, I envision the Holy Spirit as active and dynamic, as life-giving. Even the Nicene Creed affirms the Holy Spirit as “the giver of life”. Therefore I have trouble with any idea of the Trinity wherein the Holy Spirit is passive; simply being breathed and not having any direct effect on the other two persons. I still believe that there is a relationship of spiration between the Spirit and the Son and between the Spirit and the Father. But what changes in Weinandy’s thesis is that it is through the breathing forth of the Spirit by the Father that the Father begets the Son, and the Son by breathing forth and acting in the Holy Spirit loves the Father in return. I truly believe that every action of the Triune God involves every person within the Godhead. Weinandy’s thesis corresponds to my belief since every person within the trinity is involved in each interior relationship; The filiation between the Father and the Son is within or by the Spirit which they breathe forth as they continue the eternal relationship of begetting and loving. Furthermore, I truly do believe that Weinandy’s thesis better matches the witness of the Holy Scriptures.
However, at the core of my beliefs regarding the inner life of the triune God, is intimacy. This is because my primal and base belief about God; the first thought about God that ever made sense to me; the one thing that characterizes my belief and faith in my God is this: God is Love. I had always previously understood that statement as an expression of how much God loves; how loving God is. But the words stuck with me and I knew that it meant more to say that God is Love. I understood God as a person that was somehow three people too, and that these three, or this one, or both loved me, the world and each other. The intimacy that I see in Weinandy’s thesis removes for me that perception of God as a person. God is not a person, God is three persons but One God. This God is not a singular monad, this God of oneness amongst the individualities of the Father, the Son and the Spirit is Love.[7] As I diagram a picture of the inner life of the Trinity in my mind, as I plot the arrows labeled “begets” and “proceeds”, “loves” and “breathes forth” and see them twisting and turning, pointing to one another, indicating a swirling, binding, everlasting network of relationship. I see Love, and I do not see these individual relationships as love, I see, to the best of my feeble mortal mind’s ability, what Love is. And this Love I see is God, and God is Love.
“I believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty…” – What I believe about Who I believe in
Although, I have reached the section of the Nicene Creed that begins to speak of the first person within the trinity, what I want to focus on first is the word used to describe the father; almighty, and it’s implications for how we think about God. I want to address what I believe regarding the aspects of God and the ways we try to describe God and what God is like.
It takes a great deal of mental effort to contemplate the triune nature of God. Perhaps this is why a great deal of the proclamation and teaching regarding our God focuses not on the Doctrine of the Trinity, but rather is more focused on what God is like; that which describes the character of God. At least, this is what I have encountered in the Church; preaching that tells us what God is like. I have heard this expressed in personal terms, where God is described as patient, benevolent, compassionate or is described in negative terms as angry or vengeful (I never believed the latter). I have also heard these descriptions of God in terms less personal and more philosophical; God is omnipresent, impassive, omnipotent and immutable.
The terms that describe the personality traits of God, I’ve either absorbed as true or have simply ignored. As I’ve contemplated who God is I’ve listened to these descriptions and picked out the ones that resonated with my conception of a good God who seeks out humanity and seeks to be in covenant relationship with us, a God who is Love. Therefore ideas and images of God as compassionate, of God being patient, of God as Shepherd or tender healer and caretaker, of God as being forgiving, these have stuck with me, even to this day as I put these long-held assumptions under scrutiny. And why do I put these under scrutiny? Because I’ve become painfully aware that any language, any metaphor, symbol or image that we use to portray God is terribly inadequate, as we can never know God fully enough to ever be as presumptuous as to compare God to something else in this universe that he created.[8] But such words, metaphors and images are how we identify and think about things, indeed they are really our only mode of processing anything we come into contact with (the good news is, that if we are processing God in our minds that means that we have come into contact with God – or rather God has contacted us in God’s revelation). And it has always been that way, indeed even the scriptures speak of God in metaphor and colorful language. The problem I’ve discovered is that we become over sentimental about how we describe God, and we let these pliable descriptions turn into rigid definitions. We become comforted with the idea of God as our Shepherd, but we are confronted and accosted by the idea of God as the slain lamb. And this is how we so often lose sight of God.
This sentimentality also applies to those large philosophical words that try to describe more of what God is; omnipotent, omnipresent, impassive and immutable. These are words that have either enhanced my understanding of God or have confronted me with presupposed “truths” regarding God that did not fit with how I figured God was. I have approached terms like these as I’ve heard them preached and seen them in books, with my fundamental understanding of a God who is Love, who seeks out humanity in covenant relationship. As I have done this, I’ve found that the terms “omnipresent” and “omnipotent” posed no threat to that understanding. The idea of God as all-powerful, did not conjure up an image of a threatening deity wielding power over me, but rather I’ve always understood God’s power working according to who I understood God to be, therefore I understood Paul’s words “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18 NIV). The power of God can be seen on the cross because in God love and power cannot be torn apart from each other. God’s power is not like the power that humankind seeks in order to dominate or exert oneself over others. God’s power is in God’s love.
Understanding God as a God of covenant relationship also melded fine with the idea of God as omnipresent. The constant presence of God in every corner of the universe spoke volumes to me about God as a God of relationship. I don’t think I ever slipped into pantheism in my belief, because I never thought of God as being the universe, rather I have always seen Creation as Karl Barth describes it; wholly Other. Yet I have understood God as being ever present in the whole of creation. If this idea of a God who has chosen to be present in every nook and cranny of this Otherness that this God created (and continues to create) doesn’t tell a story of God who is relational, I don’t know what does. I do not believe that God is passive in God’s omnipresence, but that the presence of God in Creation is necessary for creation to exist. For the creative forces that make every breeze, that cause our every thought, that makes the planet’s turn, come from the God who creates and brings life. Therefore, the omnipresence of God is a dynamic and diverse filling of the universe with the presence of God who has chosen to thusly be in relationship with what God has made.
If I’ve made my core beliefs regarding who I believe God is clear, then it may be obvious why the terms “impassible” and “immutable” have for a long time puzzled me and confronted my idea of who God is. Neither have I found them to be accurate scripturally. The idea that God is beyond all suffering certainly conflicts with my view of the power of God in the cross of Jesus Christ, and the idea that God is unchanging conflicts with the new and creative things that God has done throughout history as attested to in the Bible. I have come to understand where these philosophical understandings of God originated from, and I sympathize with these concerns. For instance, I do not believe that God is at all affected by the passions that so often lead humanity astray, in that sense I suppose God is impassible. And because I believe in God as a covenant-maker and covenant-keeper, I understand God’s actions to be consistent with who God is and what God has promised, in this sense I suppose it could be said that God is immutable.
When describing the attributes of God, Karl Barth describes them not in such absolute terms such as these. Rather he pairs two descriptive words side by side; one descriptive of the love of God, the other of God’s perfect freedom and creates a balanced description wherein God is not made out to be in any way limited in the exercise of God’s power, nor in the way God loves the world.[9] Thus rather than saying God is impassible, Barth might say that God’s love is vulnerable yet unconquerable, meaning that God allows God’s self to be affected by the circumstances of God’s beloved creatures yet is never overcome nor overwhelmed by such joy or suffering.[10] And instead of painting a picture where God is static and unchanging, Barth might say that God is faithful to remain consistent in the way God creates and changes things.[11] God always does new and surprising things, but God does this to be changeless in God’s covenant faithfulness.
Actually, Barth extended his use of dialectical pairs to describe “the perfections of God” beyond how I have used it. However, I do not feel I need to apply this to the ways I think of God as omnipotent or omnipresent, since I have been able to understand them in the context of God as a God of covenant, a God who is love and a God who is free. And I think context is the clue to a better understanding of God’s attributes. Karl Barth’s use of word pairs to balance God’s love and God’s freedom is a method that is firmly rooted in the understanding of the triune God revealed in Jesus Christ.[12] If we are to understand anything about what God is like, this is the context wherein we need to search for that understanding; for the greatest revelation of God is the Incarnate Word, in whom we can see our God, who is Love, who is Father, Son and Spirit.
“I believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty…” – The name of Who I believe in…
As I stated above, I feel that the structure of this first line in the Nicene Creed is misleading. For while “the Father” is indeed God, and thus making “Father” a name for God, the name “the Father” does not mean the same as “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”; it does not identify all three persons in their unity. Indeed if there is any proper name in the whole of scripture that names the trinity, I believe it would most likely be the name that God gives to Moses; the tetragrammaton. This comes in response to what I feel is a common misconception; that it was God the Father active in the Old Testament and God the Son who is the primary character of the New Testament. This idea not only ignores the Trinitarian nature of God’s action in everything God does, but also greatly diminishes the work of the Spirit. Indeed, the idea of perichoresis, that in every act of God, every person of the Trinity is involved, is something I believe in. Therefore, the Covenant God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the God who gives Moses the name of God is not the Father, but is the One God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
However, Dr. Soulen’s article “Hallowed Be Thy Name; The Tetragrammaton and the Name of the Trinity” confused the matter for me. Described therein are three “inflections”[13] of the name of the Holy Trinity. However none of these inflections mean the same thing as the tetragrammton, they only point to or are grounded in it.[14] I light of this idea; I have become reluctant to say with any certainty that the tetragrammton given to Moses is equivalent to the name of the Holy Trinity.
“the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth” – The First Person of the Trinity and Creation
I believe that each person within the Trinity is defined by that person’s relationships with the other persons they are one with. Therefore, the Father is defined as the source of the Son who is begotten by the Father and also the source of the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Now when I say “source” I do not mean it in the same sense as the Father is the source of all creation. Rather to say that the Father begets the Son and breathes the Spirit is to make a statement regarding not a temporal relationship, but an eternal one. (In light of Weinandy’s thesis regarding the inner life of the Trinity, I would have to amend my statements to say that the Father is the source of the Son who is begotten by the Father through the Spirit which finds its source in the Father from who the Spirit proceeds.) My belief in a trinitarian theology where the relationship of begetting happens through the Spirit does not negate my belief in the spiration of the Spirit by the Father.
In the Nicene Creed the Father is identified as primarily being the creator of all that is created; “all that is, seen and unseen”. What we then need to do first in our thinking is to cast aside how far we can delve into ideas regarding Trinitarian theology and to simply let this proclamation tell us that God has created all that is. Even without further contemplation on the role of the first person in the trinity or any others, or how they are related in creation, this fact stands. And it has great bearing on how we think about and how we treat creation.
I believe that the God who is Love, and who is perfectly free, creates as an act of free grace. If everything finds its source in God, if all creation comes from God, then there is nothing that can motivate God to create since outside of creation there is nothing but God.[15] This means that the only thing that motivates God to do anything is whatever it is that God is.[16] And I have already made clear what I believe what God is. So it is the Love of the Triune God that prompts God’s creative work.
I believe that because God is creator, and everything else is creation, that means that there is a distinction between the two. God creates something other than God. What is even more remarkable is that God calls this other “good”. This is not to say that I reject the belief that this world has fallen under the curse of sin; that it is not part of the story of redemption. The goodness of creation is determined by more than God’s original decree of “very good” (Genesis 1:31). For in fact God’s act of creation is a continuing and dynamic thing. God continues to act as creator, and it is this continued action that makes creation good! Indeed, as I have already said, creation is an act of free grace, of love. Therefore the goodness of creation is determined by the loving action of God that is creation that is continuously and constantly at work.
The idea of perichoresis, which I ascribe to, would necessarily mean that in creation the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are at work. I do believe this. In Genesis, the spirit hovers over the waters and it is the Spirit that brings life as God breathes it into humanity. The first chapters of John tell of how everything was made through the eternal Word, which was incarnate in Jesus Christ. But if it is the Triune God at work in creation, how can we give the name “maker…of all that is” to only the Father as we do in the Nicene Creed? I believe that every act of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit mentioned in the creed is indeed a Trinitarian act, a performance of God’s perichoresis. However, in certain actions there is a primary actor. In creation, the Father is the primary actor, for the Father creates through the eternal Word and gives life by breathing forth the Spirit. This is how we can bestow the Father with the title of “maker...of all that is”.
“I believe in…Jesus Christ” – what I have already said of Jesus Christ, restated and summarized.
Because I have already written so much regarding the Trinity, and because of my belief in perichoresis, I have already said much regarding my belief in Jesus Christ that parallels the Nicene Creeds statement’s regarding his divinity. The creed says that Jesus is “the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father... begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.” I believe Jesus is the incarnate Word of God. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God because of his relationship to the Father within the Godhead. This relationship is an eternal relationship of filiation where the Father begets the Son through the Holy Spirit.[17] This means that the Son is co-eternal with God as God; the Son is not a creature, but is God. And as the creed (and the Bible) says, “through him all things were made”.
“For us and for our salvation…” – the Work of Jesus Christ in the history of Salvation
The Nicene Creed continues to tell the story of the mighty acts of God in Jesus Christ; the things that were done “for us and for our salvation”. It recalls the events wherein the Word became flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (indeed a reflection of the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father through the Spirit)[18] and lived as a human being, was crucified, experienced death and was resurrected and glorified. The creed continues to give a promise of Jesus’ return in glory as judge of the world so that he may usher in God’s Kingdom in its fullness. I believe in all of these things, and to say this merits a more detailed explanation.
The Word becoming flesh means that the second person of the Trinity, the Son, became completely and utterly human. However, at the same time he was completely and utterly God. Because of the unity of the triune God, one person is not “one-third” God, but is wholly God. Therefore the wholeness of God dwelt in the person of Jesus Christ, but God was not exhausted in the incarnation. Incarnate, the Son dwelt in the Godhead in the same unity with the Father and with the Spirit as he has eternally.
Repeatedly the scriptures offer images of God tearing open the heavens and descending to earth; into human circumstances for the sake of humankind; for our salvation (i.e. Isaiah 64:1-2). I believe that the incarnation of the Word is the most concrete and most beautiful expression of God doing just that. For in the incarnation, God entered into human circumstances to the greatest degree possible, by becoming human. This is why Jesus Christ is the greatest revelation of God to us, because in him, God became one of us.
The Nicene Creed takes a shortcut through Jesus’ life straight to his suffering under Pontius Pilate. However, it is my belief that in the life of Jesus; in his teaching, his miracles and his actions, we see the revelation of the God. The life of Jesus wherein Jesus acts in “self-communicating, other-affirming [and] communion-forming”[19] ways reflects the inner life of the Triune God who is Love. But truly, if we wish to have who God is revealed to us, then we need to look to the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. At the cross we see how God at once reveals and hides God’s self, for in the meekness and vulnerability of our crucified Lord, we see the power of God.
I believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world. I experience this most personally by saying “Christ died for my sins” but truly Christ died for the sin of the world for it is the whole world, indeed all of creation that is in need of redemption.[20] I believe sin is identified primarily by what it does; it takes creation out of communion with God, which is the purpose for which creation was created! It is this communion with God that provides life. So where communion is broken, there is death. This is why in the history of humankind’s covenant relationship with God there is the requirement of a sacrifice, a death, in order for sinful humanity to be in communion with God. Christ on the cross is God offering God’s self as a sacrifice to restore the world to communion with God, for it would take the sacrifice of the fullness of God to bring creation back into the fullness of communion with God. I do not believe that the Godhead was exhausted in the death of Jesus Christ, but rather that because the fullness of God dwelt in him the fullness of God was sacrificed on the cross for humanity. I do not believe that the Father and the Spirit suffered physically with Jesus, for neither was incarnate in him. However, because of the bonds of love that unify the Triune God, the Father and the Spirit suffered at the death of Christ, I believe more than we can possibly know.
This is how the power of God dealt with sin, not through wielding power like an unruly teenager, but through submission; through love. Karl Barth, in his use of dialectical pairs to describe the attributes of God, paired power with love, and this is based in the revelation of God; the revelation of God’s power and the revelation of the truth that God is Love, that we see in the cross of Christ.[21]
What’s Missing from the Nicene Creed’s Account of the History of Salvation It disturbs me to see the lack of Old Testament reference within the Nicene Creed. It is obviously a creed that evolved over Christological debates, for indeed it is the second major portion of the creed that is dedicated to the second person of the Trinity that is most detailed and the longest. And it is within this section that we find the most material dealing with the history of salvation. Indeed the line “For us and for our salvation” really reinforces the misguided idea that the salvation story really only entails the work of God in Christ. I do not believe this to be true at all.
Sadly, the “standard canonical narrative”[22] that I have come into contact as I’ve interacted with many a church-goer has been the one that starts at creation, moves to the fall of humankind in the Garden of Eden and is resolved in the death and resurrection of Christ. Others see the Christ event as more of a climax and the full establishment of God’s just Kingdom in the future as the resolution. Regardless, there is something missing in these narratives. I think I’ve made myself clear regarding the fact that I believe that God is a covenant-making (and covenant-keeping) God. The covenant relationships God has made with humanity belong somewhere in the story of sin and redemption. I believe that God’s covenant relationship with the people of Israel; the covenants made with the Old Testament patriarchs, with Moses and with David, belong within the salvation story that the Christian community proclaims.

If I have not made it clear yet, I believe that God is Love.
This is the foundation upon which I have evaluated my beliefs regarding the Trinity, the attributes of God, the actions of God in human history and who and what I believe Jesus Christ to be. Perhaps this is simple of me and perhaps I am simply afraid to think of God as being anything but love. I must admit that as I seek understanding of my faith I am constantly guided by this belief, and I seek to justify it. When it comes down to it, my belief in my God who is Love has not come to me through evaluation of empirical evidence or through rationing that is quite frankly, beyond me at times. My belief simply dwells in my heart because knowing God as Love resonates to the deepest parts of my soul. I belief and have faith in the God who is Love because this faith is a gift from that God, and that faith that comes from nowhere but God, is what drives my beliefs.







Works Cited

Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: And introduction to Christian Theology. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

Soulen, R. Kendall. Class Lecture. Systematic Theology I. Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C. 08 September 2008.

Soulen, R. Kendall. Class Lecture. Systematic Theology I. Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C. 29 September 2008.

Soulen, R. Kendall. Class Lecture. Systematic Theology I. Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C. 13 October 2008.

Soulen, R. Kendall. “Hallowed Be Thy Name! the Tetragrammaton and the Name of the Trinity.” Jews and Christians: People of God. Eds. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. pp.14-40.

Soulen, R. Kendall. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Weinandy, Thomas G. The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Recovering the Trinity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

Williams, Rowan. Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.
[1] Soulen, from class lecture on 9.8.08
[2] Migliore p.40
[3] Soulen, from class lecture on 9.8.08
[4] Weinandy p.1
[5] Soulen, from class lecture on 9.29.08
[6] Weinandy p.17
[7] Soulen, from class lecture on 10.13.08
[8] Williams p.9
[9] Migliore p.85
[10] Migliore p.85
[11] Migliore p.85
[12] Migliore p.84
[13] Soulen p.18 from Hallowed Be Thy Name
[14] Soulen, p.40 from Hallowed Be Thy Name
[15] Williams p.11
[16] Williams p.11
[17] Weinandy p.17
[18] Weinandy p.40
[19] Migliore p.101
[20] Migliore p.98
[21] Migliore p.86
[22] Soulen p.12 from the God of Israel and Christian Theology

My Utmost For His Highest...

My favorite, and probably one of the greatest devotional books ever written is Oswald Chamber's "My Utmost For His Highest". You can get a copy for pretty cheap. But you can also get it free on this website. Here is Sunday's devotion, which I found to pretty awesome and applicable to what our church is doing and going through.

click on the below link, then tell me what you think.

http://www.rbc.org/devotionals/my-utmost-for-his-highest/11/30/devotion.aspx?year=2008

Mustard Seeds

Last week. Cherish (yeah, that's my wife. Awesome, right?) spoke about the mustard seed.

The scripture this comes from is Matthew 13:31-32
" 31He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

and also Matthew 17:20
"I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

I personally LOVE that second scripture, because I gotta tell 'ya. Most of the time I feel like my faith is just so

small.

but that's okay! Becuase it's not about me! It's all about God and God is

BIGGER THAN ANY SIZE FONT CAN EXPRESS!

I think church people need to return to their mustard-seed-sized faith. I think we need to admit when our faith is little and as a community we can do amazing things with our mustard seeds.

However, I think churches mess up sometimes. Sometimes we get too locked up in the rituals and the "we've always done it this way" attitude. We get stuck in a rut and trivialize our faith and turn it into something else. And instead of becoming a beautiful tree our mustard seeds turn into http://www.britishfooddirect.com/images/24-65-f-american397.jpg

or if you go to a larger, possibly wealthier or fancier church... http://ninecooks.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/greypoupon.jpg


How should we see our Mustard seed faith?

First thing. We need to know just where our little mustard seeds stand.
http://stephennewell.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/mustard_seed-749409.jpg

That's right. In God's hands. God is the designer, maker and giver of our faith. The power to move mountains isn't ours; it's Gods.
Our faith isn't a tool, it isn't a means to get what we want out of church, worship or whatever. Our faith is that which allows us to enter into blessed relationship with God, and isn't that what's most important?

So let's cut the mustard (chuckle) and get to doing the bare bones work of following Christ. And maybe just one day, we'll look back and be amazed at what God has done.
http://transatlantica.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/mustard-tree_mist.jpg

remember what Paul told his Corinthian friends (1 Corinthians 3:6 - "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow)

sweet.

For those of us praying for the global economy....by Max Lucado

You Have Our Attention, Lord
A prayer by Max Lucado - October 2008

Our friends lost their house
The co-worker lost her job
The couple next door lost their retirement
It seems that everyone is losing their footing
This scares us. This bailout with billions.
These rumblings of depression.
These headlines: ominous, thunderous -
“Going Broke!” “Going Down!” “Going Under!”
“What's Next?”
What is next?
We’re listening. And we’re admitting:
You were right.
You told us this would happen.
You shot straight about loving stuff and worshipping money.
Greed will break your heart, You warned.
Money will love you and leave you.
Don’t put your hope in riches that are so uncertain.
You were right. Money is a fickle lover and we just got dumped.
We were wrong to spend what we didn’t have.
Wrong to neglect prayer and ignore the poor.
Wrong to think we ever earned a dime.
We didn’t.
You gave it.
And now, tell us Father, are You taking it?
We’re listening. And we’re praying.
Could you make something good out of this mess?
Of course You can. You always have.
You led slaves out of slavery,
Built temples out of ruins,
Turned stormy waves into a glassy pond and water into sweet wine.
This disorder awaits your order.
So do we.
Through Christ, Amen

I'm trying to figure out how to post a pdf file - but it keeps coming up funky, so i'll just give you the link.
http://www.plough.com/ebooks/pdfs/Provocations.pdf

Go to chapter 26 "Neighbor Love" - it's on page 122 (by the adobe reader's count)

This is a chapter from a book by the tile “Provocations”, a collection of spiritual writings by the Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. It talks about the command of Jesus to “Love your neighbor” – and we’ll be talking about that this coming Sunday!

I Hope you enjoy it….

Peace and Love in Jesus' Name!

Psalm from "the Future of Our Church" on Sun. 10/12

Hey everybody!

Here is the "mad-lib" psalm that the youth made during the "Future of Our Church" segment of last Sunday's worship service. The parts in the [brackets] are the youth's contributions to the psalm.

Enjoy!

Psalm 3.14159265358979323846…

a psalm of mad libs

O Lord,
You are [good].
and you are [BIG].
and you always [care for us].

When [my Dad dropped me on the head],
You were there.
When [I fell asleep in my oatmeal],
You were there.
When [I learned new stuff at school],
You were there.

[Thank you, God]!
Hallelujah!

Blogs for Faith UMC?!?!?!?

I know what you may be thinking; this Church doesn't even have the internet yet and a good number (if not most) of our members do not use computers. So what business do we have blogging?

Well here's an idea that I had - those of you who ARE reading this and answering my posts - how about you take these questions that I'm asking you and bring them to the rest of the congregation?

You might be surprised at the great stories you'll hear!

Go ahead and give it a try! Present these questions to some folks who you know can't get to this blog page. Send their replies to me and I'll post them.

This could be a great way to get to know more about your fellow Church members and to deepen your relationships with them!

What's Important to You at Faith UMC?

Some questions for the people of Faith UMC (and anyone else for that matter...)

1) What are the top two reasons you come to this church?

2) Which of Faith UMC's ministries do you think is most important and why?

3) What would you most like to see done within the next 3 months at Faith UMC? 6 months? Year? and Why?