diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'website/src/content/blog/2025-10-09.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | website/src/content/blog/2025-10-09.md | 171 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 171 deletions
diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2025-10-09.md b/website/src/content/blog/2025-10-09.md deleted file mode 100644 index 47f317d..0000000 --- a/website/src/content/blog/2025-10-09.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,171 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Arianism -description: >- - I'm summarising what I've learned recently about Arianism: the heresy par - excellence, named for the early-fourth-century Alexandrian priest, Arius. I'll - conclude with some reflections on why we still need to reject Arian - temptations and affirm Nicene orthodoxy today. -pubDate: 2025-10-09 ---- - -Arianism neither started nor ended with Arius. When he preached in the 320s, he, -like so many of his contemporary Alexandrians, only followed Origen in -subordinating the Son to the Father. In Alexandria, there was a strong emphasis -on the absolute transcendence and perfection of God, and therefore the -difference between that and the Jesus who was born, was tempted, suffered and -died. Arius was unremarkable in that respect. He was only remarkable in drawing -the logical conclusion: since God is indivisible, ingenerate, immutable, eternal -and impassible, but the Son of God was begotten, born of a woman, was tempted, -suffered and died, it follows that the Son of God is not fully God. The image of -the Father, sure, but not sharing in his Godhead: that wouldn't do justice to -the Father's Godhead. - -The movement later characterised as 'Arianism' did not share all his teaching. -In particular, the idea that the Son was begotten in time -- that 'there was -when he was not' -- was a slur, and respectable Arians accepted that the Son is -eternal. Some historians deny that there was any coherent movement worth calling -'Arianism', however, I think the creeds and councils of the fourth century show -that there was a theological movement, self-consciously and unashamedly -associated with Arius, which privileged God's transcendence over the Godhead of -the Son. So, although the name 'Arianism' is certainly intended to be -derogatory, and there was surely no conspiracy to follow Arius as such, I think -the term 'Arianism' is meaningful and has a referent. - -Whether or not individual bishops completely agreed with Arius theology, very -many were sympathetic to his pro-transcendence leaning. So, when he applied his -considerable arts of persuasion to influential likeminded bishops like Eusebius -of Nicomedia, he succeeded in establishing a considerable alliance behind him. -What had already been a theological strain was forced by the heat of controversy -to coalesce into a faction. - -Arius and his supporters were set back temporarily by the Council of Nicaea in -325, when the emperor Constantine personally backed the homoousion under the -impression this would resolve the dispute. But Nicaea lost influence very -quickly, and the Eusebian faction gained ground. By 328, Arius himself had been -reconciled into the church by Constantine. And through the 330s, Eusebius of -Caesarea, another Arian sympathiser, repeatedly engineered the exile of key -supporters of Nicaea, including Eustathius, Marcellus and Athanasius. - -In this period, it may be fair to characterise Athanasius as standing more or -less alone in fighting against Arianism. This changed somewhat in the 340s, when -he gathered the support of the bishop of Rome and many other western bishops in -his cause. He remained anathema in the East. - -He still had a great deal of sympathy back in Egypt, however. The imperial -administration had installed Gregory of Cappadocia, a stalwart Arian, in place -of Athanasius as bishop of Alexandria from 339 until 346. Yet when Athanasius -returned to reclaim his see in 346, he was greeted with, according to Gregory of -Nazanius, 'universal cheers ..., nightlong festivities, the whole city gleaming -with light, and both public and private feasting'. And when Arius was exiled -again, and another Arian, George of Cappadocia, again installed in his place in -356, the results were riots. When George attempted to carry out one of his key -roles as bishop -- distributing money to widows -- many widows had to be beaten -to accept money from his hands. After five years, George was lynched in 361. The -people of Alexandria were roundly behind their local hero, and did not take -kindly to Rome imposing their agenda on them by force. - -While Egypt held strong for Athanasius, the Arian party became ever more -triumphant in the rest of the Empire. In 358 and 359, a series of fraught -councils in East and West produced conflicting resolutions, and the emperor -Constantius resolved in 360 to get the situation under control. He called a -council to Constantinople and ensured an even result. These were the homoean -creeds, asserting that while the Son is like the Father, we cannot and must not -say anything about their ousia. - -These creeds have subsequently been called the 'Arian' creeds. The reason for -describing the homoean party as 'Arian' is, first, that they explicitly rejected -Nicaea and the homoousion, and second, they failed to affirm the full Godhead of -the Son, saying only that the Son is 'like the Father' and that he is 'God from -God', pointedly omitting the Nicaean elaboration, 'true God from true God'. - -The councils of 358-360 were chaotic. Councils overrode councils. The emperor -rejected creeds and forced his own ones through. Swathes of bishops were -banished or deposed. Amidst all the chaos, Athanasius found himself making -unexpected friends: the Cappadocian Fathers, including Basil 'the Great', while -preferring 'homoiousion' or 'like essence' to his Nicene 'homoousion' or 'same -essence', ended up on his side against the triumphant homoeans. The violence of -those councils bred hostility, and with a common grudge, a coalition had -suddenly formed against the homoeans and around Nicaea. - -Perhaps Constantius might have been able to force his way, but he died in -only 361. His replacement was Julian. While Julian's reign was short, he brought -about a sharp change in direction. - -Julian, 'the Apostate', had converted from Christianity to paganism, and during -his reign, the alliance between Church and Empire was briefly severed. In a -deliberate attempt to sow chaos, he refused to mediate on behalf of the Church -and allowed all banished bishops to return from exile. At one time, there were -five competing bishops all in Antioch. - -One result of this severance was that bishops were free to form their own -alliances and make their own case. As a result, the Nicene alliance emerged from -Julian's brief reign decisively stronger. - -The Nicene alliance would have to wait until 379 for a sympathetic emperor. But -once Theodosius acceded, the Nicene victory was absolute and irreversible. He -decreed that all clergy had to agree to the Nicene Creed, and called a council -to amend and affirm the Creed. - -This did not mean that Arianism died out. Eusebius of Nicomedia had sponsored a -mission to the Goths, and, being outside of the emperor's grasp, they held -strong to their Arian convictions for centuries after. Indeed, when the Goths -later took possession of large parts of the Western Empire, Arians may well have -significantly outnumbered Nicenes in the West, long after the matter was settled -within the Empire. And certain theologies today, which seek to reduce Jesus to a -mere emanation from or pointer towards a transcendent God, or a religious genius -or a spiritual guru, rather than the real presence of God, are Arian in so far -as they seek to protect the transcendence of God at the cost of his choice to -dwell with us in Jesus Christ. - -So it's worth considering what's lost in the difference between the Nicene faith -which is now indisputably Christian orthodoxy, and Arianism in all its forms. If -a preacher today elides away Jesus' full Godhead, what does it matter? - -Three problems arise in consequence. One is that, if Jesus is not true God, then -his miracles are meaningless. This is particularly problematic for those who -want to read the Gospels as mere myth without affirming the truth of any of its -particular historical content. If Jesus is not true God, then the miracles lose -their mythic function. If Jesus is not true God, then a story about him healing -someone far away has nothing to do with me. But if Jesus is true God, if he is -Emmanuel, then his healings have the power to function as a mythic sign, -pointing to something about God's plans to redeem the world. For his miracles to -work as myth, whether or not they are true history, Jesus must be true God. - -Secondly, if Jesus is not true God, then what kind of salvation can he offer? If -a mere man can save us from our sin, what does that mean about sin? If we can be -saved by a religious genius, a guru, someone specially in-touch with the -spiritual reality, then salvation is no more than fixing up the material world. -How's that going, two thousand years on? Has the Church made any progress in -translating Jesus' teaching into universal peace? No doubt the Church has done -some good -- but it doesn't seem credible that the Church is about to fix the -world's problems by following Jesus' self-help agenda. In contrast, if Jesus is -God, we can affirm the biblical notion that sin is a crime against God, which -separates us from him. Since it is a crime against God, only God can bring about -reconciliation. And since God has proven that he is bringing about that -reconciliation in Jesus Christ, we can hold strong to our trust in his promise -not simply to fix the world according to its own rules -- for that would be -impossible -- but to change the rules in a second creation. - -Finally, if Jesus is not true God, then we have no way of knowing anything at -all about his relationship to God. If he is not true God, then all we can see in -Jesus is a man. We can guess at some super-spiritual connection if we like, -seeing his words, deeds and miracles as evidence of some semi-divine status. But -that would be pure guesswork, in other words, wishful thinking, in other words, -fantasy. Athanasius called it 'mania': pulling wild theological claims out of -your own head with no substantial basis in reality. But if Jesus is true God, -and God gives humans the gift of the Holy Spirit to recognise that Godhead, then -we can know that Jesus is true God by seeing him for what he is. This is not -fantasising without a grounding in reality, this is the most basic form of -knowing: seeing and believing. If Jesus is not God, then Christian faith is -fantasy, but if Jesus is true God, then Christian faith can stand firm. - -With Arius, we have a religion that reduces the Gospels to fairy stories with no -relevance for you or me, a religion that reduces the Church to a struggling -self-help movement, and a religion that rests on fantasy. But if we stick to -Nicene orthodoxy, instead, we have a religion that reads the Gospels as true -myth, real history profused with life-changing theology; a religion that can -have hope for the world as still needing God's work of reconciliation to be -perfected, yet containing within it anticipations of that future, including in -the Church; and a religion that rests on true faith, certain knowledge derived -not from wishful thinking but encountering the very essence of God in Jesus -Christ. |