Over the previous three articles, we have presented historian Charles Freeman’s argument that the rise of Christianity in the Roman world brought about a “closing of the Western mind” and a “fall of reason” due to the intentional abandonment of the Greek intellectual tradition.
Freeman argues three foundational developments fueled this closing of the Western mind: “the attack on Greek philosophy by Paul, the adoption of Platonism by Christian theologians, and enforcement of orthodoxy by emperors desperate to keep good order.”
In the second article of this series, according to Freeman, Paul’s relationship with Greek philosophy was analyzed and found to be inaccurate and contextually lacking.
On the contrary, as Freeman alleges, Paul was not an opponent of the Greek rational tradition. In fact, Paul utilized logic and reason in his own arguments. In the third article of this series, Freeman’s claim that the adaptation of Platonism by Christian theologians also helped bring about the “closing of the Western mind” was analyzed. And again, Freeman’s argument is found to be lacking.
That brings us to the third of Freeman’s reasons for what he claims was the abandonment of the Greek rational tradition: the emperors, desperate to maintain good civil order, enforced Christian orthodoxy.
Freeman begins his argument with the Arian conflict and the events that led to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Freeman writes that, “Constantine had to act if he was to achieve any stable support from Christians, and so he took the initiative in calling a council of bishops at which he could enforce an agreed definition of Christian doctrine to be backed by the state.”
However, it is not at all clear that Constantine forced or “enforced” doctrine in any way. By his own admission “accounts of the Council of Nicaea are fragmentary.” Yet, Freeman leads the reader to believe that Constantine took a leading role in the doctrinal outcome because of the “overpowering position” that he occupied at the Council meetings.”
Freeman contends that Constantine exerted control “even to the extent of attempting to formulate its doctrine at Nicaea.” However, it was not Constantine but 230 bishops from across Christendom who met, discussed, and eventually found consensus in the creed issued by the council.
Freeman seems to blur this distinction, leading the reader to view Constantine and the Roman government as having dictated theological doctrine. That was never Constantine’s strategic intent, nor was it the results.
Freeman states that the Nicaean council of 381 issued edicts confirming the divine nature of Christ as homoousian (same substance) with the Father, thereby sealing state authority. Freeman writes, “The edicts finally confirmed the emperor as the definer and enforcer of orthodoxy.” Even so, Freeman still misses the point.
It was not government officials deciding doctrinal matters; it was bishops, theologians, and church leaders. Christian orthodoxy came to be, as such, through consensus, not state coercion. Freeman would have the reader believe that doctrinal challenges began only under Constantine and that Christians lost control of doctrine at that time. That simply was not the case.
However, Freeman argues forcefully that the emperors, starting with Constantine, prioritized political stability above all else. After all, Constantine’s original interest was in finding a consensus at Nicaea. Freeman argues Constantine’s “political position was threatened by the endemic political and doctrinal disunity of the Christian Greeks.” Constantine would not be the last in a long list of rulers whose sole purpose was to keep civil unity and domestic peace. All governments at all times move to squelch discord in one way or another.
The criticism that Freeman lodges against Christianity could also be made against every government that has ever governed, including that of Rome. One need not go back but a few years before Constantine to see a Roman government under Diocletian, who severely persecuted Christians as being threatening to civil unity and domestic peace. After all, there were some pretty stiff penalties to be paid if one didn’t recognize the emperors as gods in their own right. Burning a pinch of incense to Caesar, regardless of one’s interpretive bias, was mandatory for unity and peace.
In the end, Freeman aptly highlights the tremendous changes that followed Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, as well as those wrought by state-sponsored Christianity in the Western world over the next several centuries. Undoubtedly, the Western world was a different world because of it. In that sense, Freeman makes a valid argument that state-sponsored Christianity stifled religious diversity. Even so, does this mean that the world was not a better place because of Christianity? Even if Freeman’s thesis is correct, I, along with the entire Christian world, would continue to loudly argue that, even so, the world is a better place because of Christianity, because of one thing: hope.
Jesus Christ brought real, eternal hope into the world. And the gift of eternal hope that Christ brought into the world is of such incalculable value that it really does not matter if Freeman’s thesis is correct (although, on at least two points, Freeman appears to be in error). Real hope of eternal life outweighs any “light momentary affliction” (2 Cor 4:17-18) we might face in this life. Hope, real hope. Until next time. Look at the evidence and ask a bold question: Is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo!
Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife, Vicki, are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore, OK. You can contact him at [email protected]