The Swedish Creed

As part of some research I am doing, I was examining "The Swedish Rite", a 1921 translation of Handbok För Svenska Kyrkan (Handbook for the Church of Sweden). In it I came upon a translation of the Apostles' and Nicene Creed (along with comparisons to versions used in the "English Church" and "American Church"). Below are the images from the text:

For those curious about the variations from English versions in use:

Now here is what it had me thinking: the Swedish version may be a better variation. You will notice that particularly the place of variation rests around places where in the ELCA and its predecessor bodies there has been much stressing/complaining/division over the appropriate variant. The ELCA and our current hymnal Evangelical Lutheran Worship currently employs the version put forth by the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC) and their rational for their approaches can be read on their document Praying Together. The last two hymnals in our church, the Lutheran Book of Worship and now ELW have both taken flack for variations from the previously used Creed among Lutherans. And the two places where the greatest dispute has arisen was over the change from the word "Christian" church to the word "catholic" church, as "introduced" with LBW, and then the move from Christ descended to "hell" to Christ descended to "the dead" as introduced with ELW (although already indicated by footnote in LBW). What is interesting and helpful is to see that actually these areas have been in dispute and variations on how to best translate it have been around for some time, you can see also that terms like "catholic" were already well in use among English speaking churches (keep in mind this was published in 1921) and was not just some agenda driven decision to remove hell or add catholic.

But I'm gonna say that I think there might be something to the Swedish translation. It seems odd to favor a translation of a translation [of the creed] over a single translation from original text to English, but I think the Swedish version is more colloquial. I've understood why people are bothered and baffled by confessing the holy catholic church, the reason being that the term catholic in our modern use is pretty much exclusively a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. Barely anywhere else is the meaning of "universal" implied in its use, in fact for most, the creed may be the only place where it is meant. "Christian", the preferred alternative however is not necessarily the best option. For one, many people actually do not use Christian as an all embracing term. Just see how many want to distinguish "are you Christian or Catholic", the implication being Catholics are not Christian. People can be actually rather limiting with the term, though they typically will at least see it as beyond their denomination, the breadth of the term often is lacking with Christian. Especially when we speak not just geographically, not just ecumenically, but chronologically. To confess the holy church is to confess it through time and space. The location of it in our creed is tied to its relation to the Holy Spirit, thus a term that means less than the work of the Spirit is too limiting. This is why catholic was brought back, because it had that endearing sense to it, but it fails colloquially. You can see this is a common issue that the term "katolsk" (catholic) had in Sweden. The footnote actually goes on to say that though the term could by derivation possess the wider sense of the word, it simply isn't used that way. Isn't that really true in our world today? Rather than trying to always explain its use in the creed or face resistance that is tied to the word, why not unload all that baggage and profess "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy universal church..."

Likewise, I really like some of the other suggestions for the hell/dead debate. The Swedish liturgy utilizes "kingdom of the dead" and in the American church apparently there was also an alternative of "place of departed spirits". They both, like our current term "dead", better embody the early meaning of the term "Hades" which is being translated here more than hell does, particularly because of the concept of the relation of all people to Hades pre-resurrection. It is really the resurrection and the harrowing of Hades that changes the situation. But the phrase kingdom of the dead is likewise also a bit more descriptive than just "the dead".

It would also be worth the discussion of the Nicene Creed and the use of "taken manhood" in place of "became incarnate". Now I certainly think the term incarnate is better, and especially the phrase "taken manhood" would be misleading colloquially, but I think it is on the right track of again coming up with an acceptable alternative term. Like "catholic", "incarnate" is a powerful word, but one that really requires unpacking. A phrase such as "took on flesh" would I think be clearer for many. Perhaps it is a dumb down, or a lesser term than incarnate, but it is capturing the heart of the meaning there and is more accessible. I personally have nothing wrong with incarnate, but as a pastor I also have had more formal instruction regarding its history and am in a position where I actually use that term.

So there are a few thoughts on possible influences from the Swedish Liturgy for our own. You may notice some other differences, such as the reversal of the 1st person singular and plural pronouns from which creeds use which in ELW. They confess the resurrection of the "dead" instead of body (in this instance I prefer the ELW text which is clearer about corporeal resurrection). And while it sounds awkward I do like the "one only baptism" of the Nicene Creed (in this case inserting an [and] would not be the worst thing in the world to do).