Every institution needs a common purpose to gather around. Schools follow a curriculum, political parties have policy platforms, choirs have sheet music, football clubs have rules, and so on...
The Church is, of course, not just any other institution. Yet it shares the need for a common identity. That identity comes from Jesus. The New Testament describes the Church as the Bride of Christ, and on that basis, despite our many differences, we are united.
There's an obvious problem here, though. Which Jesus are we uniting around? The one we 'feel in our hearts'? The one we 'read in Scripture'? The one that our pastor or priest tells us about? And what about the Father and the Spirit?
The Church has wrestled with this throughout history. In an attempt to define what Christians believe, there have been a number of creeds written down which attempt to explain the Christian faith. Often, they were written in response and opposition to ideas which veered off from what was considered to be the 'correct' interpretation of faith.
Sometimes, these creeds themselves were the causes of arguments and even splits in the Church. The formation of the Chalcedonian Creed led to the separation between the Oriental Orthodox churches and the rest of Christendom that continues to this day. However, creeds are one of the most important ways of establishing the things that we as Christians unite around.
This came to mind when reading of the appointment of a new assistant Bishop in Australia, who has previously said that he would be "happy to abandon the Creed". Clearly, one brief statement used as part of a radio discussion isn't enough to make an assessment of a whole career in ministry. So let's not make this about any one individual. Instead it's important to ask, can we abandon the creeds and still meaningfully be part of the Church?
The answer, according to most of the major denominations of Christianity, is a pretty resounding no.
The Apostles' and Nicene creeds, especially, have been used not only to affirm the beliefs of the major Churches, but also in worship services, for nearly two thousand years. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran and many, many evangelical Protestant churches would all affirm the importance of gathering around the Nicene Creed. That is despite the many, many differences in ecclesiology, theology and style of worship that those Churches maintain.
Clearly there is something here that we need to attend to, before we abandon it. In a Church so divided by debates over hot button issues, the basis on which we can unify is more important than ever. Writing recently in Christianity magazine, pastor and author Pete Greig said that the 21st Century Church, in aiming for unity, needs the 'essentials' expressed in the creed: "Around which we can unite, and beyond which we must grant liberty for differing opinions about issues relating to the future of Israel, the chronology of the end times, the nature of the priesthood, the practice of the gifts of the Spirit, church governance or even (dare I say it?) impassioned perspectives about marriage and human sexuality," he argued. "Such topics are all extremely important. We should think about them very carefully indeed and form opinions. But they must never be allowed to define orthodoxy or divide the Church."
I tend to think Greig is right. If we want unity (and what better year than 2017 to think about it, as we mark 500 years of the Reformation?) then we need to gather around a set of ideals, ideas and beliefs, and the Nicene creed does that job. This doesn't mean we'll be united on other areas of doctrine, and that's OK.
Let's be clear – the creed isn't Scripture, but it is scriptural. As such, it is affirmed by those who place Scripture above all authority. Yet is has been pre-eminent in Church teaching throughout history, so it is affirmed by those who place Church teaching above all other authority.
Some Christian-inspired groups such as the Quakers don't have a creed. I don't want to rule them out of fellowship with the rest of the Church. Yet, some Quakers don't identify as Christians anyway, and wouldn't want to be included. My instinct is to be as inclusive as possible, but without the doctrinal boundaries drawn by the Nicene creed, then it seems the door is open to groups which have obviously departed from historic Christian faith (Jehovah's Witnesses for instance).
In an ever changing and increasingly complex world, a document written many hundreds of years ago might seem to have limited relevance. I suspect actually, as a time when the Church is needed as much as ever, that the creed has never been more relevant.
