From af27e03ba599e4f9c6e57a74ad8b1163f3e76521 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joe Carstairs Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 13:18:33 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] persecution --- .../content/blog/2025/12/11/persecution.md | 214 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 214 insertions(+) create mode 100644 website/src/content/blog/2025/12/11/persecution.md 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.