Remnants of Nicaea
October 12, 2010
Dear Friends,
A couple of years ago, I was driving outside of Istanbul by a little Turkish town called Iznik. I really wanted to stop in and see if there was anything remaining of Senatus Palace (Byzantium Palace) but the business I was attending to was urgent and didn’t leave any time for sightseeing. I really didn’t know if anything remained of this palace or even if the locals would know what I was talking about. I dabble in early Christian history and this palace in Iznik was the scene of one of the most momentous events in Christian history. You might better know Iznik by its former name – Nicaea.
The Council of Nicaea is best known for the genesis of the Trinity although that is not entirely accurate. Constantine, a sun worshipper, was worried about the peace of his kingdom, so he convened a Christian assembly along the lines of the Roman senate in the summer of 325 AD. The resultant Nicaean Creed established that Jesus was God to form a “Binity.” They would wait another 35 years until the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD to add the Holy Spirit to make the Trinity. Even this decree was not conclusive as the majority was slim and the subsequent emperor’s would swing the tide back and forth in favor of Binity/Trinity or monotheism.
Although the Council is best known for the declaring Jesus to be God, it spawned numerous other decisions as well including the establishment of the date of Easter, the forbidding of self-castration, the recognition of the preeminence of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria and a minimum time period for people studying for baptism among many others. However, the one that has the most bearing on our present circumstances in the brotherhood was the creation of the first ever binding statement of faith. Up until this time statements of faith existed, but none was universal and binding on the adherents. Now, with the Nicaean Creed, you adopted it or you were excommunicated. This monumental event was the creation of canon law or codified doctrines and rules that must be adopted on pain of excommunication. It is interesting to note that this was sold to the world as something that was not new at all, but what had always been believed and practiced by the church.
Statements of faith had been in existence before the Council of Nicaea. They had been used with some effectiveness against the Gnostics. However, this was a new twist on an older theme. The document became the basis of fellowship. Before this time, being a part of the body of Christ was the basis of fellowship. In other words, people and ecclesias had differing statements of belief. They were just that – a statement that said “we believe this.” It was, however, not binding on anyone else. It was not until Nicaea that a universal (catholic) church was created with a universal (binding) statement of faith.
Imagine if you will that each person sat down with a Bible and wrote down what we believed. Every statement of faith would be unique to the individual. Some brethren would inevitably stress one aspect of the truth while others would stress another. I might stress moral issues like loving your neighbor while someone else might stress a doctrinal point like the promises made to Abraham. The more we wrote, the more we would also inevitably say things that others disagreed with. Some would say things like they believed in tithing while others would say they didn’t think that was necessary. In the end, though, each of these papers would be a very personal statement. The key though is the documents that we drafted would not be the basis of our fellowship with one another. The faith behind those statements would make us part of the One Body and thus would put us in fellowship with one another. This was the way that it was prior to Nicaea.
Personally, I have no issue with having a statement of faith. In fact, I believe it is a very healthy exercise for every brother and sister to sit down with an open Bible and write down what they believe along with supporting verses. However, I also believe much harm has been perpetrated on the brotherhood by the adoption of a binding, Nicaean-like statement of faith. While I believe the adoption of such was done in an honest and genuine effort to preserve the truth, you can’t use the methods of the Apostasy to preserve the truth any more than you can use the works of the flesh to preserve the fruits of the Spirit. We inevitably end up cutting off true brethren in Christ in the process of doing this and end up doing more harm than good.
This is not to be easily dismissed with a casual response like “well, this is the way we have always done it” or “it’s too late now.” Jesus issues us this very plain and harsh warning. “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (Matt. 25:40) To those who treat the least of Christ’s brethren so, Jesus says “Depart from me, ye cursed.” (v. 41) Ignore this command at your peril.
This is neither a plea for an “anything goes” approach to doctrine nor a call for “open fellowship.” Very simply, this is a call for a return to a Biblical approach to fellowship rather than the Nicaean approach which has become all too common among us. We owe it to ourselves, our children and most importantly, to our Savior, who died to make us one in him.
So what is the solution? It may be much simpler than you think. Live unity. Treat all brethren in Christ as brethren in Christ. Period. Is that so hard to understand or to live? We’ve got a million reasons (and I think I’ve heard most of them) why we don’t do this and they might sound good now, but remember Christ’s warning. All the excuses in the world won’t matter one wit at the Judgment Seat of Christ if he looks us in the eye and says “Depart from me.”
Have a great week,
Comments»
Dear Kyle,
It is clear that you’re viewing Nicaea through the prism of the Amended/Unamended division in North America. This colours your perception and affects your conclusions. I urge you to re-examine the Council objectively.
You say:
This was no different to earlier praxis. Even the Didache (late 1st Century) contains a clause instructing churches to withhold the Eucharist from anyone who is not a baptised Christian, and the Didache was universally accepted as a church manual.
But that is equally true of the 4th Century Nicene church and every other church before it. And how did churches define the body of Christ? They used written statements, of course. In this regard there was no difference between the decision at Nicaea and decisions taken by earlier, local councils.
For example, the Council of Carthage (AD 251) drafted a document which declared that the lapsi (Christians who had denied their faith under persecution) could not be readmitted to Christian fellowship. This was not a comprehensive statement of faith; merely a formal statement on a specific issue. But the declaration was binding upon more than one church. Every church in Northern Africa was required to accept its authority.
The same is true of Nicaea: the Nicene Creed was a statement on the identity of God, not a comprehensive definition of the Christian faith. True, that statement was used as a benchmark of orthodoxy and hence a key to fellowship. But it was not equivalent to any Christadelphian statement I am aware of.
Nevertheless, Nicaea did set a few precedents:
The Council of Nicaea did not deny that being part of the body of Christ was the basis of fellowship: it declared that you could not be part of the body of Christ unless you affirmed the Creed, which defined an essential criterion for membership of the body of Christ.
Interestingly, one of the dissenters (a man called Arius, whose widely accepted teachings had sparked the controversy Nicaea was intended to resolve) was eventually recalled from exile and accepted back into the church. So the consequences of Nicaea were not as cut and dried as people often assume.
With all this in mind, it is difficult to see how you can substantiate your argument from Nicaea. It wasn’t what you claim it was and it didn’t do what you claim it did.
You say:
But you have a problem with people using this document as a reference point for fellowship? Why?
What is ‘Nicaean-like’ intended to mean in this context?
Writing formal statements of faith and using them as a reference point for a common basis for fellowship is not ‘using the methods of the Apostasy.’
Moreover, the fact that true brethren in Christ have been cut off by the improper formulation of flawed documents and the equally improper enforcement of those documents does not prove that drafting faith documents and using them as a reference point for fellowship, is itself a bad thing.
Dear Dave,
I think we may be getting somewhere.
Kyle, thanks for your reply. I’ll respond properly when I have a spare moment. In the meantime it would be helpful if you could clarify a few points.
You say you don’t object to statements of faith but you object to them being used as a basis of fellowship.
I believe it’s more accurate to say we share fellowship on the basis of our membership of Christ’s body, and we use our statements of faith to define the parameters of that body. Apparently that’s a distinction you refuse to make.
You claim 20% are using statements of faith as a basis of fellowship. What are the other 80% using? No statement of faith at all? Please explain.
Yes, we SAY things like ‘the BASF is our basis of fellowship’, but that’s just a convenient shorthand. What it really means is, ‘we share fellowship on the basis of the common faith outlined by this document.’ A faith which places us within the body of Christ.
Are you saying fellowship should not involve any reference to a statement of faith whatsoever? If so, how is the body of Christ to be defined? If not, what are you saying?
Yes. I think a statements of faith (such as the personal one you put together for yourself or people might put together in The Gospel of Peace classes) can be helpful. I also don’t mind them be facilitators to fellowship on a local, global or even worldwide basis as long as they “facilitate” fellowship, not become the “basis” of fellowship.
Let’s take the BASF in North America as an example of the problem. The 20%ers want to make it THE basis of fellowship – NOT the body of Christ. They don’t deny that many/all “Unamended” (I hate the term because it is the language of schism) are brethren in Christ. Their baptism is valid. Yet, they withhold the table because the document is the BASIS of fellowship, not the body. The USE of the document is sinful. See, they aren’t saying we aren’t a part of the body. It would make more sense if they did.
The 80% might have use a statement of faith but THE STATEMENT is not the basis of fellowship, the body of Christ is. In other words, if they feel you are a brother in Christ regardless of your own statement , your ecclesia’s statement or no statement at all, they welcome you around the table as they should. The 20% use either a statement of faith as THE basis of fellowship or they use the Sin of Diotrephes to withhold communion. These are the only two reasons I have ever heard anywhere (UK, Australia, US, Canada, etc.) that brethren who believe, are baptized and arewalking in the light are refused the table.
So, would say that any ecclesia that has a statement of faith differing in any way, shape or form from the BASF, their members are NOT a brother in Christ? Would you say these people, be they Unamended or CGAF or just a guy who studied his Bible but never met a Christadelphian, did not have valid baptisms and have no chance of the Kingdom of God? No one I know that practices Document-based, Sin of Diotrephes fellowship is willing to say that. I would respect them more if they did because then they would be consistent with their fellowship practices even if I thought they were way out there.
I think I’ve covered this in the above, but if this is still not making sense, let me know and I’ll try again. The bottom-line is that a statement of faith is fine as long as it does not keep brethren in Christ from the table of the Lord. That is what is happening now. The document is not at fault, the legalism rampant in the body of Christ is the problem.