An Exclusive Creed

    

The Nicene Creed was created to exclude. This goes against the grain of our modern secular society, where the word “inclusive” has become a magic word, conjuring up warm feelings of virtue, righteousness, and goodness. To be inclusive is to be good; to exclude is to be bad. The magic is, I think, rooted in the American Civil Rights Movement, where certain people were unjustly excluded from certain things (such as employment opportunities or even sitting in the front part of a bus) based on the colour of their skin. Such exclusions were plainly arbitrary, morally indefensible, and more than a little bit crazy, and this bequeathed a legacy of unacceptability to the very word “exclusion”, with a corresponding happy feel to the word “inclusion”.

But in this, as in many things, context is everything. Exclusion is not always wrong. Take the early part of the fourth century, for instance. Then the heresy of Arianism was spreading over the Christian world like a raging roaring disease. This was the heresy that denied that Jesus was truly divine, and asserted instead that he was a creature, created by the one true God in the same way as the angels were created. Jesus of Nazareth therefore was not God, according to the Arians, though they allowed that He was very, very important, a heavenly celebrity of sorts, but not God in any real sense. That is, He could be admired and praised, but not actually worshipped with the same worship with which the Church worshipped the Father. This last bit was very important too, for salvation consists of worshipping Jesus, in falling down before Him as did Thomas and crying to Him, “My Lord and my God!” Given the popularity of Arianism, something had to be done.

Something was done, and what was done we now call “the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea”. Bishops then came from all over to the town of Nicea in 325 A.D. to thrash the whole thing out. It didn’t take them long to conclude that Jesus was divine, and that Arius’ teaching was simply wrong. But how to declare this? Arius was a slippery fellow, and there seemed to be no kind of Biblical formula or title for Christ that he could not twist and redefine for his own purposes. The Fathers therefore decided to do something radical and unprecedented—namely, to use non-biblical phrases to describe who Christ was. They took the baptismal creed, the statement with which all catechumens had to agree in order to be baptized and be considered Christians, and inserted several phrases, phrases so clear that even someone as slippery as Arius couldn’t wriggle out of them. Jesus was not only “the only-begotten Son of God”, He was also “light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of the same essence as the Father, from whom [i.e. Jesus] all things were made”. These phrases stated the divinity of Christ so clearly that not even Arius could say the words without choking.

That was, of course, the point: the Creedal statement was constructed with such precision as to exclude people like Arius. In one sense the Creed was inclusive: any person anywhere, regardless of race, language, ethnicity, or colour could confess it, be that person slave or free, rich or poor. But it was also exclusive: any person who did not believe the full and perfect divinity of Jesus of Nazareth could not confess it, and thus could not be a member of the Church.

Why this insistence on exclusion? The Fathers of Nicea wanted to exclude heresy from the Church for the same reason that a doctor wants to exclude cancer from the body of his patient—because if he includes the cancer in the patient’s body, the result will be the death of the patient. Cancer kills, and so does heresy. Heresy is not simply incorrect opinion, akin to getting a numerical sum wrong. Heresy is stubbornly refusing to accept the truth, in exactly the same way as someone who has been poisoned might stubbornly refuse to accept swallowing the antidote. A person who has been poisoned will die. And the good intentions of the heretic notwithstanding (for who knowingly accepts error?), the person who refuses God’s provided remedy of Christ will also die. Heresy will kill the soul, just as surely as cancer will kill the body. Salvation consists of exclusion—the cancer must be excluded from the body, and heresy must be excluded from the soul. The Fathers of Nicea were not narrow-minded men, working mean-spiritedly in their ivory towers. They were physicians of the soul, working as pastors in the front-line, concerned to save the souls of the children of men. They knew that only as men fell down before Christ as God and offered their lives to Him could they find salvation. They therefore excluded the Arian error which insisted on omitting this saving spiritual prostration. They knew they lived in a world of dying men. Only by falling down before the divine Christ could those men find eternal life.

See also
The “Model of Meekness”, and Slapping Arius The “Model of Meekness”, and Slapping Arius
Orthodox Pastors on Zeal for God
The “Model of Meekness”, and Slapping Arius The “Model of Meekness”, and Slapping Arius
Orthodox Pastors on Zeal for God
Anna Erakhtina
When contemplating how they should oppose enemies of the Church, Orthodox Christians often recall St. Nicholas, who slapped Arius in the face. Several Russian Orthodox clergymen talk with us about the saint’s “intolerant” deed.
Defending the Synodikon Defending the Synodikon
Fr. Lawrence Farley
Defending the Synodikon Defending the Synodikon
Fr. Lawrence Farley
The point of the Synodikonis to draw very thick lines in the doctrinal sand and say that if anybody in the Church crosses those lines and strays into heresy, they must either recant or get out, and it is precisely this approach to truth that is necessary and saving.
St. John of Damascus and the ‘Orthodoxy’ of the Non-Chalcedonians St. John of Damascus and the ‘Orthodoxy’ of the Non-Chalcedonians
Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis
St. John of Damascus and the ‘Orthodoxy’ of the Non-Chalcedonians St. John of Damascus and the ‘Orthodoxy’ of the Non-Chalcedonians
Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis
Assuredly, the Holy Fathers and the venerable Elders did not have less love and understanding than the contemporary champions of union. On the contrary, their attitude was based on a pastoral and pedagogical concern that those who had deviated should become aware of their error and be led to the correct faith, which is the indispensable prerequisite for salvation. He who speaks the truth has love, even if he causes distress at the outset and creates a reaction, not he who misleads and conceals the truth, taking account of temporary human relations and not of eternal realities.
Comments
Rdr Andreas Moran10/22/2017 6:48 pm
The Creed, in addition to having as a whole the aim of excluding heresy (or perhaps as part as part that aim), contains the article, ‘In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church’ meaning the Holy Orthodox Church and no other, so excluding the heresies of non-Orthodox Christian confessions. This also ‘goes against the grain’, not so much perhaps ‘of our modern secular society’ [which is not interested in or is hostile to our faith], but of the spirit of ecumenism.
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 700 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Enter through FaceBook , or enter your information:
Your name:
Your e-mail:
Enter the digits, seen on picture:

Characters remaining: 700

×