The Council of Nicaea (325): Why Does it Matter?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikea-arius.png

This year the church celebrates the 1,700 anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea (May-August, 325) is generally considered to be the first “ecumenical” council of the church. Although, an argument can be made that the church’s meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15) was the first and Nicaea the second. But I digress.
 
Nicaea was a city in the Roman Empire across the Bosphorus and south of the new and strategic city of Constantinople. The usage of the term “ecumenical” simply means that an invitation was made to all bishops of the church – a distinction that makes it different from other common council meetings that were more regional and frequent.
 
We are uncertain as to exactly how many bishops actually attended the all-expenses-paid trip to Nicaea. Eusebius of Caesarea (eyewitness) said 250. Athanasius (eyewitness) said 300. Some modern scholars (not eyewitnesses) say as low as 220. What is certain is that the large majority of bishops were from the eastern part of the Empire (not surprising since there were more churches in the east, and the primary issue of Arianism was, at that time, mainly an eastern problem). There were a number of items on the agenda, the main being heresy (Arianism), but also “church structures, the dignity of the clergy, the reconciliation of the lapsed, the readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics, and liturgical practice” were on the docket.[1] And over seven weeks those issues were raised, debated, and resolved (or so it seemed).
 
So why does it matter?

Negatively, it got the emperor involved in the affairs of the church. The Roman Emperor Constantine had recently claimed to be converted to the faith, and his interests in imperial policy and his newfound faith led to his calling a council to deal with the problem of Arianism. A very bad precedent indeed, one that created a host of problems in following generations.
 
Positively, it helped the church sort out a number of vital issues. Here are some of the most obvious.
 

• Arianism and Jesus[2]​

​This issue of Arianism was the most pressing and vexing for the church and emperor. In sum, debate arose in 318 in Alexandria between bishop Alexander and one of his presbyters (Arius) over the relationship between the Father and Son. Arius argued for a real difference in essence between the deity of the Father and the deity of the Son. To state it simply, Arius was saying that Jesus was the first created being. In the Arian lyrics of the day, “there was a time when then Son was not.”
 
However, the orthodox church was deeply concerned with such a drift from what had been commonly held for centuries. In stark contrast with Arianism, Jesus was considered to be fully divine, not created. As one has coined it, “there never was a was when He wasn’t.”[3]
 
After interviews with Arius, prayers, and an urgent letter to Arius (after which he still refused to change his position) a synod of bishops from Egypt and Libya (321) deposed Arius from his presbyters office. Alexander (along with his soon to be famous chief deacon assistant Athanasius) was convinced of the danger of Arianism. Athanasius’ position was that “Arianism is fundamentally anti-Christian, since it leads logically either to the conclusion that Christ was a man, which is the Jewish position, or that he is a second God or demigod, which is pure paganism. If Jesus was a creature rather than the Creator…clearly it would be idolatry to worship [him] a mere man, nor could there be any reason to worship him, seeing that no human being has the power to conquer sin and death.”[4]
 
In a similar vein, modern historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes that underlying the Nicene Creed “was the conviction that only he who had created the universe could save man, and that to do either or both of these, [Jesus] had to be divine and not a creature.”[5]
 
However, even after ardent attempts to stop it, Arianism continued to grow in the east. Finally, an exasperated emperor called and funded a council to bring what he hoped would be peace to the church and the empire.
 
The end result was a formal rejection of Arianism and a creed that asserted that Jesus was of the same essence as the Father. The key word in the creed was homoousios “of the same essence as the Father.” Jesus was not a lesser god, a divine-like emanation, or a created godlike person, but rather he was considered to be fully divine as the Father. And, thus, worthy of worship.
 
Jesus was also fully human. And that mystery of Jesus being both fully human and fully divine would be dealt with in subsequent councils. As would be the divine mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and yet only one God (aka the Trinity).
 

• Mechanism of Crisis Management

 
Who are you going to call when the church is facing a crisis? The bishops! 
 
The calling of an ecumenical council to deal with a clear and present danger quickly became the mechanism by which the church sought to deal with a major crisis. Since the church divided in the medieval period, and then again in the Reformation, the three large traditions of the church (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant) no longer meet in an ecumenical council. However, they do all look back to the first seven ecumenical councils as common ground.
 

• Structures of Church Governance

The decision made at such councils were recorded for current and future needs. Over time that collection of decisions became known as “Canon Law” – growing to be quite authoritative in the life of the church (much to the chagrin of Protestants). Of course, the point was for the church to have a record of past decisions so as to not have to re-create the wheel every time there was a decision to be made.
 
The Council of Nicaea formalized church structures that had organically grown over the past few centuries. In sum, the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria were acknowledged as the three leading sees[6] and their bishops were to be given the title “patriarch.” After Constantinople was established as a new imperial capital in 334, it was added to the list and its importance eventually surpassed Antioch and Alexandria. Over the following centuries the list of patriarchs grew as the church expanded into new lands.[7]
 
The development of an ecumenical creed to deal with Arianism was a crucial development. Before that date local churches and regional collections of churches had formed their own creeds. At the heart of those early creeds was a core of convictions that would eventually take expression in what would be coined the Apostles Creed.[8] However, a creed developed by an ecumenical council was, as a statement of the collective wisdom of the church’s bishops, binding on the church universal. And that, in my opinion, was crucial for the life of the church. 
 

• Common Ground between Christian Traditions

The divisions of Christians are often highlighted by its critics and lamented by its members. What is noteworthy, however, is that there is much that united the church universal, and the shared convictions of the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants can be seen in creeds such as the Nicene Creed. 
 
One wonderful aspect of those early creeds is that they predate most of the divisions of the church, thus revealing a common and ancient tradition. And that is something to remember and celebrate when Christians meet Christians of other traditions.
 
That being the case, it behooves every Christian to learn the early creeds, what can be seen as a common inheritance.
 
With that in mind, here is the Nicene Creed (the final version affirmed at the Council of Constantinople, 381):
 
 
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible.
 
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God,
Begotten of the Father before all worlds;
God, of God; Light, of Light; very God, of very God;
Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father;
Through whom all things were made;
Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
And was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried, 
And the third day he rose again according to Scriptures, 
And ascended into heaven,
And sits at the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead;
Whose kingdom shall have no end. 
 
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,
Who proceeds from the Father (and the Son[9]),
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
Who spoke by the Prophets.
 
And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.  
And I look for the resurrection of the dead,
And the life of the world to come. Amen
 
 
 
[1] Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Liturgical Press, 1983), 63.

[2] For a helpful summary, see Gerald Bray, Creeds, Councils & Christ (IVP, 1984).

[3] Philip Jenkins, Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years (HarperOne, 2010), 51.

[4] Richard E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity in the Last Days of Rome (New York/San Diego/London: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1990), 115-116.

[5] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (University of Chicago Press, 1971), 203.

[6] In church parlance a “see” is the territory under the authority of a church leader such as a bishop.

[7] Protestants such as Lutherans and Anglicans are also led by a hierarchy of bishops, but they do not use the language of patriarchs for their highest bishop.

[8] A creed (from the Latin “credo” meaning “I believe”) is a brief summary of core convictions. The earliest church creed seems to be “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 4:5; Philippians 2:11), and one very obvious place where this profession was made was at a baptism. Creeds serve a variety of purposes in the liturgy, catechism, and piety of the church.

[9] “And the Son” (“filioque”) was a later addition, something the Eastern Orthodox reject.