Fourth Century - The New Orthodoxy

Introduction
It is important to realize the difficulties in describing the history of Christianity after the Council of Nicea in 325. The Council provides a convenient stopping point because most people see it as a successful end to the story of establishing early Christianity. In reality, the historic council of 325AD was the starting point for multiple new stories. Each new story is distinct either in its affinity or conflict with the Nicene ideal. While the political impact on Christianity before 300AD could be categorized as oppressive or tolerant but giving way to support as Constantine accepted Christian faith - the period after the Council of Nicea could be seen as a time of intense struggle for the Church. The theological "leap" of "unity" that resulted from the Council had to be sorted out within dozens of disparate regions where Christianity was anything but unified.

Chris Craun, Ph.D.
Asst. Professor,
Central Arkansas University

Chris Craun earned his Ph.D. at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland. His research interests are early medieval history, early Christian martyrologies, hagiography, asceticism, construction and use of gender in sacred texts, the cult of the saints, biblical motifs in architecture and medieval literature, as well as Carolingian ecclesiastical literature.

Chris and I met while we were in our Ph.D. program in Scotland. As fellow southerners, we quickly became good friends and have stayed in contact. This section of CH101 is pretty much all Chris. If you have comments or questions for Dr. Craun, please send them through me Al Baker, CH101 and I will forward them. CH101 retains the right to edit and post comments/questions unless you specifically ask that your comments NOT be posted. Personal/private comments are never posted.

The NEW Christian Orthodoxy
The description of "orthodoxy" and the establishment of an officially recognized church is often taken as a victory and recognized as fact. This was NOT the case. Nicaea set up a singular legal Christian church for the Roman empire so that it could be elevated to the same status as the pre-existing, legal (pagan) institutions. As emperor, Constantine held the position of Pontifex Maximus, which made the head of state ultimately responsible for Rome's acceptance by the "gods." Thus, the extension of Constantine's personal interest in Christianity, his supervisory role at the Council of Nicaea and his desire to support an official Roman church fit naturally with earlier conceptions of imperial responsibility. After all, if Christians were right, then the proper worship of the Godhead might be an important factor in gaining His blessing for the people.

The adoption of the Nicene creed and the solidification of a church hierarchy did not equate to immediate changes in local affairs and/or practices. A substantial number of bishops, even some who signed on to them, were unhappy with various aspects of the Nicene Canons [Each council of bishops ended with a draft of various "rules" called "canons." These canons documented decisions made about all manner of church business]. The diversity of Christian worship before Nicaea was great and included: the transmission and acceptance of specific textual traditions, varying rules governing the regional churches, and differing expectations regarding the amount of influence larger churches wielded over smaller, local congregations. The traditional respect given to the Patriarchs (bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Rome) and Metropolitans (bishops of important Roman cities such as Arles, Carthage, and Milan) had never before suggested direct control. Thus, attendees of the Nicene Council had to return home and convince their congregations to adopt both the creed and

(for most churches) submission of their independence to an outside authority. Things were clearly more difficult for any bishop who refused to approve the creed, as they would face the loss of state support and likely (but not immediately certain) oppression by the state.

Until 325, episcopal authority had been local. It does not require much imagination to envision the gray areas that opened up between what local bishops actually did within their home diocese and the expectations expressed in the Nicene Canons. Additionally, one must remember the large number (possibly in the thousands) of small churches and monastic collectives spread from Syria to Britain who did not attend Nicaea nor have a voice at the council. These communities now stood in need of correction to a set of standards they knew little about. The discourse at Nicaea and the subsequent councils leading to Chalcedon (451 AD) outpaced the spread of their decisions to rural areas. These were doctrinal debates between urban, cosmopolitan churches with greater access to texts, a higher percentage of literate members, and a leadership increasingly drawn from the educated and political elite. This is not to say that the common citizen was unmoved by these doctrinal debates. On the contrary, the assertion of an "orthodoxy" now required Christians to defend their local practices while at the same time accepting the traditions of others. Some resentment was only natural.

These difficulties are often overlooked by an oversimplified narrative of the "Triumph of the Church." Our primary sources come from men like Eusebius. His Church History represents a very narrow, somewhat "official," and an intentionally positive and finalized view of a complex reality.