A PERSONAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATION

OF

THE NICENE CREED

Prologue

Many thanks to the Adult Christian Education Class for inviting me to conduct this

Saturday morning workshop on Christian systematic theology. 1 This is the latter of two

workshops, the first having been held in December, shortly before Christmas. Each workshop

runs from 9 am· noon, and consists of my lecturing with time for questions and discussion.

We are introducing ourselves to the concerns of systematic theology by way of the

Nice Creed.2 Since this lecture completes our examination of the Creed by covering the second

half the Creed, left unexamined in the first workshop, the entire Creed is fair game for your

questior and comments today.3

Because most of us are unfamiliar with creeds, I am providing each of you with a set of

my lecture notes (from both workshops) and with some additional resources for those who wan

to learn more. I've given you a bibliography of texts on the Nicene Creed and on topics related

to it4 and to systematic theology in general.5 This bibliography includes works by authors from

our denomination. I refer the motivated among you to the bibliography and to the endnotes to r

lecture as a way of going deeper into that literature.6 For those Greek scholars among you who

might want to try your hand at translating, I've attached a copy of the Creed in its original Gree

(Appendix A).7 Appendix B gives you three English translations of the Creed along with line­

by-line references to the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. 8 Appendix C displays the

UCC's Statement of Faith (as modified by Robert Moss),9 while Appendix D contains my

attempt to map, line by line, the UCC's Statement of Faith onto the Nicene Creed.

1

Prelude

My salvific experience of our Lord, Jesus Christ, introduced me to joy.10 Joy has

accompanied me in my Christian life and now in my study of Christian teachings. I look forwar

to the joy of service in ordained ministry, to which the Lord has lately called me (much to my

joy-filled amazement!). While the structure of these lectures consists of the various affirmation

of the Nicene Creed, the music that flows in, through, and around those affirmations is joyful

music of assurance and praise and thanksgiving for the steadfast love of the one and triune God.

In its broadest contours the Nicene Creed affirms belief in God, Jesus the Christ, the Ho

Spirit, God's church (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic), one baptism, and the resurrection ofth1

dead into the world to come: (boldface added for emphasis)

* I believe in God: "In your presence there is fullness of joy ... " (Psalm 16: 11 )11

and "My heart and my flesh sing for joy to the living God." (Psalm 84:2)

* I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ: "Although you have not seen him, you lovehim; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and rejoicewith an indescribable and glorious joy, ... (1 Peter 1 :8)

* I believe in the Holy Spirit: "For the kingdom of God is not food and drink butrighteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14: 17)

* I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church: "And you became imitators cus and of the Lord, for in spite of persecution you received the word with joy

inspired by the Holy Spirit." (1 Thessalonians 1 :6)

* I acknowledge one baptism (and the vocation of ministry into which it calls us):

e(

, our model is the ministry of Jesus Christ, “… looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God.” (Hebrews 12:2)

* I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come: "But /rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ's sufferings, so that you may also be glaand shout for joy when his glory is revealed." (1 Peter 4:13)

2

Who is this God? The God I encountered in my faith experience is the God who becarm

human in the person of Jesus Christ in order to redeem God's own creation, i.e., the God of the

New Testament.42 This is also the God who covenanted with Abraham and Sarah and Moses an

David and the prophets. This is the God of the Hebrew Scriptures.43•44

Parent

God has neither genitals nor gender. The church (and the Scriptures) has often referred 1

God as "the Father" to capture the relationship of God to Jesus. But Father is not the only term

used in the Scriptures. For example, the Hebrew Scriptures refer to God as Elohim, YHWH, an

El Shaddai (Almighty God).45 Elsewhere in the OT, God is a judge, midwife, dew, gardener,

protector, rock, daddy, comforting mother, shepherd, and lion.46 In the NT Jesus uses parables 1

describe God as a woman search for her lost money, a shepherd looking for lost sheep, a

bakerwoman kneading dough, the birth experience that brings new life, and an employer

offending employees by his generosity.47

The literalists and fundamentalists of my youth would not have accepted the notion that

God was anything other than male. Even today in many such churches I hear the phrase "Fathe1

God" used in prayers and sermons as if it is one word. Such usage misses the point. The point

relationship, Jesus' relationship through the Holy Spirit with God as the begotten and loving So

with God. The anti-Arians at Nicaea were so concerned to emphasize that the relationship of

God and Jesus involved being of the same substance that they began their fight with the very fir

line of the Creed. 48

Feminists such as Geitz and others are right in correcting the church in over-using the

word "Father" to describe God and in misusing the word "Father" to the extent that such usage

8

the person of Jesus Christ. In fact God comes to us not in the form of an all-powerful ruler or

king, but in the form of the suffering servant, even unto death.

God's omnipotence, in my opinion, should not be taken to mean that God wills whateve

happens. Creation is such that there would be suffering in the world, whether due to natural

disaster or due to humankind's inflicting suffering on each other and on the environment. I thin

that what omnipotence means is that God can and does intervene in public history through the

church and through those not in the church according to his character as revealed in the

Scriptures.59 Moreover what the Scriptures tell us is that God is victorious over the shadow sid{

and over the evil in the world. The promise of creation was relationship between the created an

God. The resurrection of God's son is a sign that God will honor that promise by restoring the

creation to relationship with God in the new heaven and new earth that the return of Christ will

bring.

God the Creator: Maker of Heaven and Earth, of All That ls, Seen and Unseen

God created the universe.60 Why? I like Professor Soulen's answer: for shalom, for a

blessing, for peace and fellowship, and I would add, for joy, that includes God and the created i

the same community under the reign of God.61

The God who is the Father, the Parent, of Jesus is also the Creator God of the Hebrew

Scriptures.62 The "maker of heaven and earth" is the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact "th

maker of heaven and earth" is a reverential paraphrasis for the name of the Lord (Ps 124:8). (A

reverential paraphrasis is a way of speaking the name of God, itself too holy to speak out loud,

without actually speaking that name.)

12

The doctrine of the Trinity proclaims that God is three persons in one Godhead. 67

Theologians distinguish between the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity. The economi

Trinity is a view of the Trinity, propounded by Hippolytus and Tertullian, that stressed the worl ,,

("economies") or work of the Father, Son, and Hqly Spirit rather than their eternal being in

relation to each other.68 The immanent Trinity consists of the relationships among the three

members of the Trinity- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - in and with

themselves.69 It is the affirmation of Christian theologians that the work of and the relationshiI

within the economic Trinity can tell us something of the community within the Godhead of the

immanent Trinity.

A continuing problem in understanding the Trinity has been the tendency towards

modalism in popular understanding. Modalism asserts that the one God is revealed at differen·

times in different ways and thus has three manners (modes) of appearance rather than being on

God in three Persons.7° For example, God might be thought of as an actor appearing behind

masks, one each for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This approach can be useful irt that it

preserves the oneness of God but it raises the possibility that the actor/God might be different

from the persons portrayed by means of the three masks.71 The church could not accept the

implication that God might act in ways inconsistent with God's character and has rejected

rnodalism as heretical. The church believes that the economic Trinity reveals something truthJ

about the immanent Trinity.

UCCers might consider the UCC Statement of Faith in Appendix C in light of the

doctrine of the Trinity. At least one member of our denomination believes that it betrays

dangerous modalistic tendencies.72 For example, there is nothing in that Statement that explic

15

theologically essential about Jesus' maleness. Jesus' maleness does not mean that men are

superior to women, nor, in my opinion, that only men are properly ordained to the priesthood.

Jesus' humanity is important, a humanity characteristic of both men and women. 76

I am tempted to argue that, as a matter of sociology, Jesus must of necessity have been

born a male child. Given the culture into which Jesus was born, one might reasonably argue th

it was essential that Jesus be male in order that he have the freedom to move, to teach, preach,

heal, etc. A woman likely would not have been granted such freedom. Nor would a woman

likely have been permitted t? function as Jesus did. And, had a woman attempted to live as Jes

did, I believe a good argument could be made that she would have been stoned or killed well

before Jesus was, well before she would have been able to announce the good news.

The problem with this argument is that it violates the basic rule I've been stressing up ti

this point. We are not to develop our theology, or, here, even our sociology, from a priori

principles regarding ancient societies. We are to pay attention to what the Bible tells us about

who God is and what God has done and who we are, as God's creatures. For example, God

chose an old, infertile couple (Sarai and Abram) to create the people with whom God would

enter, hundreds of years later, into covenant.77 That makes no sense, sociologically or

biologically. If God could make such a choice with Sarai and Abram, we can't rule out God

coming to us as Savior in the form of a woman. Thus I like to end my prayers with the phrase ·

the name of Your child, Jesus the Christ. Amen." The important thing is the relationship

between God and Jesus, between Parent and Child, not to attach importance to some sort of

perceived male bond between Father and Son.

17

God and Jesus in the Trinity

The second section of the Creed is the longest of the three. The reason is that it deals

with the issue that caused the emperor Constantine to call the Council ofNicaea into session.78

That question is whether Christ is really and truly the Son of God, or is he, as claimed by the

Arians, some lesser being, a created being intermediate between God and humanity.

I count at least eight ways in which the Creed in lines 9 through 14 (see Appendix B)

insists on the divinity of Jesus: Jesus is Lord, Jesus is the only Son, Jesus is eternally begotten oJ

the Father, Jesus is God from God, Jesus is Light from Light, Jesus is true God from true God,

Jesus is of one being with the Father, and through Jesus all things were made. All of these ways

of describing Jesus are ways of tying Jesus to the Father, of saying they are of the same

substance, and of saying therefore that Jesus is divine. (The next sentence in the Creed then

insists on Jesus' humanity.)

The issue is in fact crucial for Christians. Only the Divine can save fallen and sinful

humanity. We can't do it.79 If Jesus is Savior, therefore, Jesus must be God. For Arians the

Word was not God but was lesser, created by God.80 Jesus could not be our divine Savior.

I believe that Jesus Christ came to me and saved me. I didn't do it by myself. I couldn't

do it by myself. Paul tells us that we can't even do what we know is right and what we want to

do. 81 Christ is essential. And Christ is divine because it is the power of God that is necessary fc

salvation. 82

For Us and for Our Salvation

Jesus came down from heaven, became incarnate, was born, lived, suffered, died, was

buried, and rose again "for us and for our salvation." What a joyful gift! Can it really be true?

18

I want to talk about three important issues as I affirm to you my belief that Jesus did con

down for heaven for us and for our salvation. The first issue has to do with whether Jesus came

down for all ofus or just some ofus.

There are Christians who believe that Jesus did this only for those whom God had

"predestined" to be saved and join God in heaven. 83 Predestination is defined by McK.im (1996

p. 217) as:

God's actions in willing something to a specific result. .. Some Christian theologians, particularly in the Reformed tradition, have seen it as indicating God's eternal decree by which all creatures are foreordained to eternal life or death. It may also be used synonymously with 'election' and indicates God's gracious initiation of salvation for those who believe in Jesus Christ.

God foresaw that God would create the world and that the first parents would Fall. God

resolved to send the eternal Word to become Incarnate for the salvation of some. God would b1

glorified by the saved. They would attest to God's mercy. The unsaved would also attest to

God's justice since God was under no obligation to save them. God predestined some, the

elect,84 to be saved. Does God positively will that the unsaved be damned? The doctrine of

double predestination says yes.

Wesley took issue with the doctrine of predestination and affirmed that God wills that a

be saved. God foresaw creation and the Fall and resolved on the Incarnation of Christ for the

purpose that all might be saved. Wesley emphasized the universality of God's love. How then

are some saved, some lost? Wesley takes the Arminian position that it is possible to resist savi

grace, to resist God seeking us. 85 We can say "no" to God. We can therefore be lost. (Strict

Calvinists, strong believers in predestination, do not believe that the elect can resist God's savi1

grace.)

19

conception is that in many ways human beings become mere cyphers. Jesus does his work as

redeemer and savior and we benefit with seemingly little action or choice required of us.

Thus I am, at this point in my faith journey, an Arminian when it comes to election and

predestination. I believe that Jesus took the sins of all of creation with him to the cross and thei

died on behalf of all creation. I don't believe that God means to exclude any of us from the

atoning grace of Christ on the cross. I also believe that Christ's resurrection was a promise to a

of creation that God would consummate God's work of creation with a new heaven and a ne1J

earth wherein death and the forces of sin and evi I would be absenL However l do believe that

human beings have the power to say "no" to God and to refuse God's saving grace. I hope (but

cannot affirm on the basis of Scripture) that God will ultimately include all of creation in the m

heaven and the new earth. However for the time that humans dwell on the old earili, we have tl

ability to opt out.

The second question raised by "for us and for our salvation" is who "us" is. Who and

what are human beings?89 Too often Christians adopt a Hellenistic view rather than the

Christian view of human anthropology. As a result we have a false view of our life on earth an

of our life in the new creation to come.

Consider first the view of the Hel1enistic culture of Jesus' time.9° For that view we rely

on Plato's Timaeus. In Plato's view there are three things present from the beginning. First,

there is the world of Forms: perfect, eternal, unchanging. Second, there is formless "stuff' or

"gunk." This stuff is pre-existing matter, chaotic. Third, in between the world of Forms and

stuff is the craftsman who makes the world, using the Forms as a blueprint. The craftsman

21

interim, while we wait for the general resurrection of the dead, we live in the memory of God,

who knows each of our names.

I have spoken at length on this topic for two reasons. First, it is not the view held by ma

Christians when they go to funerals for their loved ones. Typically Christians hold (and take

comfort from) the Hellenistic view that the soul escapes from the decaying and diseased body a1

death and goes to be with God in heaven. It becomes an important pastoral task for the ministe1

to educate her congregation, with tenderness and compassion, that the Biblical view is different

from the Hellenistic view.

It is important that Christians understand their faith's doctrine of human anthropology

because it helps us avoid overspiritualizing our faith and hope. The world and it's materiality a

good, not bad or diseased. We should not avoid associations with the world in order to focus

only on our "true" spiritual nature and the life to come. We need to be fully human, fully alive

this world in order to work in God's service in the world.

Second, the Hellenistic view provides us false comfort and hope. In my opinion it deni,

the reality of death because the death of the body becomes the occasion for the escape of the

entrapped soul. Thus physical death becomes the occasion for true life, the life of the eternal ar

immortal soul. The Bible however teaches us that the physical world is good and death is a

reality. It is painful for us and our loved one when we die, leave one another, and leave the goc

creation God provided for us. Moreover our death is a real death, a complete death wherein bo1

body and soul die. Thus our true hope as Christians is in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, whicl

contains the promise of our own resurrection at the time of the general resurrection of the dead.

23

with Christ, adoption, sanctification, perserverance, and glorification. Time does not permit mi

to cover all of those topics although I commend them to your attention.9697

Salvation was clear enough in the Baptist church in which I grew up. Salvation was wb

happened when you were "saved" or "born again." It meant that God, through the risen Jesus

Christ, had visited you with the personal assurance that you were loved, that your life would be

hereafter changed into one which exhibited the righteousness and goodness of God, and that ye

would, after death, go to heaven to be with God. Salvation was by the grace of God alone and

was to accepted by faith, also a gift from God. There was nothing anyone could do to save

themselves. Only God can save. That personal experience was followed by baptism (by

immersion) and acceptance into membership in the church. Works of compassion and devotio

and worship were valued more in the adult Christians' life than were works of justice.

In my experience in the UCC personal salvific experiences are suspect. Rather most

members are baptized in infancy and confirmed during their early teen-age years. Salvation ha

de facto come to mean something akin to accepting the "moral influence" of Jesus and his

teachings over your life. Adult salvation is followed by baptism (generally not by immersion).

Membership into the church comes with the signing of the church's covenant. UCCers in the

ususal course of daily life do not talk much about life after death or heaven. Rather the empha

is on the good we can do in this life, particularly in ecumenical activities with other communic

and in actions to promote social justice in the here and now.98

For me the key topic in salvation is justification by grace.99 I retain my Baptist belief tl

we can do nothing to save, or justify, ourselves. Only God's grace can save or justify us. We

simply are not capable on our own of living the kind of good, virtuous, righteous, self-giving 1

25

beloved friends die. The reality of suffering is part of the shadow side of creation. Yet we can

see light even in the shadows. The promise of Christian .faith is that, in light and shadows, Go,

promises are reliable. The covenant holds and sustains us in light and shadow.

Christians should accept and not run away from suffering. 105 Discipleship is after all ar

invitation to suffer. We are to be prepared to withstand suffering for fellowship with God and

neighbors. We can only avoid suffering by cutting off life. 106

Evil is what God rejects, what God says "no" to. God says "yes" to life and the fullnes

oflife, creation and relationship with creatures, life in covenant fellowship. 107 Evil can be

defined as that use of human will that is opposed to God's covenant intention. Evil is when w1

accept what God rejects and when we reject what God accepts. Evil is when we are outside th

will of God. Evil is acceptance of all that cuts us off from fellowship with others and with

God. 108

If we as Christians profess our faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ, what position do we th

take on whether salvation is available in other religions, religions that make no such

profession? 109 D'Costa developed a three-part typology to describe possible responses to that

question: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism.110 The formal definition of exclusivism is t

it is the view that God will not grant salvation to those who do not believe in Jesus Christ or v­

are outside the Christian church. 111 However there are hard and soft versions of exclusivism.

The hard version is that there is only one religious truth and only those who explicitly confess

or are loyal to it in this life, e.g., Cyprian: "outside the church, there is no salvation." The soft

version of exclusivism is that all salvation is in Christ but holds that those outside the religion

can be saved. Not only the baptized can be saved. People may be saved through extraordinar:

27

neasures in this life or post-mortem salvation. For example John Wesley believed that

:hristians may be judged on the basis of what they did with the grace available to them. John

Paul II said that Christ is near everyone. While Vatican II held that all must be incorporated into

the church by baptism, nonetheless God may save by extraordinary measures.

lnclusivism is the view that one religion includes that which is true and is able to bring

salvation in other religions.112 The view of pluralists is that all religions have true revelation in

part but no religion can claim final or definitive truth. So the Christian tradition is one among

many different religions where salvation happens, and the church has no privileged position. 113

I would have characterized myself as an inclusivist until D'Costa later decided that all

three of his religious types were exclusivist.114 I would now characterize myself as a soft

exclusivist. I believe that adherents of other religions can be saved but they are saved, whether

they know it or not, by God's act in Jesus Christ. Even to me, that statement sounds a little

arrogant. Yet I believe it anyway. I know of no tradition that offers up a competing Savior. No

do I believe that God, having acted for all time in Jesus Christ, will or need raise up another sue

Savior. Thus, I regard myself as ecumenical and open to fellowship with those of other faiths,

because all of us must find salvation ultimately through Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ ... Came Down from Heaven: by the Power of the Holy Spirit He Became

Incarnate from the Viri:in Mary, and Was Made Man ...

I uphold (with minor exceptions) the historic professions of the Church about our Savio1

The early church held what has been termed a cosmological view of the truth of Jesus Christ.115

In this view God became human in Jesus so that humans could become divine. Thus, as the

Council of Chalcedon affirmed, the person Jesus Christ has two natures.116

28

approach doesn't tell us much about God. God approves of Jesus and wants us to love God and

one other but God doesn't do anything. God is a reality but not one that acts.

Moltmann proposes a framework that builds on the cosmological and anthropological bu

extends it eschatologically. The gospel, said Moltmann, is a promise about God's transforming

work in the future. Christ's resurrection is a first fruit of the transformation of human history.

In contrast Barth emphasized that the victory has been won in Christ's death and

resurrection. If this is so, what's left to hope for? Barth said that victory, already won, will be

made clear. The work of salvation is complete. All that remains is seeing it more clearly.

Moltmann's view is that this overloads victory into the past and present. Victory promis

something greater, yet to come. The root theme that Moltmann emphasizes is "promise." The

promise that expresses our hope gets bigger and bigger as the Bible story proceeds. The story o:

Jesus is the promise perfected. Moltmann says the eschatological framework completes the

cosmological and anthropological.

Moltmann's promise is "Jesus lives!" We can therefore look for signs of the inbreaking

God's kingdom NOW, e.g., in healing, the lowly being lifted up, reconciliation, and justice. W<

can see the inbreaking of the kingdom in worship, especially in the Eucharist. We must not live

resignation, we must live in hope. Grace happens! Good things happen!

As part of the promise, we can also expect suffering, judgment and the end of this age.

God will judge with wrath and will reject the forces opposed to God, the unrighteous. God will

vindicate the righteous. This means we are going to die. But death and judgment are part of

Christian hope. Christ will come again to judge the quick and the dead. God will vindicate

30

loman Catholic church. Yet he is careful to fit the fruits of that experience into the lessons of

;cripture and the teachings of the church. He focuses on a new way of envisioning and describi1

;he doctrine of the Trinity:

"The Son is begotten by the Father in the Spirit and thus the Spirit simultaneously proceeds from the Father as the one in whom the Son is begotten. The Son, being begotten in the Spirit, simultaneously loves the Father in the same Spirit by which he himself is begotten (is Loved). The Spirit (of Love) then, who proceeds from the Father as the one in whom the Father begets the Son, both conforms or defines (persons) the Son to be the Son and simultaneously conforms or defines (persons) the Father to be the Father. The Holy Spirit, in proceeding from the Father as the one in whom the Father begets the Son, conforms the Father to be Father for the Son and conforms the Son to be Son for ( of) the Father."134

For Weinandy the persons of the Trinity arise simultaneously in the Godhead and in the same

action. The Father and the Son are each defined by the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Son

loves the Father in the same Spirit in which the Son was begotten by the Father.

Weinandy' s approach is important. 135 It may serve to assist in healing the split between

Eastern and Western churches. 136 Weinandy's approach may help the East and West get past th€

disagreement on the West's addition of "filoque" (Latin for "and the Son") to the Creed (see

Appendix B, line 35 of the ICET translation of the Creed). Western churches had begun in

various places to use the te1m because it was a way, in an Arian environment, of making the ant

Arian point that Jesus is di vine. 137 The Eastern church learned of this local custom and obj ectec

The issue got tangled up with the disputed issue of the polity of the Western church, whi

insisted on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The East objected that the West had no authori1

to insert "filioque" into the Creed. When the Pope officially made the term a part of its Creed ii

the eleventh century, the East split with the West.

38

rom the works of the persons of the Godhead in the immanent Trinity and what we know about

he relations of those persons must be true about tpe Godhead itself, i.e., the economic Trinity.

I do not assert that God lies. I believe that God is everywhere and at all times trying to

ead us to the truth. My misgivings are not with God. Rather my misgivings reside with human

Jeings' ability to perceive what God is doing and with theologians who too often write and speal

is if the mysteries of the Trinity (and other mysteries of the faith!) have been revealed fully to

them. I ask only for a little more modesty whenever any of us make our assertions about the

mysteries of our faith.

With the Father and the Son He Is Worshiped and Glorified.

He Has Spoken through the Prophets

These two lines of the Nicene Creed serve to underscore the church's affirmation that th{

Holy Spirit exists, is part of the Holy Trinity, lives in community with the Father and Son, and i�

worthy of worship and glorification, just as are the Father and Son. I also make that affirmation

Furthermore the affirmation that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets makes it cle:

that the church believes that the Holy Spirit was present before Pentecost. The Holy Spirit spok

through the prophets. Thus the Holy Spirit was an active force in the life of the Jews under the

covenant.

This is one of only two places in the Creed which refer to the OT. 141 The emphasis ofth

Nicene Creed on the NT raises the question of the church's relationship to the Jewish people an,

to God's covenantal relationship with Israel as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures.142

The church has often emphasized the NT and Jesus Christ to the exclusion of the Hebre,

Scriptures teachings on God's liberation of and covenant with the Jewish people. That

40

Jesus is clearly a man, but there is none of the detail of the Nicene Creed that assures us of Jesu

divinity. We must look in other basic UCC documents to flesh out the trinitarian faith to which

we claim to adhere. 146

The UCC Statement does no better than the Nicene Creed in making reference to the

Hebrew Scriptures and the Jewish people, thereby leaving open the possibility of supersessionis

Both make only two references to the OT, to the prophets and to Creation.

The UCC Statement does not seem, in line 16, to adhere to a traditional Presbyterian vie

of predestination. Rather it seems to suggest that God seeks to save all, not merely the elect.

Indeed, line 44 suggests that in the end God will reconcile the whole creation to God's self. Thi

is, however, no assurance of belief in the resurrection of the dead in the UCC Statement, so the

method of reconciliation is unspecified.

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

The WCC provides a good and concise explanation of the Creed's affirmations: 147

* The church, although visibly broken into numerous communions, is one becauseGod creates and redeems it by the Word and the Spirit as a foretaste and instrumfor the redemption of all of creation.

* The church is holy because God is holy and God in Jesus Christ has overcome alunholiness thereby sanctifying the church by his word of forgiveness in the HolySpirit and making the church God's own, the body of Christ.

* The church is catholic because God is the fullness oflife who through Word andSpirit makes the church the place and instrument of God's presence everywhere,thereby offering all the means of salvation to all the world's peoples.

* The church is apostolic because the Word of God that creates and sustains thechurch is the gospel to which the apostles bore witness, making the communionthe faithful a community that lives in, and is responsible for, the succession oftlapostolic truth throughout the generations.

The WCC offers an additional useful formulation of "church" when it asserts that churc

is koinonia, or "communion."148 Koinonia means communion between God and humanity and

43

rhole of creation. That communion was inaugurated in creation and is especially displayed in tht

ovenant between God and the chosen people. Koinonia will be fulfilled and perfected in God's

new heaven and new earth.

Koinonia is marked by visible signs: receiving and sharing the faith of the apostles,

,reaking and sharing the eucharistic bread, praying with, and for, one another and for the needs o

r:ie world, serving one another in love, participating each other's joys and sorrows, giving materi,

id, proclaiming and witnessing to the good news in mission, working together for justice and

,eace. 149

My favorite image of the church is taken from Scripture and is the body of Christ.1 so In th

,ody of Christ we are transformed from the self-serving and inward-directed. Our various

:ultures are transformed and are no longer private possessions but elements of diversity that builc

LP the church. Paul identified two criteria for determining whether the body of Christ was being

'a.ithful: (a) the life of the community being is being built up in love, (b) the more powerful and

he more secure are deferring to the weaker thereby demonstrating Christian obedience and love.

Coming from a Baptist church which performed ordinances into UCC churches which

1dminister sacraments has left me with some cognitive dissonance. It may be that I can reconcile

:he two by investigating the extent to which the material and visible sign in the sacrament could

Je the church, the physical body of Christ present in worship. Runyon suggests that Wesley may

iave had a similar notion whereby the Christian's feelings are played on a set of material keys,

i.e., the body. Thus, for Wesley, the sacrament communicates a transcendent reality using this­

worldly material to call forth a response that brings about a change in the life of the recipient. 1 s 1

44