It may seem strange for Christians to be celebrating a gathering of Church leaders many centuries ago, whose purpose was to settle what many people would nowadays see as an arcane question of theology. Today, we might be more inclined to lament the narrowing down, over successive centuries, of the range of beliefs about Jesus, which would be considered acceptable. Though it isn’t often put into words, I have a feeling that some would see doctrine as divisive, feeling it would be much better if we could only agree just to have ‘faith in Jesus’, without asking too many questions!
With this in mind, what can be said in favour of the First Council of Nicaea, whose 1700th anniversary we celebrate this year?
Let’s begin by stepping back and considering the purpose of such a council. We might assume that it’s something like what we do in science, where we try to make our theories ever more precise, so as to describe reality more and more accurately. In my own original subject, Physics, we progress from the atomic level, through to the realisation that even sub-atomic particles like electrons are made up of even smaller entities – and so on, we begin to suspect, ad infinitum.
Are the Councils like Nicaea intending to ‘pin down’ our understanding of the Christian faith, to the point where there is no room for different understandings? We only have to remember that we are talking about the things of God, to realise that this would be a hopeless undertaking.
What, then, is our purpose? When we Christians reflect on our faith, and ask various questions – ones that arise, for instance, from meditating about the implications of Jesus’ words in the Gospels – this is good and to be encouraged. I rather like the image of us as exploring the mysteries of faith, realising that full understanding will always be beyond us, but confident that such understanding as is possible for us, is of inestimable value. And yet, just as geographical exploration has its dangers, so the exploration of our faith has the potential to lead us into danger. Councils like Nicaea could be seen as staking out the danger areas, beyond which we are likely to come to grief.
Over the centuries, questions were asked, which no one had thought to ask before. For instance, when we say that Jesus is the Son of God, does this mean he is (and always was) God in the same sense that the Father is God? Or was he just a man who, at a certain point (such as the Resurrection) was lifted up to become God? Reflecting on the implications of what the Church already believed about Jesus, but hadn’t up to that point articulated as an answer in those precise terms, the Council of Nicaea approved the first answer and rejected the second.
Does this matter? I would definitely say it does. The creed which derives from Nicaea includes two core beliefs, the Incarnation and the Cross. These set Christianity aside, in a fundamental way, from any other religion. God became a human being like us, so that Jesus is true God and true man. And he did it because (in a way that can never, I believe, be fully captured in any theory) his death on the cross and his resurrection freed us from our sins and made possible a transformation of our human nature to the level of the divine.
This, and other core beliefs proclaimed by Nicaea and its successors, unite Christians, whatever other issues may divide us. This is surely something to celebrate, as it clarifies what we have to offer the world, a message that Jesus is so much more than a prophet or a holy man – a message which in these times the world needs more than ever to hear.
Rt Rev Paul Hendricks is the Auxiliary Bishop, Kent Area, for the Archdiocese of Southwark. Bishop Paul represents the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales on the CTE Trustee Board.