From aad9e56e4c18a3c7e8dee23de42fda04ada241ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joe Carstairs Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 21:15:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arius --- website/src/content/blog/2025/10/09/arius.md | 171 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 171 insertions(+) create mode 100644 website/src/content/blog/2025/10/09/arius.md diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2025/10/09/arius.md b/website/src/content/blog/2025/10/09/arius.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..47f317d --- /dev/null +++ b/website/src/content/blog/2025/10/09/arius.md @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@ +--- +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.