Helped by imperial protection and benefaction, and frequently even by the direct prompting and invitation of imperial authorities, Christian bishops and theologians met more frequently than in previous times. These synods or councils brought face to face churchmen who were otherwise greatly removed from one another, in terms both of geography and of their local ecclesiastical cultures and theological traditions. The unprecedented scale of participation and geographical outreach provided opportunities not only to discuss a specific agenda of disciplinary or theological dispute, but also to deliver speeches and sermons and to read and discuss technical treatises on aspects of theology or exegesis. Forceful personalities clashed or formed alliances. In all this, synods created or aggravated doctrinal or personal conflict as much as they helped to solve it.
The council of Nicaea, convened by Constantine in ad 325, set the precedent for the increasing role of synods in theological discourse. It would eventually come to be regarded as the cornerstone of orthodoxy and the iconic expression of the selfidentity of the Church in the Roman Empire. The council was instrumental in increasing the frequency of similar gatherings in future: it ruled that provincial synods should be held twice annually (canon 5). In addition to those regular provincial gatherings, many larger meetings (still ideally universal) were held during the following decades. Some were convened directly on the initiative of the emperor or emperors to solve conflict in the Church. The festive occasions associated with the anniversaries of emperors or with their grand building programs also provided frequent opportunities for bishops to come together and to discuss and determine doctrinal disagreement. The dedications of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem (ad 336) and of the Great Church in Antioch (ad 341) are prime examples.
To the unsympathetic observer, the sight of scores of bishops traveling from one gathering to the next, and taking up much of the resources of public transport in the process, summed up the conflicts of the period (Amm. Marc. 21. 16. 18). But not all bishops were happy with the development. Gregory of Nazianzus, after a bad experience at the Council of Constantinople (ad 381), where he was ousted from the presidency, was scathing about them: no good ever came of a synod (Ep. 130. 1). Earlier, Athanasius poured contempt and ridicule over the many synods ofhis opponents, although he was content to see others held to his advantage. Synodal debates thus became one ofthe chiefinstruments in forging alliances, in identifying and contrasting varied theological suppositions, and in attempts at doctrinal decision-making.
Many treatises, often polemical, about the controversial theological issues of the time were written in the run-up to such synods and were designed to influence the deliberations. Other works tried to assert a specific interpretation of events now past, and to identify in their wake the real doctrinal import of conciliar statements. Sermons and addresses were delivered to disseminate major concepts. Even exegetical commentaries and homilies frequently had doctrinal problems in view, and sought to uncover the implications of scriptural passages for the discussions that ensued. Obviously, theological literature was not restricted to such discussions, and works on the Scriptures important in themselves, on religious practice and spirituality, and on many other themes, were also being produced. Yet even they often drew from the implications of doctrinal definition or, conversely, illustrated common presuppositions informing and motivating the more technical debates about doctrinal propositions and language. Hence, much of the Christian literature of the time needs to be interpreted in the context of a contemporary theological discourse, and the sequence of councils and synods provides a useful vantage point. Conciliar debates frequently summed up the discussions of previous literary exchanges and polemic. They brought opposing views to a head, vying for acceptance as orthodox. Synods proved valuable tools in clarifying difficult theological questions; but, in aiming to reach consensus over doctrinal differences and in ruling on disciplinary problems, they could seem equally to harden partisan loyalties, to perpetuate bickering, and even to spark fresh theological dissent. Sometimes, in bringing the best theological minds together, they could also assemble the worst ecclesiastical power mongers.
World History
