This is a statement offered by an Anglican bishop when asked to give a one sentence answer to the question: What is the Christian faith? Personally, I think the use of two semi-colons is cheating, but nonetheless, it's a good statement.
The church has three official creeds. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were borne out of the trinitarian debates of the fourth century. As for the Apostles' Creed, it goes back a long ways, at least to the fourth century, but its origins are murky and the issues it was responding to are unclear.
The Nicene Creed is partly a political document. In AD 313, Constantine had declared religious freedom in the Roman Empire. He embraced religion--pretty much all religions, and especially Christianity--and believed religion contributed to harmony in the Empire. Constantine bestowed large benefactions on the church, including new churches, nice houses for bishops, and--mirabule dictu--tax breaks for clergy! (Not surprisingly, this policy led to an increase in the number of people who considered themselves Christian clergy.)
Little did Constantine apparently know, but, at the time, the church was in the throes of a vigorous debate on the relationship of Jesus to God the Father. Was Jesus of the "same substance" as God the Father, or was he of "like substance"? Was Jesus' divinity the same as that of God the Father, or was it derivative and "lesser" in some way?
Constantine called a meeting of bishops at Nicea in AD 325. His objective was not necessarily theological precision--or even truth--but rather harmony. He thought that harmony in the church contributed to harmony in the Empire.
The Creed that came out of Nicea--the Nicene Creed--tried to settle the issue by saying that Jesus was "begotten, not made." In other words, Jesus was not a created creature. He was of the "same substance" as God the Father.
Nothing was really settled at Nicea. The "Nicene party" continued to advocate for its position, which was Jesus' full equality with God the Father. The "subordinationists," who argued that Jesus was in some sense "divine," but also less than God the Father, continued to advocate for their position as well. Both groups interpreted the Nicene formula so that it fit with their own theology.
Constantine's own view is difficult to discern. He tended to promote the "Nicene party," but not always. He ordered the church to end its excommunication of the subordinationist leader, Arius, for example, and ordered Athanasius, Arius' primary opponent, into exile. When Constantine was finally baptized, the sacrament was performed by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a "subordinationist" bishop.
Later that same century, the Emperor Theodosius affirmed the "Nicene party" by imperial decree (AD 380). Theodosius' decree ended religious freedom in the Roman Empire, established the "Nicene party" in power, and squashed freedom of thought in Christianity.
There were at least two reasons Theodosius did this. First, the Empire was under threat from the Goths who wiped out the Roman Army led by Emperor Valens just two years before at Adrianople (AD 378). (Adrianople was not far from Constantinople, then the capitol of the Empire.) The Goths had been converted to "subordinationist" Christianity. By outlawing "subordinationist" theology, Theodosius was trying to rally the Empire against the Goths on a religious as well as a military level.
Secondly, a Jesus co-equal with God the Father--kicked upstairs, you might say, into the mystery of the trinity--fit with imperial theology. The Emperor might have been skittish about endorsing too-human a Jesus, who, after all, had been assassinated by Imperial Rome, and had a disconcerting tendency to side with the have-nots against the "principalities and powers."
That was the issue then, but, frankly, hardly anybody today cares whether or not Jesus was "begotten, not made." When your health has gone bad, or you've lost your job, or your kid is in jail, you don't spend all that much time contemplating the trinity.
Which is why the Anglican bishop's statement of faith is a good statement for modern times. First, it confronts atheism with the flat assertion that "God is." Atheism is all the rage these days. It used to be that you had to be pretty sharp to debate an atheist because atheism was represented by people like Buckminster Fuller. Nowadays, not so much.
Secondly, "God is as he is in Jesus"--no dispassionate, antiseptic Unmoved Mover! Jesus shows God's heart, which is with the lost, the poor, the bereft--not with the Emperor so much, but with the people the Emperor persecutes. Thirdly, "therefore, we have hope." If God is as he is in Jesus, then God comes to our rescue.
For a 21st century statement of faith, that's not bad, and more in tune with the cares and anxieties of today than the issues of the fourth century. Plus, you can tweet it--that's very 21st century.