Christianity - Post Nicea

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.

The Empire After the Death of Constantine the Great
Political intrigue was a constant within the Roman imperial system, and continued after Constantine. The various religious factions opposed to Nicaea quickly sought out upper-class allies in hopes of either altering the official creed or gaining protection. In fact, it could be argued that Nicaea played as much a role in forging a concrete Arian identity as it did a Nicene one. Most of these groups were collectively labeled Arian by the orthodox clergy, but unlike the Donatist in North Africa who were opposed to any state church, the collective Arian minority was large enough and popular enough to gain some political influence. As the heirs of Constantine prepared to compete for succession and power, these disaffected Christians sensed opportunity. Some were able to win the support of several within the court, including tacit toleration by Constantine and open support by Constantine's own son, the future emperor, Constantius II.

Constantine died in 337 after receiving baptism by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a defender of Arian theology who had grudgingly renounced his beliefs and accepted Nicene orthodoxy. The next fifty years were dominated by a series of civil wars as his sons tried to assert themselves and maintain power. The youngest, Constans (337-350) killed one brother and successfully ruled the West as a supporter of the Nicene church. His eldest brother, Constantius II (ruled 337-361) embraced the outcast Arian church in the East, probably in part to offset Constans' support within Nicene Orthodoxy.

The Reign of "Julian the Apostate"
It is important to remember that Constantius only had to tolerate Arian clergy to differentiate himself from his brother. Constans was murdered in a coup in 350 and three years later Constantius became the sole emperor. After the death of Constantius in 361, his nephew Julian became emperor (361-363). Julian had witnessed the virulent conflict between Christian sects and had seen the supposedly "Christian" Constantius murder Julian's brother. This may help explain his decision to repudiate Christianity when he took over.

The reign of Julian was too short to seriously hinder the growth of Christianity, but he did issue edicts limiting Christian practices within pagan spaces and limiting their role in secular government. Also, as a self-professed apostate, he significantly weakened the Christian claim to be the religion of the enlightened elite. Most importantly, he continued the efforts Constantius had made to recognize Arian clergy. Julian probably thought that increased religious friction would weaken the Christian influence across the empire. By the 360s there were at least three major church hierarchies (orthodox, Arian, and Donatist) competing for political influence, seeking to win converts, and arguing that local churches should submit to their authority. Note: this is only within the Roman Empire. There were also separate church hierarchies in Axum (South of Egypt) and Armenia.

Julian died while invading Persia and his generals offered the throne to a respected pagan official, but he refused. Their second choice was a Nicene Christian soldier named Jovian (ruled 363-364). This anecdote is important because it shows that while Christian doctrine and identity are crucially important to narrators like Eusebius, they clearly are not carrying the same weight in the political arena. Jovian was neither selected nor rejected based on his Christian faith. He had served on Julian's personal bodyguard team for several years. It is critical to remember that the majority of Roman citizens and the government were NOT Christian. "Christians" of all flavors made up around 30% of the population - this is probably a generous estimate. There were areas, like in Antioch, where Christianity was the majority, but this was the exception rather than the norm. Pagan temples were still operating throughout the empire.

Jovian, Valentinian I and Valens
Jovian favored Christianity during his short rule (only a few months), but he maintained the Arian toleration policies of Julian. He was never popular (mostly because he signed a shameful peace treaty with Persia when he took the throne) and died under suspicious circumstances at age 33. However, his Christian identity must not have been too controversial because the army coalesced in support of two Christian brothers to replace him: Valentinian I and Valens. Once again, the sources make it clear that several options (both Pagan and Christian) were discussed before these two were chosen - faith was not the deciding factor.

The two brothers quickly divided the Empire (in the same way Diocletian had in his Tetrarchy). Valentinian I ruled the West from bases in Milan and Trier, 364-375. Although baptized as a Nicene Christian, Valentinian openly supported religious toleration across the board, which won him much support among the majority pagan Western empire but also frustrated many in the Nicene clergy. Valentinian also took steps to tighten the link between clerics' duties and their government benefits. He limited the rights of clergy who were receiving government benefits. They were not allowed to personally inherit property. Willing property was a primary way that Christians gave to the Church, and Valentinian wanted a clean line between the bishop and the Episcopate. He also made some church properties (secondary properties) liable for taxation depending on use.

Valens ruled the east from the (newly completed) city of Constantinople, 364-378. He was baptized as an Arian. There is an argument to be made that the cross-membership of the two brothers in different Christian sects was politically expedient. Valens conversion meant that an Arian bishop of Constantinople wielded an important state role. Like his brother, Valens favored religious toleration. He ignored most religious issues, but did persecute a few Nicene Bishops (including Athanasius of Alexandria) who were vocally opposed to tolerating Arians and stirred up public dissent.

The death of Valens is an important moment in the history of the church. He died in battle at Adrianople in 378. After allowing non-Roman Gothic tribes to move into the Balkans, the Roman troops mistreated them and drove them to revolt. The rebels ravaged northern Greece. Valens did not trust the new Western emperor, Gratian (the 19 year old son of Valentinian), and unwisely attacked the Gothic tribes without reinforcements from the West and was killed.

This left a dangerous vacuum of leadership in the East. In the West, Gratian's government was a collection of military and civil officials appointed by his (Nicene) father Valentinian. The young emperor also had an infant half-brother who could be placed on the throne if Gratian proved disagreeable. It is probably wise to see his policies as coming from a collection of powerful Nicene figures in his court rather than viewing his leadership as his own personal choices.

Around 379AD the staunchly Nicene general Theodosius was appointed as Gratian's co-emperor in the East. This represents yet another political/religious pendulum swing in the history of Christianity.

Christianity Becomes the Official Religion
It is important to grasp that as the fourth century came to an end to be Roman implied "orthodox" Christianity. Equally important, if you did NOT want to be Roman but believed in Christ you sought out the Arian or Donatist churches. This can be seen most clearly in the following decisions:

1) The appointment of the staunchly Nicene general Theodosius as Gratian's co-emperor in the East cir. 379, despite the presence of several qualified men from Valens' Eastern (maybe Arian?) court.

2) The Edict of Thessalonika, cir. 379-380 in which Theodosius and Gratian publicly rejected the Imperial title of Pontifex Maximus (the official religious role of the Emperor). At the same time Theodosius and Gratian began to openly ridicule both Paganism and Arianism.

3) The same Edict went on to remove the Pagan Altar of Victory (dedicated to the Spirit of Rome) from the Roman Senate. These policies were later strengthened to name the Nicene Church as the only officially recognized form of Christianity, and required membership in that church for Roman public service (to hold a position in the empire). This came after roughly 40 years of official toleration.

These acts were followed up with persecution of non-conformists, the closing of Pagan temples, and the exile of Arian clergy. It is not surprising that the requirement of Christianity for public service led to a marked increase in conversion to "orthodoxy" - often from non-spiritual motivations. Arians who would not become orthodox, fled to the border regions. They carried their faith with them, and increasingly the non-Roman tribal groups (Goths, Alans, Huns, Sueves, and others) came to include substantial numbers of Arian Christian converts.

Yet in 400, Christians were still not the majority in the Empire and the Gratian/Theodosius anti-pagan edicts were very unpopular, particularly in the historically Roman areas in the West (Italy, Spain, and the south of France). Gratian faced several uprisings and was eventually murdered by an usurper in 383. In response, Theodosius invaded the West and succeeded in becoming sole emperor of what can only now be called the "Christian Roman Empire," cir. 394.

However, Theodosius died naturally in 395, leaving two young sons: Arcadius (17yrs) and Honorius (10yrs). As might be expected, the government was divided between them with Arcadius in Constantinople and Honorius in Milan. Both faced difficult circumstances and largely were controlled by nobles within their governments. This situation resulted in heavy competition for influence between the military leadership and the civil bureaucrats. As spiritual advisors and the religious arm of the state, the Nicene clergy were actively involved with both groups.

So, in the year 400 there is an officially "Christian Roman Empire" led by "Christian" emperors with "Christian" ideology. This seemingly perfect time must be seen with the backdrop that the political situation had been uncertain ever since the death of Constantine in 337. The fourth century ended with two young, weak rulers on two separate thrones with very different populations.