Historical Lessons of the Nicene Creed
Beezone, Ed Reither, and ChatGPT
The Arian controversy, which culminated in the First Council of Nicaea and the adoption of the Nicene Creed, serves as a compelling historical lens through which to measure the limitations described in “The Taboo Against the Superior Man,” an essay from Love of the Two-Armed Form written by Bubba Free John (Adi Da Samraj) in 1978. At its core, the controversy was a theological and political struggle rooted in human tendencies toward “childish and subhuman persuasions.” The essay identifies these persuasions as stemming from unresolved fears, dependency, and inverted visions of life that arise in childhood and often persist into adulthood. Applying this framework to the Arian controversy highlights how the inability to transcend these limitations perpetuated division, confusion, and fear-driven interpretations of spiritual truth.
Fearful Dependency and Inverted Solutions
In The Taboo Against the Superior Man, Adi Da asserts that “the unrelieved fears of childhood dependency and vulnerability” create inverted solutions to life’s dilemmas, often leading to subjectively oriented and self-possessed dispositions. In the context of the Arian controversy, the theological debate over the nature of Christ—whether He was a created being (homoiousios) or of the same essence as the Father (homoousios)—reflects the struggles of a religious culture still grappling with dependency on rigid, simplistic frameworks of understanding.
Arius’s theology, emphasizing Christ as subordinate to the Father, can be seen as an inversion born of dependency on a finite, hierarchical vision of divinity. This perspective, while intellectually appealing to some, ultimately diminishes the relational and universal aspects of divine truth by conceptualizing Christ in terms of human-like power structures. It mirrors the child’s worldview of vulnerable dependency, where safety is sought in hierarchical control rather than relational wholeness. By contrast, the Nicene affirmation of homoousios—Christ as of the same essence as the Father—represents a more integrated and mature vision of relational unity within divinity.
Resistance to Relational Maturity
Adi Da emphasizes in his essay that relational adaptation is the hallmark of human maturity, whereas the childish solution is inversion and self-centeredness. The Arian controversy illustrates the resistance to this relational maturity within both the theological and cultural dynamics of the time. Many bishops, particularly those in the “conservative” middle party at Nicaea, preferred to avoid conflict by clinging to familiar, inherited beliefs. Their reluctance to engage deeply with the implications of Arianism highlights the difficulty of moving beyond adolescent tendencies toward convenience and avoidance.
This resistance is further evident in the Arian camp’s fear of losing control over a simplified vision of God’s nature. Their theological framework allowed for a clearer hierarchy and distinctions, avoiding the complexity and relational depth inherent in the Nicene vision of the Trinity. Such resistance to relational integration reflects Adi Da’s description of individuals who remain “inherently indisposed toward responsibility for natural forces, either in themselves or in the world.”
Breaking the Spell of Subhuman Persuasions
Adi Da’s call in The Taboo Against the Superior Man to “break the spell of childish and subhuman persuasions” aligns with the transformative potential of the Nicene Creed. The Council, though fraught with conflict and political maneuvering, represented a collective effort to transcend limited and divisive perspectives. The affirmation of homoousios was not merely a theological victory but an attempt to embody a higher vision of divine reality—one that requires the relational wholeness and integration characteristic of mature humanity.
The process of reaching this conclusion, however, also underscores the limitations of the era. While the Nicene Creed laid the groundwork for orthodoxy, it did not entirely dispel the inverted solutions of fear and division. The persistent Arian disputes and subsequent councils reveal how deeply embedded these tendencies were within the human condition and ecclesiastical structures.
Toward a Mature Vision of Humanity
The Arian controversy, when viewed through the lens of Adi Da’s The Taboo Against the Superior Man, highlights the enduring challenge of overcoming humanity’s childish and subhuman persuasions. It reveals how fear, dependency, and inverted solutions can perpetuate division and obscure higher wisdom. Yet, it also points to the potential for transformation through collective effort and commitment to relational truth. The Nicene Creed, as a response to this controversy, stands as both a triumph and a reminder of the ongoing work required to break the spell of limited vision and to aspire toward a future of mature, unified humanity.
In our current subhuman and childish condition, as Adi Da describes, humanity remains predominantly identified with physical and vital experiences, which perpetuates a dangerous avoidance of responsibility. Instead of embracing the higher intelligence and relational maturity necessary to master our circumstances, we “play” with our world, exploiting it while failing to control the consequences of our actions. We poison the earth, squander natural resources, and create destructive imbalances in population, industrial waste, and international politics. While we wield great power over natural forces, our inability to exercise loving mastery over even basic elements of life—such as our relationships, sexuality, or the environment—renders us a destructive force in the world.
By contrast, animals and natural systems operate with an instinctual harmony and economy that puts human recklessness to shame. This profound disconnection from responsibility stems from the same tendencies that the old orders of religion have long fostered. These traditions, though not always intentionally, often perpetuate fear, dependency, and a limited, childlike understanding of life by prioritizing consolation, mythical beliefs, and personal survival. Instead of guiding humanity toward radical self-sacrifice, spiritual intelligence, and higher adaptation, they reinforce the very patterns that prevent the emergence of a more mature humanity.
The consequence of this persistent irresponsibility is that the appearance of a higher or superior individual—a person who transcends childish persuasions and assumes full responsibility for the human condition—is exceedingly rare. Such an individual, embodying the maturity and vision that humanity refuses to embrace, is often viewed with suspicion or hostility. Society labels these figures as “mad” or “evil,” projecting its own fears onto them because their presence exposes the collective unwillingness to grow beyond childish limitations. Their capacity for radical intelligence and responsibility challenges the subhuman norms that dominate human culture, which resists accountability for the vast power it wields.
Adi Da’s essay, in dialogue with the historical lessons of the Nicene Creed, makes it clear that the higher evolution of humanity depends on our willingness to move beyond the destructive, fear-driven patterns of our present condition. To do so, we must relinquish the consolations of dependency and self-centeredness and embrace the responsibilities of relational and spiritual maturity. Only by doing so can we fulfill our human potential and pass into our divine destiny, creating a world that honors not just the rare individual of higher vision, but the collective possibility of a truly mature and awakened humanity.