When Constantine Coerced The Bishops

[LeSellers]

Constantine called the 325 ad council at Nicaea (now in Turkey) when the Arians (now considered heretics, then, just another denomination of Christianity) and the Nicenes (who eventually won the debate-cum-war, now counted as orthodox–"history is written by the winners") appealed to the emperor for a final determination as to which would be the "acceptable" version of what had already become the apostate Church of Jesus Christ. No one denies, at least not I, that all the participants were sincere in their beliefs, and that each side was genuinely concerned for the other's welfare. (This concern had already resulted in horrific atrocities on both sides: the burning of buildings, resort to arms, massacres of women and children. Each felt so strongly that his interpretation of the scriptures — not the Bible as we know it, since it had not yet been compiled — was correct, that killing dissenters was preferable to letting the "false doctrines" they espoused promulgate.)

In his well researched and heavily footnoted book, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance, H.A. Drake (Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara), Chapter Seven, "Consensus Politics" (p. 256~7), tells us:

From the letter [Constantine] wrote to the principals [the bishops he convoked to the council under the implied, and eventually realized, threat of imperial power] only months earlier, it is safe to say that the theological implications, one way or the other, would not have bothered him. But the whole purpose of the council, to his mind, was unity, and homoousios was chosen specifically to drive a wedge into the assembly.

Two considerations bring the dynamics of the debate into focus. First, it is necessary to discard the assumption of a clear divide between orthodox and Arian position, such as came to be perceived in retrospect, when positions had hardened and a more sophisticated theological vocabulary developed. At the time, not only were there compelling arguments on both sides, but also the technical language did not exist to bring into sharp relief the cause of the division. Both sides, for instance, were accused of "Judaizing"—in fourth-century Christian vocabulary the equivalent of seeking regnum in the Roman republic or being a Communist or Fascist in twentieth-century American politics. The Arians were like the Jews because they minimized the divinity of Christ, the Nicenes because they emphasized the Oneness of the Divine Being. The reaction of any Jewish listeners can only be imagined, but a century later, Christians looking back on the charges and countercharges leveled during this likened the two sides to armies groping their way in the dark, neither side exactly clear what it was fighting about.¹The majority of bishops at the council, it is generally conceded, were as confused by the theological intricacies of the question as a modern layperson is likely to be, and they were ready to support anything that was not patently heretical. Eusebius ... described the reaction of the bishops to the emperor's summons: "As soon then as the imperial injunction was generally made known, all with the utmost willingness hastened thither, as though they would outstrip one another in a race; for they were impelled by the anticipation of a happy result to the conference, by the hope of enjoying present peace, and the desire of beholding something new and strange in the person of so admirable an emperor."

Note [1] Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.23

... Constantine's motive is a bit harder to tease forth, only because it must be deduced from the scanty evidence that survives. His preparations for the council, and the outcome he desired, involved concessions to both sides. The outline of his concessions to "the party of Eusebius" is fairly clear: he gave them the choice of venue and undertook to restrain the more virulent voices of the opposition. What had he given to bring the "the party of Alexander" to the table? Only one conclusion accords with the outcome. At the end of the day, they would have a creed that clearly branded Arius a heretic. Like all catchwords, homoousios was defensible only in the entire context of debate and study that led to its choice. But it had the one advantage of being a word that exposed and isolated Arius. When all the arguing and cajoling was [sic] done, only two bishops, both of them among Arius's original supporters, refused to sign. By imperial decree, they were sent into exile, along with Arius (who, as a presbyter, did not participate in his own condemnation) and a miscellaneous group of priests and students loyal to his cause.

Notice the recurring theme of imperial coercion, of a predetermined, political outcome. Notice, too, how, by their notorious absence, inspiration and divine guidance are screaming for our attention because the participants in 325 paid them no heed whatsoever. In all Eusebius's account (nor any other, for that matter) there is no mention of such guidance, and none at all that gives any indication that the council had any Celestial authority to dictate a creed, none to consign Arius to exile, none to define God. Yet all creedal Christianity (from the eastern, Coptic, English, and Roman Catholics to the Holy Assembly of the Sacred Name and other Pentecostals, including all, or nearly so, Protestant sects) accepts this travesty of a council as binding as to the nature of God, the relationship between the Father and the Son, and theirs with the Holy Ghost.

Finally, notice that "Christian theology" was non-existent in the IV, and that, even at that late date, the Gospel of Jesus Christ (however much altered by the traditions and philosophy of the Greek intellectual world it inhabited*) had not needed scholars and a "technical vocabulary" to interpret or understand it. This confusion and complexity came later as men added to, modified, and deleted the simple, plain words of scripture and denied contemporary revelation.

* See also

Augustine of Hippo

,

A Biography

by Peter Brown, Rollins Professor of History at Princeton University, for supporting data.

The Council of Nicaea (and all of the others before and since) is simply antithetical to the plain and biblical method God had used for 4,000 years when He had something to tell His children, or when they had strayed and needed setting right: In every case prior to this, He had called a prophet, sometimes more than one. There was never a case of a "council" of this sort, called by the political ruler to regulate (not "correct", just "normalize") His kingdom.

Let's recall that, in the ancient world, all political power and all ecclesiastical power were combined in one person: the god-king. To a certain extent, we have the same structure today: our Head is Christ Whom we recognize as "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" on the one hand, and as "Savior", "High Priest", and "God" on the other. Indeed, we frequently say, "O, Lord, my God" referring to Him. The tradition goes back at least as far as Shem/Melchizedek in the Salem of Abraham's day: he was the "Prince of Peace" and the "King of Righteousness", as well as the High Priest to whom Abraham paid his tithes. It goes back further in recorded time, too, since Pharaoh was a god, and so were most other kings. But I use Shem/Melchizedek to make the point that its origin is divine, however distorted it became over time.

Constantine saw himself as a sort of re-incarnation of Christ. Drake plucks this string on his harp in dozens of places. Eusebius, while never actually saying so, paints the emperor as both a regal and a celestial personage. Paintings and mosaics from the period show him with halo-like radiances emanating from his head. Constantine's world was one where political power was almost always cloaked in religious garb, and he used this tradition to its fullest extent to cement his own secular hold on the fracturing empire of decadent Rome.

People who claim the Bible is their only source of theology sadly neglect the fact that no scripture really says what it says: all scripture must be interpreted to have any meaning at all. And the filter or bias through which creedal Christianity reads scripture is that of Constantine's coerced council 1687 years ago.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

Christianity was already deep in the universal apostasy before Constantine as evidenced by the wholesale change or rejection of true doctrines.

[LeSellers]

Christianity was already deep in the universal apostasy before Constantine as evidenced by the wholesale change or rejection of true doctrines.

The fact that Constantine had to convoke the Bishops to settle a question of doctrine amply illustrates your point.

The fact that they preferred the emperor to the Holy Ghost shows just how far they had fallen.

Lehi

Edited February 17, 2012 by LeSellers

[cdowis]

The Nicene Creed was a political document and those bishops who voted against it received a civil punishment (banishment). The church received protection from the emporer, but it paid a very high price, a price that it is still paying.

Of interest is that the Bishop of Rome (his representative) was not given any special leadership -- Constantine was running the meeting, He was merely a peer among peers. The Roman Bishop was clearly not viewed as having any special authority.

Edited February 17, 2012 by cdowis

[jwhitlock]

Thanks for posting this, Lehi. Very interesting stuff.

[Anijen]

I also find it interesting that #1, out of approximately 1800 Bishops only 300 were invited, #2, It was an invitation by the order of Constantine who was considered the Pontifex Maximus and not the Bishop of Rome [sylvester].

[Alan]

Although it is common in the church to speak of the apostacy taking place at the beginning of the 2nd century with the death of the apostles, I do not concur with such a position. The problem is we LDS look at history through LDS lenses and apply our understanding to the records. So we assume that all of the Christian bishps attended the council (they didn't) and that the result of the council was the will of, and binding upon, the universal church (it wasn't).

In my view the Council of Nicea simply illustrates that a portion of Christianity was in deep trouble and was, for all intents and purposes, apostate. But Nibley makes clear that the apostles set up the church to be regionally self functioning with little need for regular central intervention. For example, the call to the office of Bishop, while currently requiring First Presidency approval and ordination by an apostle or seventy (but which can and often is devolved to the Stake President using apostolic authorisation) was perpetuated in early Christian times by local election and ordination by three serving Bishops. So we should not assume that the way things are done now is the way they have to be done, nor that they have always been done that way.

Therefore it is my view that the original church was able to function successfully for some time after the apostles left the scene in various parts of the world. In fact, the Book of Mormon illustrates this very well. There were pockets of believers and of genuine preisthood holders in various parts of the world. Britain is thought to be one of those places and what we now call Celtic Christianity had nothing to do with the Roman church but claimed their apostolic authority from John.

I won't go into the history here but suffice to say it is my belief that the apostacy was not complete - or as Nibley would say - the lights did not go out completely (although merely a flicker in places) until around 570AD. I suspect the decision of a council consisting of apostate bishops and political leaders had very little initial influence on the British christians, even if they heard about it.

[3DOP]

Hi Guys.

So if winners write the history, what does that mean? That the losers were automatically the good guys? This truism about winners writing history seems like an excuse to dismiss objections that may be raised in defense of what you are calling winners. In a way, it is unfortunate that the Arian party didn't survive so they could have given their side of the story. You say it was because of persecution? That wouldn't have helped. Or might it have? Being persecuted had never been an obstacle to the Church's growth before. The Church thrived under the persecution of the first three centuries. Christians had been slain for centuries for affirming their faith. All of a sudden, persecution means extinction? Why? Two or three bishops out of the 300 or so that attended were banished for refusal to sign the documents. If a few bishops had been willing to vote their conscience, maybe Arianism survives. I guess the doctrine didn't inspire enough bishops to pay a price. Or maybe they just weren't convinced? In any event, the disputed teaching, didn't have the necessary qualities about it to survive. It was an unsuccessful error. It didn't survive its circumstances. It didn't perpetuate. And it didn't write histories that come down to us. That isn't the fault of that horrible "orthodox party".

Are Salt Lake LDS obligated to publish and preserve documents from the earliest days of the founding of the Restoration that would point one toward what is now called the Community of Christ? Don't you kind of take it for granted that the CoC can take care of itself? I am only suggesting that it is reasonable that "winners" write their own histories. Don't we expect that? Successful losers, if they perpetuate, write their side. Then we compare. But both are are taken with a grain of salt anyway, and rightly so. Good history needs time as well as the eyewitness report. As generations go by, and personal investment hopefully becomes more remote, good history always takes such factors into consideration. Clearly, there are many many histories which accuse the Church under Constantine of error, duplicity, and apostasy. To be just, we all have to try to put aside any understandable prejudices, and do our best to listen to both the prosecution and the prosecuted in any case history.

I am not saying that the work by Drake is poorly done. I didn't see any of his quotes that I couldn't reconcile with my own understanding of the events. But I would suggest that a balanced weighing of the events and a proper interpretation will consider alternative views...even the views of those dreadful "winners". I am suggesting that to assume that history is always skewed in favor of the so-called winner fails to take into consideration the effects of time and in some sense even fails to trust that in the providence of God, the truth will come to light. Over time, it is certain that histories have been written by people with as much investment in discrediting Constantine and the Council of Nicea, as there are histories by those who would defend it. The truth is probably not going to entirely exonerate, but neither will it entirely condemn.

I think I should stop with that single objection for now. Unless replies make it clear that the jury has already decided, perhaps I can offer comments by other authors in the next week, as well as less negative ways of interpreting the facts as presented by Dr. Drake. You know, defense attorneys sometimes succeed in getting the prosecutor to go to a plea bargain, a reduced sentence. A good defense sometimes occurs when mitigating factors are considered by the jury. If a client is guilty of negligent manslaughter, the negligence deserves a guilty plea, and a just sentence. But if the prosecution insists on calling it first degree murder, worthy of a death sentence, the jury must return a not guilty verdict.

3DOP

Edited February 19, 2012 by 3DOP

[jwhitlock]

So if winners write the history, what does that mean? That the losers were automatically the good guys?

Not hardly, and I don't think that anyone, including Drake, stated it as such. The point with the rewriting of history, as you admit later in your post, is that it does happen. The winners, those who come into power and who have some ability thereby to censure, virtually always rewrite history. Our own time is replete with examples of historians giving "new" perspectives of what happened in the past, when in fact they are only filtering events to come to conclusions preconceived by their own bias or agenda. Historically, the Chinese dynasties did this as a matter of course, with new emperors purging the archives of their predecessor's historical documents, and creating new ones. Revisionist history is simply a matter of fact; it happens.

What Drake and others (Ehrman, for instance, IIRC) make the same point that the winners at Nicea under Constantine did indeed purge what opposition writings they could, and in their own histories couched events in terms most favorable to them. As you admitted, it does happen, and events of the fourth century were no exception. Persecution was an additional tool that was used to suppress; however, it did not entirely eliminate the opposition. I don't think that it was ever stated that the losers were totally erased; the historical records that we have today contain enough material for us to know that there was an opposition, and that it wasn't just a small set of people. Those who voted their conscience at Nicea did so under duress; many others saw the writing on the wall and just slipped under the radar.

At Nicea, what we have is not so much everyone being generally unified in what they believed, but rather most of the bishops recognizing that the state was now in control, and that if they didn't toe the official winning party line as defined by Constantine, they would suffer the consequences. What is interesting is that there were so few who voted their conscience; it is evident that there was much more disagreement with the state, but there were not many who were willing to risk their positions on principle. This in itself was a sign that things had already deteriorated significantly into politically motivated factionalism; all Constantine did was to take advantage of the situation to direct the politics to his own ends. The result of that is what we now term orthodoxy.

To me, at least, the concept of a secular government giving direction in religious matters, along with the complete lack of divine revelation in the process, is enough to indicate that something was seriously wrong. God knew what would happen, and He made arrangements for his plan to come to fruition at the right time before Christ returns, so that all, including those in the past, might have salvation. The hand of God can only be seen in mitigating the effects of the councils over time, and not in the actual actions of the councils themselves.

I look forward to reading Drake's book, once it arrives from Amazon.

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

When it comes to matters of conscience might doesn't make right. Constantine was a ruthless pagan dictator who had an Empire to hold together. He was Caesar, a God.

The Arians didn't survive the banishments, and other persecutions of Constantine. In those "Good Old" days to return from banishment was a death sentence.

Chistianity didn't thrive under the persections, but did survive. It did so by adopting to Platonism. Philosphically and literally they move the center of Christianity out of Jerusalem to Rome.

There were far more than the 300 that were "invited" by the pagan Emperor Constantine. We will probably never know the reasons why they weren't invited or refused to attend.

Lord only knows how many religions in the world have come and gone without leaving a trace, or once highly successfull ones have dwindled to obscurity.

The early days of the LDS are well documented along with those of the break off of the CoC.

Winner alway write the histories. How much do we know about the ancient Carthaginians. Very little really.

To be continued.

[3DOP]

Hi jwhitlock. Ah, you are waiting for Drake's book. What books have you read that you would recommend for someone like me who is trying to find mitigating factors and a fair defense of the orthodox party?

[jwhitlock]

Hi jwhitlock. Ah, you are waiting for Drake's book. What books have you read that you would recommend for someone like me who is trying to find mitigating factors and a fair defense of the orthodox party?

What I read from Drake were some summaries and quotes. I was intrigued enough to go ahead and get the book to read it myself. I also decided to go ahead and wade through Eusebius, so I ordered that also.

What I've read at this point is mostly LDS oriented. The authors I like most (Callister, Petersen) were not particularly focused on mitigating factors, to put it lightly. I saw several books on Amazon oriented towards the pro-council crowd; however, I didn't find one that I felt comfortable with enough to buy at this point, so I'm looking for some recommendations there. Just like LDS authors are accused of unbalanced bias, the same is true for EV and Catholic authors in their own arenas much of the time. Strobel was a good example of shooting down softball pitches and then claiming victory, for instance.

Anyway, I'll bounce the question back to you for recommendations in that particular regard, since you're probably more qualified to give some than I am.

[3DOP]

3DOP:

When it comes to matters of conscience might doesn't make right. Constantine was a ruthless pagan dictator who had an Empire to hold together. He was Caesar, a God.

The Arians didn't survive the banishments, and other persecutions of Constantine. In those "Good Old" days to return from banishment was a death sentence.

Chistianity didn't thrive under the persections, but did survive. It did so by adopting to Platonism. Philosphically and literally they move the center of Christianity out of Jerusalem to Rome.

There were far more than the 300 that were "invited" by the pagan Emperor Constantine. We will probably never know the reasons why they weren't invited or refused to attend.

Lord only knows how many religions in the world have come and gone without leaving a trace, or once highly successfull ones have dwindled to obscurity.

The early days of the LDS are well documented along with those of the break off of the CoC.

Winner alway write the histories. How much do we know about the ancient Carthaginians. Very little really.

To be continued.

Hi sometimesaint

It sounds like you have already made up your mind! I thought you were supposed to wait for the other side to present its case! Heh. Hopefully you know a lot more than I do about this. (It wouldn't take a lot). I am just suspicious that you all have too much emotional interest going on with this.

Anyway, I am afraid I need you to present the best that the defense has to offer too before I could find your arguments persuasive. So you've studied everything that would lessen the guilt or even clear those who are accused of grave wrongdoing? If you want to continue without sharing your knowledge of the best defense, I'll wait until you're done. But why don't you do the defense? Don't we need some balance here? I don't have time anyway. I sure don't have time to pile up as much material as one person defending that has already accumulated by several people accusing. Its kind of daunting, but you think we still need more anti-Constantine, anti-Nicea stuff?

[3DOP]

What I read from Drake were some summaries and quotes. I was intrigued enough to go ahead and get the book to read it myself. I also decided to go ahead and wade through Eusebius, so I ordered that also.

What I've read at this point is mostly LDS oriented. The authors I like most (Callister, Petersen) were not particularly focused on mitigating factors, to put it lightly. I saw several books on Amazon oriented towards the pro-council crowd; however, I didn't find one that I felt comfortable with enough to buy at this point, so I'm looking for some recommendations there. Just like LDS authors are accused of unbalanced bias, the same is true for EV and Catholic authors in their own arenas much of the time. Strobel was a good example of shooting down softball pitches and then claiming victory, for instance.

Anyway, I'll bounce the question back to you for recommendations in that particular regard, since you're probably more qualified to give some than I am.

I am shooting from the hip jwhitlock! Really. I am just seeing a lot of piling up on one side. I'm suspicious that we aren't getting the whole picture. I'll have to get back to you.

Edit PS: By "shooting from the hip" is that all I mean is that I have found two Catholic books that I haven't read. John Henry Newman was still Church of England when he wrote his history, but I think we would have to consider him Catholic. Ideally we would find a less biased interpreter. Maybe Drake is the guy! Like I said his facts seemed okay. Its the interpretations of the evidence that might need examining. So anyway...I do have some ideas along that line that I may share at some point.

3DOP

Edited February 19, 2012 by 3DOP

[jwhitlock]

I am shooting from the hip jwhitlock! Really. I am just seeing a lot of piling up on one side. I'm suspicious that we aren't getting the whole picture. I'll have to get back to you.

Edit PS: By "shooting from the hip" is that all I mean is that I have found two Catholic books that I haven't read. John Henry Newman was still Church of England when he wrote his history, but I think we would have to consider him Catholic. Ideally we would find a less biased interpreter. Maybe Drake is the guy! Like I said his facts seemed okay. Its the interpretations of the evidence that might need examining. So anyway...I do have some ideas along that line that I may share at some point.

3DOP

I'm not sure that there is much middle ground that anyone takes when it comes to the councils. The books I've seen are really positioning for one side or the other; I don't see much in the way of just a "here's what happened" history that truly leaves the reader to his own conclusions.

[The Nehor]

The fact that Constantine had to convoke the Bishops to settle a question of doctrine amply illustrates your point.

The fact that they preferred the emperor to the Holy Ghost shows just how far they had fallen.

Lehi

I think that is a little unfair. The Gift of the Holy Ghost was gone. To say they preferred something else suggests they had an option.

[LeSellers]

I think that is a little unfair. The Gift of the Holy Ghost was gone. To say they preferred something else suggests they had an option.

Were it the case that any of those whose records we have mentioned that the emperor (which is, we should note, a military title, equivalent to our modern "Commander-in-Chief'") or any of the bishops prayed at any point during the proceedings, I might agree with you. I have not seen any such record.

Further, the fact that the bishops responded to Constantine's summons and did not call for a conference/council on their own (which they were perfectly free to do) demonstrates where they saw the power lie. And, as subsequent events illustrate, it was the emperor who enforced the edicts and dogmas of the councils. We ought not forget that Nicaea was but one of many times Constantine convoked these supposed men of God to meet, thrash out their differences and, after the fact, those who failed to acknowledge the "consensus" as "truth", banished the dissenters and, essentially took away their "callings", be they bishops or presbyters (elders).

Further, we should note that Constantine did not initiate the calling of the councils: the bishops asked him to do it. Why? Because they wanted the potentially lethal power of the state to enforce their understanding of the doctrines of the now-apostate church on those whose equally apostate theologies differed from their own. Arius, Eusebius, and all the others each hoped that the emperor would choose his Christianity over the others, and coerce conscious among the others.

It was not that there were two versions of Christianity in the early IV: there were dozens, perhaps hundreds. Only one emerged from "Asia" (Minor: modern-day Turkey, not Egypt, as someone claimed yesterday in our High Priests' group), the others were forbidden. But it did not end the controversy: Constantine recalled Arius, who, promptly overplayed his hand and was essentially repudiated again.

So, while I admit to using hyperbole to describe how the events took place (preferring the emperor over the Holy Ghost), it seems evident to me that it is truly a matter of verbiage, not (please excuse the expression) substance here. The emperor was the key figure in this power play—the Holy Ghost had no role at all.

Lehi

Edited February 20, 2012 by LeSellers

[wenglund]

To me, 3DOP's point is well taken. Wisdom, if not respect for differing religious faith (as per the 11th Article of Faith), advises that in interfaith discussions we not wield a club in attack (such as the "winner" writes history) to which our own heads are vulnerable ("Expositor", anyone?).

Wielding a club in defense, is another story.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

I am just seeing a lot of piling up on one side. I'm suspicious that we aren't getting the whole picture. I'll have to get back to you.

Drake's purpose in Constantine and the Bishops was to investigate the origins of the intolerance of Christians toward others who don't agree with them, not to study the origins of the creeds and orthodoxy. This chapter (seven) was just historical background to illuminate his point.

We should not forget the whole point of the Drake passage I cited: Nicaea was not a God-ordained council, it was not conducted under inspiration; there was no divine imprimatur — the only stamp of approval was Constantine's. The Nicene creed (and by extension, all the creeds, since they were manufactured by the same process), whatever it is, it is not the word of God.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

In addition to Drake, see:

Dungan, David, Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, (Fortress, 2006)

MacMullen, Ramsay, Voting About God in Early Church Councils, (Yale, 2006)

Enjoy,

Lehi

[3DOP]

If one operates from the presupposition that it is always wrong for the temporal power to assist the Church, then yes, Constantine's assistance was unnecessarily meddlesome. On the other hand, there weren't any Jeffersonian democrats around to even attempt to explain why it might be dangerous for the Church to be so closely associated with the State as to have become the official religion of the Empire. There had been 300 years of more or less continual brutal persecutions and finally, from the perspective of churchmen, God had given them an emperor who believed in Christ, and would be a patron who would help them establish God's kingdom in the Empire. I have a problem with the title of the thread.

Constantine coerced the bishops? That gives the impression that his assistance/interference was resented. Why would he do that? It was a time when everything was rosey...except for this one little stink in the garden that was causing some divisions, particularly in the East. What would be gained by deliberately alienating his own bishops? There is no reason to think that he didn't consult with many of them before settling on a meeting, following the precedent found in Acts 15 when a similar episode caused chaos in the Church. Who was better placed to arrange such a meeting than a patron like the emperor himself? John Henry Newman explains how he understood the benefits of having the emperor's help in convening this first council:

When a heresy, condemned and excommunicated by one Church, was taken up by another, and independent Christian bodies thus stood in open opposition, nothing was left to those who desired peace, to say nothing of orthodoxy, but to bring the question under the notice of a General Council. But as a previous step, the leave of the civil power was plainly necessary for so public a display of that wide-spreading Association, of which the faith of the Gospel was the uniting and animating principle. Thus the Church could not meet together in one, without entering into a sort of negotiation with the powers that be; whose jealousy it is the duty of Christians, both as individuals and as a body, if possible, to dispel. On the other hand, the Roman Emperor, as a professed disciple of the truth, was of course bound to protect its interests, and to afford every facility for its establishment in purity and efficacy. It was under these circumstances that the Nicene Council was convoked.

---The Arians of the Fourth Century, John Henry Newman, Longman's, Green, and Co., Third Edition, 1908, p. 241

I am not for the moment arguing that Arianism was less correct than the "orthodoxy" that prevailed. Mormons should prefer neither the one nor the other. But you should be able to see that Constantine's interests were the same as the bishops. He wanted unity if only for political reasons, and the bishops wanted it for spiritual reasons. Maybe someone thinks that kings and princes are not allowed to use their office to come to the aid of an official religion of the State. You would have to condemn some of the most faithful kings of the Old Testament. There is a limit...Of course the emperor can't be allowed to vote with the bishops or do any liturgical functions that belong to the priesthood. But to accomodate a gathering of bishops for purpose of hashing out some difficulties?

It seems to me like many critics are failing to put themselves back in the times in which these events took place. No one had dreamed of the axioms of our day against any recognition of one faith over another by the power of the state. We need to remove our 21st Century filters and try to read events as they happened in the 4th Century, a millenium and a half before the American Revolution. There is no reason whatsoever to presume that most of the bishops were anything except delighted to accept the patronage of the Emperor. It is a fact that many of the same bishops had already lost eyes, limbs, and suffered other tortures in the recent persecution of Diocletian. Does it seem like men who were willing to lose eyes and fingers for their faith, would be so afraid of Constantine as to be coerced against their wills? I suggest that a more likely scenario is that there was great satisfaction in the knowledge that the new and first Christian emperor was providing a place to meet, and could be counted on to help enforce any laws or teachings that might emerge from the Council.

Edited February 20, 2012 by 3DOP

[jwhitlock]

In addition to Drake, see:

Dungan, David, Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, (Fortress, 2006)

MacMullen, Ramsay, Voting About God in Early Church Councils, (Yale, 2006)

Enjoy,

Lehi

Yer killing me, Lehi. My book budget is about to take a major hit...

[jwhitlock]

If one operates from the presupposition that it is always wrong for the temporal power to assist the Church, then yes, Constantine's assistance was unnecessarily meddlesome. On the other hand, there weren't any Jeffersonian democrats around to even attempt to explain why it might be dangerous for the Church to be so closely associated with the State as to have become the official religion of the Empire. There had been 300 years of more or less continual brutal persecutions and finally, from the perspective of churchmen, God had given them an emperor who believed in Christ, and would be a patron who would help them establish God's kingdom in the Empire. I have a problem with the title of the thread.

Constantine coerced the bishops? That gives the impression that his assistance/interference was resented. Why would he do that? It was a time when everything was rosey...except for this one little stink in the garden that was causing some divisions, particularly in the East. What would be gained by deliberately alienating his own bishops? There is no reason to think that he didn't consult with many of them before settling on a meeting, following the precedent found in Acts 15 when a similar episode caused chaos in the Church. Who was better placed to arrange such a meeting than a patron like the emperor himself? John Henry Newman explains how he understood the benefits of having the emperor's help in convening this first council:

---The Arians of the Fourth Century, John Henry Newman, Longman's, Green, and Co., Third Edition, 1908, p. 241

I am not for the moment arguing that Arianism was less correct than the "orthodoxy" that prevailed. Mormons should prefer neither the one nor the other. But you should be able to see that Constantine's interests were the same as the bishops. He wanted unity if only for political reasons, and the bishops wanted it for spiritual reasons. Maybe someone thinks that kings and princes are not allowed to use their office to come to the aid of an official religion of the State. You would have to condemn some of the most faithful kings of the Old Testament. There is a limit...Of course the emperor can't be allowed to vote with the bishops or do any liturgical functions that belong to the priesthood. But to accomodate a gathering of bishops for purpose of hashing out some difficulties?

It seems to me like many critics are failing to put themselves back in the times in which these events took place. No one had dreamed of the axioms of our day against any recognition of one faith over another by the power of the state. We need to remove our 21st Century filters and try to read events as they happened in the 4th Century, a millenium and a half before the American Revolution. There is no reason whatsoever to presume that most of the bishops were anything except delighted to accept the patronage of the Emperor. It is a fact that many of the same bishops had already lost eyes, limbs, and suffered other tortures in the recent persecution of Diocletian. Does it seem like men who were willing to lose eyes and fingers for their faith, would be so afraid of Constantine as to be coerced against their wills? I suggest that a more likely scenario is that there was great satisfaction in the knowledge that the new and first Christian emperor was providing a place to meet, and could be counted on to help enforce any laws or teachings that might emerge from the Council.

That's certainly one perspective to consider. However, it has always been dangerous for religions to combine with secular powers to meet their own ends. They too often find that the tiger they thought they could tame and use to their own ends becomes their master. The historical record after the councils certainly portrays a church completely wedded to secular methods of wielding power to produce any punishment - including death - for those who disagreed with them. Repugnance for such an unholy union is certainly not just a 21st century concept.

I look at the extensive political maneuvering that took place during the councils as something that doesn't suggest a benign delight that the bishops would now have the protection of the emperor. It was jockeying for position, which is something that Christ chastened his own disciples for when they engaged in it.

The problem with looking at the councils as something benign, or just bringing unity is that you have to ignore the ugly things that were happening. From what I've read elsewhere (and I'm still waiting for Drake's book to come), it's tough to find much benevolence or a good spirit of cooperation in the councils. Hammering out agreement on doctrine via a combination of political maneuvering, threats, and the oversight of secular powers does not make me confident that God approved of the results.

[3DOP]

double post

Edited February 21, 2012 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

To me, 3DOP's point is well taken. Wisdom, if not respect for differing religious faith (as per the 11th Article of Faith), advises that in interfaith discussions we not wield a club in attack (such as the "winner" writes history) to which our own heads are vulnerable ("Expositor", anyone?).

Wielding a club in defense, is another story.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade Englund. Long time. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

So getting back to my first contention, that "the winners write history" means nothing after over 1500 years, what do the rest of you think? You sure have a lot of histories to read that opposes the winners now. I have conceded that the winners didn't take any special interest in explaining the loser's side, and then the loser's disappeared. But my argument is that there is nothing necessarily sinister in that.

I have been asking you guys to defend the crowd you are against and have found no takers. How can you expect the winners to defend the losers? The LDS observers, who in a certain sense shouldn't care less who won, don't even seem able or willing to defend or find mitigating factors against perceived crimes committed against the Arian party by the so-called "orthodox".

It seems like you could concede that the "winner's write the histories" comments don't mean that winners are necessarily bad...and furthermore, that over time, historians take all that into consideration anyway. Sixteen centuries later, it is clear that the pendulum has swung back and there are histories aplenty that condemn the winners.

3DOP