Book Review
Many Christians mistakenly believe that the essential doctrines of the Christian faith they profess today have existed since the beginning of the Christian Church. Richard Rubenstein’s book, When Jesus Became God, portrays the dramatic maturation of the Christian faith and the establishment of some essential Christian doctrines of orthodox Christianity. Rubenstein writes, “In little more than one decade, Christianity had been transformed from a persecuted sect into the religion of the imperial family.” (p. 46) Rubenstein vividly colors historical events and the development of Christological doctrine in dramatic shades of political and religious intrigue. He describes everything from pompous public orations by self-appointed religious leaders to back alley, mafia-style assassinations to gain control of the Empire’s throne by power hungry elitists. Rubenstein does a masterful job (perhaps with a bit of literary license) describing how events probably unfolded and how the characters were most likely to have reacted. In the end, Rubenstein touches on the essential element that determines the outcome of all historical events: “Somehow, God would have to make His own will known through history.” (p. 210)
At the heart of Rubenstein’s, “Struggle to define Christianity during the last days of Rome” (the book’s subtitle), is what Rubenstein identifies as “The Arian Controversy.” Arianism derives its name from its doctrinal founder, Arius, who perpetuated the doctrine that Christ was God’s first created being, a divine being greater than humans yet less than God. In opposition stood those who subscribed to the doctrinal creed establish at the council of Nicea in A. D. 325. This creed, referred to as the Nicene Creed, in its earliest form recognizes Jesus as God and of the same “essence” as the Father.
This difference in doctrine split the Empire between the Arian Bishops in the East and the Nicene Bishops in the West. Rubenstein describes the posturing, pandering, lobbying and “mobster”-like actions involved in filling vacated bishop territories in order to gain control by either the East over the West or vice-versa. The depiction of the religious conglomeration of the Roman Empire with its countless Bishops, Presbyters, Clergy, administrators, security and militia detachments makes one wonder who wasn’t part of the formal religious organization! Perhaps the old adage that there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians had something to do with their problems. It was alarming to read the extent to which Christians would go to promote their position. Contemporary historian Ammianus captured my feelings well when he said; “No wild beasts are such enemies to mankind as are most Christians in their deadly hatred of one another.” (p. 194) While they certainly must have, Rubenstein never records an incident were any one of the great religious leaders of either the East or West consulted the Scriptures to determine how they should resolve their dispute. On countless occasions Scripture records events when people disagreed with what Jesus taught. Paul writes, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” (2 Timothy 4:3) However, there is never a time when the New Testament advises or approves of violent or unscrupulous behavior in order to uphold the Christian faith or advance God’s kingdom.
Although the concept of Christian “unity” does appear five times in the New Testament,[1] it is the Empire’s political leaders that seem to recognize its value-even if the motivation for unity lies in maintaining the strength of the Empire. The importance of unity must have been obvious to everyone but the religious leaders when Rubenstein writes, “It seemed absurd that the unity of Christendom should be fractured by squabbling theologians”. (p. 49) I would add further that it is embarrassing for Christianity. Even in the hands of the most capable Christian emperor Constantine, the solution to the conflict between Arians and Nicenes seemed doomed to be political in nature. It was almost laughable to read about the debate over the use of one Greek word (“homoousios” – “homo”; same “ousios”; essence) as part of a church-wide acceptable creed. Not unlike America’s own historical events when President Clinton brought into question the definition of the word “is”. Or, when the first Bush administration drafted a letter to the Chinese government expressing their regret over a military “accident” that killed a Chinese pilot. The administration very cleverly used words that had multiple meanings. This gave everyone the excuse they needed to resolve what had been a standoff to that point. The Chinese could claim victory by interpreting the words of the statement one way and the Americans could deny the Chinese position by interpreting the statement’s words in a different way. Political brilliance? Perhaps. However, the solution did not remove the obvious disdain the parties had for each other and continue to have for each other. Likewise, the ambiguity produced by the original language of the Nicene Creed may have served to establish religious unity on paper but it did nothing to stop the bloodshed between Arian and Nicene advocates.
Many Christians are intent to test the lessons of history by insisting that politicians and legislators take a more active role in upholding and advancing the Christian faith in order to combat the “forces of evil”. However, I’m convinced the results would be equally as bloody today as they were in the fourth century. Unfortunately, Constantine and his successors learned a very costly lesson: Political force only serves to entrench previously established religious positions.
Rubenstein is quite correct when he writes, “Arianism as a discrete religious philosophy disappeared in the East as well as in the West. But the great questions that had generated the controversy over Jesus’ divinity remained—and remains yet—to haunt the imagination and provoke the conscience of humankind.” (p. 231) The theology that so troubled the Arian following, “The idea of the Eternal becoming a man…” (p. 63), is a stumbling block for many today as well. The identity of Jesus is in fact the line in the sand between Christianity and all other major world religions. I suspect Jesus knew that when he asked his disciples; “Who do you say I am?” (Mark 8:29) Like the resolution between the Arians and Nicenes, today’s controversies as well must, in the end, be entrusted that; “Somehow, God would have to make His own will known through history.” (p. 210)
I’ve include a modernized version of the Nicene Creed. Growing up in the Catholic church, we used to recite the Apostle’s Creed which is virtually identical. However, if you look up the Apostle’s Creed, it is written in the 1st person and catholic is sometimes spelled “Catholic.” There is a very important distinction to note: “catholic” denotes the universal Church while “Catholic” denotes the Roman Catholic church. Also, “Church” denotes everyone which is part of the universal body of believers while “church” denotes a localized body of believers. In any event, I have included a copy of the Nicene Creed because I think it is a beautiful recitation of the essentials of what Christians believe. Of course, many evangelicals distance themselves from all creeds. After the various early church councils established this and other creeds, some church leaders mistakenly elevated creeds to the level of Scripture. As a result, some evangelicals distance themselves entirely from any and all creeds in order to reinforce their position that creeds are established by humans and Scripture is God-breathed. Fair enough but I submit that the Nicene Creed is nothing more than a formalized “Statement of Faith.” If you grew up in or are part of a Christian tradition that steers clear of any type of creed, I want to challenge you to read through the Nicene Creed and then read through your own church’s Statement of Faith and see if there is any contradiction in the statements. I have come to realize that so many Christians I meet, both young and old, are unable to verbalize exactly what they believe. Perhaps this creed will give some of you a few basic tools to share your faith until you get to the point where you are more confident to use your own words. If you disagree with anything contained in the creed, please let me know and we’ll talk about it.
[1] Kohlenberger III, J. R., Goodrick, E. W. & Swanson, J. A., The Greek-English Concordance To The New Testament, (Zondervan Publishing House 1997), p. 1,002.
No comments:
Post a Comment