3-5 Dirty Politics And The Doctrine Of The Trinity
A review of the "Letters concerning the Decrees of the Council of
Nicaea", published in English translation in the Collection Of Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers,
reveals that Athanasius kept insisting that the church had the right to
definitively interpret Scripture, and it was their authority to
interpret it as they wished, and therefore no great weight should be
placed on the fact that at times their conclusions and dogmas weren't
supported by the Bible text. Letter 5.20,21 reads: "The bishops... were
compelled to collect the sense of the Scriptures... the expressions [of
the proposed doctrine of the Trinity] are not in so many words in the
Scriptures". It was not a question of those men being 'compelled' at
all- they ought to have been faithful to the Biblical text, rather than
demanding that others accept their "sense" on pain of being called
non-Christian and cast out of the church. It is this attitude to the
Bible itself which ultimately determines whether we accept or reject
the Trinity.
The argument between Arius
(non-trinitarian) and Athanasius (trinitarian) was more political than
it was theological or Biblical. There was a power struggle between the
two men. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman
empire, power within the church became political power. These two
Christian leaders both had significant followings; and they both wanted
power. The followers of the two groups fought pitched battles with each
other in the urban centres of the empire. There are numerous accounts
of Athanasius’ followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian
Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicea, torturing their
victims and parading their dead bodies around (1). The trinitarian
Athanasius was by far the more brutal. “Bishop Athanasius, a future
saint… had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and
intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces”
(2). As in any power struggle, the opponents of both sides became
vilified and demonized; the issue of how to formulate a creed about the
nature of Jesus became a matter of polemics and politics, with the
non-trinitarians being described in the most vitriolic of language.
Non-trinitarians were accused of “rending the robe of Christ”,
crucifying Him afresh, and far worse. Sadly this spirit of vilification
of those who hold another view has continued to this day, with many
trinitarians refusing to accept any non-trinitarian as a Christian.
Arius complained in a letter that “We are persecuted because we say
that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning” (3).
At the Council of Nicea, Bishop Nicholas- who later became the
legendary saint of Christmas in much of Europe- slapped Arius around
the face (4). It would be wrong to think of the dispute as a matter of
learned men of God disagreeing with each other over a matter of
Biblical interpretation. Athanasius, who had the ear of Constantine
more than Arius, was out for victory. He therefore emotionalized the
issue and used every manner of politics and destruction of his
opponents in order to get Constantine to come down on his side, exile
Arius for heresy, and therefore leave him as the senior churchman of
the Roman empire- which meant major political power, in an empire which
had newly adopted Christianity and sought to enforce it as the empire’s
religion. It's highly significant that the draft 'creed' relating to
the Godhead was initially acceptable to Arius; but because Alexander
and his side simply wanted Arius 'out', they made the language more
extreme; so that reconciliation wouldn't be achieved. And so they added
the clause that Jesus was homoousios, of the same substance,
with the Father- knowing Arius would have to reject this (5). Again,
this was no outcome of sober, sincere Bible study. It was pure
politics.
Often I hear the comment ‘Well this matter
was all looked into long ago, and wise Christians weighed it up and
came to a prayerful conclusion, which tradition Christians rightly
follow and uphold’. The history of the matter is quite different, and
those who make such statements are sadly ignorant. Athanasius
compounded his physical attacks on Arius’ supporters, his burning of
their churches etc, with a series of personal slanders against the
leading non-trinitarians, calling them seducers, rapists, frequenters
of prostitutes, etc (6). If the argument was really just about the
interpretation of Scripture, there needn’t have been all this personal
attacking and politicking and rioting. Clearly, the issue of accepting
the trinity was all about power politics. In any case, we simply cannot
allow our personal faith and understanding of God and His Son to be
dictated and defined by a church council of many centuries ago.
Reviewing the history of the Christian church hardly gives much reason
to trust its "councils" to come up with Godly, Biblical decisions. Just
think back through the burning of heretics and suspected witches,
torture to the death of non-trinitarians such as Michael Servetus by
Luther, anti-semitism, the crusades, the Inquisition, church support
for Fascism, for war and violence, for making black people stay out of
white churches in the USA and South Africa... high level "Christian"
decision making has a pathetic record. We really have no reason at all
to allow "church councils" to define our view of the Lord, Saviour and
Master with whom we are to have an intensely personal relationship
mediated by His word. I cannot rest my faith on the shoulders of men;
true faith cannot be a secondhand faith. It must trace its origins
directly back to the Lord Jesus and His word, rather than back to some
cranky guys playing church politics in the fourth century.
Constantine was a politician, not a Bible student. "Constantine's goal
was to create a neutral public space in which Christians and pagans
could both function... creating a stable coalition of both Christians
and non-Christians" in the Roman empire (7). He also realized that
Christianity itself had to be united if it were to be the state
religion, and so he wanted there to be only one view on this
contentious issue of who Jesus was. It was intolerable for him that
Christians were rioting against each other over it. The matter had to
be resolved. One side had to be chosen as right, and the other side
must be silenced. He came down on the side of Athanasius for political
reasons- adopted the trinitarian creed for the church, and exiled
Arius. And so, Jesus ‘became’ God because of that. In the same spirit
of wanting a united church at all costs, Constantine agreed at Nicea to
a whole range of other measures which were likewise not Biblical- e.g.
that anyone excommunicated by a Bishop in one province could never be
accepted in another province, and the appointment of “superbishops” in
Alexandria, Rome and Antioch who would decide all contentious issues in
future. Personal conscience and understanding didn’t matter; all
Constantine wanted was a united church, as he believed it would result
in a united empire. One empire, one religion- and therefore, that
religion had to be united, and dissent had to quashed. Someone had to
be made out as totally right, and someone as totally wrong. Sadly one
sees today the very same mentality in so many churches and local
congregations. It’s all about power. The mess made in early
Christianity remains our sober warning in these last days.
Constantine's Legacy
Constantine's
integrity is for me self-questioned by his claim to be "the thirteenth
apostle". Such a person can hardly be taken as a founding father of the
true church. And add to this his murder of his rivals, boiling his wife
to death in her bath and murdering one of his sons. Paul Johnson
documents all this, and in the context of the trinity [and other]
political agreements, comments: "His abilities had always lain in
management... he was a master of the smoothly-worded compromise" (8).
Indeed, Constantine wrote to both Arius and Alexander that he
considered the theological issues themselves to be of no importance:
"Having inquired carefully into the origin and foundation of these
differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature,
quite unworthy of such bitter contention" (9). It really was all just
dirty politics- for soon after writing this, non-trinitarians were cast
out of the church as infidels and heretics, over an issue which
Constantine considered "insignificant". It wasn't many centuries later
that the Crusaders raped and pillaged both Moslem and Jewish cities, in
the name of the Trinity and justified by the idea that those who didn't
accept it, and were monotheists, should be put to the sword. John
Calvin, in this spirit, ordered the destruction of Michael Servetus,
because he too came to deny the Trinity. For this, he "deserved to have
his bowels ripped out and to be torn in pieces" (10). So much for
Calvin as a father of the so-called reformation. Nothing very
fundamental was reformed. And Michael Servetus was taken to his
execution in a dung cart, and burned alive with his anti-trinitarian
writings, and the flames were fed with every known copy of his book Christianismi Restutio-
a book which called for the restoration of Christianity to its
non-trinitarian original form. The downright nastiness of many
Trinitarians to non-Trinitarians today, branding them as cults etc., is
a continuation of this spirit.
Theodosius And AD381
The
Nicaea decree of AD325 was set even further in stone by the decree of
Constantinople, issued by the emperor Theodosius in AD381. This edict
condemned all other Christian beliefs as heresy, punishable by both the
Roman state and also, so he claimed, by God's condemnation. The
historian Charles Freeman argues at length that this edict brought
about what he calls "the closing of the western mind" (11). All Bible
study, theology etc. was now done within the tramlines of the
Trinitarian dogma; fear of being accused heretical permeated
Christianity. The state controlled the church, and thus the Roman
empire became as much a 'one church' state as it did a one party state.
Secular law upheld church law. Loyalty to the empire thus became the
same thing as loyalty to the church. Once the empire pronounced God as
being a Trinity- anything else was seen as subversive and dangerous.
And so "'Having faith' could be defined as the virtue of believing what
the church believed, and 'the sin of pride' as thinking for oneself"
(12). The 'orthodox', Trinitarian bishops were empowered to confiscate
the churches and property of heretics, and punish and slay them as
required. The libraries and writings of 'heretics' were destroyed. The
tradition of intellectual free thought and debate that Rome had
inherited from Greece dried up; even Christian art became influenced
and limited by the Trinity, triple tiaras started appearing
everywhere... and the slide into the dark ages was perhaps hastened by
this clampdown on Christian thought. The divisive and condemnatory
language used by Theodosius and his supporters in condemnation of
non-Trinitarian Christians bears quoting at length: "We shall believe
in... the Holy Trinity. We command that persons who follow this rule
shall embrace the name of catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom
we judge demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical
dogmas. Their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches,
and they shall be smitten first by Divine vengeance, and secondly by
the retribution of hostility which we shall assume in accordance with
the Divine judgment... [Arians] are wolves harrying the flocks, daring
to hold rival assemblies, stirring sedition among the people and
shrinking from nothing which can do damage to the churches" (13). This
kind of vitriolic recalls the way the Trinitarian Athanasius spoke of
non-Trinitarian Christians like Arius: "In every respect his heart is
depraved and irreligious... utterly bereft of understanding, heretics
show no shame... they are hostile and hateful to God" (14). And so the
art of heresy hunting by Christians against other Christians began in
earnest. There was no category in Roman law to condemn wrong belief;
there were only articles against sorcery. Understanding the Lord Jesus
in a non-Trinitarian way was therefore elevated to a seriously criminal
offence. Burning alive was the traditional Roman punishment for
counterfeiting coins- and this was applied to those who 'counterfeited
Christ' by rejecting the Trinity. There arose, therefore, a fear of
asking too many questions- as the Bishop of Melitene observed: "We
uphold the Nicene creed but avoid difficult questions... Clever
theologians soon become heretics" (15). Yet asking questions is a basic
tool in the search for Truth, for God, in exploring His word for
ourselves. Yet to simply be, in all spiritual,
Bible-believing honesty, a non-Trinitarian was painted as an awful
sin... and in some quarters, Trinitarian Christianity has the same
aggressive, intolerant spirit to this day, associated with a total
closedown of thought and intellectual integrity when it comes to the
issue of the Trinity.
Why did Theodosius act like this?
Why did he begin this process of persecuting anyone who didn't accept
the Trinity? It wasn't the outcome of Biblical study, but rather
political fears and ambitions. The Roman empire was breaking up, and he
urgently wanted to unite the empire through enforcing unity of belief.
Further, it had been pointed out that the Gospels present Jesus as a
rebel against the Roman empire, a man who claimed to be King in
contradistinction to Caesar. The response of Theodosius was therefore
to insist that Jesus was God, and His human side was to be downplayed.
One recalls the way that the Nazis, in a desperate attempt to get the
German church onside with them, likewise ordered the Divine side of
Jesus to be emphasized and His humanity as a Jew to be diminished. For
one could hardly expect a Christian church to support the extermination
of Jewry if the Christ of Christianity were to be title-roled as a Jew.
Further, the empire of Theodosius was under attack from the Goths, who
had been converted to an earlier, non-Trinitarian form of Christianity.
Rather than justify a war of Christians against fellow Christians, it
was expedient for Theodosius to slate the Goths as apostate Christians,
deserving of Rome's brutality to suppress them.
Notes
(1) See Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 386.
(2) Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God (London: Harcourt, 2000) p. 6.
(3) Quoted in Rubenstein, ibid p. 58.
(4) Mentioned in Rubenstein, ibid p. 77.
(5) As documented in Charles Freeman, AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008) p. 54.
(6) These things are chronicled extensively in T.D. Barnes, Constantine And Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) pp. 18-27 and throughout T.D. Barnes, Athanasius And Constantius: Theology And Politics In The Constantinian Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).
(7) H.A. Drake, Constantine And Consensus
(Oxford: O.U.P., 1995). The same author concludes that Constantine
realized that Christianity was unstoppable, and therefore it was better
to merge with it than seek to destroy it. See his Constantine And The Bishops: The Politics Of Intolerance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 2000).
(8) Paul Johnson, A History Of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1976) pp. 67,68.
(9) Quoted in Ian Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence (London: Harper & Row, 1984) p. 165.
(10) As quoted in A. Buzzard and C. Hunting, The Doctrine Of The Trinity
(Oxford: International Scholars Press, 1998) p. 155. For more on
Calvin's persecution of Servetus, see Marian Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997).
(11) Charles Freeman, The Closing Of The Western Mind (London: Heinemann, 2002) and also AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008).
(12) Charles Freeman, The Closing Of The Western Mind (London: Heinemann, 2002) p. 341.
(13) As quoted in Charles Freeman, AD381: Heretics, Pagans And The Christian State (London: Pimlico, 2008) pp. 25,101. There are many similar quotations on record- see Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 828.
(14) Quoted in Freeman, op cit. p. 70.
(15) As quoted in Henry Chadwick, The Church In Ancient Society (Oxford: O.U.P., 2001) p. 591.
