UNPACKING THE NICENE CREED
BETHESDA-BY-THE-SEA
Episcopal Church
Palm Beach, Florida
LED BY: THOMAS G. O’BRIEN III
Course Syllabus
1. Brief History of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed (pages 2 to 5)
2. Word-by-word comparison of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and Apostles’ Creed
and their sources (page 6)
3. An Overview of the Nicene Creed (pages 7 to 9)
4. Analysis and discussion of the individual phrases of the Nicene Creed (Parts 1 through
33) — starts on page 10 and concludes on page 36)
Recommended Readings
The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters — Luke Timothy Johnson
Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief — Rowan Williams
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON
THE NICENE-CONSTANTINOPLE CREED (NCC)
AND
THE APOSTLES' CREED (AC)
Importance of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the Apostles' Creed
NCC is the baptismal creed of the Eastern Church
NCC is the Eucharistic/Liturgical Creed of the Western Church
AC is the Baptismal Creed of the Western Church (BCP 304)
Questions faced by the early believers in Jesus
Who was Jesus? What did the Crucifixion and Resurrection mean in terms of his nature?
His mission? (These are issues in Christology.)
What must God be like given the fact that we learn about God and experience
“Salvation” (however understood) through Jesus' life, death and resurrection and the gift
of the Spirit? (This is Trinitarian Theology.)
If Jesus is/was understood to be God, what does that do to monotheism? How can the
Father and the Son be differentiated while maintaining monotheism?
How could Christians find the right words to articulate the concepts about God, Jesus and
the Spirit that were inherent in the Epistles and the Gospels? In all times (including our
own), the language of Faith has to evolve so that it will be relevant to the hearers of the
Word.
Early Formulations and Evolution of the Baptismal Professions of Faith
In Paul's Epistles (written from 47-65 CE), the focus is on Jesus' identity and actions. He
refers to Jesus as “Kyrios” or LORD, the same Greek word that was used in the
Septuagint (the “LXX”) as the translation of YHWH, and which Jews now translate as
Adonai. Paul’s use of terms such as Son of God and the "Christ" is not unique in First
Century writings. Some of the most important passages in Paul’s letters are 1 Cor.15:3ff;
Rom.1:3ff; Rom. 8:34; Phil. 2:6-11.
In the Hebrew Bible, we find the Creator God described sometimes as Father; and the
Spirit of God is sometimes identified with Wisdom.
In the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (written from about 68 to 90 CE), we see that as the
understanding of who/what Jesus is/was (“Christology”) develops, a Baptism direction is
found in Matt. 28.19 (“Baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”). The
Baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (Ac. 8:36), of Lydia (Ac.16:15) and of the Jailer
(Ac.16:30) all come about because they “believe in Jesus Christ."
2
The Gospel of John identifies the “Logos” (“Word”) with Jesus and Jesus is presented as
the Son of God whose death “unleashes” the Spirit.
Reasons for the early development of “creeds”
The earliest creeds were Baptismal affirmations.
Creeds developed to distinguish the new sect of Jesus Followers (later called
“Christians”) from Rabbinic Judaism after 90 (the “Council” of Jamnia/Yavneh).
Bishops used creed-like formulations to communicate the essentials of the Faith to
catechumens and to believers. Over time, the creeds became part of the liturgy. There
was a great diversity in liturgies and creeds in the early Jesus Follower Movement.
There was a model for the creed in the Jewish Shema (Dt. 6:4-9; Dt.11:13-21; Num.
15:37-41) (Exhortation to obey the One God and the Commandments)
The "Old Roman Creed" (late 2nd Century)
Contained about 80% of the current Apostles’ Creed, and took pieces of a number of
other creeds that were in use in late 2nd Century.
Was used as a Baptismal Creed in Rome from 400 until 600 C.E.
Was the "father" of most creeds that come after it, particularly creeds used in West. Was
one of many local creeds used in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries.
Church Fathers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius
Justin (100-165): anticipated concept of consubstantiality (sharing the same “substance”
or essence); he also used the image "Light from Light."
Irenaeus (150-202): opposed Marcion (who denied the continuing validity of the Hebrew
Creator God). He also opposed "docetism" (the idea that Jesus was not really human but
merely appeared in human vestige or in a human semblance, and therefore Jesus did not
really suffer). Irenaeus affirmed Jesus' real humanity and developed the concept of
“double generation” of the Son (Eternal Generation of Jesus as God and Temporal
Generation as Jesus of Nazareth).
Origen (185-252): opposed "adoptionism" (the idea that Jesus was merely a human
creature who was "adopted" as God's Son).
Tertullian (155-235): developed much of the Latin vocabulary (Trinity; three "persons";
one "substance" in three persons; relation) that became integral parts of the Creeds. He
opposed Patripassianism (the idea that there is only one divine person, the Father, and
3
this person (the Father) suffered in the “form” of Jesus).
Athanasius (295-373): refined the concept of relation among persons of Trinity.
Council of Nicea (325 C.E.)
Called by Constantine to address the lack of uniformity in Christianity, in particular a
dispute in Alexandria (the cultural capital of the Roman Empire) between its Bishop
(Athanasius) and the priest, Arius.
Arius denied the full divinity of Jesus. His theory started with Father as the source of
unity and all that is, rather than the source being the divine persons unified by divine
nature.
Some words (“homoousious” [same nature/substance] and “hypostasis” [same
particularized essence) had caused confusion and disputes in the prior discussions of the
relationship between the Father and the Son.
The Council of Nicea was “modern” in that it used best available Greek philosophical
terms to describe perceived Biblical “realities” (understandings).
Ironically, the Nicene Creed “de-Hellenized” Christianity as compared to Arianism by reaffirming Christ’s humanity. On the other hand, the Creed’s use of Greek philosophical
concepts led to the ideas that God is immutable, impassible (cannot suffer) and does not
have “feelings” (apatheia).
The Nicene Creed also cemented the relationship between the Church and the State
because it was Constantine who called the Council of Nicea. The Nicene Creed was
presented as a “universal creed” by an ecumenical council. It used philosophical language
for its key concepts. This was appropriate because the challenge to “orthodoxy” was
expressed in philosophical terms by Arius, and therefore needed to be “refuted” by
philosophical constructs.
The First Council of Constantinople (381) modified the Nicene Creed
Because of theological confusion that continued after Nicea, political authorities wanted a
higher level of uniformity. The confusion arose about the use of the terms homoousios
(same nature/substance) and homoiousios (similar nature/substance). The Arians
continued to argue that the Son had a nature similar to the Father and that there was a
moment when the Son did not exist because the Father was “prior” to the Son.
The clarifications made at Constantinople emphasized the eternal “procession” of 2nd
Person and the Second Person’s divine origin, the idea of double generation of the Son
that had been previously developed by Irenaeus, and emphasized the role of Holy Spirit
in the Incarnation. The clarifications opposed “adoptionism” (the idea that Jesus was a
mere human who was “adopted” by God the Father and thereby became divine). It also
4
expanded the statements regarding the Holy Spirit to make clear the equality of the Holy
Spirit’s divinity.
It deleted “God from God” (added back in later). Many of the deletions that were made in
Constantinople were “doublets.”
This was only an Eastern Council; it was not “ecumenical.”
The Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.) approved the Creed developed at Constantinople I,
and also adopted further language about the simultaneous humanity and divinity of Jesus.
Apostles' Creed
Name given to one form of the Roman Creed in the late 4th century.
Rufinus added “descended into hell” in 404 CE, and it became part of the Spanish and
Gallican Creeds of the 6th, 7th and 8th Centuries. This changed the words in Scripture
that Jesus “descended to the dead” or to “places beneath.”
Modifications to the Creed continued to be made in France, Spain and Germany.
The phrase “Communion of Saints” was developed from Gallican Synod of 394 and
refers to the fellowship of all holy persons.
Liturgical uniformity that was mandated by Charlemagne (800) was later imported to
Rome. By this time, clergy and for godparents were required to know the Apostles’ Creed
and the Lord's Prayer.
The Apostles’ Creed became the standard creed used at Baptism in the West by the 12th
Century.
Pious fiction of the origin of the Apostles' Creed
Each apostle contributed one statement to the Apostles’ Creed. This story was prevalent
from 400 to 1450.
The Council of Florence (1438-45) tried to unite the East and West Churches. In the
Council, it was clear that the East had no knowledge of the Apostles’ Creed.
Modern scholarship shows no reference to Apostles’ Creed or a similar creed before late
2nd Century. There is no reference to the Apostles’ Creed in the 2nd and 3rd Century
Church Fathers. The earliest references to the Apostles’ Creed are 380 and 404.
5
COMPARISON OF
THE NICENE-CONSTANTINOPLE CREED (BCP 358)
AND APOSTLES' CREED (BCP 66/120)
Code to Differences Between the Creeds
(1)
Regular Print = Only in Original Creed from the Council of Nicea (325)
(2)
Italics = Additions made at the Council of Constantinople I (381)
(3)
Brackets [ ] = Deletions at Constantinople from the Creed adopted at Nicea
(4)
Inclusions { } = the “Filioque”.
(5)
Bold Face = In both the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed
(6)
In Parentheses and Bold Face = Only in Apostles Creed
We (I) believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is,
seen and unseen.
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the (his) only begotten Son (, our Lord) of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages, [that is from the essence/substance of the Father], God
from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of the same
essence/substance/Being as the Father, through whom all things were made, [things in heaven and
things on earth].
For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: (who was conceived) by the power of
the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate from (born of) the Virgin Mary and was made man.
For our sake, he was crucified (suffered) under Pontius Pilate, (was crucified, died) and
suffered death and was buried. (He descended into Hell/to the dead.)
On the third day, he rose again (from the dead) in accordance with the Scriptures and
ascended into heaven, and is seated on the right hand of the Father. (from thence) He will
come again in glory to judge living and dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We (I) believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father {and
the Son}. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the
Prophets.
We believe in one (the) holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, (the communion of saints, the
forgiveness of sins,)
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead (body,) and the life (everlasting) of the world to come.
Amen.
6
GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE NICENE CREED
The Nicene Creed can be a unifying force for Christians, but it is not the ONLY
instrument of Christian self-definition. Creeds exist in “creative tension” with other
elements of Christian identity such as Scripture and Tradition.
The NCC is derived primarily from Scripture, and can assist us in interpreting Scripture
as a community. The origins of 95% of the NCC are in the New Testament.
The “heart” of the NCC is that Jesus is Lord, the Son of God, and The Christ. This in
turn, leads to the development of the Trinity, in the sense that we learn of the Trinity
through the salvific work of God. This is known as the “Economic Trinity” in that the
“Economy” or “Plan” of Salvation reveals the Trinity to us.
Modernity sees Faith as accepting that which cannot be proven. Modernity asserts that all
“truths” require empirical testing. This position is, of course, a “Faith Statement” itself
since this assertion cannot be proven.
A profession of Faith is always a personal, subjective and communal commitment. The
content of our Faith Statements cannot be verified by facts observable by all persons.
Faith deals with realities that cannot be measured, and Faith is itself a specific lens by
which a person looks at (and knows) reality.
“Faith does not know a different world from the one measured and calculated by science,
but it knows this world differently.”
The NCC is counter-cultural. Some aspects of the NCC are directly opposed to the
“Values of the World.” The words and ideas of the NCC do not fit with the world as
“understood by the World.”
One can fairly ask whether (on some level) the “truth” of the NCC could be tested
“empirically” in terms of the manner in which believers live and their sense of fulfillment
and purpose.
The roots of the NCC are in the “Shema” (“Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One”)
(DT 6.4, MT 22.33-40). The Shema was communal (“Hear O Israel”), exclusivist (One
God), and personal (a call to love God with one’s whole heart).
Creeds cannot be accepted uncritically, unthinkingly or literally.
The NCC presents a powerful and provocative understanding of all reality. It is a
compelling version of the world’s destiny and humanity’s role in challenging the
idolatries of the World and “current worldly wisdom.”
7
It is important to differentiate between Orthopraxy (Right Practice) and Orthodoxy (Right
Belief). The former is particularly important in both Judaism and Islam.
The experience by believers of Jesus as the Resurrected One is the fundamental
difference between Judaism and Islam (on the one hand) and Christianity on the other.
The Creeds responded to the needs to (1) describe the experience of the Christian
Community of Jesus as Resurrected within the shared story of Israel; (2) articulate in
words the complex understanding of God embedded in the Resurrection; and (3) correct
what were perceived as misunderstandings of who and what Jesus is/was.
The Early Creeds lent coherence to Christian Belief, and responded to challenges from
Gnosticism, Arianism and Docetism. Early creedal statements were developed by
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Hippolytus of Rome (215 CE) who developed the
“Roman Symbol” (an early form of the Apostles’ Creed).
Creeds recognize that they are inherently “subjective.” In 1 Cor. 8.6, Paul says: ”yet for
us there is one God, the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” This early
creedal statement reflects the Supremacy of the Father and that Jesus is “subordinate but
equal.”
A NCC becomes an authentic profession of Faith when one finds that the truth of one’s
own experience corresponds to the words of the NCC as understood by each of us. We
each declare that the NCC is true for each of us — not that it represents a universal truth.
The “test” of a Creed for a person or a community is to ask: What kind of life does it aid
and support?
A Christian should acknowledge that (a) a Creed speaks of things she cannot fully
understand and cannot demonstrate even to her own satisfaction and (b) many others may
not be able to affirm the Creed precisely as she does.
Professing a Creed does not equal a statement of the entirety of one’s Faith, anymore than
reciting the rules of baseball captures the excitement of the game.
“Faith” is the entirety of one’s human response and includes belief, trust, hope,
obedience, endurance and loyalty.
Being a Christian is not simply a matter of having certain attitudes and dispositions. It is
a matter of living according to a specific view of the world and maintaining allegiance to
the essential practices of a community that seeks to live according to the essentials of the
community’s vision of reality.
8
A Creed is a “symbol” of Faith. “Symbols” point to realities beyond themselves. In the
same way, the Eucharist is a “symbol” in that it points to the participation by the
Community of Faith in the Body and Blood of Christ.
The words of a Creed must be taken with “a grain of salt.” All religious language claims
more than it can demonstrate, define or even fully understand. Moreover, the language of
the NCC is compressed, even cryptic.
The language of a Creed is “mythic” in the sense that myths try express in language
truths about the world and about humans, and perceptions of God/the Sacred that go
beyond what we (as humans) can test, prove, or adequately express in words. A myth is
not a “fantasy” that is unrelated to a perceived truth.
Words are inadequate to express significant truths because of the “mystery” inherent in
questions such as: Where do we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? The
NCC’s “mythic story” responds to these questions.
Whenever we speak of God (including in Creeds), we use language that only partially
expresses a perceived truth about God. We also need to recognize that all our statements
about God are (by definition) inaccurate. Just because we have words about mysteries
doesn’t mean we have captured the full reality of those mysteries.
Theology (the study of God) is inherently dangerous because we don’t know God from
the inside out, but only from the outside looking in.
Positive statements about God are called “ketaphatic” and negative ones are called
“apophatic.” For example, we might affirm that God “knows” and this is a positive
statement about God. But in the same breath, we also need to say that God does not
“know” in the same way that humans “know.” In that sense, we really don’t fully grasp
what it means to say that God “knows.”
Even though Creeds express propositions that we cannot fully explain or define, the
denial of these “critical theological concepts” can lead to the distortion or loss of other
truths. For example, the Creed asserts that God is our “Maker,” but does not define how
God is our “Maker.” If we deny that God is our “Maker” (however understood), however,
it changes our relationship to the world, and the consequences of this denial would
change our understandings of ourselves, our relationships with others and with the world,
and with God/the Sacred.
One question we will ask as we “unpack” the Creed is: “What would be the effect of
denying or removing this statement?”
9
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF
THE NICENE-CONSTANTINOPLE CREED
Part 1 – We believe in
Why is it “We” and not “I” as in the Apostles’ Creed?
What does it mean to “believe in” something?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Faith is different from “belief.” Faith in God is an existential response of the whole
person characterized by trust, obedience and loyalty. When a person has Faith, it changes
the way the person lives and thinks about other realities.
Belief is a cognitive element of Faith, and is both a condition for Faith and integral to
Faith. There are two kinds of belief: belief in something or someone (this is more like
“trust”), and belief that some fact or idea or proposition is true.
To “believe in” is to place deep trust in someone or something, and includes a change in
one’s behaviors and outlooks on the basis of that trust.
Each of us “believes” slightly differently, and none of us individually believes as fully as
the community.
Part 2 – one God
What do we mean by “God”?
What are the implications of saying there is only “one” God?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
This statement of belief is the most radical and most important element of the NCC. It
has the most consequences in terms of the way we live. It is not like saying, “I believe in
unicorns.”
If you really believe in God, it means you are prepared to stake your life and the way you
live on that Faith Statement.
The language of the Creed and of the Scriptures is not sufficient to “define” God. Both
the Creeds and Scripture rely on metaphors. Metaphors necessarily and simultaneously
present positive (ketaphatic) statements and negative (apophatic) statements.
10
The Hebrew Scriptures recognize the mysterious quality of God when God is reported to
say to Moses “I am becoming what I am becoming.” (Ex. 3.14)
Other monotheisms (Islam and Judaism) see God’s oneness as “singularity.” Christians
believe in ONE God, but (as the NCC later discusses) this oneness is expressed in a
plurality of relationships within the Godself.
One modern formulation about belief in “God” might be: I believe and I am willing to
structure my life on the “truth” that there is a meaning in my own life and the lives of
others that transcends the material world. I trust in a God of Love who wants only that
which is good for me — peace, love, and reconciliation. This is a mystery that I will
never fully understand, but I believe that God’s love for all of us is the ONE central
meaning and purpose for all reality.
Part 3 – the Father
Is this a good metaphor for God? Would “Mother” be as good?
Apart from the patriarchal situation of the 4th Century, why was “Father” chosen?
What is the word “Father” seeking to convey about God?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Patriarchy existed in the 4th Century, as it had previously, in part because the father’s
seed was (based on an incorrect understanding of biology) seen as contributing all the
“life force” to new life. Mothers were “mere receptacles” for gestation and there was no
appreciation of the mother’s contribution of the egg to the process. A mother’s womb
was like “Mother Earth” and received the seed that had all the elements of the new life
(plant).
The father was the “natural” head of the family and tribe. The father’s role was to create
and nurture his people.
The downside of patriarchy is that it elevates men above women. If God is “male,” then
males are gods. This diminution of women (sexism) is most powerfully revealed in the
denial (by some Christians) that the Incarnation of God could have been a female. They
claim the Incarnation necessarily had to be a male.
“Father” in the Creed is a metaphor. Even though God may be “Father” in some sense
(as creator), God is not a “father” in any sense in which any of us have known human
fathers. This is the “is/is not” aspect of all metaphors.
11
If we understand “Father” as seeking to convey the idea that God is not an impersonal
force, but that our relationship with God is a personal relationship, and that God
(somehow) knows, loves, gives life and brings goodness to us.
Part 4 – the Almighty
What do we mean by this?
How does it fit with the idea of free will? Do we have free will?
What about the “Problem of Evil”? How can God be all-good, all knowing and all
powerful when bad things and tragic events occur to people?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
There are references to God’s power in Psalm 58.5 and 67.11 and to the “Lord Almighty”
in 2 Cor. 6.18.
“Almighty” conveys the fact that God is the “Ruler of Everything” and there is no place
or situation where God is not both present and relevant. God has the capacity to do
something “fresh” in all circumstances.
Intercessory or Petitioning Prayer seems to be based on the idea that God is all-powerful,
and can influence future events.
An alternative understanding to prayer would see prayer as seeking to hear the voice of
God that helps us understand how to see ourselves, others, the world (and even God) as
God would have us see them.
God’s freedom may be most evident in God’s grant of freedom to humans.
God’s knowledge, power and goodness are also metaphors in that they are not the same
as our understandings of human knowledge, power and goodness.
(Ketaphatic/Apophatic)
Liberation Theology and Process Theology see God as all-good, but not necessarily as all
powerful in that humans need to be active in the world to bring about the Kingdom of
God. Does this compromise our sense of God’s mystery and majesty?
“Open Theocracy” asserts that God is all good, but raises a question about the meaning of
God’s being “all knowing.” This notion says that God can know everything that is. But
even though God exists in the Eternal Now, God can’t “know” something that doesn’t
exist yet, and the future doesn’t exist yet. Therefore, God doesn’t “know” what we will
do in the future when we are faced with choices.
12
Part 5 – maker of heaven and earth
What does it mean to say “God” is the “maker” of heaven and earth?
Does this require a belief in “creation ex nihilo”?
Is there another acceptable way to understand the creative activity of God?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Creation is not a “casual” affair for God, but a powerful commitment by which God
shares the Godself’s being. This is an assertion that the universe is a marvelous gift. It
was not “necessary” for God to create.
Creation is an ongoing process in which God is revealer, savior, sanctifier and judge (a
“judge” is one who makes all things “right”).
The Old Testament saw God as Creator and as the one who shaped all events in human
history, even to the point (for example) of “hardening Pharaoh’s heart.” Do we share that
view?
For a Christian, saying “God is Creator” is a perception of the dependence on God of all
reality and all that is still coming into being. Creation describes a relationship, not an act.
The fact that anything exists at all is a primordial mystery that points us towards God and
reveals God to us (“Creation is the BIG Bible”).
God’s continuing creative activity is shown to Christians most dramatically in the
Resurrection.
“In the beginning” could be understood temporally, but it may be better understood in
terms of perceiving God as the “relational cause” of all that is.
Using Aristotle’s four causes, creation ex nihilo is an assertion about “efficient” cause or
HOW creation came to be.
Creeds and theology are not concerned with “how” questions, but much more with
questions of “why” and “what impact does this have on us as humans?”
Seeing all creation as having “ontological dependence” on God is not an answer to
“HOW” the universe came to be. Instead, it addresses the universe’s relationship to the
Creator. It leaves open creation’s substantive cause (what a thing is made of) and its
formal cause (what its essence is). The relationship to the Creator does have an impact on
its “final” cause (what its purpose or goal is).
13
Part 6 – of all there is, seen and unseen [visible and invisible]
Why was this included? What does it add?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The words “seen and unseen” are a literary device called a “hendiadys.” Other uses of
this literary device are opposites that encompass everything such as “under heaven and
earth” or “knowledge of good and evil.”
This creedal statement was made in opposition to dualism (and particularly Gnosticism)
that asserted that spirit is good and matter is evil. Gnostics asserted that God created
spirit, but a “lesser” God created matter.
This statement rejects the idea that matter is not good, and particularly rejects the notion
that sexuality is not good.
In today’s culture, we face the challenge of asserting the goodness of sexuality without
condoning the idolatry of pan-sexuality and addictive hedonism.
Part 7 – We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ
What does it mean to believe in a “Lord”?
What does it mean to believe in only “one” Lord?
What are the implications of calling this Lord “Jesus Christ”?
“Christ” is a title, not a name. What does it mean for us?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
“Lord” is first used by Paul to describe Jesus. For Paul, “Lord” = “Kyrios” which is the
same word used in the LXX for “YHWH”. This is a clear statement that Jesus is God and
shares in the life, ruling power and life-giving functions of God. It is an assertion that
Jesus is the source of the Spirit by which we now live (1 Cor. 12.3).
To say “Jesus is Lord” is not the same as saying “Elizabeth is Queen of England.” It is
not a mere statement of fact. Instead, the statement reflects a powerful and over-riding
commitment about what it means for us to be human, what is important in our lives, and
what it means to be in a relationship with God as revealed in Jesus of Nazareth.
As Paul notes in Phil. 2.6, Jesus “emptied himself like a slave.” In the Trinity, there is a
reversal of values in that the Lords are always the servants. In saying “Jesus is our Lord,”
we are committing ourselves to servanthood.
14
It is a commitment that, like Jesus, we won’t see our lives as a “bargain” in which we
love (or do good deeds) because of what we expect we will get back. We are affirming
that we will love fully and without conditions and trust that our lives will be more
profoundly joyful than we could imagine.
If Jesus is Lord, none of us is lord over any other person. Jesus alone has authority over
our lives and those of others. By definition, there is no power higher than Lord.
“Christ” is not a name. It is a title, meaning “the anointed one.” In the Hebrew Scriptures,
there were many anointed ones: kings, prophets, priests, and even Cyrus of Persia was
seen as God’s anointed instrument. (Is. 45.1)
We assert that Jesus of Nazareth was “The Christ” — the awaited Messiah, even though
he did not fulfill any of the customary expectations of the Messiah that were prevailing in
the First Century.
Part 8 – the only [begotten] Son of God
Why is Jesus described as the “only” Son of God?
What does it mean to be the “Son of God”?
Is Jesus’ sonship different from others who are “children of God”? How? Why?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Our claim as Christians is that God is fully present in the human, Jesus of Nazareth, in a
manner and fullness that has not been realized in any other person.
The Scriptural “evidence” of this understanding during Jesus’ life is sparse and reflects
later (post-Resurrection) understandings. Paul in Rom. 1.3 refers to Jesus as “declared to
be the Son of God … by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ Our Lord.”
In Acts 3.22, Luke refers to Psalm 2.7 (“You are my son”) and Peter states in Matt. 16.16
“You are the Son of the Living God.”
In Jesus’ lifetime, other titles appear to be given to him such as rabbi, prophet, king, Son
of Man. These were understandings derived from the symbolism of the Hebrew
Scriptures. They do not show a unique ontological relationship to God.
Paul makes a distinction between Jesus’ Sonship and ours in Gal. 4.4-7: “… God sent his
Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the
law, so that we might receive adoption as children. …So you are no longer a slave, but a
child….”
15
Luke Timothy Johnson, p. 119: “…a simple (but infinitely difficult) truth: that Christ
came from and returned to God in a way that no other human has or will or could,
because when he came from God he remained what he had been and when he returned to
God he returned to his own place.” Do we agree with this formulation?
Part 9 – eternally [before all time] begotten of the Father
What does “eternally” really mean? How can we try to grasp it?
What does it mean to be “begotten”?
What does “of the Father” mean here?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
“Begotten” is derived from the Greek word “gennēthenta” meaning having its origin
from within.
The language of “begetting” is in Ps. 2.7: “The Lord said to me, you are my son. Today I
have begotten you.”
In John’s Gospel, we have language of God “giving” and “sending” his Son. Is this not a
“How” explanation of the perception/belief that Jesus of Nazareth was/is God?
“Begetting” is not physical, and is a term used to convey the idea that the Second Person
of the Trinity had eternal co-existence within the life of God, an existence that preceded
the Incarnation.
This “begotten” Second Person is an “expansion” (to use a metaphor) of the life of God
within the Trinity. The Prologue to John’s Gospel creates a tie between the LOGOS and
the “only begotten Son.”
That the LOGOS became flesh (John 1.14) adds a new dimension.
Part 10 – [God from God, Light from Light], true God from true God
What does this add?
What does “true” mean here?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
According to Gen. 1.3, light is the first thing created. For people dependent only on
sunlight and fire for light, the importance of light cannot be overestimated.
16
These phrases make the identity of the Son with the Father unmistakable.
Light is a frequent metaphor in Scripture for the presence of God.
Calling Jesus “True God” is consistent with calling Jesus “theos” in six passages in
Scripture, but most of these attributions are questionable. The one that is unmistakable is
in John 20.28 when Thomas exclaims “My Lord and My God.” The Johannine
Community would regard this statement as theologically correct, and it would have been
accepted as such by the Council of Nicea.
In this regard, it is important to remember that the experience of the Resurrection did not
follow from the ministry of Jesus as recounted in the Gospels. Instead, the stories in the
Gospels followed from a reflection on Jesus’ life and ministry as seen through the lens of
the Jesus Followers’ perceived experience of the Resurrection.
Part 11 – begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father
Why was begotten added?
Isn’t it repetitive?
What does “one Being” mean? What IS God’s “Being”? How do we know?
Why was the controversy that led this being added?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Except for the few references in Part 9 above, the language in this phrase is not derived
from Scripture.
The language “not made” is intended to oppose Arianism which claimed that the Son was
created and that there was “a time when the Son was not.” If there were a time when the
Son was not, the Son would be subordinate to the Father. This would (or could) move
toward ditheism (two Gods).
There were numerous passages in Scripture that supported Arius’ position that Christ was
subordinate to the Father (Prov. 8.22, Ac. 2.36, Rom. 8.29, Col.1.15, Heb. 3.2, John 17.3
and 14.28).
The two centers of Christianity, Antioch and Alexandria, read Scripture differently.
Alexandria was more Platonic, and tended to read Scripture allegorically. Antioch was
more Aristotelian, and tended to read Scripture more literally. Alexandria focused on
essences (it was not possible for two beings have the same essence/ousios). Antioch
focused more on the particular beings and sought to reason derivatively to their essences.
As a result, Antioch could say both Father and Son had the same essence.
17
The Council at Nicea saw it as critical that the Son was not simply an improved version
of other human beings. It was important that the Son was qualitatively (i.e. essentially)
different from other humans, and not just quantitatively different.
If the Son was not fully God, then salvation (however understood) did not come from and
through God.
One of the ways of showing this difference between the Son and other humans was to
emphasize that the Son was “begotten” and not created.
Part 12 – Through him all things were made
What does it mean if the Son is the one through whom all things were made?
How does this square with the phrase that the Father is the “maker” of heaven and earth?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
In Greek philosophy, the LOGOS is the ordering principle, that which makes everything
different from everything else that is. The LOGOS is also the ultimate source of order in
the created world.
John’s Prologue (1.3) says of the Logos that “all things came into being through him, and
without him, not one thing came into being.”
Although the texts are somewhat ambiguous, Wisdom is sometimes seen as the first of
God’s creations and is sometimes seen as being present at creation. See Prov. 8.22, Wis.
7.22, and Sir.24.1-9.
These phrases in John are intended to convey the understanding of the Johannine
Community that the Incarnation was not an afterthought — that it was always part of the
over-all plan of Creation.
Part 13 – For us [men] and for our salvation
What is “salvation”? How do we understand what it means to be “saved”?
Is it a future event or something that happens in this life? Or both?
Is “for us” different from “for our salvation”? If not, why are both phrases used?
18
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Although the word is translated “men” in many versions of the Creed, the Greek word is
“anthropos” meaning “human” and not just males.
The statement in the Creed that God sent the Son to this tiny planet for our salvation is an
extraordinary claim.
In God’s acts, we see God’s selfless love (agape) and gain an understanding that the
mystery of God is love.
When we look at Jesus and his life, death and resurrection, we do not learn what we are
as humans. We learn what God is and how God acts.
Or do we learn what it would mean to be “fully human?”
Salvation — a possible definition: the present-time communal sharing of God’s life of
love to the fullest extent we can.
An alternative understanding — “Salvation” is living as fully human a life as we can.
Salvation for Paul is being liberated from elements of the universe (Gal. 4.9); powers and
principalities (Rom. 8.38); oppressive systems of Law (Rom. 6.15); and from fear of
death and bondage to sin (1 Cor. 15.54; Rom. 8.14).
The signs of Salvation are freedom, the boldness to confront opposition without fear, and
peace. Salvation is not a future event. It includes the removal of all that prevents full
reconciliation here and now.
Salvation is not merely a matter of correcting mistaken ideas or fixing social structures. It
is not simply a human matter.
Some suggest that only God could elevate human beings to share in the life of God and
that if Salvation were simply a human matter, Jesus of Nazareth could have been only a
human and would not also have to be God.
Do you agree? Can’t non-Christians have a relationship with God and have “salvation”?
Christian doctrine says that because God became incarnate, we can fully share in the life
of God. (Gal. 4.4: we become “adopted sons [children] of God.”)
Do you agree that salvation (sharing in the life of God) had to be accomplished that way?
Part 14 – he came down from heaven
What does this mean?
19
Where or what is heaven? Is it a place? Is it a state of being?
How do we know that Jesus came down “from heaven”?
What are the implications of this phrase for us?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
One approach might be to say that God’s implicit presence in creation became an explicit
presence in creation in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus “broke the boundary” between the “conditions” we call “heaven” and earth. Jesus is
of “divine origin” (heaven). He was truly human when he was on earth. Is the Second
Person of the Trinity still (today) fully divine and fully human?
Phil. 2.7 speaks of kenosis — emptying out oneself and taking the form of a slave.
The story of Jesus of Nazareth/Jesus the Christ is not finished and over. Because of the
Resurrection, Jesus is part of the living story of every believer.
Part 15 – by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the
Virgin Mary and was made man
Who/what is the Holy Spirit? What is the basis for the existence of the Holy Spirit?
How does the Holy Spirit exercise power? How do we become aware that the Holy Spirit
is exercising power?
What does it mean to be “incarnate”? Why was this word chosen? Why not just say he
had a body?
What are the implications for us that God became incarnate?
Does this phrase require us to believe that Mary was a biological virgin at the time of
Jesus’ conception and birth?
Does it mean we have to believe in the “perpetual biological virginity” of Mary?
How else might the phrase “Virgin Mary” be understood?
What are the implications that Jesus of Nazareth was “made” and not “begotten”?
20
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The literal translation of the Greek is: “and being made flesh out of the Holy Spirit and
Mary the Virgin, and becoming human.”
There seems to be a distinction in “being made flesh” and “becoming human.” Why
would two different phrases be used?
The word for “human” is (once again) anthropos, so the Incarnation is not God becoming
a “male” as such, but God’s becoming a human being. The particular gender of Jesus was
male, but it could (in theory) have been female.
The literal Greek does not speak of the “power” of the Holy Spirit, and does not use the
term “born” — though that is how human beings come to be alive.
It is important that the Holy Spirit and Mary are shown as being equally involved in the
“being made flesh.”
Mary’s Hebrew name was Miriam, the name of the sister of Moses and the prophetess
who also spoke for God.
In Gal. 4.4, Paul simply says that Jesus was “born of a woman” without attributing
virginity to her.
By the time of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (85 CE), the Virgin Birth motif was part
of the understandings of the Jesus Followers. There can be little doubt that those present
at Nicea also accepted the biological virginity of Mary.
Does this require us to accept the virginity of Mary if we accept the Creed?
One suggestion is that this is a “HOW” question and it is neither possible nor important
to know the biology of Jesus’ conception and birth. Sex (as between Joseph and Mary)
could also be “holy” and the conception and birth can still be understood as “out of the
Holy Spirit.” If one believes Mary was a biological virgin, that is ok, but it’s also ok to
believe she conceived in the “normal” way and the Holy Spirit was present and involved
in the conception.
The “biological virgin theory” asserts that God had power to place a sperm in Mary’s
womb. The “non-biological virgin theory” asserts that the all-powerful God, at the
moment of Jesus’ conception, caused this fertilized egg to be Jesus of Nazareth, who was
later understood to be the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. It is not for
humans to decide the manner in which God can and cannot work.
There is scriptural authority for saying Jesus had brothers and sisters, and some scholars
even assert that Thomas was Jesus’ twin brother. (That would really wreak havoc with
the “biological virgin” notion.)
21
The presence and power of the Holy Spirit are the effective presence and power of God
among human beings.
The Incarnation shows the vulnerability (!) of God. This does not mean that God can be
essentially impaired (that is, God will still be God), but it does mean that we can reject
God’s love for us.
Jesus is the gift from God and also the reception of the gift from God by humans. He is
the “Yes” of God to humans and the “Yes” of humans to God (2 Cor.1.20). He reflects
the glory of God as God’s image and he reflects God’s glory to humans so we can be
transformed and share in God’s life (salvation) (Col. 1.15).
When the Creed says that Jesus was “made flesh,” we need to distinguish “flesh”
(meaning having a human body) and the way Paul sometimes uses “flesh” to denote the
values of “the World.”
Part 16 – For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate
What does “for our sake” mean here? Is it different from “for us and our salvation” in
Phrase 13?
Why was “under Pontius Pilate” put in? What does this add?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Only three humans are mentioned in the Creed: Jesus, Mary and Pilate.
Mary accepts the claims of God on us and gives birth to the embodiment of God’s
presence. Pilate stands for the values of the World and rejects the claims of God and kills
God’s messenger.
Mary is young, female, poor, Jewish and pregnant out of wedlock. Pilate is mature, male,
wealthy, Roman, part of the power elite, and married.
Seeing the Incarnation as a whole, the birth, death and Resurrection are all “for our sake”
and “for our salvation.”
Ancient biographies looked to the manner of death as a showing the quality of one’s life.
Crucifixion was an ignominious death, but the Gospels emphasize that Jesus was
“righteous” and in right relation with God. Paradoxically, then, a blessing for all
humankind comes from the one who was “cursed” because he was hung on a tree (Gal.
3.13 relying on Dt. 21.23).
Pilate serves as a warning to Christians that using the power of the state for one’s own
ends can cause Christians to become oppressors.
22
One way to think of the “reconciliation” which Jesus is understood to have effected is to
reject the “expiation” model by which humans are reconciled upwards to satisfy a
demanding God to “atone” for our sins. Instead, one can think of reconciliation with God
as an act by God towards humans in which the Godself suffers death in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth. This act enables us to realize how close God is to us. It did not bring
us closer to God — we were always in an intimate relationship with God. We just didn’t
fully realize it. No longer can humans think of God as being apart from humans — God
has suffered all that humans can suffer, including death. This gift from God enables us
know that we can share in the life of God.
As a result of the gift of Reconciliation from God, we can overcome (with God’s grace)
the ingrained habit we have of turning inwards. We can get past the habit of looking at
others, seeing what they want, and then competing with them for it.
Christ “died for our sins” in the sense that humans seem to be inherently uncomfortable
in the face of true goodness. The persons of the First Century who were in power
certainly felt this discomfort. “Sin” is our own self-destructiveness.
Understandings of “Reconciliation” and “Redemption” (like all theological
understandings) are “myths” and are not capable of being “tested” in the scientific sense.
Nevertheless, different understandings of myths and theological truths can profoundly
influence our orientation towards the Sacred, towards ourselves and towards others.
Part 17 – he suffered death
The original Greek merely says “he suffered and was buried” without mentioning death.
What does this phrase add? Why is it included in most translations?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Jesus’ death means he fully accepted the human condition in all its finitude.
Jesus did not will his own death. He was violently seized by the authorities and put to
death. The Gospel accounts evolve from Mark to John in a progression in which Jesus is
shown as being more “in control” of the process of his own life and death. This reflects a
changing Christology in which Jesus’ divinity was increasingly emphasized. The earliest
accounts of the Crucifixion in Paul do not even hint at this kind of “control” by Jesus
over his own situation. The “historical Jesus” accounts emphasize acceptance by Jesus of
his death rather than his directing it.
Jesus’ suffering also opens the possibility that suffering (which we tend to consider a
“bad” thing) can be a circumstance for growth. That is, Jesus’ suffering shows that
suffering is not intrinsically bad. Healthy people are not masochists, and do not seek out
suffering and pain, for this is a distortion of the Good News. Suffering is the pain caused
23
by change, and one’s attitude towards suffering can be influenced by one’s belief in the
mystery of God’s goodness.
Jesus’ suffering is a powerful statement of God’s voluntary solidarity with humans. The
Crucifixion says, “This is what the price of unrestricted love looks like in the world.”
Part 18 – and was buried
What is the importance that Jesus was buried?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The burial was a further statement that Jesus was really dead and that he remained in the
tomb for a time.
In the First Century, it would have been understood that Jesus went to Sheol (or in Greek,
Hades). This would be the ultimate expression of sharing the human condition. Jesus’
burial and the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed “he descended into hell” have been
interpreted as expressions of God’s universal will for the salvation of all persons — the
sharing in the life of God for all persons that comes through the Resurrection.
Part 19 – On the third day, he rose again
Is it important that it was on the “third day”? What is the source of this term?
Why is “again” added?
Note that this is active voice — he rose, not he was raised. What are the implications of
this?
How do we understand the Resurrection? Did Jesus have a physical body after the
Resurrection? Was it the same body he had before he died? Paul speaks of a “spiritual
body.” Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
Does it matter how we understand the Resurrection? Why?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
There are scriptural variations regarding the Resurrection. Not only do the four Gospel
accounts vary with each other in their details, sometimes the Resurrection occurs “on” the
third day, and sometimes “after” the third day.
Some scriptures say “He rose” and others say, “He was raised.” The references are about
equally divided.
24
“Three days” was an idiomatic expression (like “I’ll be there in a minute”) that meant “a
short time.” The Gospel accounts agree that the Crucifixion was on the day before the
Sabbath and that the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week.
Paul is very emphatic in 1 Cor. 15 that the Resurrected Jesus appeared to him in the same
way as to the other disciples. Paul speaks of the Resurrection as “destroying death”
(15.26) and as an ongoing event (15.3) in which Jesus shares in the life and power of
God.
Resurrection may be thought of as a new form of existence of the life-giving sprit, so that
Jesus is the “New Adam,” the “firstborn of the new humanity.” (Rom. 8.29)
The Resurrection is more than the vindication of a human being unjustly killed. Paul sees
it as the return by Jesus to his position as Son of God (Phil. 2.6-11).
Unless one believes in the Resurrection, Jesus is only a moral exemplar.
Rowan Williams: “The Resurrection shows the sheer toughness and persistence of God’s
love. When we have done our worst, God remains God.”
He continues: “Just as people met unconditional love in the person of Jesus before the
Crucifixion, they still do after the Resurrection.”
“The Resurrection displays God’s triumphant love as still and forever being the shape of
Jesus who continues to make God present to us…Jesus is a living person.”
“The Resurrection is the Second Big Bang… and shows that creation continues.”
Part 20 – in accordance with the Scriptures
Which Scriptures? The Hebrew Scriptures? The Gospels?
Does “in accordance with” mean “in conformity with” or does it mean “as predicted by”
or does it mean “according to” as in “as described in” the Gospels?
Does it matter how we understand this phrase? What are the implications of the different
ways of interpreting it?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
By any of the multiple expectations of Messiah that were current in Judaism in the First
Century, Jesus of Nazareth was a failure.
25
A good case can (and has) been made that the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures that are
customarily used to show that Jesus “fulfilled” the expectations regarding the Messiah are
“after the fact” usages. That is, in trying to describe who and what the Resurrected Jesus
was/is, the authors of the Christian Scriptures drew on images and symbols from Hebrew
Scriptures to try to convey their own beliefs and interpretations about Jesus. They drew
on Isaiah 53 (Suffering Servant), Psalm 22 for the Crucifixion, and references to the Day
of the Lord in Amos, Zechariah and others.
The bishops at Nicea would have accepted the notion that Jesus “fulfilled” the
“prophesies” of the Old Testament. Is it necessary for us to do so?
Part 21 – he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the
Father
What does it mean to “ascend”? Does it imply a physical place?
What does it mean to be seated at someone’s right hand?
What is this telling us about the relationship between the Father and the Son?
Is the terminology to be understood metaphorically or literally?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The phrase “seated at the right hand of the Lord” is derived from Ps. 110.1 and was used
in Matt. 22.44, Ac. 2.25 and other places. It is the place of power.
The Ascension is described only in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts (which was written by
the same author as the Gospel of Luke), but the accounts are different. This should keep
us from literalizing the story.
Elijah also ascended to heaven (2 Kings 2.10). The ascent of Elijah was needed to
complete the empowerment of Elisha. In Acts, the Ascension is a prelude to the sending
of the Holy Spirit that empowers the disciples.
“Ascended into heaven” can be understood not as being absent from the world, but as
being present with the Father. For the Resurrected Jesus to be fully present at the right
hand of the Father, he must fully transcend the earthly life.
Rowan Williams: The Resurrection and the Ascension show God is trustworthy.
Part 22 – He will come again in glory
What does it mean to “come again”? What does “glory” mean here?
26
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The idea of the Second Coming grows out of the fact that the expectations about the
Messiah that existed in the First Century did not occur. Because of the cognitive
dissonance between the belief that Jesus was the Messiah and the fact that these
messianic expectations were not fulfilled, the Jesus Followers developed the belief that
there would be a Second Coming when the “world would be put right.” The coming again
reflects the tension of “now, but not yet.”
How is the notion of the “Second Coming” different from (but analogous to) the Jewish
understandings of the Coming of the Messiah?
“Glory” comes from the Greek “doxa” or the Hebrew “kabod” and implies “weight” or
“presence.” Glory is not a matter of reputation or opinion. It is an acknowledgement of
God’s presence and power and claim upon humans.
Part 23 – to judge the living and the dead
What does it mean to “judge” in this context?
Who are the “living” and the “dead”? Is it to be understood literally?
Is this the “Final Judgment”?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
God’s power as judge follows from God’s creative energy. God has a passionate
involvement on the side of good as shown in the Resurrection.
We need to distinguish between the belief in the fact of God’s judging and the how the
judging will take place. “Judging” and “Justification” have the same roots, and “judging”
may well mean putting all things right (as when a page of type is “justified”) rather than
some kind of “punishment” for people who have done “bad deeds.” We have no way to
know how God will be a “judge” — which is another metaphor. God is not like the
human judges we know.
Many of the “Judges” in the Book of Judges were persons who “put things right” rather
than persons who punished some and rewarded others.
God sees into the hearts of all, and God’s “judgment” is a mystery we can never fully
understand.
There are numerous scenarios in the Scriptures about “End Times” and there is no clear
link that the “End Times” are the time of “Judgment.” Some visions of the end times are
27
apocalyptic which means God is expected to intervene in human history to “make things
right.” The Gospels tell us to be ready at all times. We have no basis for understanding
when (or what) the “End Times” will be.
The Book of Revelation is only one of 66 books in Scripture and has no more power or
importance regarding the Second Coming than Paul or the Gospels. Revelation is a book
that gives witness to a conviction and a hope, and the Book of Revelation very nearly
didn’t make it into the Canon of Christian Scriptures.
We have no direct information about heaven or hell, and although we believe the
Resurrected Jesus will restore right relations to the world, we have no way to know how
God will do this.
Part 24 – and his kingdom will have no end
What do we mean by “his kingdom”?
What does it mean that it will “have no end”?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The use of “his” to refer to Jesus was done to emphasize further (against Arius) the
equality of the Son with the Father.
Paul and the Gospels often use the phrase “Kingdom of God” and it can be understood as
the (not yet fully present) rule of the exalted Lord. Matthew (reflecting his Jewish
audience) uses “Kingdom of Heaven.”
Unlike the term “Lord,” the title “King” is given to Jesus only in the Gospels of John and
Matthew and the Book of Revelation.
“Having no end” sounds like a life in the ever-present “now” (eternity)
Part 25 – We believe in the Holy Spirit
What do we mean by the Holy Spirit?
How does the Holy Spirit affect us?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The Holy Spirit is the link between the Risen Christ and the Church, the means by which
we experience the power of the Resurrected One and are transformed into his likeness.
28
The Holy Spirit is not only a “power” but is also a “person” (which is another metaphor)
with whom we have a relationship that changes and evolves. The Holy Spirit helps us to
see the inner richness of God.
God reveals the Godself gradually over time. This revelation comes through our
experience of the Holy Spirit in our lives. The Holy Spirit is God’s symbol for reaching
humans.
Grace is always the gift of the Holy Spirit. The “power” of the Spirit is the power of
knowing and loving. The Holy Spirit is the ever-active agent of change.
The Spirit is “Holy” because the Spirit’s source is God.
Part 26 – the Lord, the giver of life
How can the Holy Spirit be “Lord” if the Son is Lord? Are they both “Lord” and this a
statement of their equality and identity (that is, they share the same “nature” or
“substance” or “Being”)?
How can the Holy Spirit be the “giver of life” if the Father is the “maker” and the Son is
the one through whom all things were made?
How is “life” understood here?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
“Life” here is the sharing of God’s life of love through the Resurrection of Jesus.
God who creates life is the “giver of life.” (2 Cor. 3.16-18)
John refers to the Holy Spirit as the “Paraclete” which means advocate or comforter.
Paul used a Trinitarian formula in his farewell to the Corinthians (“The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with all of you.”
(2 Cor. 13.13)
Part 27 – who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]
How is “proceeds from” different from being “begotten”?
What does “proceeds from” mean?
Why was “and the Son” included in the West and what difficulties does it cause?
29
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Holy Spirit is not "begotten" like Son; otherwise you would have two "sons."
“Proceeds” is linguistically related to the idea of “coming out” of the mouth or “going
forth” as the “Word” comes from the Father.
Both the Son and the Holy Spirit are not “made” by God, but are “out of God” and are
therefore divine.
The Scriptural testimonies on “double procession” are ambiguous. Some texts say the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and others refer only to the Father.
The original formulation in the NCC was: "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
through the Son."
The words were changed so that “and the Son” (“filioque” in Latin) was added in the
West at Third Council of Toledo (589) to counter Arianism (the idea that the Son is not
equal to Father) by saying that Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.
Since the 11th Century, the use of “and the Son” in the West has been a principal reason
for the division between the East and West Churches, although the real “issue” is one of
power.
The theological issue is the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son in terms of the work of
salvation. In other words, if the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, what is the
relation between the Holy Spirit and the Son regarding salvation?
The Church in the East emphasizes the fact that ultimate ground of being is the Father
from whom both the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed.
Part of the problem was the high-handed adoption of the Filioque by the Pope in 1014.
The “Filioque” was not adopted by an ecumenical council.
In many ways, the “Filioque” goes too far for a Creed, because it is proposing an answer
to a “how” question. Creeds overstep their proper roles when they try to answer questions
about the “mechanics” used by God.
The confusion also arose because of the so-called “Economy [Plan] of Salvation.” That
is, we learn of the Trinity because of this “Plan” — the Creation, the Incarnation, the
Resurrection and the Sending of the Spirit. The way we learn of the “Economic Trinity”
does NOT define the internal relations among the persons of the Trinity.
The 1978 Lambeth Conference recommended deletion of “and the Son” from the NCC.
30
Part 28 – With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified
What does it mean to be “worshiped”? To be “glorified”?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The Holy Spirit receives the same homage as the Father and the Son.
To “worship” means to give service to. “Glory” is discussed above.
To give “glory” to the Holy Spirit is to acknowledge that in the work of the Holy Spirit in
Christ and in us we see the work of God.
The grace that comes to believers is the gift of the Holy Spirit and is a share in the divine
life and a participation in God’s glory.
The “Power of the Holy Spirit” is a way to express the presence of Jesus’ personal
transcendent transforming power among believers.
Part 29 – He has spoken through the Prophets
What does it mean that the Holy Spirit is a “he”? This seems inconsistent with the Book
of Wisdom where Holy Wisdom is a “she” (Sophia) and is present at Creation. (Wis.
7.22ff)
What does it mean to “speak through the Prophets”? What is the source of this?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
Prophets are persons who have experiences of the Sacred and express those experiences
as speakers on behalf of God. Hearing others’ expressions of God is one of the ways in
which we become aware of God.
Prophets see deeper meanings in reality and when they speak, somehow God is speaking
through them. This is the work of the Spirit.
The writings of Scripture are open to new significance and meaning as God the Holy
Spirit continues to act in the world. God is an ever-creating God.
Christians came to understand who and what Jesus was/is by considering the texts of the
Hebrew Bible and the Christian Scriptures. By the work of the Holy Spirit, we are able to
come to our understandings about God through (among other means) the Scriptures.
We also perceive the presence of God/the Sacred in creation.
31
Prophesy challenges all persons (believers and non-believers) to recognize the presence
of the Living God in the community of faith.
The Church’s mission is to be faithful and prophetic witness to the world of the reality of
God’s claim upon the world. Prophets can speak at any time, even “on the subway walls.”
[with gratitude to Simon and Garfunkle]
The Creed itself is an instrument of prophesy in that it calls us to grow into the mind of
Christ, to adopt Jesus’ attitudes and dispositions and his pattern of radical obedience to
God and radical self-giving to others.
Part 30 – We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church
Is this descriptive or aspirational?
What does it mean to “believe in” this?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
The Creed is normative and aspirational, not descriptive.
The “Church” is God’s collective instrument for transforming the world — even with all
its faults and flaws, just as we are each an instrument for transforming the world with our
own faults and flaws.
It is good to think of the Church as a spiritual reality of communion in which the Spirit
leads us into the heart of Jesus’ prayerful relationship with the Father. The Church is best
thought of as something other than an “institution.”
The Church is the continuation of the Incarnation, the embodied presence of the
Resurrected Christ in believers through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is God’s
laboratory for communal life in God in which all should work to release the gifts of
others in the service of the Lord.
Salvation — living in the life of God — living a life as a “full human being”—is not an
individual experience. It requires reciprocal and life-giving relationships as an expression
of God’s reciprocal and relational life as revealed to us in the Trinity. We are not “saved”
individually. We are “among the people God is saving.”
Paul tells us that the life of the Spirit, the life of salvation, is not simply a life in which
rules are kept, but one in which we act to enable each other to live fully.
For the Gnostics, salvation was an individual matter and was a matter of “knowledge.”
32
“One” is an ideal for all people who truly call on God as “Lord.” There is one invitation
to all of us, and in its oneness, the persons who are the Church have an enormous
diversity of relationships with God. Unity does not equal uniformity.
“Holy” means “otherness.” It does not describe behavior, but the character of the
community that is to be IN the world, but not OF the world. Holiness is the
transformation of human beings by the Spirit of God. The Church (as holy) is related to
Christ and is called to be a witness to the presence and power of the Risen Lord in the
world.
Unfortunately, because some persons define their brand of “holiness” as the “only”
holiness, this has led to disunity in the Church. Holiness includes living in unity — a
unity that encompasses diverse understandings of holiness.
“Catholic” means “throughout the whole.” The Church is universal in extent and
inclusiveness particularly to outcasts. It means we must overcome speaking with only one
cultural language. It means providing an alternative way of life from the way of life
encouraged by “the world.”
“Apostolic” means both recognizing (a) the connection of the Church to the Apostles
(which tends to be conservative), and (b) that the Apostles were radically prophetic
speakers on behalf of God who suggested a different mode of understanding one’s
relationship with God. In this latter sense, “Apostolic” means being always open to
renewal and having the sense that we are “sent” (the root of the word “Apostle”). Power
and prestige have no place in an “Apostolic” church.
The most severe threat to the Church is its ability to sustain life together with integrity.
This requires the Church to (a) live within tension rather than trying to avoid it; (b)
cultivate discernment as a gift of the Spirit; and (c) seek to make the “marks of the
Church” work together rather than against each other.
The Church is like a couple that in spite of each other’s failings, knows they are sharing a
life together that is greater than the life they could have imagined or achieved on their
own. The Church is like a marriage that “works.”
Part 31 – We acknowledge [confess] one baptism for the forgiveness of
sins.
Why the change from “believe” to “acknowledge” [or “confess”]
If there is only “one baptism,” what happens to those who don’t get baptized?
Are the baptisms in different Christian sects “different baptisms” or are they all part of
“one baptism”?
33
The stated purpose of baptism in the NCC is the forgiveness of sins (plural). Is this the
sole purpose of baptism? If not, have the additional purposes been “add-ons” since the 4th
Century?
Are the “sins” only individual “sins” or does the “forgiveness” through Baptism also
apply to “collective” or “structural” sins such as racism or patriarchalism?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
It is an “acknowledgement or confession” rather than a “belief” because we have already
accepted our own Baptism. Baptism itself is not a self-realization. It is a rite of public
initiation in which we are publicly bathed. In doing so, we acknowledge our dependence
on others — on the Community of Faith.
The symbolism of Baptism goes back to purification rites and initiation rites.
When adults are baptized at an Easter Vigil Service (as in the early Church), they also
share in Jesus’ passing over from death to life.
Baptism is a one-time event and one need not be “born again.”
In the life of the Church, one moves from slavery to freedom, from fear to boldness, from
death to life, from dark to light, and from selfishness to the generous love in the pattern
of Jesus Christ as guided by the Holy Spirit.
Baptism is “full membership.” Clergy have no higher status than the baptized.
In terms of forgiveness of sins, the Creed does not offer a “theory of salvation.”
Forgiveness is not only the cancellation of the past debt, but also the lifting of the weight
of a sinful attitude or disposition that weighs us downward. It is the restoration of
relationships.
Since we are all sinners, we need to embody the practice of forgiveness as God forgives.
God forgives us (“forgive us our trespasses”) and not our sins. Similarly, we need to
forgive others (“as we forgive those who trespass against us”). We need to see in others
that they are “more” than their sins and that they are not defined by their sins.
Part 32 – We look for [forward to or expect] the resurrection of the
dead and the life of the world to come.
Why “look for” instead of “believe in”?
Is the resurrection we “look for” the same as the “way” Jesus rose from the dead —
whatever that was? If not, how are they different? How do we know?
34
What is meant by “the dead” here? What kind of “life” do we look for?
What is the “world to come”? When is this going to happen? Do we know?
Some thoughts and suggestions for consideration and discussion
This proposition states a hope and a conviction. It is noteworthy that the statement is not
a belief in either “eternal life” or “immortality.”
Longevity was presented in Deuteronomy as a reward for fidelity to the Law. The Books
of Job and Sirach rejected this idea and noted that sometimes the good die young and
sometimes those who are not good live a long time. The “solution” to this problem was
presented in 2 Maccabees. Through the “resurrection of the dead,” one’s longevity would
be eternal.
The conviction we hold as Christians is a hope that because God is not limited by space
and time and can do that which human beings cannot do, we will (somehow) share in
God’s eternal life.
Because of the influence of the Pharisees on early Christianity, there is an apocalyptic
quality to this expectation that is reinforced by the Book of Revelation.
If one literalizes the Book of Revelation, one is left with death, judgment, heaven and
hell. Unfortunately, for many Christians, this also involves a return to the Deuteronomic
ethic that “eternal life” (a metaphor for “salvation”) is only for those who obey the Law.
This construct “fits” very well with the Platonic notion of the “immortality of the soul.”
This literal construction reduces the Mystery of Resurrection (which only God
understands) to a mere formula. We have no way to know what resurrection will be for
us. We don’t know how in God’s loving mystery, God will “make all things right.”
LTJ: “We do not hope simply for some kind of survival after death as the logical
consequence of having an “immortal soul,” or (even sadder) the perpetual repetition of
mortal life through reincarnation. Survival is not salvation. Persistence in mortality is not
glorification.”
Rowan Williams: “People are rather shocked if you say that Christianity does not believe
in the immortality of the soul; but in fact, while the Bible and the tradition talk about
“immortal” life, they don’t assume that this deathless existence is something reserved for
a part of us only, as if there were a bit of us that didn’t have a future and a bit that did, the
solid lumpy bit and the hazy spiritual bit. We have a future with God as persons, no less.”
(Italics in original)
35
Part 33 – Amen.
We reaffirm what we have said because we need to be humble enough to know that —
even though we are staking our lives on it — we might be wrong. It is this trust that sets
us right with God, not achievement, performance or success.
36