I agree with James Brenneman (“Back to the Future: Mennonites in 2525,” January) that Constantine misused Nicaea for political ends. This regrettable fact does not invalidate the truthfulness of the claims made at Nicaea. (The Nicene Creed built on the New Testament’s Trinitarian impulses to address fourth-century theological and political quarrels.) 

The concern of many early Anabaptists was that people mistook the recitation of a creed for a personal confession of faith. Our forebears did not reject the Trinitarianism of Nicaea. This is evident in all the key leaders, including Hubmaier, Marpeck, Simons and Philips. In reading their writings, one senses that a Trinitarian faith is foundational to their thinking. Without it, one cannot understand their belief in Jesus Christ as Teacher and Savior. All the confessions of faith that Mennonites have produced begin with belief in the Trinity.

I find it painful to hear a denunciation of the church in the fourth century and ever after. There were church leaders like Athanasius whose decisions at Nicaea, and in later centuries, were not political. Ecumenically, there are many churches today who have put aside a state-church mindset and for whom following Christ in discipleship is inseparable from believing in him. 

The conclusion of New Testament authors was that the Father, Son and Spirit were three in one. To safeguard this confession, the church developed a doctrine whose foundation was Nicaea’s confession of the Trinity. If we put aside Nicaea, we break fellowship with the vast majority of Christians globally.

John D. Rempel, Niagara on the Lake, Ont.

As Brenneman acknowledges, Anabaptists and Mennonites have endorsed and included the essential teachings of the Nicene Creed in their doctrinal statements for 500 years. What affirmations of the creed does Brenneman object to and wish to remove? The Trinity? The deity of Jesus? The incarnation? The resurrection? The Second Coming? Life after death?

Clarence Rempel, Hesston, Kan.