The Creeds from a liberal Christian perspective
The Apostle's Creed + Nicene Creed with Thomas Jay Oord
In this week’s two-part episode series, theologian and philosopher Thomas Jay Oord and I sat down to discuss the history, language and theology of both the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed through the lens of liberal Christianity.
On one hand, I gained a renewed appreciation for the historical weight and theological richness embedded in these texts. There's something profound about connecting with a tradition that spans nearly two millennia, wrestling with the same fundamental questions about the nature of God and our relationship to the divine.
But this exercise also crystallized why I've gravitated away from abstract theology in recent years. Many of the intricate formulations in the creeds — phrases like "begotten, not made" or "of one Being with the Father" — while undoubtedly important in their historical context, feel disconnected from the lived experience of faith in the 21st century. As someone deeply invested in the practical applications of belief, I find myself increasingly drawn to expressions of faith that directly impact how we treat ourselves and others.
The painstaking philosophical distinctions made in the creeds, while intellectually intriguing, pale in comparison to the urgent calls for justice, compassion, and radical love that we find in the teachings of Jesus and throughout scripture. They also have little to do with the day-in and day-out concerns of mental health, individual flourishing, prayer, and other regular practices. I feel that our energies as people of faith are better directed toward embodying love in tangible ways rather than perfecting our theological nomenclature.
Nonetheless, I hope that by engaging seriously with our traditions, even (or especially) when we find them challenging, we can forge a faith path that is aware of its history but also responsive to the realities of modern life.
Listen to the Apostle’s Creed episode here. You can listen to the first half of the Nicene Creed episode here, or become a patron to hear the full second episode, ad-free.
I puzzle over Trip's problems with creedal language, which he knows was not easily arrived upon, particularly the homoousian choice. It's really at the heart of Christianity, which does not simply see Jesus as a great teacher (of much that people would find uncomfortable, today, being that he was a first century C.E. Jew of Pharisaic leanings) or some kind of stand-in for God to make a point. Despite our wanting God on our terms and loatheness toward allowing God to be whatever God is and chooses to reveal, the point of that creedal phrase is that the man Jesus was, in fact, God incarnate busting upon our history for the one ultimate purpose to actually bear humanity's enmity so to extend us Divine forgiveness; not a pat on the head that we're not so bad, or we just can't help ourselves, our good points outweigh our bad ones, God just can't help but be loving and forgiving (as much as we require of God); not even to make the noble point that God identifies with the poor and the oppressed (not to discount that), or whatever other feel-good rationalizations we can come up with to make Christianity palatable. To know that God on the cross displays how far from God we all are and, despite that, what we mean to God is meant to draw us to our knees in agreement and gratitude, that we can be right with God on God's terms. This incarnation of what Divine Love is about is not the least divorced from all the ethical demands (yes they are) being a child of God entails. In fact, this intimacy with us on God's part puts it all into perspective. We are "God's hands", "God's heart", God's voice, God's incarnate presence in God's Creation when we embrace being God's children . . . what that means to God. Most of the rest of the creed tells this story. It is the Creed of the Church because the Church believes this story. Without this story, we're just a bunch of sentimental, self-congratulatory, wish-fulfilling do-gooders. OK, maybe that's too harsh. But we can accomplish just as much as atheists, Buddhists, or whatever. Maybe more.
And so do you propose discarding the Creeds? Modifying them? Adding new ones?
At one point I was ready to chuck them entirely, then realized that they were the only reason young people at least, and probably adults too, could describe Christian beliefs to anyone else.
Now I like the idea of using the ancient creeds on particular days or liturgical seasons, and using alternative Affirmations of Faith at other times.