The Truth War (17 page)

Arius devised crafty ways to popularize and spread his teaching. For example, he reduced his views to short lines of simple doggerel. He published the stanzas in a book known as
Thalia
(named for the muse of comedy and pastoral poetry in Greek mythology). Each of Arius's verses hammered the same consistent theme, but always in slightly different expressions: the Son is not eternal; He cannot perfectly comprehend the Father; He did not exist until God began creation; there was a time when the Father was alone; and so on. Virtually every line contained a similar denial of Jesus' deity or eternality. The words were simple and straightforward, and the meaning was bold and plain. Arius then set those lyrics to catchy tunes, and his songs quickly became the popular music of the time. Arian ideas were thus disseminated by sailors and travelers throughout the empire. In a very short time, Arius's blasphemous ditties even began to replace the hymnody of the church.

IN ARIUS'S SYSTEM,
JESUS WAS NEARLY
GOD BUT NOT QUITE.
CAREFUL NUANCING
OF ARIUS'S SYSTEM
ALLOWED HIM TO
MASK THE SERIOUSNESS
OF HIS ERROR WITH
ORTHODOX-SOUNDING
WORDS, AND HE BECAME
VERY SKILLED AT IT.

Arius acknowledged, by the way, that Jesus was something more than a mere man; but he insisted that He was something less than fully God—an archangel. He thus downgraded Christ's full deity to a kind of quasi perfection. So he still spoke of the “divinity” of Christ, affirmed Christ as “Lord,” and acknowledged that Christ is a worthy object of worship. In Arius's system, Jesus was nearly God but not quite. Careful nuancing of Arius's system allowed him to mask the seriousness of his error with orthodox-sounding words, and he became very skilled at it. For example, Arius answered the charge that he was a heretic by insisting that he could honestly affirm, without reservation, every word of the Apostles' Creed. Although the Apostles' Creed implicitly affirms the deity of Christ by referring to the Savior as “Jesus Christ, [God's] only Son, our Lord,” the idea of lordship was no problem for Arius. He affirmed “lordship,” just not deity. He even affirmed that Jesus was God's “only-begotten Son.” Arius simply redefined that expression in a way that divested Christ of both deity and eternality.

In fact, Arius turned the language of the creed on its head. The very idea of “sonship,” he said, proves that Christ derived His being from the Father. Jesus could not possibly be both eternal and a “son.” Furthermore, according to Arius, the expression “only
begotten
Son” proves that Christ had a beginning point somewhere in time.

So Arius could wholeheartedly affirm the words of the Apostles' Creed, but not the intended meaning. Lots of Christians in that era were completely stymied by Arius's claim, unsure of what to do with someone who affirmed the basic expressions of Christian belief but interpreted the words differently. The Truth War has often hinged on precisely those kinds of fine distinctions.

WHY ARIANISM TOOK HOLD SO EASILY

Unfortunately, a mood of ease and comfort had lulled many Christians in that generation into a state of blithe passivity about doctrine. Emperor Constantine had only recently converted to Christianity and issued the Edict of Milan (313), formally outlawing every form of persecution against the church throughout the vast empire. Constantine had also vanquished his last remaining military foe, so Rome virtually ceased from warfare after several long years of strife. Material prosperity, together with a spirit of tranquility and tolerance, swept across the whole empire. It was generally supposed that the peace and reunification of the empire were tokens of God's favor and blessing prompted directly by the emperor's conversion to Christianity. For the first time ever, an atmosphere of goodwill toward the church prevailed—even in secular Roman society. Throughout the Roman world, the church began to gain converts (not to mention cultural influence) at an unprecedented rate.

Naturally, no one was eager to incite a conflict over doctrine within the church at the very moment when it seemed the long-embattled people of God could finally enjoy peace.

Throughout most of the fourth century, therefore—during a time when people were coming into the church in massive numbers—there was almost no clear and solid consensus within the organized church on the question of what to do about Arianism. As a matter of fact, over the course of that century, those who steadfastly opposed Arian doctrine gradually became a distinct minority within the church. The few outspoken opponents of Arianism were often accused by less-discerning Christians of being harsh, overly meticulous, unduly critical, and maliciously divisive. Sound familiar? People seemed to wish the whole conflict could simply be set aside—as if it didn't matter all that much whether Jesus is truly and fully God or just nearly so.

If you only glanced at a time line of key events during that era, you might assume the Arian controversy was settled once and for all in 325, when the Council of Nicea ruled decisively against Arius's views. That famous council met at the behest of the emperor himself. Some three hundred bishops from all over the Roman Empire convened at Nicea, not far from the alternative capital the emperor was building for himself at Constantinople. Their agenda included a short list of important issues to be discussed and settled, but the list was headed by the conflict over Arius's teaching.

The council dealt Arianism a severe blow. They handed down one of the most important and far-reaching decisions of any church council in history, unequivocally affirming the deity of Christ while anathematizing the central ideas of Arianism. Their rejection of Arianism has been echoed by the collective consensus of every major stream of Christianity since the fifth century.

ALTHOUGH HIS
EXCOMMUNICATION AND
THE RULING OF NICEA
AGAINST HIM WERE SERIOUS
EMBARRASSMENTS AND
MEANT THE LOSS OF
HIS OFFICIAL STATUS AS
A TEACHER WITHIN THE
CHURCH, IN THE LONG
RUN, ARIUS ACTUALLY
GAINED VISIBILITY,
SYMPATHY, AND INFLUENCE
WHEN HE WAS FORCED INTO
THE ROLE OF AN UNDERDOG.

But the Nicene Council's decision against Arius actually came near the beginning of the long conflict over Arianism in the church. After the Nicene Council ruled against him, Arius, disappointed but undeterred, simply continued to teach his beliefs anyway. He had powerful friends, some who were bishops in important cities throughout the empire, who continued to give him a platform, moral support, and financial backing. Although his excommunication and the ruling of Nicea against him were serious embarrassments and meant the loss of his official status as a teacher within the church, in the long run, Arius actually gained visibility, sympathy, and influence when he was forced into the role of an underdog.

That is because the politics of the dispute were on Arius's side. The emperor's main goal in convening the council in the first place was only to settle a debate in the church. Constantine really didn't seem to have strong personal convictions about the issue. He apparently did not really care one way or the other which side won the debate. He just wanted to end the conflict. Constantine himself was a novice who had not yet even received baptism. He apparently considered the whole argument a case of useless theological hairsplitting. He was weary of the conflict, and he even opened the council with an impassioned speech pleading for unity. He said he regarded discord in the church as more painful and more fearful than any war. He also expressed disappointment that while the Roman Empire was finally enjoying peace, the church was at war within itself. He urged delegates to put away the causes of strife.

The famous historian Eusebius was present at the council and wrote an account of the proceedings. His version is the most complete eyewitness report we have today. Eusebius's account is certainly not slanted in favor of the winners, because the historian took a somewhat neutral position on the conflict. While the council was in session, Eusebius actually led a behind-the-scenes effort to achieve a compromise between Arius and his opponents.

According to Eusebius, a young deacon named Athanasius was also present, serving as secretary to the bishop of Alexandria. (Bear in mind, this bishop was the same one whom Arius originally accused of Sabellianism—and he was also the one who then excommunicated Arius.) A few years later, when the bishop of Alexandria died, Athanasius became his successor. Athanasius subsequently became Arius's most devoted foe and the one man who did more than anyone else on earth to defend the deity of Christ against the original onslaught of Arian heresy. But during the Nicene Council, he was a young man of limited influence. He remained more or less a silent observer, watching and learning.

In the end, the conflict between the parties at Nicea turned on a single word—or more precisely, just one small letter. The orthodox bishops proposed a statement affirming that Christ and the Father are “of the same substance”—or
homoousion
in Greek. The Arians offered a compromise: they would affirm a statement declaring Christ and His Father
homoiousion
, or “of like substance.” The difference between the two words is so small as to be almost imperceptible. It boiled down to one iota (the Greek letter corresponding to an “i”) in the middle of the word. But the whole doctrine of Christ's deity hinged on that letter.

During the discussion, some excerpts were read from Arius's sermons and letters. His actual denials of Christ's deity were not as carefully toned down as the expressions of Arianism that had previously been presented to the council. When the bishops finally heard in blunt terms what Arius was actually teaching, the council overwhelmingly affirmed the famous Nicene Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance [homoousios] with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which is in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Spirit.

The following anathema was added to the creed, targeting some of the very expressions Arius had been using:

But those who say: “There was a time when he was not”; and “He was not before he was made”; and “He was made out of nothing”; or “He is of another substance” or “essence”; or “The Son of God is created” or “changeable” or “alterable”—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
⁴

THE RISE OF ARIANISM
AFTER ITS INITIAL DEFEAT

The fact that the council finally passed such a strong resolution against Arius was remarkable. Several of the bishops at Nicea apparently remained sympathetic to Arius's views. Many others (led by Eusebius) continued trying to hammer out a compromise that would accommodate both parties and restore Arius to his teaching position. Constantine, who had had no doctrinal agenda in the first place, revealed through his subsequent behavior that his concerns remained almost completely pragmatic.

Nonetheless, Arius's adversaries clearly understood the real magnitude of the issues, and they were determined. It was wise of them to let Arius's own words, taken mostly from his published works, provide the strongest evidence against his view. The council's decision, though sudden, surprising, and in the view of some observers, premature, was the right decision, secured by God's providence for the preservation of Christ's true church. Both the clear teaching of Scripture and the practically unanimous affirmation of every subsequent generation of believers gives testimony to that fact.

Arius was a wily false teacher. Although the council's condemnation of his views did not persuade him to change his mind, it did seem to motivate him to redouble his efforts. With behind-the scenes support of several influential church leaders, Arius staged an unrelenting campaign to plead for formal reinstatement to his ecclesiastical office. More important, the unfavorable ruling of the council provoked Arius to alter his strategy in a significant way. Without actually modifying his views, he worked hard to refine his language to make himself sound as orthodox as possible. He insisted that he had been misunderstood and misrepresented. He continued to profess his adherence to all the major creeds and apostolic doctrinal formulae. He even occasionally claimed that he had no major disagreement with the Nicene Council's position. The actual difference between them was very slight, he insisted.

Of course, the Arian heresy was no insignificant matter at all. The difference between Christ as God and a false christ who is merely a created being has enormous significance in every aspect of theology. But Arius continued to defend his view, protest his excommunication, and fan the flames of controversy. Over the course of time, he won much sympathy while managing to portray his adversaries as uncharitable obstructionists. He succeeded in turning the politics of the dispute in his favor.

For one thing, the emperor himself grew wearier than ever of the argument and subsequently tried to use his power to persuade Arius's critics to find a way to compromise and reinstate the heretic. Within two years after Nicea, Constantine apparently concluded that the hard-line position taken by the council was a mistake because it had not really settled the issue. He declared amnesty for the Arian leaders and employed his enormous political clout against faithful bishops to try to enforce the amnesty. He became frustrated when Athanasius refused to compromise with the Arians, and at one point he forced Athanasius into exile. Gradually, Constantine grew increasingly contemptuous of Arian-ism's adversaries. When the emperor was finally baptized, it was an Arian bishop who performed the ritual.

As Arius grew more aggressive, what little opposition remained against his teaching gradually fell silent. Within a decade
after
Nicea, popular opinion had clearly shifted toward sympathy for Arius, if not for his doctrine. Over time, the campaign to receive him back into the church gained overwhelming popular support. Meanwhile, public opinion against Arius's adversaries became extremely severe.