2014-07-14

This book is dedicated to
freedom and human dignity.

Contents

Preface i
Introduction 1
ONE Seeds of Tyranny 4
TWO Political Maneuvering: 14

Making Christianity Palatable
to the Romans

THREE
Deciding Upon Doctrine: 30
Sex, Free Will, Reincarnation
and the Use of Force

FOUR
The Church Takes Over: 41
The Dark Ages

FIVE
The Church Fights Change: 54
The Middle Ages

SIX
Controlling the Human Spirit: 76
The Inquisition and Slavery

SEVEN The Reformation: 93
Converting the Populace

114

EIGHT The Witch Hunts:

The End of Magic and Miracles

NINE Alienation From Nature

TEN A World Without God

ELEVEN Conclusion

Notes
Bibliography
Index
Illustration Credits

139

165

185

189
208
213
220

Preface

In June of 1995 the Chicago Tribune reported that Pope John
Paul II had urged the Roman Catholic Church to seize the
"particularly propitious" occasion of the new millennium to
recognize "the dark side of its history."1 In a 1994 confidential
letter to cardinals which was later leaked to the Italian press, he
asked,
How can one remain silent about the many forms

of violence perpetrated in the name of the
faithÑwars of religion, tribunals of the
Inquisition
rights
and other forms
of
of violations of the
persons?2

Unfortunately, too many have remained silent. Several years
ago I listened in amazement as an acquaintance spoke of how the
Christian Church had embodied the best of Western civilization
and how it had brought peace and understanding to the people it
touched. He seemed entirely unaware of the Church's dark past.
I decided to prepare a short presentation chronicling the dark
side of Christian historyÑa presentation to help balance the
perception that organized Christianity has historically lived up to
its professed principles and ideals.

I assumed that I would easily find all the information
necessary for this presentation at the bookstore, but was soon
shocked to find so little available on the subject. While historians
have certainly written about the dark side of Christian history,
their words have largely stayed within the confines of academe.
And few have written of Christianity's role in creating a world
in which people feel alienated from the sacred. Why, at a time
when so many are searching for deeper spiritual meaning, isn't

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

there more accessible information about the history of the
institutions which are purported to convey such spiritual truth?
Without understanding the dark side of religious history, one
might think that religion and spirituality are one and the same.
Yet, organized religion has a very long history of curtailing and
containing spirituality, one's personal and private relationship
with God, the sacred, or the divine.

This book is what became of that short presentation. My
intention is to offer, not a complete picture of Christian history,
but only the side which hurt so many and did such damage to
spirituality. It is in no way intended to diminish the beautiful
work that countless Christian men and women have done to truly
help others. And it is certainly not intended as a defense of or
tribute to any other religion.

Helen Ellerbe
February 1996

Introduction

The Christian church has left a legacy, a world view, that
permeates every aspect of Western society, both secular and
religious. It is a legacy that fosters sexism, racism, the intolerance
of difference, and the desecration of the natural environment.
The Church, throughout much of its history, has demonstrated
a disregard for human freedom, dignity, and self-
determination. It has attempted to control, contain and confine
spirituality, the relationship between an individual and God. As
a result, Christianity has helped to create a society in which
people are alienated not only from each other but also from the
divine.

This ChristianityÑcalled "orthodox Christianity" hereÑis
embedded in the belief in a singular, solely masculine, authoritarian
God who demands unquestioning obedience and who
mercilessly punishes dissent. Orthodox Christians believe that
fear is essential to sustain what they perceive to be a divinely
ordained hierarchical order in which a celestial God reigns
singularly at a pinnacle, far removed from the earth and all
humankind.

While orthodox Christianity originally represented but one of
many sets of early Christian beliefs, it was these Christians who
came to wield political power. By adapting their Christianity to
appeal to the Roman government, they won unprecedented
authority and privilege. Their church became known as the
Church. This newly acquired power enabled them to enforce
conformity to their practices. Persecuting those who did not
conform, however, required the Church to clarify its own

THEDARKSIDEOFCHRISTIANHISTORY

doctrine and ideology, to define exactly what was and was not
heresy. In doing so, the Church consistently chose tenets and
ideologies that best supported its control over the individual and
society.

As it took over leadership in Europe and the Roman Empire
collapsed, the Church all but wiped out education, technology,
science, medicine, history, art and commerce. The Church
amassed enormous wealth as the rest of society languished in the
dark ages. When dramatic social changes after the turn of the
millennium brought an end to the isolation of the era, the Church
fought to maintain its supremacy and control. It rallied an
increasingly dissident society against perceived enemies,
instigating attacks upon Muslims, Eastern Orthodox Christians,
and Jews. When these crusades failed to subdue dissent, the
Church turned its force against European society itself, launching
a brutal assault upon southern France and instituting the Inquisition.

The crusades and even the early centuries of the Inquisition
did little to teach people a true understanding of orthodox
Christianity. It was the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic
Counter Reformation that accomplished this. Only during the
Reformation did the populace of Europe adopt more than a
veneer of Christianity. The Reformation terrified people with
threats of the devil and witchcraft. The common perception that
the physical world was imbued with God's presence and with
magic was replaced during the Reformation with a new belief
that divine assistance was no longer possible and that the
physical world belonged only to the devil. It was a three hundred
year holocaust against all who dared believe in divine assistance
and magic that finally secured the conversion of Europe to
orthodox Christianity.

By convincing people that God was separate from the physical
world, orthodox ChristianityÑperhaps unwittinglyÑlaid the
foundation for the modern world, a world believed to be

INTRODUCTION 3

mechanical and determined, a world in which God is at most a
remote and impersonal creator. People came to attribute their
sense of powerlessness, not so much to their sinful human nature
as to their insignificance in such a world. The theories of
scientists and philosophers such as Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes
and Charles Darwin reinforced orthodox Christian beliefs such
as the inevitability of struggle and the necessity for domination.
Such beliefs, however, are now proving not only to have serious
drawbacks, but also to be scientifically limited.

Orthodox Christianity has also had devastating impact upon
humanity's relationship with nature. As people began to believe
that God was removed from and disdainful of the physical world,
they lost their reverence for nature. Holidays, which had helped
people integrate the seasons with their lives, were changed into
solemn commemorations of biblical events bearing no connection
to the earth's cycles. The perception of time changed so that it
no longer seemed related to seasonal cycles. Newtonian science
seemed to confirm that the earth was no more than the inevitable
result of the mechanistic operation of inanimate components; it
confirmed that the earth lacked sanctity.

The dark side of Christian history can help us understand the
severing of our connection with the sacred. It can teach us of the
most insidious and damaging slavery of all: the control of people
through dictating and containing their spirituality. This ignored
side of history can illuminate the ideas and beliefs which foster
the denigration of human rights, the intolerance of difference,
and the desecration of the natural environment. Once recognized,
we can prevent such beliefs from ever wreaking such destruction
again. When we understand how we have come to be separated
from the divine, we can begin to heal not only the scars, but the
very alienation itself.

Chapter One

Seeds of Tyranny

100 -400 C.E.

Those who sought to control spirituality, to restrict personal
relationships with God, gained prominence within the first
centuries of the Christian era. Their beliefs formed the ideological
foundation for much of the dark side of the Christian
church's history. Committed to the belief in singular supremacy,
these orthodox Christians thought that fear and submission to
hierarchical authority were imperative. Not all Christians agreed.
In fact, contrary to the conventional depiction of the first
centuries of Christianity as a time of harmony and unity, early
Christians disagreed about everything from the nature of God
and the roles of men and women to the way one finds enlightenment.

Perhaps most pivotal to the group of Christians who would
triumphÑcalled "orthodox Christians" here*Ñwas the belief in
a singular supremacy, the belief that divinity is manifest in only
one image. The belief in a singular God differed radically from
the widespread belief that divinity could be manifest in a
multiplicity of forms and images. As people believe that God can

* The use of the term "orthodox" in this book refers to the traditional ideology
within most denominations of Christianity, not to any specific church or
denomination.

SEEDSOFTYRANNY 5

have but one face, so they tend to believe that worth or godliness
among humans can also have but one face. Different genders,
races, classes, or beliefs are all ordered as better-than or less-
than one another. Even the notion of two differing opinions
existing harmoniously becomes foreign; one must prevail and be
superior to the other.

Within such a belief structure, God is understood to reign
singularly from the pinnacle of a hierarchy based not upon love
and support, but upon fear. The Bible repeatedly exhorts people
to fear God: "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this
is the whole duty of man."1 "Blessed is everyone that feareth
the Lord."2 "Fear Him, which after He hath killed hath power
to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him."3 The third
century Church Father, Tertullian, could not imagine how God
could not demand fear:
But how are you going to love, without some
fear that you do not love? Surely [such a God]
is neither your Father, towards whom your love
for duty's sake should be consistent with fear
because of His power; nor your proper Lord,
whom you should love for His humanity and fear
as your teacher.4
One's beliefs about God have impact upon one's beliefs about
society. As the Lord's Prayer states, God's will should "be done
on earth as it is in heaven." Orthodox Christians believed that
people should fear their earthly ruler as they fear God. The
fourth century St. John Chrysostom describes the absolute
necessity for fear:

...if you were to deprive the world of magistrates
and the fear that comes from them, houses, cities
and nations would fall upon one another in
unrestrained confusion, there being no one to
repress, or repel, or persuade them to be peaceful
through the fear of punishment.5

THEDARKSIDEOFCHRISTIANHISTORY

To the orthodox, fear was essential to maintaining order.

Christians, such as the second century Marcion, who stressed
the merciful, forgiving and loving nature of God, found themselves
at odds with the orthodox. In orthodox Christian eyes,
God must be prone to anger and demand discipline and punishment.
Tertullian wrote:
Now, if [Marcion's God] is susceptible of no
feeling of rivalry, or anger, or damage, or
injury, as one who refrains from exercising
judicial power, I cannot tell how any system of
disciplineÑand that, too, a plenary oneÑcan be
consistent in him.6

Scholars have suggested that the first line of the Christian creed,
"I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth," was originally written to exclude Marcion's followers by
emphasizing the monotheistic and judgmental nature of God.7

Orthodox Christians placed great importance upon the
singular authority of the bishop, upon rankings within the clergy,
and upon distinction between the clergy and the laity. As there
is only one God in heaven, declared the first century bishop,
Ignatius of Antioch, so there can be only one bishop in the
Church.8 "Your bishop presides in the place of God, and your
[priests] in the place... of the apostles," he wrote. "Apart from
these, there is no church."9 Such beliefs and attitudes, however,
were certainly not shared by all Christians. The orthodox
emphasized rank to such an extent that one Gnostic Christian
wrote of them: "They wanted to command one another, outrivalling
one another in their vain ambition," lusting "for power
over one another," "each one imagining that he is superior to the
others."10

Not all Christians accepted the belief in singular supremacy.
Some Gnostic Christians understood God to be multi-faceted,
having both masculine and feminine aspects. Some thought of the
divine as a dyad; one side being "the Ineffable, the Depth, the

SEEDSOFTYRANNY 7

Primal Father" while the other side was "Grace, Silence, the
Womb and Mother of the All."11 In the Gnostic Apocryphon of
John, a vision of God appears saying, "I am the Father, I am the
Mother, I am the Child."12 Theodotus, a Gnostic teacher, said,
"each one knows the Lord after his own fashion, and not all in
the same way."13 To root out Gnostic Christians from the
orthodox, the second century orthodox Bishop Irenaeus encouraged
Christians to "confess with the tongue one God the
Father."14

Without the belief in singular supremacy, it followed that
Gnostic Christians would also reject hierarchical order and strict
rankings within their church. In contrast to the orthodox Ignatius
of Antioch who believed that the rankings of bishop, priest and
deacon mirrored the heavenly hierarchy,15 some Gnostic Christians
did not even differentiate between clergy and laity, much
less between stations of the clergy. Tertullian described the

Gnostics:
So today one man is bishop and tomorrow
another; the person who is a deacon today,
tomorrow is a reader; the one who is a priest

today is a layman tomorrow; for even on the
laity they impose the functions of priesthood!16

And:

...they all have access equally, they listen
equally, they pray equallyÑeven pagans, if any
happen to come... They also share the kiss of
peace with all who come...17

Within an orthodox belief structure, there is no understanding
of shared authority and supremacy between genders; one must be
superior to the other. Perceiving the singular face of God to be
male, orthodox Christians considered male supremacy an
extension of heavenly order. St. Augustine wrote in the early
fifth century, "we must conclude, that a husband is meant to rule
over his wife as the spirit rules over the flesh."18 In his first

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul tried to explain the reason for
male supremacy:

For a man did not originally spring from
woman, but woman was made out of man; and
was not created for woman's sake, but woman
for the sake of man.19

As late as 1977, Pope Paul VI still explained that women were
barred from the priesthood "because our Lord was a man."20
Among the orthodox, women were to take submissive roles.
In the first letter to Timothy, St. Paul says:

Let a woman learn in silence with all
submissiveness, I permit no woman to teach or
to have authority over men; she is to keep
silent.21

When Christian monks in the fourth century hacked the great
scholar Hypatia to death with oyster shells, St. Cyril explained
that it was because she was an iniquitous female who had
presumed, against God's commandments, to teach men.22

There were early Christians, however, who embraced neither
the idea that God is exclusively male, nor the concept of male
supremacy. An early group known as the Essenes, many of
whose writings have been discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
thought of divinity as having a feminine aspect. In the Essene
Gospel of Peace, Jesus says, "I will lead you into the kingdom
of our Mother's angels..."23 A Gnostic text tells how Eve, the
daughter of Sophia who had wished the first heavenly light into
the world, gives life to Adam:

...[Eve] said, 'Adam, live! Rise up on the
earth!' Immediately her word became a deed.
For when Adam rose up, immediately he opened
his eyes. When he saw her, he said, 'You will be
called "the mother of the living" because you
are the one who gave me life.'24

Not all early Christian women accepted subservient roles.

SEEDSOFTYRANNY 9

While Gnostics held a wide range of views, several of their
writings refer to Mary Magdalene as one of the most important
leaders of the early Christian movement. Some believed that she
was the first to see Jesus Christ resurrected and that she
challenged Peter's authority as part of the emerging Church
hierarchy. Tertullian was appalled at the role of women among
Gnostics:

The... women of the heretics, how wanton they
are! For they are bold enough to teach, to
dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures
Ñit may be even to baptize!25

Another point of contention among Christians dealt with the
nature of truth and how an individual might become enlightened.
Much of this argument centered around the resurrection of
Christ, around whether it was Christ's physical body or his spirit
that had been resurrected. Orthodox Christians insisted that it
had been Christ's physical body, to use Tertullian's words, his
"flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with
nerves, entwined with veins... "26 They believed that since it was
Christ's physical body, the resurrection was a one-time
occurrence, never to be experienced again.

The orthodox insisted that one could learn of Christ only
through those who had experienced this resurrection, the
Apostles, or those men appointed as their successors. This
confined power and authority to a small few and established a
specific chain of command.27 It restricted the avenues through
which one could discover God. Orthodox, catholic ("universal")
Christians claimed to be those appointed successors of the
Apostles and thus the only ones who could enlighten others.
Bishop Irenaeus declared:

It is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the
Church... those who possess the succession from
the apostles; those who, together with the

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

succession of the episcopate, have received the
certain gift of truth.28

To this day the Pope traces his authority and primacy to Peter
himself, "first of the apostles," since he was "first witness of the
resurrection."29

Some Gnostics, however, called the belief in the resurrection
of Christ's literal, physical body rather than his spirit the "faith
of fools."30 They took issue both with the idea that anyone had
seen Christ in physical body after the resurrection as well as with
the assertion that Peter had been the first to experience the
resurrected Christ. Even the canonized gospels of Mark and John
relate how Jesus first appeared, not to Peter or to the Apostles,
but to Mary Magdalene.31 By Jesus's saying to Mary "Touch me
not,"32 some think that Jesus implied he was in spirit form rather
than in physical body. Believing Christ's spirit to have been
resurrected suggests that anyone, regardless of his or her rank,
could experience or "see the Lord" in dreams or visions.
Anyone could become empowered with the same authority as the
Apostles.33 Anyone could have access to and develop his or her
own relationship with God.

Christians disagreed about the very nature of truth. To the
orthodox, who believed that truth could come only through the
successors of the Apostles, truth was static and never-changing.
It had been revealed only once at the resurrection. Consequently,
they thought that one should learn of God only through the
Church, not from personal inquiry and not from one's own
experience. Blind faith was considered more important than
personal understanding. Bishop Irenaeus cautioned not to seek
answers "such as every one discovers for himself," but rather to
accept in faith that which the Church teaches and which "can be
clearly, unambiguously and harmoniously understood by all."34
He wrote, "If... we cannot discover explanations of all those
things in Scripture... we should leave things of that nature to
God who created us, being most properly assured that the

SEEDS OF TYRANNY 11

Scriptures are indeed perfect."35 Tertullian declared:

We want no curious disputation after possessing
Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the
gospel! With our faith, we desire no further
belief.36

One should unquestioningly accept and submit to whatever the
Church teaches.

Indeed, orthodox Christians deemed rigorous personal pursuit
of truth and understanding an indication of heresy. As Tertullian

wrote:
This rule... was taught by Christ, and raises
amongst ourselves no other questions than those
which heresies introduce, and which make men
heretics.37
And:
But on what ground are heretics strangers and
enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the
difference of their teaching, which each
individual of his own mere will has either
advanced or received?38

Since the orthodox believed truth to be known only to the
successors of the Apostles, one could learn of it only by
accepting the Church's teachings in blind faith.

Others, however, believing that Christ's spirit and presence
could be experienced by anyone at any time, considered truth to
be dynamic and ever-increasing. Some Gnostics believed that
truth and Gnosis or "knowledge" was found, not by looking to
the Church, but by looking within oneself. Self-knowledge would
lead to knowing God. A Gnostic teacher named Monoimus
wrote:

Look for (God) by taking yourself as the starting
point... Learn the sources of sorrow, joy, love,
hate... If you carefully investigate these matters
you will find him in yourself.39

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

The first century Simon Magus taught that within each human
being dwells "the Boundless power, which... is the root of the
universe."40 The path to enlightenment involved not simply
accepting the words of the Church on faith, but an active
personal search for understanding. A Gnostic text reads "...the
rational soul who wearied herself in seekingÑshe learned about
God."41

These Christians believed self-exploration to be imperative to
one's spiritual path. In the Gnostic Gospel According to Thomas,
Jesus says:

If you bring forth what is within you, what you

bring forth will save you. If you do not bring

forth what is within you, what you do not bring

forth will destroy you.42
They believed that searching could dispel the ignorance that
produced a nightmarish existence in which one is caught in
"many illusions" and experiences "terror and confusion and
instability and doubt and division. "43 The Gospel of Truth reads:

ignorance... brought about anguish and terror.
And the anguish grew solid like a fog, so that no
one was able to see.44

Searching within oneself could bring the knowledge and
enlightenment to dispel such ignorance. They believed that Jesus
had encouraged self-exploration. Jesus said, "Seek, and ye shall
find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" and "the Kingdom
of God is within you."45

Just as the orthodox wanted to control truth, so they wanted
strict control over who could dispense that truth. Early
Christians differed sharply about the role of the Church. Gnostic
Christians who valued personal exploration believed that the
structure of the Church should remain flexible, while orthodox
Christians insisted upon strict adherence to a singular Church.46
Bishop Irenaeus insisted there could be only one church, and
outside that church "there is no salvation."47 He said of the

SEEDS OF TYRANNY 13

Church, "she is the entrance to life, all others are thieves and
robbers."48 Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, wrote, "Let no man
deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived
of the bread of God. "49 And Clement, the Bishop of Rome from
90-100 C.E., argued that God alone rules all things, that He lays
down the law, punishing rebels and rewarding the obedient, and
that His authority is delegated to Church leaders. Clement went
as far as to say that whoever disobeys these divinely ordained
authorities has disobeyed God Himself and should receive the
death penalty.50

Long before the Church's attempt to control spirituality would
take its devastating toll, the seeds of its tyranny were evident in
the ideology of early orthodox Christians. Their belief in
singular supremacy limited the way one could understand God
and it eliminated any representation of shared supremacy. It
encouraged a fear-based authoritarian structure that segregates
people into positions of superiority or inferiority, restricts
personal empowerment, and demands unquestioning obedience.
Although orthodox Christians represented only one of many
early branches, within a few centuries they had effectively
suppressed the diversity of early beliefs and ideas. Orthodox
Christian beliefs became synonymous with Christianity itself.

Chapter TWO

Political Maneuvering:
Making Christianity
Palatable to the Romans

200 -500 C.E.

Christianity owes its large membership to the political
maneuvering of orthodox Christians. They succeeded in turning
Christianity from an abhorred minor cult into the official religion
of the Roman Empire. Their goal was to create what Bishop
Irenaeus called "the catholic church dispersed throughout the
whole world, even to the ends of the earth."1 To that end, they
used nearly any means. They revised Christian writings and
adapted their principles to make Christianity more acceptable.
They pandered to Roman authorities. They incorporated elements
of paganism. Orthodox Christianity appealed to the government,
not as a religion that would encourage enlightenment or spirituality,
but rather as one that would bring order and conformity to
the faltering empire. The Roman government in turn granted
orthodox Christians unprecedented privilege, enabling the
Christian church to become the very sort of authoritarian power
that Jesus had resisted.

Winning acceptance for Christianity was no small feat;
Christians were not well-liked within the Roman Empire.

POLITICALMANEUVERING 15

Romans had easily incorporated new gods and goddesses into
their pantheon with the hope of adding to their own protection
and security. The 313 C.E. Edict of Milan, for example, granted
everyone religious freedom so "whatever divinity (is) enthroned
in heaven may be well-disposed and propitious towards us and
all those under our authority."2 Christians, however, believing
theirs to be the one and only God, refused to allow Him to be
worshipped alongside others. When they refused to profess
loyalty to the Roman pantheon of gods, Christians were seen as
likely traitors to the Roman state. For once Roman emperors
began to represent themselves as divine, loyalty to the Roman
gods also symbolized loyalty to the Roman state.

Christians held attitudes that did little to endear them to
Romans. Bishop Irenaeus, for example, declared, "We have no
need of the law for we are already far above it in our godly
behavior."3 Accounts from around the year 200 reflect the
dislike Romans had for Christians:

...they were 'the ultimate filth', a gang 'of
ignorant men and credulous women', who 'with
meetings at night, solemn fasts and inhuman
food' made up 'a hole-in-the-corner, shadow-
loving crew', 'silent in public but clacking away
in corners', 'spitting on the gods and laughing
at holy things...'4

Yet, despite such an environment, Christians won not only
acceptance but political prominence as the official religion of the
Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine in the fourth century.
The orthodox used politically expedient means to accomplish
such ends. They designed an organization not to encourage
spirituality, but to manage large numbers of people. They
simplified the criteria for membership. The Catholic Church
decided that anyone who confessed the Creed, accepted baptism,
participated in worship, obeyed the Church hierarchy and
believed "the one and only truth from the apostles, which is

THEDARKSIDEOFCHRISTIANHISTORY

handed down by the Church"5 was a Christian. As one historian
writes, such criteria suggest that "to achieve salvation, an
ignoramus need only believe without understanding and obey the
authorities..."6 The orthodox ignored the argument that a true
Christian could only be identified by his or her behavior and
maturity, not by simply going through the motions of ritual.
Some Gnostic Christians, for example, insisted that Jesus had
said, "By their fruits ye shall know them..."7 Baptism did not
necessarily make one a Christian, they said, since many people
"go down into the water and come up without having received
anything."8 The simple standards of the orthodox, however,
made it much easier to garner a large following.

Orthodox Christians assembled the Bible not to bring all the
gospels together, but rather to encourage uniformity. From the
plethora of Christian gospels, Bishop Irenaeus compiled the first
list of biblical writings that resemble today's New Testament
around 180 C.E. By 393 and 397, Bishop Athanasius had a
similar list ratified by the Church councils of Hippo and
Carthage.9 By prohibiting and burning any other writings, the
Catholic Church eventually gave the impression that this Bible
and its four canonized Gospels represented the only original
Christian view. And yet, as late as 450, Theodore of Cyrrhus
said that there were at least 200 different gospels circulating in
his own diocese.10 Even the Catholic Encyclopedia now admits
that the "idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New
Testament existing from the beginning... has no foundation in
history."11

Beyond choosing from the many gospels and writings to
construct the Bible, the Church edited its message with each
translation. The Roman philosopher Celsus, witness to the
falsification of Christian writings already in the second century,
said of the revisionists,

Some of them, as it were in a drunken state
producing self-induced visions, remodel their

POLITICALMANEUVERING 17

Gospel from its first written form, and reform it
so that they may be able to refute the objections
brought against it.12
The Catholic Encyclopedia concedes that "In all the departments
forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought
mischief on a grand scale."13 Despite Church prohibitions
against any further research into the origins of the Gospels,
scholars have shown that all four canonized Gospels have been
doctored and revised.14 While the Church claimed that truth was
static in nature and had been revealed only once, it continually
found cause for changing that truth.

Attempts at uniformity did not entirely succeed. Even the four
canonized Gospels contradict one another. The Gospel of
Matthew tells us that Jesus was an aristocrat descended from
David via Solomon, whereas the Gospel of Luke tells us that
Jesus was from much more humble stock, and the Gospel of
Mark says that Jesus was born to a poor carpenter. At his birth,
Jesus was visited by kings according to Matthew, but according
to Luke, he was visited by shepherds. And at Jesus's death, the
Gospels of Mark and Matthew tell us that Jesus's last words
were "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" But
according to Luke, he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend
my spirit," and in John he says simply, "it is finished."15 As the
authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail ask, "How can (the Gospels)
be unimpugnable when they impugn each other?"16

Yet, it was the Church's insistence upon uniformity that
appealed to the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine, a man
who had his own son executed and his wife boiled alive,17 saw
in Christianity a pragmatic means of bolstering his own military
power and uniting the vast and troubled Roman Empire. The
story is told of Constantine's dream which led to his acceptance
of Christianity in which he saw a cross in the sky inscribed with
the words, "In this sign thou shalt conquer." While he personally
converted to Christianity only on his deathbed, Constantine

THEDARKSIDEOFCHRISTIANHISTORY

recognized Christianity as a means of conquering dissention
within the Roman Empire and instated it as the Empire's official
religion.

Orthodox Christians dissociated Christianity from political
insurgence. In all likelihood, they compromised the truth of
Jesus's political involvement, holding Jews rather than Romans
accountable for his death. The canonized Gospels conspicuously
ignore the tension of increasing Jewish resistance to the Roman
occupation of Judea during Jesus's lifetime. One exception is in
the Gospel of Luke when it recounts how authorities "found this
man [Jesus] perverting our nation, and forbidding [Jews] to give
tribute to Caesar."18 Less than 40 years after Jesus's death, that
tension erupted into a violent war between the Roman army and
Jews.

Jesus was probably engaged in the concerns of his time as
both a political and spiritual leader. The term Christ, both in
Hebrew and in Greek, was a functional title for a king or a
leader.19 Given the political environment, it is far more likely
that the RomansÑnot the JewsÑkilled him for his political
activity. Crucifixion had been the standard Roman punishment
for sedition and the cross a symbol of Jewish resistance to
Roman occupation.20 Blaming Jews for Jesus's death was most
likely a convenient means of obscuring Jesus's political involvement
and dissociating Christianity from political rebellion.21

Once Christianity gained prominence, the orthodox allowed
the Roman emperor to directly influence Christian doctrine. To
settle ideological disputes in the Church, Constantine introduced
and presided over the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325.
In his book The Heretics, Walter Nigg describes the means of

2.1 The Roman Emperor Constantine believed Christianity would provide
a means to greater political and military power. This illustration depicts him
on the eve of an important battle when he is said to have seen a cross in
the sky with the words, "In this sign thou shalt conquer."

POLITICAL MANEUVERING 19

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

reaching a consensus:
Constantine, who treated religious questions
solely from a political point of view, assured
unanimity by banishing all the bishops who
would not sign the new profession of faith. In
this way unity was achieved. 'It was altogether
unheard-of that a universal creed should be
instituted solely on the authority of the emperor,
who as a catechumen was not even admitted to
the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally
unempowered to rule on the highest mysteries of
the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word
against this monstrous thing.'22
One of the political decisions reached at the Council of Nicea
established the Nicene creed, a means of keeping the belief in
singular supremacy intact while simultaneously incorporating
Jesus into the image of God. Jesus was not to be considered
mortal; he was an aspect of God which could be understood as
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This new Holy Trinity mimicked
a much older portrait of divinity that embodied the value
of difference. For instance, the vision of God in the Gnostic
Secret Book of John, "I am the Father, I am the Mother, I am
the Child,"23 illustrates the concept of synergy where the whole
created is greater than the sum of the parts. Another text called
The Sophia of Jesus Christ tells how masculine and feminine
energies together created a

...first-begotten, androgynous son. His male
name is called 'First-Begettress Sophia, Mother

2.2 A depiction of the Christian Trinity, a concept that allowed Jesus to be
considered part of God while still maintaining the belief in a singular
supremacy. It took the older concept of trinity illustrating the value of
difference, in which a man and a woman together create a synergy,
something that is greater than them both, and replaced it with a trinity that
exalted sameness.

POLITICAL MANEUVERING

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

of the Universe.' Some call her 'Love.' Now
the first-begotten is called 'Christ. '24

Even the later Islamic Koran mistook the Christian Trinity for
this archetypal one, referring to it as the trinity of God, Mary
and Jesus.25

The Nicene Creed, however, established a trinity that extolled
sameness and singularity. All reference to a synergy, an energy,
a magic, that could result from two different people coming
together was lost. The council eliminated the image of father,
mother and child, replacing the Hebrew feminine term for spirit,
ruah, with the Greek neuter term, pneuma.26 The trinity was
now comprised of the father, the son, and a neuter, sexless
spirit. Christians depicted it as three young men of identical
shape and appearance.27 Later medieval sermons would compare
the trinity "to identical reflections in the several fragments of a
broken mirror or to the identical composition of water, snow and
ice."28 Two popes would ban the seventeenth century Spanish
nun Maria d'Agreda's book, The Mystical City of God, for
implying a trinity between God, Mary and Jesus.29 All allusions
to the value of difference were lost; divinity was to be perceived
as a singular image, either male or neuter but never female.

Yet, it was their belief in the many faces of God that helped
Romans accommodate Christianity, not the uniqueness of
Christian theology. Christianity resembled certain elements of
Roman belief, particularly the worship of Mithra, or Mithraism.
As "Protector of the Empire,"30 Mithra was closely tied to the
sun gods, Helios and Apollo. Mithra's birthday on December 25,
close to the winter solstice, became Jesus's birthday. Shepherds
were to have witnessed Mithra's birth and were to have partaken
in a last supper with Mithra before he returned to heaven.31
Mithra's ascension, correlating to the sun's return to prominence

2.3 Holding Jews rather than Romans accountable for Jesus's crucifixion
was most likely a means of making Christianity more acceptable to the
Roman government by ignoring Jesus's probable role as a political rebel.

POLITICAL MANEUVERING 23

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

around the spring equinox, became the Christian holiday of
Easter. Christians took over a cave-temple dedicated to Mithra
in Rome on the Vatican Hill, making it the seat of the Catholic
Church. The Mithraic high priest's title, Pater Patrum, soon
became the title for the bishop of Rome, Papa or Pope.32 The
fathers of Christianity explained the remarkable similarities of
Mithraism as the work of the devil, declaring the much older
legends of Mithraism to be an insidious imitation of the one true
faith.33

With no initial support from the Church, the figure of Mary
became revered as an image for the feminine aspect of God. As
Christianity paralleled Mithraism, so the worship of Mary
resembled the worship of faces of the Goddess, particularly that
of mother/son traditions such as Isis/Horus, Juno/Mars, Cybele/
Attis, and Neith/Ra. Mary was perceived to be a more accessible,
approachable and humane figure than the judgmental,
almighty God. She was more gentle and forgiving and much
more likely to help one in everyday affairs. The fifth century
historian Sozomen describes Mary's character in his writing of
the Anastasia in Constantinople:
A divine power was there manifested, and was
helpful both in waking visions and in dreams,
often for the relief of many diseases and for
those afflicted by some sudden transmutation in
their affairs. The power was attributed to Mary,
the Mother of God, the holy Virgin, for she does
manifest herself in this way.34

Neither the Bible nor the early Church encouraged Marian
worship or even recognized Mary as a saint.35 Although the
Council of Nicea reaffirmed that Christ was indeed born from
the Virgin Mary, the fourth century Bishop Epiphanius expressed

2.4 The early Church reluctantly permitted worship of the Virgin Mary. In
doing so, it allowed pre-Christian veneration of feminine divinity to
continue as Marian worship.

POLITICAL MANEUVERING 25

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

the sentiment of orthodox Christians: "Let the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit be worshipped, but let no one worship
Mary. "36 During the first five centuries, Christian art depicted
Mary in a less venerable state than even the Magi, the three wise
men, who wore halos while Mary wore none.37 St. Chrysostom
in the fourth century accused Mary of trying to domineer and
"make herself illustrious through her son."38 Diminishing
Mary's significance was a way of discouraging her association
with older pre-Christian faces of the Goddess. Bishop Epiphanius
wrote:

God came down from heaven, the Word clothed
himself in flesh from a holy Virgin, not, assuredly,
that the Virgin should be adored, nor to
make a goddess of her, nor that we should offer
sacrifice in her name, nor that, now after so
many generations, women should once again be
appointed priests... (God) gave her no charge to
minister baptism or bless disciples, nor did he
bid her rule over the earth.39

Christianity, as the orthodox understood it, was about the
singular power of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not about
any feminine aspect of God.

Nevertheless, Marian worship persisted. When a council at
Ephesus in 431 implied that Mary could be safely worshipped,
crowds burst into delirious celebrations, accompanied by
torchlight processions and shouts of "Praised be the Theotokos
(Mother of God)!"40 Older temples and sacred sites, once
dedicated to pre-Christian goddesses, were rededicated or
replaced with churches for Mary. In Rome on the Esquitine hill
the Santa Maria Maggiore replaced Cybele's temple. Near the
Pantheon a church dedicated to Mary adjoined Isis's sanctuary
while another was built on a site which had been dedicated to
Minerva. On the Capitoline in Aracoeli the Santa Maria supplanted
a temple of the Phoenician goddess Tanit. In Cyprus,

POLITICALMANEUVERING 27

shrines that were Aphrodite's hallowed ground easily became
those of Mary, who to this day is still called Panaghia
Aphroditessa.41 Geoffrey Ashe notes in The Virgin:
Like Cybele [Mary] guarded Rome. Like Athene
she protected various other cities. Like Isis she
watched over seafarers, becoming and remaining
the 'Star of the Sea'. Like Juno she cared for
pregnant women... She wore a crown recalling
Cybele's. Enthroned with her child she
resembled Isis with Horus. She even had touches
of Neith about her.42

The Church had not subdued veneration for feminine divinity; it
had simply renamed it.

Interestingly, the Christian version of feminine divinity
excluded any portrayal of one of the most powerful aspects of
the Goddess, the face of the old, wise crone. Three faces of
feminine divinity were common throughout pre-Christian
traditions, that of the Virgin or Maiden, the Mother, and the
Crone. Mary embodied the first two as both Virgin and Mother.
The third face of the Crone, representing the culmination of
feminine power and wisdom, was excluded from the Christian
canon of saints. The Church's rejection of the Crone is
significant in that it is precisely the Crone figure who later came
to symbolize the ultimate enemy of the ChurchÑthe witch.

The Church reaped enormous gains by compromising its
ideology and adapting to prevalent beliefs. In 319 Constantine
passed a law excusing the clergy from paying taxes or serving in
the army43 and in 355 bishops were exempted from ever being
tried in secular courts.44 In 380 Emperor Theodosius passed a
decree that read:

We shall believe in the single Deity of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the
concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.

1. We command that those persons who follow

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic
Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge
demented and insane, shall sustain 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 Our own initiative, which We
shall assume in accordance with the divine
judgement.45

The Theodosian laws made it illegal to disagree with the Church.

And a 388 prohibition forbade any public discussions of religious

topics.
The ancient, multidimensional Pagan worship was prohibited

in 392 and considered a criminal activity. In 410 the emperor

Honorius decreed:
Let all who act contrary to the sacred laws know
that their creeping in their heretical superstition
to worship at the most remote oracle is punishable
by exile and blood, should they again be
tempted to assemble at such places for criminal
activities...46

Pagan temples were pillaged and destroyed. A 386 written
protest to the Roman government of Christian pillaging remains:

If they [the Christians] hear of a place with
something worth raping away, they immediately
claim that someone is making sacrifices there
and committing abominations, and pay the place
a visitÑyou can see them scurrying there, these
guardians of good order (for that is what they
call themselves), these brigands, if brigands is
not too mild a word; for brigands at least try to
conceal what they have done: if you call them
brigands, they are outraged, but these people,
on the contrary, show pride in their exploits...
they believe they deserve rewards!47

POLITICALMANEUVERING 29

By 435 a law threatened any heretic in the Roman Empire
with death. Judaism remained the only other legally recognized
religion. Yet, Jews were isolated as much as possible, with
intermarriage between Jew and Christian carrying the same
penalty as adultery: the woman would be executed.48 The Church
had triumphed. The belief in but one face of God had led to the
legal enforcement of but one religion.

Orthodox Christians acted on their belief about God. As they
perceived God to control in an authoritarian manner, so they set
about finding a way in which they, in God's name, could
exercise similar authoritarian control. To that end, they built an
organization that appealed to the government of the Roman
Empire by promoting uniformity and obedience. In all likelihood,
these Christians altered the story of Jesus's death in order
to dissociate Christianity from rebellion against Roman authority.
They established criteria that made it easy to recruit large
numbers of people. The early Church compromised its ideology
to accommodate contemporary beliefs. It was through political
maneuvering that the Church won its standing as the official
religion of the Roman Empire and the accompanying secular
power and privilege.

Chapter Three

Deciding upon Doctrine:
Sex, Free Will, Reincarnation
and the Use of Force

300 -500 C.E.

The Church formulated its doctrine regarding sex, free will
and reincarnation in response to early heretics. In each case, it
chose ideological positions which best justified Church control
over the individual and over society. The Church also developed
a doctrine which justified its use of force in order to compel
obedience. It was not long before the Church needed that
doctrine to defend its violent suppression of heresy.

"Heresy" comes from the Greek hairesis meaning "choice."1
In the early centuries there was much to choose from within
ChristianityÑand consequently, many heresies. Gnostics were
joined by Marcionites, Montanists, Arians, Sabellians,
Nestorians, Monophysites, the Copts in Egypt, the Jacobites in
Syria, and the Armenian Orthodox Church in disagreeing with
the Catholic Church. The heresies surrounding Pelagius, Origen,
and the Donatists led to particularly significant new doctrine.
The Mannichaean heresy, while not leading to specific doctrine,
set a precedent for the Church's denial of unpopular aspects of
its own ideology.

DECIDINGUPONDOCTRINE 31

The Pelagian controversy brought about Church doctrine
regarding human free will and sexuality. Pelagius, an Irish monk
who arrived in Rome at the beginning of the fifth century,
believed that a person had freedom of will and responsibility for
his or her actions. He believed that a person's own efforts play
a part in determining whether or not he or she will be saved. In
Pelagius's eyes, reliance upon redemption by Christ should be
accompanied by individual responsibility and efforts to do good.2
In granting humans responsibility for their acts, the Creator gave
them freedom. As one historian writes:
Pelagius fought for the immeasurably precious
good of man's freedom. That freedom cannot be
surrendered without loss of human dignity...
Unless man's freedom to make his own decisions
is recognized, he is reduced to a mere
marionette. According to Pelagius, the Creator
conferred moral authority upon man, and to
detract from that authority is to cast doubt upon
man's likeness to God.3
Pelagius' most vehement opposition came from St. Augustine,
the celebrated Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Hippo.
Salvation, as Augustine saw it, is entirely in God's hands; there
is nothing an individual can do. God has chosen but a few people
to whom He will give bliss and salvation. It is for these few that
Christ came into the world. All others are damned for all
eternity. In Augustine's eyes, it is only God's grace and not any
action or willingness on the part of the individual that leads to
salvation.

Augustine believed that our freedom of will to choose good
over evil was lost with the sin of Adam. Adam's sin, that, in
Augustine's words, is in the "nature of the semen from which
we were propagated," brought suffering and death into the
world, took away our free will, and left us with an inherently
evil nature.4 To sin is now inevitable. Should we occasionally do

THEDARKSIDEOFCHRISTIANHISTORY

good, it is only because of irresistible grace. "When, therefore,
man lives according to man, not according to God, he is like the
devil," Augustine wrote.5 An individual, according to Augustine,
has little power to influence his or her predetermined fate and is
entirely dependent upon God for salvation.

Human sexuality, to Augustine, clearly demonstrates a human
inability to choose good over evil. Augustine based this belief
upon his own experience. Having himself led a promiscuous life
in his youth during which he fathered and then abandoned an
illegitimate child, he thought that sex was intrinsically evil. He
complained of sexual desire:

Who can control this when its appetite is
aroused? No one! In the very movement of this
appetite, then, it has no 'mode' that responds to
the decisions of the will... Yet what he wishes he
cannot accomplish... In the very movement of
the appetite, it has no mode corresponding to the
decision of the will.6

According to Augustine, human will is powerless either to
indulge sexual desire or to suppress it:

But even those who delight in this pleasure are
not moved to it at their own will, whether they
confine themselves to lawful or transgress to
unlawful pleasures; but sometimes this lust
importunes them in spite of themselves, and
sometimes fails them when they desire to feel it,
so that though lust rages in the mind, it stirs not
in the body. Thus, strangely enough, this
emotion not only fails to obey the legitimate
desire to beget offspring, but also refuses to
serve lascivious lust; and though it often opposes
its whole combined energy to the soul that resists
it, sometimes also it is divided against itself, and
while it moves the soul, leaves the body
unmoved.7

DECIDING UPON DOCTRINE 33

"This diabolical excitement of the genitals," as Augustine
referred to sex, is evidence of Adam's original sin which is now
transmitted "from the mother's womb," tainting all human
beings with sin, and leaving them incapable of choosing good
over evil or determining their own destiny.8

Augustine's views regarding sexuality differed sharply from
pre-Christian views which often considered sex to be an integral
part of the sacredness of life. His views did, however, represent
those of many Christians. With the exception of minor heretical
groups such as the Gnostic Carpocratians who exalted sex "as a
bond between all created things,"9 nearly all Christians thought
that sex should be avoided except for purposes of procreation.
St. Jerome warns, "Regard everything as poison which bears
within it the seed of sensual pleasure."10 In her book Adam, Eve
and the Serpent, Elaine Pagels writes:
Clement (of Alexandria) excludes oral and anal
intercourse, and intercourse with a menstruating,
pregnant, barren, or menopausal wife and
for that matter, with one's wife 'in the morning',
'in the daytime', or 'after dinner'. Clement
warns, indeed, that 'not even at night, although
in darkness, is it fitting to carry on immodestly

or indecently, but with modesty, so that whatever
happens, happens in the light of reason...' for
even that union 'which is legitimate is still
dangerous, except in so far as it is engaged in
procreation of children.'11

Sex as an act that empowers the individual threatens a religion
intent upon controlling society. As Clement said, "lust is not
easy to restrain, being devoid of fear..."12

Denying human free will and condemning sexual pleasure
made it easier to control and contain people. Augustine wrote:

THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

DECIDING UPON DOCTRINE 35

...man has been naturally so created that it is

advantageous for him to be submissive, but
disastrous for
not the
him to
will
follow
of
his own
his
will, and
creator...13

He believed that Adam's "sin was a despising of the authority of
God... it was just that condemnation followed..."14 Augustine
wrote to the bishop of Rome in 416, warning him that Pelagian
ideas undermined the basis of episcopal authority and that
appeasing the Pelagians would threaten the Catholic Church's
new-found power.15 Augustine's friend, the African bishop
Alypius, brought 80 Numidian stallions to the imperial court as
bribes to persuade the Church to side with Augustine against
Pelagius. Augustine won. In April of 418 the pope
excommunicated Pelagius. Ever since, the Catholic Church has
officially embraced the doctrine of hereditary transmission of
original sin.16

The Church formulated its position regarding reincarnation in
response to the controversy surrounding Origen. Origen, a
Christian scholar, thought that the human soul exists before it is
incarnated into a physical body and then passes from one body
to another until it is reunited with God, after which it no longer
takes on a physical form. He believed that all souls eventually
return to God. He thought that while Christ could greatly speed
the reconciliation with God, such reconciliation would not take
place without effort by the individual. Since humankind had
fallen from God by its own free will, he argued, so humankind
must also reunite with God through its own volition. The
orthodox opposed Origen's theories, insisting that they depended
too heavily upon individual self-determination.17

Orthodox Christians also thought the theory of reincarnation

3.1 St. Augustine, the much celebrated Father of the Church. His ideas and
arguments gave the Church doctrines which denied human free will,
condemned sex, and justified the use of force in order to compel obedience
to the Church.

36 THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

minimized the role of Jesus Christ, downplayed the necessity for
salvation in this lifetime, and diminished the unique nature of
Christ's resurrection. A person's salvation, in orthodox eyes,
depends not upon self-determination and free will, as Origen's
theories suggest, but only upon embracing Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, if a person could choose to reunite with God in
any one of many lifetimes, then there would be little fear of
eternal damnationÑand fear was deemed essential by the
orthodox. Origen's idea that the soul is separable from the body
also seemed to diminish the extraordinary nature of Christ's
resurrection. The miracle of Christ's resurrection was understood
to offer the possibility of overcoming physical death. If,
however, each soul periodically overcomes death by separating
from one body and entering into another, then Jesus's feat would
not have been unique.

Origen's work also challenged the Church's control of
intellectual and spiritual pursuit. Although he meticulously cited
scripture to support his beliefs, Origen found that the scriptures
provided limited direct

Show more