Today, we continue our study of the Apostles’ Creed. And we take up some of its most wonderful yet most troublesome language. We say that we believe in Jesus Christ, "who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, [and] born of the Virgin Mary...."

Indeed, among Protestant Christians, it can be almost dangerous to discuss these articles! They sometimes elicit strong emotional reactions and inspire heated debates. Unfortunately, however, the meaning of this language is often misunderstood, and the arguments are sometimes fought over the wrong issues.

Now, first as we take up these phrases, we need to remember, that the creed is like much of Scripture in that it was not written contemporaneously with that which it describes. As we have said previously, the creed was composed in retrospect. It explicates the early Church’s analysis and its interpretation of what had happened in the past.

And this retrospective character is especially true of this statement: that the man Jesus was "conceived by the Holy Ghost." After all, at the time of Jesus’ conception, there had been no scribe present; there was no one to take notes!

And so, if we are to understand rightly just what these words mean, we must consider the earliest Christians. It is their interpretation of Jesus’ life that gave rise to the Creed. And therefore, the question is: “What did they mean when they said that they believed that Jesus Christ ‘was conceived by the Holy Ghost’?

Now, in order to answer this question, I think we actually need to come forward in time from the birth of Jesus and the scriptural accounts leading up to the birth narratives. And we need to consider instead the Pentecost events that we read about in the Book of Acts.

In Acts, we are told that Jesus’ followers had gathered for the traditional Jewish celebration that took place 50 days after Passover. This was the first Pentecost celebration after the resurrection.

On that day, the apostles were overwhelmed by a sudden, thundering sound. It was as if a great down-burst of wind had come through the house where they had gathered. And we are told that the apostles were enveloped with what looked like flames. "Tongues as of fire" surrounded the apostles, yet did not harm them. They began to speak in languages which were foreign to them but were readily understood by those who heard them.

Now, as all this happened, those first Christians had a unique experience. Each one was infused with a new sense of being and felt a special energizing. Their lives, both as individuals and in their relationships with one another, became animated in a way that they had never before known.

I suppose we might compare their experience to being outside on a cold winter’s day and feeling half frozen; but as you enter a room with a crackling fire in the fireplace, you feel new life as you stand in front of the hearth.

Or, I guess today the better analogy is a day when it's a hundred degrees outside! Totally sapped by the heat, you plunge into a swimming pool. And you let out a scream as the water wakens every cell of your being!

You see, the point: at Pentecost the followers of Jesus became "pumped up." They came to see themselves as a part of a unified, enlivened “body.” They understood that, as a body, they were now more powerful, even more alive than they had been individually.

And the people who experienced this event understood that what had happened to them was truly the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit had infused them; and by this encounter with the Holy Spirit, the apostles were empowered for the mission of the church.

Although they did not understand exactly how it had happened, they knew that it had happened. And they also knew that there was but one common denominator among them that could have led to this infusion of the Spirit. There was but one thing that they shared that could have caused this blessing of their lives by the Spirit of God.

And that common denominator was this man whom they all had known, whose resurrection they had witnessed.

In his sermon to those who had witnessed the Pentecost events, the Apostle Peter explained it this way. He said that, "Having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he [Jesus] has poured out that which you see and hear."

You see, the apostles concluded that it was Jesus, whom they believed to be the Son of God, who had bestowed this Spirit. Jesus had infused them with the power of the Spirit. Jesus was its source.

And so, the early Church concluded, if Jesus had been the source of this infusion of the Spirit, then somehow, Jesus himself, at some point, also must have received the Spirit. He, too, must have been empowered by God.

And so the question: "How did Jesus get the Spirit? When did it happen?" This is what the early Church asked.

Well, there were a number of potential explanations. Some suggested that it had happened during the resurrection.

Those who had actually known Jesus, however, realized that he had always exhibited this special Spirit, even before his death. Indeed, his entire ministry had been characterized by the presence of the Holy Spirit. It was by the Spirit’s empowering that Jesus had healed people, he had driven out demons. He even had raised people from the dead. Thus, Jesus had surely had had the Spirit prior to the resurrection.

Well then, perhaps Jesus received the Spirit at his baptism. After all, witnesses claimed to have seen the Spirit descend upon Jesus like a dove. Maybe it had been then.

But to say the Jesus’ becoming infused by the Spirit had been at his baptism was to ignore the first thirty or so years of Jesus’ life. And at his baptism, a voice had confirmed God was already pleased with this man, Jesus.

And so, the early Church concluded that they really needed to go farther back still. They reasoned that Jesus had possessed the Spirit from his birth, even from before his birth. You see, what the early Church said, and what we affirm today is that there was never a moment that Jesus was not indwelt and totally motivated by the Holy Spirit.

We thus read of the angel Gabriel's announcement to Mary: "The Holy Spirit will come over you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born to you will be called holy, the Son of God."

Now, here we need to be careful. First of all, the creed is not talking about biology or physiology.

We surely are not saying that, by the action of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was like some character from Greek mythology, where divine beings visited humans and conceived semi-divine children. Remember, as we emphasized previously, Jesus was fully human and fully divine at the same time.

The late Shirley Guthrie said it this way: "To put it bluntly 'conceived by the Holy Ghost' does not mean that the Holy Spirit is the substitute for the male in the conception… of Jesus. The church has never held that the Spirit is the 'father' of Jesus." (Guthrie, Christian Doctrine, John Knox Press, p.229)

Or, as Czech theologian J. M. Lochman puts it, this phrase "points not to biological realities but to the origin …of [ Jesus Christ] in the radical sense." (See J. M. Lochman, The Faith We Confess, p. 107.) **

And so, we might say that "conceived by the Holy Ghost" really means that, according to his human existence, Jesus had no father at all. (see Guthrie, ibid.)

Really, this phrase is a way of expressing that ultimate mystery: the presence of God in a human being. It is not a biological explanation. Indeed, there is no biological explanation for the fact that the Word of God became flesh. "Conceived by the Holy Ghost" is simply a statement that the mystery did happen.

I suppose another way to think about this is as a matter of timing.

Recall the opening verses of the Gospel According to John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God....And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Hear what that passage is saying about the timing of the "conception" of the Second Person of the Trinity, what Lochman refers to as the origin of Christ in the "radical sense." You see, John's Gospel is suggesting that the "conception" took place long before the announcement to Mary. The Second Person already was, in the very beginning with God. And here we might think of our previous reference to the Nicene Creed that says that Jesus Christ is "of one substance with the Father."

Now, this brings us to this other half of this phrase in the Creed: "conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." In a way, these phrases actually balance one another. For if the divine nature of Jesus is represented by the phrase, "conceived by the Holy Ghost," then his human nature is represented in the phrase, "born of the Virgin Mary."

Now, at first, this may strike us as odd. Many people have considered this phrase as suggesting Jesus' divinity rather than his humanity; but that is not really the case.

The early church never affirmed belief in Jesus as the Son of God because he was born in a biologically anomalous way. And, in fact, faith runs in just the opposite direction.

You know, people who encountered Jesus did not know about his birth! People did not say, "Here is the man born of the Virgin Mary; he must be the Son of God!

Instead, it was just the other way round! Jesus’ followers observed his life - the goodness, the power, the consistency of it, his willing death and, of course, the resurrection.

And it was from those observations that people concluded that Jesus was the Son of God. Thus it was because people had already come to affirm Jesus as the Son of God that they would then believe in the miraculous birth.

Thus, it is a mistake to make the virgin birth a litmus test for the deity of Jesus Christ. Scripture certainly does not do this. Indeed, all of the Gospel writers were fully convinced of the deity of Jesus, and yet two of them omitted any birth narrative from their accounts of his life.

Paul was convinced and preached that Jesus was the Son of God; yet he never mentions the virgin birth. He simply says that Jesus was "born of a woman." (Galatians 4:4)

To the early church, then the exact circumstances of Jesus’ birth were of secondary importance. The inclusion of this language in the Creed was more to emphasize that Jesus Christ was born, that God did become fully human. ***

This is not to say, however, that we simply ignore the miraculous character of Jesus’ birth. It is secondarily significant, but it is significant. It signals the presence of mystery. More important, it signals the initiative of God in the act of salvation. (See Lochman, p. 109 ff.)

Indeed, the miraculous character of the nativity emphasizes that it was God who sought out humankind. It was God who reached toward us without prompting. It was solely God, who for our salvation became human, was born a man.

Karl Barth writes of the miracle of Jesus’ birth in this way. Barth says that it means that "God stands at the start where real revelation takes place; God, and not the arbitrary cleverness, capability or piety of a human being." (Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.2, p.182, emphasis added.)

You see, when we affirm that Jesus Christ was "conceived by the Holy Ghost” and “born of the Virgin Mary" what we are really saying, is that we believe, we trust in the grace of God. We acknowledge that we are totally dependent upon God for salvation; that on God's own initiative, God came to us; and that "salvation originates in God alone." (Lochman, p.108)

Now, here we might recall some experience in our own lives. Perhaps you've been at home; you are alone. Maybe you've not been feeling well. Maybe you've not been feeling so good about yourself. At any rate, you're sitting there, kind of in the dumps, feeling lonely or dissatisfied with who you are or where you are. Maybe something like this has happened to you; I know it’s happened to me!

Anyway, you’re sitting there being overly-contemplative about your situation in life. And then, unexpectedly, there is a knock at the door!

And you discover that, although you had not known it, a friend has been thinking of you. In fact, this friend has been concerned about you, and now that friend has come to see you! And even has brought you a present!

And somehow, in that “visitation”, your whole outlook changes; perhaps even the way you think of yourself is suddenly changed. And it’s nothing that you have done. It is your friend who has taken the initiative - and changed your life.

You see, in a small way, this is what the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ means. This is what God has done for each of us. And this is what we affirm when we say that Jesus was “conceived by the Holy Ghost [and] born of the Virgin Mary.”

And so, it is this part of the Creed that calls us to respond to that grace of God. It is this part of the creed that is our warrant for being the church and for doing the mission of the church.

And finally, it is in these phrases, taken together, that we are also saying that we believe, we trust that the Body of Christ - this body, the church, of which we are part, also has its origin in the initiative of God.

You see, here we are saying that the church itself, "in the radical sense", “is conceived by the Holy Ghost.”

Now, I think this is something we all need to remember as we go about the business of "being church." Surely, it is something that we here at First Presbyterian need to remember as we continue through this time of transition. It is an understanding that imposes great responsibility on us, the members of the church. And yet, at the same time, it is also a source of tremendous liberty and confidence for us.

It suggests that we, too, are subject to being motivated by that same Holy Spirit. And in fact, it suggests that it is only when our efforts as a church reflect that motivation, that "conception" by the Spirit, it is only then that we really are the Body of Christ. Frankly, we too often forget this.

There is the hymn titled "Spirit"; we will sing it at the end of the service. The hymn expresses this well, I think. In the final verse, in referring to the Holy Spirit, it says:

“You call from tomorrow, you break ancient schemes,

From the bondage of sorrow, the captives dream dreams;

Our women see visions, our men clear their eyes.

With bold new decisions, your people arise."

"Your people arise." You see, it is the church that arises, “conceived by the Holy Ghost.” And the church continues to be empowered by the Holy Spirit, by the grace of God.

We believe in Jesus Christ God's only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary - by the grace of God!

Amen.

*I continue to acknowledge indebtedness to the late John H. Leith, under whose tutelage I was forced to grapple with the Creed in seminary, and to Albert Curry Winn, whose own series on this topic inspired further thought in these areas. **In fact, this was of utmost importance as the church's response to the heresy of Docetism. Docetics said that Christ only appeared to be a man; that he was God in disguise as man. But the church believed that only a human could atone for the sins of humans. And so, to protect the humanity of Jesus, the creed states that he was born of the Virgin Mary. *** Indeed, as John Leith put it, “The attention of the early church was focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”The matter of Jesus’ birth only became a significant issue in the fundamentalist – modernist controversies of the twentieth century. For an excellent discussion of the issues surrounding the birth of Jesus, see John H. Leith, Basic Christian Doctrine, Westminster / John Knox Press, 1993, pp. 144 ff. Interestingly, Leith takes up this subject only after first discussing other aspects of Jesus’ life, resurrection and ascension.

Our text is from the 16th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, verses 13-16: There Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

“Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'"

Today, we begin a discussion that will actually extend over the next several weeks in our study of the Apostles' Creed. We take up the subject of the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, who is revealed in Jesus Christ. **

And because of its relative importance, when we move into this part of the creed, we need to do so, as the late Shirley Guthrie put it, "very carefully...and modestly.”

In Guthrie’s words “We come now to a mystery [that] no man can grasp and master. No one ever reaches the point at which he can say, 'Now I understand. Now I have it.' “Whoever thinks he understands everything here, [thinks he] has it neatly wrapped up… only proves he understands nothing."

Guthrie goes on to say, however, that, "This does not mean that we must not try to understand, as best we can, who Jesus is and what he means...” And we will be successful if we can say after our study, "Now I understand a little better; I see a little more clearly." [Shirley Guthrie, Christian Doctrine. John Knox Press, 1968, p. 224]

"I believe in...Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord….” “I trust in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God the Father." What do we mean when we say this?

As a prelude to the meaning of the word “Son”, as it is used here, perhaps we should first consider the warrant, the authority for claiming that Jesus is the “Son of God.” What justifies Christians’ making this claim?

Well, first we can note that being God's Son is a claim Jesus made for himself. His relationship to God was such that, as we’ve said before, Jesus repeatedly referred to God as "Father," or with the more familiar "Abba."

And, more important than Jesus' own references to God as his Father, were the observations of other people, witnesses who observed the quality of Jesus’ life and the consistency of his practice of being faithful to God, notwithstanding whatever peril such practice may have held for his own well-being. They saw Jesus' ability to heal people, not only in body but also in spirit, and thereby to improve their relationships with God.

And it was through those observations of this person, Jesus, that other people confirmed the validity of his claim of being the Son of God.

Peter, for example, in the text we read a few moments ago, affirmed Jesus as Son of God. And you see, this was a conclusion that Peter had reached, not just because of Jesus’ own claim or his language about God as his Father. It was Jesus' life that revealed to Peter who Jesus was.

Well, for us to come to our own understanding and for us to use the creed as an instrument or vehicle to reach the same conclusion as Peter, or at least to begin to understand, I think we must proceed through this part of the creed, as Shirley Guthrie suggested, “carefully”, literally word by word. “Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.”

Jesus. “Jesus” is a human name. “Jesus” is a name given to infants by many mothers and fathers, given to sons for whom those parents had great hopes, just like the parents who have named their sons Michael, or Richard or who have named their daughters Elizabeth or Anne.

And so, in the first instance, when we say that we believe in “Jesus,” we are saying that we believe in a person, a human being who lived within the limits of biology and history just as we do. He lived in a definite place. And we are saying that he shared the habits and routines of being human.

In addition to these things that we affirm, we also know some aspects of Jesus’ personality as well. This man named Jesus cared for other people, but he could also get angry with them. I suspect that he enjoyed a good joke; we read of Jesus going to dinner parties and he apparently liked being with people; but we know that sometimes he liked to be by himself, too. He needed food and water and shelter from the elements. We can safely assume that Jesus occasionally stubbed his toe or hit his thumb with a hammer. And, he was subject to getting ill. Maybe he caught a cold now and then! I take some comfort in that part of his humanity! These sorts of things are implied in our affirmation of his human personhood, this man named Jesus.

Now, actually “Jesus” is or was a very common name. It is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Yeshua" or “Joshua”. A number of Old Testament characters shared that name. The Joshua who led the people of Israel into the Promised Land was a national hero. And thus, many little boys were named Joshua, or its Greek equivalent, “Jesus.”

And yet, in this commonplace name there is also theological significance. The name means "Yahweh saves" or, "Yahweh is Savior." Thus, the name also suggests that God chose to make salvation available through this human being, Jesus.

Now, we need to understand that this matter of Jesus' humanity was no small issue in the early church. In other religions of that day, it was absurd, it was scandalous to suggest that salvation could be available through the means of a human being.

In the ancient world, and especially in Greek philosophy, there was tendency to consider the physical world and the particular parts of it as unimportant. Much as in eastern religions today, the physical world was understood as being inferior or even evil. "Goodness" on the other hand, was understood as residing outside and beyond individualized, physical existence.

Accordingly, liberation from evil could come only through some process of detachment, through mysticism. “Salvation” was apart from the body, apart from the world and the individual self. [See J. M. Lochman, The Faith We Confess, Fortress Press, 1984, p. 73]. Salvation was to be found by escaping from history, escaping worldly events and physical existence.

In Jesus’ humanity, however, Christian doctrine sets itself in bold opposition to such an understanding. It places the act of salvation within the life of a physical, totally human person. And thus Christianity affirms not only the spiritual dimensions of reality but also physical existence as being part of God's good intentions.

In other words, the creed affirms the goodness of creation and the physical world. And particularly it affirms the goodness of humankind, as shown by God’s choosing to effect salvation through this human being, Jesus of Nazareth. This is something that we affirm when we say the creed, the goodness of creation and the value and the goodness of humankind as a part of creation.

Moreover, the fact that Jesus worked out salvation within the context of human history, also suggests that history itself is meaningful. It affirms that the accomplishments and failures of humankind, as we move through time, the things we do are indeed important.

And one implication of this is that it is important to be involved in the world rather than to withdraw from it. It means that our historical existence is meaningful. And thus it is important to try to improve the world in which we live.

You see, this is what God has said to us through offering salvation in this historical, human person, Jesus.

So, when we say in the creed that we believe in Jesus, that belief should make a difference in the way we go about the tasks of living. To affirm this belief in is to affirm that we live not for ourselves only, but that our individual and corporate endeavors are significant to the kingdom of God.

Well, that is part of what it means to say that we believe in Jesus.

But we need to go further. And we need to say that it is not just a man in whom we trust. It is a particular Jewish man, one who was heir to all of the prophecy about the coming of a Messiah, one anointed by God, who would bring salvation to God’s people. This brings us to the word "Christ."

Christ, of course, is a title, not a name. Sometimes that gets overlooked; we speak of “Christ” without pinning the title with the name “Jesus.” Again, Christ is the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word "Messiah," "anointed one." Christ. Messiah. Anointed.

Now we need to recall that in ancient Israel, several classes of people were anointed. Priests who offered sacrifices in behalf of the people were anointed. Prophets who served as God's spokespersons were anointed. Kings, the instruments of God's rule - they, too, were anointed.

And so it was the hope of Israel that the Messiah, this special anointed one, would be all of these things: prophet, priest, and king. As Al Winn says it, the Messiah was to be Israel's real priest who would be like "all the other priests should have been but never were;" Israel's real prophet; Israel's true king.

You see, this is what Peter means when he makes his confession in response to the question, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter says to Jesus, "You are the Christ."

Going further, moreover, Peter also says that Jesus the Messiah is the Son of the living God. (See Matthew 16:16) Thus we, too, affirm that Jesus Christ is "God’s only son." And here, the emphasis should be on this word “only.”

Remember previously, as we talked about “fatherhood”, we noted that God is the Father of all of us. But the creed does not say merely that Jesus Christ was God's son. It says that he is God's only Son, with a capital “s”. And this word “only” suggests that Jesus was somehow different from us other children of God. He was unique. He and God the Father had a relationship that no one else ever had or ever would have again.

Listen again to these words from Hebrews: "In many and various ways, God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son....He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature..."

Perhaps the Nicene Creed says this better, certainly more fully. The Nicene Creed says that Jesus Christ was of the "same substance" as the Father.

Thus, you see, in these few words of the creed, "Jesus Christ his only Son," we affirm both the humanity and the deity of the second person of the Trinity. Humanity and deity, resident in the same person.

We will encounter more of this unique coalescence as we go through other parts of the creed; but today, this brings us to the affirmation that this person, Jesus the Christ is also “our Lord”.

Now, this title, "Lord" is the word that is used to render the Greek translation (kyrios) of the Hebrew adonai. Adonai is a title for God that indicates absolute authority over creation.

Throughout the New Testament there are assertions that Jesus is Lord; and they suggest that he, too, has power of cosmic proportions, that, in the words of our text from Hebrews, he upholds the universe, “sustains all things by his powerful word."

But in the creed, we need to notice that it is not just this cosmic lordship that we affirm so much as his personal lordship. Jesus Christ is our Lord. This suggests a personal submission of the believer to Jesus’ authority. It means obedience to the authority of God's anointed one.

The "Declaration of Faith," is one of the confessional statements of the old Presbyterian Church US. And it summarizes Jesus' lordship in this way. It says that Jesus’ resurrection is a “decisive victory over the powers that deform and destroy human life." And although the world appears to be dominated by people and systems that do not acknowledge his rule; Jesus’ lordship is nevertheless real.

And then the declaration goes on to emphasize that: "[This lordship] demands our loyalty and [it] sets us free from the fear of all lesser lords who threaten us. We maintain that ultimate sovereignty now belongs to Jesus Christ in every sphere of life. ["Declaration of Faith" Chapter 4, lines 135ff]

Now, you may recall that when we began this series, I suggested that there are parts of the creed that some people find difficult to say. And I said then that, as we say the creed, we should do so with passion, while still acknowledging there is risk in saying it.

You see, it is no simple thing to say the creed and to mean it! There are difficult parts. And you may have thought I was talking about Jesus' descending into hell or the resurrection of the body.

But no, friends! You see, this is the difficult part - to say “our Lord” - and to mean it. This is the difficult part because it obligates us. To say Jesus Christ is “our Lord” is risky. That Jesus is Lord makes certain demands on us.

In a way, every week, as we recite the creed, when we get to this part, we ought mentally to pause; we ought to ask ourselves whether we have truly submitted to Jesus’ lordship in the past week. And we should silently ask ourselves whether we at least intend to be obedient to that lordship in the week ahead. Really, it is something that none of us can do alone. We all need the aid of God's own Spirit to help us live up to what we say we believe.

And above all, we ought not, we dare not approach this affirmation that Jesus Christ is our Lord lightly or flippantly. We should say it as if our life depended on it!

Some of you know the story of a man named Polycarp. Polycarp was a bishop during a time of persecution in the Second Century. He was an old man when he was arrested for being a Christian. In fact, he was threatened with death. He was told that he would be burned at the stake if he would not declare his allegiance to the Emperor Caesar as his lord.

Polycarp’s captors tried to persuade him. "What harm is there to say 'Lord Caesar.' Curse Christ and you shall be released. You don't have to mean it;… just say it.”

But Polycarp answered, "I cannot. Eighty-six years I have served Christ. How can I blaspheme my king who saved me? Listen plainly: I am a Christian." And so they lit the fire laid at Polycarp’s feet. [Early Christian Fathers, Cyril Richardson, ed., Collier Books, 1970, p. 152]

Hopefully, we will never be put in quite that situation! But you see, Polycarp confessed Jesus, not just as Lord, but as his Lord - and he meant it. It is not easy to do!

Every week, we say these words of the creed. It is as if, each week, Jesus asks us, "Who do you say that I am?"

May God bless us by helping each one of us to answer - sincerely, passionately, as if our lives depended on our answer: Jesus Christ - God's only Son, our Lord. Amen.

*I continue to acknowledge indebtedness to the late John H. Leith, under whose tutelage I was forced to grapple with the Creed in seminary, and to Albert Curry Winn, whose own series on this topic inspired further thought in these areas. **At this point, we should notice, if we have not already, that the creed is Trinitarian in its structure and content. It is refers to the three-fold personhood of God. As we will see, however, the Creed is heavily weighted in its description of the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God. Whereas God the Father, as we saw last week, is described by using only eight words, the second person is described in much more detail. And this is quite understandable.

Indeed, the initial gathering of the church was based upon their unique belief in Jesus as the Son of God. After all, many people of the time, in fact most people believed in a god or in gods; and, of course, even the Roman emperor was claimed to be of divine lineage. [On this point, see John Dominic Crosson and Marcus Borg, The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church’s Conservative Icon, 2009, p.98 ff.] Most people recognized the presence of some kind of spirit, some presence of a divine participation in the affairs of humankind. But to say that God has a human Son – well, that was something new. That was something controversial. And it was this belief that the early church affirmed in the Creed. It was the basic qualification of membership: belief in the revelation of the divine God in the human Jesus.

In recent months I have had multiple occasions to visit an inmate in the Catawba County jail. Visiting an inmate means sitting in a booth in a room in one part of the building and talking through a phone with a video monitor to the inmate who is sitting in booth in another part of the building. In our conversations I have noticed that they tend to refer to those of us who are not in jail as being on "the outside". This is a case where it is actually preferable to be an outsider instead of an insider. As a result of various mistakes and poor choices, these inmates are living in a place that is quite restricted. Minimal contact with family and friends, limited time outdoors, sparse meals, no comforts of home. Some will be there a short time, and some will be facing a long separation from freedom.

Several years ago I had the opportunity to travel to Cuba with members of our congregation on two different occasions. I can remember meeting Presbyterians in Cuba, who live in a country that is not free. No freedom to buy a house or start up a business. No freedom to vote or voice opinions in public about the way the country operates. Cubans live under many, many restrictions and without many of the comforts we take for granted on a daily basis. For years Christians really were not free to even meet for worship, although that restriction has been loosened by the government in recent years.

As I reflect on Paul's words to the Galatian Christians, I find myself wondering if someone who is NOT free is more able to understand the true impact of his words: "for freedom Christ has set us free." Someone who has spent time in prison or living under a dictator and then is freed must experience an amazing sense of release, hope, and joy mixed together with a measure of anxiety and fear about how to handle freedom. Paul describes Christ's work as freeing us from the restricting constraints of the Jewish law. Believers in Christ are not cooped up under a long list of requirements any longer. In the portion of the chapter which we did not read this morning, he goes into great detail about circumcision as a sign of being imprisoned by the old law. In Christ we are free from the need for circumcision and the need for uncircumcision. Neither matters, the way Paul looks at it, Christ has broken the bars of the prison, thrown off the dictator, and freed those who will follow him to live in the Spirit.

But freedom brings the need to make choices (when you are not free, someone else makes your choices for you). And it brings the anxiety of wanting to make good choices, not bad choices. Paul provides for us a picture of two opposite ends of the spectrum-- living according to the works of the flesh or living by the Spirit.

The works of the flesh are self centered. The list of negative actions or attitudes is quite extensive: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, orgies and the like. Each is an example of focusing on self in some way or another, an example of forgetting about love, forgetting about others completely. Paul places the works of the flesh in stark contrast to the life in the Spirit. To describe the life in the Spirit, he refers to the fruit, or the visible results, of a life lived in and guided by the Holy Spirit. We regularly use the term “fruit” in several different ways...

For example, the cucumber vines in my small vegetable garden are almost ready to bear fruit. The broccoli and snow peas are finished at this point, and I think my lettuce has about had it with this ongoing heat. Right now the cucumber vines are kind of taking over, laden with the yellow flowers that indicate LOTS of green cucumbers are on the way. When I see the flowers, I know the fruit (in this case, a cucumber) is coming soon.

This week our Vacation Bible School directors, Blaire Fairchild and Jenny Hines, were able to joy the fruit of their labor of the past months as they watched singing, joyful children each morning on a journey of learning and growing in their understanding of the Bible and what it means to live as a follower of Jesus Christ. Blaire and Jenny had planned and recruited and organized for weeks. The results were obvious every day this week as our church overflowed with children and youth and adult volunteers.

Participating together in the baptism of William Justice this morning is an opportunity for all of us to see the fruit of the ongoing witness to Christ in the lives of William’s parents, Corene and Brian. Bringing their child for baptism reaffirms their own faith and makes public their desire to raise William in the Christian faith. A baptism does not just suddenly occur. It occurs because a church in Illinois and other churches in North Carolina raised Corene and Brian to love and serve Jesus. It occurs because they were shown the example of living a life of faith by their parents and grandparents. The work and witness of those families and those communities of faith are continuing to bear fruit today as Corene and Brian have brought their son to receive the sacrament of baptism.

When the Holy Spirit dwells in us, the fruit is love. Love is what you can see, it is the results. Love takes the form of this long list of virtues-- joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self control. Love can be seen in these kinds of attitudes and actions and patterns of treating others. Paul is not indicating that some people exhibit one of these characteristics and some another. This list describing what the fruit of the Spirit is like is not the same as Paul's lists of the gifts of the Spirit found in several of his other letters. Here all of the characteristics, or virtues, are included as the fruit (singular) of the Spirit. A believer who walks in the Spirit will exhibit these results in the way he or she lives. That is not to say that you will never lose your patience or always have a kind word for everyone you meet or never lose your self control. None of us is a perfect fruit producer after all! But Paul is painting an overall picture of what life in the Spirit looks like, showing us how we can recognize it.

If we are freed by Christ, our new vocation becomes to love one another. This is not a new theme in Scripture. Paul picks up the ancient words from Leviticus 19:18: “love your neighbor as yourself”. Just as you have, Jews grew up hearing those words repeated again and again. The same words are echoed by Jesus himself in his teaching as recorded in all three of the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, who’s version we read this morning. This freedom in Christ is the reason we love. This visible love is the appropriate response to freedom.

I want to encourage you today to keep your eyes open for the fruit of the Spirit which is love in so many forms. Look for it in your life and in the lives of those around you. If you pay attention, you will recognize it. Look for joy-- in a long walk, in a child's play, in the face of a bride, in the absence of worry, in singing, in taking a small step toward independence. Look for peace-- in being willing to end an argument, in refraining from that offensive remark, in welcoming a stranger, in extending a hand, in making a commitment to listen. Look for patience-- in the repeated questions of a young one or an old one, in making time for another, in not expecting an immediate anything, in a time for quiet. Look for kindness-- in being a pen pal, in baking a cake, in buying flowers, in greeting a visitor, in stooping to speak to a young child, in running an errand without complaint. Look for generosity-- in time, in money, in smiles, in energy, in sharing, in giving. Look for faithfulness-- in a marriage, in parenting, in friendship, in the church family, in fulfilling responsibilities, in learning, in prayer. Look for gentleness-- in voice, in action, in choice of words, in holding a hand, in patting a shoulder. Look for self control-- in spending, in driving, in eating, in drinking, in vocabulary, in physical relationships. When you see these actions you are seeing the fruit of the Spirit, the visible images of love poured out into your life and into the lives of those with whom you cross paths.

The freedom we have in Christ is both freedom from and freedom for. Paul is clear that in Jesus Christ we have freedom from the law, freedom from a life determined by the flesh, freedom from a self focus. So too we have freedom for a different kind of life, freedom for a life guided by the Spirit.

In Cuba we were awed at the loving, caring work being done by a vibrant congregation in a small town, preparing and serving a meal after worship every Sunday to children who might not get a meal otherwise, and delivering meals to shut ins who live near by the church. Several of the older children were responsible for delivering two meals to a shut in (one for Sunday and one for Monday). Each child went to the same person each week and stayed for a short time to visit, building a relationship across generational lines, extending Christian love and care by giving time, by listening to stories of the past week, and by sharing much needed food. We found believers in Christ who exhibited the fruit of the Spirit in their community despite living under physical and social restrictions. We saw love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self control at work. Others could easily see that they were followers of Christ by their visible love in practical actions.

My friends, we can't take any of the credit for this kind of fruit ripening in our lives. The credit belongs to the Master Gardener, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the living God, who fills our hearts and lives with the certain ability to produce love for neighbor in the way my cucumber vines will most certainly produce cucumbers. What a gift it is indeed! Amen.

"So you are no longer a slave, but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God."

Today, we continue our study of the Apostles' Creed. And while we are still early in this series, we should probably include a bit more historical background. Remember this Creed is rooted in a Roman baptismal catechism. It dates all the way back to the first century and began to be used formally in the early to mid-second century, sometime before the year 150.

An ancient writer named Rufinus, writing in the year 390, said that there was then a tradition that the Creed had been composed by the apostles themselves. According to this tradition the apostles had met after Pentecost; they were about to go their respective ways as missionaries throughout the world. It was then that they realized that they would need a shared statement of what they believed so that they would all be preaching the same message.

And so, according to this tradition, the Creed was the result of a collaborative effort, with each of the twelve having been responsible for a specific phrase or phrases. [See J. M. Lochman, The Faith We Confess, Fortress Press, p. 7ff.] I used to keep a chart in my office that depicts each of the apostles and their respective contributions.

Well, notwithstanding this tradition, and my chart, it appears that this account is only a legend. Its accuracy was questioned as early as the 15th century. Indeed, had the Creed been written by the apostles to guide their missionary work, it most certainly would have been mentioned in the book of Acts, which it was not.

And more recent scholarship (at least since the 17th Century!) has determined that there is no historical data to suggest apostolic composition.

Nevertheless, it is neither misleading nor inappropriate to refer to this statement of belief as the "Apostles' Creed." Indeed, the Creed is based upon scripture, much of which is apostolic in origin. And, more important, at the time of the formation of the Creed, it was intended to express the most basic understanding of the faith of the early church, an understanding that was most assuredly the faith of the apostles.

**** Well, last week we looked at the opening statement, and we discussed what it means to say that "we believe." We concluded that in that statement we are affirming a decision to trust, our decision to trust.

Today, then, we move to the first element of what it is that we believe. And we have before us this brief description of the first person of the Trinity. "God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth."

What do we mean when we say this? Surely, a part of this description of God is relatively easy to understand; but part of it is less clear and may be even problematic for some people.

Well, first of all, to say that God is the "maker of heaven and earth" is to confess that God pre-existed the creation. And we are also saying that God is not part of creation. God is separate; God is distinct; God is transcends creation in perfect "otherness;" God is holy. Creation, on the other hand, the universe in which we live, is not God; it is not part of God. Nor is God part of it.

Now, I think this is an important distinction to grasp. I was talking about this with someone about how there is a trend in contemporary spirituality movements that tends to blur this distinction, that understates or misrepresents the holiness of God. Indeed, many people today worship a god that they identify with or perceive as resident in the vital forces of nature; but this is not the God of holy transcendence whom we see in scripture, nor is it the one whom the creed affirms.

Recall Isaiah and Isaiah’s reaction when he found himself in the presence of God's holiness: “Woe is me for I am lost. I am undone! For I am a man of unclean lips and I live among a people of unclean lips, yet I have seen ... the Lord of Hosts."

You see, Isaiah knew that he could not stand in the Presence of God without fear of total destruction. Now, I do not know whether Isaiah was having a dream or was really in the temple when he had that vision; but the point is that Isaiah understood the great holiness, the otherness of God.

Thus the statement that we believe in the God who is the “Maker of heaven and earth” makes for a clear and radical distinction between Christianity and nature religions which envision “God” as resident in creation, in plants and animals and wind, and even in human beings. Orthodox Christianity understands God to be "holy", that is to say, distinct from God's creation. This distinction was categorized by John Calvin under the rubric of “the sovereignty of God” and this has become an emphatic, and defining tenet of the Reformed Tradition of Christianity.

Now, we might note here that one very important implication of this belief is that it actually opens the way for science. You see it is this belief in God's “otherness” vis-à-vis nature that has permitted us to explore and to dissect creation.

You know if God were a part of nature, one would dare not intrude upon or try to analyze nature. To do so would be messing with God! But because of our understanding of the transcendence of God and God’s holiness, scientific investigation of nature became possible in Western culture to an extent that would not have been permitted in cultures that understood creation and God as intermingled and indistinguishable.

And so, to say that God is the "maker of heaven and earth" is to affirm that God is distinct from God’s creation.

Perhaps more important, however, is that when we make this affirmation, we are also saying that that creation is not accidental. Creation was – and continues to be - an intentional act. Heaven and earth and all that is in them are part of God's intention.

Thus, in this brief phrase, we are also saying something very important about ourselves: that we, too, are a part of creation. We are not God; we are separate from God; but we are intended; we are not accidental. God intended each of us to come into being. And, most important of all, each one of us has a purpose, some destiny in the eyes of God.

Now, this is critical to remember, isn’t it! Our purpose in the eyes of God. Young people especially, hear this – that we are intended, each one of us; and we each have a particular purpose! And we need to recognize that this intentionality of God implies both blessing and responsibility – for each one of us!

Theologian Karl Barth once said that to come to the end of life and realize that we have been useless in the purpose of God, to do that is the saddest fate that can come to a human being. It is “as if the only epitaph on our tombstone could be a zero.” [See Elizabeth Achtemeier, Not‘Til I Have Done, Westminster John Knox Press, 1999, p. 114.]

That is the responsibility part. But if each of us has a purpose in the eyes of God, then for that reason, we are also the objects of God's continuing care and concern. And you see, that’s the blessing part!

Well, we are saying all of this when we say be believe in God as "Maker of heaven and earth."

Consequently, this assertion, that we are intended - that we have a purpose in the eyes of God - this brings us back to those words that we skipped, the description that God is "Father Almighty."

Now here, we must immediately face something of a difficulty: that the concept of “fatherhood” is one that is not uniform throughout the culture or among cultures.

On the one hand, the women's movement has made us aware of some potential difficulties using gender-specific terms in liturgy, for example always referring to God as if God were a male being, can be especially problematic.

We have learned, if we did not already know, that attributing to God a characteristic of God's creation – in this case "gender" - runs counter to the “otherness” of God that we have already discussed, or so the critics of gender-specific language assert.

Surely, that point is well-taken! The "personality" of God, if you will, should not be considered in purely masculine terms. To do that is to project merely human characteristics onto God. And in fact, we might say that there are dimensions of God's “parenthood” that, from a human perspective, some people would consider more “feminine,” than masculine, such things as tenderness, compassion, and patience. (Now, I know – some men in the congregation this morning are saying, "But I am patient!")

And I need to add here that I really did not plan for this sermon to fall on Fathers’ Day; it just worked out that way! Providentially, perhaps!

Moreover, we need to recognize that adding to this perceived difficulty of referring to God as Father is the increasing of public awareness of fathers who mistreat their children, fathers who simply abandon their children, absentee or unknown fathers.

And, of course, we need not look only to the extremes to recognize some ambiguity about the term “father.” We who are fathers, as well as those of us who have fathers - and that covers almost all of us - we recognize some disparity between the image or ideal of fatherhood and its common realities. We are not always as good at being fathers as one might infer from looking at a Norman Rockwell painting! I suspect that all of us who are fathers must confess to having tarnished the image from time to time, some of us in worse ways and more frequently than others.

Well, the main point is that the term "father" does not mean the same thing to everyone. For some people, the word is not unqualified; it has been problematic. Thus, for some, it may be difficult or confusing to affirm belief in God as "Father." **

Notwithstanding such difficulties, however, for most people, the word “father” generates a positive feeling. And, image aside, the Church has retained this language for good theological and scriptural reasons. Indeed, it may be that this very action by the church has helped to maintain the generally positive connotations attached to “father”.

And the truth of the matter is that, if we allow negative experiences of fatherhood to taint our understanding of God, we are going about things in a backwards way. Instead, it is God who sets the standards for what true fatherhood is, and what earthly fatherhood ought to be!

You see, to say that God is “Father” means that just as God intended us to be, created us, and has a purpose for each of us, so, too, God continues to be concerned with the activities and qualities of our lives. God continues to be aware of us and wants us to grow and take responsibility for our lives.

Now, this does not mean that God keeps us from suffering. God does not necessarily shield us from pain or perplexity. And God permits us make our own decisions.

You know, sometimes a good father must allow his child to "learn things the hard way," to make decisions and to realize the consequences.

And conversely, a father who is overly protective and indulgent is hardly thinking seriously about the maturity of his child. Most often, fathers and mothers, who give their child everything that the child wants are thinking more of themselves or their own image among their peers than they are the betterment of the child!

But you see, this is not the kind of fatherhood we affirm when we say we believe in “God the Father”. God does not give us everything we want. God the Father loves us, not indulgently, but wisely and prudently, letting us grow and eliciting the best from us. And when we do go astray, when we cause pain to ourselves or others, God suffers as a father suffers for his children.

Now, here is where we should consider this adjective "Almighty." And we need to note that neither "Father" nor "Almighty" stand alone in the Creed. In fact, they are inseparable. We are not saying we believe in God as father and as almighty, rather we affirm that God is an “almighty father.”

The word "almighty," then, does not refer to unlimited power. Again, as Karl Barth has explained it, "Power, in itself, is evil. [Power] is nothing less than freedom from restraint... [And] if power by itself were the omnipotence of God, it would mean that God himself was evil, the spirit of revolution and tyranny ...." [ Barth, Church Dogmatics: Doctrine of God, II. 1, p. 524]

You see what Barth is saying is that there are limits on the power of God, based upon what God has willed; God has willed certain restraints on his fatherhood. God has the power needed to be father as God has willed good fatherhood to be. And this includes the restraint that allows us to grow in our own freedom and responsibility.

Another way to say it: If God were all powerful, as a tyrant, we would be reduced to mere puppets. Instead, in the creed we are affirming that God is powerful as a good father, an almighty father.

Thus, we should try to think of God's fatherhood as defining what all fatherhood should be, encompassing and setting the standard of good parent-hood.

Now, of course it is true that this parenthood of God is not always clearly evident. There are occasions in life when one might be tempted to conclude that a "good father" would not let his children suffer as people often do.

Indeed, on any given Sunday, one can look out upon any congregation and know the difficulties and suffering among its members, things that God’s people endure. And one might wonder how a loving father could allow such pain.

But recall what we said last week when we considered what it means “to believe.” Belief means affirmation even in the face of countervailing evidence. “To believe” means taking the risk and, with passion, adopting the positive evidence. It means saying, notwithstanding all that might seem negative, notwithstanding the pull of unbelief, saying, " I trust. I believe...."

And, of course, our model for this - both the practice of believing and the affirmation of God as Father – our model is Jesus himself. You see, this is the twofold affirmation of the creed. God is Father, both the Father of us as an intentional part of creation and the Father of Jesus Christ, with whom we are fellow heirs as children of God.

We note that Jesus himself referred to God as his father and as our Father. "Our Father, who art in heaven;" "...be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." On occasion, he referred to God with the more familiar "Abba," calling God "papa" or "daddy."

In summary then, what we affirm, when we say we believe in “God the Father Almighty” is that we trust in God as Father of Jesus Christ, and that we trust in God as having the characteristics as defined by God's own perfect fatherhood.

Thus, the Creed does not imply that God is an authoritarian or paternalistic father. Rather, God is a father like the one we see in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son.

Remember that, contrary to the laws and customs of that day, that father in the parable does not stand in his son's way. When the son asks for his inheritance and his independence, the father allows his son the freedom, either to thrive or to fail.

And yet, when that father sees his son, coming home, personally wasted and having wasted his inheritance, he does something uncharacteristic of fathers under the patriarchal code of that day. He does not read his son the riot act! He does not demand restitution or exact revenge or punishment! Instead, while the son is still at a distance, the father sees him, has compassion and runs to his son and embraces him! [See J. M. Lochman, The Faith We Confess, Fortress Press, p.51.]

You see, this is the kind of father in whom we affirm our trust. We believe in him, not because of what the world shows us in day to day experience; but rather we trust in him because he has been revealed to us through Jesus Christ.***

The Heidelberg Catechism, I think, beautifully summarizes this, as it explains this phrase in this way; it says:
"The eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who out of nothing created heaven and earth with all that is in them, who also upholds and governs them by his eternal counsel and providence, is for the sake of his Son my God and my Father. I trust him so completely that I have no doubt that he will provide me all things necessary for body and soul.

"Moreover, whatever evil he sends upon me in this troubled life he will turn to my good, for he is able to do it, being almighty …, and is determined to do it, being a faithful Father."

Do you hear that? God is determined to turn all evil to my good, being a faithful father. That is the wonderful and powerful affirmation we make each Sunday!

Friends, may we so trust…. God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Amen.

*I continue to acknowledge indebtedness to the late John H. Leith, under whose tutelage I was forced to grapple with the Creed in seminary, and to Albert Curry Winn, whose own series on this topic inspired further thought in these areas.

** In fact, the development of the Creed and its ascendancy in importance in use by the church, was partially a response to a heretic named Marcion. Marcion's relationship with his own father had apparently not been a good one, and the circumstances of his early life were unpleasant. As a child he had lived in a desolate area near the Black Sea; and accordingly, Marcion was unable to affirm God as Father or God's creation as "good."

Instead, Marcion saw creation as the act of a “demi-urge,” a blundering being who created something from which no good could result and of which nothing good could be said. [See Harry Eberts, We Believe, Geneva Press, p. 19.]

*** Here see Galatians 4:4-7. We believe God is our father, as our text from Galatians states, because "God sent forth his Son, born of woman, ... to redeem [us], so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are his children, God has sent the spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying 'A

“‘I believe; help my unbelief…’”

A few weeks ago, during Eastertide, we considered the familiar story of the Apostle Thomas. We noted then that, when the disciples came to him to tell him about the resurrection, Thomas wanted hard evidence. Without something he could see and touch, he would not believe his fellow disciples.

Now, of course, eventually Jesus himself came and stood before Thomas. And, to Thomas’ credit, once he had the proof, his adoption of the conclusion that the evidence demanded was unreserved and enthusiastic: “My Lord and my God!” But still, Thomas retains something of a tarnished reputation because of his initial unwillingness to accept the news of the resurrection. Nevertheless, as we said then, Thomas is typical of 21st Century people! We, too, have experienced skepticism. We, too, have demanded proof. And in a way, we envy Thomas. He at least got the evidence that he had asked for!

As writer Frederick Buechner says, “It’s hard to imagine that there’s a believer anywhere who wouldn’t have traded places with Thomas in order to have the chance to see the face that he saw, to hear that voice he heard, to touch those ‘ruined hands’ of Jesus!”

Well, we cannot trade places with Thomas. And we 21st Century folk must live with inherent uncertainties about the faith. We are of people whom Jesus mentions who “have not seen and yet (still) believe”. We have inherited the content of the Christian message from “all the saints, who from their labors rest, who Thee, by faith, before the world confessed.” We rely on what other witnesses have handed down to us.

“I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord…”

We say these words, together. In many congregations they are recited most every Sunday. We often say them by rote, more or less taking them for granted. But these are specific and profound words, passed on to us from the earliest days of the church.

Many of us have known the words of the Apostles’ Creed for we-don’t-know-how-long. We may have just absorbed them in the course of going to church when we were children. Or, if not then, we memorized the Creed when we were in confirmation class.

Others of us - perhaps with backgrounds in churches that do not use statements of faith or confessions –have had to pick up the Creed in bits and pieces. We may know only a few phrases; we can recite them and then successfully fake it or mumble our way through! Maybe we just read it off of page 14 in the hymnbook! If you are in this group, it’s all right. We do not, all of us, know the Creed by heart!

Then, too, some of us have questions about parts of the creed! We say “I believe…” and yet we may have some reservations. We may be a bit uneasy, using someone else’s words to express our own convictions in a way that is…well, maybe not quite what we believe. Or, so we may think anyway!

What are we really saying when we stand and recite or read the Apostles Creed?

Several years ago, it occurred to me that it might be helpful to do some additional reflection on just what it is we profess when we recite the Apostles’ Creed. That thought led to a series of teaching sermons based upon the phrases of the Apostles’ Creed, dissecting the Creed, as it were.

More recent ruminations and conversations have raised concern about the contemporary demand for clarity and simplicity.

Now, here, we have to walk a fine line. Modern life has resulted in many people’s coming to church seeking simple resolutions to complex problems. To some extent, looking to the church for such simplified answers can be an unhealthy kind of escapism or denial.

There is a sense in which the Christian faith is a process of growth. And when the church panders to demands for simplicity by “dumbing down” to a truncated message, and says, “Here it is, in simple, one two three order. There, now you have all you need!’ - when we do that, we have failed in our mission.

On the other hand, there are some basic tenets from which all Christian doctrine springs. And these can be stated directly and simply, even though the implications of those simple statements are very profound. “Jesus is Lord.” That is the earliest and simplest statement of belief. But to live by that deceptively clear statement is not so simple!

Well, with that background, today we begin a series of sermons on the Apostles’ Creed. And I do so, quite simply, in order that we understand what it is that we are saying. Nothing is more useless, in worship or anywhere else, than to use words or symbols that are meaningless or misunderstood.

Recall that the Apostle Paul warned of this in his letter to the Corinthian Church, where he writes about speaking in tongues. Those who spoke in tongues were speaking what Paul calls “mysteries in the Spirit”; but he noted that such speakers were not being helpful. They were not edifying; they were not building up the congregation if there was no one to interpret what they were saying.

So it is with us and the Creed. If we stand and simply say the words unthinkingly, or worse, mistakenly, we’d just as well be speaking in a foreign language which neither we nor anyone else understands!

I have known people who would refuse to say certain parts of the creed. They claimed not to believe what the Creed affirmed. Now, in a way, their stand for integrity was admirable; but in some cases, I have found that such “conscientious objectors” really did not understand what the Creed means to say. This is one thing I hope we can insure against as we explore the Creed over the next several weeks.

I must acknowledge indebtedness to Albert Curry Winn, Presbyterian pastor and former president of Louisville Seminary, for guidance in the initial framework of this series. In his teaching about the Creed, Winn referred to the story of Helen Keller as an illustration. An early childhood illness left Helen Keller deaf and blind. And thus she did not develop the ability to speak intelligibly.

You may remember the story of how her teacher, Annie Sullivan, tried to teach Helen words by spelling them, letter by letter, in the palm of Helen’s hand. Apparently Sullivan met with no success until one day she spelled the word water, w-a-t-e-r, while pouring water into the Helen’s hand.

Ah! Somehow, finally, the word and its meaning were identified in Helen’s brain! One cannot justly describe the power of that break-through.

Well, you see, this is the kind of revelation that we can pray for as we begin this study together, a new and even thrilling understanding of the faith that we confess each Sunday morning.

And we begin with the hope that this venture will bring us to a point that we understand the Creed better, and hence that the Creed becomes a more meaningful and helpful part of our worship experience.

Now, first, some disclaimers are in order. There will be some inevitable interruptions in sequence as we go through the Creed. I will occasionally be away; others will take their places in the preaching rotation. And there may be other occasions that require a departure from the course of the series. Eventually, however, we will get all the way through the Creed.

Nor is there a guarantee that we will cover only one phrase at a time. The first time I did this, there were 12 sermons in the series. This time I may parse the Creed differently!

In other words, on any given Sunday, you may not be able to predict how much of the Creed we will cover. There will, as always, be some element of surprise! I will try to remember, however, to give advance notice on when we will talk about Jesus’ descending into hell. That always seems to be a concern for some folks!

And so, we begin, with this first phrase, this first affirmation: “I believe…”

By way of introduction, we should note that the Apostles’ Creed has been used for a very long time. It was surely used during the early part of the Second Century. And parts were used in the First Century.

In this formative period of the Church, local congregations found it useful to develop brief statements that described what they, the members, believed. Earlier than most others, and because of its large number of converts, the church in Rome developed a program of catechism instruction. And the forerunner of the Creed was taught to those who were being prepared for church membership. They memorized phrases to be recited in response to a series of questions that preceded baptism.

One who was about to be baptized would be asked, “Do you believe in God?” And the prescribed answer was, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” And so it would go through a series of affirmations now contained in what we have as the Apostles’ Creed.

Thus, the statement, “I believe….”, credo in Latin, has a very utilitarian history. It was the key to church membership. It was a means of identifying those who were members of the Body of Christ and, through their beliefs, distinguishing them from everyone else.

A couple of weeks ago, we talked about the admonition: “Remember who you are!” Well, in simple terms, this is what the Apostles’ Creed helps us to do! It is a means of remembering who we are.

The Creed originated as the means by which the early Church defined itself and members set themselves apart from the rest of the world. At a time when most everyone else believed in Caesar, or the empire, or the pantheon of Roman gods, the Church found its reason for being in something other than those prevailing social and political structures.

So it is today. When we say the Creed, we identify ourselves. We are not Republicans or Democrats; we are not Southerners or even Americans. While we may be those things, too, we are identified, as those in the first instance, who “believe” what the Creed affirms.

But we also need to notice that even then, in the Second Century, when this Creed was formally edited as a statement of belief, the apostolic witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ had already died. And so, even those who early on recited the Creed in Rome did so without tangible proof of the truth of their affirmations. Nevertheless, they believed; and they said so.

Thus, it is obvious that when we say, “I believe…,” we are not saying that we have all the evidence that points to the truth of what we affirm. While some today, like Thomas, seem bent on uncovering tangible proof of every story in the Bible. But in the end the Christian faith relies upon something other than physical evidence. It will be neither proved nor disproved by searches for the Holy Grail; by finding Noah’s ark, or even by that shadowy figure on the shroud of Turin!

In Jesus’ own words that there are some “sheep” that will never understand the voice of the shepherd. Conversely, there is always some leap of faith that must be made, a leap between the evidence and the ultimate conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God and the Redeemer of humankind. We may lessen the width of the “ditch” across which we must jump, but the leap itself cannot be completely avoided.

You see, we are a bit like this man about whom we’ve just read in Mark’s Gospel. Jesus’ encounters the man and his son who is subject to violent seizures. When Jesus asks the father how long his son has been so afflicted, the man replies that he has been that way all his life. “But if you can do anything,” the man begs, “have pity on us and help us.”

Jesus responds: “What do you mean, if you can! All things are possible to him who believes.”

But then the father of the boy cries out, “Oh, I do believe; but I want you to help my unbelief.”

In other words, belief always contains that element of unbelief and doubt.

Paul Tillich wrote about faith as the “state of being concerned,” and said that doubt is a necessary element.

“Serious doubt,” he said, “is confirmation of faith. It indicates the seriousness of the concern…” If everything be clear; if there be no cause for doubt; if all the evidence points in one direction; if there is no risk to the belief, then there is no believing. There is no faith.*

And thus, for all people, as for the father of the boy whom Jesus healed, serious belief is always colored by questioning.

Or, again, as Frederick Buechner puts it, “If you don’t have doubts you are either kidding yourself or [you are] asleep.” Actually, Buechner says that doubt is the “ants in the pants of faith.” *

Well, this leads to a final conclusion: that belief is always a process as opposed to a permanent state of being. Belief is always in motion, pushing and pulling against unbelief. It is a dynamic, between two poles of positive and negative certainty.

And thus, ultimately, belief represents a decision to be made. It is, to be sure, a judgment call. Believing is not just something we do; we must decide to do it! If you are a strict Calvinist you might say that we are elected to do it; but still, in the subjective, personal sense, we make a decision to believe.

Now, understand, this decision is not to just pull something out of thin air, with no support at all! Rather it is to face the fact that there is considerable evidence on both sides of the question, and then to decide. There is evidence that God does not exist, but there is also evidence that God lives and rules over creation. There is evidence that Jesus was merely a tragic figure, but there is likewise evidence that he was the Son of God.

You see, when we say, “I believe…” we say that we have been through the struggle of deciding upon the evidence. Yes, we still experience that tension between the two poles of certainty, but we have made our choice! And no matter how we have gone about the process, the issue is finally the same one that Thomas faced. It is a question of trust.

In a way, it is the same issue of trust that we confront when we come to the Lord’s Table. “Take eat. This is my body.” Without trust, these words are meaningless. But with trust, we believe we are in the holy presence of the risen Christ.

When we say we “believe,” then, we are saying “This is who we are.” We are people who have decided to trust, to trust in God the Father Almighty, to trust in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, to trust in the Holy Ghost.

And so, finally, as we go through this study, we also need to understand this: When we recite these words, we affirm a doctrinal consensus. In using the words of the Creed, to express our own decision to trust, we’re not saying that this is simply what one “ought to believe” or what one “must believe.”

But we are saying that this is what Christians over the centuries have believed. And, thus, it is a statement that we trust as they have trusted, “all the saints who from their labors rest!”

Surely, it is not something we should say easily or glibly. We should recognize that through these words we are distinguishing ourselves, separating ourselves from much of the world. And yes, we should feel some tension when we say it. We should recognize the risk in claiming and being claimed by these words. We should remember the man who cried out to Jesus, “I believe; help my unbelief!”

But also, we should remember the words of Jesus himself: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

As we recite and study these ancient words of the Apostles’ Creed, so may it be for us. Amen.

* Another way of saying this is that there is no possibility of belief where there is no possibility of offense. See Kierkegaard. Both this source and the one for the following Buechner quotation are lost from my notes!