By Janet Fife
It was during the General Synod final debate on the Nicene Creed that I had a moment of enlightenment. The debate was notable for other things – I wrote a Mystery Worshipper column on it for Ship of Fools, and Sallie Bassham and I completed the Guardian cryptic crossword – but it was that one realisation that has proved significant in the development of my thinking and my faith over the 20 years since.
It was this: the Creeds were written to define who was in and who was out. They derive from periods of conflict in the Church’s history, when there were clashes over different understandings of doctrine. It was thought necessary to define exactly what was correct and what was incorrect. In effect, the purpose was to exclude. And the result of being on the losing side of such a decision could be serious – excommunication, exile, or even death. After the Council of Nicea condemned Arian teaching, the Emperor Constantine issued an edict that all of Arius’s writings be burned. Those who were found to have kept the writings were to be condemned to death.
Nothing so dramatic happened at the General Synod debate. We were asked to give final approval to the version of the NIcene (or, more properly, Niceno-Constantinopolitan) which now appears in Common Worship. We spent an unconscionable amount of time on the translation of the Greek preposition ek (flippin’ ek!, as one of my friends said). Another matter for debate was the clause recounting Jesus’ incarnation. The bishops had, ‘and was made man’. Many Synod members preferred ‘and was made human’, arguing that the phrase is a more accurate translation of the Greek and more inclusive of women and children. The bishops refused to budge and the masculinist, exclusive version stayed. The creed remained true to its divisive origins. When the vote came, I was one of only 12 clergy who voted against adopting the creed in this form – a stance of which I’m still proud.
I had always preferred the Apostles’ Creed, which is used in the liturgies for morning and evening prayer. It’s clearer, more concise, and more easily remembered. Until the Parish Communion movement made the eucharist the principal service of most churches every Sunday, it would have been the Apostles’ Creed that most people were familiar with. In Dorothy L. Sayers’ radio play The Man Born to be King, broadcast by the BBC during World War II, Sayers had Pilate’s wife recount the nightmare which resulted in her warning Pilate not to be involved in condemning Jesus:
‘…in all tongues and all voices…even the little children with their mothers….”suffered under Pontius Pilate…sub Pontio Pilatio…crucifie sous Ponce Pilate…gekreuzigt unter Pontius Pilatus”…your name, husband, your name continually – ‘he suffered under Pontius Pilate.’
Sayers could trust that the general audience of the BBC would know that the phrase came from a creed widely used in church services, and its meaning was easily understood. Nowadays, I doubt if even most churchgoing Anglicans would recognise the phrase as coming from the Apostles’ Creed.
We expect people to recite, every week, formulations such as the following:
…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…
Which is neither easily remembered nor easily understood. I wonder how many people, perhaps attending church to hear their banns read, have been put off Christianity by wording like this? How many regular churchgoers have their confidence in their faith dented because these words mean little to them? It’s no wonder people refer to religion as ‘mumbo jumbo’.
The fact that the creeds were developed to resolve theological disputes, rather than as simple statements of faith, has resulted in their omitting things that all Christians agree on: God is love; Jesus was a good man who fed the hungry and healed people of physical and mental ills; the Holy Spirit is God’s breath within us, and helps us to face death with courage.
It’s significant that the Bible doesn’t present us with creeds. In fact, at key points of salvation history it takes care to give us more than one point of view. We have two creation accounts; two contrasting approaches to judges and kingship; four gospels; letters of advice written to congregations by at least three apostles who didn’t always agree. It’s okay to believe, for instance, either that kings are divinely appointed or that having kings is a departure from God’s will. Much of the Bible’s teaching is in the form of narratives where we are left to draw our own conclusions. There was a time when I found this frustrating. Why, I wondered, hadn’t God just made a list of things we’re supposed to believe? It would have been so much simpler.
It would seem from reading the Bible that God is rather less interested in what we believe than in how we behave and what our motives and attitudes are. Its most authoritative teaching – the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes – are not a catalogue of dogmas. Rather, they tell us what our priorities should be and what God looks for in our hearts. In the parable of the sheep and the goats and in Mat. 7:21-23, among other passages, Jesus shows us that it’s our treatment of other people, rather than our grasp of sound doctrine, which determines whether we are saved or lost. Even those who appear to be close to God and have an effective ministry may never have known God at all or done God’s will.
Though I no longer think that reciting a creed ought to be part of every church service, their occasional and creative use can be helpful in reminding us what we believe. This, by Doug Gay, is especially appropriate as we approach Easter:
We Believe in Life.
We believe in the God of Life
The world maker, the star lighter,
The sun shiner, the beauty maker;
Provoking evolution from nothing but words of love.
We believe in life.
We believe in the risen Jesus,
The cross bearer, the tomb raider,
The hell-harrower, the death defier;
Embracing resurrection as the first-born from death.
We believe in life.
We believe in the Easter Spirit,
The life-giver, the breath bringer,
The body lover, the Church birther,
Enabling communion with Jesus the Living One.
We believe in life.
We believe in the God of Life,
World-maker, cross-bearer, life-giver
Trinity of hope leading creation to its liberation.
We believe in God.
I hesitate to disagree Janet, I rarely do, and I love the way you look at things. But, I see the creeds as a proud statement of faith that we should be proclaiming from the rooftops! But, yes, it needs to be comprehensible. And it isn’t. And it’s sexist!
I still have so me fondness for the Apostles’ Creed – as is probably obvious from what I wrote – but I find it incredible that no ancient creed says, ‘God is love’. It’s a shame we can’t start again with things all or most of us agree on.
Incidentally the eucharistic prayers of the Scottish Episcopal Church have some lovely, clear credal statements:
‘You give us your Spirit so that we can look at the world with your eyes.’
‘You sent your son Jesus
who gave his life for us,
cured those who were sick,
cared for those who were poor
and cried with those who were sad.’
Yes, notwithstanding my traditionalist BCP C of E background, I have found the Scottish liturgy refreshing, relevant and inspiring.
Thank you for this very interesting post, Janet. Do you remember when this Synod debate was exactly. I’d be interested in reading up on the debate more. Thanks!
The debate occurred during the General Synod of 28 Feb – 1 March 2000. You might be interested in this report following the November 1999 Synod: http://anglicansonline.org/archive/news/articles/1999/991204a.html
I haven’t attempted to give a detailed and balanced account of the debate, of course, but only of its impact on me. My Ship of Fools account is around somewhere, but I don’t know where to lay my hands on it.
Janet: I found it in 30 seconds! The all-powerful Google. Search “ship of fools reports 2000 general synod” and up it came, instantly, the Mystery Worshipper named “Scepticus”. No date quoted, that I could find, but authenticity confirmed by the mention of the Guardian cryptic crossword!
I think I will steer clear of some of the arguments about the Creeds. Are people really unable to memorise them? And regular churchgoers unable to understand them? I know both by heart, and did when I was confirmed 65 years ago.
Thank you! Here’s a link, if anyone else wants to look at it. http://www.ship-of-fools.com/mystery/2000/149Mystery.html
Ooh Janet, thank you! That is exactly why I have had such an ambivalent relationship with the 2 authorised creeds for years. Born from exclusion. Especially because often I seem to be in one of the excluded camps. How sad that Synod could not support more inclusive language, and go you and the other 11.
The creed you shared is beautiful, very poetic and powerful language, those 2 word descriptions, like kennings. I shall use it this week, thank you.
It’s not just Christians who agree that love is the main message. When I was a DYO, I did some research with young offenders about how they saw God and the church. None of them would call themselves Christians, or were church goers. But they were clear that they understood that God is love. And they compared the church to themselves, and the insights they had while in prison. One, a young father, summed up what they all said “the church should talk more about love and less about money. Then people might listen.”
Yes, yes to the message is about what we do not what we believe. And actually isn’t what we do the testimony of what we believe?
Until the church leaders actually change what they do significantly, then it seems to me they don’t really believe that the church should be survivor centred. A belief has to be more than empty words, surely?
Ps Tomb raider did make me smile. My son is of the generation, I immediately had an image of Harrison Ford emerging out from behind the stone 😀
Very interesting post, Janet. Thank you. I have never thought about these matters before. I can see that the creeds don’t have canonical status, and I like your point about more than one view being presented in Scripture, but at the same time I believe there needs to be clarity about what is acceptable and what is not. I also have in mind a favourite proverb – “Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers.” (22:28) Tread cautiously!
Thank you, David. However, when Israelites moved an ancient boundary stone they were taking land away from one family and giving it to another. And the tradition was clear that each family should retain its land for perpetuity, so that everyone had a means of livelihood and could be fed.
I’m not sure that creeds which are the product of 4th and 5th century squabbles are really in the same category. I see the value of having a clear statement of what we believe, but these particular creeds were composed with the intention of excluding people. And it shows.
I haven’t checked the Canons, but the Creeds are included in the 39 Articles – while conceding that the Articles are not often considered, nor all of them universally accepted, nowadays.
There is an interesting article, well worth reading, “Article 8 – Of the Three Creeds” by Simon Vibert on the website of the Church Society defending and giving detailed reasons for retention of the Creeds, 8th March 2017. (churchsociety.org)
Incidentally, Simon Vibert reminds us that the Athanasian Creed replaces the Nicene Creed on Easter Day!
As a postscript to the above, while I am an Anglican, I have several times heard the US Cardinal Donald Wuerl in his Christmas homily say that God came to earth in the form of a child and took the form of our humanity. I have never thought the words “and was made man” to have any different meaning than this.
I take it to mean that he was male. But I do think “made human” would be better .
While of course it was different pre-feminism, I don’t think nowadays you can use the word “man” without it being understood as gendered.
I can’t understand why the purple shirts wouldn’t want to use a more inclusive term, particularly with the other debates on gender, sexuality and inclusion that are going on.
I did a research project on gender and language at college. It’s 100% clear that when you use gendered language, you limit your thinking. e.g Given a title “Working Man” people talk about men in traditional male roles. “Working People” prompts discussion about all kinds of people in all kinds of work, including alternatives to paid employment, such as volunteering, caring etc.
Exclusive language produces exclusive and narrow vision.
That’s the mistake the church keeps making. How long do we need to wait for their to be enough female bishops – or men with your moral fibre, Janet – to turn the tide?
Well, that was 20 years ago. But it’s surprising that as late as 2000, the bishops couldn’t see that gendered language is an issue. By then it was very clear that to most people ‘man’ means ‘adult male’. It was an issue as early as the 1980s. Women don’t look at a toilet door and think, ‘It says “Men”, that one’s for me.”‘
And you’re right about the research showing that gendered language influences behaviour.
I don’t care for the toilet door analogy, but I respect the views and what I understand to be your reasons for them.
But, personally, ‘man’ doesn’t have that connotation for me in the Creeds or, e.g., John Newman’s hymn “Firmly, I believe, and truly, God is three and God is one” in the later words “Manhood taken by the Son”.
So, whilst I wouldn’t disagree with English Athena about “made human”, I have to say I think Cardinal Wuerl’s words are more graceful – something like “and took our humanity” (or, maybe better, “assumed our humanity”). What do people think?
Oh, I liked those very much.
Hi Rowland. I’m sorry you didn’t like the toilet door analogy, and hope I haven’t offended you. I used it to try to show the mental gymnastics women (and children) have to go through to decide, in any particular instance, whether the word ‘man’ is supposed to include us or not. If sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t, it’s confusing. We always have to stop to think about it. And the Church has very often behaved as if ‘men’ or ‘man’ does mean ‘men only’.
No offence whatsoever. But, of course, it isn’t down to me or to us to re-write the liturgy, so my suggestion has to remain hypothetical. Personally, I would opt for “and assumed our humanity”.