Know Your Heritage
istory is always a tricky subject. First of all, you have the problem of having to determine which sources are the most accurate. And there’s a saying that “history is written by the victor” which means that sometimes historical records are skewed by the ones writing them because of a bias toward the ones in control.
Another problem with history is that sometimes it gets recreated in a way that glamorizes things of the past. We’re all familiar with the concept of “the good ol’ days”, and that doesn’t always have to refer to just the time period of our childhood or our parents’ childhood.
Still yet another problem is that historical records necessarily can’t contain every ounce of information, and so sometimes we try to figure out what things were like in a particular time period, and we have to connect dots in a certain way. We have to fill in the gaps, so to speak.
It can be a problem with church history as well. Those of us who are pursuing simple church are sometimes viewed as having a glamorized view of what the first century church was like. Those who view the Reformation as an incredibly significant turning point are sometimes viewed as having a glamorized view of the Reformers.
If we realize this tendency, then we can avoid the pitfalls that could result from it. But if we are unaware of this, we run a danger of over-emphasizing certain elements of history and overlooking their downsides.
Such is the case with the events of about AD 300-500 and even later. During this time, there were several church councils held that dictated certain things. Those of us who are “Protestants” recognize that prior to the Reformation, our history coincides with that of the Roman Catholic church. And as such, the church councils that took place prior to the Reformation are part of our heritage, as well.
What ends up happening, however, is that we selectively highlight certain things that took place, and ignore (either through ignorance or willful choice) the other aspects that don’t coincide with our beliefs.
One of the most oft-referenced councils is the Council of Nicaea (or some spell it Nicea). Quite often, as I have pointed out on this blog on several occasions, the Nicean Creed (the formulaic statement that was determined by the Council) is used as a benchmark of “orthodoxy”. Do I want to know if someone is a true Christian? I ask them if they accept the Nicean Creed as correct. If they accept it, good. They’re “in”. If they don’t, they are “unorthodox” and a heretic.
I’m not going to bore you with a drawn-out history of what happened at Nicaea. But I was curious as to what really surrounded this council, and I did a little informal research. I decided that the Roman Catholic church would probably have the most positive view of the church councils, so I found one of their sources — The Catholic Encyclopedia.
The website I just referenced gives a lot of detailed information about each of the church councils throughout all of the history of the Roman Catholic church, not just prior to the Reformation. And there are other sources as well, both online and offline.
What I want to point out, however, is that I think there are some major misconceptions about the nature of these church councils. I have seen many comments and heard many statements to the effect that these were groups of holy men, deeply spiritual men, gathering under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to preserve true doctrine and combat heresy.
As such, the conclusions of these councils are viewed as guided by God Himself, and have been accepted wholesale for a long time as landmarks of accomplishment in church history. Or, at least the parts we are told about…
This council was called for, and presided over, by Constantine, an emperor. Emperors were treated as, and worshiped as, God. In fact, descriptions of how Constantine was dressed and the fact that all of the attendees at the council stood in his honor when he entered cause a problem in itself.
The Council was opened by Constantine with the greatest solemnity. The emperor waited until all the bishops had taken their seats before making his entry. He was clad in gold and covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental sovereign. A chair of gold had been made ready for him, and when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves.
As if the words of Jesus about authority were not enough to cause some concern as to the relationship between the church leaders and the emperor, what shall we make of this scene in light of James 2? In this passage, James cautions us against showing deference to one “dressed in fine clothes” and giving them a seat of honor. Yet Constantine was seated on a gold throne during the proceedings of this council.
So, apart from the issues surrounding the emperor himself, what were some of the decisions made at the Council of Nicaea? Here’s just a sampling (taken from a translation found at this site with my thoughts in italics):
- Since there prevails a custom and ancient tradition to the effect that the bishop of Aelia is to be honoured, let him be granted everything consequent upon this honour, saving the dignity proper to the metropolitan. (What did Jesus say about honor again?)
- It has come to the attention of this holy and great synod that in some places and cities deacons give communion to presbyters, although neither canon nor custom allows this, namely that those who have no authority to offer should give the body of Christ to those who do offer. Moreover it has become known that some of the deacons now receive the eucharist even before the bishops. All these practices must be suppressed. Deacons must remain within their own limits, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and subordinate to the presbyters. (So deacons were to be “put in their place” and reminded that they are not on the same level as bishops and presbyters. Already by this point in church history, rank and privilege were valued by those in church leadership in direct opposition to the teaching of Jesus. Additionally, note the fact that only certain people were permitted to administer communion.)
- 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. (Forbidding kneeling during prayer on Sunday?? Elsewhere I read that this was related to a Sabbatarian view of Sunday, although I’m not sure I get the connection. But why did this council feel it necessary to impose requirements on standing during prayer vs. kneeling?)
Yet another issue that was discussed during this council was the date of Easter celebrations. Some areas chose to celebrate it in conjunction with the timing of the Jewish passover, since obviously the death and resurrection of Jesus was during that time of the Jewish calendar.
But what was the attitude of the men at the council? Here are the words of Constantine in a letter to the churches following this council:
At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. . . And first of all it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin. . . for we have received from our Saviour a different way. . . And I myself have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your Sagacities in the hope that your Wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and in Egypt. . . with entire unity of judgment.
Notice part of the reason why Easter was set at a time independent of the Jewish calendar: “[I]t appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin….” This seems to me to be none other than blatant anti-Semitism.
But what should be even more disturbing to most of us is the claim of divine authority for this decision: “[W]e have received from our Saviour a different way….” And this coming from a man who couldn’t seem to make up his mind between Christianity and paganism throughout his life. Not to mention Paul’s words in Romans 14 about whether or not considering one day more special than any other is even necessary.
And I’ve only dealt with the First Council of Nicaea in this post. What of the Council of Constantinople in 381 which, when decreeing how to handle those returning to the church from heretical views, said, “On the first day we make Christians of them, on the second catechumens, on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and their ears, and thus we catechise them and make them spend time in the church and listen to the scriptures; and then we baptise them”?
Or the Council of Ephesus in 431 declaring Mary to be “mother of God”?
Or Chalcedon in 451 which said, “We have decreed that, subject to examination, all paupers and needy persons are to travel with ecclesiastical letters or letters of peace only, and not of commendation, since it befits only reputable persons to be provided with letters of commendation”?
What do we make of all of this? Does all of this amount to some elaborate “guilt by association”? No, that’s not the point that I wish to make. If you come away thinking that I’ve been trying to build a case for rejecting the Nicene Creed, you’ve misread me.
What I am trying to get across is that we need to be aware of, and honest about, our heritage. We cannot afford to sugarcoat things in history and make them out to be better than they were.
From all accounts, I think we are naive to think that the Council of Nicaea was a gathering of Spirit-filled men seeking to glorify Christ by careful examination of the scriptures. I’m not saying that nothing good came out of it (I’ll leave that to the reader to determine for themselves), but I am saying that there is a lot that is not indicative of the Spirit of God.
So, let’s just call it what it is. Take the good and discard the bad. But don’t turn it into something that it’s not.
Until next time,
steve 
May 14th, 2007 23:23
Excellent and well-written post, Steve. One of your best ever (in my humble opinion).
May 15th, 2007 04:59
Yes, very good. I know some people who believe that Constantine was the worst thing that happened to Christianity. In my opinion, this was an era of political opportunism and strategy. I believe Constantine was motivated by a desire to control his empire (and the spread of Christianity was so profound that it had to be answered), rather than a sincere conversion. Constantine, it seems to me, managed only to convolude and paganize Christianity – creating much compromise and idolatry and mixture in the church. Therefore, the church gained political power (which comes from man), but lost spiritual authority (which comes from God). Apostolic momentum slowed significantly, and eventually, the church ended up in such a sorry state that murder became a justifiable form of evangelism. We ended up with such serious deception and evil that was evident in the Crusades. Killing in the name of the Savior – I really can’t think of anything more perverse. Nor can I recall any single historical event that acts as a stronger deterent for educated people to adopt Christianity. Until we address our history and repent where necessary, this will continue to be a big hindrance to the expansion of the kingdom. At least, that’s my view (for whatever it’s worth).
May 15th, 2007 06:57
This post is a whoosh from back of the 3 point line!! I agree with Gordon.
So does a night deep reflection help you write this or what?
May 15th, 2007 07:48
Excellent post, Steve.
May 15th, 2007 07:55
Gordon, thank you. That means a lot to me!
Sarah, I thought about bringing the Crusades into this post as well, but it was quite lengthy already!
Thanks for bringing that up, though. It definitely shows how far the “state church” drifted. I agree with you that it is a stain on our heritage.
ded, you obviously are aware of the context that sparked this post actually being written, but it’s one I’ve had bouncing around in my head for several months. Frankly, I’m glad to finally get it out!
Heather, thank you, my friend!
May 15th, 2007 11:49
Steve,
Since several people have already said that this is a great post, I won’t repeat them. I agree that too many people do not understand or appreciate the heritage of the church today. I’m wondering, have you thought of providing the same type of information about the Reformation?
-Alan
May 15th, 2007 12:05
Steve,
You said, “From all accounts, I think we are naive to think that the Council of Nicaea was a gathering of Spirit-filled men seeking to glorify Christ by careful examination of the scriptures.â€
Ok, so hear me out on this one, and know that I am thinking out loud.
First, looking back through the OT, there are many instances of God reprimanding or correcting his people. In the NT we see Jesus reprimanding the religious leaders, we see Paul correcting Peter. In history we see Luther correcting the Catholic Church, we see other corrections, and we see Bonhoeffer correcting the churches who pledged allegiance to Hitler. These are but a few examples.
God seems to be correcting those who claim to follow Him, but are going a different way. He seems to be correcting or removing from power those who are oppressing people. Sometimes it happens quickly, sometimes not.
Second, looking back, God also seems to be about freeing people from oppression. The result usually turning out quite badly for the oppressor. Hitler, the Catholic Church, various Babylonian and Assyrian kings, etc.
In almost all of these cases there is one person who is the leader, Moses, Jesus, Bonhoeffer, Luther, prophets, a shepherd boy with three stones, you get the picture.
So what happened that these Councils weren’t called out? Was that person not yet on the scene or were there people who did protest and were silenced?
I have heard of letters of protest being written from the the Middle East condemning the idea of Christmas, but have never read them myself. Were there followers of Christ who were opposed to the Roman Catholic Church and spoke out?
May 15th, 2007 13:43
Alan, I’ve thought about doing the same thing about the Reformation. I don’t know, though. My desire is not to just throw stones at all of the major historical events, but I will consider doing some research about that.
I have read quite a bit about the Anabaptists and the ways in which they were persecuted by the Reformers, and there is a lot to be said with regard to that.
Mike, my hunch is that those who attempted to speak out were “silenced”. There is a book whose title escapes me at the moment that purports to trace the history of church “outside the institution”. I have not read it, but the idea is that there has always been an “underground” church throughout history that was not part of the established institution.
May 15th, 2007 13:53
Exellent article Steve. I don’t know if you’ve ever read a book by E.H. Broadbent called The Pilgrim Church but I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to follow the rarely written history of the remnant church through history. Constantly persecuted and slaughtered by the official church of the day – even Luther and especially Svengli – it’s an inspiring story of apostolic courage and God’s grace. Sheds a whole new view on some groups whose history has mainly been written by their ‘conquerors’. I certainly hope that I’m living in their legacy. I notice that Amazon has copies.
May 15th, 2007 15:20
Steve,
I’m starting to think maybe there was/is. The implications of thinking this way however…
I’m not sure of much anymore, but in a strange way, I have never been this secure in my faith. I think it has do with the fact that so much of what has been stripped away/revealed has been man-made and therefore what remains is of God.
May 15th, 2007 16:07
The “underground remnant” is a truth, no doubt. Yet God will meet seekers anywhere.
Another way of thinking of it, instead of as an “us” and “them” situation, is as a splintered church (an unavoidable consequence of the fall playing out over time against the fabric of the faithful) full of the mixture of wheat and tares. God knows for sure who is whom and will sort it all out.
Our work is to call deep to deep and strengthen “wheats” in whatever context God brings us together.
May 15th, 2007 17:10
Steve,
Wow. This is not worhty to just be called a “post.” We need to come up with a new name for this kind of writing.
I did want to get you thoughts on one thing, and I may not be recalling my church history as well as I should. It also may come back to cessationism/continuationism (egad), but didn’t Constantine actually think he was under divine direction from God?
The history from this era does seem to be fairly accurate and (if I recall) Constantine did have a vision from God confirming his “status” as some kind of “chosen one.”
This does not change the point nor re-direct your post (which I agree with; two times in a row, btw
) but something I find interesting.
May 15th, 2007 17:24
Mike, you said, “I’m not sure of much anymore, but in a strange way, I have never been this secure in my faith. I think it has do with the fact that so much of what has been stripped away/revealed has been man-made and therefore what remains is of God.” … My husband and I are right there with you! It is strange, but good, to be sure.
Peace…
~Heather
May 15th, 2007 17:58
This is a good post, but what I wonder if knowing such things isn’t simply a realization of the fact that an absolutely incredible God who doesn’t need us frail humans at all chooses to work through us and love us in spite of ourselves.
May 15th, 2007 19:11
ded, thank you for giving an alternative to an “us” vs. “them” interpretation. I certainly was not trying to draw that line, and I appreciate you clarifying what I should have said in the first place.
Considering that Gordon and Tony have both endorsed this post, I must have not messed up my point too badly, though!
But seriously, if this information leads to “us” vs. “them”, we have missed a major point, I think. There are brothers and sisters in Christ in just about any organization that calls itself “Christian”, in my opinion. And then there are the tares…
May 15th, 2007 19:16
Tony, thanks for the thoughts. Yes, Constantine thought that he was under divine guidance. When he was victorious in battle, he credited it with a vision of a symbol of the cross in which he was told “In this sign you will conquer”. As far as I know, that is when the cross began to become a common Christian symbol. It became part of the identifying logos (that’s plural of “logo”, not the Greek word “logos”!!) and symbols of his kingdom.
However, it appears from history that Constantine saw Christianity as a political advantage, and yet continued to appease the pagan worshipers of his kingdom. I can see no evidence from history that Constantine’s “conversion” had any indication of being of the Spirit, although only God can determine that for sure.
He continued to receive worship as an emperor, which in itself seems to stand in opposition to any sense of Christ in him.
Does that address your question? Or was there something else you were asking that I didn’t understand?
May 15th, 2007 19:20
Bryan, that is most definitely a possible interpretation of this history. I’m not opposed to that.
What does bother me, though, and what has prompted this post from its inception several months ago, is the total distortion of this history by those seeking to elevate the very men who held this council.
The fact remains that Constantine’s motivation (as evidenced by his writings and historical records) for calling this council in the first place was a divided kingdom. He literally begged the bishops to hold this council and work out the issue at hand.
Those who seek to paint this council as something that was convened by godly men who wanted to protect doctrine are misguided, in my opinion. Spiritual unity was not the motivating factor. It was political unity.
This is further evidenced by the fact that so many of the other decisions that were made by this very same council had to do with making sure that customs and practices and traditions (all extra-biblical, mind you) were all enforced across Christendom. Not just encouraged or suggested. Enforced.
I only highlighted some of the more bizarre ones in this post.
May 15th, 2007 21:06
Steve,
Yes–you answered the question; or addressed my observation or something like that. I do have a very difficult time believing Constantine was saved, given the history, so that indeed calls into question any “divine guidance” he may have claimed to be under. But of course, I would not presume to judge him.
My observations were simply just that–observations, so, no real question to answer. Thanks!
May 15th, 2007 22:17
Phil, that may be the book I’m thinking of. At any rate, it sounds like one I would like to read. Thanks!
May 15th, 2007 22:48
Steve, there is also a little booklet called “Trail of Blood”, written, I believe, by J.A. Carroll. It traces the the theological lineage of the believers outside the RC church. I cannot vouch for its historical accuracy as I have not done a lot of study on this subject, yet.
May 15th, 2007 22:50
Gordon, thanks for the tip!
May 16th, 2007 11:10
What I would like to see someday is a parallel of OT history with church history, just to see where things match up. I mean, with regards to Israel/Judah, compared to RC/Reformation, etc. Good thesis for someone who has the time to write a book. Tip me a nickel for giving you the idea.
May 16th, 2007 11:29
DPR, that is a fascinating idea!
Alan, you’re looking for a thesis idea, aren’t you?
May 16th, 2007 13:18
ded,
I had to think about your ‘us’ verses ‘them’ comment for awhile. Good stuff, thank you. I find meself thinking in a ‘me’ verses ‘the rest of Christianity’ mindset most of the time…with me being the odd man out. Not being part of the I.C. has me feeling vulnerable a lot of the time, so your wheat and tares reference is very encouraging.
As a side note, my travel season is over so we need to plan a Boone get together!
May 16th, 2007 15:38
Mike,
How well I know what you mean by “vulnerable” and “me versus the rest of Christianity.” As I began the journey outside of the IC ten years ago, which was an odd-man-out sort of fellowship anyway, I felt especially cast off. I had eschewed “mainstream” Christianity for years– prideful in my “undertanding” of distinct problems in their brand of fellowship which ours had fixed and made right! (You may snicker knowingly at my selfishness.) Suddenly, I didn’t fit with the oddballs or the mainstream! It truly was a place of wandering. The unnerving thing was how it felt like something God Himself had called me into deliberately.
Slowly, I have learned some things. Regardless of the way we might feel sometimes, we are all part of the flow of humanity; and being among those in communion with God (not those wanting to be, crying to be, striving after or pretending to be but being there), we find He is sufficient. We are full; we have something inside us humans need–even ones who label themselves Christians though they are still trying to find their communion with the Father. This having what others need makes us very connected to others–our fullness is always seeking to support others in being full or finding His fullness. It doesn’t matter to us what label someone wears at this moment in their lives: what social issues are their causes; what efforts define their time; what earthly pleasures have their attention; what robe of any kind they place upon themselves which is not the righteous robe of Christ; we are within humanity and participate as ones which have available that which all others need. Their need is the Jesus that fills us. Many of them cannot believe anyone has their need. They write us off immediately locked in a box of fear or pride or both over themselves. Others are only prepared to listen to someone who will tickle their ears about sin, or give constant assent to a pet creed or set of doctrines or some other pre-programmed way of thinking about something which they have determined they must hear us say to feel safe with us. So it goes. When these folks choose separation from us, it can feel a little lonely. Nonetheless, we are connected to them because we are sharing this natural existence together.
We are really against no one and for everyone in the sense of always looking for the opportunity to share the fullness of Jesus that is within us. If you relate to any of this, then it is easy to let go of that separated from others feeling that makes us vulnerable. There is no pride in this. No sense that we are more special than anyone else. It is nothing more than the blessing of the gospel, God with us, in-dwelling us, His temple.
I know you nor Steve wanted to create a sense of dividedness between us out of the IC and those in the IC. That we are part of all humans on one level and part of all those who love Christ on a deeper level is always a topic on which I watch for opportunities to speak.
When you said travel season had to be over, I thought you meant summer. Glad to hear we might meet soon! E-mail Steve here, and he will give you my home e-mail. OK, Steve?
May 16th, 2007 16:35
Steve,
It does sound like an interesting topic, but I’m not a historian. Maybe someone else will jump on it.
ded,
Can you tell me one more time… why do you not have your own blog?
Thank you! Thank you! for that comment. We’re all together – really – truly – no fingers crossed – whether we realize it or not. Jesus doesn’t see those within the IC and those not in the IC. He sees the church. Why can’t we live the way he sees us?
-Alan
May 16th, 2007 17:19
Alan,
I’ve been thinking about blogging some. That day may dawn. I also want to write a book. The big question is, “Where am I going to find the time to do either?”
May 16th, 2007 19:11
I meant “out of an odd-man-out fellowship”
May 16th, 2007 21:45
ded, I’ll be happy to give Mike your email address. No problem!
Mike, I owe you a reply to the last email you sent me anyway (sorry!!) so I will include ded’s email address with that reply.
May 17th, 2007 01:54
“Regardless of the way we might feel sometimes, we are all part of the flow of humanity”
Well said. This is something that has been close to my heart lately. I’m feeling lately that as the recipients of the very breath of God we should view all people with some sense of connectedness. Now I realize that there is a connection with those who are “in Christ” that is not available outside of Christ, but I think that we need to be aware of, concerned about and involved in the lives of our fellow mankind no matter if they are in the Kingdom of light or not. There is such a tendency within the Body to become insulated from the outside world in the name of not being contaminated by their sin. Sure doesn’t look like how the first-begotten Son of God treated those outside the fold though does it? A bit of a tangent but thanks ded for the comment.
May 17th, 2007 10:00
Amen… that was very good.
Just yesterday a friend mentioned that we should all just use the Nicean Creed in a local group because there is so much division of beliefs.
Maybe we should all form a corporation and just decide for everyone else what all Christians should believe. We could announce that we are inspired by the Holy Spirit and even make a document proclaiming that statement. Then people could pay us for consulting fees and everyone would get along and live happily ever after. If there are any not “with us”, we could attempt a hostile take over of their group and force all groups to merge under us –for their own good of course. What do you think?
Personally, I’m partial to the Bible.
It seems to me that we are called to love people enough to share with them –the good news of God’s word–, yet without accepting all beliefs as equal. We have a source of truth. It is God through His written word to us and His Holy Spirit guiding within us. Those who are in Christ are already connected being one body and all members of one another.
There seems to be a pattern throughout history, whenever a man is followed as the high and holy one, the followers go off and get into all sorts of problems.
I very much agree with your words:
“From all accounts, I think we are naive to think that the Council of Nicaea was a gathering of Spirit-filled men seeking to glorify Christ by careful examination of the scriptures. I’m not saying that nothing good came out of it (I’ll leave that to the reader to determine for themselves), but I am saying that there is a lot that is not indicative of the Spirit of God.”
May 17th, 2007 10:09
Jul, nice to have you comment in this part of my blogging world
(since I know you from homeschooling)
Your paragraph about forming a corporation and consulting business made me chuckle. I love the tongue-in-cheek way of putting that.
May 17th, 2007 17:10
Steve,
Thank you for a really good post. Now I may be able to get some folk to believe me. I hope you do do some work on the Reformation, but be prepared for some eye-brow raising.
Aussie John
May 17th, 2007 18:17
Hello Steve,
I have gotten my first computer and found my way to your site. Somehow I made it through college without needing one
And now finding an entry on church history is exciting as that is the direction I want my education to go. Constantine is certainly a good place to start the discussion, oh the ensuing centuries of controversy! Whether he was saved or not he has left an indelible impact upon those within Christianity. Now considering such roots is obviously connected to our current thoughts on biblical church -a topic I feel I am only beginning to explore. Interpretation is important as the ‘facts’ are buried in time as your post began by reminding us. So do we interpret the Nicean creed as led by God? I would like to point out that Paul regularly went to the synagogues to preach. This was the home of the Pharisees, Sadducees, who were clearly in league with the Roman government insofar as they were able to influence the secular government to crucify Christ. Perhaps the synagogue is comparable to the ecclesiastical court of Constantine. And therefore a place where the gospel is preached to many? Suffice to say I agree with your admonition not throw out the creed simply on the basis of the questionable nature of the court. And well I just wanted to get in on it.
Josiah
May 17th, 2007 20:21
Josiah, so glad to have you here! I hope you’ll join us often. I’d love to have your voice join this conversation.
So do we interpret the Nicean creed as led by God?
That’s the million dollar question
May 17th, 2007 20:23
Aussie John, thanks for the word of warning. I’ll brace myself if I write on that topic
Thanks for stopping by here. Your comments on other blogs are an encouragement to me, too.
May 18th, 2007 04:51
Steve,
This is a fascinating post. I’m jumping in a bit late, so right now I’m just enjoying the comments.
Mary