Jesus to the Renaissance - Day 5

Good evening everyone. I hope you all had a good week. I'm sorry if there's been a bit of confusion. Last Friday, I was so keen to see you all that I said, 'See you on Monday,' but I forgot to mention it was a Monday week. So here we are again. I'll carry on where I left off last time. Some of you might wonder why we're looking at narcissism. As was mentioned earlier, looking at some of my lectures, you can see parallels with what's going on in the world today. For me, that's what I'm interested in—not just understanding what happened in the past for its own sake, but seeing what lessons we can learn from it. Of course, there are some things I find more interesting than others, and what I'm recounting is not history in the traditional sense. One could say it's the history of God's providence, the way I've discerned God working. Just like when people read the Old Testament, they read the history of the kings. Some historians say it's not real history because some important events are not recorded in the Bible. However, what's recorded in the Bible by the authors was also trying to convey a sense of God's providence, the way God was working, the mistakes people made, and so on. The authors of the books of Kings and Chronicles cross-reference and say that more information can be found in the archives or in the official history. There are other sources we've now lost, so all we've got is the history in the Bible—the judges, the kings, and so forth. I'm trying to do a similar sort of thing. I don't expect mine will be scripted in 2000 years' time, but I'm trying to trace out some of these events.

I first came across narcissism a long time ago when I was at the seminary. My teacher there, named Dr. Arthur, was really interested in that, and because he was so interested, I started getting interested in it. There weren't many other scholars at that time who were particularly interested, so I read a book I mentioned two weeks ago by Hans Jonas, one of the first books written on the topic. What was interesting for me was partly the way the early church had to engage with and wrestle with lots of these other worldviews that were going around. I realised that we are having to do the same thing now; we also have to engage with other worldviews that are floating around. There's this whole thing with critical race theory, gender politics, socialism, communism—all these other philosophies and ideas. I realised that the early church was living in quite a similar kind of environment, having to engage with these ideas and deciding how the engagement was going to go—whether they were going to abandon the core of what they understood to be true or completely reject it. I also realised, reading Hans Jonas's book on narcissism, that he himself was a German Jewish philosopher who was a student of Heidegger, a prominent existentialist. Although the books on narcissism were referenced in church history, nobody took any interest in them because nobody could understand narcissism, this old heresy. However, he found that through existentialism, he could make sense of and understand narcissism, which is why he wrote this book, one of the first analyses of narcissism. After looking at narcissism, he realised that gnosticism enabled him to understand existentialism. He realised that many ideas floating around in the mid-20th century, with the decline in Christianity and belief in God, were resurfacing old gnostic ideas that were making a big impact in Europe at that time.

More recently, I came across a letter to the Times newspaper, written by someone called Tom Wright, or N.T. Wright, a former Bishop of Durham in the Church of England. He is considered one of the five most influential New Testament scholars in the world today and has written some very influential books about Saint Paul, particularly. In his article, he discussed the current debates about gender fluidity and how social media is making gender meaningless. He noted that the confusion about gender identity is a modern, internet-fuelled form of the ancient philosophy of narcissism. The gnostic perspective claims to know the secret of who I really am behind the deceptive outward appearance. For example, someone might say, 'I have the body of a woman, but really I'm a man trapped inside the body of a woman.' This distinction is a very gnostic kind of distinction, which involves denying the goodness or even the ultimate reality of the natural world. Often, people have a feeling of disgust with their physical body, which is a very gnostic kind of feeling. Nature, however, tends to strike back, with the likely victims being vulnerable and impressionable youngsters, while confused adults will pay the price for elders' fashionable fantasies. Wright has engaged with this topic and has faced criticism for holding traditional views. I found it interesting that he was saying this, as it aligns with what Hans Jonas was saying in the 1930s. These ideas are becoming more prominent, and we need to understand the roots of these perspectives and worldviews that are dominating the world today, especially with the decline in Christianity and biblical-based religion. Instead of leaving a vacuum, that space is now being filled with ancient ideas from the past.

Walter Bauer, an early church historian, was one of the left-wing Hegelians who did a demolition job on the early Christian understanding of church history. He explained that Paul and Peter were in conflict with each other, which was shocking for the church. In his early work on Christian heresy, he pointed out that gnostics were for the most part firmly ensconced within the churches. According to Bauer, it took centuries for Christians to arrive at an orthodox position and free themselves from an entangling alliance with gnostic thought. I've been looking at how Paul was engaging with gnostic ideas and how it seems he was influenced by them. The early church was influenced by these ideas as well. It's not that gnostics were a different group of people from Christians; gnostics were Christians who had gnostic ideas. In our own spiritual community, a lot of this is going on as well. Many people would like to discard the Bible and say, 'Let's have the principle without the Bible.' That's a very gnostic perspective. How do we deal with that? This is the first person I mentioned, Hans Jonas, who was a Jew. It was a shock for Christians to find out that the early church was influenced by narcissism. Only relatively recently have Christians started to pick this up. Philip Lee, an Orthodox Christian, noted that the familiar presence of narcissism is as close as the reality we call Protestantism. He suggested that a kind of ancient misalliance has occurred in our own time, particularly in the North American expression of Protestantism. He began to analyse Protestantism, particularly evangelicalism, focusing on the question of salvation: 'Are you saved? Do you believe in Jesus?' He pointed out that many of these ideas are very gnostic because they reject the world, which is again a very gnostic position. For a long time, evangelical Christians didn't engage in politics because they viewed politics as dirty and grimy. They believed that all that mattered was being saved by believing in Jesus and being born again. One of the things that Father did, and our movement did during the 1980s, was to engage with evangelical Christians and draw them into politics. That's when conservative evangelical Christians began to enter politics in America, supporting figures like George Bush and Trump. However, when you actually look at their positions, there are many problems there.

You can find various websites dedicated to gnostic doctrine and research on gnostic theology. These websites promote gnostic teachings through pre-recorded videos and commentaries on gnostic documents, such as the Nag Hammadi documents I mentioned before. They aim to attract those who wish to know themselves in the light of the teachings that Christ taught his disciples in private. This idea of secret teachings is prevalent. Many people are interested in these gnostic documents, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. There are a series of books and films about them, and many people believe that what is found in the New Testament is not the real teachings of Jesus. They argue that the real teachings of Jesus are secret and can be found in these gnostic gospels. The orthodox church, or traditional church, burned these documents and altered Jesus' teachings in a particular way. I would argue it's the other way around, but that's a separate discussion. N.T. Wright, for example, mentioned in his letter to the Times that many Christian hymns and poems wander off unthinkingly in the direction of narcissism. He raised many interesting points. This struggle within the early church took centuries to resolve. When you look at the development of the early church, you can see how Paul was wrestling with these ideas. He was reaching out to the Gentiles, who were pagans heavily influenced by narcissism and Hellenism. The question then becomes: how far do you go to adapt the message so it fits in with the context and worldview of the people you're reaching out to? This is always a dilemma for missionaries. We want to teach about God, Jesus, and the Principle, but we also need to consider the beliefs of the people we want to reach. How can we build bridges between our message and their understanding? That's what Paul was doing. Traditionally, there's a big difference between the Jesus of history and the Christ of the gospel. What Jesus taught as a Jew and what Paul taught are two different gospels. There is some overlap, but there are obvious differences because Jesus was speaking to Jews while Paul was trying to reach out to Gentiles. Recognising this allows us to filter these things out and be aware of the distortions at play. Sociologists of religion emphasise categories such as implicit theology and social imaginary. These concepts point towards the idea that the most influential ideas animating religious cultures can sometimes be those that are only tacitly articulated, existing in tension with direct doctrinal formulations. In other words, assumptions may often percolate slightly beneath the surface, colouring and modulating religious practice and thought, even if they are rarely encountered in a distilled form. This was what was going on when people read Paul; it wasn't until much later that they began to realise where many of these ideas in Paul came from.

As long as Paul was regarded as traditional orthodox scripture and people didn't think about or look at the Gnostics, they weren't aware of the assumptions that Paul was engaged with. This is similar to our own spiritual communities; we live in a world full of certain assumptions, and it is easy to bring these assumptions into our faith, which can change the faith itself. This phenomenon is almost inevitable, so it is important to be aware of what is going on. A concrete example of this can be seen in the second century with Valentinus, who set up a school in Rome. He taught an elaborate system that separated God from creation by a series of devolving emanations, which is a Gnostic idea. On this scheme, Jesus should not be identified with a defective creator, a demi-goddess named Sophia. The highest God, the one Jesus called Father, shows us how to escape from material things, which is a Gnostic concept.

Valentinus managed to create a significant movement within the church that extended to the boundaries of the Roman Empire. He was even almost elected pope but lost by a few votes. When we think about Gnosticism, we are not talking about another religion outside the Christian church; we are discussing a substantial number of Christians within the church who were Gnostics and incredibly influential. As Tom Wright noted, you can still find these kinds of ideas alive within the Christian church today and within the culture we live in. Originally from Alexandria, Valentinus was likely affected by the trauma of the destruction of Jerusalem, which was significant not only for Jews but also for Jewish Christians. After this destruction, people had to decide where to go from there; some abandoned religion, while others turned to pure narcissism, and some sought to find a new path, leading to the origins of Jewish narcissism and Christian Gnosticism.

Valentinus identified three kinds of people among his followers: the spiritual people, who were born with a divine spark and predestined for heaven; the psychical people, who were ordinary Christians with a lesser salvation; and the material people, who were doomed to perish with no hope. This dualism reflects Platonic thought, where Gnosticism is very dualistic in nature. It amalgamates Christian theology, which originally extended from Judaism, influenced by Platonic thought, and taught that God exists in three natures: God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These ideas were expressly denounced by Polycarp, a famous orthodox bishop, leading to controversies about the nature of Jesus and his relationship with God.

After the resurrection, some Gnostics believed that Jesus became God, leading to much debate about whether this was God's will or not. The Gnostic worldview often depicted the material world as wicked, created by a low-level god, while salvation consisted of rescue from this world. This idea of alienation, similar to Marxist thought, suggests that people feel disconnected from the world they inhabit. Salvation, in this context, comes through secret knowledge, particularly the understanding that one possesses a divine spark within oneself. These distinguishing marks of Gnosticism can be found not only in the polemics of early Christian teachers like Irenaeus but also in the Nag Hammadi codices and other texts, such as the Gospel of Judas, which was published a few years ago.

The Gospel of Judas presents a perspective where the present world is seen as a bad place, created by an evil god. This alternate high god, sometimes referred to as the Father, is quite different from the creator god, leading to confusion among Christians. The Gnostic view suggests that the main goal of any right-thinking human being is to escape the wicked world and attain deliverance from the material cosmos. Only then can one enjoy the bliss available to those who transcend the physical world and its creator. This perspective has parallels in some New Age cults that believe in extraterrestrial beings and otherworldly influences, reflecting the Gnostic emphasis on escaping the material realm.

Gnosticism became popular because it allowed its followers to retain their Christian faith while avoiding the demands of new creation theology. In contrast, Judaism focuses on creating a just and good society in this world, with little interest in the afterlife. The trauma of the destruction of Jerusalem forced many to reconsider their mission, and Paul emerged as a figure trying to navigate this new reality. His teachings about the kingdom of heaven being postponed and the need for personal salvation became prominent. This shift in focus allowed Gnostics to avoid confrontations with imperial powers, which became characteristic of orthodox Christianity. Early Christians, in their struggle against the Roman Empire, often spiritualized Jesus' teachings to avoid portraying him as a revolutionary.

The early church wrestled with the implications of personal salvation versus social transformation. While some Christians sought to carry on the original mission of Judaism, others focused on individual salvation, which led to a divergence in beliefs. The New Testament writers adopted categories familiar to the Romans, presenting Jesus in a way that resonated with Roman ideals. Christians claimed that Jesus, rather than Caesar, held rightful dominion over the world, offering a sense of community to previously warring factions. This engagement with Roman culture was significant, as it allowed Christians to present their message in a way that was understandable to the Roman populace, ultimately shaping the development of early Christian thought.

They were loyal to Rome and the emperor, and they could be Roman citizens. This loyalty was meant to eliminate conflict. Christians, like the Caesars, were intent on evangelising the world. However, although Christians shared many of Caesar's goals, their methods could not have been more distinct. Whereas a Caesar sought to transform the world through force and violence, the way of Christianity was to transform culture through love, peace, and the power of Christ's resurrection. This presents a very orthodox Christian perspective. When we actually look at the reality of Christian evangelism, we see that there was a lot of force and violence involved. Many were converted at the sword's edge, and numerous heretics were burnt at the stake along the way. This is a Christian presentation of what Christianity was doing, but it is important to note that Christians picked up many of these bad habits from the Romans.

So, who then were the Romans? This is the founding myth of Rome, which I am sure you all know from your primary school days. There were two brothers, supposedly brought up by wolves, who originally came from Troy, which was destroyed by the Greeks during the Trojan Wars. As the story told by Virgil goes, they left Troy and settled in Rome. These two brothers, Romulus and Remus, decided to build a city on the hills. They got into an argument, and Remus mocked Romulus. In a fit of anger, Romulus killed his brother. This is the founding myth of Rome: one brother losing his temper and killing the other. It is reminiscent of the classic Cain and Abel story. The idea that might is right permeates this myth; the one who possesses power is deemed to be right. This is why Roman culture became very militaristic and expansionist, glorifying war.

We can see this glorification in the gladiators. In the film 'Gladiator', for example, gladiators fought each other for entertainment. The Romans did not watch people playing football, rugby, or hockey; they cheered as gladiators killed each other. Feeding people to lions was a harsh aspect of their culture. This was the environment in which Jesus was born and the context in which the early Christian Church operated. If we look at Roman religion, it was fundamentally pagan. When I say 'pagan', I refer to the first commandment in the Torah: 'I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me, and you shall make no idols.' Paganism is any religion where something stands above God, such as idol worship, which is a significant biblical conflict. Thus, paganism is a form of idol worship, and that is what the Romans practised.

Like all states of antiquity, Rome had its gods and a national political religion. However, this was neither a system of beliefs nor morals; it was a ritual meticulously worked out with sacrifices and prayers. The cult had primarily political and state significance. Rome had no other symbol to express and maintain its unity and to symbolise faith in itself. Rome became known as the eternal city, and the ideal was all about serving and worshipping Rome. This was idol worship. During this troubled period, very few believed in the symbol because they had lost faith in it, as it had no spiritual or moral significance. To reject it meant disloyalty and being a rebel. Therefore, they had to profess loyalty to Rome, which is why they performed sacrifices. Rome demanded not only outward participation in the state cult as an expression of loyalty but also that citizens burn a few sticks of incense before the images of the national gods, call the emperor 'Lord', and celebrate the rites. Once they fulfilled this, they were free to seek the eternal meaning of life wherever they wished, as there was not much spiritual or moral content within Roman religion.

The people who performed these rituals were the Vestal Virgins, who worshipped at a temple in Rome. The Vestal Virgins were priestesses of Vesta, the goddess of the hearth. The College of the Vestals was regarded as fundamental to the continuance and security of Rome. These individuals cultivated the sacred fire that was not allowed to go out. The Vestals were freed from the usual social obligations to marry and bear children and took a vow of chastity to devote themselves to studying the correct observance of state rituals, which were forbidden to male priests. By carrying out these rituals very loyally and rigorously, they aimed to motivate the gods to protect Rome. It was all about mobilising the gods to safeguard the city. The Romans viewed Rome as the ideal, and to the extent they believed in the gods, they saw them as there to be mobilised to protect Rome. In this sense, paganism resembled a form of magic. People in the ancient world found the validity of such rituals self-evident; they simply followed the routine.

In our modern world, one could argue that Shintoism is quite similar. It is the state religion connected to the emperor's god but has very little spiritual or moral content. For a man in the ancient world, the validity of such rituals was self-evident. Religion was not a matter of personal choice or conscience but rather a family, tribal, and state matter. One's personal faith or lack thereof had nothing to do with religion, as religion itself had never been a problem of truth but merely an acknowledgment of the existing system's legitimacy and justifiability. It was all about maintaining the status quo. Those who attend my workshops on 'Joining the Dots' will understand the role of myth and religion, such as Hinduism and Plato, in maintaining and supporting the status quo.

This was all fine in Rome, but as Rome expanded and became an empire, it began to engage with other ideas. The Romans conquered Greece and moved west towards Gaul, modern-day France, but they also ventured east into Greece, where they encountered cultures far superior to their own. They absorbed much from Greek culture and Hellenistic paganism. The Roman gods are essentially the same as the Greek gods, just with different names. They were also influenced by Greek philosophy and oriental mystery religions, such as Gnosticism. As the Roman armies moved east, the concrete city was viewed by the vanquished as a deity. In Alexandria, Caesar allowed himself to be proclaimed a god in Rome, although he remained a mere mortal, which was a reminder during the victory parades by someone standing at his elbow.

The Romans were very pragmatic. The Roman emperor, initially just the first among equals, began to embrace the idea of being treated as a god. During the victory parades, someone would remind him that he was only mortal, despite the cheers and adoration from the people. Over time, as they collected more foreign gods, the Roman tradition was turned upside down. Previously, emperors married within the Roman aristocracy, but the pressures of legitimising such a far-flung empire led to the development of an imperial cult. This was part of what happened in Rome itself. The Romans had a king, whose name I cannot recall, but they did not like kings because they viewed them as tyrants. They overthrew the king and established a Senate, where they would elect someone to be in charge for a year. This was the way it worked, and the idea of an emperor being a god was completely alien to the old Roman tradition. However, as the Romans expanded east, these conquering Romans were deified, and they began to let these ideas go to their heads.

They thought, 'How can we unite this empire?' Ordinary people did not want to worship the Roman gods, but they were willing to worship a human being, the emperor. This was the prevailing thought. As time went on, the later empire developed, and the power of the sovereign came to be seen as holy. Instead of merely being an ordinary human being, the emperor was treated as divine. This is one reason why Caesar was murdered; his rivals believed he was getting too powerful. They thought he was becoming a dictator, which they did not want, and that is why he was assassinated. The power of the sovereign was seen as something holy, consecrated by the gods but not divine in itself. The divine right of kings flattered the influence of eastern ways of thought, which began to obliterate the distinction between the imperial power and the divine.

From the reign of Augustus, who succeeded Caesar, this distinction was increasingly blurred. The imperial power, which concentrated supreme authority in the hands of one man, became the Roman version of eastern kingship, where divinity was an attribute. When we examined the transition from Joshua to Jesus, we noted that idol worship was accompanied by the kings and emperors, who were treated as divine. This was the eastern vision of kingship, where the pharaoh was considered a god. In contrast, Judaism completely rejected the notion that a human being could be divine. Human beings can never be more than human, and while they may be the sons of God, this is not to be understood literally. However, the Romans, influenced by the eastern kingship, began to adopt this idea. They thought that if everyone treated them as gods, it would grant them leverage, power, authority, and legitimacy. Disobeying them would mean disobeying God.

Although the Romans were initially against the idea of divinity associated with their leaders, which is why they assassinated their first king and established a Senate, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When Augustus was in the east, he embraced this idea and brought it back to Rome, expecting to be treated as a god. This temptation of power has been evident throughout history, as seen in the 20th century with dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and the eternal president of North Korea. This is a significant temptation for every spiritual community. Islam also grapples with this issue, as it maintains a clear distinction between God and humanity. In Islam, Jesus is regarded as a prophet but not as God, reflecting a similar absolute distinction between God and human beings that is also present in Judaism. This is the context of the Roman Empire and its evolving relationship with religion and power. I think it is probably time to take a break here.

The Roman tradition later evolved into the European tradition, where the state became the highest form of human community. This led to a conflict with the Church, which asserts that the Church is a higher form of human community. From this perspective, the idea emerged that the state is akin to God, with no higher value or power than the state itself. Rome, often referred to as the Eternal City, became a symbol of the glorification and deification of the Roman state. The religion and the gods were seen as serving the state, which became the source of law and identity. This concept laid the roots of citizenship, where loyalty should be directed towards the state, which issues identity cards and enforces laws, determining what is right and wrong. If one disagrees, the state may impose severe consequences, reflecting a modern-day continuation of these ancient ideas.

The state was worshipped and served, as Rome was perceived as the Eternal City. This is evident in the founding document of the European Union, which was signed in Rome, indicating its legacy. Alexander Schmemann, a Russian Orthodox theologian, explored these themes in detail, examining the early Church and Orthodox Christianity. The state was viewed as the only community established by God, encompassing the entirety of human life. In contrast, the Jewish perspective held that the community established by God was the people of Israel at Mount Sinai. The Romans believed that the emperor was the visible representative of God, responsible for both the religious and material well-being of his subjects, which is why he became the chief priest and was later regarded as divine.

Christianity did not deny the benefits of the state; it acknowledged the utility of having a governing body to maintain infrastructure and societal order. However, the Church's emergence revealed the limitations of the state, challenging its claim to absolutism. Despite the sacral nature of the ancient pagan state, the Church asserted that it was a higher community created by God, thus rendering the ancient pagan state's authority as non-absolute. The notion of the state as divine re-emerged in the 19th century with Hegel, who claimed that the state is God manifest in the world, leading to ideologies such as fascism and communism. Schmemann argued that the Church revealed that only two absolute, eternal, and sacred values exist: God and man, while everything else, including the state, is inherently limited.

The enlightenment of the state involves recognising its own limitations and rejecting the idea that it is an absolute value. Christians suffered and died during persecutions for rejecting the state's right to dominate all aspects of human life. The early Christians challenged Roman authority and the worship of the emperor, while Gnostic Christians did not see this as significant. Schmemann highlighted that the Church's teachings align with biblical principles, asserting that God and man are distinct and sacred. The state, while useful, must operate within God's law and acknowledge its limitations. The state does not have the authority to redefine marriage or other traditional institutions, as these are ancient laws predating the state itself.

The Church maintains that the state should uphold existing traditions, such as marriage, rather than alter their meanings. The authority to define such concepts does not lie with the state, which cannot arbitrarily change the meanings of words or institutions. This echoes the historical context where Christians faced persecution for refusing to acknowledge the state's authority over such matters. Just as Jews prayed for the emperor while refusing to worship him, Christians also prayed for the emperor but could not recognise him as their lord. For Christians, there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, and this rejection of the emperor's authority was a significant challenge to the Roman state.

The conflict between the early Church and the Roman state was profound, with many Christians persecuted for their beliefs. However, Christianity grew and was eventually viewed positively by many. An emperor named Constantine, influenced by his Christian mother Helena, converted to Christianity, though he was not baptised until shortly before his death. Constantine's conversion was significant in early Church history, as he saw himself as Christ's representative on Earth, binding the empire to himself. This led to a lack of critique regarding the theocratic conception of the empire, as Constantine was accepted by the Church despite not being a member of it.

Constantine's attraction to Christianity stemmed from the superficiality of Roman religion, which lacked moral and spiritual depth. He sought a unifying religion for the vast Roman Empire and recognised that Christianity could serve this purpose. Many Gentiles were drawn to Judaism for its moral teachings but were deterred by its strict requirements. By embracing Christianity, they could maintain their ethnic identities while being part of a larger community. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a means to unify the empire under one law, one emperor, and one religion, contrasting sharply with the spiritually empty Roman ideology. He sought to establish religious freedom and, upon his conversion, began to exert authority over the Church, calling the Council of Nicaea and intervening in ecclesiastical matters. This marked a significant shift in the relationship between the Church and the state, raising questions about the critique of theocratic power in the modern world.

There were other missionaries that went there with me. They said, 'Oh, communism, it's the ideal system; they just need to believe in God, and then it's okay.' That's basically the approach the Christians took when Constantine became the emperor. They thought, 'Well, let's not get involved in this long-standing argument we've had with the Roman Empire and the state. Let's just say Constantine's become a Christian. This is great, and let's just stop critiquing this theocratic conception of empire.' I remember the missionaries who were in Russia said, 'You know, communism is ideal; the Soviet Union, all these nationalities, all united under one system. The only thing that's missing is God. Bring God into the constitution, and it will be the kingdom of heaven.' So, there was no sustained analysis anymore, and that's a disaster from our perspective. I would say it's the same sort of thing that's going on here.

The theocratic absolution of the ancient state was not revised by the Gospel but instead became an inseparable part of the Christian worldview. There is a very close connection between church and state. In the ancient world, the state was seen as a bearer of religion; the theocratic nature of the state was untouched. Religion remained primarily a state matter because the state itself is a divine establishment, a divine form of human society. That's the way it was in the ancient world, and that's the way it remained. You can still see echoes of this in Britain; the Queen of England is the head of state and the head of the Church of England. It's that kind of ambiguity that persists.

The first thing that Constantine did was grant freedom of religion in the Edict of Milan. The reason he did it was that he said, 'So that divinity abiding in the heavens might be merciful and favourably inclined toward us and all who are under our authority.' Just as under Roman religion, where they worshipped the gods and made sacrifices to them, Constantine thought, 'Maybe the God of the Christians, Jesus Christ, is more powerful than the old Roman gods, the idols, because he has won the loyalty and faith of all these people within our empire.' He thought, 'If we get Jesus on our side, maybe Jesus will protect the empire.' This reflects a very utilitarian view of the role of religion; religion is still there to serve the state, which remains the top authority. Constantine wanted to have God on his side, and that's why he pursued this course of action.

When he decided to grant freedom of religion for Christians and support the Christian church, he quickly noticed that Christians themselves were not united. They were incredibly divided, believing different things about who Jesus was. There would be street fights, civil disturbances, and even murders because people didn't have the right idea of who Jesus was. Christians were always arguing about whether Jesus was God or a human being, about one nature or two natures, and the Trinity. This was a scandal. Constantine said to the bishops, 'This is a scandal. I thought that by having freedom of religion, that would solve the problem.' However, he realised that all that had happened was that the conflicts within the Christian church became exposed. So, he decided to call a council, which became known as the Council of Nicaea.

Up until then, Christians had been developing earlier creeds. The earliest creed was simply to acknowledge Jesus as Lord. If you did that, you were a Christian. But what did it mean to say Jesus is Lord? Some people believed Jesus was just a human being, while others thought he was God, and some mixed the two. They started making finer distinctions about what it meant to say Jesus is Lord. Then there was the Apostles' Creed, which was relatively simple and not hard to sign up to, but there were arguments about that as well. Constantine called the Council of Nicaea and you might wonder, 'On what authority did the Emperor Constantine call the Council of Nicaea and intervene in the inner life of the church?' He said, 'I am going to make plain to them what kind of worship is to be offered to God. What higher duty have I as emperor than to destroy error and repress rash indiscretions, and so call all to offer to Almighty God the true religion, honest and in concord?'

He thought, 'Obviously, they can't all be right, so my job as a bishop for external affairs is to go and repress all the wrong ideas.' But before I can do this and create uniformity or unity of belief, we have to come to some kind of conclusion about what the true belief is that all Christians must hold. That's why he called the Council of Nicaea. The disaster was that the bishops and the church allowed him to do that. The church should have said, 'I'm sorry, Constantine, you may be the emperor, but you do not have the authority to call a council. We can call a council; we can do these things, but you do not have that authority.' Not only did he call a council, but he also presided over it, essentially knocking their heads together to make them come up with a creed that they would all sign up to. Anyone unwilling to subscribe to this creed was to be expelled from the empire.

This orthodoxy was defined by belief. If you didn't have that belief, it wasn't just a religious sin or crime; you weren't just a heretic, you were also no longer allowed to live within the empire. Constantine mobilised the force of the state to persecute heretics. One of the first heresies was called the Donatist heresy in North Africa. There was a conflict during the time of Augustine, where some Christians refused to conform and rebelled against the state, while others were willing to conform. When the persecution stopped, the true Christians, those who refused to conform to the state, declared that those who were willing to conform were heretics and should be expelled. This led to significant arguments. Augustine weighed in and justified the use of the state to persecute and execute heretics, making him the author of totalitarian Christianity in that sense.

Before Constantine, if you wanted to become a Christian, you had to convert at the risk of your life. You might lose your job, be cancelled in modern language, or even lose your life. You might get thrown to the lions. There were times of more freedom and times of less freedom. However, when Constantine became a Christian and allowed freedom of religion, everyone could see that he supported the church. His mother went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to build churches and find the true cross. People thought, 'If I want to advance in my career, maybe I need to go to church.' Many joined the church, but they weren't converted; they didn't go through a conversion experience. They just started attending church because they realised they should be seen in church if they wanted to advance their social position. Consequently, many people came into the church without any inner transformation or change.

These pagans started attending church without going through this inner transformation, bringing many of their pagan ideas and traditions with them. One Christian priest at the time of Constantine's granting of religious freedom remarked that they almost saw the rites of the pagans introduced into the churches under the pretext of religion. Candles were lit in full daylight, and everywhere people kissed and adored pieces of dust in little pots wrapped in precious fabric, which were the bones of the saints. All these pagan traditions began to enter the church, and the Christian priests who had converted at the risk of their lives were appalled by these pagan traditions. If you look at modern Christianity, it is well known that Christian traditions, such as Easter eggs, have pagan origins. Many of these pagan traditions have been brought in from folklore backgrounds.

The traditional understanding is that Christianity adopted and assimilated many forms of pagan religion, not only because they were eternal forms of religion in general but also because the intention of Christianity is not to replace all forms in this world with new ones but to fill them with new and true meaning. The church saw paganism as a distortion of something that is by nature true and good. The early church was trying to wrestle with this issue: what do we do with these people? Obviously, these pagans wanted to worship God, but they were worshipping idols. The early church recognised that these were people who wanted to worship God but had the wrong way of doing so. They could either stop them from doing that or try to Christianise their way of worship and reorient it.

You might wonder why Christmas Day is on December 25th. This is because a few emperors before Constantine decided that people should worship the sun. The best time to worship the sun is just after the shortest day of the year, which is about three days before Christmas. After the shortest day, the days start to get longer, and the sun appears longer. This became the day for the worship of the sun, a major festival with feasts and celebrations. The early church said, 'There's that festival going on, the worship of the sun. Let's see if we can baptise it, consecrate it, and reorient it into Christmas, the worship of the Son of God, Jesus.' Much of this sort of thing went on, which is why that day was settled. Nobody really knew, but it was just a good day for celebration.

This is not unusual; in Judaism, you find the same thing. There were many harvest festivals in the ancient world. When people brought in the harvest, they would celebrate with feasts and festivities. Many Jewish festivals coincided with certain crop festivals. The existing festivals were then decided to be given a new meaning in Christian terms, such as Sukkot and Passover. You can see the same sort of thing with Easter as well. The question was how to deal with these things: do you let people continue with their pagan customs, which are deeply established, or do you try to stop them? That is really difficult. Alternatively, do you try to re-consecrate these customs and give them a new meaning? This is what was going on, trying to reconcile these issues. This is how things developed. Bishop Constantine, the bishop for external affairs, said, 'I am going to destroy error and repress rash indiscretions.'

The one who came after him, Constantius, said, 'Whatever I will shall be regarded as canon; either obey or go into exile.' Constantius promoted Arianism against orthodox Christianity, causing significant upset in the church because he was changing things. He asserted, 'I am the emperor; I am the bishop for external affairs. You have to obey me. I decide what the canon is; I decide what you have to believe.' Then you have Justinian, who came later and was one of the greatest emperors. He stated, 'The well-being of the church is the defence of the empire.' This reflects a very utilitarian understanding of the role of religion, suggesting that the church is there to serve the state. The church is there to serve the empire, and we must go to church and pray for God to protect the empire. This is a very pagan approach.

Finally, you have Theodosius, who essentially finished the whole thing off. Theodosius...

In 380, Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This change meant that the church was no longer just a community of believers; it became a community of those obliged to believe. When Constantine opened things up, many people began attending church, bringing numerous pagan ideas with them. Theodosius's declaration that Christianity was a required faith meant that not attending church became a crime, eliminating the freedom of religion that had existed before. Under Theodosius, the church closed the academies, and people were compelled to believe without choice.

To be perfectly honest, we must consider the implications of this shift. Some might think it would be wonderful if we could witness to a king, and the king accepted the principle, making everyone in his kingdom believe it. However, that is a dangerous temptation. The reason this is a disaster is that when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it lost its foundation to receive the Messiah. The empire had lost its place in God's providence because the foundation for receiving the Messiah has two aspects: one is the foundation of faith, which requires a spiritual community living a spiritual life, and the other is the foundation of substance, which is the rule of law that allows for freedom of religion.

When the Messiah arrives with his own ideas, he should be able to engage in debates with established religious figures, persuading followers that his perspective is superior. This was the situation two thousand years ago with Jesus, who was just one rabbi among many, involved in various arguments and disputes. Jews traditionally engaged in these debates, but once an official religion and creed are established that everyone must adhere to, the situation changes. If the Messiah appears and does not subscribe to the Nicene Creed or disagrees with Christian worship, he is deemed a heretic and faces arrest, exile, or even death.

Thus, from the moment Christianity became the official religion of Rome, there was no longer a foundation to receive the Messiah. Consequently, the Roman Empire lost its place in God's providence, which is why it is said that God's providence shifted to the Germanic tribes, a topic I will begin discussing next.