A Simpler Nicene Creed

I introduced the idea of a Nicene Gauntlet in my 11 April 2025 entry as follows: "Will I decide by the end of this 1700th commemoration year that God is indeed calling me to seal my faith with a water baptism in obedience to the Nicene Creed, or will I conclude that I instead subscribe to some kind of ante-Nicene or post-Nicene vanguard statement of faith?"

Maybe I am too much playing the devil's advocate, but I am inclined to argue that a unifying Creed for the Church in the third millennium should meet five basic criteria:

1. The Creed should minimize controversy.
2. The Creed should be as simple as possible.
3. The Creed should be timely updated.
4. The Creed should maximize ecumenism.
5. The Creed should promote sound interfaith relations.

I am willing to concede, after due persuasion, that one or more of these criteria may be inappropriate, or that additional criteria may be required. I am also willing to concede that the Nicene Creed already meets all of these criteria. But as a relative newcomer to the faith, it seems plausible to me that the Creed could be less controversial; it could be simpler; it could stand to be updated every thousand years or so; it could be more ecumenical; and it could do more to promote sound interfaith relations. 

For example, if a Spiritual Director asked me to simplify the Creed with these five criteria in mind, my initial revision might read as follows:

I believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in Jesus, human and divine, Messiah for all his disciples, born of a Jewish woman for the salvation of Israel and the world. For our sake he was crucified, suffered death, and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He judges with perfect righteousness and his kingdom of love has no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the giver of insights ancient and new.

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

I confess baptism for the forgiveness of sins and sanctification by works of grace. 

I uphold tolerance and charity in interreligious relations, and I look forward to life in the world to come.

Amen.  

I won't here elaborate on all of my edits, but by way of example I will explain the first. As the Creed now stands, inclusion of the phrase "the Father almighty" in the second line seems to raise unnecessary theological controversy. I am familiar with the beautiful and brilliant 4-minute video Why Call God "Father"? at Cultivating Catholic Feminism by Dr. Abigail Favale. Amy Peeler, for her part, has written "a robust theological argument against the assumption that God is male" in Women and the Gender of God (2022). Turning to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I can see that paragraphs 239, 370, and 2779 clearly teach that God is NOT male. Why, then, doesn't the first sentence of the Creed say, "I believe in one God, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible?" I don't object to entreating God as Father, Abba, in private and corporate prayer, consistent with tradition, or with the contours of my personal encounter with the ground of being at a particular point in time, but this seems entirely different from asserting the maleness of God in the Creed.

This is only a crude initial attempt at a simplification of the Nicene Creed. I am by no means satisfied with what I have written. It would be up to an ecumenical council to update the Creed, and this could be many decades or even centuries ahead for the Church. How should I relate to the Creed in the meantime?

I am also respectfully aware of The Thirteen Principles of Jewish Faith; the Shahada; the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations' Statement of Faith; and the Creation Care Church's Statement of Beliefs. I have experimented privately with an attempt to construct a systematic ladder of faith in 20 principles of assent for beginning Abrahamic philosophers. Perhaps that is where I should aim to wind up by the end of this year?