Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
History and Religion
Political Power or Theological Accuracy? On Nicaea

Political Power or Theological Accuracy? On Nicaea

Last updated on: February 18, 2025 at 2:00 am by Adam Renberg

0 Comments

Political Power or Theological Accuracy? On Nicaea 2025-02-18T01:56:11-04:00 Adam Renberg

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In May or June 325, several hundred bishops from across the Christian world met in Nicaea, as Constantine frames it, to “face the cause of the division among you” (Constantine, Speech to the Nicene Synod, FNS 31). The divisions were theological ones, sparked from a debate between the presbyter Arius and his bishop Alexander of Alexandria, but had overflowed into the broader world. This council and the resulting creed have received exceptional attention in theological and doxological reflection, especially as it is recited by millions of Christians every week on Sunday. These reflections have sometimes obscured something important though—as a historical event, the council is shrouded in mystery. There is little documentation from the council of Nicaea itself, apart from the creed and canons.

This year marks the 1700-year anniversary of Nicaea, which has prompted patristic scholars and theologians around the world (including myself) to dwell on the council historically, theologically, and pastorally. In tandem with this research, I have decided to focus on several related issues about the council here on the Anxious Bench in my next few posts.

One central issue for understanding the council is the role of emperor Constantine. An ecumenical council was tangled up in imperial politics—how does this make us reconsider Nicene theology? Is the orthodoxy we associate with Nicaea the product of political power or theological accuracy?

(Un)Tangling Political and Theological Aims in the Debates before Nicaea

What led to the theological disagreement between Arius and Alexander that sparked this entire debate? It seems to be primarily concerned with the nature of the Godhead, especially on how the Son relates to the Father. As best we can tell, sometime between 318 and 322 Arius preaches a theology which emphasizes the supremacy of the Father and the Son’s dependence on him for existence (hence the famous line, ‘there was a time when the Son was not’). Alexander, conversely, emphasizes the eternality of the Son, which put him in sharp contrast with Arius. But, investigating both of their theological systems is an exceedingly difficult task, as the evidence is so fragmentary (For an impressive attempt, see: Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition). In any case, this debate spreads throughout the whole empire, but not in the way we might assume. It is not as if Arius published a coherent set of trinitarian doctrine and acquired an extensive group of followers across the empire. Rather, competing and corresponding visions of monotheism, the eternal generation of the Son, even worship, prompted theological alliances to form between figures who often had unique theological systems. To defend Arius was not to be an Arian nor was supporting Alexander to be ‘Nicene’, even if Athanasius frames it this way (see a post about this, here). But there was a common desire to establish the proper theological view and expel heresy, as seen in several local ecclesiastical councils over the issue before Nicaea.

So how does political power enter theological debate? Well, it takes place over a decade before the council of Nicaea. Constantine became Caesar Augustus of the Western portion of the empire in 306 and a Christian (though a bit of a loaded term when it comes to Constantine) in 312. While it was not until 324 that he would become emperor over the entire Roman Empire, he had already entered the Donatist Controversy in Northern Africa a decade earlier, in a desire to “cut short such dissensions among them” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 10.5.21) by calling a council. In 314, bishops from across Constantine’s portion of the empire met at the Council of Arles to discuss the so-called ‘Donatists’, ultimately condemning them. There, he learned of the power of an empire wide council, especially for asserting his influence in the proceedings and outcome. So, too, after he became monarch in 324, he entered theological disputes by sending a trusted bishop, Ossius of Cordoba, to investigate the controversy in Alexandria and a condemnatory letter to both Arius and Alexander (Constantine, Letter to Alexander and Arius 24). Thereafter, he agreed with Ossius’ assessment that a large council was necessary which he set to take place in Nicaea (See: “Who Convened the First Council of Nicaea”, JTS 71;1 (2020); FNS 30). Constantine was not willing to a passive observer to theological controversy but used his authority in conjunction with ecclesiastical authorities to guide debate.

In all of this, we see a common desire from the bishops and Constantine for unity in the church. They likely had different conceptions about church peace though, the former being more concerned with doctrinal uniformity through the excision of heresy, the latter through the healing of the church through broad consensus of belief, perhaps for political reasons (See: Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.65.1). While these desires overlapped, they are not the same.

Developing a(n Imperial) Theology at Nicaea

At the council itself, the bishops engaged one another in theological debate. They read documents from those present to prove orthodoxy or condemn heresy (Eustathius, On Prov 8:22, FNS 39), made suggestions for phrases in the creed (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Africa, 5), and clarified ambiguous terms (Eusebius, Letter to his Church, FNS 37). Nicene theology was developed by the majority with an eye to Christianity from the east and the west, using Scriptural language (for discussion, see a previous post of mine). But, as we sometimes forget, Constantine was present.

This presence was not a silent nor an inconspicuous one. Not only was he the patron of the whole event, providing transportation (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.6), meals (3.9), and the location for the sessions in the palace (3.10), but he also processed into the council “like some heavenly angel of God…shining with the fiery radiance of a purple robe, and decorated with the dazzling brilliance of gold and precious stones” (3.10). The power of this act would have not been lost on the bishops who all stood when he walked in—Constantine entered in the performative style of a late Roman court to “insure that his own priorities of unity and harmony were not ignored” (Drake, “Constantine at the Council,” 125). Throughout the sessions, he spoke frequently and guided the debate with his approving and mild comments, perhaps even supplying the famous term ‘homoousios’ (if Eusebius is to be believed). This should not lead us to the assumption that Constantine necessarily favored only one position in this debate—according to Athanasius, he was committed to both sides (Theodoret, Church History 1.7). It must be noted that Constantine’s chief end of unity seems to be accomplished in the creed—only a few were condemned, and most were able to sign the creed without coercion. Constantine’s political priorities were widespread Christian unity and the inclusion of as many as possible in a broad theological tent, and they are reflected in the outcomes of the council.

An icon which centers Emperor Constantine, alongside several bishops, holding the Nicene Creed

Orthodoxy—Theology or Power?

How do we tell the story of Nicaea? For some, the council is one of theological victory over the recent aberration that is Arianism—Nicene theology is orthodox theology because its understanding of God is in continuity with earlier theology and accurately defines God’s nature and activity. For others, Nicene theology is a political victory because it is married to imperial powers—this event is not foremost about understanding God rightly, but about enforcing a particular vision of Christianity that suited the powerful, thus marginalizing other legitimate forms of the Christian faith. Orthodoxy is either about proper theology or powerful politics.

I have issues with the way we tell these stories in two ways. First, there is often an assumption that they must conflict with one another. To hold to a theological narrative for the council is to deny the political narrative and vice versa. But the documentation clearly affirms both and the bishops present have no qualms with Constantine’s participation. In the ancient world, it was normal for an emperor to speak into religious matters—it is simply that none had done so for the Christian faith yet. As H.A. Drake comments, Constantine’s participation “was neither an unwarranted intrusion nor a hostile takeover by a secular ruler; it was innovative, but only in the sense that… he was the first to extend his traditional role to the unique requirements of the new faith” (Drake, “Constantine at the Council,” 130). Second, it is not clear that either of these stories of victory—a theological one or political one—is actually a victory. The theological story forgets what Sara Parvis makes clear: the so-called Arians win. Supporters of Alexander regarded Nicaea “not as a triumph but a failure” (Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra 5), as the creed condemned only Arius (and two others after the council) and Arius was reinstated two or three years later by Constantine himself. Nicene theology was not the victor for quite some time and in some places in Europe it was not secured until the Third council of Toledo in 589, 250 years later. The political story forgets that Constantine’s vision of Christianity did not win, even as he enforced his religious policies. Constantine seems most concerned with ecclesiastical unity over doctrinal uniformity at Nicaea, but that fails—the subsequent decades display disunity and debates amongst Christians throughout the Roman Empire over these exact issues.

As modern western Christians, we are suspicious of any political power speaking into theological issues. And this is a good impulse! We should be skeptical of any statement that demands doctrinal uniformity published from the White House, particularly given the very different political frameworks of modern nation states and the ancient world. If a modern political figure seeks to impose a narrow theological vision on a majority, to promote a particular nation or national priorities instead of the global church, or to exclude Christian voices that disagree, they’re not following approaches that reflect the reality of Constantine’s engagement in the church. Constantine tries to cast a wide net, rather than a narrow one. Further, just because Constantine entered into theological debates does not mean this is a model for church state relations moving forward. But to investigate the proceedings at Nicaea as historical events is to acknowledge the collision of theological and political powers, both of whom had corresponding (but not identical) aims. They need not be held in opposition, but they do need to be held in tension as we investigate this important event and its creed. In other words, my question at the outset is a bit unfair by driving a wedge between politics and theology at Nicaea: Nicene orthodoxy is the product of political power and theological accuracy, at least if we take all the historical evidence into consideration.

History and Religion

Previous Post

February 14, 2025

Los Niños de Morelia: From Spain to Mexico…With Love?

Next Post

February 19, 2025 Corset-burning, Revivalism, and 19th-Century Feminism

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"I love horror but would have to acclimate back to Lovecraft and especially Machen. Have ..."

Terry

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

"Very good point about MacDonald.I am certainly a Machen fan!"

philipjenkins

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

"The Scottish author George MacDonald integrated fairy world into his fiction in a way that ..."

Terry

Fairies, Witches, Folk Horror, and the ..."

"I like the idea that we can have different streams. The coffee analogy is genius."

Lisa Clark Diller

How Do You Take Your Evangelicalism?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe guest post Guest Post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Ebenezer" mean, as in the stone Samuel set up?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Stone of David Stone of help Stone of God Stone of Law