Becoming Christian: The Conversion of Roman Cappadocia

Orthodoxy and Heresy

Orthodoxy and Heresy Orthodoxy and Heresy Disputation over Christian doctrines, in all its profusion, diversity, and glorious ferocity, was a defining characteristic of the Roman empire during the fourth century. Everyone seemed to participate. Bishops and other prominent churchmen obviously took the lead in arguing these complex issues, both in their sermons and by shooting "arrows of black ink" in their treatises. Emperors and powerful imperial magistrates often imposed decisions, either cautiously through their patronage, or sometimes more implacably through edicts. Because they formed the audiences from which bishops and emperors solicited support and approval, ordinary believers were also energetic participants. In hundreds of cities people either attended or boycotted services and sermons; sometimes they took to the streets and rioted; but always, whether bustling about in the markets or relaxing at the baths, they talked and gossiped about the prominent contenders and their various doctrines. For them these disputes might as well have been the theologicalequivalents of sporting events that gave them another opportunity to cheer on their favorite performers. At Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus was dismayed to find that religious affairs had become another form of entertainment, "like horse races and the theater." It is no surprise that ecclesiastical writers filled their doctrinal and exegetical treatises with analogies to races and athletic contests. "The common life of manlund is the stadium, and for competition the stadium is available to everyone."' Out of these contentious whirlpools of dissent both a sense of orthodoxy and a consensus about orthodox doctrines eventually emerged. Certification of orthodoxy appeared on several levels. Bishops and other churchmen composed lengthy tomes explaining their preferred doctrines and refuting those of their rivals. They met in councils that issued creeds of faith. The creeds of two ecumenical councils, one at Nicaea in 325 and the other at Constantinople in 381, were eventually acknowledged as indisputable definitions of orthodox doctrine. In addition, emperors issued edicts that endorsed particular formulations as orthodox, promoted the supporters of that orthodoxy, and dictated penalties for all the heretics who continued to disagree. Yet despite this coalescence of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" within Christianity , both as conceptual constructs and as specific formulations in terms Disputation over Christian doctrines, in all its profusion, diversity, and glorious ferocity, was a defining characteristic of the Roman empire during the fourth century. Everyone seemed to participate. Bishops and other prominent churchmen obviously took the lead in arguing these complex issues, both in their sermons and by shooting "arrows of black ink" in their treatises. Emperors and powerful imperial magistrates often imposed decisions, either cautiously through their patronage, or sometimes more implacably through edicts. Because they formed the audiences from which bishops and emperors solicited support and approval, ordinary believers were also energetic participants. In hundreds of cities people either attended or boycotted services and sermons; sometimes they took to the streets and rioted; but always, whether bustling about in the markets or relaxing at the baths, they talked and gossiped about the prominent contenders and their various doctrines. For them these disputes might as well have been the theological equivalents of sporting events that gave them another opportunity to cheer on their favorite performers. At Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus was dismayed to find that religious affairs had become another form of entertainment, "like horse races and the theater." It is no surprise that ecclesiastical writers filled their doctrinal and exegetical treatises with analogies to races and athletic contests. "The common life of mankind is the stadium, and for competition the stadium is available to everyone:'l Out of these contentious whirlpools of dissent both a sense of orthodoxy and a consensus about orthodox doctrines eventually emerged. Certification of orthodoxy appeared on several levels. Bishops and other churchmen composed lengthy tomes explaining their preferred doctrines and refuting those of their rivals. They met in councils that issued creeds of faith. The creeds of two ecumenical councils, one at Nicaea in 325 and the other at Constantinople in 381, were eventually acknowledged as indisputable definitions oforthodox doctrine. In addition, emperors issued edicts that endorsed particular formulations as orthodox, promoted the supporters of that orthodoxy, and dictated penalties for all the heretics who continued to disagree. Yet despite this coalescence of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" within Christianity , both as conceptual constructs and as specific formulations in terms lo Orthodoxy and Heresy of precise doctrines, it remains difficult to explain why some doctrinal statements were accepted and so many others were...