‘A New Creed for Today’
I’m an occasional reader of Mike Bird’s substack blog, ‘Word from the Bird’. I like quite a lot of his writings. This week, his offering was an article offering ‘A New Creed for Today’—as yet untitled, but characterised as ‘The Nicene Creed Meets Biblical Theology’.
The ‘original’ Nicene Creed from the fourth and fifth centuries is a foundational summary of beliefs that is almost universally accepted for defining standard Christian orthodoxy. It preceded (and survived) both the East-West split (‘Eastern Orthodox’ versus ‘Roman Catholic’) and the Catholic-Protestant split. Hence, to ‘revise’ it is a significant proposition. That said, the many hundreds if not thousands of statements of faith and confessions of faith that proliferate within Protestant evangelicalism are all, in some sense, ‘adding to’ or ‘revising’ Nicaea, so perhaps that’s no big deal—especially from an evangelical perspective, since the movement has ‘previous’ in that.
I’ve often thought it a shame that ‘new’ churches and ‘independent’ churches within the evangelical tradition (especially the charismatic ones) seem mostly not to teach the creeds, or include recitation of the Nicene Creed—or similar but shorter Apostles’ Creed—in their liturgies. Christians really ought to know one or other off by heart—or at least be very familiar with it—and the only way that is likely to happen is through its inclusion in Sunday worship.
But back to the Nicene Creed. Aside from being relatively easy to learn, a significant value for the purposes of Christian unity lies in its simplicity and brevity; frankly, there’s little there to argue about, even for those minded to be disputatious. It leaves a very broad scope for different traditions to interpret aspects of faith and practice in their own ways, while still rallying around the same simple set of non-negotiables. It’s saying (in my words) that what we have in common is more important than what would lead us apart (on which we will have more to say in a moment).
For those who may not be familiar with the original—and hence will otherwise struggle to compare and contrast with Mike’s—I’m reproducing it below (copied from churchofengland.org).
I ought to mention that there is more than one version (!); partly through ‘modern English’ stylisation and partly because of some uncertainty as to the provenance of versions during the period it was developed. None of that needs to concern us here, but feel free to Google it. This version is ecumenical insofar as both East and West affirm it (see * below).
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, 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, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with 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,* who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who 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.
* The Western Church adds “and the Son”
** ‘Catholic’ in the sense of universal, rather than ‘Roman Catholic’
Inevitably, whenever words and their meaning are in play, there are still things to argue about here if one wishes to. ‘One baptism’? What kind of baptism? Infant or adult? Immersion or sprinkling? ‘Apostolic’? What kind of apostolic? Early Church or forever church? Who says who’s an apostle? And so on.
It stands to reason that whenever words are added to any document, it will (a) increase the scope for such arguments, and (b) undermine or limit its unifying function. You would therefore think that denominational and church movement leaders would wish to do everything humanly possible to avoid both (a) and (b). After all, no less a person than Jesus prayed to his Father that his followers ‘would be one’ even as they are one (three times) in John 17. However, in the conservative evangelical world, the pages surrounding that chapter seem to have stuck together. Indeed, adding to the list of ‘necessary beliefs’ has recently become a weaponising strategy.
For example, the Evangelical Alliance would seem to be deliberately provoking both (a) and (b)—at the expense of John 17, which is clearly being relegated in importance—in its recent so-called ‘affirmations’ (better called, denunciations) on same-sex attraction and marriage. While technically it’s a ‘guide’ rather than an addition to its statement of faith, there seems to be no doubt it’s intended to function in the same way. Marriage between ‘one man and one woman’ is ‘the only form of partnership approved by God for sexual relations’. Hence, only ‘those who experience same-sex attraction and seek to live faithfully in accordance with biblical teaching are welcomed’ (emphases added). In evangelical-speak, ‘in accordance with biblical teaching’ in this context means remaining single and celibate (despite the absence of a verse that says that—it’s self-evidently ‘evangelical teaching’ rather than expressly ‘biblical teaching’).
The even more conservative Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (‘FIEC’) is also explicit. Its Doctrinal Basis (in other words, what Christians are required to agree with, to be in fellowship with them) now states—with half an eye also on putting a marker down on gender—‘God created us male and female, which is identified by our biological sex. Marriage is the exclusive union of one man and one woman …’
Both organisations are clearly laying down the gauntlet to anyone who would have the temerity to suggest any other potential interpretation of the Scriptures, or be willing to consider a more empathetic pastoral approach.
Whatever you, the reader, believe about sexuality and gender (on which I am not seeking here to argue for a position), it seems rather OTT for conservatives to require these new diktats to share equal billing with classically vital doctrinal matters such as the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Jesus, and the bodily resurrection. I suspect their vigour to do so is a knee-jerk reaction triggered by a genuine fear of the spirit of the age infiltrating otherwise holy evangelical churches, and perhaps even more so as a perceived necessary action to preserve conservative evangelicalism’s internal unity. But it does so at the cost of unity within the wider Body of Christ—choosing to mandate a line-in-the-sand evangelical doctrine of quite recent provenance over relationship. This is somewhat surprising, given that there are surely few theologians nowadays who genuinely believe that there is no basis whatsoever for a potentially different view, whether biblically or pastorally.
In fairness to Mike Bird, his new version of the Nicene Creed (which I’ve rather strayed away from) goes nowhere near those subjects. I very much doubt that he has no personal view on them, of course (and as I was reading his article, I must confess that I rather expected them to feature, since that’s the evangelical trend at the moment), but credit where it’s due. His stated objective, in his own words, is to think about ‘how to articulate the Christian faith in a way that respects the Nicene formulation but is a bit more attuned to the basic storyline of Scripture’. Fair enough, as a goal.
Without further ado, here is Mike’s proposal. I will offer just two brief comments. One—to repeat myself from earlier—the more words are used, the more potential there is to (a) increase the scope for argument, and (b) undermine or limit the creed’s unifying function. However, I think he’s essentially avoided that (I really rather like what he’s come up with, with one exception, which is stricken through below—I don’t think it needs that, but then, he’s more Reformed than me). And two, when I personally advise a church or organisation on its statement of faith, I simply suggest endorsing the classic Early Creeds and then adding a separate statement of values and distinctives to give the reader a sense of what kind of Christianity we’re talking about—the things that are important to that community (a statement that can be tweaked over time).
Mike doesn’t yet have a name for his work product: I suggest ‘The Avian Creed’.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen, who chose Abraham to be the father of many nations, who chose Israel to be a light to the nations, and who has begun to make all things new through the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
We believe in Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Messiah of Israel, God's only Son, truly human and truly divine, unbegotten in his divinity and begotten in his humanity.
We believe that Jesus came into the world, born of the Virgin Mary, during the reign of Caesar Augustus, and he grew up in Nazareth of Galilee. He was baptised by John in the Jordan River, he proclaimed the kingdom of God, he taught in parables, healed the sick, cast out demons, and gathered disciples from among fishermen, tax collectors, and outcasts. He announced God's jubilee for the poor and oppressed and proclaimed that a new exodus was now at hand.
We believe that Jesus died and rose, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate outside Jerusalem, he died as our Passover lamb, bearing the sins of the world and the curse of exile. On the third day he was raised from the dead, as the first-fruits of God's new creation, his body was transformed and glorified, inaugurating the age to come. He ascended into heaven, and from there he will return to put all things to right.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who rested on the prophets, in whom we are baptised for a new life, who gives gifts to the churches, who empowers the church for mission, who inspired Scripture, and who will give life to our mortal bodies just as the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.
We believe in the church, the renewed Israel, a new covenant people, called from every tribe, tongue, and nation to be God's royal priesthood and a holy nation, bearing witness to Jesus's lordship over all creation, heralds of the gospel and witnesses to Jesus, working for justice, peace, and the healing of the world. Our invisible unity in Christ is expressed in our visible bonds of fellowship, celebrating one Lord, one faith, one baptism, with a communion that even death cannot break.
We believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, when heaven and earth will be joined as one, when God will be all in all, when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This is our faith, faith in the Triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in whose name we baptise, and in whose life we find our communion.
Amen.