How Did the Council of Nicea Shape Our View of Church and State?

I was recently fascinated in reading some statements Mark Noll made regarding the political issues surrounding and resulting from the Council of Nicea in 325. In his book "Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity", Noll wrote:

In these terms, Nicea was a turning point that set Christianity on a course that it has only begun to relinquish, and that only reluctantly, over the past two or three centuries. That course was the addition of concerns for worldly power to its birthright concern for the worship of God. The complexity of the Nicene situation makes it very difficult to pronounce sharp judgments on this great turning point. At the initiation of the emperor, the church reaffirmed the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, which has proved to be an immensely significant foundation for virtually all Christian life, work, and worship in the centuries that followed. Yet because of the emperor's actions, the sphere of worldly concerns for which he stood gradually assumed greater and greater importance in the church. The distinction between church and world that Nicene Christology preserved was, in fact, compromised by the very events that led up to the declaration of Nicea. (63)

One thing I find fascinating about this relationship between church and state that led to and was solidified by the Council of Nicea is the fact that this same question (namely, what should the interaction between the church and the state look like) has been raised time and time again throughout church history, and is still widely debated today. At Nicea, the bishops and leaders of the Christian church presumably saw the interest and concern being directed toward them from the recently-converted emperor as a positive development, and indeed many positive things did result from this newly established relationship. At the same time, the new authority which the emperor was exercising within the fledgling church was a new acquisition for the leader of the Roman Empire, presumably one which he would not lay down easily.

While many other things could be said regarding the new relationship which developed between the church and the state through the events of the Council of Nicea, perhaps the thing which intrigues me the most is the way in which this same issue is raised in contemporary evangelicalism in the twenty-first century. As citizens of the United States, we have come to expect certain things from our government, including the freedom of religion (guaranteed by the First Amendment) and the "separation of church and state" (proposed by Thomas Jefferson). With this being the case, it seems unlikely that evangelicals need to trouble themselves with worry at the thought that a modern-day "Constantine" might be converted and try to get his hands on church affairs. The more significant issue, in my judgment, is exactly the opposite of the problem faced by the church in 325 at Nicea. While it does not appear that the government will try to unduly assert authority over church affairs (despite what some fringe-groups claim), it does seem to me that evangelical Christians are trying to unduly exert their own "authority" in the affairs of government.

When I mention that I believe evangelical Christians are trying to exercise authority wrongfully in the political arena, many (if not most) American evangelicals will object, stating that while the government has no business influencing the church, the church has every right to influence the government. While I am not denying the fact that the church can and ought to influence the government, I would recommend that we take a new and fresh look at Jesus' radical teaching in Matthew 20:25-28.

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

In my understanding, at the very least Jesus was teaching His disciples that their influence in this world would not come through political authority, but rather through Christ-like service. This is not to deny that many who claim to be disciples would try to make a grab for political authority; instead, it shows us that it is radically out-of-step for one who claims to be a follower of Jesus to influence the course of this world by exercising authority in the same way that the world does.

In view of the Council of Nicea, the relationship between the church and the state certainly has changed a great deal. At Nicea, the emperor found a way (perhaps not entirely out of wrong motivations) to influence the church to his own advantage. In our own day and age, the church is seeking for ways to influence the state to her own advantage through political authority, favorable legislation, like-minded judges, and a handful of other methods. I, for one, do not claim to understand what the proper relationship between the church and state would specifically be, but given the fact that the church has taken radically different positions within a span of 1700 years, I suspect that we have not yet found the correct position. Regardless, the example of Nicea is instructive in showing us that the current relationship between church and state has not always been as it is, and it should remind us that there is more to relating to the political institutions of this world than simply embracing what comes most easily or most naturally given our circumstances.

So Teach Us To Number Our Days

I was having a conversation with a friend today about a preacher on the radio that he has been listening to recently. Evidently, this preacher has been speaking about his belief that Jesus' return could happen at any moment (associated with what is known as dispensational theology and more particularly the pre-tribulational rapture), and he mentioned that the imminency of Jesus' return is really one of the primary and greatest motivations toward living a life of holiness and maintaining an eagerness for evangelism.

I'm not interested in discussing the various views of the rapture here, but I did find it interesting that this particular pastor mentioned the imminency of the return of Christ and how it influences our holiness in life and zeal in evangelism. Even if you don't believe in a pre-tribulational rapture (I don't think this is taught in the Bible), the point is still somewhat valid. Today-this very hour-could be the end. You could be in the very last moments of your life right now. This isn't because I am confident that Christ will return today-it is because for you, and for me, death is always an imminent possibility. As far as you know, today could be the last day, and you don't need a dispensational system of theology to acknowledge the urgency in that.

So what difference should this truth make in our lives? Even if I were going to die tomorrow, tonight, or even this very hour, why should I be overly concerned? I think this is a hugely important issue (as most Christians would agree) because most of us don't live as though this were true. I have to confess that I don't get up every day and live with the sense of urgency, intentionality, and prayerfulness that I would have if I knew for certain that it was my last. Once in a while I catch a glimpse of how I might act if I had that information, but these glimpses are few and far in between.

What can we do, then, to really live with a sense of urgency, intentionality, and a passion for holiness? I would like to suggest that we need to get into the habit of meditating regularly on our own mortality. We need to remember each and every day that (provided we do not live until the return of Christ) we will most certainly die. Hebrews 9:27: "It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment..." Every single one of you that is reading this blog is going to die. I am going to die. It's that simple. Get into the habit of reminding yourself of this fact every morning, every afternoon, and every evening. Then live as if that ever present reality is true, and that it could be true of you this very day.

Please don't misunderstand me at this point-I don't mean to be overly morbid; and I'm not fascinated with death. But this one thought has seized me, and it will not let me go: no one in their right mind will wish on their death bed that they had spent less time pursuing Godliness and more time pursuing the pleasures of the world, the flesh, and the devil. Neither you nor I will reach that moment before we stand before God wishing that we had just indulged the flesh one more time or been less faithful to our spouses, our business, our families, etc. If that is true (and I think it is), I want to commit myself to living each and every day so that I will be able to reach that point unashamed! The world around us may be in a deep sense of sleep, ignoring the call to repentance and living in self-indulgence, but we cannot pretend any longer that this world is our home and ignore the ever-present reality of eternity. Many around us may be living in complacency, but please remember that you will not be judged for how others spent their time, you will be judged for how you spent yours.

Psalm 90:10-12: "As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty years, yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; for soon it is gone and we fly away. Who understands the power of Your anger and Your fury, according to the fear that is due You? So teach us to number our days, that we may present to You a heart of wisdom."

2 Peter 1:10-11: "Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble; for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."

Hymns to Sing While Driving Along, or Exceeding the Speed Limit

Driving at 45 mph-'God Will Take Care of Me'

At 55 mph-'Guide Me, Oh Thou Great Jehovah'

At 65 mph-'Nearer, My God, to Thee'

At 75 mph-'Nearer, Still Nearer'

At 85 mph-'This World is Not My Home'

At 95 mph-'Lord, I'm Coming Home'

Exceeding 100 mph-'Precious Memories'

(From a talk on guilt by Poppy Smith, a Portland-area writer and speaker)

Clement of Alexandria and Origen on the Emergent Church

In Bruce Shelley's book "Church History in Plain Language", he makes some interesting comments regarding Clement of Alexandria and Origen, two important figures from early church history. He notes:

Even though they (Clement and Origen) entered into the spiritual world of their listeners, they were aware of the meaning of salvation. Just as Christ in his incarnation adopted human existence, so his people in the course of history adopt the humanity of all peoples and civilizations. Like Paul, who was “all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22), Clement repeatedly declared: “For the Hellenes one must become a Hellene in order to win them all. One must offer to those who demand it the kind of wisdom with which they are familiar so that as easily as possible they can make their way through their own world of ideas to the belief in the truth.” (87)

As I reflected on these statements regarding these men who functioned both as theologians and philosophers, I realized that the very thing that both Clement and Origen were attempting to do-that is, contextualize the gospel of Jesus Christ-is an issue that is similarly being raised in the twenty-first century. To be specific, many theologians who are addressing the so called “emergent/emerging church” movement are wrestling with the issue of what exactly it means to bring the eternal truth of the gospel into the language and thought-forms of modern (or post-modern) thought. Some Christians feel that it is appropriate to contextualize the gospel as much as possible so that it will be intelligible (and perhaps even desirable) to those living in the philosophical world of the twenty-first century. Others suggest that the gospel ought to stand aloof from the modern culture, serving as a prophetic voice against the excesses and worldliness of the culture and calling it back to a more biblical way of thinking. Between these two extremes, there are voices of moderation, positing that the gospel can and should take the thought-forms of our modern intellectual climate without conforming in an unbiblical fashion to the trends and currents so popular today.

If, as I have suggested, the examples of Clement and Origen in their own day are roughly analogous to Christians attempting to contextualize the gospel in the twenty-first century, what would their life and example teach us who desire to learn from the testimony of history? It seems to me that the testimony of Clement and Origen show us that there is a proper degree of contextualization necessary in the proclamation and explanation of the gospel. Most Christians today would agree that the gospel should be contextualized at least to the point of proclaiming it in the vernacular languages of the people rather than the original Greek which it was handed down to us in, and I would further suggest that it be contextualized to adopt the thought-forms and styles of argumentation common in the twenty-first century. At the same time, Clement and Origen also show Christians today that the gospel ought not to become overly contextualized so that it loses any distinctiveness from the philosophy and intellectual trends of the period in question. Had Clement and Origen simply taught Greek philosophy in their school in Alexandria, there would have been nothing distinctively Christian about them; in the same way, many in the “emergent/emerging” church movement today are conforming their message so much to popular philosophical trends that very little difference can be seen between their thought and the thoughts of unregenerate pagans. Thus, the examples of Clement and Origen remind us that the gospel must be presented in such a way that it is intelligible and understandable to all people, yet without “watering” it down to such an extent that it loses its’ salvific properties and abandons the biblical summons to repentance and faith in the Savior.