Council Day Two Evaluation

As expected, this discussion on the nature of the Son was not as simple as the thoughts on the Father.

I was pleased with the opening of the Council session, in which we were able to amend the creedal statement to include the word “Father,” but now the creed states that the Father is “alone” omniscient, everlasting, all-powerful, etc. I hope that the Alexandrian faction will take it upon themselves to seek minor amendments to this statement next week. The word “alone” has certain implications about the nature of the Son, and this statement is only supposed to concern the Father. I hope that all can agree later to save that issue for the second statement of the creed.

In today’s discussion, there was quite a bit of back-and-forth without making any progress. Scripture passages were cited that may seem to support a certain position but can easily be refuted in the citing of a different passage. I think that it is fair to say that words from scripture, while important, will not be successful in changing any minds at the Council.

The bishops and presbyters continued to be respectful with their words and sought to understand the opposing opinions. I hope this diplomacy will continue, but I fear that passions will rise next session as we dive further into the differences between the Arian and Alexandrian creedal statements on Jesus. Luckily, we have a foundation to work with and add to that is supported by all. Jesus, light from light, came down from heaven, suffered and rose from the dead. It is my hope that the establishment of this basis will demonstrate to the factions how much they have in common. This is not a time to nitpick, and if we focus heavily on small details, we will not be successful in writing a united creed. I am not yet sure how we will find the language to reconcile the differences in opinion on Jesus’ substance and divinity, his relationship with God, and his origins.