Despite the scattered information that is available about Arius, it is clear that Arius espoused a doctrine of Jesus Christ that was different than that of most of the leaders of this early period of the Christian Church. He argued that if God, the Father is absolute, Jesus must somehow be subordinate and inferior to the Father. It is best expressed in the Arian belief that “there was a time when the Son was not”. He held a view that Jesus was neither fully human nor fully divine. Hmmm. At the very core of the controversy is the issue of God’s authority/identity!
At a time when the very identity of the Christian Church was being shaped, (after years of persecutions and martyrdoms) Arius’ views threatened and created schism throughout the early Church. He challenged the established beliefs held by others, and the authority of both political and religious leaders. By all accounts he was a heretic.
It is clear that the Church had difficulty knowing how to handle Arius and his followers. Williams points out the dissension in the Church of Alexandria and alludes to the possibility that there were a fair number of other sects that were “doing there own thing” under the auspices of the Christian church. It is questionable whether even those highest in “rank” in this early church period had any real authority. Williams speaks of this in his discussion of Alexander (p.42). He alludes to the possibility that many of the presbyters in Alexandria were seen as equals to Alexander. Further, territorial boundaries and specific districts had the effect of de-centralizing authority and resulted in religious pluralism.
Even Constantine’s authority is challenged as the situation with Arius gets played out. It is he who wishes to reinstate Arius, after the Council of Nicea, but Athanasius refuses.
The overarching question of who has authority over whom is key.
Some questions for consideration: How is authority determined? Who sets the guidelines? Doesn’t authority hold with it certain responsibilities also? When are schisms justified? In addition to the accountability of the one that submits to the authority of another, isn’t there a responsibility on the part of the one who is in the position of authority? What happens when those who are in positions of authority don’t have a clear understanding of that authority? What happens when those who are subordinate to authority don’t have a clear understanding of the expectations of those in authority?
It is hard to hold one accountable if the expectations are not clear. During this early period in the church I'm not totally confident that the expectations were completely clear.
Exile and excommunication become the two extreme measures that Arius had to face for his religious beliefs. But even those sentences were revoked and he was reconciled to the Church of Alexandria at a later date. Could it be that he was reconciled to the Church in Alexandria because it was safer to have him within the Church (where others could keep an eye on him) than outside the Church? If he were to have remained in exile and out of communion with the larger Church, is it not possible that he could have done greater damage?
The whole business with Arius is messy at best, but the Council of Nicea set out to establish some concrete orthodox beliefs for those who desired to be a part of the life of the Christian Church. Establishing these beliefs as orthodox provided a basis for all other beliefs to be measured.
These are the definitions as of today. I expect that further thoughts and reflections will occur over time (beginning at 3 pm).
Authority
In Christian terms, authority is held by those who know that they are empowered by the Father, knowing that Christ is working through them, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Those with authority speak and act on behalf of God. Others may receive the message, changing their thoughts or ways, or may choose to ignore what has been spoken or acted, rejecting the person with authority.
Orthodoxy
Conforming to established doctrine, especially in religion. Signifies right belief or purity of faith. Those thoughts and beliefs developed for the teachings of the Church. Often contrasted with heresy.
Heresy
Those thoughts and ideas that contradicts the established religious teaching of the Church. It results in a theological error of some sort that ignores, denies, or doubts the orthodox teachings of the Church.
Tradition
“We’ve always done it this way.” The thoughts, actions, ways of doing things that have been passed down over generations. The inherited practices and customs throughout generations. In Christian terms, tradition comes from our ancestors and their way of doing and being church. Often, traditions are not fully understood, and therefore what is perceived as long standing tradition is actually very new. Some of the traditions have been changed, added, or dropped due to the community’s further discernment about meaning and relevance. Some communities tend to continue traditions but do not reflect on the meanings of them.
Innovation
“We’ve never done it that way.” Creating something new. In Christian terms, innovation can come in different forms – worship, theology, metaphors for understanding God. In order for new thoughts on God to not be considered heresy, they must be consistent with orthodox teachings.
Persuasion
The act of convincing someone to do something or think in a way that agrees with the thoughts of the person doing the persuading.