I Believe . . . .

Tom: Do I have to believe the Nicene Creed in order to be a good Christian?

The Godfather: “Good” is above my pay grade. I’m just a simple EFM mentor. For “good” you need to consult an ordained clergyperson, or an editorial writer for the Times.

Tom: Well, forget “good”. Do I need to believe the Nicene Creed to be a Christian?

The Godfather: In my church, the Episcopal Church, we all recite it every Sunday, or how ever often we take Communion, and we say, aloud and in public, that we believe it. I think that’s true in most Christian churches – although there’s one phrase about the Holy Spirit that’s been a source of disagreement between Western and Eastern churches. When we’re baptized, we recite – or if we’re infants, someone recites for us – a Baptismal Covenant that says pretty much the same things as the Creed. So I guess the answer is that the Nicene Creed reflects a set of beliefs to which Christians generally ascribe. I should think that, if you identify as a Christian, you’d want to share those beliefs.

Tom: That’s not really the answer I was hoping for.

The Godfather: Sorry about that. Is there something in particular about the Creed that you have a problem with?

Tom: Well, sure, it’s that business about Mary being a virgin. That’s pretty hard to swallow don’t you think?

The Godfather: You mean because it’s biologically impossible?

Tom: Well, yeah.

The Godfather: But resurrection is impossible, too, isn’t it? Why worry about Mary’s virginity if you’re prepared to accept that her son died and rose from the dead?

Tom: Because the Resurrection was a public event, and the earliest Christians, including the writers of the Gospels, were either themselves eye-witnesses to it, or they were able to rely on others who were eye-witnesses. You have evidence that the impossible happened. But the conception of Jesus and the virginity of his mother at that time were intimate, private events; there were no witnesses who could attest to it, other than Mary. The two miracles are very different in that respect.

Besides, the Resurrection is a compelling, important miracle, it's the basis of all Christianity. But it’s hard to take the virgin birth story seriously; it’s like a silly joke. “Well, Joseph, it seems I’m pregnant. But it’s OK. It wasn’t that handsome young shepherd from Cana. You see, there was this angel . . . .” You wouldn’t believe it if someone told you that in the real world; you’d laugh at someone trying to get away with such a crock.

The Godfather: Joseph didn’t believe it at first, either, but he came around. Anyway, just because you can make something sound silly doesn’t mean it’s not true. Do you remember the crucifixion scene in the Monty Python movie Life of Brian? It shows all these crucified guys singing and jiving on their crosses? It’s hilarious. But it doesn’t mean there was no crucifixion.

Tom: I take your point, but look, two of the four Gospels don’t even mention Mary being a virgin.

The Godfather: That’s true, but that’s because Mark and John, probably the first and last written of the four Gospels, don’t talk about the birth of Jesus at all. They really aren’t evidence against the virgin birth.

But don’t you think it’s interesting that Matthew and Luke each have birth stories, but they are almost totally different stories? As we’re reminded every Christmas, Matthew has the Wise Men but no Shepherds, and Luke has the Shepherds, but no Wise Men. Both Gospels have an angel announce that Mary’s child is from the Holy Spirit, but in Matthew the angel appears to Joseph, and in Luke the angel appears to Mary. Matthew has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem, and then moving to Nazareth after they return from Egypt, where they fled to escape King Herod; Luke has the family living in Nazareth all along, but they’re temporarily in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth to register in accordance with Caesar’s decree, and there’s no flight to Egypt. The two birth stories seem to reflect two very different traditions that had developed by the time those two Gospels were written, in the third or fourth quarter of the First Century.

But they have one thing in common: Both Matthew and Luke tell us that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. Two very different traditions, with this one thing in common. How about that?

Tom: It still doesn’t mean that the virgin birth story is true.

The Godfather: And the fact that there’s no birth story in Mark and John doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Tom: OK, I grant you that. As I just said, the fact is that no one but Mary could ever attest for sure that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived.

The Godfather: Or that she wasn’t.

Tom: Or that she wasn’t. But making such a big deal about Mary’s virginity just seems to be part of the whole anti-sex message the church has been peddling to make us behave the way they want us to, doesn’t it?

The Godfather: If that’s the church’s objective, it’s been a pretty abysmal failure. At least judging by Desperate Housewives. Look, we’re not talking right now about the immaculate conception or the perpetual virginity of Mary or her assumption to Heaven. None of that is part of the Nicene Creed.

Tom: No, it’s not, but the Creed does claim that Mary was a virgin, and there’s really no reason to make that claim unless you’re trying to glorify virginity and denigrate sex.

The Godfather: Well, let’s think about that. The Creed does talk about the “virgin” Mary, but what’s the context for that reference?

Tom: Well, I hadn’t really thought about it in terms of context. OK, let’s look at it. The Creed has three main sections. The first one is about God the Father, the second is about God the Son, Christ, and the third is mostly about the Holy Spirit, but also throws in the church, baptism, and the after life. Obviously the Virgin Mary shows up in the second part, the part about Christ.

The Godfather: That’s the longest part of the Creed, isn’t it? I wonder why.

Tom: Oh come on; you know that. It's all explained in Beyond Da Vinci, by Greg Jones, which surely you've read. Christ was the hard part to understand, that’s what all the controversy was about that the Council of Nicea was supposed to resolve. You start off with the proposition that there’s only one God. That’s an absolute, you can’t compromise on it or you end up as a polytheistic pagan. So if there’s only one God, how do you fit Jesus in?

The Godfather: How about saying he’s a prophet of God, divinely inspired, but not divine?

Tom: That was one theory, but it had been rejected by orthodox Christians long before Nicea. Having just one more prophet wouldn’t really change the world. Christians felt that the death and resurrection of Jesus was a big deal, and it changed the world. A Christ who was only human wouldn’t do that.

The Godfather: So Christ had to be divine?

Tom: Right, but a big question before Nicea was, how divine? Christ couldn’t be another God, along side the Father. There had to be only one God. Christ had to be the same God as “God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth”. And that’s what the Creed says: that Christ is God, just as the Father is God, but the Father and the Son are the same God: “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God”. Christ the Son is “of one being with the Father”.

The Godfather: And you understand that?

Tom: No, and I don’t think anyone really understands it, but I see what the Creed is driving at.

The Godfather: OK, the Father and the Son are both the same one God. And then what?

Tom: Then the Son, Christ, while still being divine, still being God, becomes human, he’s born on Earth as Jesus of Nazareth.

The Godfather: Is that important?

Tom: That God the Son became human? Well yes, of course it was important to the people who wrote the Creed. The whole story of Jesus in the Gospels is about a human being who walked and talked and suffered and died. If you denied that he really was human, if you claimed that he just looked like a human – and some people did claim that – it wouldn’t do the job, because then all of Jesus’ suffering and dying would have been just an illusion, and it would make the whole story pointless.

The Godfather: And how did he become human?

Tom: Like the Harry Chapin song says, “he came to the world in the usual way”, he was born. “He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

The Godfather: So is there some theological significance to Mary being his mother?

Tom: Having a human mother underscores the humanity of Jesus. It’s something that all we human beings share with him, and with each other. But that doesn’t mean she had to be a virgin. That’s my whole problem with the virgin birth thing.

The Godfather: Well suppose God had asked you for advice . . . .

Tom: Hey, that’s crazy! I’m not qualified . . . .

The Godfather: I’m not offering you a consulting job. This is a mental exercise. Suppose it’s 2,000 years ago, and God’s decided to incarnate the Son as a human being, and He asks you who should be the mother. He’s narrowed it down to two candidates: Mary, the virgin; and Naomi, married with four kids already. Which one do you advise Him to choose?

Tom: What I would say to this absurd hypothetical question is that it doesn’t matter which one He chooses. The mother of the Lord doesn’t have to be a virgin.

The Godfather: Now suppose God asks the same question of Simon, a First Century Jew; who does he recommend that God choose?

Tom: The First Century Jew probably says, Choose the virgin.

The Godfather: Why?

Tom: Because he’s read Isaiah in Greek, and he thinks the line about the “young woman” giving birth refers to a “virgin” giving birth; the translation from Hebrew to Greek in the Septuagint was flawed. But that was regarded as a prophesy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

The Godfather: Good for you to know that. You must have taken EFM.

Tom: Yes, I have, and it’s a heck of a good program. But getting back to your question: Aside from the Isaiah passage, Simon, the First Century Jew, prefers having the mother be a virgin because he says it will reduce confusion about the paternity of the child.

The Godfather: And if God decides to pick the virgin to be the mother of the Son, would God be wrong?

Tom: No, I don’t suppose so.

The Godfather: In fact, you just told God that it didn’t matter which of the two potential mothers was chosen, the virgin or the mother of four, didn’t you?

Tom: Yes, I did say that.

The Godfather: So if it doesn’t matter, why are you all hung up by the Nicene Creed saying that the Son became incarnate from the Virgin Mary?

Tom: I don’t know, now that you put it that way. I guess I really don’t have any basis to reject that part of the Creed; it’s really a non-issue.

The Godfather: Good, I’m glad I could be of assistance to you in working that out.

Tom: Yeah, thanks. Hey, do you think you could help me with that business about “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church”? That’s sure not the way things look to me.

The Godfather: Oh. Gee, Tom, would love to talk about that one, but I just have to run. Got a vestry meeting this evening. Working on stewardship.

You have turned in your pledge card haven’t you?


By Eric Von Salzen