I Believe: “One God the Father Almighty.” —Nicene Creed for Noncreedal Christians Post #8

 

                In my last post, I reflected on the open words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed— “I believe.” I suggested that this involves more than assent to doctrines but rather involves trust and allegiance. As someone who is part of a faith community that doesn’t place creeds and confessions front and center, my tradition is not without its beliefs and practices. We may not recite the Nicene Creed with regularity, but the creed is part of our heritage as a Christian community. Therefore, with the 1700^th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea at hand, I have chosen to work through this creed, offering my take on its meaning.

                The first statement of belief speaks of “One God the Father Almighty.” When we speak of God, we must remember that human language is not equipped to fully describe God. In other words, we do not speak univocally. Rather, we use metaphor and analogy to describe the indescribable. Therefore, as Joe Jones noted, “even in God’s self-revelations God does not cease being mystery to human beings and their language” [Jones, Grammar of Faith, 1:153]. Therefore, whatever we say about God requires caution, for God’s identity is not reducible to our language.

The very first statement, which will be defined further, reminds us that Christianity, which descends from Judaism, is a monotheistic faith. According to the First Commandment, we are to have no other gods before God. Additionally, one must not make idols or bow down to them (Exod. 20:3-5). This monotheism, of course, is understood by most Christians in a trinitarian fashion. That said, we start with the premise that God is one. Although he is reflecting on the Apostles Creed, Karl Barth writes in his Dogmatics in Outline:

It is the one God, of whom the three articles of the Confession speak. These are not three Gods, a God split and separated in Himself. The Trinity does not speak of three Gods, but of the Trinity – that is how the Christian Church has always understood it and could find it in no other form in Scripture – that speaks once again, and with all the more emphasis, of the one, single God. [Barth, Karl. Dogmatics in Outline (SCM Classics) (Kindle p. 42).]

So, whatever we say about God, we start with the premise that God is one in essence.

                The second word in this first clause involves the word “Father.” This is, for growing numbers of Christians, a problem. That is because it introduces gender into the conversation. In the context of the creed, the confession that God is Father is connected to God’s parental connection with Jesus, the Son of God. The use of the word Father is found in the Scriptures and Christian tradition. The value of this term is that it is personal and relational. We don’t have space here to fully address this question, but we can note that we can find in Scripture feminine terms describing God. The question is, can we use this term in a non-patriarchal way, such that it doesn’t reinforce patriarchy in human relationships? As Mary Daly famously declared, “If God is male, the male is god.” Nevertheless, the usage here is in relation to the word about Jesus, the Son of God. Several theologians, in dealing with the question of dealing with the question of the use of the word Father for God and whether it is appropriate in a trinitarian confession to use Mother, have suggested this alternative: “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, Mother of us All.” Whether that works or not, it is a reminder again that human words cannot fully describe the essence of God.

                The third word in this clause refers to God as “Almighty.” This is another problematic word, especially if understood in such a way that it accords God all power. Tom Oord has suggested that we set aside this word, which too often gets defined in terms of “omnipotence.” He suggests that we use the word “amipotence,” which might be defined as the power of love. Tom has written several books on this topic, including his most recent book, The Death of Omnipotence andBirth of Amipotence (SacraSage Press, 2023). I wrote a response titled “Omnipotence, Amipotence, or Just the Steadfast Love of God?” in Amipotence Vol. 1: Support and Criticism, Chris S. Baker, et all, eds. (SacraSage, 2025). Tom is concerned that words like almighty and omnipotence describe an all-powerful God, who seemingly can’t prevent evil from taking place, or worse, is unwilling to do so. There is a lot more to this conversation than I wish to share here. I confess that I am comfortable with the word almighty, but do not equate it with omnipotence, if that word is defined in a way that all power belongs to God, such that we are powerless. What is clear from how Jesus lived and died and was resurrected, he revealed a God whose sense of power is very different from how we usually define it. As I understand the word almighty, it reminds us that God has sufficient power to do what God needs to do. Joe Jones puts it a bit better:  “God has the power to be God and therefore the power to execute God’s own self-determining and loving Life that we know in God’s self-revelations to Israel and in Jesus Christ. Whatever is affirmed of God’s triune Life with the world affirms God’s power to be and enact that life.” Further, Jones writes that “as Almighty, God has power sufficient to accomplish all God’s purposes in creating, governing, reconciling, and redeeming the world” [Joe R. Jones, A Grammar of Faith, Rowman and Littlefield, 1: 219].

                Now that we have confessed our faith in “One God the Father Almighty,” in my next post, I will address the creed’s declaration that God is Creator.