The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason - Charles Freeman

Rewrite History and Scripture to Create a New Dogma

This book seeks to blame Christianity for the "suppression" of rationalism in Western intellectual thought during the First Millennium (p.337, hardcover edition). Ironically, the book has its own anti-rational bent, depending more on misinformation than diligent inquiry. Consider that when Charles Freeman selects evidence, he does not consider the counter evidence. For example, there is no discussion of concurrent events that discouraged scientific inquiry, such as the division of the Roman Empire, barbarian invasions, periods of major economic decline, the break-up of Western Empire into smaller nations, ignorance of the Greek language in the West, the rise of feudalism, and the proliferation of pagan superstitions in the church. Freeman ignores them all.

Consider also that Freeman targets the Council of Nicaea in the Fourth Century as the focal point for the movement away rationalism. There, he says, certain church leaders for the first time on a large scale proclaimed the deity of Christ, and with the Emperor's help forced it on the church as a condition of faith. However, Freeman has a huge obstacle: the New Testament predates the Council by over 200 years and clearly affirms the deity of Christ based on eyewitness accounts to His life, miracles and resurrection, not simply on an "ambiguous faith". Freeman's tactic is to try to prove that most of the NT sees Christ as not God, but he offers no NT texts that actually back up the statements or he quotes out of context. In the following examples, the parenthesis show the pages where Freeman's claims are made followed by NT references that refute the claim. Freeman claims that Christ: was not considered deity by Matthew, Mark or Luke (p.90; see Matt. 1:23, 28:30, Mark 9:37-39, Luke: 24:47); may not have expected his teaching to spread beyond the Jews (p.97; see Matt. 28:19-20); may not have accepted Messiah status (p.99; see John 4:26); and was driven to Jerusalem by insecurity (p.100; see John 10:17). The claims are obviously false. Paul is also egregiously misrepresented. Examples follow. Freeman claims, "it is not clear whether Paul believed Jesus had been preexistent from the dawn of time" (p.116; see Col.1:16-17); Paul was "desperately afraid of competition," since he never asks his followers to personally evangelize others (p.113; see 2 Tim 4:5); and "does not go so far as to make [Christ] part of the Godhead" (p.117; see Col.2:9). Again, all false.

Perhaps Freeman's most untruthful and outrageous claim is that Paul encouraged the rejection of rational thought, generating in Freeman's words, "the roots of the conflict between religion and science that still pervades debates on Christianity to this day" (p.120). Freeman tries to support this by quoting I Corinthians 3:19 (Freeman incorrectly references I Cor 1:25), "The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God." But this verse is taken out of context. Reading the entire passage in I Cor.3, it is obvious that Paul is actually responding to those who promote cliques and personal status in the church. Paul is not talking about the rejection of rational thought!

Freeman's thesis is no more than a personal dogma, around which his book modifies the facts until they fit.

A bold book destined to be challenged by authorities

Subjects or areas of life that rely on and are codified on the basis of authoritarian dictates rather than axioms and logic formulated on empirical observation have, themselves, some predictable outcomes. The most obvious is that authorities will vie against each other for power to dominate. It also follows with certitude that logic and facts will become the enemy and suppressed wherever possible.

Charles Freeman in "The Closing of the Western Mind" has now laid what facts can be known to just such an era of western civilization.

What is perhaps surprising, though perhaps not, is the authoritarian rejection and attack upon Mr. Freeman's work. Reviewer's criticism comes from Dark Ages deniers and apologists (yes, the term, Dark Ages is arguable), to learned historians piecing together snippets of history to cast plausible doubt upon the basis of his work, to outright invective assaults on his motives and intelligence.

Fortunately, Freeman anticipated such an onslaught and included considerable research notes and references in his book. James Hannam's statement that the book, "went down like a lead balloon among people who know something about late antiquity, but was rather popular with those who don't" is a broadside denigration of the author and his work as well as the reader's suitability to accept those facts the book presents.

History, as a subject, is far from being science. Even modern history can be contentious. Ancient history is fragmented not only by the scarcity of raw data but by the politics and ideologies of its recorders. While "The Closing of the Western Mind" was written on a premise, it was carefully rendered with any lack of agenda. I heartily enjoin all those who think they "know something about late antiquity" or not to ignore the attempted suppression and studiously read this book and decide for themselves.

A Well Phrased and Lucid Account

This is a thorough and fascinating history that is admittedly offered in the service of a particular argument. Charles Freeman has some ideas and his effort is here expended to prosecute (and defend) these ideas; as such, the book may not convince every reader, but it is certainly a welcome provocation for inquiring minds. Happily, he confidently delves into the abstruse theological debates of Christian antiquity - God, as it turns out, is in the details. There is dense scholarship here, which is a good thing.

The Closing of the Western Mind

Subtitled "The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason", this book, written by the independent scholar Charles Freeman, tracks the beginning of reasoned discussion and empirical science in ancient Greece and the crippling suppression of reason's authority and the sleep of science in early European civilization from the rise of Christianity to the sixth century (with a leap to the twelfth century at the end). The means to certainty taught by Plato [428-348 BCE] and Aristotle [384-322 BCE] are contrasted, and Platonism is shown to be present behind the doctrinal disputes of the early Church.

The Pauline rejection of Greek philosophy holds sway until the second century. The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexanderia [c.15/10-45/50] "who had no knowledge of Christianity" (74) had combined Plato and Judaism. Now, too, would some Christians.

"In a growing church, most Christians at any one time were converts, and there were many who had had a traditional training in philosophy, either before encountering Christianity or while waiting for baptism. Some kind of accommodation had to be made with Greek philosophy. The Christian Justin Martyr [c.100-c.165], a Platonist by training, was among the first to argue that Christianity could draw on both scriptures and Greek philosophy and could even appropriate philosophy for its own ends." (142-43)

"Plato had denigrated the natural world as inferior to the immaterial world of the Forms, and so the adoption of Platonism did nothing to undermine Paul's condemnation of any philosophy that concerned itself with finding truth in the material world." (144)

Later, however, during Constantine's reign, Arius [c.250-336] and his followers, using Platonism to understand the configuration of the Godhead, reasoned that Jesus, as God the Son, an incarnation of the divine Logos (the very materialization of a Platonic Form, so to speak), was created by the Father and in his incarnation subject to material and mental change and suffering, and therefore an ontologically distinct being, divine yet separate in substance, and thus in essence, from God the Father. (165)

The Council of Nicaea, a gathering of eastern bishops brought together and controlled by Constantine [c.280-337] and held at the Imperial palace in 325, asserted against the "Arian heresy" that God the Father and God the Son were of the same substance, "consubstantial", of one essence: in Greek, homoousios. Constantine, who led the council, represented himself a Christian emperor, and so it was, through Constantine, that with the Church's urging, the sovereignty of the State usurped upon the ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Church. (149, 163-70)

The theological determinations of the Council of Nicaea, later known as the Nicene Creed, were controversial and not immediately accepted. Controversy arose concerning the term 'homoousios' (of one substance or essence), a term from Greek philosophy, as was the term 'logos' (rational principle, reason), used in the preamble of the Gospel of John. The concept represented in the term 'ousia' (essence, substance) underlies the debate. Latin and Greek theologians confused one another with their terminology:

"Latin theologians translated the Greek 'ousia' as 'substantia', but the Greeks translated 'substantia' as 'hypostasis', "personality." So when the Latins talked of *un substantia*, the sense of one divine substance (within which might be found the distinct personalities of the Trinity), it appeared in Greek as if they were affirming that there was only one *hypostasis* for the three persons of the Trinity, in effect preaching what was to become heresy." (180)

Sabellianism is a heresy contrasting with Arianism. Sabellius [fl. c.217-c.220] had argued that the Son/Logos is merely a manifestation of God and of no distinct substance or personality. Arianism claims they are fully distinct. Arius accused the council at Nicaea of Sabellianism. (145, 188, 190)

Although the heresy of Arianism was hoped to be avoided, the use of 'homoousios' at Nicaea seemed in its own way non-biblical, implying an inseparable unity in the Godhead even where the Bible spoke of a separable difference (thus Arius' accusation of Sabellianism against Nicaea). Alternatives were later proposed, such as speaking more vaguely, using 'homoiousios' (of similar substance), or by speaking even less precisely and saying that the Son is "like" ('homoios') the Father. Homoeanism is the doctrine (later, heresy) which grew out of these alternatives. (180-82)

Arguments for and against the Nicene interpretation continued, and in the later fourth century, the Cappadocian Fathers, such as Basil of Caesarea [d. 379], arguing for Nicaea, proposed the distinction, possibly suggested by a study of Plotinus [205-270], between essence ('ousia') and personality ('hypostasis'): the Godhead is of a single substance or essence ('homoousios'), yet of three distinct personalities ('hypostaseis'). The case was made in pressing harmony with the biblical texts. The modern doctrine of the Trinity was formed. (189, 191)

"In January 381 [at Constantinople] Theodosius issued an imperial decree declaring the doctrine of the Trinity orthodox and expelling Homoeans and Arians from their churches." (193)

Theodosius called for a council and from it an Imperial edict was given:

"We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others, since in our judgment, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with ignominius names of heretics, and shall not presume to give to the conventicles the names of churches. They shall suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation, and in the second the punishment which our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven, shall decide to inflict." (193-94)

With this edit, Homoeanism became, along with Arianism, a heresy. "In effect, the edict finally confirmed the emperor as the definer and enforcer of orthodoxy." As a benefit, the orthodox clergy were exempt from taxes, "had access to wealth and patronage and the high status enjoyed by the state church, while "heretics" lost all of these." Moreover, adhering to State defined orthodoxy became "a focus for loyalty to the empire." (194)

The configuration of the Godhead, the distribution of the divine substance, having been determined by ecclesiastical council and Imperial decree, a controversy arose about the configuration of the incarnate Son/Logos as an admixture of human and divine. (258-63) Yet another controversy arose, now concerning the doctrine of sin. Augustine [354-430] argued that Adam's sin infused sin throughout the human race, corrupting our will. Pelagius [c.354-c.418] rose in objection, arguing for the freedom of our will. (289-92)

Plato's philosophy and that of the neo-Platonists had been applied by theologians since the second century, but Aristotle was not given his place in Western thought until the twelfth century, when the German Dominican, Albert the Great [c.1200-1280], "was the first to present Aristotle in full to Christian Europe. To Albert the scientific exploration of the world was of value in itself, and he claimed that its findings could never conflict with those arrived at through faith." In 1248, Thomas Aquinas [c.1225-1274] became Albert's pupil. (327)

Aquinas in his writing lacks the emotional drama of Augustine. He doesn't seem racked with guilt as Augustine was, and unlike Augustine, his personal life doesn't seem to have played any persuasive, essential role in the conclusions he reaches in his theology. For Aquinas, reason is not corrupted by sin, as Augustine believed. (327)


Final Remarks :::

A ::

I've focused on what I found the most interesting: the history of ideas. This book is more than a selective overview of doctrinal disputes (and in fact it doesn't follow them with any diligence). There is also a discussion of the ascetic movement and its preaching of celibacy, for example. But the book is not a full history of the intellectual or social life of the early Church. There is no mention whatsoever of the formation of the New Testament canon. Birth and death dates are not always given for individuals. In some cases, I found them for this review in another source.

B ::

"Crucial to the establishment of authority in the early church was the emergence of the bishop and the consolidation of his position within a hierarchy of bishoprics based on the doctrine of apostolic succession. Ultimately this, and not reasoned argument, was where authority rested." (336)

According to Gregory the Great [c.540-604] - The four Councils that decreed Orthodoxy (313) are:

325 : Nicaea
381 : Constantinople
431 : Ephesus
451 : Chalcedon

The book could have been organized around these four orthodoxy-making councils, and it would have had a cleaner structure. As written, it at times reads as if the author weren't sure of his direction or scaffolding, and he occasionaly looses sight of his ostensible theme. The footnotes are extensive and show wide-ranging research. It was an enjoyable and informative book but, in the final analysis, a bit unfocused.

C ::

In Freeman's discussions of the doctrinal debates, he refers in the footnotes most often to the following four books:

Eusebius: Life of Constantine, by Averil Cameron and Stuart Halls (eds.) [Oxford, 1999]

The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, by Richard Hanson [Edinburgh, 1988]

The Christian Tradition, vol 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), by Jaroslav Pelikan [Chicago and London, 1971]

Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, by Christopher Stead [Cambridge, 1994]

Pagan humanity and Christian austerity

Charles Freeman's book is erudite, entertaining and it makes a point overlooked by other historians: the western mind did close. This is a fascinating story and one to which Freeman brings much intriguing detail whilst keeping the narrative alive. The pagan imagination in its humanity could not support large communities; Christianity suppressed pagan thought in inventing ways of holding empires together that were hardly humane. This is the balance sheet and it makes a good read which is more than you can say for most balance sheets.