moves blog posts to new position to be consistent with gemlog

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 227 deletions

diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2025/12/11/persecution.md b/website/src/content/blog/2025/12/11/persecution.md
deleted file mode 100644
index a054009..0000000
--- a/website/src/content/blog/2025/12/11/persecution.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,227 +0,0 @@
----
-title: Why did the church become persecuting in the fourth century?
-description: >-
-  In one generation, Christians in the Roman Empire went from officially
-  persecuted to becoming imperially-backed persecutors themselves. It's
-  important to understand why, to prevent the church from persecuting today.
-pubDate: 2025-12-11
----
-
-In the year 325, Constantine stood before an assembly of Christian bishops. He
-had just the year before killed his last remaining rival in battle, leaving him
-as the sole Augustus of the Roman Empire, from Brittania to Arabia. The bishops
-must have assembled before him in reverent awe.
-
-Many of them sported scars from torture they had endured in the reign of
-Diocletian, Constantine's predecessor. Diocletian had sponsored an enormous and
-brutal persecution of Christians. But that generation of bishops was witnessing
-an epochal shift of power. Over his reign, Constantine would divert large chunks
-of the wealth and influence of the Roman state into the safe-keeping of the
-bishops. Under Constantine's leadership, the bishops would be transformed from
-enemies of the state to the state's agents.
-
-Official Roman persecution of Christians was decisively coming to an end. But
-the tragedy of the fourth century is that rather than ushering in a new age of
-religious tolerance, the bishops only continued the Roman habit of religious
-persecution, directing the force of the Empire first against internal rivals,
-'heretics', and then against pagans and Jews.
-
-Why did Constantine bestow so much power on the bishops? Part of the answer may
-be the creaking disfunction of the Roman state. The imperial systems for
-protecting the poor were falling apart. The justice system was notoriously
-corrupt, and was known to effectively be a means for the rich to get their way
-by paying for the best lawyers and greasing the palms of the judges. The
-poor-relief system, based on the magnanimity of local patrons, was stuttering as
-an increasing proportion of the aristocracy's surplus wealth went to fund the
-tottering military system, frequently consuming huge resources in ill-fated
-expeditions against the Sassanids or fighting coups and civil wars between rival
-emperors.
-
-The bishops were already in control of an impressive poor-relief system within
-Christian communities, and, unlike the Roman system, which rewarded rich
-philanthropists with honours, the Christian system encouraged patrons to give
-anonymously via their bishop, meaning the bishops were in control of how large
-amounts of Christian money was spent. When Constantine ascended, they were ready
-to go with their own bureaucratic systems independent of the imperial civil
-service.
-
-Constantine may have regarded the bishops, fresh out of persecution, as less
-corrupt than imperial pen-pushers. However, in the long run, the effect of his
-transfer of power was to transform the episcopate into an alternative civil
-service, perhaps no less corrupt than the first. But how did this power turn
-into persecution?
-
-As the bishops became ever more powerful, Constantine and his successors became
-increasingly dependent on their power. Bishops had huge moral influence over
-their congregations, and their word had the power to stop -- or start -- riots.
-Emperors also needed them to keep distributing poor relief, an important
-foundation for the emperor's moral authority. When the hugely unpopular George
-of Cappadocia was installed in Alexandria in 357, the local widows refused to
-receive alms from him: as a result, they were physically beaten by George's
-imperial goons.
-
-Since the emperors needed the bishops' support, they became increasingly willing
-to acquiesce to their demands. And one of the bishops' demands was that the
-emperor use his authority to help them crush heresy.
-
-The bishops of the fourth century inherited a dichotomy between orthodoxy and
-heresy which had developed in the early church. Orthodoxy meant true belief,
-defined and enforced by the bishop. Whoever promoted false beliefs, and together
-with it insurrection against the bishop's authority, was defined as a heretic.
-
-Orthodoxy was conceived of as the unchanging teaching of the apostles, who were
-in turn taught directly by the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy might have to be re-stated
-as sneaky heretics sought to twist its language, but orthodoxy was never
-supposed to be innovative: only heresy was innovative. Further, heresy was
-always thought of as a combination teaching falsehoods, behaving immorally, and
-refusing to take part in mainstream Christian community. It all came as a
-package. Truth means right behaviour means loyalty.
-
-It's difficult to explain exactly why this system emerged. It's true that faith
-lies at the root of Christian religion, and that Christ taught that he is truth.
-The Epistles are clear that false teachings can be dangerous, and Christians
-have a duty to resist them. But that doesn't in itself explain why the bishop
-gets to decide which teachings are true or false, nor why the myth of an
-unchanging apostolic orthodox teaching should have prevailed over the idea that
-Christian teaching can grow over time as it encounters new problems and
-contexts.
-
-This system may have been motivated by the need for a distinguishing feature to
-ground Christian family identity in the absence of an identity based on
-nationality, social class, sex, or religion. It may also have been some kind of
-reaction or defence mechanism against persecution. In a world that was often
-hunting for an excuse to persecute Christians, it was a matter of life and death
-that Christian communities were tight-knit, loyal to one another, and visibly
-living according to the highest moral standards.
-
-Whatever the case may be, the result by the Constantinian turning point was that
-bishops had significant influence over their local Christian communities, and an
-ideological commitment to maintaining their communities' loyalty to the bishop
-and his teachings.
-
-And the bishops' desire to crush heretics only increased as the fourth century
-wore on. With the wealth and power of the civil service increasingly transferred
-to the episcopate, the aristocracy which had dominated the civil service
-inevitably moved in to capture the episcopate. Those aristocrats guarded their
-power jealously, and elections became increasingly marred by accusations of
-corruption. When Athanasius was elected in 328, he was accused of being
-underage, of bribing electors and of beating up his Meletian opponents once he
-got in office. No doubt, the aristocratic bishops were more than happy to use
-the church's concept of orthodoxy to keep out challengers, as Athanasius did
-when he used the label 'Arian' to describe just about anyone who wanted him out
-of power, no matter how distant their ideas were from those of Arius. As bishops
-found the need to fight ever stiffer competition for their jobs, accusations of
-heresy multiplied.
-
-As a result of their dependence on episcopal power, Constantine and his
-successors supported the bishops in their attempts to crush heresy. The bishops
-appealed to the emperor to adjudicate on disputes, and the emperor responded by
-calling councils such as Nicaea (325), Antioch (341), Constantinople (360) and
-Constantinople again (381). Under the emperor's authority, bishops were exiled
-from their sees, and some theological views were condemned as heresy while
-others affirmed as orthodoxy, to justify the empowerment of some and the
-dethronement of others. The particular orthodoxies implied by succeeding
-emperors was not consistent, leading to some emperors and councils being known
-to history as 'Nicene' and others as 'Arian'.
-
-Apart from simply doing a favour for the bishops, the emperors had their own
-reasons for wanting to defend the bishops from challengers. The bishops now had
-the keys to the welfare system and the justice system. The emperor therefore
-could not tolerate rival bishops fighting for authority. That would only
-undermine those systems, which underpinned imperial power and moral authority.
-
-The emperors may also have been motivated by the need to uphold true religion
-and keep peace in the Empire. It was a universal consensus that, if the Empire
-was to flourish, it would only be with God's blessing, and that would only
-happen in turn if the people were united in acceptable worship. Before the Edict
-of Milan in 313, which finally ended official persecution of Christians in the
-Roman Empire, there had been a long debate about whether Christian worship
-counted. It was controversial because Christian worship didn't look much like
-worship at all to pagan eyes, in particular because Christians didn't make
-sacrifices. When Constantine settled the issue in favour of Christians, it must
-have signalled a step change, where acceptable worship became less about proper
-rites and more about proper belief. This trend may have led emperors to regard
-heresy as a threat to the Empire's security. Further, where there were schisms,
-there was no peace, and the Emperor's mission, to unite the world under one
-government in perpetual peace, was incomplete.
-
-These forces amplified one another in a terrible feedback loop. As bishops
-increasingly were empowered to define and enforce orthodoxy, they increasingly
-monopolised local church leadership, which made them more desirable as imperial
-bureaucrats, which meant they got more power, which meant they were more able
-still to define and enforce orthodoxy. It was a spiral which led to the
-definition of orthodoxy being continually sharpened (even as the myth persisted,
-ever less plausibly, that they were defending pristine, unaltered apostolic
-teachings). Eventually, it pushed bishops to support persecution not only of
-Christians who disagreed with them, but also pagans and Jews.
-
-Orthodoxy may also have become more important in the fourth century because of
-the large number of new converts. With so much influx, insiders may have felt
-that their core belief-identity was being threatened, and so will have enforced
-orthodoxy more strictly, while outsiders may have felt the need to prove their
-authenticity by strongly committing to orthodoxy. Committing violence against
-heretics, pagans, and Jews may also have functioned as a way to prove that
-you're an authentic Christian. This drive towards violence was pushed especially
-strongly from the monastic sector, which exploded in scale in the fourth
-century.
-
-When orthodoxy gets sharp enough, it eventually gets sharp enough to cut the
-church in half. To put it another way, bishops competed to get imperial backing
-for their thinking, and therefore their right to power. Since this imperial
-backing must have some consistency to remain legitimate, this means orthodoxy
-gets standardised across the Empire, and that means that local differences of
-opinion become international schisms. Although the Arian controversy never
-resulted in a schism within the Empire, there were numerous schisms in the
-fourth and fifth centuries, culminating in the epic Nestorian schism, which
-split the imperial church three ways along Chalcedonian, Antiochene and
-Alexandrian fault lines.
-
-My main reaction to this period of church history is dismay. It seems to me that
-the church was captured by the Empire and the aristocracy. The church became in
-large part a way for powerful people to grab, hold onto and accumulate power.
-When that happens today, the Gospel is suppressed, and the church loses moral
-authority.
-
-To avoid this happening again, we ought to protect the right of Christians and
-others to believe and gather free from persecution. True belief is important,
-but that doesn't mean we should attempt to compel agreement. Christian leaders
-cannot enforce their teachings if dissatisfied Christians can just go to the
-church next door.
-
-Opening communion also disempowers those forces which seek to enforce orthodoxy.
-If the bishop can't bar you from taking communion, they can't force you to
-accept what they teach or to support their political programme.
-
-Finally, established churches are vulnerable to the perverse incentive
-structures of the state, and must be disestablished. The Church of England
-should not have seats in the Lords and should not crown British monarchs.
-
-I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church -- but I do not believe in
-one opinion or one authority. My realistic ideal of church unity now involves a
-plurality of disestablished denominations which robustly disagree with one
-another on important points of belief, but which admit one another to communion
-and are willing to work together for the sake of the Gospel.
-
-I have to caveat my pessimism about the fourth century. As much as I regret the
-imperialisation of the church, I remain attached to the particular orthodoxies
-which it produced at Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. I've been convinced
-that they are important ground truths for theology, and have stood the test of
-time because they are intellectually robust. Other creeds and councils
-(including creeds from fourth-century councils) have been forgotten, but these
-stand tall. I suppose that Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon give good
-guardrails for theology, and, whatever the political forces which gave rise to
-them, have been subsequently vindicated by their theological fruits and by the
-enduring testimony of the church.
-
-In summary, the church became increasingly persecuting in the fourth century as
-a result of the entangled interests of, on the one hand, an increasingly landed,
-aristocratic episcopate which needed to protect its influence amidst stiff
-competition, and, on the other hand, of embattled emperors who regarded the
-bishops as a better way of exerting the Empire's power and achieving the
-Empire's mission amidst the failure of the old imperial systems: provided they
-could be kept happy and kept in unchallenged power. This persecuting force
-produced the church's foundational ecumenical creeds, but was just as effective
-at producing disharmony as enforcing harmony, and ultimately led to the massive
-and ongoing Nestorian schism. This is a sober lesson for today's church, and
-should move us to protect freedom of belief and gathering for all, to
-disestablish the church and to open the communion.