The creeds are a topic we seem to enjoy visiting in our adult Sunday School class, and it comes to mind again as the daily email This Day in History lists among other events, "August 25, 325, Council of Nicaea concludes". Below I've copy-and-pasted that History article, and an essay from Wikipedia that seems sufficiently knowledgeable and thorough for any "lay" people like our SS class and me. What's quite relevant but not printed here is the actual text (English translation) of the Nicene Creed produced by that First Council, and the text of the Nicene-Constanipolitan Creed produced by the Second Council, that expanded orthodoxy for the Holy Spirit. But no matter, they have been printed in this blog more than once already.

What IS especially important to me, part of which was recently chatted back and forth on Episcopalians on Facebook, is the viewpoint on the Creeds of Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, widely put down by fundamentalist Christianity, and also sadly by Episcopalians who will not let themselves be open to critical thinking, but highly respected, even esteemed, by many, including me. At the bottom of today's +Time blogpost (scroll way down) I've copy-and-pasted his statement in a Progressive Christianity post "Meaningful creeds for the 21st Century - Q and A with Bishop Spong". He basically says it all, that the Creed, he's talking specifically about the Nicene Creed, was a product of its day and age that would by no means reflect the beliefs of 21st century Christians.

A memory I have of Bishop Spong (he seems such a gentle man that I know he would not appreciate anyone retaining this memory) is of a television interview, a mediated discussion between Bishop Spong and Dr Jerry Falwell. At one point, Dr Falwell spoke his piece expressing his view, then the mediator asked Bishop Spong to respond. Bishop Spong's first sentence was, "I think what Jerry said is ridiculous". For me as a 20th and 21st century Christian, Bishop Spong is nearly always right. And, like him, I'm to the faith point where I can happily and with integrity and self-respect, stand to sing our hymns and say our Creeds during worship.

TW+

Top pic: Icon depicting the First Council of Nicaea.

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/f/First_Council_of_Nicaea.htm

325

August 25

Council of Nicaea concludes

The Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical debate held by the early Christian church, concludes with the establishment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I in May, the council also deemed the Arian belief of Christ as inferior to God as heretical, thus resolving an early church crisis.

The controversy began when Arius, an Alexandrian priest, questioned the full divinity of Christ because, unlike God, Christ was born and had a beginning. What began as an academic theological debate spread to Christian congregations throughout the empire, threatening a schism in the early Christian church. Roman Emperor Constantine I, who converted to Christianity in 312, called bishops from all over his empire to resolve the crisis and urged the adoption of a new creed that would resolve the ambiguities between Christ and God.

Meeting at Nicaea in present-day Turkey, the council established the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The Arian leaders were subsequently banished from their churches for heresy. The Emperor Constantine presided over the opening of the council and contributed to the discussion.

+++++++++++++++++++

First Council of Nicaea

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Religious texts

The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicea in Bithynia (in present-day Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325, was the first ecumenical conference of bishops of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine. With the creation of the Nicene Creed, a precedent was established for subsequent 'general ( ecumenical) councils of Bishops' ( Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom — a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.

The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or merely of similar substance as God the Father. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius). Another result of the council was an agreement on the date of the Christian Passover (Pascha in Greek; Easter in modern English), the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating Jesus on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism), and authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom. "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology." Further, Constantine's role in the council was, viewed retrospectively, a clear precursor of future imperial countrol over the church.

Character and purpose

The First Council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine I upon the recommendations of a synod led by Hosius of Cordoba in the Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the Arian controversy in the Greek-speaking east. To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and a danger to the salvation of souls. In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea (now known as İznik, in modern-day Turkey), a place easily accessible to the majority of them, particularly those of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

Approximately 300 bishops attended, from every region of the Empire except Britain. This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which had established the conditions upon which Gentiles could join the Church. In the Council of Nicaea, “the Church had taken her first great step to define doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology.” The resolutions in the council, being ecumenical, were intended for the whole Church.

Attendees

Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but only 250 to 320 bishops actually participated. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318, and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270 (all three were present at the council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300, and Evagrius, Hilarius, Jerome and Rufinus recorded 318.

The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two presbyters and three deacons; so the total number of attendees would have been above 1500. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers — for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea — had stood forth as witnesses of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Nicholas of Myra, Aristakes of Armenia, Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit and Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd. From foreign places came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Egrisi (located at the border of modern-day Russia and Georgia outside of the Roman Empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italia, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. Pope Silvester I declined to attend, pleading infirmity, but he was represented by two priests.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among these assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism. Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.

"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself." He was present as an observer, but he did not vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. "Ossius [Hosius] presided over its deliberations; he probably, and the two priests of Rome certainly, came as representatives of the Pope." “Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address."

Agenda and procedure

The Arian question;
The celebration of Passover;
The Meletian schism;
The Father and Son one in purpose or in person;
The baptism of heretics;
The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, with preliminary discussions on the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with several adherents. “Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost universally seen as blasphemous.” Bishops Theognis of Nice and Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed (symbol) of his own diocese at Caesarea in Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that this Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed. Another possibility is the Apostle's Creed.

In any case, as the council went on, the orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by all the bishops “but two from Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning.” No historical record of their dissent actually exists; the signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the creed.

Arian controversy

The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation. A third group (now known as homoiousians) tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as the same; followers of Alexander did not. Indeed, the exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages; Greek words like "essence" ( ousia), "substance" ( hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264-268 Synods of Antioch.

Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal. The Arians likewise appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him.

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed

By and large, many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council. From his perspective, even Arius could cite such a creed.

For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.

Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," confirming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made," asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation.
Finally, he is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Some ascribe the term Consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.

Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words. Then followed immediately the canons of the council. Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the homoousian and Arian parties, as proposed by Eusebius, the council promulgated one which was unambiguous in the aspects touching upon the points of contention between these two positions, and one which was incompatible with the beliefs of Arians. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

The text of this profession of faith is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. Although the most vocal anti-Arians, the Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated as "of same substance" which was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 264-268), were in the minority, the Creed was accepted by the council as an expression of the bishops' common faith and the ancient faith of the whole Church.

Bishop Hosius of Cordova, one of the firm Homoousians, may well have helped bring the council to consensus. At the time of the council, he was the confidant of the emperor in all Church matters. Hosius stands at the head of the lists of bishops, and Athanasius ascribes to him the actual formulation of the creed. Great leaders such as Eustathius of Antioch.

Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra all adhered to the Homoousian position.

In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The initial number of bishops supporting Arius was small. After a month of discussion, on June 19, there were only two left: Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Maris of Chalcedon, who initially supported Arianism, agreed to the whole creed. Similarly, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for the certain statements.

The emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refuses to endorse the Creed will be exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled aside from being excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames , although there is no evidence that this occurred. Nevertheless, the controversy, already festering, continued in various parts of the empire.

Separation of Easter from the Jewish Passover

After the June 19 settlement of the most important topic, the question of the date of the Christian Passover ( Easter) was brought up. This feast is linked to the Jewish Passover, as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred during that festival. By the year 300, most Churches had adopted the Western style of celebrating the feast on the Sunday after the Passover, placing the emphasis on the resurrection, which occurred on a Sunday. Others however celebrated the feast on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan, the date of the crucifixion according to the Bible's Hebrew calendar ( Leviticus 23:5, John 19:14). Hence this group was called Quartodecimans, which is derived from the Latin for 14. The Eastern Churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia determined the date of Christian Passover in relation to the 14th day of Nisan, in the Bible's Hebrew calendar. Alexandria and Rome, however, followed a different calculation, attributed to Pope Soter, so that Christian Passover would never coincide with the Jewish observance and decided in favour of celebrating on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew calendar.

According to Duchesne, who founds his conclusions:

on the conciliar letter to the Alexandrians preserved in Theodoret;
on the circular letter of Constantine to the bishops after the council;
on Athanasius;

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in the mid-4th Century, "… the emperor … convened a council of 318 bishops … in the city of Nicea. … They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God's holy and supremely excellent day. For it was variously observed by people…"

The council assumed the task of regulating these differences, in part because some dioceses were determined not to have Christian Passover correspond with the Jewish calendar. "The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord." Constantine wrote that: "… it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. … Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way." Theodoret recorded the Emperor as saying: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. … Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. … avoiding all contact with that evil way. … who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. … a people so utterly depraved. … Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. … no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."

The Council of Nicaea, however, did not declare the Alexandrian or Roman calculations as normative. Instead, the council gave the Bishop of Alexandria the privilege of announcing annually the date of Christian Passover to the Roman curia. Although the synod undertook the regulation of the dating of Christian Passover, it contented itself with communicating its decision to the different dioceses, instead of establishing a canon. There was subsequent conflict over this very matter. See also Computus and Reform of the date of Easter.

Meletian Schism

The suppression of the Meletian schism was one of the three important matters that came before the Council of Nicaea. Meletius, it was decided, should remain in his own city of Lycopolis, but without exercising authority or the power to ordain new clergy; moreover he was forbidden to go into the environs of the town or to enter another diocese for the purpose of ordaining its subjects. Melitius retained his episcopal title, but the ecclesiastics ordained by him were to receive again the imposition of hands, the ordinations performed by Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Meletius were ordered to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, and they were not to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander.

In the event of the death of a non-Meletian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant see might be given to a Meletian, provided he were worthy and the popular election were ratified by Alexander. As to Meletius himself, episcopal rights and prerogatives were taken from him. These mild measures, however, were in vain; the Meletians joined the Arians and caused more dissension than ever, being among the worst enemies of Athanasius. The Meletians ultimately died out around the middle of the fifth century.

Meaningful creeds for the 21st Century- Q and A with Bishop Spong

John Shelby Spong Question & Answer

by John Shelby Spong on May 24, 2013 | 0 Comments

Nina Brock from Ovando, Montana, writes:

Question:

Your comment in a recent column about Paul not being able to say the Nicene Creed prompts a question. We attended your week long seminar in Berkeley, CA, last summer on “Reclaiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World” in which you remarked that a creed is “not a girdle into which we force our flabby faith.” Later, you said that you viewed the creed as a love song and would perhaps reword it. My question is how would you restate the creed to make it not only palatable but meaningful in the 21st century?

Answer:

Dear Nina,

I am glad you were with me in Berkeley last summer. That was a vigorous week for both me and the class. The schedule of five days – Monday-Friday – and four hours each day, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., makes it the hardest week I ever do, but the response of those who attended that Pacific School of Religion course made it worth while.

Let me restate what I believe I said in regard to the creeds. After describing them as “love songs that my religious ancestors sang to God in the 4th century of the Christian Era,” I stated that if Christians, including me, were to have the opportunity to compose the creeds in 2013, none of us would use the language of the 4th century. What I seek to get people to understand is that the creeds are an explanation of a life-changing religious experience and that explanations always reflect the time in which they are composed. No explanation ever endures forever. Every explanation is, therefore, subjective not objective, time bound and not eternal. No time-warped human creation can actually capture the ultimate reality we call God and any claim that they can or have is nothing less than ecclesiastical idolatry. So any attempt to impose the 4th century creeds on today’s world is an act of violence. Our task is, rather, to try to lead people into the Christ experience that created the creeds in the first place. How do we put the reality of that experience into our words and our 21st century frame of reference? This is what a creed is designed to do and no 4th century document can do that for those of us who live in the 21st century.

A contemporary expression of the Christian Faith requires us to define the God experience we claim in a very new and different way. I do not think we can continue to view God as a supernatural, miracle-working deity who lives above the sky. That definition of God died in the 17th century as a direct result of the work of such people as Galileo and Isaac Newton. It also requires that we redefine how we believe the meaning of God was found in the life of Jesus. The language of such creedal doctrines as the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity makes assumptions that 21st century people cannot make. It requires that we stop talking in pre-Darwinian terms of a perfect creation from which human beings fell into original sin, necessitating a rescue operation that Jesus accomplished by dying on the cross. That kind of language makes no sense in a post-Darwinian world. The task of writing a modern creed means that we release the words of our creedal past, while we cling to the reality of the Jesus experience that ancient creeds sought to explain and we assert that there was something about Jesus that expanded life beyond every boundary including the boundary of creeds.

I do not know what a 21st century creed would look like, but I do know two things about it. One, it would not be the same as the creeds we now recite in Christian Churches and, two, it would no more be eternally true than the creeds that it replaced. Why don’t you and the members of your congregation have a go at rewriting the creed for our time?

Enjoy your life in Montana. I loved our time in Helena this past September. It is beautiful country and filled with great people.

~John Shelby Spong

Search This Blog

We believe ...