So What If President Trump Didn’t Recite the Apostles’ Creed?

By Michael Brown Published on December 6, 2018

Evangelical leaders who voted for Donald Trump have been subjected to a fresh wave of mockery after he (and first lady Melania) failed to recite the Apostles’ Creed at the funeral for President George H. W. Bush. As the Huffington Post headline declared, “Every President Recited The Apostles’ Creed Except Trump, And People Definitely Noticed.”

Songwriter and recording artist Richard Marx tweeted, “Hey @Franklin_Graham here’s your ‘evangelical president’ NOT reciting the Apostles’ Creed at the funeral of your father’s friend. Maybe he thinks it’s the name of the next movie with Stallone and Michael B. Jordan.”

Or, as stated in the concise tweet of CNN commentator Keith Boykin, “This is your ‘Christian’ evangelical president.”

Not Surprised

But this neither concerns me nor surprises me, since I didn’t vote for Donald Trump because I thought he was an evangelical Christian. I voted for him because I thought (or, at least hoped) that he would be a friend of evangelical Christians. I voted for him because I thought (or, at least hoped) that he would be sympathetic to the things that were important to us.

In that regard, I have not been disappointed. To the contrary, I have been happily surprised.

During the presidential campaign, did I take Trump’s references to the Scriptures seriously? No.

Was it meaningful to me when he held up his family Bible at his rallies? Absolutely not.

Did it surprise me when he really couldn’t quote a single, favorite verse? Not in the least.

And that’s why it didn’t surprise me when he remained silent during the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed.

As to why he was silent, God knows.

Perhaps he didn’t want to put on a religious show.

Perhaps he was committed to being totally quiet and out of the way during the Bush funeral.

Perhaps he was unfamiliar with the words.

Perhaps he’s not a true Christian and so had no interest in making the statement of faith.

No Material Concern

To repeat: God knows why he didn’t recite the creed.

But, to repeat: His silence is of no material concern to me, since I would rather have a president who kept his promises to evangelicals and didn’t worship publicly than a public worshiper who broke his promises to us.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Would it be even better to have a fervent, committed, steady, mature, evangelical Christian who was as strong and determined as President Trump?

Absolutely, and we continue to pray for God to work in his life.

But, not only is Donald Trump not our Savior (as I’ve said endlessly for months). He is neither our model Christian leader nor our model Christian example.

No Reason For a Religious Show

At best, he is a work in progress (as all of us are, to one extent or another). And, that being the case, I see no reason why he should put on an outward religious show.

Again, it is certainly proper protocol to participate outwardly in the religious rites at a funeral service. And, to my knowledge, there’s nothing in the Apostles’ Creed with which Trump would disagree.

But what if his silence had nothing to do with his faith or the lack thereof? What if, again, it had to do with him being quiet for other reasons? After all, his very presence at the funeral was a delicate matter.

Or, to come at this from a different angle, what if, instead of being silent, he had sung the hymns with gusto and recited the Creed with full-throated enthusiasm? Would not the same critics now mock him for his religious display? “Just look at that hypocrite! Who does he think he’s fooling?”

Either way, he’d receive his fair share of criticism, as would those who voted for him.

God is Using Him For Good

But even if it was the worst case scenario, namely, that he was silent because he is not a true believer in Jesus, that would only confirm the “Cyrus” prophecies about him. (Namely, that God raised him up for His own good purposes, despite the fact that Trump himself did not know God, just as he raised up Cyrus, who was an idol-worshiping pagan king. See Isaiah 45:1-4, and note carefully the last words of verse 4.)

To be clear, I have said for more than three years that we make a mistake when, as evangelicals, we present the president as “Saint Donald” or when we whitewash his worst words. We can support him and pray for him without being puppets and lackeys. We can stand with him while expressing our disagreement and differences.

But as long as he continues to nominate pro-life justices and push back against LGBT extremism and fight for our religious liberties and combat radical Islam and stand with Israel (among other things), he has my ongoing support.

And that holds true whether he himself is a genuine Christian or not.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Just One Voice

    Call me dumb, but why exactly did they recite the Apostles’ Creed? Just something they wanted done as part of the funeral service?

    They’re mocking Trump, well they’re also making a mockery of themselves. The Obama’s and Clinton’s that is. How can people not see that they just do whatever crowd-pleasing act is necessary?

    So sick and tired of the political circus, right or left, Republican or Democrat.

    • kenneth20754

      Not a dumb question. It was an Episcopalian service; congregational recitation of the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer are a standard part of Episcopalian/Anglican liturgies.

      • Kathy

        As in the Lutheran faith I was raised in. Had to memorize them in my Confirmation class… I was more familiar with the creeds than actual Scripture at the time. Sad….

        • kenneth20754

          While no substitute for the Scriptures, the ecumenical creeds are good ancillary things and help connect us to our ancestors in the faith.

          • GregoryR

            The Nicene Creed in its original form predates the scripture canon. Or didn’t you know that?

          • kenneth20754

            I wouldn’t know that because it’s counterfactual. Canonicity is a characteristic of divinely-inspired books, one that is recognized or acknowledged by a church body under the supervision of the Holy Spirit but not conferred by that recognition. Declaring a book to be canonical does not make it inspired. God himself has already done that. The inspired books of the OT and NT were all written by the end of the first century; the Nicene Creed in its original form dates to AD 325. Ergo, the canon of Scripture predates the Creed by at least two centuries.

          • GregoryR

            Here’s the problem. There were other books such as the didache and Shepherd of Hermas that were widely in use in Christianity. These books weren’t heretical and date to the apostolic era.
            The church didn’t make them part of the canon.
            Regardless the creed is slightly older than the scripture canon and thus venerable.
            If trump is a Christian as so many “evangelicals” claim what is in the Apostles Creed that he or you could reject to that you’d not recite it?

          • kenneth20754

            In wide use and dating to the apostolic era are insufficient for characterization as inspired and therefore canonical. The church was right not to include them in the canon of Scripture; in this matter she judged correctly by the Spirit, discerning that which was inspired from that which was not.

            Again, the canon predates the creed; the creed is not “slightly older.” The creed is a good but secondary authority. It is not inspired, although based on teaching found in inspired books.The creed submits to the superior authority of Scripture, and not the other way around.

            As an evangelical Presbyterian, I gladly recite the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds in public worship; the former I can recite from memory, and I have several of the added phrases of the latter memorized as well. I venture no opinion as to Mr. Trump’s motives for apparently not reciting the creed out with his mouth.

          • GregoryR

            No the scripture canon doesnt and no the creed doesn’t bow to scripture as being superior or a sole source of anything and neither does scripture itself.
            Both are subject to the church, Tradition and to the interpretation and/or approval of the church and no amount of sola scriptura arguments will change that.
            Trump easily could have recited the creed like every other president sitting with him, all of whom are from differing sects or denominations (one of whom “evangelicals” maliciously and falsely accused of being a Muslim) but he simply wouldn’t.
            Given that he’s rarely in his life been seen in a parish and given his way of life it’s safe to argue he didn’t recite it because he doesn’t believe it.

          • kenneth20754

            So here we are at the formal cause of the Reformation: the matter of authority. The holy Scriptures are the sole infallible authority for matters of Christian faith and practice. They constitute the norma normans non normata. All secondary authorities–creeds, confessions, traditions of men, councils, pastors, and teachers–are subject to the supervening authority of Scripture. All have proven themselves capable of error. The Scriptures alone retain infallibility in all they affirm and regulate. No amount of papal arrogation will change that.

          • GregoryR

            Scripture at no point claims itself to be the sole authority in anything. The canon of scripture does not exist without or outside the Church. That is a historical fact.
            Christianity is not a religion founded on a book like Islam. The Christian faith existed for almost four centuries without a biblical canon and said canon has varied in acceptance in Christendom until well after the renaissance.
            Further, Protestant ripped the bible apart in order to purge it of books that didn’t conform to its new teachings, teachings not found prior to Luther and more accurately Calvin.
            Sola scriptura has no apostolic, scripture or patristic basis for that matter being essentially an attempt to rationalise bibliolatry.

          • kenneth20754

            Stock Romanist responses, here and in the succeeding two posts. Distortion of church history to prop up a beggared theology of authority. Typical warrantless accusations of “bibliolatry,” as if such practice ever existed within confessional Protestant churches. An apparent inability to distinguish between a compilation of recognized books and the inherent character of those books that prompted their affirmation. All these objections weighed in the balance and found wanting. But I don’t–can’t–expect you to accept this. I just point these things out for the benefit of onlookers.

            Tell me, GregoryR. How do you know infallibly that Rome possesses the authority she claims? And then how do you infallibly interpret the interpretations of your “infallible” interpreter?

          • GregoryR

            It’s quite funny you claim those are “Romanist” responses when they’re exactly what an Eastern Orthodox, Coptic or Ethiopian Christian would say in response along with a Roman Catholic.
            It’s as if all the groups tied to historical Christianity speak with the same voice on these matters. Wonder why that could be?
            Oh yes. It’s because sola scriptura is an innovation never employed or believed in antiquity being the product of the reformation as a way to try and skirt the historic teaching authority of the church and it’s bishops.
            Funny that.

          • kenneth20754

            Naturally enough–those groups all use “Scripture-plus-something-else” as their authority, or sometimes they just shove aside the pretense that they pay heed to Scripture and practice sola ecclesia (or sola magisteria). You could have tossed the Mormons, JWs, and Christian Scientists into the mix. But as for the “same voice” claim–I think your history book has pages torn out. These groups may all disagree with sola Scriptura (although few among them really understand what that is meant to affirm); they also disagree radically between and within themselves. So much for the superiority of such systems.

            FYI, there is a solid patristic testimony to the supreme authority of Scripture in adjudicating matters of faith and practice for Christians. Start with Basil, Cyril, Athanasius, and Augustine.

            Your two-days-ago post, the one that mentions Luther and Calvin, contains an error commonly committed by critics of sola Scriptura: “Scripture at no point claims itself to be the sole authority in anything.” But sola Scriptura doesn’t assert the Scriptures to be the sole authority, as if there are no other valid authorities. Instead, Scripture is the *sole infallible* authority by which all other, secondary authorities are ruled. So long as those secondary authority comport with Scripture and are guided by it, they are valid for the church.

            Here’s a quick summary of what sola Scriptura affirms:

            1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.

            2. No other revelation is needed for the church.

            3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.

            4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.

            5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.

          • GregoryR

            You utterly have contradicted yourself. Sola scriptura most certainly means scripture is THE sole authority.
            And I am quite sure I’ve read far more of Basil the Great and other fathers than you as opposed to proof texting them, a common ployamongst Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura, and they in no way, shape or form follow anything like you or others of ilk do.
            Further, as I’ve noted the fathers were aware of inconsistencies, glosses and errors in translation amongst the texts available in their day which is why they didn’t believe in or follow anything close to sola scriptura and they were also aware that heretics of all stripes based their opinions on scriptural passages.
            So this brings us back to the start doesn’t it? If scripture alone is the sole infallible basis of Christianity how can heretics exist?
            Frankly I honestly find sola scriptura to have far more in common with Islam than with historical Christianity and it is argued it developed out of apologetics vs it.

          • kenneth20754

            What contradiction? I provided the correct understanding of sola Scriptura in an effort to inform the discussion, but it appears you prefer to stick with errors.

            Heretics exist because they prefer their own theological misconceptions and read them into Scripture, or they emphasize some texts over the whole counsel of God, or (perhaps most importantly) they refuse to read the Scriptures in community–like the Bereans did–and resist correction of their erroneous ideas. The apostles had to warn against and deal with false teachers in their own day. The problem is as old as the faith itself.

            I’m sorry that you have conflated solid teaching about the authority of Scripture with the false claims of Islamic apologists. It comes down to the sufficiency of the word of God, of the trustworthiness of the One who said that his word will never pass away and whose word is truth.

          • GregoryR

            No you provided Calvinist spin. FYI half my family are Scottish Calvinists (my grandda was a deacon in the Kirk 😉 ) so I know what sola scripture means and how it functions in praxis and in the minds of its adherents.
            Again at no time in the early church did sola scriptura exist as an idea let alone praxis. It is an innovation flowing from a later time and the western move towards Scholasticism.
            Did I mention I also attended seminary?
            Scripture has no authority outside that given it by the church as part of its tradition.
            It’s not and never has been the foundation or basis of the Christian faith.

          • kenneth20754

            Greg (if I may), I suspect what you have encountered within your family is solo Scriptura, which is an adulteration of the concept common within broadly evangelical faith communities. We might call it the “me and my Bible” mentality. This concept was exploded by the great Reformation scholar Heiko Obermann; a popular version of his work was published a few years back by Dr. Keith Mathison in a book titled “The Shape of Sola Scriptura.” I recommend it.

            Your concluding statements are, honestly, rather sad. “Scripture has no authority outside that given it by the church as part of its tradition.” Really? “Thus says the Lord” means nothing in and of itself? The sufficiency of Scripture as taught by our Lord and the apostle Paul mean nothing? Scripture “never has been the foundation or basis of the faith”? I guess those Bereans were wasting their time and deserved rebuke rather than commendation. We can rightly ignore Peter’s admonition to pay attention to the word of the prophets and chalk up his testimony that Scripture, spoken by God through men as they were carried along the the Holy Spirit, as the irrelevant ramblings of an old man.

          • GregoryR

            Further, it was an ecumenical council that lead directly to the formation of the biblical canon. It’s demonstrable that the bishops, not the bible, were the primary acting authority in the church as they were seen in the earliest times as standing in the stead of Christ along with being the direct heirs of the apostles.
            That’s universal in the east, west and North Africa having nothing to do with the rise of a central papacy later in history.
            The bishop, presbyters and deacons were established and functioning before the bible was a compiled, and in some cases even some books being written, by the former. That’s simply history. The bishops who represent the apostles and the Church gave you the book you worship not the other way around.

          • GregoryR

            Arians, Nestorians, monophysites, iconoclasts and every single heretical movement has claimed that scripture supports their opinions using it to support them. Yet they’re all condemned as heretics.
            It wasn’t the bible that condemned them as heretics, it was the Church in council just as it had been at Jerusalem when the Judaisers were condemned. And guess what? They appealed to the Hebrew Scriprures as a defence and still were condemned.
            So even scripture shows that it isn’t the sole authority right there along with never claiming to be.

          • GregoryR

            Also both the didache and the shepherd didn’t make it because they weren’t as christilogically focussed as other books. Regardless the didache was still revered and used (particularly its baptismal instructions) into late antiquity as was the shepherd. In fact if I recall it is to be found in the It is part of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Claromontanus.
            I do think it’s humorous that sola scriptura is a thing though given that the Protestant ripped a large number of books out of the bible because they didn’t fit their innovative and brand new theology while at the same time making an idol out of the bible.

    • It is done every Mass

  • JP

    Are we to believe that Clinton and Obama live by the creed or are they like so many politicians who want to look good for the cameras and really don’t believe it anyway?

  • Yossi

    I wouldn’t view knowing the Apostle’s Creed as an indicator of whether or not someone is a believer in Jesus. I’ve been a believer in Jesus for 46 years but the Apostle’s Creed has never been regularly recited at any of the churches or fellowships I’ve been involved in. If it were to be recited in a congregational setting, without the words displayed on a screen or paper, I could probably mouth along with the other people, but would likely flub a lot of it.

    • they showed there hand

      It means Universal Church.

    • GregoryR

      He had it in the service booklet the rest of the presidents had and read out of. He didn’t read it because he’s not a Christian.

      • vive45

        Really don’t see what you’re battling here…thinking you didn’t read the article. Maybe he’s not a Christian at this point in time. Fine. Clearly he’s being used of God and is more friendly to Christians and their causes than any prior president of the last 100 years.

        • GregoryR

          And your proof that he’s God’s instrument is what, exactly? One could easily argue that Trump is a divine punishment upon a godless, mammon worshipping nation because he’s the absolute epitome of mammon.
          I’d argue at this point you’ve so confused God with your political opinion as to be unable to differentiate between the two which is essentially a Platonic issue and one that’s theologically spacious at best.

  • SinoBen

    Agreed.

  • they showed there hand

    Or do you mean, he didn’t read it aloud like the others. Religion or relationship, big difference, “they worshipped me with their mouths, but their heart is far from me”

  • Stuart Dauermann

    This would not be an issue but for the uncritical adulation Mr Trump receives from MANY Right Wing Christians who syncretize their politics and their faith For such parties, people who epitomize their politics automatically achieve religious icon status. I have asked such parties what Mr Trump does wrong. Crickets. Not only are there MANY who cannot and/or will not say anything critical about him, many of these view anyone who criticizes him to be a lackey of the left and in on the payroll of George Soros, the Boogie Man upon whom all blame is placed. It is the lionization of Trump by millions of evangelicals that renders this failure to recite the Apostles’ Creed newsworthy. Were that not the case, scant mention would be made.

    • Chip Crawford

      You are uninformed,naive and/or dishonest. There is not a detail that goes uncriticized with Republican leaders in general and DJT in particular. When nothing comes to mind, they make up stuff and then slowly retract when the outcry gets strong enough.

    • Andrew Mason

      The MSM and the Left in general cannot or will not say anything which is not critical of Trump. Why should evangelicals seek to burden a man many see as their champion by publicly criticising something he says or does? Criticism definitely exists, but it tends to be muted lest it be hijacked and used by anti-Trumpers.

  • K Hillmann

    Trump’s critics will criticize regardless of what he does, or doesn’t do. I doubt any of them could recite the apostles creed, much less understand it, even much less believe it. Yet they criticize him. Hypocrites.

  • Chip Crawford

    It’s another religion to the Trumps. And it says “catholic,” which may mean the generic word to the Episcopalians, but may mean the specific religion to another. The Trumps practice the Presbyterian faith. I don’t mouth other religion’s creeds automatically. The Trumps are established churchgoers and DJT’s Presbyterian roots go back to childhood. Not that anyone cares to find out or know any of that.

    • Andrew Mason

      Presbyterians, at least some churches, include either the Apostles Creed as an element of their regular service, or something very similar to it.

      • kenneth20754

        Our PCA congregation frequently includes the Apostles’ Creed in its worship services. We’ve even been known to say the Nicene Creed.

  • Suzanne Leong

    I am sure Mr. Trump is not a catholic and he does not have to recite the Apostle Creed if he and his wife are not comfortable with the wordings… He prays in his own way, as we all do and God knows… and that is all that counts..

    • GregoryR

      Bush wasn’t Catholic. The Apostles Creed is a basic statement of Christian Faith. What in it could he have objected to unless Trump isn’t actually a Christian?

  • aBereanWannabe

    Now why would any genuine individual(s) want to be aligned with faux “belivers” who read a scripted “faith statement” ??!?!?!! Phoney, Fake Faith !!!

    • GregoryR

      So the millions who’ve recited this creed or the Nicene Creed for over a millennia are all fake because you say so?
      Do explain what it is that you believe that makes you an expert on that.

  • Paul

    Did the main stream press have anything nice to say about Trump at the funeral? I only saw a little bit of the talking head commentary and it was all neutral to negative so I turned it off.

  • Euromoto

    LOL. I’m betting most Evangelicals aren’t even aware of the Apostles Creed (after all, Chuck Swindoll never wrote a best-seller about it, plus it has the word, “Catholic” in it, so it’s totally suspect to begin with). So why should it matter if Trump didn’t recite it, neither did W from what I saw.

    • Andrew Mason

      It’s not something most evangelical churches include as an element of their service thus its significance would likely be lost on anyone who doesn’t study church history, or have a search engine handy. It states basic Biblical facts, so the content is unexceptional for Christians. Whether Trump is Christian or merely churched continues to be debated.

      As an aside it actually says holy catholic Church not holy Catholic Church. That casing difference matters! Some denominations replace catholic with Christian or write Church as church – a difference which doesn’t matter.

      • Scott Bickett

        Actually there are several witness’ to his exceptance of Christ in june of 2016…but that doesn’t serve the rhetoric does it

      • Are you really trying to deny the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church by lowercase now?

      • HazumuOsaragi

        catholic | ˈkæθ(ə)lɪk |

        adjective

        including a wide variety of things; all-embracing: her tastes are pretty catholic.

    • Sad reality, isn’t it?

  • Stephen D

    The apostles’ creed is hardly used in evangelical churches these days. It’s a liturgical element in more conservative churches. But at services like the funeral for George W. Bush, it is surely better if those who do not believe not to say the creed. It seems to me the worst offenders in this situation are those who say it in public but secretly do not believe it.

  • Patmos

    Remember folks, leftists are the same people that thought Brett Kavanaugh’s non white assistant was flashing a white supremacist symbol during his hearing. That’s kind of all you need to know about these freak shows.

  • NellieIrene

    How many of those to Trump’s left, who recited the Apostles Creed, are pro abortion?

    • davidrev1911

      ALL were, and still are unambiguously proud, zealous pro-abortion mouthpieces, and unwavering supporters of the LGBT&Q agenda,” at that Nellie; whose curious behavior [or “walk”] presents an irreconcilably biblical “Christian” platform too, IMO.

    • Though I’m not an ex-president, I’m pro-choice and pro-LGBTQ.

      But I’m confused about your point. You’re saying that true Christians are pro-gay and pro-abortion? Perhaps I’m missing something.

      • NellieIrene

        I am certainly not saying that “true Christians are pro-gay and pro-abortion”

        The HuffPo headline from Dr Brown’s article said
        “Every President Recited The Apostles’ Creed Except Trump, And People Definitely Noticed.”

        And he quoted a tweet by Richard Marx : ” “Hey @Franklin_Graham here’s your ‘evangelical president’ NOT reciting the Apostles’ Creed at the funeral of your father’s friend”

        My “point” was why notice Trump for not reciting it, and lauding those to his left who did and who support things that are condemned as sin in the bible.

        It smacks of the pharisaical.

        • I wonder if those Christians who tell us to get off Trump’s back for not reciting the Creed would’ve said the same thing if it’d been Obama.

          • NellieIrene

            Your query sounds like a fair question. However I don’t recall anyone on any of the conservative media outlets that I read or watch on a daily basis even mentioning the Creed being recited or not by anyone until after the left mentioned Trump not reciting it. To recite it when you oppose central beliefs of morality that are taught within the bible makes those who did recite it a tad hypocritical. I would have expected the criticism by Christians to have been on Obama and company for reciting it. But there wasn’t a peep.

            So that begs a question of my own. I wonder if those on the “progressive” left would have reporred, wrote or tweeted on this at all if those on Trump’s left hadn’t recited it.

          • To recite it when you oppose central beliefs of morality that are taught within the bible

            What are these central beliefs of morality that you’re referring to? Are you saying that Trump is a better Christian than Obama and Clinton?

          • NellieIrene

            “What are these central beliefs of morality…..”

            There are several. But I mentioned the LGBT&Q and abortion agendas in my posts on this argticle. So….heterosexuality and not taking the life of unborn children would be included in those central moral beliefs within the pages of the bible.

            “Are you saying that Trump is a better Christian than Obama and Clinton?”

            Absolutely not. Where did I suggest such a thing? I think it is the left leaning folks who are making the assumption that Obama and Clinton are “better Christian(s)” than Trump, simply because they recited the Apostle’s Creed out loud, while Trump remained silent. I have no idea about the state of any of their souls or what their Christian walkwith God is or isn’t. I merely called them hypocrites.

          • There are several. But I mentioned the LGBT&Q and abortion agendas in my posts on this argticle. So….heterosexuality and not taking the life of unborn children would be included in those central moral beliefs within the pages of the bible.

            That’s one interpretation. I don’t see those particularly well supported in the Bible.

            I think it is the left leaning folks who are making the assumption that Obama and Clinton are “better Christian(s)” than Trump, simply because they recited the Apostle’s Creed out loud, while Trump remained silent.

            I doubt that’s it. I think they think that Obama and Clinton are better Christians because their actions are more in line with the popular Christian ideas of helping the disadvantaged (“widows and orphans” is one category mentioned in the Bible, for example).

          • NellieIrene

            “That’s one interpretation. I don’t see those particularly well supported in the Bible.”

            They are actually well supported. And I have a feeling you know this as well. I’m not sure why you wrote that. But I’m willing to listen to any scriptures that you feel are wishy washy on the subject of sexual deviancy and the insignificance of the unborn.

            “I think they think that Obama and Clinton are better Christians because their actions are more in line with the popular Christian ideas of helping the disadvantaged (“widows and orphans” is one category mentioned in the Bible, for example).”

            There is a difference between governmental assistance and helping the poor and needy as the bible teaches Christians to do. Governmental assistance is someone (almost literally) sticking their hand in your pocket and taking out some of your money and giving it to those they see fit, whether the “giver” agrees or not. This is the left’s idea of charity. It is not the bibles. In the bible it is personal. It is done by indviduals. It is given with a full heart and with the consent of the giver.

          • They are actually well supported. And I have a feeling you know this as well. I’m not sure why you wrote that.

            The Ordeal of Bitter Water in Numbers 5 makes clear that abortion isn’t that big a deal.

            The references to homosexuality that Christians typically point to—Sodom, Leviticus 18 and 20, and “God gave them over to shameful lusts in Romans 1—don’t say what those Christians say they say, and they don’t inform today’s situation, which is loving homosexual couples.

            There is a difference between governmental assistance and helping the poor and needy as the bible teaches Christians to do.

            Right. Asking Christians to help the needy does a little good. All of society banding together and saying that we want to solve this social problem or help that social need can do a lot of good.

          • NellieIrene

            “The Ordeal of Bitter Water in Numbers 5 makes clear that abortion isn’t that big a deal.”

            I had to go online to figure out why you see this chapter as showing that abortion is “no big deal”. I read the ESV and KJV of the bible. They don’t mention miscarriage in them. I learned that only the NIV uses that word and it is a mistranslation. Read the others and tell me if you still think the same. But this could cause confusion if someone relied solely on the NIV. I think this is an example of why Christians need to do a deep dive into scripture and always question when something seems to contradict what we know of our God’s nature.

            “The references to homosexuality that Christians typically point to—Sodom, Leviticus 18 and 20, ….”

            These are not ambiguous at all. Particularly if you start at the beginning:

            Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for] him.

            Who was the helper that was fit for him? Woman. The very design of our bodies screams out who God intended for a sexually intimate relationship. One man, one woman. Anything that deviates from it is sexually immoral. No matter how loving the participants are.

            “All of society banding together and saying that we want to solve this social problem or help that social need can do a lot of good.”

            I have no problem with all of society banding together to try and solve the worlds ills. I think the private sector, Christian and non-Christian, should help the poor within their communities. It is much more efficient. My disagreement with your last post was what constitutes biblical charity. And it is not governmental assistance. Which, according to you, is why there are some who feel Obama and the Clinton’s are “better Christians.” Because they are ready and willing to take my money and spend it on whatever they, and the impersonal, behemoth of a federal buearocracy they have represented, deem is a good cause.

          • I had to go online to figure out why you see this chapter as showing that abortion is “no big deal”. I read the ESV and KJV of the bible. They don’t mention miscarriage in them.

            Summarize the story for me. What do you think we’re talking about here?

            this is an example of why Christians need to do a deep dive into scripture and always question when something seems to contradict what we know of our God’s nature.

            Careful. It sounds like you’re saying, “When the Bible taken at face value says something you don’t like, there are a number of tricks you can try to hammer it so that it takes the shape of your ideas.”

            These are not ambiguous at all.

            I agree. The crime of Sodom was rape, not homosexuality. (I’m sure you’ve noticed that “a loving homosexual couple” is nowhere mentioned in this story.) Lev. 18 and 20 are ritual abominations, along with Kosher laws and mixing fabrics. I’m not quite sure what Rom. 5 is talking about, but I see no prohibition against homosexuality.

            Particularly if you start at the beginning:
            Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for] him.

            Why read that? Why not read 2 Sam. 12:8 (“[God says to David:] I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more.”)

            The very design of our bodies screams out who God intended for a sexually intimate relationship.

            Homosexuality has been observed in 1500 animals. It’s neither surprising nor unnatural to find homosexuality in humans.

            One man, one woman. Anything that deviates from it is sexually immoral.

            Then you need to worry about the many uncritical references to polygamy in the Bible.

            I think the private sector, Christian and non-Christian, should help the poor within their communities. It is much more efficient.

            Huh? Have you tried putting some numbers on this? Look at good works done through government and then through private sector organizations. Which one is bigger?

            My disagreement with your last post was what constitutes biblical charity. And it is not governmental assistance.

            Agreed.

            Which, according to you, is why there are some who feel Obama and the Clinton’s are “better Christians.” Because they are ready and willing to take my money and spend it on whatever they, and the impersonal, behemoth of a federal buearocracy they have represented, deem is a good cause.

            Like defense? Roads? Social Security?

          • NellieIrene

            “Summarize the story for me.”

            It was a test to determine if a wife had been unfaithful. She would drink the liquid and if her belly swelled it would mean she was unfaithful and she would not be able to conceive children from that time forward. If her belly didn’t swell she would be declared innocent and have the ability to conceive.

            “When the Bible taken at face value says something you don’t like, there are a number of tricks you can try to hammer it so that it takes the shape of your ideas.”

            That actually sounds like what you are doing. Did you come across Numbers 5 in your daily bible study? . Doubtful. At least I looked at more than one translation to see if there was any truth to what you said about Numbers 5 since my version;s don’t show anything even remotely about the deliberate killing of an unborn child.

            “The crime of Sodom was rape,”

            Somewhat true. The crime of the Sodomites was the way in which they treated the strangers among them. Certainly rape is no way to welcome strangers to your town.

            “ritual abominations”?

            I don’t think that term is used anywhere other than on LGBT&Q sites that want homosexuality to be fine with God. My response is no different. There is no ambiguity when you know what God’s design from the beginning was. And that was one man and one woman. All other couplings are considered sexually immoral.

            “Why read that? Why not read 2 Sam. 12:8 (“[God says to David:…”

            Why? It doesn’t change one iota that God’s design for marriage is one man/one woman. . But fallen man went his own way and did “what was right in his own eyes”. When God gave David the Kingdom he knew David, an obviously lustful and sinful man, would collect wives. And concubines as well. He also knew he would murder Uriah so that he could marry Uriah’s wife whom David had gotten pregnant. That is what prompted this scripture. The most that could be said is that God tolerated it.

            “Homosexuality has been observed in 1500 animals. It’s neither surprising nor unnatural to find homosexuality in humans.”

            It certainly isn’t surprising. Animals do a lot of things that I don’t think we as humans should emulate. When sin entered the world it affected the entire creation.

            ” Which one is bigger?”

            Bigger doesn’t mean better. Nor does it mean more efficient.

            “Like defense? Roads? Social Security?”

            I was still referring to charity vs government assistance. Defense and infrastructure are not those. Social Security would be government assistance. It is going bankrupt. So its a real good example of how government can ruin what sounds like a good idea.

  • Stephen D

    When you look at the Order of Service for the funeral it’s difficult to see why the Creed is in there at all. Ditto the Lord’s prayer, which also implies an active faith in Christ. These two elements are out of place, it seems to me, in a service that otherwise accommodates people of all faiths or none (except perhaps for the hymns, which people could easily omit to sing).

    It would be normal in a liturgical setting to include one of the Creeds when attendance implies that you are a believer – such as when the Eucharist/Communion/Lord’s Supper is celebrated. To me it seems highly inappropriate, if not positively offensive, to include a confession of faith in a funeral service intended to embrace the whole community.

    • Andrew Mason

      Perhaps it’s the final lines? Specifically the sections saying “… I believe in the Holy Spirit, … the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.” For Christians this is a reminder of hope. For nonbelievers such a confessionstatement would be problematic, but is there any point in a non-Christian funeral? If death is the end then what is the point of a funeral? The person is dead and never to be seen again.

      • the Holy Catholic Church, th Communion of Saints

        Say it.

        • Andrew Mason

          I have no problem with saying I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, or any of the rest of the Creed. I’d probably be comfortable saying most denominational variants. I may, depending on casing, even be willing to say the RC version. The sticking point is whether the text chosen refers to something Biblical e.g. the holy catholic Church, or something which is not Biblical e.g. the Roman Catholic Church. Remember that catholic means universal, something different to Roman Catholic. Likewise the communion of saints, or fellowship of believers is Biblical. I’m not certain that your Communion of Saints (different casing) refers to anything remotely similar. I did actually try a quick search but the Catholic explanation was gibberish – referencing denominational doctrine rather than Scripture

          • That you are honestly so desperate to attack and denigrate the Church, that you have taken a lack of capitalization as a paradigm shift of equal vanity to the real Church. Just sad.

            There is no “denomination,” just the Church. There is no “catholic” outside of the Catholic Church. There is no validity in anything at all outside of the Church.

            That you take up the rhetoric of the murderous henry viii regime that the Church is a mere national, Italian body, is as idiotic as it is satanic.

          • Andrew Mason

            Not sure if you’ll see this as I saw someone in another thread asked to be banned. I’m unclear if that was you, though I did see you’ve been warned.

            You asked if I would say a particular line from the Creed. I did, and now you’re moving the goalposts. Are you so hate driven that you cannot hold a rational discussion? There is only one church that matters – Christ’s, and His isn’t restricted to your preferred denomination. As for capitalization, that’s a language issue. If you don’t like the rules then find another to communicate it.

            Of course there’s denominations. What do you call Baptist, Brethren, Pentecostal etc? Or are they simply part of The Church? I thought The Church comprised of believers not denominations – though you contend you don’t believe in them. Actually the question is not whether there’s catholic outside the Roman Church, it’s whether there’s any catholic inside the Roman Church. I’ve a book I’m looking forward to reading that addresses the matter. As for no validity at all outside the Roman Church, pure heresy. Validity is in Christ not some human institution.

            No clue why you’d reference King Henry VIII as being the originator of the notion of the Roman Church being a Italian body. Is the Church of England aka Anglican Church aka Episcopalian Church an English body? It’s global and, depending on the branch, highly evangelical and Christ focused. Think you’re confused about the Satanic.

    • Scott Bickett

      Then your husband shouldn’t have been a law breaking illegal then should he??

    • GregoryR

      So those reciting the creed aren’t actively faithful isxwhat you’re saying.
      And FYI the creed is recited because it speaks to the doctrine of the resdurectio of the dead, final judgement and life everlasting.

  • Linda

    I would love to have an open discussion with you regarding your support of a President that actively works against black and brown people being afforded certain liberties in this country. I am a Christian and also a black woman married to an African. My husband and I were separated for 20 months for bn other reason than the Presidents new immigration policies. My husband missed the birth of our son as well as his first birthday. He actively separated families. I was born and raised in the US. I love the Lord with all my heart. But I am appalled at Christians believing that the President is really pro-life. I believe that he promised those things because he knows it well gain him followers. Do I think the Lord can use him? Of course. Do I think the Lord is using him right now? No. I think the Lord is separating the chaff from the wheat. Top stand with a man that is ripping families apart is definitely not siding with Christ. I think many of the atrocities that are happening because of this presidency are not close to home for you. He promised to the GM workers their jobs were safe and that he would actively work to keep them. He walked away from that promise and now hundreds of people are without a way to feed their families. You are worried about the LGBT community while these workers are worried about putting food on the table. What should be our focus? Mine would be on feeding the hungry and taking care of the widow. Sound familiar?

    • Jesus-in-the-City

      The new immigration polices were put in place by the Trump administration for the safety of the American people. I am an American who lives in the UK. It took me 10 weeks to get my resident visa for the UK . I was separated from my husband and 3 children while pregnant with our 4th, and in another 2.5 years I need to apply and pay again for the second part of my visa. I also have a friend here in the UK who is Irish, married to an African. It took her husband 10 months to receive his visa to the UK and they were separated as well. These things have nothing to do with the racism of the Trump administration. It happens in other countries all over the world. You are obviously free to have the opinion that Donald Trump is racist but that is just that, an opinion. As a black American, I voted for and support president Trump. I appreciate all he has done for Christians and Americans, including people of color, across America since he has been elected. He has done more to help the black community with jobs and also pursuing prison reform and supporting pro Life initiatives than previous administrations have done. He has also appointed judges who have conservative values, he has shown himself not to be a people pleaser and to be a formidable personality and force on the world stage, despite everything the press and his opposition throws at him. He may not be a believer but I believe God is using him and I continue to pray that he continues to strengthen, humble and protect the President and his family. At the end of the day, I follow Jesus and He alone is my Savior, but I just wanted to point out here that not all black Americans believe that Trump is racist or has ill will toward people of color or legal immigrants. To say that he wants to rip apart families when what happened to you and your spouse could have happened in many other countries seems like misplaced anger and an unfair attack on the president.

      • Caitie

        Amen !

    • The sodomites will destroy civilization if left unchecked. Priorities.

      I do recognize your posturing, thank you for asking. As Venerable Fulton Sheen said:

      “The Western post-Christian civilization has picked up the Christ without His Cross. But a Christ without a sacrifice that reconciles the world to God is a cheap, feminized, colourless, itinerant preacher who deserves to be popular for His great Sermon on the Mount, but also merits unpopularity for what He said about His Divinity on the one hand, and divorce, judgment, and hell on the other. This sentimental Christ is patched together with a thousand commonplaces, sustained sometimes by academic etymologists who cannot see the Word for the letters, or distorted beyond personal recognition by a dogmatic principle that anything which is Divine must necessarily be a myth. Without His Cross, He becomes nothing more than a sultry precursor of democracy or a humanitarian who taught brotherhood without tears.”

    • Chip Crawford

      Yes, we are familiar with the self-righteous, surface and often hypocritical social gospel. However, some of us are familiar enough with the actual word of God and his ways to know that those things were not heart and central to the teachings of Jesus. Judas made your assumption. This “Lord” that you say you know did not and does not express himself the same as you. He once said “the poor are always with us,” not blowing them off, but establishing weightier matters. So, your assumed theses are not in sync with him. You can be, unless you insist you know better. You’ve managed to miss it on what the Lord Jesus actually says and does, and what you claim the President does or doesn’t do, along with assigning the motives of his heart. I’d walk away from that train wreck you’ve laid out here and actually read with care the actual words and heart of the Master. We’ve all got much to learn and conform concerning those actual teachings and truths.

      • GregoryR

        You know nothing about the Word of God.

        • Chip Crawford

          I know the Word of God. We’re not called to know “about” it only. Please show it’s contradiction to my statements. Thank you.

          • GregoryR

            The Word of God is not scripture. You’d know that if you had even a basic education in the original languages of the bible.

    • begroeg

      So go feed the hungry and care for a widow.

      • Juan Garcia

        Yeah and I know people who waited 20 YEARS to come here legally under former presidents. My dialysis nurse escaped from behind the Iron Curtain and had to leave her daughter behind for five years. She fought to come to America to be free and she arrived here with nothing but ambition and a desire to pursue the oportunities America offered. She expected no handouts and worked hard to pay her way through nursing school. Ultimately she was able to bring her entire family who are all now citizens and productive people. She loves America and Trump and doesn’t understand why Americans support people who are cutting in line in front of others who want to immigrate legally and become American citizens.

      • Juan Garcia

        A triple AMEN!

    • BarbaraBinz

      Yours and your husband’s decision to not follow the laws of this country have nothing to do with Our President. If you were separated it was no fault to anyone but yourselves.

  • janesmith1950

    Amen to that!

  • Scott Bickett

    Or he KNEW IT BY HEART..and didn’t need to have it in front of him to READ IT

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      Correct. Watch him when the Pledge is being recited. He “breathes” it. Unlike his speech making, does not shout it.

      I’m a dye-the-wool Catholic. I mumble the Creed (both). Irritates my wife. Refuse to raise my arms during the Our Father. Hate public expressions of affirmation. Know why. None of your business.

      Note: Mrs. Trump is a devout Catholic. She was in an Episcopal cathedral – with, by the way, the “sainted” ashes of Matthew Shepherd off in the nave!

      • Bill Sweeney

        Well-said!

      • Michael Kilburg

        Melania Trump is not a “devout Catholic.” She married outside of the Church (she and the President were married in an Episcopal church). She “married” a man who is twice divorced.

    • GregoryR

      He doesn’t know it. He is loosely Presbyterian and they don’t regularly use creeds. Nice rationalisation.

    • He knew it and yet still refused to say it? Hmm … I wonder what that means.

  • Bullet Stopper

    Those who oppose Christianity knows the prose and creeds of the book better than some Christians. He (Satan) said to the woman, “Did God really say,” Would not even be pleased if got everything they wanted. Very much like the Israelite’s wondering and grumbling in the wilderness.

  • CadaveraVeroInnumero

    Spot on. And, Emperor Constantine – whom the Church owes much . – was not baptized until he laid on his deathbed.

    • GregoryR

      Trump is no Constantine and isn’t a friend to Christians but keep drinking the Koolade and worshipping mammon.

    • Sumerian King

      Trump, with his seemingly ambiguous stance towards Christianity, reminds me much of Constantine. Unfortunately, the actual Constantine was baptized as an Arian, not an Orthodox (or, Catholic) Christian.

      • GregoryR

        It’s disputed whether he received an Arian baptism.
        Regardless he’s still viewed as a saint by the Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

  • apollo

    He does not believe PERIOD.

  • Nathan Andrew Shearer

    He respects Christian’s but he isn’t one. The other Presidents all played Christian publicly but they were not Christian. I am happy Donald doesn’t play games. He is who he is and God Bless him for it.

  • mbabbitt

    Reminds me of the parable of the father and two sons:
    (Matthew 21:28-32) The father asks his first son to work in the vineyard. The
    first son said No but ended up doing his father’s will. The second son said Yes
    but then did not after changing his mind. I see Trump as the 1st
    son.

  • ProGun

    Matthew 6:5…..

  • yabba1

    I am a born again Christian. I am also a preacher’s kid and have been in church all my life. As an Evangelical, the Apostle’s Creed is not something we do. Not that it is bad; it’s just not part of our church tradition. Responsive readings or recitations are more something you find in Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran churches. Again, not good or bad, just different church traditions and ways of worshiping.

    • showmesplfd

      Couldn’t agree with you more. Whereas I have been in many situations where the Apostle’s Creed has been recited, I have never once heard it said in the Evangelical church that I have been a member of for many years. Sometimes the frequent repetition of such statements of faith become little more than empty words repeated by rote and without thought to their meaning. This article is well written also.

      • GregoryR

        Obama, Clinton and Carter aren’t members of any liturgical traditions I’m aware of and neither is Trump.
        Why is it they all were comfortable reading a very basic declaration of what Christianity broadly believes as dogma/doctrine and not Trump?

        • Ariel Israel Ben-Zion

          Maybe these three are Evil Souless Puppets of Satan….Piss Off! Leave my President alone. I am a Proud Jew and if you can’t see all the great things President Trump has acomplished, go craw back in your liberal communist hole.

          • GregoryR

            One cannot be both liberal and communist.
            That said given Trump’s affinity for Neonazis it’s ironic you’d support him assuming you’re actually Jewish and not some white nationalist sock puppet account pretending to be Jewish just to troll.
            Anyway, Carter is a life long Baptist if I’m not mistaken. Hillary is Methodist. Bill was a Baptist as well I believe. Bush Jr. was Episcopalian turned evangelical and Obama is some sort of nondenominational Christian. All of them had no problem reading this creed which expresses rather basic tenents of Christianity.
            Trump is supposedly a Calvinist (Presbyterian if I’m not mistaken) although he’s rarely seen at services. This creed is known and occasional recited by some Presbyterians. His wife is supposedly catholic so it’s a creed that’s exceptionally common in there being used in many services and prayers.
            So the question remains as to why he refused to recite it. There’s nothing in there that any Christian would object to. A mammon worshiping pagan (which is exactly what he actually is) on the other hand probably wouldn’t want to express the beliefs stated in that creed.

          • Trump is an embarrassment as a human, let alone the president. But perhaps that’s a minority opinion here.

    • James Alvin Ostrenga Jr.

      Of course not, ya’ll would have to recite the line “I believe in One, Holy, CATHOLIC, and apostolic Church”

      • Kathy

        You mentioned above that the creed is a prayer. The only prayer recorded in Scripture is the Lord’s Prayer or the Our Father of which Jesus instructed His disciples to “pray LIKE this”, not you MUST pray this prayer. The creeds are an affirmation of faith, but nothing in Scripture requires us to recite it.

        • GregoryR

          Scripture isn’t the sole basis or guide of Christianity and makes no claims that it is.
          That said, what in the Apostles Creed is unacceptable to you that you wounldnt recite it as a statement of faith?

          • vive45

            Author mentions a few possibilities, one of them being Trump could have felt that publicly reciting the Creed is, to him, a phony public display; see my works (pro life judge appointments, Jerusalem capital, etc.) instead. To his left stood BO dutifully reciting the creed. A more hostile president to Christians there’s not been. But he recited.

          • GregoryR

            Jerusalem doesn’t prove anything tbh because that’s solely based on a Chiliaist, and thus utterly heretical, theology rejected by historic Christianity.
            And the judges he’s appointed prove nothing because your view of what it means to be prolife isn’t necessarily that of other Christian groups.
            You’re playing Plato here and seeing shadows as indicative of some truth based solely on your opinion.
            As to Obama he was no more or less abusive to Christians than his predecessor and arguably less than Trump who’s oblivious to the sufferings of native Christian communities in the Holy Land all of whom opposed moving the embassy to Jerusalem and all of whom oppose Israeli oppression of their flocks.
            Protestant arrogance is a helluva drug.

          • GregoryR

            Further, it’s he and his “evangelical” supporters that have brought this on him. He ran as a Christian neomessiah and you accepted him as such despite his raw dogging pornstars, misogyny, only opposing abortion when it became convenient to run for office, that he has repeatedly stolen wages from his employees (something expressly forbidden by scripture) and a host of other behaviours and actions.
            You made an idol out of him and now that he’s been again proven false you all make huge leaps to defend the guy when the harsh reality is he’s at very least a religious and at worst antichrist.

          • Willam Nat

            Hey Greg:
            You would do well to study the doctrines of the various protestant churches. And not just write “Protestant arrogance is a helluva drug.” as you did below.

          • GregoryR

            You assume I haven’t studied those based on what, exactly?

          • Kathy

            I don’t find anything at all unacceptable…the creeds are a profession of Christian faith and belief. However, I don’t think it is necessary to repeat it at very church service. Bible reading and instruction are vital and much more helpful for growing in our faith and belief. I learned that after mindlessly reciting the creeds every week at both the Lutheran and the Catholic churches while I was a going-through-the- motions “Christian” for most of my life.

          • GregoryR

            Then to be blunt that you were “going through the motions” has more to do with you than creeds or worship forms.
            If recitation of the creed becomes mindless that reflects more on you and whether you reflect on what the creed confesses than on the creed itself.
            Further, it’s just and easy to mindlessly quote scripture as it is to do with the creed.
            In fact most “evangelicals” do so regularly. They can mindlessly quote or chapter and verse but couldn’t tell you what it means beyond a very cursory level, one that would have been viewed as rather amateurish in antiquity.

          • Kathy

            Absolutely Gregory, it had more to do with me .We can mindlessly repeat and/or follow anything without knowing the meaning of or concentrating on what we are saying, including quoting scripture. There are many who, what I say, just show up in church every week.

            Not sure who you consider to be evangelical. I avoid that term because many tend to lump all non-Catholics and Orthodox together in that “group” as if we are all exactly alike. I consider myself an orthodox biblical Christian, adhering most closely to the Word of God in the Bible.

            2 Timothy 3:15-17 “The Holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Simple enough, I’d say.

          • GregoryR

            Orthodox means correct worship or right/correct glorification. You can’t be that if you reject certain aspect of historical Christianity in the name of innovative doctrines.
            Anyway, your scripture passage raises a problem.
            How does one use scripture to teach discipline etc?
            Every single heretic in history cited scripture going back to the church council in Jerusalem.
            How does one determine what interpretation of scripture is correct so as to hold to the correct view of who Christ was.
            The Arians, even Arius himself, used scripture to defend his view that the the Son was not of the same essence as the Father.
            So how was it that he was determined to be in error if he had scripture to back up his opinion? Surely scripture cannot contradict itself (even though on plain reading it occasionally does, something patristic sources were fully aware of)?

          • Kathy

            I’m sorry, I don’t have the time or inclination to continue a conversation while essentially being called a heretic. You could not be any more mistaken, sir.

          • GregoryR

            Hmmmm where did I call you a heretic? Oh yes no where.

          • Kathy

            Don’t reference scripture because heretics have done that? May as well say if one relies on the Bible and not on the doctrines of men in the RCC their beliefs are all heretical.

            I am orthodox in that I am strict concerning “correct worship or right/correct glorification” as outlined in the Bible.

            “Innovative doctrines”? I believe if you are not studying and following Scripture and instead rely on mere men to always interpret for you , they may be teaching you that “innovative doctrine” that is not consistent with biblical doctrine. How would you know if you can’t discern anything for yourself?

          • GregoryR

            And again where did I say that? Ah yes no where.
            I stated that every heretic has cited scripture to defend their opinions. Yet they were still condemned as heretics.
            So there must therefore be something else other than scripture alone that has helped define the Christian faith.
            Next, where in the bible does it lay out a pattern for worship beyond the Eucharist? Ah yes no where. I’m quite sure praise bands, organs, power point presentations etc are not mentioned.
            How do you know if what you’re “discerning” is true? Do you decide that for yourself or do others actually discern and tell you what a passage means?

          • Kathy

            This debate could go on forever, so I will just use this quote by CH Spurgeon to sum up what I saw while at the RCC for 25 years:

            “Outward observances are temporarily comfortable: eye and ear are pleased, self-conceit is fed, and self-righteousness is puffed up. But they are ultimately delusive, for in the face of death, and at the day of judgement, the soul needs something more substantial than ceremonies and rituals to lean upon. Apart from vital godliness, all religion is utterly vain: offered without a sincere heart, every form of worship is a solemn sham and impudent mockery of the majesty of heaven.

            (I am not referring to you personally and Spurgeon was not singling out Catholics.) So, in keeping with this aritcle’s topic, simply reciting rote prayers or creeds do not signify a true believer, whose heart has been transformed and renewed by the Holy Spirit. I can testify to that.

          • GregoryR

            Also, there is no such thing as biblical doctrine. Doctrine has not ever in the history of Christianity flown from the bible.
            It couldn’t have. For most of the history of Christianity very few churches had a complete bible due to the cost of compiling one plus usually the different books were kept in separate volumes in different places in Christian houses of worship (gospels were kept near the altar, epistles and Old Testament books with the choirs and readers) and in the earliest days not every local church used the same books in their worship.
            Further, few, if any, private citizens other than the extremely wealthy owned a bible of their own due to cost and the high illiteracy rate.
            The notion of sola scriptura and private interpretation of scripture is indeed novel really ramping up with the invention of the printing press and increase in literacy in the modern era.
            Still, much like the Ethiopian eunuch how do you know what something you read in scripture means simply by your own reading?
            Clearly the eunuch didn’t know what he was reading.
            Again, no where in the bible does it claim that it alone is the sole authority, source or originator of Christianity or its doctrines.
            Oh and strictness and slavishly adherence to law doesn’t equate to being orthodox in any way. Just ask the Pharisees about that.

          • Kathy

            Very short on time, but wanted to reply to your last two sentences. Funny, I always considered the RCC to be emulating the Pharisees considering the numerous prescribed rituals and rules. Not so concerning my church, so no, we are nothing even remotely similar to them. More later…

          • GregoryR

            Not exactly the point.
            The point is you’re confusing slavishly following of a rule with correct belief or correct glorification which simply isn’t the case.
            And Christianity has always had rules. Murder and infidelity to a spouse were excommunication offences in the early church if memory serves and they didn’t play around. You did either of those and you were booted from the community.

      • Is that a problem? This is no reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

      • TS (unami)

        Catholic, meaning “universal”.
        Sheesh, people.

    • The Creed was printed in the program, but maybe Trump can’t read.

  • GregoryR

    Lovely rationalisation of a godless mammon worshipper who parades around as a Christian not reciting a rather basic declaration of faith.
    Trump could urinate on this author and he’d rationalise that too.

    • Steevo

      You either didn’t read the article or you couldn’t comprehend it.

      • GregoryR

        I read it. It was a garbage attempt to rationalise what he did.

        • Rob

          When you live with a garbage ideology, everything looks like garbage.

          • GregoryR

            Sums up the whole of “ evangelical” theology, nationalism and all its latent homoeroticism and white supremacy.

    • jcbjr

      Are you a dominionist? If not, then stop hoping for a “second coming of Christ” body politic for the USA, or any country for that matter. God certainly has used ( and continues to use) unsaved, non-believing, even evil leaders for His purposes. Donald Trump’s position with God is between him and God; no one else knows for sure. In any case, should we not pray for our leaders, Christian or not? And certainly, should we not pray God’s will be done? Good will do as He pleases, use whom he pleases, to accomplish His will, to His glory.

      • GregoryR

        No I’m am, thank God, not a follower of heretical dominionist theology.
        Further I do not believe God is using Trump at all in any way positive and may well be using him as a punishment for American pride and mammon worship.

  • timothyhanlinejr

    I am very thankful that our President, perhaps the first, did not aver this creed. Faith in the “holy catholic church” is the objectionable phrase in this creed. Whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, this “holy catholic church” just cannot seem to keep its proverbial hands out of Baal’s cookie jar. I do not know why our President did not recite the creed, but I am glad he did not.

    • HazumuOsaragi

      What if the objectionable line were:

      “the holy all-embracing church”?

      • Gina Lynn

        That would depend. What are the tenets of faith in that Church?

  • HazumuOsaragi

    Trump’s Rorshachian ‘act’ of not reciting ‘The Apostle’s Creed’ is garnering some – interesting, diverse – responses.

  • An essay that can be boiled down to one excuse : “The ends justify the means.”

    Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.

    I sympathize with you Dr B. In your heart you know this. Please don’t let it pain you too much, just go out and do good deeds. That’s what I do when I screw up – something we all do.

    • Beverly Allen Reed

      To do penance? We go out and do good deeds as penance? No, we do good deeds out of love for our Lord. We may repent if we do wrong (which Michael Brown has not in expressing his thoughts) but no good works absolve us of our sins. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross does that. He and he alone.

  • Az1seeit

    I do not recite it in our church. I don’t recite anything…for personal reasons that have nothing to do with whether I believe or not. Some of it has to do with the form of my religious upbringing but the bottom line reason is my own for which I am accountable to only the Holy….as they are. I would rather see someone follow their conscience than put on a religious show. This at least is honesty. Pray for our country. Pray for our magistrates.

  • James Alvin Ostrenga Jr.

    Let’s be real here. How about we look at the bigger picture. The other Presidents have to read the Apostle’s Creed from a piece of paper. Why? I thought ya’ll was Christians? That’s the staple of all Christian belief. Of course it is a Catholic Prayer which makes it even better, but I digress.

    • GregoryR

      It’s not a prayer it is a statement or confession of faith.

      • James Alvin Ostrenga Jr.

        No.Crap. I know what it is. That along with the Nicene is said every Sunday and the Apostles Creed with every Rosary.

  • Beverly Allen Reed

    I love it that there are people out there that can express my thoughts so succinctly that I don’t have to strain my brain to come up with just how I feel. Thank you, Michael Brown.

  • Willam Nat

    What, the anti-Trump commenters here can read his mind? Maybe Trump was thinking of a secret communication from Kim that day that might be the difference between world peace and nuclear war. Seriously!

    • Willam Nat

      Maybe Obama was thinking about the millions of unborn babies that were killed on his watch- with his TOTAL approval.

      • Willam Nat

        Ditto for Bill Clinton

  • TauntYou ASecondTime

    DJT’s daughter is proclaimed Jewish – perhaps DJT & MT lean that way also? Perhaps even Messianic Jewish? I don’t proclaim to know his spiritual beliefs – actions speak. No problem for me…just a thought.

    • GregoryR

      And? What in the Apostle’s Creed is there that would be unacceptable as a doctrinal confession to a messianic individual?

    • Benny Ehud

      Trump doesn’t follow Messicanic Judaism or Christianity.

  • James L Huss

    So evangelicals admit that they voted for Trump simply because he panders to them. Good to know.

  • Renee Letellier Beltrand

    It is a sad thing to see people be so judgmental and critical. Only God can see into the heart of a man or women completely. Mere man does not do this so well or completely in truth. How do you know if the people who recited the Apostle’s creed out loud really meant it in their hearts Or were they doing it for show? No one knows, but God! And it comes down to this, each and everyone of us needs to ask ourselves and God about our own relationship with the Lord. He (the Lord Jesus) is the only judge and He is the only one who sees into the hearts of men and women.

  • Benny Ehud

    You forgot to call Trump a racist, hateful, bigoted man.

  • Thomas Dunlop

    I would be more concerned about the other hypocrites that did recite it knowing it meant absolutely nothing to them. Murdering babies, LGBT fanaticism and a myriad of all other sorts of corruption and moral bankruptcy render the reading of the Apostles Creed null and void. Just sayin.

  • GTElmore

    Which “apostle” d’ya figure WROTE “The Apostles’ Creed?”

    Answer: NONE. It came from THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH over 300 years after the last of Christ’s actual apostles died.

    But this wasn’t a Roman Catholic service. It is said to have been an Episcopal service. Episcopal? Yeah – you know – Church of England, founded by Henry VIII so he could more comfortably sleep with women who weren’t his wife.

    As to all that stuff about “suffering under Pontius Pilate,” note that the actual Apostle Peter, speaking on the the commission of Jesus himself, didn’t mention Pilate: Acts 2:22-24.

    Always odd to me when nihilist, non-Christians cease their endless carping and accusing of Christianity in general and certain professed Christians in specific to criticize the “hypocrisy” of those they think “don’t take it all seriously enough.”

    Stranger yet when strident apologists for the US Supreme Court’s imaginary “right of women to kill their unborn babies” — found by redoubtable Justice Harry Blackmun in an alleged “penumbra of something-or-other supposedly detected in the constitution” (and inexplicably oblivious to the “self-evident right to life” given to each person by The Creator according to the signers of THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE) want to make sure the southern border is left wide-open so the whole country can be chocked full of non-English-speaking Catholics bearing “the population bomb” — which, by the way, in a nation where the voting majority rules is clearly a weapon of war.

  • So What If President Trump Didn’t Recite the Apostles’ Creed?

    Uh huh. And you’d have said the same thing if, 4 years ago, President Obama hadn’t recited the Apostle’s Creed in a similar situation?

  • Nanita Staley

    Perhaps what you are missing is that our president is actually a man of more integrity than so many “Christians”. No one is more aware of his flaws and shortcomings than he is but he cannot go back and erase his mistakes (even though Christ has). He is acting in accordance with more integrity than that whole bunch in the photo has in their little pinkies. He holds his head up and pushes on to get the job done that God has given him to do. Stop ragging on all of his past 70 years of mistakes. He is a new man. You were not without fault when you began your journey as a new man in Christ. I think he is doing pretty darned good in the midst of all the chaos God has set him in. He is almost a force of nature; God chose him very purposefully to begin the restructuring of this nation. He is doing a great job!

Inspiration
He Cast Himself in a Surprising Role
Al Perrotta
More from The Stream
Connect with Us