A RHETORIC OF DIVINITY: THE NICENE CREED AS DISCIPLINED DISCOURSE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERISTY OF MINNESOTA BY STEPHEN H. BRASHER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Adviser, Dr. Donald Ross, Co-Adviser, Dr. Melissa Sellew May 2017 Copyright Stephen Brasher 2017 Acknowledgments For my parents who provided me with my first experiences of religion—in the Christian tradition—while in my youth. These experiences during my formative years made an indelible impact on me; the traces of that time remain. The Christian rituals I practiced while growing up were surely the impetus for my broader critical interest in, academic and otherwise, the multiple forms of religious tradition and expression that still captivate me. For my wife, though we have only been married a short time, your interest in, curiosity about, and support for this project, even when I had doubts about its ultimate merit, has been a great blessing. To my daughters, Hannah and Shelbie, for your love and support through my long years in Graduate School; I have watched you grow up while working on this writing project and I am filled with both joy, as well as tinge of sadness, for these furious, fleeting years. Dr. Bernadette Longo who first inspired this project in her Graduate seminar on writing and cultural practice. Dr. Donald Ross for your insightful editorial guidance and practical assistance with this project. Thank you too for welcoming me into your home for conversation, analysis, and support. Dr. Melissa Sellew for stepping into the gap to help me bring this project to fruition. Your insights as a scholar of religion have been invaluable and challenging, they have, no doubt, made this a more successful and, I hope, substantial piece of writing. Thank you too for the cozy breakfast on your backyard patio and the good conversation. Dr. Richard Graff for filling in when my original advisor left for a position at another university, and for the additional resources you pointed me to; my literature review was improved because of your thoughtful suggestions. Dr. Laura Gurak for your administrative guidance in expediting the completion of this project as well as your encouragement when I first visited the campus of the University of Minnesota. My fellow graduate student colleagues at the University of Minnesota, especially Mary Jo Wiatrak-Ulhenkott, for many hours of stimulating conversation at the now defunct Downtime over pints of Chocolate stout. Glenn Stegall, my intellectual soulmate, for your never flagging interest in this project, as well as your keen philosophical and theological insights throughout the years. Thank you for being a person of substance and in our oft-vapid culture. You remind me that all time is “ritual” time. i Kelley McCahill for your kindness, friendship, and your willingness to bend your ear in my direction in times of trouble…and for the haircut! My colleagues at Travelers who have demonstrated an incongruous, but welcome interest in my work, despite its abstract quality, relative to the work that we do in the office each day. Your enthusiasm is most appreciated! ii Table of Contents Chapter I: Trouble in Alexandria……………………………………………...1 Chapter II: History, Culture, Rhetoric (Notes on Methodology)………….....17 Chapter III: Remediating the Past: Rhetoric and Religion…….......................38 Chapter IV: Ideology, Metaphor and the Social Construction of Divinity…..54 Chapter V: The Social “Technological” Function of the Nicene Creed……..84 Chapter VI: Conclusion (The End is the Beginning)……………………….101 Works Cited…………………………………………………………………108 Additonal Works Consulted………………………………………………...115 iii Chapter I Trouble in Alexandria: An Introduction The dual substance of Christ—the yearning, so human, so superhuman, of man to attain God, or more exactly, to return to God and identify himself with him—has always been a deep inscrutable mystery…the struggle between God and man breaks out in everyone, together with the longing for reconciliation…That part of Christ’s nature which was profoundly human helps us to understand him and love him and pursue his Passion as it were our own. If he had not been able to touch our hearts with such assurance and tenderness; he would not be able to become a model for our lives. We struggle, we see him struggle also, and we find strength. We see that we are not alone in the world. Nikos Kazantzakis, “The Last Temptation of Christ” Traditions, when vital, embody continuities of conflict. Alasdair McIntyre, “After Virtue” In chapter twenty-one of Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon discusses the Christian theological controversies of the early fourth century that concerned the nature and extent of Jesus’ divinity, as well as the relational status of Jesus the Son to God the Father. Gibbon sarcastically concluded that the whole affair was a furious contest over a diphthong, by which he meant the conceptual distinction—as it pertained to the relational status of Jesus the Son to God the Father— between homoousios (of the same substance) rather than homoiousios (of similar substance). Thus, the difference between heresy and emergent orthodoxy as Gibbon quipped was literally a matter of “one iota.” Though Gibbon’s tone throughout his historical survey can be read as one of contempt for Christianity, his witticism points to the crucial political, agonistic function of language and, by extension—I will argue—of rhetoric in matters of theological contest, such as the Arian controversy and its subsequent creed, situated in the context of fourth century Alexandria, which shall be the primary concern of the foregoing thesis. 1 As a segue into the theological controversy that emerged in Alexandria, let’s consider an analogy more contemporary than the religious controversy discussed by Gibbon of nearly seventeen hundred years ago, but likewise speaks to the political and agonistic function of language (as well as implicit assumption made about language): The Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is often understood to reflect or contain self-evident truths—truths that are, therefore, ahistorical, asocial and, as such, context-independent. Those who hold to this view of the Constitution are referred to as “originalists,” “literalists,” or “strict-constructivists,” while those who view the Constitution more flexibly, as an “evolving” document, are variously called “Non- originalists” or “pragmatists.”1 For the originalist, the Constitution is, in a way similar to the Bible, a document of ultimate authority wherein meaning is ultimately fixed and unambiguous; this view stands in stark contrast to the pragmatist’s view that meaning is a socially constructed product of dialogue or of the interplay between power and desire. For the pragmatist, meaning is always provisional and in flux; “objectivity” itself is a cultural category, the product of social convention. This distinction between the literal, plain meaning of words versus a more metaphorical, fluid understanding of language that drives the different interpretive methods relative to how we understand the Constitution, as well as the politics that stem from these rival interpretive presuppositions, analogously illustrates the same tensions that were in play in the debate within the early church concerning how to construe the relationship between Jesus the Son of God and God the Father. In short, the way we talk about the Constitution and the way we talk (and have talked) about theology speaks to the perennial politics of language. 1 For a fuller treatment of biblical literalism in America see Crapanzano, 2000. 2 At the heart of what has historically come to be known as the Arian controversy2 is a debate over the nature of Jesus Christ and his divine status: Is Jesus (the Son) a creaturely being set apart from God (the Father), and in this sense, one of the three hypostases of the trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)? Or is the Son consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and thus a distinct being, but of the same substance as God? Conceiving of the Son in terms of the concept of homoousios is analogous to thinking about the way in which ice, though a distinct form of water, still remains essentially and substantially water, or how the initial spark of fire that starts another distinct fire is still of the same substance as the first fire from whence it came. Jesus’ role as both model and savior was the key factor at play in the Arian controversy, for if Jesus was understood to be wholly God then he could hardly have served as a model whom we finite beings, who are clearly not God, could emulate. However, if he was construed as fully human, then how could he serve the theological-metaphysical, salvific function of rescuing the immortal soul from damnation? Another key aspect of the controversy concerned whether Christ existed from all eternity or was he created in “in time”? The Arians had a theological solution to this particular religious conundrum, but one that ran counter to emergent orthodox opinion, and given that the stakes were—from the point of view of the Christian leaders and Christian theology—the very life and death of both body and soul, it was a serious matter indeed. In 324 of the Common Era Constantine, who was then Augustus of the West,3 finally defeated his chief rival, Licinius, Augustus of the East, at two decisive battles in 2 For an excellent overview of the vast literature related to Arianism beginning from the late nineteenth century see Williams, 2001. 3 The emperor Diocletian who reigned from 284-305 (in whose court Constantine initially served) established the tetrarchic system whereby there would be two emperors (Augusti) in east and west, and two 3 Asia Minor. This victory enabled Constantine to declare control over the entire Roman Empire—East and West—thus he became Rome’s sole emperor, and the first Christian emperor of history.