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“fallofreason”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 analyzedandfoundtobeinaccurateand 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 con$ict and the events that led to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Freemanwritesthat“Constantinehadto 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 de!nition 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 leadsthereadertobelievethatConstantine 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 acrossChristendomwhomet,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 con!rming the divine nature of Christ as homoousian (same substance) with the Father, therebysealingstateauthority.Freeman writes, “The edicts !nally con!rmed the emperor as the de!ner and enforcer of orthodoxy.”Even so, Freeman still misses thepoint.Itwasnotgovernmento'cials 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 thattheemperors,startingwithConstantine, prioritized political stability above all else. After all, Constantine’s original interest was in !nding a consensus at Nicaea. Freeman argues Constantine’s “politicalpositionwasthreatenedbythe 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 thatFreemanlodgesagainstChristianity couldalsobemadeagainsteverygovernment that has ever governed, including thatofRome.Oneneednotgobackbuta fewyearsbeforeConstantinetoseeaRoman governmentunderDiocletian,who severely persecuted Christians as being threatening to civil unity and domestic peace. After all, there were some pretty sti# 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,wasmandatoryforunityandpeace.
In the end, Freeman aptly highlights the tremendous changes that followed Constantine’s embrace of Christianity, as well as those wrought by statesponsored Christianity in the Western world over the next several centuries. Undoubtedly, the Western world was a di#erent world because of it. In that sense, Freeman makes a valid argument that state-sponsored Christianity sti$ed 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 a%iction”(2 Cor 4:17-18) we might face in this life. Hope, real hope. Untilnexttime.Lookattheevidenceand 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. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.