Download an outline of the Creed.
Go to the beginning of this study of the Creed.
Download the handout..
Table Talk: “For many people the church is little more than the weekly meeting of Jesus’s Facebook friends. It is merely a gathering of religious consumers with a common interest, much like a group of people gathered together at an Apple Store or those waiting for their connecting flight in the lounge of an airport.”[1]
Comments? Has this ever been true in your experience?
[“Table Talk” is an opening question or topic for discussion at the beginning of our time together. The intent is to help group members (around tables, with four to six at each table) build connections with each other, as well as to guide thinking in a direction related to the passage.]
Our opening discussion suggested that Michael Bird’s comment (in the Table Talk question) usually does not apply to whole churches (although it might). Rather, the common experience among our group was that while we do encounter people with that attitude, there are important exceptions. There are people who we have formed connections with, maybe over several weeks, maybe over several decades. Those people we seek out. They are the ones with whom we experience some form of “the communion of the saints.”
As we turn to the Creed itself, it is helpful to recognize that the ancient church Fathers did not assemble a random collection of doctrines. There is a clear and beautiful structure to the Creed (in both the Apostles’ and the Nicene). The Triune God, the ground and foundation of everything we believe is described in a logical and intentional order: the Father, the Son who is begotten of Him, and the Spirit Who pours out from their perfect relationship. Next, the Creed turns to the work of the three-personal God. “The acknowledgement of belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit is finished. What still follows is acknowledgment, in belief, of the redemptive work of the three divine Persons.”[2] The implication of the Creed is that the primary means of God’s continuing work is the church.
…the logic of the story that the creed tells. From the beginning to the end of the story, God’s Holy Spirit seeks to express itself [sic] in body. Creation itself is the first instance, as the invisible God finds expression in the coming-to-be of visible reality at every moment, not least in those creatures in whom God seeks to find reflected God’s own image. The pattern of God’s seeking to express God’s Word through human bodies finds its complete expression in the incarnation. In Jesus, the “fullness of God dwells bodily” (Col 2:9). In this reading of the creed’s story, then, the church is the logical—and perhaps even necessary—way in which God continues to find expression. The existence of the church is fitting for those of us who read the story this way. Indeed, if the triune God did not find its [sic] life in a community of faith and love—were there no church—there would be cause to wonder what the first part of the story might have meant.[3]
Johnson’s last statement is powerful. How else could a completely relational, three-personal God continue Their relational and redemptive work but through a relational community of redeemed persons?
The Most Common Objection
Before we can explore that glorious truth, we had to address the strongest protest from many Protestants, a single word used in several creeds: “catholic.” Spelled with a lower-case “c” the word means “universal” or “inclusive” rather than an upper case “C” indicating the Roman Catholic church. Many church members are uncomfortable with that term. We considered the question, “Why do so many of us (conservative, evangelical Protestants) react so viscerally to that word. Comments from group members included words like “bristle” or “recoil.” The negative reactions came both from former Roman Catholics and those from other denominations. Some would not say the Creed at all (at least, before this group). Others chose to remain silent and not participate in saying that line (note the irony of declining to affirm the church while the church was saying the Creed together). Another option was to substitute a more acceptable, less volatile word for “catholic” as suggested by J. I. Packer:
For example, many evangelical churches that recite the Apostles’ Creed have altered “I believe … in the holy catholic Church” to read “holy Christian Church” or “holy universal Church.” Such a choice can easily be defended, of course, by appeal to cultural sensitivities and by a desire for clarity over confusion. But other evangelical churches have determined that the word catholic is a beautiful term that captures and communicates more than “universal” does, and something beyond what “Christian” does, in this context. They further recognize that this ancient word actually predates the distinctions between the Eastern and Western churches, or between Protestants and Roman Catholics. And so, with the help of sound and sustained teaching, they retain the term in their recitation of the Creed.[4]
The word “catholic” thus can be transformed from a point of dispute to a bond with the historic church. Packer’s explanation highlights that value of the creeds, either in private or congregational use. The ancient creeds provide us with a connection to believers from centuries and millennia in the past.
We spent considerable time debating the value and practicality of Packer’s words. One person brought up the very good question of the use of the Creed in different cultures. Would the fine distinction between upper and lower case letters be understood? Even in English-speaking churches, does that one word take the focus away from the rest of the Creed? Is it an unnecessary distraction? One person said that the language gave such a “jolt” that it was hard to concentrate on the Creed. Needless to say, we did not come to a full and final resolution of those questions. (Although I do think that sometimes “jolts” are helpful to “jump-start” our thinking!)
One comment was helpful, especially coming from a writer who identifies himself with the Roman Catholic tradition: “The creed does not say that the church is “Roman Catholic.” That term is, indeed, oxymoronic. It combines the element of universality with a highly particular adjective.”[5] As one group member commented, the name could be paraphrased “a small universal group.” (Please do not take anything in this article as a disparagement of the Roman Catholic Church. That is not the intent. If that is the perception, please clarify your concerns in a reply to this article.)
A thought that occurred to me after our group ended relates to Packer’s exhortation to “sound and sustained teaching” about the Creed, and specifically about “the holy catholic church.” That teaching could include the historical value of the Creed and the connection with the ancient church. Such teaching would also be an opportunity to clarify and lessen some of the visceral reactions to the Roman Catholic church and the individuals in that communion. The importance of that clarification can be seen by looking ahead from the Apostles’ Creed to the Nicene Creed.
Development of the Creeds
Comparing the Apostles’ Creed (ca. AD200) with the Nicene Creed (ca. 325-381) reveals addition and subtraction:
| Apostles’ Creed (ca. AD 200) | Nicene Creed (ca. AD 325 – 381) |
| the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints, |
And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. |
Our group considered the changes included in the Nicene Creed. One suggestion was that “apostolic” was a replacement for “communion of the saints” (since that phrase is completely missing). Another possibility is that “communion of the saints” was originally intended as a summary or an overview of the church, and the addition of “one” and “apostolic” completed the picture and eliminated the need for the summary. In any case, the statement in the Nicene Creed is often described as the “Four Marks of the Church.”
Marks of the Church
In declaring the church “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,” the creed states the four classic “marks of the church,” which express the ideal character of God’s people.[6] Our group commented on all of the four marks, followed by some comments by various writers.
One
One member immediately pointed to John 17 as expressing the oneness of the church (which we followed shortly with a brief study of the passage). A suggestion was made about the importance of the prayer of Jesus for His followers, knowing the chaos that was to follow. Their unity was essential to avoid scattering and withdrawing from any possible impact on the world. After almost two-thousand years, the divisions in the church make that prayer even more relevant. However, the differences among Christians do not have to mean disunity: “Diversity, even theological diversity, can mean riches for the body of Christ since we are forced to expand our horizons beyond our own faith and practices.”[7] The Creed facilitates freedom in that theological diversity by creating boundaries of orthodoxy, the fences within which we can say “Fine Here” as discussed in an earlier article. Remembering that the fences are “boundaries of self-definition that are not barriers”[8] contributes our sense of the oneness of the church.
Holy
Several members offered suggestions about the holiness of the church: dedicated, set apart, sanctified, different, separate, standing out. I mentioned a comment from a seminary professor years ago (who did not have the actual citation, so neither do I) about the use of the word holy (ἅγιος, hagios) in an early secular document. The feeding dish of a dog was “set apart” for that special use. That rather surprising (“jolting?”) illustration communicates the magnitude of the meaning of “holy” and the degree of difference between the church and the rest of the world. (Sometimes non-religious words or images, like a dog dish, help us get past our familiar pious language.) “Holiness is central to the mission of church. If the church is to make a difference, then it must be different. At the core of the church’s difference from the world we find its holiness.”[9] The difference of holiness is not difference just to be different, to stand out from the crowd only to be noticed. Holiness “means being set apart to remind people of Jesus.”[10]
Catholic
Our discussion had already spent time on this word, so not much was added. Two statements seem relevant here:
“The mark of catholicity means recognizing that God is at work in other places, in other assemblies.”[11]
“The call to catholicity is the call to stop picking on each other. After all, as Paul says in Ephesians 4, we have the same God and Father.”[12]
Apostolic
There was a little more uncertainty in our discussion about exactly what the Nicene Creed might mean by “apostolic.” Suggestions included followers of Jesus, those chosen by God, those who were transformed from hiding in the upper room to bold preaching of the Gospel. The word “apostle” itself means “one who is sent” (apo- away from, as in the word apogee, the point of an orbit farthest out from earth, or apodosis, the conclusion, or what comes out from a logical argument.) So the apostolic church is the church of the apostles, sent out on their mission, carrying their message.
The mark of apostolicity designates the churches in their faithfulness to the apostolic message about Jesus Christ.[13] Both their message and their mission are found in their writings, our New Testament. “The church in every age must be measured by the standard of the apostolic age as witnessed not by the later tradition but by direct appeal to the writings of the New Testament.”[14] Luke Timothy Johnson, self-identified in the Roman Catholic tradition, affirms “the reformers like Martin Luther, who combatted the excrescences [“abnormal outgrowths, unattractive additions”] of medieval Catholicism by appealing to the teaching and practice of the New Testament.”[15]
The Four Marks Summarized
What this means in a nutshell is that:
- The church is one since it lives under one Lord and heeds Jesus’s command for unity;
- the church is holy since it receives God’s consecration by the Spirit of holiness and then calls its members to be led by the Spirit and to pursue Christlikeness;
- the church is catholic since its borders are open and it resists any attempt at tribalism; and
- the church is apostolic since it orients itself toward the first-century message of the apostles and the promotion of the gospel of Jesus Christ.[16]
John 17
Our group looked at Jesus’ prayer in John 17 for any signs that He intended His followers to become “one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.” Below I have summarized the results of that discussion:
| one | that they may be one even as We are (v. 11b)
that they may all be one (v. 21) that they may be perfected in unity (v. 23) the constant use of plural pronouns, combining all believers together |
| holy | Holy Father (v. 11) – based on the character of God
they are not of the world (v. 14) they are not of the world (v. 16) sanctify them in your truth (v. 17) that they may be sanctified in truth (v. 19) righteous Father (v. 25) – based on the character of God |
| catholic | those also who believe in Me through their word (v. 20)
that they may all be one (v. 21) |
| apostolic | I have given them your word (v. 14)
I have also sent them into the world (v. 18) so that the world may believe (v. 21) so that the world may know (v. 23) |
Clearly in just this one passage, the four marks of the church – one, holy, catholic, apostolic – are effectively supported by Scripture. One of the problems in preparing for this discussion was choosing from the wealth of other sections of the Bible that could have been used, such as Ephesians 3:8-4:6 and 1 Peter 1:22-2:9.
One other note on the methodology of this study. Our group usually uses a methodical inductive approach, attempting to come to the passage with no preconceived ideas in order to let the passage speak for itself. This study was more of a deductive study, coming to the passage looking for evidence of a particular idea or doctrine, in this case, the four marks of the church. Deductive studies can be helpful, but they also have their hazards. Coming to a passage with a predetermined agenda of a doctrine to prove can distort our interpretations to fit the desired outcome. Inductive study is still my general recommendation, partly because that approach offers the most freedom to allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate new truths from familiar texts.
A Concern
During our exploration of John 17, one person in our group was troubled. Was Jesus only interested in believers? He clearly denied that He was praying for “the world” and specifically limited His attention to “those whom You [the Father] have given Me” (v. 9). Was this some roundabout hint about predestination or limited atonement or some other doctrine that made the questioner very uncomfortable? (I continually appreciate our discussion group and the openness to ask and discuss awkward or controversial questions!) While those theological topics would make for a great discussion at a later time, the best approach is to look into the passage itself. Often questions can be answered, or at least clarified, by continued careful observation of the text. Did Jesus say anything else about the world? If He was not praying for the world directly, did His prayer have anything to do with the world? After saying He is not praying for the world, He uses the word “world” fifteen more times in His prayer. He may not have been praying for the world, but He certainly was praying about the world, reflecting His concern. He mentions the world repeatedly to draw the contrast between it and the disciples, accentuating the holiness, the separateness of the church. If there is no difference, no distinction, then the church will have little or no impact on the world Jesus cares about.
- He mentions the world repeatedly to reaffirm that He is leaving, but the disciples are staying. They will be carrying the responsibility to continue His mission to the world. The “sentness” that characterized His mission from the Father is now passed on as an apostolic ministry.
- He mentions the world repeatedly to focus the attention of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church on that world, so that the world may believe and so that the world may know. He laments the fact that the world does not know the Father.
Jesus prayed intensely for His followers, not instead of praying for the world, but because of the world. His mission was to seek and save the lost, and now that mission depended on His followers. The unity and integrity and solidarity and faithfulness of His one, holy, catholic, apostolic church is the best thing He could leave to an unbelieving world.
The Church of the Holy Trinity
As mentioned at the beginning of this article, the structure of the Creed begins to make more and more sense. The church is the overflow of the Triune God and Their mission in the world. In John 17 the church and its oneness is repeatedly referenced to the relationship between the Father and the Son. How we understand the church depends on how we understand the Trinity. Are we “religious consumers” or are we “participating in the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4)? The ancient church had no doubts about the nature of the genuine church in the face of false teachers.
For Basil [Basil the Great, 329-390], the Church exists and is defined in its worship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and as in the Spirit it participates in the κοινωνία [koinonia, fellowship] which the three Persons of the Holy Trinity have with one another.[17]
On the other hand,
Hence the Church was regarded [by Arians, who denied the relationship between the Father and the Son], not as the Body of Christ, but as a community formed through the voluntary association of like-minded people.[18]
In other words, an inadequate view of Trinity leads to inadequate view of the church. John 17 makes sense only if we continually deepen our understanding of the Trinity and the relationships among the divine Persons: “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:21). Our oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity all grow out of that reality:
As united to Christ in his incarnate reality the Church constitutes the sanctified community within which we may draw near to the Father through the Son and in the Spirit and share in the eternal life, light and love of God himself.[19]
Or, in the words of J. I. Packer,
The church appears in Trinitarian relationships as the family of God the Father, the body of Christ the Son, and the temple (the dwelling place) of the Holy Spirit.[20]
Communion of the Saints
One writer suggests, “of all the phrases in the Creed, this is the one whose exact meaning has been most discussed by scholars and interpreters.”[21] Undaunted by the challenge, our group considered the meaning of “communion of the saints.” One of the first suggestions in our discussion was that the Creed refers to the celebration of Communion, the Eucharist, the Lord’s Supper. That may have been the original meaning, but there are disputes about that interpretation.[22] Possibly the phrase means “communion [fellowship] in holy things (Word, sacrament, worship, prayers).”[23] Another member in our group raised the concern that “communion of the saints” sounds like the beginning of Roman Catholic practices such as praying to the saints, the veneration of Mary, indulgences for release from Purgatory, etc. Even if this phrase from the Creed has been misunderstood and possibly abused, we can benefit from understanding it more deeply.
The remainder of our discussion focused on three aspects of the communion of the saints – one certain, one possible, and one perhaps questionable. We have communion with the saints here and now on earth. We might have some form of communion with the saints of the past. Does our communion extend to the saints presently in glory?
Communion with the Present Church
Karl Barth called “the communion of the saints” a “supplementary phrase” that was synonymous with community. [24] Certainly it would be difficult to argue with that minimal understanding of communion of the saints. We have fellowship with other believers. This may be the most recognizable aspect of the communion of the saints in immediate and practical ways. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that our need for each other “clarifies the goal of all Christian community: they meet one another as bringers of the message of salvation.”[25]
But God has put this Word into the mouth of men in order that it may be communicated to other men. When one person is struck by the Word, he speaks it to others. God has willed that we should seek him and find his living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of a man. Therefore, a Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s Word to him.[26]
The communion of the saints means that we need to be reminding, encouraging, and challenging one another to continue “further up and further in” to our salvation. Larry Crabb describes genuine community as “the Spirit of Christ in you connecting with the Spirit of Christ in me.”[27]
Communion with the Ancient Church
Jesus made it clear that His vision for the church was not generationally limited: “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:20-21). Past generations have much to offer us through their own writings and through biographies that tell their stories of God’s work in and through their lives.
As we recite the Creed, using the same words that countless believers have used to affirm their faith, “we claim to stand in continuity with the apostles and in communion with those who have kept the apostolic faith and have walked in the footsteps of Jesus ahead of us.”[28] Our communion with those ancient saints can at least take the form of reading and learning from the lives they lived (and often sacrificed) because of the joy set before them. Augustine’s Confessions, or John Owen’s Communion with God, or Bonhoeffer’s Life Together, or Lewis’ Surprised by Joy can be a starting point for experiencing a connection and a communion with others from the history of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church.
Communion with the Glorified Church
The idea of communion with (or probably any present contact or connection with) departed loved ones raises a wide spectrum of worries (“bristles?” or maybe “jolts?”). Even if there might be some valid sense of connection with the saints in glory, there are pitfalls. Dangerous distortions come to mind in the occult, in New Age spirituality, in various cults, and possibly in the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps it is a topic to be avoided in an abundance of caution.
However, that usually doesn’t stop our group. We discussed the possible application of knowing that there are believers whom we loved on earth who are now enjoying the glory of God. Could that be a part of the meaning of the communion of the saints?
Christians here are to be conscious of their communion with the redeemed in heaven, who have already experienced the fullness of the glory of Christ. This, or something like it, is the doctrine which we affirm when we say ‘the Communion of Saints’ towards the end of the Apostles’ Creed.[29]
Michael Bird affirms the communion both with saints on earth and in heaven:
To say that the church is a communion simply means that it is a common union of believers. This communion exists horizontally among Christians who live and sometimes languish upon the earth and vertically with the departed members who are alive with Christ in heaven. In other words, neither geography nor death can fracture the church from its union with one another and affection for each other.[30]
N. T. Wright (an Anglican) even provides a perspective from a Puritan:
Since they and we are both in Christ, … there is no reason why we shouldn’t pray for them and with them. If the great Puritan divine Richard Baxter could say this, so can we: in his hymn ‘He wants not friends that hath thy love’ he writes: [31]
Within the fellowship of saints
Is wisdom, safety and delight;
And when my heart declines and faints,
It’s raiséd by their heat and light.
We still are centred all in thee,
Members, though distant, of one Head;
Within one family we be,
And by one faith and spirit led.
Before thy throne we daily meet
As joint-petitioners to thee;
In spirit each the other greet,
And shall again each other see.
Likewise, there is certainly no reason in principle why we should not pray for them … that they will be refreshed, and filled with God’s joy and peace. Love passes into prayer; we still love them; why not hold them, in that love, before God? I put it like that, as a cautious question rather than a firm statement.[32]
That “cautions question” is where our group left the issue. I will confess that as I read the words of that hymn aloud to the group I was emotionally moved thinking of specific saints who are already in heaven and the idea of praying for their eternally increasing joy in the presence of and fellowship with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
[1] Michael F. Bird, What Christians Ought to Believe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 193; Kindle Edition location 3148.
[2] Hans Urs von Balthasar, Credo: Meditations on the Apostles’ Creed, trans. David Kipp, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), Kindle Edition, location 578.
[3] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 260; Kindle Edition location 3740.
[4] Gary Parrett, J. I. Packer, Grounded in the Gospel: Building Believers the Old-Fashioned Way (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2010), Kindle Electronic Edition: Location 347-351.
[5] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 268; Kindle Edition location 3862.
[6] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 261; Kindle Edition location 3765.
[7] Michael F. Bird, What Christians Ought to Believe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 198; Kindle Edition location 3219.
[8] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 300; Kindle Edition location 4307.
[9] Michael F. Bird, What Christians Ought to Believe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 199; Kindle Edition location 3238.
[10] Alistair McGrath, “I Believe” – Exploring the Apostles’ Creed (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 1997), 97.
[11] Michael F. Bird, What Christians Ought to Believe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 199; Kindle Edition location 3247.
[12] Raymond F. Cannata & Joshua D. Reitano, Rooted: the Apostles’ Creed (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: Doulos Resources, 2013), Kindle Edition location 2754.
[13] Michael F. Bird, What Christians Ought to Believe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 200; Kindle Edition location 3257.
[14] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 274; Kindle edition location 3942.
[15] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 274; Kindle edition location 3942.
[16] Michael F. Bird, What Christians Ought to Believe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 201; Kindle Edition location 3267.
[17] Thomas F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith: Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (London: T&T Clark Cornerstones, 2016), Kindle Edition, location 6374.
[18] Thomas F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith: Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (London: T&T Clark Cornerstones, 2016), Kindle Edition, location 6506.
[19] Thomas F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith: Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (London: T&T Clark Cornerstones, 2016), Kindle Edition, location 6461.
[20] J. I. Packer, Affirming the Apostles’ Creed (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008), 123-124.
[21] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Apostles’ Creed for Today (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 80.
[22] N. T. Wright, For All the Saints?: Remembering the Christian Departed (London: Church Publishing Inc., 2003), Kindle Edition location 294.
[23] J. I. Packer, Affirming the Apostles’ Creed (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008), 123.
[24] Karl Barth, Credo (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005), 137; Kindle Edition Location 1893; emphasis added.
[25] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. John W. Doberstein (London: SCM Press Ltd., 2010), Kindle Edition location 117.
[26] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. John W. Doberstein (London: SCM Press Ltd., 2010), Kindle Edition location 111.
[27] Although I have heard Larry say this on several occasions, I do not have a particular citation to any of his writings.
[28] Michael F. Bird, What Christians Ought to Believe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 219; Kindle Edition location3678.
[29] N. T. Wright, For All the Saints?: Remembering the Christian Departed (London: Church Publishing Inc., 2003), Kindle Edition location 304.
[30] Michael F. Bird, What Christians Ought to Believe (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 201; Kindle Edition location 3273.
[31] N. T. Wright, For All the Saints?: Remembering the Christian Departed (London: Church Publishing Inc., 2003), Kindle Edition location 544.
[32] N. T. Wright, For All the Saints?: Remembering the Christian Departed (London: Church Publishing Inc., 2003), Kindle Edition location 580.