Don’t think I’ve ever even heard the term before. If someone was saying it I would have no idea what they were saying.
I could never remember what is the difference between the Apostles’ and the Nicene. They totally blur together in my memory. I just remember we had both somehow.
From when I had to go to church as a kid and just wanted to get it over and go home, the difference is that the Nicene is about 15-20 seconds longer. 
At a quick scan, roughly half of the Dopers in this thread can use the possessive plural right, at least part of the time. 
It touches me more deeply than the theology, because I still actively use English grammar.
Damn. I got all three versions in my post: Apostles, Apostle’s, and Apostles’. I swear, I know the possessive plural!
Yeah, nothing in there that my church doesn’t believe. It even seems to align with those who do not believe in the Trinity, like Oneness Pentecostals.
I can’t speak for them myself, but I don’t think there’s anything in that that Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses wouldn’t believe.
The only professed Christian I know who might disagree is a former classmate who lists her religion as “Progressive Christian” on Facebook. I asked her what this meant, and she said it’s more about following the teachings of Jesus in this life than worrying about the existence of the next. Going to their website, I can’t find anything that says one way or the other on that part.
A Progressive Christian just goes with the Flo.
I was raised Roman Catholic, and since 1984 I’m Lutheran (ELCA, with 10 yrs as LCMS). When I try to recite it from memory, some of the Nicene Creed bleeds into the Apostles’ Creed, but I can recite it pretty accurately.
That’s not an atypical stance for theological lefties like myself, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a lack of belief in the afterlife, merely a lack of focus on it. I don’t think I have ever once heard a sermon in my church about the afterlife outside of a funeral. Nothing about heaven or about hell. It’s just not a focus. If you asked, I’m sure that most of us believe in an afterlife with Christ, we just don’t tend to talk about it. We don’t really talk about the spiritual realm at all. No ‘end world’ talk or God’s judgement or anything like that. I think it stems from the fact that many Mainlines are ‘amillenialists’ which is a way of describing our eschatological beliefs.
The stereotypical ‘Christian’ viewpoint is called ‘pre-millennial dispensationalism.’ It is the idea of a Rapture and Christ coming from the clouds and taking the righteous up into heaven and letting Satan have reign on earth for some sort of Apocalyptic party where death and destruction take control until Christ says he has had enough and Satan gets banished and Christ sets up a reign on earth for 1000 years (thus we are living in the PRE-millennium). Just prior to the rapture will be a ‘tribulation’ where Christians are persecuted and die for their beliefs. This is a very modern viewpoint, only really being invented in the mid-19th century, but it has gained ground very rapidly and is widely embraced by most Evangelicals. The older view and one held by many if not most mainlines is amillennialism. It’s the idea that the 1000 year reign is simply a symbolic representation of the time after Christ. We are currently living in Christ’s reign right now since he came to save the world. As such, our goal is not to sit around and wait for a trumpet where Jesus comes down and makes things cool, but rather work to make the world the kind of place that Christ wants it to be. We are not exiles in a doomed foreign country, but citizens in the Kingdom of God. Failing to make the world better is destroying His current kingdom. This viewpoint also serves to soften or even eliminate many of the ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ distinctions that you get in Evangelicalism. Since we are living in Christ’s Kingdom, we are all Christ’s subjects. There is no ‘evil sinner’ vs. ‘righteous saint’ dichotomy. Christ has come for all. It also is why we have large percentages of universalists - people who believe that everyone is going to heaven. After all, Christ’s sacrifice was for the world, not just those in church on Sundays.
Anyway, this is only to say that ‘being focused on this world’ is not particularly heretical, nor against the Apostle’s creed. It’s a pretty normal expression of faith among Mainlines. I’m not even sure how a conversation about the afterlife would go in our church. I think that people would mostly be uncomfortable talking about it, almost like you would be embarrassed to mention it - “that’s something that Evangelicals care about, not us.” would likely be going through their head if I were to broach the subject. Maybe you could talk about it in some sort of Academic terms, “The official policy of the UMC is… [blah]” but it would be pretty gauche to say even something simple like “Well, one of these days I’ll be in heaven and not have to worry about my hip pain.” Maybe if you made it part of a joke like… “Well, I guess I can have another cookie, if my heart goes, I’ll just get to heaven sooner.” On the other hand, statements about this world are pretty much the complete norm. God wants us to welcome immigrants, Jesus wants us to use the resources he gave us wisely and not destroy the atmosphere for the sake of material greed or Christ cares for the homeless are absolutely heard a dozen times a week. I think there’s a real idea that if we leave this world a mess, Christ isn’t going to be angry exactly, but probably pretty disappointed. He’s pretty sad when we care more about our own wants than the needs of others and I think there’s an unstated agreement that that extends to the afterlife where if we care more about getting some sort of reward in heaven rather than caring for the underprivileged here, then that’s an affront to God. Anyway, long post. Your ‘progressive Christian’ friend is not necessarily out of the realm of orthodoxy is all I’m saying.
The Nicene Creed is the one with the more poetic/repetative type of language in it. By that, I mean, it’s the one that goes “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial [newer version] with the Father.” etc. Nicene Creed also emphasizes the “one God” aspect of it, as it starts “We believe in one God” and goes on later “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,” whereas Nicene is just “I believe in God” and “I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.”
Nicene Creed also adds “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” Apostles’ Creed does not have that line. Apostles’ Creed has the line “He descended into hell.” Nicene does not.
Actually, here they are side by side.
Another difference is Nicene can start with “We believe” instead of “I believe,” but I think the Apostles’ Creed always uses the singular. I grew up with the “we believe” version.
Progressive! Slowly I turn. Inch by inch; step by step…
Strong agnostic* whose parents made a half-hearted attempt to make Lutheran. Heard of it; kinda recognize it upon hearing it.
- I don’t know there is no God, but have found no compelling evidence that there is. i.e. an agnostic who’s too lazy to argue.
Interestingly enough, all the Catholic churches I’ve been to have always recited the Nicene Creed. There’s only one time I’ve ever hear the Apostle’s Creed recited.
Great explanation, thank you. This is very consistent with what has been preached at my church, an ELCA Lutheran church where I’ve been going for 10 years. The same pastor has been there the whole time. When I think back on the sermons and messages there, they align well with your description senoy. I’ve just never heard it explained like this.
I’m Jewish and I had not heard of the Apostle’s Creed until it was revealed that Trump hadn’t either. Would a non-Christian/Catholic be expected to read or sing along?
The Nicene attempts to nail down Trinitarian belief and Christology. This isn’t seen in the Apostles’ Creed, which doesn’t explicitly say anything about the divinity of Jesus or the nature of the Holy Spirit. The Arians and Unitarians, for example, aren’t going to agree with the Nicene or Athanasian. This comes up with questions if the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian. Most Christianity would say no, because that includes the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Reformation churches, and most other Protestant groups in agreement when it comes to the Trinity.
Of course not. It’s a profession of faith. But it’s that Trump claims to be a Christian, in a church following the Western tradition, and he can’t even be bothered to try to look like he’s doing so.
Ack…should read “whereas Apostles’ is just …”
Sure can:
“Now, when we fought, you had that eye of the tiger, man; the edge! And now you gotta get it back, and the way to get it back is to go back to the beginning. You know what I mean?”
…
…(sorry, I thought you said Apollo Creed)
I’m certainly no fan of Trump, but this whole “controversy” just seems like meh. Who cares? 
Maybe because I was raised culturally Jewish, but without the religious God part, and always celebrated Christmas, that I just don’t see what the big deal is.
It would be like saying that he was Muslim, but did not say the Shahada. Maybe a Jewish equivalent might be the Shema. Since you’re not religious, I wouldn’t expect you to care much and if he weren’t religious, I wouldn’t expect him to say it either.
I guess the controversy is that it identifies you as a Christian. Not saying it for a nominal Presbyterian is beyond strange. I don’t think that there is a Presbyterian in the world that would refuse to say the Apostles’ Creed. It’s kind of part and parcel of being Presbyterian and most Christians in general would have no problem saying it. His not saying it forces us to choose from a number of conclusions.
The most benign is that he simply wasn’t paying attention to an important funeral and church service (This and the third option are the most likely) It forces us to contrast him with every other President who obviously was either paying attention or had enough wherewithal to notice what everyone else was doing. It doesn’t speak well to your ability to lead not to be able to sit through a simple speech knowing that cameras are on you without zoning out, nor to your ability to think on your feet not to notice that every other person is doing something, but you’re so self-focused as to not be able to join them. They give you a handout, any idiot can read what’s coming next. It implies that he’s not just ‘any idiot,’ he’s a very special kind of idiot.
The second most benign explanation is that he is non-creedal and refuses to say any creeds. If he is a Presbyterian, this is not a valid excuse. They are a creedal church. As a follower of the Prosperity Gospel people, who knows? Their creed seems to be “Our bank account, which art in the Bahamas, hallowed be our cash.” At the same time, they would probably say the creed because it might lead to positive cash flow from the people that believe it, so not a reasonable explanation there either. This is the least likely explanation.
The third most benign is that he doesn’t understand its importance. This would place him in the category of people like you. He doesn’t understand its importance because he isn’t familiar with the Christian faith. He knows just enough that his speechwriters can use Christianity for their own ends, but he certainly isn’t familiar enough to know that it’s important to say the Creeds. Obviously from his previous inability to understand even the basics of Christian theology or practice (“I don’t need forgiveness, I just don’t do bad things.” or “Two Corinthians”) this is not an unreasonable explanation.
The least benign is that he is hostile to Christian belief and did not say the Creed out of a desire not to express solidarity with the faith. He does not believe in the things in the Creed and does not wish to actively state that he does. I find this unlikely, not because he doesn’t believe in them, but because if he really didn’t believe in them, then what’s the harm in saying them anyway? There is no God to punish him and he certainly doesn’t have a moral code against lying, so I figure if he were actively hostile to Christianity, he would still say the Creed because it gets him votes.
Regardless, none of these explanations is particularly charitable towards our Liar-in-Chief and thus it’s a big enough deal to discuss.