Hey Andrew -

I’m way late on this one, but I actually saw it some time ago and have been thinking about it on and off.

Something I really like about it is the narrative structure of your creed, particularly as it develops between points 2 through 8. They *narrate* theology; belief is rooted in the contingent story of a single people - the Israelites - as it develops to the climax at Golgatha, then flows into its denouement in the church and the final (more universalized) completion of points 9-10. (The universal view of points 1-2 could be fairly said create the backdrop.)

I like this specificity; it removes faith from the realm of pseudo-universalistic abstraction and returns it to its grounding in space and time.

Of coure, this suggests an interesting question about the normativity of the isrealite narrative: what would happen if a NT scholar were to narrate his creed from the POV of the church rather than Israel - or if a foundational theologian from that of the history of religion and philosophy - or a German monk in Wittenburg from that of theology and social questions in the late middle ages - or a Tibetan monk from that of the history and sufferings of his country.

These are all very different narrative POVs. Are they all views from the branches of a primal growth (some of the perhaps more or less obscured views?) - or could they have some separate standing - some rootedness - in holy ground all of their own?

Somewhere in these thoughts, the idea of a meta-narrative raises its head. (And some would fear the gaze of Medusa.)

Peace,

Mike