This book enhanced my understanding of the Nicene Creed: how it evolved, what it means line by line, why it's still important to say it today, and what we are doing (and not doing) when we engage in its recitation as a community.

I find Prof. Johnson's approach to the Scriptures and Christian tradition a respectful but also a decidedly nonliteralistic one. He gave me a new respect for the primacy of tradition, a somewhat shocking concept to many Protestants: that is, he convincingly explained that Scripture is best read through the lens of tradition, which culminates succinctly in the Creed, because if Scripture is put before tradition, there is no guide for reading and understanding save the individual, and the text can give rise to virtually any interpretation. I liked his explanation of how when we recite the creed, we are announcing our belief as a community, so that while any one individual at any one given moment may not believe as fully as she would like, she can still join her voice to the community, because "any profession of faith…entrusts the mind and heart to a truth that cannot be proven but can be lived" and because "the creed does more than declare what Christians believe. It challenges those who recite the creed week by week to live as though that which they recite is true. "

He argues, I believe fairly effectively, that the use of the creed can set clear boundaries and bring some sense of definition to Christianity by emphasizing the essentials we should have in common while allowing liberty and diversity in so many matters that have previously split the church. On the one hand are Christians who have "dropped almost all boundaries," on the other, "those with...unyielding boundaries by which they define true Christianity." Creedal Christianity, by offering a moderate number of essentials, can thus serve as a middle ground between the extremes of "liberal" and "conservative" Christianity, offering a useful definition of Christianity, for "if each Christian decides what Christianity means and which of its norms are truly norms, the church has then become a club that one can join on one's own terms."

This is a book for both non-liturgical Christians who have never thought of reciting the creed and liturgical Christians who rarely think about what it means when they recite it, what it means TO recite it. He goes through the creed with a fine tooth comb, explaining what each little part means. Why add "visible and invisible" after "creator of all things in heaven and earth." Isn't that a bit redundant, an extraneous detail? Is it just literary flourish? Not at all. It's an important detail that shapes who God *isn't*. This is but one example, but he does this again and again with the text of the creed–-explaining why every minute detail matters. He does think one addition is extraneous: the later addition of "filoque," the great controversy that fed the division between East and West. I tend to agree with him. Filoque, he says, is "theology at its worst, as a form of word-chopping with little real contact with living faith." The Christians of all major branches of Christianity share all the tenants of the creed in common—except this one. This dispute "provides the opponents of creeds with all the ammunition they desire…Here we see the unholy alliance between belief and power politics, supporting the suspicious that all belief is simply a matter of power and politics." Except in this one thing, the creed, he argues, is "virtuous" in its "frugality in belief."

I did have some difficulties with the book. He tends to see the Resurrection and Ascension as symbols more than as historical events, an idea which admittedly bothers me, but he presents his view in such a way that it does not seem to be at all in keeping with the typical "progressive" Christian line on this, so that his attitude and intention seemed orthodox to me. Thus, the Resurrections is not merely a resuscitation, but a real experience of Jesus' entry into the immortal existence of God. The Ascension is not a mere moment of going up in the clouds, but the real and ongoing reality of Christ having assumed his place at the right hand of the Father. While I agree these events were "more" than the historical moment, I don't fully understand his need to discount the historical moment, but I suppose it is because he is concerned such historical literalism will present problems when Christians encounter the differing accounts of these events in the Gospels and will limit Christian experience and understanding to that which can be defined in purely historical terms. In other words, the Resurrection and Ascension are too great to be contained by history. He also has been a fervent opponent of the "historical Jesus" movement, because he does not believe Christ can really be known through historical means. Thus, we can confidently say, "On the third day he rose again," and know that means something much more powerful and spiritually encompassing than that definitely on a specific day after a specific amount of time, Christ experienced a resuscitation and returned to mortal life. If that was all it was, it would be no more significant than any other resuscitation recounted in the Old or New Testament.

He emphasizes the fact that the creed says THAT these things happened (God created the world, Christ became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, he rose again, he ascended to the right hand of the father, he will come again to judge, etc.) but does not say HOW they happened (will happen). I think this was an insightful and important point and one which would lessen the divisions within Christianity if Christians would take note of it.

One thing that was annoying about this book was that it became increasingly clear that the author was desperately avoiding trying to use the male pronoun (he, him, himself) to refer to God, so that he ended up producing convoluted constructions such as "...who God seeks to find reflected in God's own image," "The pattern of God's seeking to express God's word," "God has been truthful in God's revelation," and "The way God has shown God to be," not to mention the dread "Godself." He does defend the use of the original gender-specific language in liturgy, saying that "It is a form of generational narcissism to change texts to suit one's own needs." But he apparently thinks it is necessary to pursue gender neutrality in modern texts. I suppose it is less narcissistic to torture the English language in modern prose than in ancient liturgy, but it is still distracting. Skylar has been annoyed in Skylar's reading of gender-neutral texts, because as far as Skylar Skylarself is concerned, people who protest the insignificant fact that the English language lacks a gender neutral pronoun for the third person singular have a great deal of time on their hands that would be better spent in serving God or ending the sex slave trade.

In addition to this distracting effort at gender neutrality, there is also some tangential mention of male and female distinctions seeming inadequate and the church needing to see ways to show hospitality to those who don't "fit comfortably within our accustomed categories." I'm not sure what he's getting at, but I suppose he is referring to the hordes of transsexuals trying to beat down the narrow church doors who are repeatedly repelled by insensitive references to God supposedly having created some persons by the name of Adam and Eve. Or maybe he thinks that because only 98% of A likes B, we should stop speaking in generalities such as "God made A to like B." In general, though he's quite careful not to venture too far into either "conservative" or "liberal" theological camps. Even his two little anti-capitalist screeds (Really? We're in "economic slavery" in the first world? Compared to what time in history, exactly, and what nation on earth?) somehow managed not to seem too terribly politically pro-socialist.

All in all, my few objections aside, Prof. Johnson offers new (to me) insights into the creed and a perspective that is generally different enough from the typical liberal/conservative divide as to be refreshing. His explication of the Creed is an extremely helpful starting point for reflection.

This book was very thought-provoking. Numerous times I went to my scriptures to look up Johnson's references. I also kept thinking about the topics Johnson discusses after putting the book down. I think that makes it a pretty successful book.

It was also very illuminating. I'm not Catholic; I'm actually Latter Day Saint (commonly called Mormon), and as such, my church does not believe in everything in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. But I wanted to learn more about it to better understand the beliefs of my Christian friends who are not of my faith.

I never really understood how different my own beliefs are from those of many other sects. But, there are also many beliefs we have in common, such as the need for a personal transformation in our lives brought about by the Spirit and faith in Jesus as our Savior.

This books caused me to think more deeply about how different beliefs are connected - such as how one's understanding of the relationship between us and God affects our understanding of Christ's role in our lives and human agency.

I was hoping for more discussion of the history of the creed, which only took about the first 3 chapters. The majority of the book dealt with the text of the creed itself, taking it apart line by line.

There was one part that disturbed me: saying that Mary was not a virgin, and that Jesus is the biological son of Joseph. I'm fairly certain that is not a mainstream Catholic belief. Johnson frequently comments that the scriptures are meant to be understood metaphorically. Certainly a lot of the Bible is metaphorical, but his commentary left me wondering if he takes any of the Bible literally.

He also speaks a great deal about the "mystery" of God and how "unknowable" God is. Certainly, there are many mysteries that we do not understand. But I don't believe God intends for us to never understand. We might experience a trial in our lives in which we must exercise blind obedience to God's will - but we are not meant to be blind always. At some point in our lives, hopefully, we can look back on that experience and understand what we were meant to learn from it, or how it was meant to put us in the right place at the right time. Likewise, as we study the scriptures, ponder, pray, and keep the commandments, we are meant to gain greater understanding of God and of His plan. We are not meant stay as children, needing "milk," but to at some point need "meat" (Heb. 5: 12-14).

Another shocking thing to me was Johnson's admission that he does not know why we have free will, calling it the "problem" of free agency, since, if God is good, why would He allow us to do bad things? I've been taught the answer to this from childhood. Someone who is always good does not force his or her will on others. A good person encourages others to be good through service and being a good example. Parents allow their children to make their own choices, even bad ones. Without that, their children would never be able to mature and grow. God treats us the same way. If He forced us to keep the commandments, we would never learn to love God and to obey Him out of love and faith.

My objections to his theology are not meant to dissuade anyone from reading it. Rather, I wanted to continue the discussion Johnson began.

Very clearly written.

Johnson explores the way the scriptural traditions leads to the Nicene Creed. He explores the simplicity and depth of the creed's meaning. His conclusions looks at the relevance of the Creed for today. Johnson has respect for inclusive language, Biblical Fundamentalism, Liberation theology and other ideologies but he challenges them all. This text contains no end notes and is written so a non-seminary audience could understand it. Having a theology dictionary nearby may be a good idea for this one.

In this book, when Luke Timothy Johnson is developing the concepts of his own theology, he does so articulately and with deep scriptural insight. It is a good introduction to Christian theology.

But he also spends a good deal of time critiquing other theological positions, and how approach to doing that is almost always to create a straw man argument against it - he provides a bad stereotype of the position and then forcefully points out the theological shortcomings of that stereotype.

As far as assigned texts go, this is one of the more enjoyable ones I've read. It has a really fascinating history in one of the early chapters about all the controversy and theological debate that heralded the formulating of the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds to begin with, and it's just so interesting. Would I have found it interesting if I hadn't been required to read it? Meh. Probably not. But nonetheless, I'm glad it's part of my "read" repertoire now.

A thorough examination of the history of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, its professions, and its implications. It took me a while to get into the book, but Luke Timothy Johnson presented the creed in a way that is easy to understand, yet full of depth and thought-provoking statements.

As someone who is part of a church that uses the creed consistently and places a great deal of importance upon it, this examination served to strengthen my feelings towards the creed, and give me a richer understanding of it. Johnson has pretty specific ideas about how a church should treat its basic tenets and how Christians should behave theologically and intellectually, with which I agreed almost entirely. I would expect this book to be frustrating and/or confusing for Evangelicals, atheists, people of other faiths, or anyone who is not part of (or at the very least familiar with) an older Christian tradition.

This is a little nitpicky, but I would have preferred that the numerous Scripture references be placed in footnotes rather than directly in the text. There was no way that I was going to stop and read each passage, and it was cumbersome to try and keep the flow of the text while skimming past these references. I also wish that the last two pages of the book had been placed somewhere a few sections earlier- they made the conclusion a little bland, and pulled away from a beautiful description that Johnson had just given only pages before. Like I said, a little nitpicky.

I really enjoyed this read and I learned so much from it.

Luke Timothy Johnson masterfully shows how the Nicene creed was formed, the meaning of each line (especially those estranged to modern minds), and lifts up how the creed holds the middle by both offending the extremes. He then challenges the creed reader to see it as a rule of faith and guide to reading scripture and theology as one of the many tools the church at its disposal.