Are Disciples of Christ Nicene Christians
Are Disciples of Christ Nicene Christians? By “Nicene Christians,” I mean those who belong to churches that officially affirm and may require the Nicene Creed as a standard of faith. At first glance, the answer seems obvious: Disciples are not Nicene Christians because we are a non‑creedal tradition. The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is not defined by any Creed. Our Good Confession—we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God and proclaim Him Lord and Savior of the World—names New Testament confessional ordinances. It is not a creed. Also if we were to adopt any Creed as a formal test of fellowship, we would no longer be, well, ourselves. Like several other newer Protestant and Restorationist movements, we do not require anyone to assent to the Nicene Creed or any creed in order to belong.
This year marks the 1700th anniversary of the initial framing of the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Global ecumenical leaders including the Pope gathered in Turkey to pray for Christian unity and celebrate this anniversary. Its final form emerged in 381 AD at Constantinople, and is more properly called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (that’s a critically contested account). But non-creedal Disciples like us, might glibly ask, “so what?” As a people who declare that “all are welcome to the table” we can be callously unconcerned with what some of our siblings are bringing to it. Moreover, I fear that sometimes our commitment to Christian freedom can leave new believers, seekers, or outsiders without any point of reference. We are so wedded to the idea that everyone learns to swim in baptismal waters using their own unique stroke that we never get out of the shallow end of the pool. Reconsidering our relationship to the Creed could benefit our evangelistic outreach, ecumenical partnerships, liturgical practice, and pastoral care in ways we haven’t fully explored.
Our emphasis on Christian freedom means we would not require the Creed of one another. It also means there is nothing to prevent any Disciples member or pastor from learning, affirming, reciting, and even relying on the Creed. So if any one of us can, in good conscience, learn, affirm, recite, and rely on the Creed, should we? Suppose a Disciple finds themselves in another denomination’s worship service where the Creed is being recited, reads it carefully, and realizes they can affirm everything it says. Would it be hypocritical to join their voices with the congregation at that part of the service? Or take it a step further: if an adult preparing for baptism were asked what they believe, and they simply pointed to the Creed and said, “I affirm this statement of faith,” would that be acceptable in a Disciples context? One final, perhaps more provocative example: if you were serving on the search committee for your next senior minister, and the candidate said, “To be honest, I have built my theology around the Nicene Creed,” would that admission disqualify them from serving your congregation? From being your pastor?
I want to offer a few brief reasons why, in each of the situations I just named, affirming the Creed is better than rejecting it. These are only thesis statements for much larger conversations; any one of them could easily justify a book, not just a blog post. For now, I simply lay them out as assertions, in the hope that together they make a case for at least reconsidering our stance.
It makes historical-theological sense. Disciples often position the Creed against Scripture, but the same broad historical processes that gave us the New Testament also gave us the Creed. The canon and the Creed have walked hand in hand far more than we have been willing to admit.
It is consistent with our passion for unity. If Disciples are as committed to the unity of the Body of Christ as we claim to be, we will eventually have to address our allergic reaction to anything containing the word “Creed.” We have worn the “non-creedal” label like a badge of honor for so long it can be as dogmatic as the dogmatism we criticize.
It matches how we have historically worship led and baptized. Most Disciples are more Trinitarian than we think we are. Many of our congregations still sing the Gloria Patri and/or the “Praise God, from whom all blessings flow” doxology every Sunday; both are Trinitarian affirmations. We belt out hymns like “Holy, Holy, Holy” with gusto. And I hope most Disciples baptisms are performed “in the name” (note the singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We may say we do this simply in obedience to Jesus’s instruction in Matthew 28, but it is nonetheless a Trinitarian practice. The Nicene Creed does not use the word “Trinity,” yet the discernment that produced it helped the church name the Trinity as orthodox Christian faith.
It meets a real pastoral and evangelistic need. People need a comprehensive, coherent statement of faith. Scripture by itself is rich, complex, and often appears contradictory. The Creed does not solve every problem, but it does clarify some interpretations in ways that can be genuinely helpful for faith-sharing, teaching, and formation.
Any one of these theses could and should be debated. I think the conversation could be formative. There are lots of ways congregations can engage the Creed. For example, a church might devote four or more weeks in an adult Sunday school to unpacking the Creed alongside Scripture, with honest dialogue about beliefs and doubts. Another approach is to read the Creed together line by line in worship as a call to prayer, or pair each section with relevant biblical passages in a Lenten or Easter series. Youth groups and pastor’s classes can explore it as one “map” of the Christian story, inviting comparison to our Disciples “Good Confession”—noting where they resonate and where they struggle.
For seminarians, practicing ministers, or really dedicated lay theologians, one could work through the World Council of Churches statement, “Confessing the One Faith: An Ecumenical Explication of the Apostolic Faith as it is Confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381).” If you’re familiar with the “Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry” document from the 1980s it is similar. However, it’s not as easy to understand. Still it points to some ecumenical consensus understandings of our shared faith.
Finally, this is an open offer from me to come for a Bible-and-Brunch session where we’d dig into these questions together. (Note: the same offer applies to a session on Philippians or Psalms or “How to talk about the Bible Without Embarrassing Yourself.”)
I can’t imagine wanting to be part of a denomination that required or even expected assent to the Nicene Creed as a condition of membership. While I stand by each of the theses above and would affirm the Creed myself, I am even more committed to the Disciples ethos that invites persuasion, rejects coercion, practices invitation, and avoids imposition. Are Disciples Nicene Christians? No, as a denomination we are not, and I do not want us to become one. But perhaps individually, a few more of us could rethink our rejection of it, and through study and discernment around the Creed we could enrich our faith without compromising our freedom.