Ignoring the "race" thing. We should always be racially inclusive.
Dealing with the creed thing only...

First two lines COULD be parsed:
- If we want to honor God's name, we should love even those who have a different creed than us.
THIS IS TRUE

But you could also parse the first two lines like:
we should love people who have a different creed, IF their (other than ours) creed honors God's name.
(I think this is likely what the author meant, but its hard to tell.)
THIS IS SKETCHY
- If our creed is RIGHT (and we're supposed to think it is, that's the whole point of a creed), then no other creed CAN honor God's name, because it would be wrong
- We should love them all the same, even if their creed does not honor God's name. We love people because we are Christians, not because they are.

Second two lines has a lot of issues

- "family" is not a classical way to describe the Church. It sort of reeks of late 19th and early 20th c. progressive "family of man" ideology, especially in this context.
- In light of the "creed" line in the first half, it seems that "family" is not the Church, because it somehow includes people who believe something other than the church believes. So I'm back to Progressive "family of Man."
- If not the Church, who is singing this?
- Does the last line mean all those for whom God is Father in reality (all people) or all those who recognize that God is their Father? Or those who have the same understanding of that Father?


I think this is a very sketchy text. That is just my opinion, and I'm no expert. But I would be hesitant to use it.

progressive, humanist, collectivist, socialist, league of nations... etc.

The translation is credited to Omer Westendorf (1916-1997).

And if Chuck Garton-Zavesky writes that EMH and EHM are the same person, what does this connote?

My point exactly.

We are commanded by Christ to love our neighbor, that is, to love all people. And we Christians believe that all people, whether they personally believe it or not, are children of one Father. There’s no heterodoxy here. The teaching is very simple. Living it out is not so simple.

That said, the stanza could be improved. Most importantly, I think a comma needs to be added after “all” since the clause that follows is nonrestrictive. (In other words, we don’t love just those who happen to have the same Father; we love all because all have the same Father.)

The second issue is the three-syllable “family.” Westendorf’s original text had “brotherhood.” This was changed in various ways, probably beginning sometime in the 1970’s. The Hymnal 1982 and a few hymnals published after it use “common life.” That seems a bit pedestrian to me. What I don’t care for with “fam-i-ly” (and it has nothing to do with an ideological “family of man,” which Westendorf does not use) is that a musical stress falls on both “fam” and “ly.” (Echoes of La Cage aux Folles’ WE ARE FAM-ILL- LEEE?) I might suggest something like:

Our life in Christ embraces all,
Whose Father is the same.

But it's WLP's text. And if I'm correct and there are slight problems with stanza 6, I still would not hesitate to use it.

"... so a rewrite wouldn't hurt."

If only to remove "fam-i -ly" as a three-syllable word, which is tres awkward to sing. I'd also rather sing "No race nor creed", thanks.

There’s no heterodoxy here.

I didn't say it was heterodox. I said it was sketchy.