From dispute to the Nicene Creed and Unity

In Alexandria circa 318–319AD, a priest named Arius was very popular. Using Aristotelean terms, he maintained that “the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning” and that the Son is not a part of God. This way of thinking was controversial and popular at the same time. Arius had a lot of followers. His teachings were centered on the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized God the Father's uniqueness and Christ's subordination under the Father, and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology. 

This way of thinking created a lot of division among the Christian churches in the 4^th century. Therefore, Constantine the Emperor, who was a Christian, called for a council in Nicea to make this discussion a top priority. After Emperors Licinius and Constantine legalized and formalized the Christianity of the time in the Roman Empire, Constantine sought to unify the newly recognized Church and remove theological divisions. The brilliant bishop Athanasius coined the term homoousios, which pointed to God the Father and God the Son sharing the same essence and being coeternal.  

The Nicene Creed, constructed in light of Athanasius’s insight, was used to proclaim to the equal relationship between Christ with the Father and thereby render Arianism heretical.  The council established a more unified agenda for the ecumenical movement and universality of Christianity in the world. It is helpful for us to understand the reasoning of unifying the church under one understanding of the affirmation of our faith in the words of the Nicene creed. This reasoning, as well as Athanasius’s intervention, helps us to understand the argument presented today in the text of Luke.

In the week leading up to the crucifixion, some people and groups intended on stopping Jesus at any cost. In the passage just before today’s, Luke says, “So they watched him and sent spies who pretended to be honest, in order to trap him by what he said, so as to hand him over to the jurisdiction and authority of the governor.” 

Luke’s text tells us that the Sadducees, who did not believe in resurrection, came to ask Jesus a question about the resurrection. They tell a hypothetical story about a childless woman whose husband dies. In following the [Levirate] marriage law, the husband’s brother was obligated to marry the widow, and the first child born would be considered the first brother’s offspring. So, in the Sadducees’ story, the woman was married to each of seven brothers one after the other, as each brother died while she remained childless. Then they asked, “In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be?”No doubt about it, the Sadducees were quite pleased with themselves. They had asked an unanswerable question in front of the crowd. They threw a curve ball to Jesus.

Jesus goes on to say that one of the ways they are wrong is in their understanding of “now” versus “then,” or “this age” versus “that age.”“Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage,” Jesus says, acknowledging that the Sadducees have an understanding of “this age.” Their story about the woman and the seven brothers, as unlikely as it seemed, was how the story would go in this age. But he goes on to say there is a fundamental difference between “now” (this age) and “then” (that age).

“But those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed, they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.” Jesus, like Athanasius, presented a fresh concept about the resurrection, and he made use of the apocalyptic notion of the two ages.  According to this Jewish concept, the present age, in which the Roman Empire was the dominant force, was to be displaced by a new age in which divine justice held influence and the wrongs of imperial oppression would be righted.  The New Testament authors saw in Jesus the breaking in of this new age within the old one.  

We might better understand all of this in light of Athanasius’ concept of homoousios.  Because Jesus shares the same being as God the Father, his reign, namely the kingdom of God, is incommensurate with the established order.  And so those like the Saducees who try to comprehend the things of the new age in terms of the old age, cannot grasp the nature of the new reality. Jesus crammed a lot of information into those few words. First of all, he implied that there will be some who are not “considered worthy of a place in that age.” While Jesus did not elaborate on that point, it is not a stretch to realize Jesus was saying that if some are to be counted worthy, then some will not be. Is that the major point of this scripture? Probably not, but Jesus clearly thought it was important enough to be said. I believe he was giving the Sadducees (and us) a glimpse into the age to come — and he was giving yet another reason to pursue a right relationship with God, and work on that relationship with God now . . . if you haven’t started yet.

The timing of all of this is significant. Jesus was about to go to the cross. So, when he spoke about the resurrection and about life with the Father, he was not speaking empty words. He spoke with the full assurance that death, however painful and horrendous it might be, and however final it was considered according the to logic of the present age, would not be the last word. Now, the reality with all of this, of course, is that we live by faith. As the psalmist points out today, ‘The Lord is near to those who call upon him, to all who call upon him faithfully.’Jesus was asking his audience to believe and be faithful. Resurrection implied that we believe in a living God, a God of love, and unimaginable creative possibilities that may clash with the norms of the present age.

The story of St. Paul’s/San Pablo is part of the resurrection concept Jesus is talking about. The creativity, and vision to put together three groups, three worship styles and three ways of faith in community. These groups were not mutually exclusive, but they were each operating according to their own modes in quite separate spaces. There are difficulties in reaching out to others when there are differences in language, culture, and status, but the one common element that motivated you in this process was and is faith. You know as I know from the words of the old proverb: “when there is a will there is a way”. In our context, the will of God was evident in God’s responding to our plea to become one St. Paul’s/ San Pablo and sing a song of resurrection.  We are people of faith and as people of faith we are not immune to bumps on the road.  Yet as people of faith we will be equipped to move forward with the conviction that God will show up with God’s surprisingly resurrecting grace in our lives.

To conclude, let me share this quote from Elizabeth Gilbert, a contemporary American author best known for her memoir, Eat, Pray, Love, which was also made into a film in 2010 with Julia Roberts. In 2015, she joined several other authors in fundraising efforts for Syrian refugees, raising over $1 million in 31 hours. Her statement is this: “Faith is walking face-first and full-speed into the dark. If we truly knew all the answers in advance as to the meaning of life and the nature of God and the destiny of our souls, our belief would not be a leap of faith and it would not be a courageous act of humanity; ... it would just be ... a prudent insurance policy.” So, we end up where we started. Life is still hard. Death is still a mystery. And we still affirm our faith, but we do so from this side of the cross, knowing that our Savior walked this road before us and invites us to follow. “I believe in the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”