Dissension and Politics in Religion

I just got done reading about the several different councils that met during the first 7 centuries of the Early Church under the authority of the Roman Empire. The councils usually met because there was a conflict in theology, specifically in understanding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son. Some argued that God was superior to Jesus, others argued that they were made of the same "stuff" or "substance". These councils were very political in nature, and in many cases, the end resolution was decided in part by the influence of the current reigning Roman Emperor. Once a resolution was reached, it was customary for the winning side to condemn the losing side as anathema, which is a nice word for banished or excommunicated. In many cases, the opinion of the emperor would change, or a new emperor would come to power, and tables would be turned, and those formerly excommunicated would be reinstated. Some, such as Arius, were to be accepted back even after being accused and excommunicated for heresy (his death prevented this from happening). In every instance, the councils built on the work of others, further separating what was the "winner" from the loser. It makes me wonder how much of the outcome of these councils was decided by the influence held on the emperor. It seems that the easiest way in this case to get your position agreed and accepted is to have the emperor be on your side. The politics of lobbying the emperor for credibility in the council had to be at least thought of, if not acted on. The outcome of these councils is far reaching; their decisions have a huge impact on the way we think about the person and savior known as Jesus Christ. If they had turned a different way, we might have a very different perspective on who are Savior is, and what he can do as savior.