Nicaea 2025 Conclusion: Unity in Diversity
This post is part of our Faithfully Asked Questions series, in which we provide answers to common questions of faith. This spring, we have been presenting a special series on church unity, as we celebrate the 1700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed and a shared Easter date for all Christians in 2025. Have a question for future FAQ installments you want answered? A story to contribute? Email Matt at mcomer@ststephenumc.net.
The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church opens with a greeting from the bishops that tell us we are “loyal heirs of the authentic Christian tradition” and, as a church, affirm “the global character of the Church’s mission and its interdependence with other Christian bodies both in spirit and cooperation.”
This is not merely a nod toward ecumenism and broader Church unity — it is an ethos that underlines the Methodist understanding of the role of the Church in the world and in seeking after God’s kingdom here on earth. This call to unity has been foundational for the big questions we’ve been chasing during this spring’s series on the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea: What does it mean to be united as the Church? How can we, individually and collectively, live into our calling as disciples of Christ amidst an often broken, fractured, and disunited church and world?
We’ve explored these questions by examining the historical context of the Church’s first ecumenical council at Nicaea in AD 325 (Introduction), exploring its significance (Part 1), studying the creation of the Nicene Creed (Part 2), and learning about our observance of Easter across Christian traditions (Part 3).
In this conclusion, we’ll wrap up with some possible answers to all these questions and thoughts for ways we can put into practice our ethos for seeking Christian unity amidst our diversity.
(A note: In hindsight, our series should have included one additional part, so this conclusion will be a bit longer than other installments. I hope you’ll stick through to the end.)
What does it mean for the Church to be united?
Disagreements and divisions began very early in Church history. The Jerusalem Council in AD 49 dealt with one such argument, gentile inclusion, as recorded in Acts 15. Most, but not all early Christians agreed with the council’s decision. The Ebionites continued to hold that one must follow the Law of Moses to become a Christian. While initially part of early, mainstream Jewish Christianity their views on the law and the nature of Jesus were eventually condemned as heresy. But that did not mean they died out, and it certainly did not mean the Ebionites considered themselves any less authentic in their following of Jesus. The Ebionites continued on as a community of believers, separated from mainstream Christianity, for hundreds more years.
This cycle of disagreement, division, condemnation, and separation repeated itself over and over again. From the fourth century onward, when Christianity became the imperial religion of Rome, disagreement with the Church also carried with it state-sanctioned discipline, including exile, violence, and death.
So, what does it mean for the Church to be united, and how do we go about keeping that unity? “By coercion and, if necessary, with violent force,” is one answer, often the correct answer in centuries past. This answer gave rise to the 16th, 17th, and 18th century European wars of religion — decades of violence between Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Anabaptists, and others.
Denominationalism, peace, diversity, and ecumenism
Many Christians today often express sadness over how “divided” Christianity seems because of our many denominations, but it was the rise of denominationalism that provided a solution to Europe’s religious wars. At first, individual rulers determined which denomination would receive state sanction; neighboring kingdoms agreed to respect the decisions of their peers, putting an end to the never-ending tit-for-tat. In time, peaceful coexistence between competing denominations became more commonplace within individual territories, even if a predominant state-sanctioned church remained. American colonists took religious tolerance to a new level; the influx of diverse Christian traditions here made tolerance a necessity and eventually provided the foundation for the United States’ constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.
As the memory of Europe’s religious wars waned, denominations began to work together again — especially on missions and humanitarian work. Interdenominational missionary societies were founded, along with groups like the YMCA and YWCA. The modern ecumenical movement birthed what would become the National Council of Churches USA and the World Council of Churches.
The 20th century also saw a flurry of denominational mergers — including those that created the United Methodist Church — each striving for a larger, more united Church. Mergers still happen, but with less frequency now as the movement has shifted toward full interdenominational communion agreements, wherein individual church traditions remain independent, keeping what makes their church polity, traditions, or worship styles special or unique while recognizing the validity of each other’s clergy and sacraments. The United Methodist Church has full communion agreements with eight other denominations and additional ecumenical affiliations with 37 churches. Even nondenominational churches are seeking greater unity, often joining church “networks” to bring them into closer relationship with others. Many denominations, including Methodists, also now observe an open communion table, welcoming all baptized believers regardless of their denominational affiliation.
Far from being divisive, our modern denominational structure often provides believers a shorthand for accessing traditions and worship styles that best fit their spiritual needs. The religious expression of individuals is free from government coercion; no politician or established church bishop calls the shots. Further, Christians are free to differ and even to separate, without necessarily creating a full schism; differing in substance, style, or structure, we remain united in Christ. As church historians Bruce and Marshall Shelley note: “The simple fact is Christians are divided today, in part at least, because they have the freedom to differ. In earlier centuries they did not. We may curse denominations or ignore them, but they are not going to disappear soon because the cost of their removal is greater than most of us want to pay.”
Who are the “winners” and “losers” when a belief is condemned as “heresy”?
The Church’s penchant for condemning heresies left behind it a centuries-long, bloody trail of victims. Proclaiming another group’s beliefs a “heresy” is an easy way to falsely create quick “winners” and “losers.” Some disagreements might indeed rise to heresy and apostasy, or beliefs strongly opposed to or rejecting official church doctrine. But many beliefs called heresies usually aren’t. Most, at best, are heterodox, or simply “different thinking” positions that vary in some less essential way from official church teaching.
This kind of heterodoxy can even be good, resulting in needed reforms. Martin Luther’s criticisms, for example, were heterodox to prevailing church teaching. His initial objections didn’t necessarily make him a heretic. Luther’s excommunication came only after a protracted confrontation with church authority. Luther didn’t recant and the Lutheran movement didn’t end, with both sides continuing to hold essentially the same core beliefs outlined in the Nicene Creed.
In another example, wealthy 12th century merchant Peter Waldo had an encounter with God, renounced his wealth, and began preaching a gospel of voluntary poverty. A century later, the Waldensians were proclaimed heretical. Their early beliefs show striking parallels with the later Protestant movement. Today, the remaining Waldensian Christians are mainly found in Italy, where they merged with the Methodist Evangelical Church in 1975. A small number of Waldensians also settled what is now Valdese, N.C., with their church a part of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
In both examples, so-called “heretics” gave rise to renewal and reform efforts that addressed flaws in church teaching or practice. They continue to exist today among those who all claim adherence to an historic, orthodox Christian doctrine, like that in the Nicene Creed. Proclaiming them heresies didn’t stop their movements, but only caused more division and violence. Moreover, some of these “heretical” views eventually became established in other traditions and, in some ways, recognized as valid reforms by the Roman Catholic Church, too. So, who won? Probably no one.
Finding unity in diversity
If division creates no winners, then it’s best that we learn how to live with each other. Recent decades of denominational mergers and ecumenical partnership prove that Christians can voluntarily live into a unity ethos that recognizes the diversity of our traditions and beliefs. A common Christian call for unity asks of us just that: “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.”
The way our larger churches and denominations behave will begin with the way individual Christians behave. So, on a more personal level, we can begin to talk less and listen more with an intention of understanding, rather than responding. Our differences rarely rise to the level of heresy — that is to say, they rarely are of such essential importance that we must cut out or distance ourselves from those with whom we disagree. In listening to others, we very often find we agree more than we disagree or that an apparent disagreement reveals a new perspective we hadn’t considered. We may continue to disagree, but we may also find a new understanding of why our neighbor holds that view and, therefore, come to know our neighbor in new and better ways.
This unity ethos can be put to use in our daily lives with our family members, friends, and neighbors. It is also essential in our local churches, as fellow believers journey together in Sunday school classes, small groups, and the larger church family. Disagreement is bound to happen, but closing our hearts and minds at the first sign of friction prevents us from building the kind of community we seek. Being willing to engage in healthy conflict and conversation reflects our call as disciples and honors Christ’s desire that we all be one. In being one, we can appreciate our differences, understanding how each contributes to the whole, just like a real body. Our arms and hands look and operate differently from our legs and feet. Our brains, hearts, and lungs look, act, and function differently, while being no less essential to the healthy functioning of the whole body.
This is the lesson of Nicaea and the resulting 1700 years of lessons learned through schism, battle, and debate. Church unity does not require conformity, nor does it prevent diversity or stifle debate. A healthy Church universal exalts the varied and diverse gifts of its varied and diverse people, while striving to live in peace and community fulfilling Christ’s new commandment to us: “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”