Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Will the Theologians Please Sit Down  /  Chapter 12: What Happened When the Theologians Wrangled  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 3
The bishops did not question “the propriety of an unbaptized Roman convening a council of Christian bishops” or secular rulers presiding; what early-Christian instincts about church authority and the kingdom “not of this world” (John 18:36) would have made that arrangement feel impossible or even absurd?
Another way to ask: Why didn’t the bishops object to an unbaptized Roman emperor calling and leading their council? How would early Christians, who believed God’s kingdom is “not of this world” (John 18:36), have seen that as wrong or even ridiculous?

Direct Answer Bercot suggests early-Christian instincts would have rejected secular control over the church because Christ’s kingdom “is not of this world,” making it incompatible with emperors convening councils and using state mechanisms to govern doctrine.

Support from Transcript:

  • The delegates “did not question the propriety of an unbaptized Roman convening a council of Christian bishops.”
  • They also didn’t question “secular rulers presiding at the council.”
  • Bercot says the Nicene Council “effectively united church and state,” and leaders “took no notice of this momentous change.”
  • He emphasizes, “none of them saw the impossibility of uniting the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world.”
  • He frames the basic kingdom principle as “rudimentary”: “it is not of this world (John 18:36).”
  • They “thought they could turn the Roman Empire into the kingdom of God.”
Discussion Follow-ups If the kingdom is not of this world, what kind of authority should shape church decisions? What modern arrangements mirror “secular rulers presiding” in subtler ways?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next