In our Adult Sunday School Class, we have been talking about spirituality from an historical perspective. At once we are learning some of the Story of the Church, and about a wide variety of ways people have expressed and lived out their faith through the centuries, asking, what can we use?
I believe that it is a good idea to know where we come from to understand why we are the way we are and to have greater freedom to choose who we would like to become as Christians. A couple of weeks ago the topic was Controversies! Specifically, the theological debates that occurred after Christianity became the religion of the Empire. Prior to Constantine’s conversion there were huge varieties of “Christianity” and no real organization. Constantine demanded that everyone agree – you can’t have a religion of the Empire and it not be the same for everyone. Thus started the Councils where issues were debated, votes were taken and the one’s who won were called orthodox and those that lost were called heretics. (A great deal of blood was also spilled in this process.)
At the end of these controversies there emerged Creeds. The first Creed was the Nicene Creed (Hymnal #880). When I asked one of my professors at seminary how we deal with the creeds he said that as Methodists we do not have to take them literally, nor do we have to discard them. Rather we can view than as historical documents that represent a part of the story of our faith. And, we are invited to ask the same questions they asked that formed the creeds and see where it takes us.
This is another example of why Calvinists think we are wishy-washy. But I loved it – the latitude it gives for the possibility of generating spiritual growth. So, we look back at the controversies and instead of simply trusting that the winners were right we ask the same question, and wonder about how we feel and think about it. I invited the class to do just that.
The debates were over things that on the surface seem trivial to us but they weren’t to them. And, when we think about it a bit we find that how they decided did influence how we understand our faith. Here are some of the controversies:
The Arian Controversy: Following a Bishop named Arius, the Arians did not believe that Jesus was the same as God; they believed that he was the ideal of a human being filled with God’s Spirit more than anyone ever has been and as such he was an expression of the divine Logos (the Word of God). Those following another bishop named Athanasius believed that Jesus was fully divine – the same as God. If you read the Nicene Creed you know that the party of Athanasius won this debate. How does this affect us? When we so stridently claim that Jesus is the “Son of God” this is partly because of this decision. In the Gospels “Son of God” is not the most common named used for Jesus – that was “Son of Man” which means closer to “ideal human being.’ Thus in some ways the Arians had more biblical authority to claim that Jesus wasn’t the same as God. So what if we ask the same questions: Is Jesus God, or the Logos of God, the best expression of God but not the same as God? The result might be that we would believe less about Jesus and follow him more.
The Nestorian Controversy: Related to the Arian Controversy, a bishop named Nestorius believed it was incorrect to refer to Mary as the Mother of God – rather she was the Mother of Christ. Like Arius, Nestorius had a more human image of Jesus. Nestorius was deemed a heretic and ended up dying out in the desert somewhere. At the same time the Nestorian Church survived and spread to the east in what is now Iran and Iraq – they even made it to China. If it hadn’t been for Islam, Nestorian Christianity could be as large as the churches of the West. Would you be a Nestorian?
The Conflict with the Monophysites: Was Jesus one person or two? The Orthodox view was that Christ was one essence but two persons. The Monophysites believed Jesus had to be one person. They questioned whether Jesus was actually human at all. Think of the image of Jesus in the Gospel According to John – like God walking around two inches off the ground. This group went in the opposite direction of the Arians and Nestorians. Today the Monophysites are represented in the Coptic Church in Egypt and the Ethiopian Church.
The Filioque Clause: The what? The churches of the East and West finally separated in 1054 and the straw that broke the camel’s back was a little clause in the Creed. The issue was, does God emanate through the Holy Spirit alone or does God have to come first through Christ and then through the Holy Spirit? Splitting hairs, righty? But let’s think about it. If God can emanate from the Holy Spirit alone the focus of our relationship with God would shift from being centered on believing in Jesus to experiencing the Holy Spirit. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Church does emphasize direct experience of the Holy Spirit while the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches have focused on believing things about Jesus. What do you think? If I had lived back then I would have chosen with the East – the Orthodox Church rather than the Western, Latin Roman Catholic Church.
Again, at face value these debates seem trivial to us. But they were decisive in forming the Christianity we inherited. Growing up one assumes that the beliefs of the church of one’s origin is all there is. Historically our home tradition is but a small sliver of all the ways people have been Christians over the centuries. I believe my professor was correct, that asking the questions again with an Open mind and heart can generate our faith in creative ways.
I thought more people would be interested to know. P. Jim
