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 
he title of this post is completely tongue-in-cheek, by the way! Since I have gotten tagged several times for the same thing, I feel like I better finally get around to participating! 
John Smulo started it (although he mercifully didn’t tag me). In the time since this particular tag thing started, I have gotten tagged several times, to the point that I don’t even remember who all tagged me.
ayne Jacobsen at Lifestream Blog recently posted on an issue which has been batted around some here on this blog. His post is entitled “
any of you may have noticed my relative silence recently in the blogosphere. Summer does this to me, mostly because of my work. As you may know, I am the musical director for the 
omething that separates Christianity from any other world religion is the resurrection of Jesus. In fact, other religions don’t even try to hide the fact that their leader is dead and buried.
