There are a number of frankly bizarre conspiracy theories about the Council of Nicaea’s decision to affirm the deity of Christ, most of which involve the role of the Emperor Constantine.

Constantine’s Conversion

To understand the controversy about the emperor’s participation in the Council, we need to back up and consider his conversion. Years earlier, Constantine had employed a Christian named Lactantius as a tutor for his children. Lactantius argued for religious toleration in his Divine Institutes using arguments that went back to second-century Christian writers: Only worship voluntarily given is pleasing to God; therefore, religious liberty is necessary since compulsory worship will never please God. Constantine was thus familiar with Christianity and this argument.

In 312, just prior to the Battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine claimed to have had a vision of a chi-rho (the first to letters of Christ in Greek and a common Christian symbol) and the words, “In this sign, conquer.” Taking this as a message  from God, he had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields, and when he won the battle against his opponent’s superior forces, he converted to Christianity.

The Edict of Milan followed in 313, granting religious liberty in the Empire using wording taken from Lactantius’s Divine Institutes. This had the effect of legalizing Christianity. Contrary to popular belief, it did not make Christianity the “official” religion of the Empire, though Constantine’s conversion certainly helped popularize it.

But was It Genuine?

A great deal of ink has been spilled over whether Constantine’s conversion was genuine or the product of political calculation. On the one hand, Christianity was a growing religion, centered in the cities, with a high degree of organization; it could thus provide an important base that Constantine could rely upon. On the other hand, Christians were still unpopular, and they made up only about 10% to 15% of the Roman world—hardly an overwhelming number. Besides, many or perhaps most were pacifists, though Christians were serving in the military even prior to 313. It is thus far from clear that there was any real political advantage in embracing Christianity.

Conspiracy Theories

This is where Nicaea fits in, according to some who question the legitimacy of the Council’s decisions or even whether it is appropriate to talk about any single “orthodoxy” within Christianity. The argument goes something like this: Constantine called the Council or at least took advantage of the existing controversy within the church to unite Christians and pagans.

By pushing the Council to adopt the idea that Jesus was the Son of God, both divine and human, he became a demigod like one of the heroes of Greek and Roman mythology with a god as a father and a human mother. This made Christianity more palatable to the pagans, enabling it to unify the Empire’s religions and securing for Constantine the backing of both sides.

The number of things wrong with this idea is legion.

Let’s start with the fact that Constantine did not attempt to unite the Empire’s religions. Paganism continued to thrive, and Constantine did nothing to pressure pagans to convert.

Then there are the theological problems. The word “God” means something very different when a Christian uses it from when a pagan uses it. All pagan gods are limited; they are not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent; they have limited ranges of interest and responsibility; they are not the source of truth, goodness, and beauty; and so on. Further, Jesus is anything but a demigod. The Christian confession is that he is fully God and fully man, not a half-god/half-man or a human who ascends to deity. So this argument completely misunderstands what Nicaea decided.

It is also a serious distortion of the history of the Council.

Calling the Council

Yes, Constantine called the Council, but this was in keeping with the traditional responsibilities of the Roman emperor. Whenever there was a conflict between the priests of a religion or between religions, it was the emperor’s job to mediate it to make sure the people stayed on good terms with their gods. When the Arian controversy arose, Constantine naturally saw it as his responsibility to see it resolved. Further, the church’s only model for a Christian emperor was the Old Testament kings of Israel, who were themselves responsible for seeing to it that the people worshipped God rightly. So neither the church nor the emperor saw what he was doing as intrusive or unusual.

At the Council

At Nicea, Constantine actually went through and kissed the wounds of the bishops who had been tortured by his predecessors. While this could have been political theatre, it does not seem likely. Nor does it seem likely that the bishops who had held their ground under persecution would docilely allow Constantine to tell them what to do or believe. In fact, there is no evidence that Constantine participated in the deliberations of the Council.

Rather than trying to dictate doctrine, Constantine’s goal in calling the Council was to determine the consensus of the church and unify everyone around it; it would be hard enough to win the Empire to Christianity without the Christians arguing among themselves about what they were supposed to believe. This goal was largely met: Arians, including Arius himself, who accepted the Nicene Creed were readmitted to the church.

Constantine’s involvement at Nicaea was thus pragmatic: He wanted unity in the church without dictating the terms of that unity. Paganism continued; Constantine did nothing to suppress it, and Arianism survived for a time both inside and outside of the Empire. The idea that Nicaea was a power play or political maneuvering by Constantine simply doesn’t fit the history.