Councils, Creeds, and Imperial Politics—The Nicene Creed for Noncreedal Christians #3
In my
previous post, I asked the question as to how noncreedal Christians, such as
members of the Stone-Campbell Movement including the Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ) can confess
the apostolic faith. That is, do we need some kind of summary statement, a
rule of faith, that can serve as a baseline on which Christians can agree? If
so, could the Nicene Creed be that baseline, even if modern Christians might
need to nuance things a bit? It is worth noting that the creed produced at
Nicaea and then augmented at Constantinople in 381 CE, was not the first
confession or statement of faith produced by early Christians. There is
evidence of numerous baptismal confessions that go back to the second century
if not before. Church leaders including Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon,
Tertullian, and others produced confessions. What we call the Apostles Creed
may go back to the second or third century as well, though it was a Western
confession. What makes the Nicene Creed, especially in its revised form,
different from these other confessions is that it was used across both East and
West. It had a more “universal” usage.
One of
the issues that Nicaea presents is the role played by Constantine. This was the
first council that had imperial involvement, which meant it had state backing.
Even if Constantine did not influence the theological decisions, that he gave
imperial support to them helps explain its greater usage but also presents us
with a problem. This problem became even more acute after 381 since Theodosius
I made Christianity the official state religion, something Constantine did not
do. One of the concerns that non-creedal churches have with creeds, including
the Nicene Creed, is that they can be used as tests of fellowship. In fact,
that is what happened in the fourth century and since. The Nicene Creed and the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 were designed to exclude Arius and his
allies from the church. Thus, whoever is in power can exclude those who disagree
with their decrees.
As to
whether we can use the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 as a baseline
text for inter-Christian conversation, leading to some form of full communion,
so that Christians, whatever their tradition can sit down at the Lord’s Table,
is an important question for our time. So, why this creed? The answer would
seem to be that it has become the most accepted creedal statement across the
broader Christian community, accepted by churches both East and West, including
non-Chalcedonian churches (miaphysites such as the Coptic Church). However,
I do need to note that East and West are divided over the filioque (“and
the Son”) addition to the western version. Nevertheless, as Lewis Ayres points
out the participants at Nicaea would not have conceived of their confession
serving as a “universal and precise marker of the Christian faith.” More
likely, he notes, the bishops involved would have assumed that their baptismal
confessions were sufficient summaries of faith [Nicaea and Its Legacy, p.,
85].
The concern that brought
Constantine into the picture, and that led to the first Nicene Creed, was the
controversy involving Arius, who was at odds with Alexander, Bishop of
Alexandria. The goal of the council was to bring peace to the churches by
condemning Arius and his theology. The word homoousius (one substance)
was chosen to define the relationship of Christ to God the Father in large part
because Arius and his allies would not accept it. While the creed is a
theological document it was written in a political context at the behest of
emperors desiring a unified Christian communion that could serve as a binding
element of the empire. It should be noted that the fourth century saw
considerable upheaval in the church, which was no licit. Not only did Constantine
have an interest in the church, but so did his successors. For example, his son
Constantius favored ant-Nicene leadership, which led to the exile of Athanasius
from Alexandria. Of course, Julian sought to resurrect the old Roman religions.
Only with Theodosius did the empire settle on a pro-Nicene theology, largely
under the influence of the three Cappadocian theologians, Basil of Caesarea,
Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa. It was Gregory of Nazianzus who was
raised to serve as bishop of Constantinople in 381, who presided over the
council that created the creed we know today, or at least a facsimile of it
since we have few records of the council itself. But, of course, while Gregory
presided and guided the discussion, it was Theodosius who called it and
enforced its decrees.
Here’s
the question we must ask today: Does the fact that Constantine and later
Theodosius were involved in the councils that were called to deal with
theological controversies that threatened to upset the empire mean that the
confessions that emerged are tainted and unusable today? As we answer the question in light of the 1700th
anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, we need to acknowledge that it is
Theodosius not Constantine who made Christianity the official religion of the
empire. Constantine did favor Christianity, but Theodosius made it official. So,
I will rephrase my question: Is it possible, despite imperial involvement, that
the theologians of the Fourth Century could have gotten things largely correct,
such that we can turn to the creed of 381 and see in it a useful baseline for
conversation among Christians that in the end could lead to all Christians
being able to share a meal at Christ’s table on this side of the eschaton?
Comments