Over recent months a group of Christchurch church leaders (Te Raranga) have been working on an ecumenical service to celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. The service was held last night at 5 pm, 15 June and I had the honour of preaching. I had decided that this week's blogpost would be the sermon's text ... and then a flurry of comments to last week's post came in. My sermon may or may not settle any disputes therein!
Sermon Trinity
Sunday 15 June 2025 1700 Anniversary of the Council of Nicaea
Ecumenical Service
in the Transitional Cathedral, Christchurch
Recording of service here
Readings: John 17:20-23 (read in Te Reo), Ephesians 4:1-6
Greetings to all! Thank you to Te Raranga for organising the
service. Thank you to the cathedral staff, volunteers, musicians and choir for
hosting the service.
We have come together for Kotahitanga (our unity), Whakapono
(our formation in the faith) and Taonga (celebration of a precious gift).
Who is this person or being – Jesus Christ - who prays,
according to our Gospel of John reading:
“so that they may be one, as we
are one” (kia kotahi ai ratou, me taua nei hoki he Kotahi)
and also talks about God the Father
“so that the world may believe
that you have sent me.” (kia whakapono ai te ao, nau ahau I tono mai)?
John’s Gospel stands out within the New Testament writings for
presenting the man Jesus of Nazareth as Jesus the Christ sent from God who is
simultaneously the Son of God in a relationship of identity and union with God
the Father.
What were the first Christians to make of this presentation,
this revelation of who Jesus is, in relation to us, his colleagues in humanity,
and in relation to God, his colleague (co-equal, co-participant) in divinity?
That question rumbled its way through the 2nd and
3rd centuries of the Christian era.
Nick Page, writing in Premier Christianity, offers a
slightly racy version of what happened at the beginning of the fourth century: [https://www.premierchristianity.com/features/an-idiots-guide-to-the-council-of-niceas-big-posh-creed-of-compromise/19332.article
]
“We start in Alexandria, Egypt in
AD 318. … … a priest called Arius has had a thought: if Jesus is the Son of God
then, logically, he has to be younger than the Father. That, after all, is the
key thing about sons: they tend to be a lot younger than their dads. And didn’t
Paul describe Jesus as “the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians
1:15)? If that is true, Arius reasoned, there must have been a time before Jesus
was born.
A highly effective communicator,
Arius began to spread his ideas, not only through preaching but simple songs.
According to his opponents, he even coined a slogan:
“there was, when he was not” (ie
there was a time before Jesus).”
“Arius was not suggesting Jesus
wasn’t God; just, perhaps, that he wasn’t quite as ‘goddy’ as God was. And
while many welcomed his ideas, many more found them alarming.
If Arius was right, then would it
not imply that the Son was inferior – or subordinate – to the Father? What does
that do to the Trinity?
John’s Gospel said that Jesus was
the Word, eternally present with the Father, through whom all things were
created (1:1-3), but Arius’ theories struck at the very heart of Jesus’
divinity.”
“The argument flared into a
bitter, factional dispute. Arius was condemned and dismissed from his post. But
other parts of the Eastern Church supported him. The anger grew so bad that,
eventually, emperor Constantine I intervened.
In AD 325, he announced that he
would call the first-ever ecumenical – ie ‘worldwide’ –
Council of Bishops.
It would meet towards the end of
May, in the city of Nicaea (modern Iznik in Turkey). Together, the bishops
would come up with a logical, clear, universally acceptable definition of Jesus
Christ.”
So, between 250 and 300 bishops attended, most from the
east; only a few from the west. And the emperor, Constantine, presided over the
council or synod – the first ecumenical or worldwide council of the church of
God. Kotahitanga at Nicaea!
Incidentally, the Council of Nicaea did make some decisions
other than creedal ones, especially in regard to canons governing our life as
church, some of which are still observed today.
But, tonight, 1700 years later, I will concentrate our
attention on the creedal character of the council.
Now most, if not all of us here have been to synods,
conferences and councils of the church where we have done our human best to
keep all present in the same tent of roughly common conviction, crafting
amendments to motions so some kind of healthy compromise is reached.
A bit of that happened but a full compromise between Arians
and others was not the work of this council. Nicaea was decisive.
The creed at that council said:
“We believe in one God, the
Father almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible; and
continued for a few paragraphs in words we are familiar with …
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the
substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true
God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all
things came into being, both things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because
of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered,
and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to
judge the living and dead,
And in the Holy Spirit.
So far so good to those of us familiar with the later
version of this creed which is known as The Nicene Creed. But then we hit this,
which is both decisive and exclusive:
“The catholic and apostolic
Church anathematises [ie condemns] those who say, “There was when he was not,”
and, “He was not before he was begotten,” and that he came to be from nothing,
or those who claim that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or substance,
(or created,) or alterable, or mutable.”
Here then is the key innovation at Nicaea. A stake in the
ground for the Whakapono of the church.
God the Son, according to the creed, is “of one substance”
(the Greek is the famous word, homoousion) with the Father. Here
substance could be “being” or “nature.”
Nick Page again: “Jesus is both
distinct from the Father, but also the same. He is equal in the Trinity, true
God from true God. … Begotten, yes, but not made. Not created.”
Thus, a specific line in what we call orthodox Christianity
– the orthodoxy of both eastern and western Christianity was established.
Theological disputes would rumble on through more centuries
and further ecumenical councils, especially around precision of language about
Jesus as both human & divine.
What we now call the Nicene Creed developed through
expanding river, then future councils shaped and smoothed from it the
distinctive Taonga which is the Nicene Creed.
So, tonight we neither recite the original Nicene Creed, nor
do we curse any Arians present in our midst.
What are we celebrating after 1700 years? What role could
and should the Nicene Creed as we know it play in the life of the church of God
in 2025?
Ephesians 4:1-6, after all, speaks challengingly to us as we
celebrate an ecumenical council of the church, because Paul talks to us as
church and urges that we are
“making every effort to maintain
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”
Our three themes tonight are: Kotahitanga.
Whakapono. Taonga.
[i.e. we reflect on the Creed as a unifying confession, a
tool for spiritual formation, and a precious gift from the church of the past
to the church of the future.]
Kotahitanga: we may or may not ever resolve the differences
between church denominations; but we can and must live into and develop what we
have in common, what binds us together as followers of Jesus Christ, the Son of
the living God. Nicaea highlights what we do believe together. Let’s bind
ourselves afresh to the Nicene Creed (understanding unresolved differences
between east and west) and at least in this way, make every effort to maintain
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Whakapono: it is easy to recite the creed as a matter of
rote, words we say with out lips while our minds dwell on what we are going to
have for lunch or for supper. But the content of the creed is the content of
our faith. It is the most concise window we have into who the God is whom we
adore, pray to, follow and listen to. Let what we believe form us as followers
of Christ. Let’s live faithfully in the faith the creed summarises for us.
Taonga: it has been a fashion in some recent decades to
diminish the importance of the Nicene Creed. Theologians question whether we
can still believe such things about God. Liturgists planning worship may see
the Apostles’ Creed – it has fewer words - as a route to a shorter service. In
some forms of free form worship, saying the creed is a funny old thing to do in
contemporary culture, so it is quietly dropped.
Might we have a new appreciation, for the creed as a taonga,
a gift from the past to hold us to the true faith, to focus our minds on the
true meaning of the revelation of God the Trinity in Scripture?
Might we see the creed not as words we have to say but a
window into the truth of who God is?
Might we say or sing the creed as words of worship to the
true and living God?
Might the creed be a celebration of who we are in Christ?
Is "anathematizing" - condemning, cursing, excommunicating - other well meaning Christians "a stake in the ground for whakapono"? Love your neighbour as yourself - unless he or she is an Arian? Is it possible to say "I believe" without cursing- and condemning to eternal torment (hell) - those who understand the relationship between Jesus and the Father in different ways?
ReplyDeleteThis is the tragedy of Nicea and of orthodox Christianity, which is troublingly unacknowledged, in your sermon, Peter. It kept burning on...
Historians estimate that between seven and seventeen million were killed due to religious violence during the Reformation. England had a comparatively more peaceful Reformation in which one thousand (Nicene) Catholics were murdered by Protestants between the 15th and 17th centuries, and about 300 (Nicene) Protestants were burned by Queen Mary. In the seventeenth century, (non -creedal affirming) Quaker meetings began with the question: how many Friends have died in jail [for refusing to take oaths, attend church services, or pay tithes] since our last meeting?
I don't believe our oneness as Christians - or as children of God - is furthered by condemning each other. True, it strengthens the "in group" but at an appealing cost for the "out group". That sort of logic produces crucifixion, as well as anathematizing creeds.
"...it is not the different practice from one another that breaks the peace and unity but the judging of one another because of different practices..." (Isaac Penington, 1681)
Nicea gave Constantine's empire what he wanted. Could 1700 years of the Nicene Creed prompt Christians to critically reflect on how faith and love becomes conscripted and distorted by politicians and presidents now?
I can't help but be moved by Mark's questions because I personally feel extreme caution toward the creeds. Why set such store by the creeds when the Roman and English Church have so often turned a blind eye to horrific levels of abuse? How many bishops or other senior clerics who've said the creed countless times have either (i) abused others or (ii) condoned abuse by their silence, or even actively protected abusers? I do wonder if things like creeds can end up becoming like a veil of performance that helps hide corrupt character beneath the veil - along with other props like flashy vestments. While creeds, vestments, etc in themselves aren't evil, if these things can be used as a disguise and a covering for predators who harm the flock and pervert the witness of the Church - shouldn't we critique these things which sometimes veil evil inclination? When senior leaders in the church have failed so publicly, then surely we must take a hard look at why the spiritual life is so deformed, and ask whether the performance is in fact, far too often, a charade and an obfuscation of the truth.
ReplyDeleteMatt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Matt 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Wonderful, Liz.
DeleteHello
ReplyDeleteThe stake in the ground is clarity re what we believe as Christians.
Obviously I have no truck with violence against Arians (nor does Nick Page if you read his whole piece), but I wonder if somehow we had continued (i.e. tried to continue) as Arians and non-Arians together in one movement of Jesus' followers, whether we would still have a Christian movement and thus we wouldn't be having this discussion!
But why continue as "one movement"? Why not admit that Christianity is institutionally and culturally diverse, and attempts to make it "unified" have often resulted in savage intellectual and actual violence - the erasure of "the other" and Christian otherness (theological diversity, sexual diversity etc)? Why not find our oneness in how we treat and love each other, as well as in spirit as children of God united in prayer?
Delete"...the content of the creed is the content of our faith. It is the most concise window we have into who the God is whom we adore, pray to, follow and listen to..." (Peter)
ReplyDeleteFor the creed-skeptical out there, we might ask: what other 'windows into God' do we have apart from creeds. Here's a few suggestions...
People - human beings - made in the "image" and "likeness" of God.
Scripture, the Gospels, stories - God in narrative form, sticking to the words and images of Jesus as closely as possible. This is a great uniter.
Testimony - many nonconformist groups, such as Quakers, preserve their experience of God through collective testimonies - such as the peace testimony - which are very lively and experience-near.
Hi Mark
ReplyDeleteThe creed is not the only window into God - clearly Scripture; people, liturgy, psalms/hymns are also windows - but it is a very concise summation of what we see through other windows.
The Christian movement has always been diverse and has also strained to have unity (sadly, often violently, sought to impose unity - as you rightly lament); and there is always a question about what diversity the movement can, say, tolerate, or, say, be enhanced by; with the question, as well, what diversity is "too much" in the sense that we could end up (as I am arguing) with two different poles around which to identify (in this case, Arian and non-Arian) to the point where if a decisive break with Arianism had not taken place, the Christian movement would have disintegrated (not necessarily through violent schism; possibly through decline in adherence via muddled thinking about who God really is).
It is possible to counter my argument by arguing that Christianity-a-la-Arian and Christianity-a-la-non-Arian could have worked out fine!
Well it hasn't worked out fine - that's my point really. The dangerous mixture of imperial power with theological orthodoxy that came together at Nicea has been very bad for Christianity. We've been repenting ever since, and trying to disentangle these two very strange bedfellows.
ReplyDeleteHi Mark
ReplyDeleteI agree - cannot do otherwise given the facts of our history! - that the mix of imperialism and orthodoxy has not worked out, overall, fine ... and we are seeing a new outworking of that in the USA right now (and, analogously, in "Islamic" states, where the rule of dictators politically has reinforced the rule of the mullahs or champions of orthodoxy). Nevertheless, I think there is still a question to discuss about where Christianity-subscribing-to-Arianism-and-to-non-Arianism would have ended up, even without imperial reinforcement of such a twin integrity!
Gentlemen: please learn some church history! Nicea 325 did NOT end the 'Arian' controversy because both sides interpreted the outcome to suit themselves. The theological disputes continued until Constantinople 381, with numerous attempts by 'Arians' on the life of Athanasius, while the Cappadocians clarified theological issues that Nicea 335 didn't deal with. And long after 381 the arguments raged on politically: tbere was open conflict with Arians in Milan that nearly cost Ambrose his life in the 380s, while in the 5th century Arian Goths conquered both Italy and Spain. Italy was devastated in the 6th century in the Gothic Wars, while the Arian Spanish kings, beginning with Reccared I, embraced Catholicism around 570 - so the 'Arian' issue rumbled on for 250 years after Nicea, and theology was only one part of acomplicated stew that involved battling races, languages and imperial politics. Remember that Germania wasn't part of the Roman Empire but was evangelised by the Arian Ulfilas, and then the Barbarian Invasions or Völkerwanderungen of the fifth and sixth centuries devastated the western empire and creating a Gothic Arian aristocracy ruling Latin-speaking Catholics; and only gradually were these lands won back to the Catholic faith (beginning with Clovis in France in 496). Historical reality is a lot more complicated than simple slogans (including compulsory anti-Americanism, while the Chinese boats get closer). ... Meanwhile, it is salutary to consider how Christianity was reduced to a small minority in Syris and Egypt by the Arabs, while the Orthodox Greeks resisted the Turks for centuries.
ReplyDeletePax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Certainly - what a terrible catastrophe of politics and theology we are seeing right now - Israel, Iran, the US. Each of them, and then all of them fighting each other together.
ReplyDeleteOn Arianism and Orthodoxy, you seem to be saying that unless Arianism was firmly suppressed or opposed, even if we can imagine that not happening violently, Christianity would have been muddled, stymied etc. Maybe. I suppose I feel that losing sight of the carpenter's son, and welding imperial power together with Christian identity - saying you have to believe this, believing this is the essence of the Gospel, or else you're out - is a much bigger muddle, has been a bigger muddle, and continues to be so.
Hi William: I knew Arianism rumbled on {indeed into the minds of some recent theologians of the modern era :)} but not to that extent through centuries, lands, and ruling powers subsequent to 325 AD - thank you. My point being that a decisive blow against Arianism was dealt in 325 AD, albeit further decisions - it turned out - still being required of future councils.
ReplyDeleteHi Mark: there is a lot of muddle in Christianity and not only on Nicean issues!
Mark, you are right that the legalisation of Christianity in the Empire by the Edict of Milan in 313 by Constantine and Lactantius, then the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Empire by Theodosius in 381 introduced potent elements into world history that are with us to this day. To give a small example, New Zealand would not exist as a nation were it not for Constantinianism via the Church of England. And the same is true for Europe, the Americas, much of sub-Saharan Africa, and Oceania. I don't have great aptitude for counterfactual 'history' but I can imagine a Europe that was ruled by pagan Germans (not too difficult!) or Mongols from east Asia. Or imagine if the Japanese had decided to conquer the Americas - not too difficult, since Pizarro was able to destroy the vast Incan empire with 200 conquistadores, horses and gunpowder. Empires are an inescapable fact of universal history, assisted by strong leaders, an ideology, and a powerful technology. Imperium is simply basic to the way human beings exist, whether you are talking about some small Maori tribe warring against its neighbours in the Musket Wars of the 1820s or the Ottomans attacking Constantinople in 1453, or the Americans declaring a Novus Ordo Daeclorum in 1776. The only question is whether the resulting imperium will be relatively good or relatively bad.
ReplyDeleteNor should we imagine that the Church was in blissful peace until that nasty Constantine arrived on the scene, Apart from terrible episodes of state persecution in the second and third centuries, the Church had to battle with Gnostic counterfeits of the Gospel (using Christian language in a fallacious way) and a whole series of Christological heresies which, had they prevailed, would have shattered the Church and reduced its message into a cacophony of sects. But the Lord promised to preserve His Church in the truth. Do you know where that truth can be found? Or is every truth-claim as good (or bad) as the other?
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Oh, Mark's already acknowledged where truth is found:
ReplyDelete"I suppose I feel that losing sight of the carpenter's son, ..."
Hear, hear, ... thank you Mark.
You're kind of making my point, William. You're doing history, you're thinking history and the world, with imperial power and Christian identity firmly welded together.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that's not the kingdom.
And in my own personal walk, this brings me to a part of the Quaker faith I find so difficult, that I wrestle with a lot: the peace testimony.
ReplyDeleteBut it is true, is it not, that for the first centuries no Christian would take up arms as part of a militia, and that Christians were known for their radical forswearing of violence, modelling themselves around the carpenter's son.
In The Patient Ferment of the Early Church, Mennonite historian Alan Kreider argues that Christian patience, radical personal ethics (including pacifism), and robust *local* catechesis for new members is what drew people to convert, to become Christians. This is the "truth" of Christ that we rip up and burn when we anathematize each other and embrace the imperium rather than the kingdom, is it not?
"the imperium rather than the kingdom"
ReplyDeleteI feel that what you're saying Mark, certainly in the way I receive it, resonates.
When we perceive there's a threat we seem to respond by craving certainty in order to counter the perceived threat.. and it's not enough just to have certainty.. we feel the need to ensure our view is dominant! In acting this way, our institutions seem to drift further and further away from Jesus.
In one article today, and another I read recently (different writers) there's been some good thinking about weakness... I'll just quote from one:
"If we will walk among weakness—soaking up our need for grace and giving it freely to those who need it—grace will transform our branches. We will no longer be dried and brittle, stringy and bare. We will strong and flexible, healthy and lush. As we receive grace, we can give it. As we give it, we are more capable of receiving it. And on it goes—grace upon grace—until our lives bear a cluster of fruitfulness reminiscent of the grapes found by spies in the Promised Land, so heavy it had to be borne by two men."
From an excellent article, worth reading....
The Weak Are Our Strength, by Steve Bezner
https://bezner.substack.com/p/the-weak-are-our-strength
~Liz
"When we perceive there's a threat we seem to respond by craving certainty in order to counter the perceived threat.. and it's not enough just to have certainty.. we feel the need to ensure our view is dominant! In acting this way, our institutions seem to drift further and further away from Jesus."
ReplyDeleteBeautifully put, Liz!
"You're kind of making my point, William. You're doing history, you're thinking history and the world, with imperial power and Christian identity firmly welded together."
ReplyDelete- No, Mark, you've misunderstood me. I am not falling into that Marxist reductionist game (which Brueggemann slipped into with his confused rhetorical approach to the Bible); once again I am following St Augustine's 'City of God'. The City of Man and the City of God co-exist through history but the two loves are totally different. Call it, if you like, the tragic view of history - except that the Christian's destination is not tragic. A eukatastrophe, as Tolkien suggested.
I would simply like to see the State be more influenced by Christianity than by wickedness. This is difficult to see in our modern times: for example, in Britain the Labour government has just legalised abortion up to birth, which is the same as infanticide. As a would-be Classicist, I know that infanticide was common for centuries in the ancient world until Christianity stopped it. Now a new dark age is upon us. Is there no Judgment after death?
The same in New Zealand, where abortion is now completely legal. Is this what Ardern called 'the politics of kindness'? Atheist politics, whether feminist Green-Marxist, Paleo-Ethnic (e.g. TPM), or liberal (ACT), is wedded fully to the City of Man, which is why the one thing it agrees on is the killing of unborn children.
And yet the irony of it all is that the real advances we have seen in global civilisation (abolition of slavery, the rights of women and children, representative democracy, universal basic health care, freedom of conscience for pacifists) were all achieved by Christian engagement in the world. If you doubt that, imagine what a global culture led by imperial China or imperial Japan would be like.
It is the absence of Christian faith - or even hostility to it - among politicians (like the Greens, TPM, Hipkin, Seymour etc) which harms us, not the presence. (And while I have a soft spot for Anabaptists, they wouldn't have been much use in 1939.)
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Bishop Peter, thank you for your reminder of the attempt of the early church to unify the believers by creating the Nicene Creed. The bishops who created this propositional statement of belief were codifying their understanding of the life of Jesus of Nazareth in their troubled times. The world has changed enormously since then. The important question for Christians today is: ‘what is the meaning of the life of Jesus of Nazareth in our troubled times?’ Two of our five ‘marks of mission’ give us a clue: ‘social justice’ and ‘care of creation.’
ReplyDeleteJesus spoke of ‘repentance’ and Paul spoke of ‘transformation.’ We desperately need to repent and transform from a society that is based primarily on greed and consumerism, which is leading to multiple social injustices and environmental crises, to a society that really believes: ‘love your neighbour as yourself.’
One of the most pressing existential questions for us and our children is how to address climate change. That entails education/awareness, advocacy and action/activism. Parish churches can have a role in this because:
• we are part of a global majority of people who uphold religious values
• we have traditional and scriptural reasons to care for the Earth, which is our only home
• we meet regularly and care for each other
• we have a sense of the spiritual domain, and a view that life comprises more than self-aggrandisement, consumerism, wealth, power and hedonism
• we understand ‘repentance,’ viz. the need to change direction
• we value social justice and equity
• we use ‘change methodologies’ such as liturgy, music, prayer, meditation, and discussion
• we believe that we are all brothers and sisters, and we seek justice, peace, joy, transcendence and hope.
When the church puts more thought and resources into addressing these existential societal issues, it is more likely to attract thoughtful idealistic young people, and therefore more likely to survive in this rapidly changing world.
Great points, Richard
ReplyDeleteMark
Having expressed my cautions and concern about Nicea, and of the Church celebrating the Nicene Creed without fully acknowledging these, or repenting for them if you like, in the context of Christian history and our present global climate, and acknowledging the profound cautions and concerns Liz has made in the comments above, too, I do think it is then possible to say something positive about Nicea.
ReplyDeleteI do believe the Nicene Creed has a purpose and arose, shall we say, providentially.
The spiritual and human worlds are so complex, and actually much more chaotic than - it is true - modern consciousness (in both "liberal" and "conservative") forms allow. I do think we need - and are given - maps and models to order and contain the chaos, to keep us steadily on a path, and that the early creeds are amongst these.
They still have "sin" in them, though, and have been used sinfully throughout history. They are fingers pointing towards something they are not, and when we lose connection with that centre it's a bloodbath.
Oh yes, that's excellent! The complexity, the chaotic, and the need for maps and models. Fingers pointing towards something they are not. I think you have your finger on the pulse! And we mustn't lose connection with the One who is the centre (and *the* Truth). Well said Mark.
DeleteIn the hymn "We have an anchor", verse two is particularly precious..
It is safely moored, ‘twill the storm withstand,
For ‘tis well secured by the Savior’s hand;
And the cables passed from His heart to mine,
Can defy the blast, thru strength divine.
Fabulous hymn, beautiful cappella:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rkULIrHQZk