New(?) reformation

Slider-ReformationBishop Spong recently put up his 12 points of reformation for the church. I felt compelled to post my own idea of what the reformation of the church should use for its statements of belief.

I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting. Amen

This reformation would work well also!

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and 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, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of 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. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He 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.

I have a crazy idea! How about we make the first one our personal reformation and statement of faith for maybe baptism and make the second one what we state with the church universal and triumphant! What if we actually reformed into what the church has said it is for centuries. What crowds we would draw and what lives we would change.

You Might Also Like

7 Replies to “New(?) reformation”

    1. I did use the original with the exception of the filoque as a bit of an inside joke to those who I thought might read it. For the Nicene I chose the revised version form 381(?) or there about as I think it goes further in explaining the foundation of faith. As for why Spong needs something different, you would need ask him and those who listen to him, but they believe that either Christianity has changed, or that it was never right to begin with. I am not sure which.

      1. “As for why Spong needs something different, you would need ask him and those who listen to him”…

        First point, I think I read someplace that most Episcopal members consider Spong as representing his own opinions, not official church doctrine. I can look for the reference, but it is not worth the time. The important point is it is just his opinion, as an individual. You can argue whether he should have been fired for his opinions, but not argue he is a source for Episcolal doctrine.

        Second point, as to why Spong thinks they way he does…from:
        http://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/article/hero-or-heretic-spong-wont-be-forgotten

        “For his part, Spong says he does believe the creeds–he just interprets them through a post-modern lens. Citing the problem that for every person saved by a “miracle,” others are not, Spong says, “The real issue for me is that there are far more theological problems in attributing to God miraculous powers than in not attributing them.””

        So, my conclusion (simply interpreting why he says what he says, not saying I support his views);
        He is trying to harmonize the obvious conflict of good God versus uncaring God. The old “thank God my child was spared”, while the other parent says “why my child died?” Which no one has a real answer to, other than BS hand waving. I see no difference between his harmonizing, and fundamentalist’s harmonizing the obvious conflicts in the bible. As Noah might have said, “you’re doing what!?” The fact that Spong has a progressive following, is no more significant than the Pope having followers, Wesley having followers, Joseph Smith having followers, or Camping having followers (at least up to, and including 2012).

        If it makes him feel better, more power to him.

        And Scott…I don’t expect a debate. Just stating my opinion.

        1. Gary, if you don’t want your opinion challenged, then don’t state it.
          I never said that Bishop Spong was representing anything or anyone. Quite the opposite. Had I thought he was representative of his denomination, I would have said that the denomination called for a new reformation, not the Bishop.
          “For his part, Spong says he does believe the creeds–he just interprets them through a post-modern lens…” Then he does not believe the creeds. There is little doubt of what the meaning of the creeds was at the time of their writing and what there meaning is still today. Trying to say garbage like I believe them, just my interpretation of them denies the very purpose of the creeds which was the church setting the foundations of the Christian faith. When Spong, or anyone for that matter, says that their interpretation is correct, then they deny the authority and faith of the church. Lest you, or anyone, say it is just his opinion, etc. there is not room for opinion on the basic doctrines of faith. Faith is pretty much a you believe or you do not proposition.
          Spong is not reconciling or harmonizing anything, he is denying what the Christian church has said was the faith for several centuries now. That harmonizes nothing, it discards everything. He seeks to eliminate the mysteries of faith and make God something that we can fully understand. A God that we can fully understand is not greater than us but equal to us. Surely there is no greater blasphemy than to say that we are equal to God. Spong is saying nothing less than that.
          “The fact that Spong has a progressive following, is no more significant than the Pope having followers, Wesley having followers, Joseph Smith having followers” it is hugely significant because what Spong is preaching is heresy and that leads to hell. What Wesley, for example preached, leads one to be a citizen of the Kingdom. I’d say that is a pretty significant difference. I would never let someone speak ill of my bride, why would I, or anyone who claims to be Christian for that matter, let anyone speak ill of the bride of Christ?

          1. “Gary, if you don’t want your opinion challenged”…
            I don’t care if my opinion is challenged. Challenge as much as you want. I just won’t debate it…been there, done that. Unless, of course, you make an outrageous statement. Then I might debate a little. But I know you would never make an outrageous statement.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.