A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State

What a wonderfully satisfying read this was. I say that in reference to several attributes to this particular work. I was absolutely hooked on this one after reading not only the forward, but after reading the first few pages.Now I am not a theologian nor am I a professional historian. No, I am what you could call "a reader of history." This is a far cry from being an academic; one who makes his or her living from the study of such topics as addressed in this book. That is okay with me though as most of us who will read this work fall into this very category.Briefly stated; the author has taken political and secular history from before 381 A.D. and mixed it with the religious and philosophical history of those times; spending as much time with one as the other. At the center of his work is the Nicene Creed, or to be more exact, the Council of Constantinople, which more or less ratified the Nicene Creed and we find, was fully backed by the secular government at the time. Due to the twists and turns of church politics, secular leaders and their wants and needs throughout the years, we have what we have today.As one of the primary points, if not the most important point, the author puts forward is the fact that this melding of powers pretty well squelched the long history of open debate which was the standard until this time, and placed the word of free thought and free speech into a static, almost nonexistent state for the next several hundred years.At center of this argument was of course the essence of the Trinity. There were many opinions, beliefs and sects which followed one teaching or another. Suddenly, with the edits put forth by Theodosius, and of those who followed, only one interpretation of the Trinity was acceptable...by law! Free thought, the expected rights first put forth by the Greeks, became no more. It sort of all went down hill from there.There is nothing really new is Freemans work here (well, some...more about that later). I personally have been aware of the controversy over the Trinity for quite sometime now. After all, I repeat the thing in church about every other Sunday, but this author was able to, in language that I could understand, give me a much more defined and clear understanding of the complexity of the matter.I was aware of the political history of the world at that time, although I must admit that I had never contemplated the extreme impact Theodosisus had upon the whole affair.What this author did do for me, was draw all the facts together in a comprehensible manner so that someone like myself could make some sense out of them. I liked that. He also gave me much to think about.All of this was quite interesting and was certainly well presented in this work.Some personal observations and opinions:Will this work change the way any one of faith views his or her view or belief or disbelief in the being of the Trinity? I doubt it. For the average Christian, this sort of thing is way out there on the fringe and is given little thought. Theologians may worry about such thing, but the average person on the street, like me, will be little bothered by it. I will say though that it all gives one much to think about and ponder. I have always looked upon such matters with a bit of a jaundice eye, for good or ill, and I doubt seriously if I will change my ways at this point in my life. I strongly suspect, despite contrary protestations, that the average person, the average church attendee or person on the street, view things not much differently. Anyway it has been my experience that this is true. Perhaps your experience differs?Will this work have any impact on how this aspect of the Christianity is viewed in theological, philosophical and possibly historical circles? I doubt it. The arguments put forth here have been discussed and re-discussed, fought over, killed over and chewed upon for a couple thousand years now. I see no hope of a consensus being reached anytime in the near future. After all, Gibbon's work is still being fought over tooth and nail with little progress being made by either side, even to this day.Will this work and the author's previous work, The Closing of the Western Mind, bring on some spirited discussions? Oh my yes! Simply read the remarks on the different reviews of both books just on this little site...good grief! But this is a very good thing. Is it not wonderful to slash at each other over such matters and not have to worry about being sent to the stake. It was not all that long ago that something like that most certainly would have happened. I am encouraged by the dialog that is taking place...from both sides.Can I personally defend his thesis or attack it? Most certainly not. I will say though that while some may be able to attack his conclusions, I should think it would be quite difficult to attack his recording of history and his research with any validity. That being said, I have not read one argument against his conclusions, in this work or his previous work, that I could agree with even in the slightest...but of course...what do I know?An even more personal note: Well over 40 years ago my wife and I lived in a small village not far from the ancient city of Nicea, now named Iznik in Turkey. This was before the area had become overly developed. We spent many Saturdays and Sundays in and around the old part of the city, found many secluded spots for our picnic lunches and enjoyed watching the sheep and goats from the ancient walls there. We were very young then and had little idea of the drama and world changing events that had occurred there in our distant past...perhaps that was just as well...it would have ruined many delightful moments for us.Anyway, is this book worth reading? Most certainly! I learned much, enjoyed every page, and fully intend to give it further reads in the future. This is a good author and I do hope he has more writings in the works. The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason Don BlankenshipThe Ozarks

That's a more interesting question than most 21st C readers might suspect. Origen (c. 185 - c. 254 CE) was one of the most sophisticated theologians of his era; Ulfilas was arguably the most successful Christian missionary of all times. But the question can be asked also of later figures: Saint Abelard? Saint Michael Servetus? Hey, how about Saint Giordano Bruno??? The simple answer is that 'sainthood' is ascribed to the personage by officialdom, specifically the hierarchical bureaucracy of the Roman and/or Orthodox Catholic Churches; Origen, Ulfilas, and the others have been give a different ascription, that of "heretic". But that does raise another question: how and when did the definition of 'heresy' arise, and what role has the concept of 'heresy' played in the history of the Christian religions and in the broader history of European civilization?Author Charles Freeman maintains that the operative definition of heresy is less a theological question than a historical one. The heresy ascribed to Origen, Ulfilas, Abelard, and rather uncomfortably to Bruno and Servetus was denial of the Trinity as declared in the Nicene Creed. "The core of orthodoxy," he writes on page 164, "was, of course, the Nicene Trinity. Yet, if the thesis of this book is right, this doctrine only became orthodox because it had been endorsed by the state", that is incrementally by the autocracy of Roman Emperors from Constantine to Justinian, with the Emperor Theodosius playing the most pivotal role. "What Theodosius achieved was the championing of one Christian faction over another and the strengthening of its position by ostracizing its rivals, both Christian and pagan." (p 200) "In essence, sainthood had become politicized." (p 203) In other words, central concepts of the Christian religions, both Catholic and most Protestant, were determined by significant initiatives of the 'political' leaders of the late Roman Empire as much as, or perhaps more than, the inspiration of Councils and designated saints. The role of temporal politics in the definition of Christian faith has been obscured, almost obliterated, by the success of the successors, the beneficiaries of governmental enforcement of their version of rightness. Thus "... an alternate theological tradition has come to supplant the historical reality." (p 198)Freeman concludes his chapter of Conclusion with this paragraph:"The conclusion that can be put forward is a radical one, but it seems to best fit the historical evidence. Through the intervention of the state, Theodosius brought to a premature end a debate that was still vital and full of possibilities. The Church was forced by the sheer weight of imperial power to acquiesce in a doctrine [Nicene Trinitarianism] that had not come to fruition and that, if debate had been allowed to continue, might never have. No one can say whether the Greek tradition of free thought would have continued in either east or west, or how intellectual life would have evolved without Theodosius' intervention.... What is certain is that, in the west, the historical reality, that the Nicene Creed was imposed from above on the Church by an Emperor, disappeared from the record." (p 204)That conclusion is central to Freeman's thesis that "imperial" Christianity effectively abolished the Hellenic tradition of intellectual debate and tolerance - of free speech - and imposed a paradigm of repression and authoritarian "theological correctness" that persisted in Europe until the 17th Century. That thesis is expounded in a more scholarly format in Freeman's previous book "The Closing of the Western Mind.""A.D. 381" is a tendentious book, no doubt. It happens that I find its "tendency" rather convincing. The title is a bit misleading, however. Unlike several other popular history books with years for titles, "A.D. 381" is not slavishly focused on the events of one year, or even of one imperial reign. Yes, the larger part of the book deals with the interaction of Theodosius and his administration with the contentious hostile factions of Christian believers centered around ambitious, often unscrupulous bishops. But Freeman also discusses the 'long duration' of the evolution of Greco-Roman literacy and freedom of thought prior to the "establishment of religion" as a tool of Roman imperial rule. And he segues from the year 381 CE to a sweeping discussion of orthodoxy and heresy through the collapse of the western Roman Empire, through Medieval scholasticism, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, all the way to the 20th Century discussion of the 'compatibility' of religion and science. One has to pay attention while reading this text... to bring in comparison whatever knowledge of history and theological philosophy one has... in order to appreciate how "radical" freeman's conclusions really are.In his introduction to this study, Freeman says that certain responses to his previous book "bothered" him. "It was the criticism that I had set out to oppose Christianity." (p xii) he continues, "I am not particularly drawn to organized religion but I enjoy many religious activities, especially listening and talking to those who have read widely in spiritual literature, Christian or otherwise. In fact, I believe that a spiritual dimension is part of any healthy mind." Well, dear readers, as a performing musician who spends a huge share in my life immersed in Christian liturgical and spiritual music, I can hardly quibble with Freeman's respectful agnosticism, but I fear he's being gently disingenuous about the impact of his studies on Christian "True Believers". To admit that he has come to realize "the extent to which the Church had benefited from but had also been shaped by the patronage of the state" will patently not endear him to doctrinaire fundamentalists! What Freeman uncovers in his historical analysis is nothing less than a repudiation of the inevitability of Christian millennial expectations. The interpenetration of church and state in the fourth and fifth centuries had consequences for both sides that can be perceived as deleterious. Historical studies -- i.e. modern studies of contingencies and evolutions -- are ineluctably incompatible with systems of thought based on either scriptures or patristic 'authority'. Mr. Freeman -- if I may address you personally -- today's Christianity is what it is, an absolutist dogma, and not what "we" might wish it to have become.All seriousness aside, however, this is a marvelous book, a lot of fun to read if you enjoy historical hypothesizing. And it's replete with fascinating 'desanctifications' of some unsavory famous figures: the churlish Unsaint Jerome, the power-mad Unsaint Ambrose, and the pessimistic inquisitor Unsaint Augustine for starters.

Not an easy read, but a must read for anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord. The information is not common knowledge.