persecution

1 files changed, 214 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2025/12/11/persecution.md b/website/src/content/blog/2025/12/11/persecution.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..af60c6b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/website/src/content/blog/2025/12/11/persecution.md
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+---
+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. Many of the
+bishops assembled before him in reverent awe 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 were 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
+alms-money was spent. Some historians think of early bishops playing a social
+role rather like bankers in their communities. 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.
+They also needed them to keep distributing poor relief on the emperor's behalf,
+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.
+
+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 partly motivated by the need for a distinguishing
+feature for the Christian community in the absence of an identity based on
+nationality, social class, sex, or religion. It may have been some kind of
+reaction or defence mechanism in the face of persecution. 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, should not crown British monarchs and should
+not be exempt from taxation.
+
+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.