The Idea and Role of Nicaea I

Reception history seems to be the rage lately amongst a lot of scholarly treatments of Christianity. Much of it is fascinating. Early next year we will see published another study looking at the reception of arguably the most consequential council in Christian history: The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, AD 431-451 by Mark S. Smith (Oxford UP, 2019), 256pp.

About this book the publisher tells us the following:

The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils examines the role that appeals to Nicaea (both the council and its creed) played in the major councils of the mid-fifth century. It argues that the conflict between rival construals of Nicaea, and the struggle convincingly to arbitrate between them, represented a key dynamic driving—and unsettling—the conciliar activity of these decades. Mark S. Smith identifies a set of inherited assumptions concerning the role that Nicaea was expected to play in orthodox discourse—namely, that it possessed unique authority as a conciliar event, and sole sufficiency as a credal statement. The fundamental dilemma was thus how such shibboleths could be persuasively reaffirmed in the context of a dispute over Christological doctrine that the resources of the Nicene Creed were inadequate to address, and how the convening of new oecumenical councils could avoid fatally undermining Nicaea's special status.

Smith examines the articulation of these contested ideas of 'Nicaea' at the councils of Ephesus I (431), Constantinople (448), Ephesus II (449), and Chalcedon (451). Particular attention is paid to the role of conciliar acta in providing carefully-shaped written contexts within which the Nicene Creed could be read and interpreted. This study proposes that the capacity of the idea of 'Nicaea' for flexible re-expression was a source of opportunity as well as a cause of strife, allowing continuity with the past to be asserted precisely through adaptation and modification, and opening up significant new paths for the articulation of credal and conciliar authority. The work thus combines a detailed historical analysis of the reception of Nicaea in the proceedings of the fifth-century councils, with an examination of the complex delineation of theological 'orthodoxy' in this period. It also reflects more widely on questions of doctrinal development and ecclesial reception in the early church.

Tim Kelleher on the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

I have previously drawn attention to a recently released documentary on DVD about the Nicene Creed: The Creed: What Christians Profess, and Why It Ought to Matter.

As I noted in my review, this is an excellent resource ideally suited for, say, parish study groups or introductory survey courses on Christian doctrine, doctrinal history, or the ecumenical councils. Such study of the creed--and of the ecumenical councils--is all the more necessary today in an age of general ignorance about both Christian history and fundamental Christian doctrine. 

I asked the producer, Tim Kelleher, for an interview about this production and his other works. Here are his thoughts:


AD: Tell us about your background:

TK: Before I do, I’d like to thank you. As I’m a big fan of Logos, it means a lot to have this chance to talk with you about our film.

So, here we go. I was born in the Bronx, NY and went on to live in all five boroughs of NYC – which I believe ties the record! Thanks, in large part, to the heroism of certain Sisters of Charity of Halifax, I graduated from Villanova, where Bernard Prusak and Jack Caputo were teaching at the time. Since then, I’ve been fortunate to work consistently as a stage, film and TV actor, writer and director while continuing to study. In 1995 I “turned to the East,” was eventually received into the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and am about to complete a graduate degree in theology at The Catholic University America.

AD: What led you to work on The Creed?

When you think about it you realize that maybe more than anything else, what Christians have most tangibly in common is the Creed. And what does the Creed say?  Well, in a way, it can be distilled to those words of St. Athanasius: God became human, so that humans might become God. This is an astonishing vision of the dignity with which humanity – and by implication, all creation, indeed, reality itself – is endowed. All bluster aside, the worst that can really be said about it is that it’s too good to be true. And to that we ought to respond with the Psalmist: Taste and see.

At the beginning of the film there are two quotes, one of which is from 1 Peter: Always be prepared to give an account of the reasons for your hope. Well, this is exactly what we’re being asked to do today, by a culture in which a motivated minority is determined, not just to marginalize religious faith – and Christianity in particular – but to shove it off the cliff. What is unacceptable to me is that the far greater number of people--agnostic and religious--are bullied into virtual silence because of a lack of background in history, philosophy and theology that would enable them to see the gross deficiencies of the “threat” and respond to it with confidence and charity. But, honestly, it is tough--painful and awkward in this culture--to be a believer, or anyone in between, without such resources. You don’t have to be Karl Rahner or Pavel Florensky, but it’s not enough to parrot pious formula either, no matter how orthodox. People on both sides of the question require and deserve something real, personal, and alive.

The Creed has a unique capacity to foster that – most importantly, by helping to deepen an individual’s relationship to God in and through Christ. It is the impossible beauty of this experience that can, in time, be expressed in the form of the “reasons” spoken of in that Letter of Peter. 

AD: You draw on a remarkably "balanced" sample of theologians from Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox backgrounds. Was that by design?

TK: Thank you for saying so. It was important to us to aim for that kind of balance. Even though the scope of the project got trimmed quicker than a mullet on the first day of boot camp, I am deeply grateful for the people who agreed to participate. The late Charles Colson watched it and was very positive. He did ask, ”Where are the evangelicals?” Well, I can tell you, it wasn’t for lack of trying – or for lack of response. It came down to a matter of logistics and tight schedules. But I’ve heard from a number of evangelicals who’ve been very complimentary. And we did get a nice review from Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity.

AD: When it comes to the creed, Eastern and Western versions are identical except for one little word that has created huge problems: the "filioque." You do not really address that in your film. Why not?

The Fathers of Nicaea with the Symbol

TK: It’s true. I deliberately chose not to address the “filioque.” Given the time constraint (approx. 30 minutes), I felt I couldn’t justify “stepping out” of a narrative meant to focus on the Creed’s unifying charism. Certainly, the filoque is an important and fascinating topic, well worth exploring. Thankfully, it is also an issue that needs no longer pose an obstacle to the existentially urgent request issued so poignantly in Ut Unum Sint.


AD: Do we take the Creed for granted today? I'm thinking here of the common practice in Orthodox, Catholic, and some Protestant traditions to recite the Creed every Sunday. Do you think that weekly recitation helps with understanding and appreciation of the creed or does it instead tend to encourage a rote-memorization approach that glazes the riches of what the Creed actually says?

TK: I know that for a long time I took it for granted. Certainly, working on this project opened up aspects of the Creed I really hadn't appreciated before.  In the film, one of our participants puts it very well, calling it "an under-examined, under-utilized, and under-appreciated instrument," and voices the hope that parishes and all manner of Christian communities will come together to study the Creed. As he says, "It has produced saints of incredible power." I can’t argue with that.


AD: Is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed too long and complicated? Should we just use shorter, simpler creeds like the so-called Apostles' Creed some in the West use? Or should Christians follow Islamic practice in their "shahaddah" that sums up the faith in one sentence ("there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his last prophet"). Why not have a Christian equivalent "I believe in the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Wouldn't that be enough? 

TK: I suppose we could say something along the lines you’ve suggested – or St. Athanasius’s rendering of theosis – if that was all we had. But it’s not. The Trinity, made manifest through the experience of Jesus, is what differentiates Christianity from the other monotheistic traditions. Wolfhart Pannenberg once said that the Incarnation makes monotheism concrete. The Nicene Creed is the fullest creedal expression of that. Therefore, it would be pointless not to utilize it and mine its depths as we do.


AD: How would you explain the role, authority, and rationale of the Creed to a non-Christian? Why have such a statement of beliefs? 


TK: You’ve just touched on one of the reasons the Creed is so surprisingly compelling – and why it has such potential as an instrument for evangelization. It presents the opportunity to begin by identifying the historical context that made the Creed a necessity in the first place – namely, the Arian claim that denied the divinity of Christ. This is a great jumping-off point because this controversy has never completely gone away. In varying degrees, it continues to operate in, as well as outside, the Church.


AD: Today we've seen the "argument" from some Christians (e.g., Anglicans) that things not explicitly covered in the Creed can be changed. Thus Anglicans have said that same-sex marriages are not in the creed so Christians should have no problem approving them. Do we need an updated version of the Creed addressing in more detail such moral questions? 

TK: Now that’s a question Mike Wallace could be proud of!  I would say that the Tradition can accommodate – in fact, facilitate – the development of doctrine. However, within the Christian communion, we do see what looks like the eagerness for a different kind of accommodation, one keen to take its cue from secular models. This desire to accommodate, or synthesize, often seems lacking in an awareness of, or interest in, the fact that many of the models referenced are themselves deeply indebted to the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is a confused situation that is bound to multiply confusion.

As Luke Timothy Johnson points out in the film, the Creed is descriptive not prescriptive. It is not, for example, the US Constitution, open to prescriptive amendment. It seems to me that when broaching matters of doctrine and discipline, the various churches ought take every conceivable pain to distinguish clearly between development and innovation – or worse – novelty. Here, the paradigm of self-emptying, sacrificial love to which the Creed points is the only standard for evaluating what can authentically be called, Christian. To cross that border is to enter the minefield of self-reference.

AD: When I lecture on the ecumenical councils, especially Nicaea I and Constantinople I that gave us the eponymous creed, I often encounter bewilderment from people that the process of producing the creed was contentious and that people fought one another over it. But the fact they fought each other, I say, is just a sign of how seriously people of the fourth century took doctrinal debates. Are we too complacent about doctrine today--more worried about updating our wall on Facebook than understanding Christian dogma? 

TK: In those days, theological debate could be a full-contact affair. And it's not a pretty picture. For Christians, "religious violence" should be a contradiction in terms. Yet, while the means used were at times regrettable, the need for clarity was real. Today "doctrine" is a dirty word in many precincts. That's silly of course--and unfortunate. The more important things are, the greater the need to be specific when speaking of them. This specificity doesn't thereby limit discussion. Rather, it limits the confusion that clouds discussion. John Behr does a terrific job explaining this in the film when he elaborates on the Creed as the "canon" of truth. (Not an easy thing to get across in a tweet).

AD: In my review of The Creed, I lamented only one thing and that was the fact that it was only a half-hour. Did you hope to go into more detail and at greater length? Is a sequel in the works?  

TK: I would love to expand the film--really open up and explore each aspect of the Creed. There's just so much to consider--and virtually every dimension of theology is brought into play. I think it could work well as an ongoing series. As of now, though, I haven't been asked to clean the camera or test the mics. Until then, one thing I think could be done is to develop a study guide for the film.

AD: What other projects are you working on? 

TK: I have two TV pilot scripts that have just gone to market and I’m working on a new feature film script. There are a couple of documentary ideas--also with theological themes--that I'm developing too. Most importantly, I'm hoping to resume formation.

AD: Sum up for us what you were hoping to accomplish with The Creed. 

TK: In talking about the Creed, I describe it as “a treasure hidden in plain sight.” My hope is that more and more people will discover it – and avail themselves of that treasure.

The Creed

It was the Methodist theologian Will Willimon who, about fifteen ago now in a short article in The Christian Century (if my memory serves) wrote of once taking a class at Yale in which a Greek Orthodox bishop was asked to address the students on the role of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. At one point, a young student stood up and asked "What do you do when you can't say the creed?" The bishop responded to the effect: "You just say it; eventually you'll learn it." The young student, frustrated, responded: "But what do you do when you don't really believe certain parts, like the Virgin birth?" The bishop again responded "Well, you just say them, especially the difficult parts. Eventually it will come to you." Now really exasperated, the student demanded: "How can I profess a creed I don't really believe in?" The Orthodox theologian then asks how old this man is, and he's something like 21, to which the bishop responds with the lovely rebuke to this man's self-importance and narcissism by saying that nobody knows or understands anything at 21 and to remember that "it's not your creed: it's our creed. Just keep saying it and eventually it will come to you."

The creed is indeed a part of our common patrimony as Christians--Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic. A new DVD has recently been released and, taking a break from our usual bibliographic focus around here, I thought I would offer a review of The Creed: What Christians Profess, and Why It Ought to Matter. Directed by Tim Kelleher, and produced under the aegis of the journal First Things, this is a smartly produced short film that marries commentary from leading Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox scholars and writers with lush imagery and beautiful music, much of it courtesy of St. Vladimir's Seminary Choir.

About this DVD, the producers tell us:

A Film by Tim Kelleher. From the back cover: The Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, professed by billions of Christians throughout the world, makes radical claims about the nature of reality and the identity of Jesus Christ. What are those claims? Can they withstand contemporary scrutiny? Who should care? Andy, why? In this remarkably succinct consideration, the 12 basic articles that compose the Creed are examined historically, theologically, philosophically, linguistically, scientifically and culturally, in order to appreciate more fully this treasure that is so often "hidden in plain sight." You are invited to join this stirring conversation, featuring an eminent group of scholars and thinkers, whose insights are the fruit of life-long study, prayer and reflection. Whether you are a student or a teacher; one struggling with questions of faith or a believer, THE CREED: What Christians Profess, and Why It Ought to Matter, will be a challenging and rewarding experience.

I watched this film, which is only thirty minutes long, chiefly as a professor trying to see if it would be suitable and useful in my classes. I have over the years seen again and again the amazement, and often the bewilderment, in students when first confronted with the messy and often hotly debated nature of Christian dogmatic history in the era of the ecumenical councils. I have also frequently seen the glazed-over look of too many people who mindlessly accept modern prejudices in assuming that creedal, doctrinal, or dogmatic statements are ipso facto boring, abstract lists of things nobody cares about and that such lists do nothing except make Christianty seem "intolerant" and irrelevant in a twenty-first-century world of technology and terrorism. Creeds, according to this mindset--the product of feverish readings of Foucault and Nietzsche--are little more than the products of a will-to-power in which the so-called orthodox try to "discipline and punish" the so-called heterodox, these latter often being portrayed as brave but persecuted dissidents fighting, well, a proleptic version of the French or American revolutions against jack-booted bishops who have not yet encountered the Enlightenment.

The DVD offers a very vigorous defense of the importance and the centrality of the creed against its modern despisers. It is generously ecumenical in the best ways, lucidly drawing on such prominent Orthodox theologians as John Behr, Catholic historians such as Robert Louis Wilken, biblical scholars such as Luke Timothy Johnson (himself the author of a 2004 book entitled The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why it Matters), particle physicist Stephen Barr, and other writers such as Frederica Mathewes-Green. 

My only criticism of this otherwise very well done production is that it is unaccountably short. It is an appetizer when I was expecting an entrée. Indeed, it ends with one of the commentators expressing the hope that parishes and others will form groups to dive into the creed in depth. That was exactly what I was hoping this DVD would do: not just present an apologia for the existence and use of the creed, but a more systematic exposition of each clause. We get some exposition throughout, but not all articles are covered, and none with as much historical detail as I was expecting and thought necessary. Still, if this does nothing so much as provoke people to consider anew the basic tenets of Christianity, this will have done a great good. If it raises new questions for people, that is all to the good, and the producers and participants are to be commended for this compelling and elegantly executed presentation.