The sad reality the matter is that the UMC’s lack of inclusion of the Nicene Creed in its Doctrinal Standards does not mean that the denomination is simply neutral. United Methodism is sometimes openly hostile to the faith of the Nicene Creed. It is simply a fact that in many cases, people who come under the influence of a United Methodist bishop, United Methodist seminary, or United Methodist congregation are wooed by this influence to reject key doctrines of the Nicene Creed! 

One important divergence already seen between the two denominations emerging from the United Methodist split is contrasting approaches to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, popularly known as simply the Nicene Creed. The Global Methodist Church is committed to the historic Christian faith of the Nicene Creed, while the United Methodist Church is not committed to the Nicene Creed.
This reflects deeper differences. Of course, there are finer, less important theological questions on which faithful members of the same church can disagree. But can there be any minimal doctrinal boundaries?
As the Rev. Dr. Chappell Temple, a long-time instructor of United Methodist doctrine, history, and polity and now a Global Methodist elder, has declared, in the GMC, “there is a set of defining core beliefs,” grounded in Scripture, which denominational leaders and congregations are expected to teach.
This is simply not the case in the UMC. In United Methodism, it has become painfully obvious that there are no clear, consistent, and effective doctrinal boundaries.
Let’s be real: if you know that someone is a United Methodist, even a minister or a bishop, that tells you little to nothing about what this person actually believes.
Here is a summary of the history of this great ecumenical creed, which dates from the fourth century A.D., in a Roman Catholic magazine.
A few years ago, some helpfully nuanced analysis of John Wesley’s own relationship with historic creeds in the founding era of Methodism was offered in inter-linked blog posts by several United Methodist scholars: Joel Watts (here and especially here), David Watson, Andrew Thompson, and Kevin Watson. They challenged simplistic arguments and selective citations painting a misleading picture of the Anglican Wesley as anti-creedal.
In any case, the Global Methodist Church includes this Nicene Creed as part of its official doctrine (see ¶105 of the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline). Global Methodism not only affirms distinctive theology of the Wesleyan Methodist tradition, but also stands together with Catholic, historic Protestant, and (for the most part) Eastern Orthodox churches around the world who have also affirmed this core of basic, ecumenical Christian faith for centuries. This is a deeper doctrinal unity than comparing completely separate statements of faith and making extended arguments about how there are substantial overlaps in some areas. Rather, on very core doctrine about the triune God, Global Methodism is unquestionably in alignment with the ecumenical consensus, dating from the fourth century, on the same carefully worded creedal affirmations of belief.
Despite being printed in the United Methodist Hymnal and valued by many who have been United Methodists, the Nicene Creed is actually not part of the United Methodist Doctrinal Standards. The Nicene Creed is not even explicitly mentioned anywhere in the United Methodist Book of Discipline.
UMC Discipline ¶104 lists the historic Methodist “General Rules” alongside the denomination’s official Doctrinal Standards, the latter consisting of four distinct documents:

The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church (mainly what John Wesley abridged from the Church of England’s articles);
The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church;
The Standard Sermons of John Wesley; and
John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament.

In 2015, several United Methodists who had disagreed over other denominational matters on social media came together to petition the 2016 General Conference to add the Nicene Creed to this list.
A participant in that effort noted a weakness he saw in official United Methodist doctrine: how overwhelmingly dependent it was on one fallible man alone (as awesome as John Wesley was). Before Methodism’s 1968 merger with the much smaller EUB church, Wesley was basically the main author of all of the clear Doctrinal Standards of the main part of what is now our denomination.
However, this effort went down in flames at the 2016 UMC General Conference. The three petitions to include the Nicene Creed in the United Methodist Doctrinal Standards all died in committee, rejected by super-majorities of 69 to 72 percent (see here, here, and here). Even in a relatively conservative committee in arguably the most conservative (by United Methodist standards) General Conference in history!
So the United Methodist Church’s top governing assembly was explicitly invited to include the Nicene Creed in its Doctrinal Standards, and this proposal was overwhelmingly rejected.
Among other things, this failed United Methodist effort would have countered the widespread idea that “the United Methodist Church is not a creedal church.” That claim has been made widely by United Methodist clergy for many years. It has even been made on the denomination’s official UMC.org website.
It is often unclear what exactly is meant by this statement.
I have most often heard United Methodist ministers (even a relatively conservative pastor) declare “we’re not a creedal church” as a way of shrugging off concerns raised about United Methodist leaders, even at the highest levels of spiritual authority, denying such basic doctrines as the sinlessness or actual, miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. It appears to mean, “Oh well, it’s not that big a deal for even top leaders of the United Methodist Church to use their offices to teach against core, historic Christian doctrines, and no leader in our denomination can be stopped from doing this—that’s just how things are in the UMC!”
I and others have disputed this claim, pointed out how at least on paper, the UMC has the Doctrinal Standards mentioned above, and per Discipline ¶336, all ordination candidates are supposed to be asked if they will “preach and maintain” these doctrines.
But the de facto reality of United Methodist doctrine and morals has become very different from the dead letter of the words printed in the Discipline. Even in the UMC’s arguably most conservative Midwestern annual conference, Indiana, District Superintendent Saneta Maiko sent an apparent mass email on April 27, 2022, in which among other things he declared, “I am a United Methodist because our doctrines are not mandatory for clergy to preach and maintain. I am not interested in policing doctrines but asking God to redeem people when fallen s[h]ort of God’s glory.” (emphasis added)
We must not under-estimate the profound effects of erasing even minimal doctrinal boundaries, at every level of the UMC, have come from so many ministers for many years being taught and teaching others that the UMC “is not a creedal church.”
Read More
Related Posts:

The wide attention recently given to Epstein’s role is an important reminder to American Christians that whatever we may want to argue about the supposedly “good old days,” biblical Christian faith is a lot more marginal in American culture today than we sometimes want to admit.

National and even international news has been all in a tizzy over outspoken atheist Greg Epstein becoming the new president of Harvard University’s chaplains.
Does this mean that Epstein has just been hired for a new job as Harvard’s atheist chaplain? Has he become Harvard’s “chief chaplain”? Does this mean that he now “leads” and is “in charge of” Harvard’s other chaplains? Did these other chaplains decide that they “couldn’t think of anyone better” for spiritual chaplaincy at the university? Is this a big, new change for campus ministry at Harvard?
Contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere, the answer to all of these questions is “No.”
Christians who seek to follow the One who said He IS the truth should be a lot more careful to be accurate than several rushing to comment have been.
As someone who was very involved in Harvard campus ministry while earning my three-year master’s degree there not that long ago, I’d like to clarify some realities that some headlines and hot takes, from Christians as well as others, miss.
First of all, Harvard is not a Christian school.
We at IRD have raised concerns about one United Methodist university hiring a Muslim chaplain, and another United Methodist university hiring a Unitarian Universalist to be its dean of spiritual and religious life.
This is categorically different. Harvard makes no claim to be a Christian institution.
Yes, many commenting on this announcement correctly note the university’s founding by devout Puritans in the 1600s. But such commentaries too often jump right from there to the present day, skipping over such major developments as Harvard’s deep ties with the Unitarian movement, beginning even before the university started its graduate-level Divinity School in 1816. Denying the divinity of Jesus Christ is obviously a huge break from biblical Christianity.
Epstein’s election, by the consensus of his fellow chaplains, does not represent a dramatic new shift and is unlikely to be terribly consequential for Harvard.
Secondly, the overall campus ministry environment at Harvard is multi-faith. This certainly does not mean that Christian and other chaplains there affirm the truth claims of each other’s religions. But as a secular university, if the administration is going to let evangelical Christian ministries operate on campus, it will offer the same level of access to various non-Christian religious ministries.
I would much rather see my alma mater continue its “open” stance of letting us minister on campus alongside everyone else, in a free marketplace of ideas, rather than take a “closed” stance of kicking out all campus ministries.
Harvard’s 43 currently listed chaplains include many evangelical Protestants, but these are less than one third of the total. Other traditions represented include everything from Baha’i to Zoroastrianism.
Thirdly, Harvard having an atheist chaplain is not a remotely new thing. I realize “atheist chaplain” may sound as oxymoronic as “vegetarian butcher” or “pacifist soldier.”
But the reality is that there are a number of essentially humanist congregations in America where atheists have sought to approximate functions religious congregations provide in terms of social community, support through life crises, regular gatherings for interesting lectures and lively discussions, and community-service volunteering—all while trying to keep God out of it. A number of humanist campus ministries seek to similarly offer godless alternatives to traditional student ministries.
I personally do not think that this can ultimately work as well without God. But that does not change the fact that such communities exist.
Epstein has already been a chaplain of the Harvard Community of Humanists, Atheists, and Agnostics (HCHAA) Harvard for years. In 2005 he was ordained “as a Humanist Rabbi from the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism.” And Harvard’s humanist chaplaincy began decades before that, way back in 1974.
Epstein is not the first non-Christian to hold the largely honorary title of president of the chaplains. He is unlikely to be the last. After a humanist student ministry has been established for nearly half a century, is it really that big a deal for the humanist chaplain, rather than the chaplain of another non-Christian campus ministry, to take a brief turn with the title “president”?
Read More