I had the opportunity for the past two weeks of appearing on Pastor Jason Wallace's television program "The Ancient Paths." Pastor Wallace is really an enjoyable host and interviewer. We're able to discuss our differences and disagreements agreeably and without discourtesy. He's probably as perplexed that I'm a Mormon as I am that he's a Calvinist. He invited me two weeks ago to come on his program and discuss the Nicene Creed.
Since it had been quite a few years since I had read that specific creed I re-read it. Mormons have an almost automatic aversion to most of the creeds (even though we have our own 13 Articles of Faith that probably qualify as creedal statements) and I was surprised at how little disagreement I personally have with the creed of Nicaea. As we discussed the words and thoughts expressed in it, I noted that they aren't problematic for Mormons. What is problematic is that they prescribe belief as a condition of fellowship. Mormons perceive behavior rather than belief as the litmus test of fellowship. I'll write more about that later; I just remembered I'm late for choir practice.
6 Comments:
What's up with all you Americans? In Europe hardly anyone still believes in all the old 'Gods and Devils' Mumbo. Why is it that over on your side of the Atlantic you're all so gullible?
Thanks for your comment, anon, but the popularity of a particular idea rarely indicates whether or not it is a correct idea. The fact that many people opt not to believe in God in Europe is as irrelevant as the fact that many people believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. Of all the reasons to adopt a particular mindset, the weakest one is because "everyone else is doing it."
I enjoyed reading several of your posts. God bless, Lloyd
Alma,
I am looking forward to watching your most recent discussions on Ancient Paths soon. As of May 10, 2010 they have not appeared online yet that i can tell. I enjoy watching pastor Wallace at his website when he engages LDS issues.
The creeds are an interesting phenomenon. But i shutter to compare them to closely to our articles of faith. As i understand it the reason why God referred to the creeds as an "abomination" had less to do with any specific doctrine found in them but more for the fact that the net result of creeds was to change God from our literal Father into an abstract philosophical construct. In other words from Gods point of view it was personal- and a personal affront.
As a former evangelical Christian and now LDS Christian this distinction was huge in my conversion experience in very personal ways. To say the Articles of Faith are similar to the creeds seems awkward and misaligned when the issue is seen from the perspective that God himself sees it.
I realize that such personal and relational issues are often set to the side in more apologetic or academic settings- but i still cant help but see this distinction as hugely significant. I am fond of the saying in the Church- "we don't have a doctrine we have a relationship".
I would be curious to hear any follow up thoughts on this if you have any.
Alma,
Please disregard my previous comment.
After now having watched the episode in question of Ancient Paths for myself i better grasp what you are saying in your post here.
I hope pastor Wallace continues to engage you. I love watching them!
Hmmm. I've tried a couple of times to leave a comment but they aren't showing up. I'm sorry I've neglected this blog for so long. I finally got back to it tonight. Thanks for your continued interest and kind words.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home