In the year 325 CE (AD) the Roman emperor Constantine (the Great) called for an empire-wide council to clarify certain matters of Christian doctrine. His intent seems to have been achieving unity in the church, which was then divided on certain issues. Was it really a very big deal? What did they discuss and decide? Did it radically change the course of Christianity, as suggested in popular culture, including Dan Brown’s book The Da Vinci Code?
As background the emperor Constantine converted to Christianity around the year 312 CE. Some scholars think he later converted his mother while others think his mother actually influenced him to become a Christian. Others question his conversion altogether, as his actions did not always conform to Christian teachings (like executing his wife and son!). Regardless, he made it legal for Christians (and others) to practice their religion freely (the Edict of Milan). He did NOT make Christianity the official religion of the empire; that came later in 380 AD with the Edict of Thessalonica, issued by Emperor Theodosius I.
After he unified the empire Constantine became aware of a controversy in the church around Alexandria. Archbishop Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria taught that Jesus as God the Son was eternally generated from the Father, while the bishop Arius and his followers asserted that the Father alone was eternal, and that the Son was begotten by the Father, and thus had a defined point of origin and was subordinate to the Father (look up Arianism). Having just unified the empire Constantine wanted unity in the church. He tried to have Alexander and Arius resolve their doctrinal differences, but that failed and so he called for the council in Nicea in 325.
Icon from the Megalo Meteoron Monastery in Greece, representing the First Ecumenical
Council of Nicea 325 A.D., with the condemned Arius in the bottom of the icon.
Poor Arius! No halo for him!
So, the main issue the council addressed was the nature of Jesus. Was he co-eternal with and equal to God the Father, or had he been begotten at some point by the Father, making him not eternal and not equal to the Father? But there were other issues discussed. They were NOT deciding if Jesus was the Son of God or divine; there was unity in that belief. But in what way was he divine? They did NOT decide what books belonged in the Bible; that question remained open for many centuries. (It is still open today if you compare Protestant, Catholic and Coptic Bibles.) And, the votes were not close; it was quite a landslide for the anti-Arians. Now, I enjoyed reading Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code but his take on the Council was clearly off. Yet more people have read his book than have read the actual documents put out by the Council, so he has had more influence on the popular view of the Council than scholars, or the Council itself! Even though the actual output of the Council is easily available online, by search, or I’ll give you a link here: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm
So, what did they decide? And did it make much difference?
The Nicene Creed that continues to be recited in many churches sums up the main point of the council:
We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, Consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit.
Now, I grew up in a church that recited this creed, and spent many years in churches that taught the Trinity, but don’t ask me to explain how one can be “begotten not made.” So, did Jesus have a beginning or not? Were they thinking of, like, a conjoined twin? A clone of God? Like Eve taken from Adam’s rib? When he became human was he still part of God the Father? The more I think about it the harder it becomes for me to explain this concept. Congratulations to those of you who think you understand it!
They added this warning:
>And those who say “there once was when he was not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”, and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic [universal] and apostolic church anathematizes [condemns].<
Rather than being a close vote the vast majority of the 300 or so in attendance agreed with this, with the result that (only) Arius and two others were excommunicated and exiled. But that was not the end of the story, by any means!
Constantine’s son, Constantius II, actually supported Arianism, so the pendulum swung back the other way. Then under Emperor Theodosius I the Council of Constantinople in 381 ultimately reaffirmed Nicene Orthodoxy. In addition to supporting the doctrine of the Trinity Nicene Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire, leading to the suppression of Arianism within the empire.
I would argue that the promotion of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire at the 381 council had more of an impact on the religion, and Western civilization, than the doctrinal decisions of 325. Once religion and politics ended up in bed together then both were warped in ways we continue to see right down to the present day. But that’s a rant for another day.
There were some other things decided at the Council of Nicea:
- Eunuchs could be in the clergy if otherwise worthy: as long as they did not intentionally castrate themselves. I actually think this acceptance of eunuchs is relevant to today’s discussion of gender roles and transgenderism in the church; see my post #11.
- A member of the clergy should not be a recent convert, but should have time to mature.
- “This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.” So, no fooling around, you guys! Or at least be discrete about it, so she remains “above suspicion.”
- A new bishop should be appointed only with approval of all bishops in his province.
- If a person is excommunicated in one province the other provinces need to respect that, unless it is because of “pettiness or quarrelsomeness or any such ill nature on the part of the bishop.” At least the council recognized human nature, that sometimes the clergy can be petty.
- There apparently were “metropolitan” bishops that could oversee bishops in their area, such as the bishops in Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. Thus we see the early formation of church hierarchy.
- There were believers referred to as “Cathars” that scholars think actually refers to sects like Donatists or Novatianists (Cathars being a later medieval sect), who had strict beliefs about things like Christians who lapsed during times of persecution. They have to swear allegiance to the true church.
- Clergy promoted without adequate examination and found to be unworthy are not recognized by the church and are to be deposed.
- Those who have transgressed in certain ways are given a 12-year course of penance.
- Those who left the military but then returned to it – especially if they paid for their positions – are given a 13-year course of penance.
- Dying people are to be given the Eucharist (like last rites?). But if you recover, then you are to continue in prayer only (not take the Eucharist?).
- If a catechumen (one preparing for baptism) lapses, then 3 years before rejoining the catechumens.
- If a custom in an area is contrary to church law, then it “shall be totally suppressed.” There’s that desire for unity in the empire again.
- Dodgy clergy are not allowed to go to another church. This seems relevant today in an era of shuffling pedophile priests around!
- Greedy clergy are to be deposed. (Televangelists, I’m looking at you!)
- Deacons must understand their place under the bishop, and not receive the Eucharist before the bishop.
- Paulinists (a heretical sect) must be rebaptised unconditionally. Likewise their deaconesses.
- “Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing.” Ha! So remove those kneeling benches! Note again the emphasis on uniform practices throughout the empire.
The council also sent instructions to the church in Alexandria that “anathema” (excommunication) was declared against Arius and two of his colleagues. They also noted that the churches in the East who followed the Jewish custom of dating the Passover are now to observe Easter on the same date as that used in the West (Rome). Again, note the importance of all the churches in the Empire being on the same page. Not that this all held; even today Eastern Orthodox Easter is often on a different day than in the West.
So, that is entirely what the Council discussed and decided. A deep theological matter, which I suspect is still not fully understood by the average church-goer, and various housekeeping matters, intended to keep everybody in line and in agreement. With a few worthy points, like keeping clergy wholesome, non-adulterous, and non-greedy. Still relevant today. And an interesting point about those without testicles, who have been sexually altered (eunuchs), being allowed into the clergy. Many churches haven’t even got to the point where people naturally without testicles (women!) are allowed into the clergy.
So, the Council of Nicea: earth-shaking? I don’t think so. But what do you think?
Thinking exercises:
1. Write out your description of the Trinity, including the relationship of the Father and the Son. Explain why the Gospels use the terms “Father” and “Son.” Encourage your friends to do so, then compare.
2. What moral standards should churches maintain for their clergy? What about “keeping a woman” if the person is single? How do you judge greed in a clergy member?
3. If eunuchs can be clergy, what about women? Or a transgender person?
4. Is unity in the church that important? Or can diversity of belief and practice sometimes be a healthy thing?