The Creed v. Psalm 139

I am very fond of these two texts. Whilst both of them differ in their tone, purpose and origin, they both give insightful glimpses into how human's relate to God.

The Creed (primarily written for believers and acting as a statement of belief for Christians), seems to be used as a human submission to God, allowing us to recognize all that He has done. In doing so the text 'unites' all humans in their relationship with God which is clear from frequent use of "We believe..". Evidently, the Trinity is highlighted in the Creed which perhaps allows humanity to understand its significance in drawing us close to God in 3 persons. To me however, the reality of this happening through the text itself is questionable due to its nature as a seemingly succinct, chronological, densely packed account of the christian story which comes across as a purposeful practice or 'formality' rather than a spontaneous prayer between God and man. 

God is referred to in The Creed as: Father, Maker, Almighty, Son of God and Holy Spirit. These titles don't make Him seem particularly tangible but imply that He is more of a transcendent ruler. Furthermore, the text arguably lacks a personal feel and does not at any point mention "You" or "Me" with regards to human's and their relationship with God. The Creed also refers to God as "Him" and in doing so, further enforces this separation. I believe that an intimate sense of contact is fundamental for humanity when comprehending what God is and how he relates to us. 

Overall, this text appears to function as a collective way for human's to communicate with God however, does so in a way that disregards human emotion or circumstance and its effect on the relationship between the two.

On the other hand,  Psalm 139 starts with "O Lord" and  immediately we are led to believe that the Psalmist has regular communication with God himself and therefore uses the affectionate (or perhaps desperate ) address because he believes that God is genuinely listening to him, himself. It is worth pointing out here that the Psalmist appears to claim some ownership over God as his God.

Throughout the Psalm, the Psalmist refers to God's omniscience and omnipresence which suggests that they have experienced acts of God which have led them to this understanding of his character. Accordingly, the writer seems to have a close, personal relationship with God. This is particularly apparent when he asks "Where can I go from your spirit?", thus suggesting that he knows God as an imminent, all encompassing figure who is connected to humanity.

He refers to the "book" written specifically "for me" suggesting God’s provision and plan for each life, each of which is special, unique,and individual. In the passage, the writer believes that God takes an interest in human's and cares about our troubles - to the point that he ‘shines his light’ into our 'darkness' to comfort us ("..the night is as bright as the day, for the darkness is as light to you.") 

Essentially, whilst engaging in a song/prayer of praise and wonder (and at the same time one of fear and reverence), the Psalmist seems to believe in the reality of God being in a relationship with humanity whilst also acknowledging humanity's inability to comprehend God’s acts. 

The two texts highlight God's holiness and omnipotence over humanity however in addition to this, Psalm 139 presents the idea (and opportunity) of a communicative, accessible relationship with God.