Constantine & the Council of Nicaea
From Ch. 7 of In Search of the Loving God by Mark Mason
. . .
Almost immediately after uniting the empire under himself, Constantine had convened the first general council of the Christian church at Nicaea. Having seen human "gods" like Diocletian fail as a binding force for the empire, and noting the wide appeal of Christianity, and the futility of Diocletian's attempts to persecute it, Constantine was determined to use Christianity as the "glue" to hold his empire together. At this council of Nicaea (in 325 A.D.) the precise nature of Christian faith was negotiated, and its relationship to Constantine and his successors established. The way Constantine orchestrated the council was brilliant. He seized the initiative from the eastern bishops who had called a smaller council to excommunicate some heretics who didn't believe in the full divinity of Jesus. In a letter announcing his imperial convocation, Constantine wrote:
He didn't mention the excommunications; his desire was for unity, not confrontation. And moving the council to Nicaea brought it under his control. The bishops were summoned by the emperor to a place only a few miles from the palace where the recently defeated (and soon to be executed) Licinius lived. Constantine filled the church council with his imperial presence and purpose, and carefully created the grandeur of this first image of Christendom. Church leaders from the four corners of the world attended it. One eyewitness declared: "It might have seemed the likeness of the Kingdom of Christ." Later generations even believed this council had been directly guided by the Holy Spirit. And to this day, as Dean Stanley has pointed out, every church feels it has some standing in the Council of Nicaea.
The most important results of the Council of Nicaea were twenty statements containing rules of behavior for clergy, and the famous creed of faith known ever since as the Nicene Creed. Here is an early form of it from Rome at about 340 A.D.:
Later versions have seen fit to add that Jesus "died" and "descended into hell." Perhaps this was because the original creed didn't mention hell, reflecting its lack of importance in the early church, and the medieval church, whose allegiance was largely built around the fear of hell, thought a reference to it should be added to help keep the thought of it uppermost in people's hearts and minds. The reference to Jesus dying could have been added to counteract the popular contention that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but merely went into a swoon resembling death.
This creed, still used by most churches as a basic statement of faith, was a result of careful compromise at the Council. Other creeds were rejected before this Jerusalem baptismal creed, which had its origins in the earliest days of the church, was selected. It is an inspiring creed, and everybody was able to agree with what it said, so it fostered unity in the church emerging from Nicaea. Most Christians, even today, see it as being profoundly true and beautiful. It is, however, a limited statement, as notable for what it doesn't say, as for what it does. It is far from being a balanced statement of Christian belief, let alone a comprehensive one.
Missing from the Nicene Creed is any reference at all to Jesus'
teachings, especially his all-important teachings on the kingdom
of heaven. Missing is any suggestion that we can all, individually,
come into God's presence in prayer, and know Him during this life.
Missing is Jesus' teaching that you can't serve both God and worldly
ambition. The very practical basis of the spiritual life, which
Jesus taught, is totally missing from this creed. This was, of
course, necessary for the creed to be acceptable to Constantine,
who was a worldly and ambitious man, and who didn't want Christianity
to be a practical teaching which could guide people's lives, but
rather a romantic, other-worldly faith. Constantine wanted to
be the absolute ruler on earth, and have God far away in heaven,
fully accessible only after death, and in the meanwhile only in
a limited way through an hierarchy of priests and bishops. And
most bishops wanted the same thing as Constantine, because they
were a part of the power structure which was emerging. Any suggestion
that people could attain salvation directly from God, without
the help of the church as an intermediary, would undermine their
importance, privilege and power. So the bishops forgot Jesus'
teachings, and were willing collaborators with Constantine in
molding Christianity into an instrument to serve the ambitions
of the power hungry. Admittedly there were some who later regretted
signing the Nicene formula. After returning home, Eusebius of
Nicomedia wrote: "We have committed an impious act, O Prince,
by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you." But
it was too late then to change what had happened. The course of
history for over a thousand years to come had been established.
From: In Search of the Loving God by Mark Mason -- Copyright © 1997.
To find out about options for purchasing the book (384 pp.), including buying an autographed copy directly from the author, visit my Bookstore Page: