For example, “Although He died, He is living today” is a far cry — as far as actual MEANING goes — not only from the stern, unequivocal words of the Nicene Creed, but also from St. Paul’s harsh “If Christ is not raised from the dead, our faith is in vain.” “He is living today” carries about as much credal punch as does calling Shakespeare “The Immortal Bard”.

@Kester, you offer a fair point, but one that raises the attendant point, if this took actual thought and effort, what kind of horrible job are these kids’ teachers doing in passing on the faith? And even at best, doesn’t this still give the message that you can call yourself a Christian while professing only the vaguest faith in Christ? With the blessing of the bishop, no less?

Or, did the creation of this creed further their limited understanding of the traditional creeds and/or God?

Regardless, I wouldn’t say it liturgically. It does smack quite a bit of “Buddy Jesus.” :-)

I suppose people are turned off by that ‘burn in hell’ kind of chrisitianity, preached by conservative protestant reactionaries… non-orthodox churches are stuck with the doctrine of original sin. This makes God seem (to me) angry and unjust, stubborn, wrathful and unloving. Who wants to know a god like that? Original sin is bad news, it needs to be swept under the carpet. Just mention the nice stuff, and the pews will be filled.

The statemement is not really about God at all is it? It is about a certain type of human feeling . It denies the personal reality of God. The Incarnation is not really present, and The Comoforter as Casper the friendly ghost?

OK as an exercise in helping children begin to understand the nature of God, maybe but as a Creed–no. For adults especially in the context of the Episcopal milleau–no.

This fluffy confession leaves out anything uncomfortable, difficult, demanding. It reminds me of a liberal Protestant pastor I once heard answering questions from inquirers. Most of the questions were excellent ones about ethics or dogma or paradoxes, and any or all could have opened a topic about salvation, sanctification, and pursuing God. But he answered every question with a smooth, comfortable pat answer; his goal wasn’t to help anyone struggle, but to make each listener glad they were a member of such a warm and wise group.

Maybe it’s just me, but this seems to me like a declawed Gospel, not well-suited either to offend or to save anyone from his sins.

I realize that the implied answer to the question which the title of this post asks is “No,” but I don’t see it.

I recognize the belief/attitude which says, “Because X is good, then nothing which is similar to X but is not X can be good.” The Nicene Creed is good; ergo, anything which is similar to it but not it, which does not accomplish exactly what it accomplishes, which does not begin and end with its precise concerns, can be good. But that seems rather nonsense to me. It reminds me of the objection I once heard from an Orthodox gentleman to a painting of St. Seraphim of Sarov in the woods with a bear. “It’s not a proper icon. An icon should….” Yeah, yeah. But this isn’t an icon, you numskull. It is something different, and quite valid in its own right. The problem was not with the non-icon which failed to follow even one of the conventions of Byzantine iconography. Goodness! It didn’t even say “St Seraphim of Sarov” near his head, nor did it say “Bear” near the head of that worthy creature. The problem was his ability to admit that the art painting could be used legitimately to produce something other than icons. In criticizing the painting by iconographic standards, his criticism was meaningless and irrelevant.

I criticize it most, by the way, because, “BFFL” notwithstanding, it obviously was not written by students.