Nicaea the basis for ecumenism?

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) affirmed the consubstantiality between the Father and the Son (i.e. the Son having the same divine nature as the Father).

It has given historical recognition to the Trinitarian faith in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, thus becoming a symbol of orthodox Christianity.

Appeal of Nicene Christianity

‘Nicene Christianity’ is considered synonymous with Christianity. It is sufficiently defined in the essentials, but still free from the subsequent confessional encrustations that ‘divided’ Christianity between the Eastern and Western Churches in the 11th century, and the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches in the 16th century. In the present-day ecumenical circles it is considered the theological platform on which all traditional Christian families must recognise each other. The idea has gained popularity amongst evangelicals that the Nicene faith is the common ground between evangelicals and Roman Catholics, while differences would lie in doctrines such as soteriology, ecclesiology, Mariology, etc. The question is: is the Nicene faith (or can it be) the theological basis for contemporary ecumenism? The answer is negative for at the least three reasons.

1. Same words, different meanings

First, the vocabulary of Nicaea to which all confessions refer is the same: God the Father, Jesus Christ, salvation, Holy Spirit, Virgin Mary, church, holy apostolic catholic church, baptism, remission of sins. But while the signifiers are the same, the same cannot be said of the theological meaning of the words used.

When a Roman Catholic refers to the ‘Virgin Mary’, to ‘salvation’, to ‘the church’, etc., do they mean the same thing as an evangelical would mean when using the same words? Of course not. Think of the word ‘salvation’: a Roman Catholic would understand it as a sacramental journey under the authority of the church and with the help of the intercessions of Mary and the saints; an evangelical understands salvation as being grounded solely on Jesus Christ and received by faith alone. The word is the same but the meaning is substantially different. Examples could easily be multiplied.

2. After Nicaea…Trent?

Second, Nicaea is not a point of arrival, but a step in the history of the church. Nicaea was followed by Ephesus (431AD), which dogmatised the Marian title of ‘mother of God’; the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which defined justification as a synergistic process within a sacramental system; the Marian dogmas of the immaculate conception (1854) and bodily assumption (1950); the First Vatican Council (1870) with the dogma of papal infallibility; and by Vatican II (1962-1965) with its inclusive catholicity.

The theology of the various traditions is today characterised by a doctrinal and spiritual stratification that is irreversible and no longer that of Nicaea. The Roman Catholic Marian and papal dogmas impinge on Christology, the doctrine of the Spirit, ecclesiology, and salvation. When Nicaea refers to Jesus Christ, the Spirit, and the church, present-day Roman Catholicism also reads Mary into the background. When Nicaea refers to salvation and the forgiveness of sins, Roman Catholicism after Trent reads the sacraments and indulgences. It is not possible to turn the clock back as if 1,700 years of history have not happened. Nicaea can’t bring people together because Evangelicals and Catholics have developed different dogmas and practices in their histories in all key areas of the Christian faith.

3. Does reciting equal unity?

Finally, the Nicene faith cannot be the basis of contemporary ecumenism because of the different role that the different Christian traditions ascribe to the profession of a creed. What does it mean to ‘profess’ a creed like that of Nicaea? To perform a conventional act linked to a traditional religious practice? A nominal Christian could do it without necessarily believing what one is affirming and without being regenerated. Reciting it together does not in and of itself bring unity.

Referring to Nicaea as the common basis of ecumenism is wishful thinking rather than theologically responsible hope. The way of unity always bypasses the biblical truth that the Council of Nicaea tried to honour, even in the complexities of history. In itself, Nicaea is necessary. But it is not sufficient to express the biblical unity for which the Lord Jesus prayed and gave His life.