Church History 15 – ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible’

Gulf Fritillary

In fairness to Gonzalez, writing history can’t be easy; the issues and details are enormous.   At times I find myself right on track with him, his sweeping story clearly told and understood.  And then he will condense what seems to be decades of happenings in a single paragraph.  At these times, I am unsure if I should muddle through all those details and tell it now, or wait because he will come back to it.

I suppose to tell a complete story sometimes one must move forward in time then back up.  In the last post we covered a second reaction to royal power being involved with the church under Constantine.  We moved ahead to around 340AD to learn about how the North African church was splintered.  The next segment moves back to 325AD to one of the most important dates in church history.  That is the time that the first statement of faith was formed.

As we are learning from our history, nothing seems easy.  It’s not kumbaya all the time.  Sometimes I wonder if we don’t have flawed expectations about our existence on this earth.  So often we think life should be a bed of roses.  Consider the situation of our first brothers.

‘Why are you angry…sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.  Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let us go out to the field.’ And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.’ Gen 4:7-8

Abraham Joshua Heschel writes in ‘Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity,’ ‘And the great problem is how to answer, to respond to the human situation….we live in a world full of lies….This is our distinction, to have problems, to face problems. Life is a challenge, not just a satisfaction.’

Every age has problems.  One mans ideas versus another’s.  One man speaks eloquently.  He then convinces his flock that another group of men is wrong on some point or the other.  Follow me, not him.  And so they do and a battle is joined.

This time it was between a bishop and a priest in the so called Arian controversy.   Instead of letting the drama play out over time within the church, Constantine intervened and encouraged a settlement.  What was the big to do?

It was a debate over the nature of God.  The priest, in the view of the bishop, was morphing the nature of God Christians understood, through the lenses of the philosophers. 

Gonzalez:  ‘It was possible that Christians in their eagerness to show the kinship between their faith and classical philosophy would come to the conviction that the best way to speak of God was not that of the prophets and other biblical writers, but rather that of Plato, Plotinus and the rest.  Since those philosophers conceived of perfection as immutable, impassable, and fixed, many Christians came to the conclusion that such was the God of Scripture….

Although the points debated were many, the main issue at stake was whether the Word of God was coeternal with God. The phrase that eventually became the Arian motto, ‘there was when He was not,’ aptly focuses on the point at issue, Alexander held that the Word existed eternally with the Father…Arius claimed that, strictly speaking, the Word was not God, but the first of all creatures…What Arius said, was that, before anything else was made, the Word had been created by God.  Alexander argued that the Word was divine, and therefore could not have been created, but rather was coeternal with the Father.’

The conflict went viral when Alexander ‘condemned Arius’ teachings and removed him from all posts in the church in Alexandria.’

Arius did not like this ruling and began to build his own coalition.  A few bishops came down on Arius’ side.  Eventually, Constantine who wanted the church to be unified for political purposes intervened.

Constantine summoned all the bishops from the east and west for what became known as the ‘Great Assembly.’ 

Gonzalez:  ‘Besides dealing with a number of issues where it was necessary to set standard policies, this great council would resolve the controversy that had broken out in Alexandria.’

The council of Nicea was formed in 325AD consisting of about 300 bishops from all over the Roman Empire. Most of the bishops were from the ‘Greek-speaking’ East but some were from the West.  Gonzalez reminds us that there were a number of bishops in attendance who had been in the line of fire during the years of persecution.  Some even had torture marks on their bodies.

While reputations preceded many of the bishops, they didn’t really know each other.  This was the first time that all the leaders of the various churches were together in one place. 

Gonzalez:  ‘Eusebius of Ceasarea, who was present, describes the scene:

There were gathered the most distinguished ministers of God, from the many churches in Europe, Libya and Asia.  A single house of prayer, as if enlarged by God, sheltered Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabs, delegates from Palestine and from Egypt, Thebans and Libyans, together with those from Mesopotamia….Constantine is the first ruler of all time to have gathered such a garland in the bond of peace, and to have presented it to his Savior as an offering of gratitude for the victories he has won over all his enemies.’

The council of bishops attended to many matters including the process by which the lapsed would be readmitted to the church.  They also set up processes for electing and commissioning bishops and other church officials.  And of course they attended to the matter of the Arian controversy.

There were essentially three camps which the bishops came down on this matter.  First was the small number who supported the Arian view.  The second was Alexander and his camp that set the controversy in motion by expelling Arius in the first place.  Then there was the vast majority of the rest of the bishops who really didn’t think much about the debate before it was brought up for discussion.  But this group really was concerned about the health of the church and thought the schism dangerous.

Alexander presented his case first.  Then representing Arius, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia presented his views.  The result was overwhelming in support of Alexander.

Gonzalez:  ‘The assertion that the Word or Son was no more than a creature, no matter how high a creature, provoked angry reactions from many of the bishops.  ‘You lie!’ “Blasphemy!’  “Heresy!’  Eusebius was shouted down, and we are told that his speech was snatched from his hand, torn to shreds, and trampled underfoot….They were convinced that they had to reject Arianism in the clearest possible way….It was then decided to agree on a creed that would express the faith of the church in such a way that Arianism was clearly excluded.’

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth, who for us humans and for our salvation descended and became incarnate, becoming human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say that there was when he was not, and that before being begotten He was not, or that He came from that which is not, or that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence, or that He is created, or mutable, these the catholic church anathematizes.’

With the exception of the Arian party, all the bishops signed off on the Nicene Creed.  There was hope at the time that this agreement on a statement of faith would put an end to the controversy for good.

The majority of bishops with the support of Constantine deposed the heretical bishops.  But we already know that smooth talkers do not sit idly by.  Nicomedia wormed his way back in the good graces of the Emperor.  When Alexander died, Nicomedia has his successor Athanasius deposed.  Peace would not come during this era of theological debate.

Constantine died and was succeeded by three of his sons.  Soon the boys began to fight among each other and the strong one Constantius prevailed with his pro-Arian views.

Gonzalez:  ‘Once again the Nicene leaders had to leave their cities, and imperial pressure was such that eventually even the elderly Hosius of Cordova and Liberius-the bishop of Rome-signed Arian confessions of faith.

It got worse.  Suddenly the strong son Constantius died and his cousin Julian took power.  Julian known as ‘the Apostate’ would seek to take advantage of all unrest among the Christian groups.

Skeptics often point to Constantine’s involvement in the Nicene Council as proof that conspiracy was involved in the formation of the bible people’s beliefs.  They should read this section of history again.   

Sources:

Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Joshua Abraham Heschel, ‘Moral Grandeur, Spiritual Audacity’