Substack cometh, and lo it is good. (Pricing)

From baptism to belief

History is a mix of contingency and inevitability. It is not coincidental that human societies tended to aggregate in political size and grow in institutional scale and elaborate a more complex ideology. The early Ottoman Empire was quantitatively different than the Hittite Empire in all these things, and eventually, quantity has a quality of its own.

But there is an element of contingency as well. It is plausible that if Phillip of Macedon had not been assassinated the Persian Empire would have remained intact longer, with the Macedonians winning some victories to acquire extra territory and booty. The ascendency of Greek culture and language in the eastern Mediterranean may never have marginalized Aramaic as the lingua franca in the way that it did.

Shifting back to inevitability, I am now convinced that the quasi-animistic religion of the numina which was quite widespread in early Imperial Rome was not sustainable as the cult of a multi-ethnic polity. Something was going to emerge as a “new religion” which would serve as a stable religious matrix for the Roman system. There were various experiments and false starts. Vespasian brought back the cult of Isis as a personal devotee in the 1st century. In the early and late 3rd century there was an attempt to center the cult of Sol Invictus at the heart of the Roman pantheon. Diocletian, a traditionalist, set this aside during his reign.

More famously, Diocletian persecuted the Christians. Though there have been many academic debates on the magnitude of the Christian persecutions, it seems there is a consensus at that the last one under Diocletian was serious, though perhaps less eliminationist in intent than some chroniclers have depicted. The next step is well known. Constantine the Great first tolerated, and then promoted, Christianity as the religion of the Imperial court. Unlike Europe during the Westphalian period and down to the modern era, there was no “official religion” of a given polity, but a bundle of subsidies and favors from on high. Roughly, the period between 325 and 400 saw the decline of public elite paganism, the religions not Christianity, as the Roman elite converted to the new religion, and the Roman state shifted subsidies and supports from the old cults to the new.

The victory and centrality of religion with the general outlines of Christianity in broad features seems likely, though in its specific details there is a great deal of contingency. Early Christians exhibited social cohesion and were concentrated in cities. They could be instruments of state power through their parallel socio-political network across the Empire. The Christian religion presented a coherent and accessible ethos to the population and developed a sophisticated philosophy to appeal to the intelligentsia. It was functionally complex.

Peter Brown’s Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD details the assimilation of Christianity into elite Roman society, and how the new religion was transformed by its new adherents, as well as how the religion transformed them. The point here though is that the relationship of Christianity to the Roman elite between 325 and 500 was dynamic and bidirectional. A Christian Church led by men of modest, though not abject, background, was transformed into an institution captured by the old nobility. Meanwhile, the Christian Church’s institutional independence was such that noblewomen could look to it as an ally in escaping the conventions of early and obligate motherhood.

The Final Pagan Generation and The Last Pagans of Rome outline how the elite transformed itself. Ideological Roman Catholics might argue that the rational genius of Christianity attracted the Roman nobility, while Marxist materialists view the conversion as one guided by pure self-interest. But human motives are more complex and self-justifying than that. Both books agree that some Roman nobles converted to Christianity out of sincerity, but both make it clear that a large number converted over time as it became first acceptable, then useful, and finally, necessary. Many scholars argue that the poet Ausonius converted to Christianity mostly because he saw that that was the direction of the world as it was. It was personally useful, but Ausonius seems to have never been particularly devout or plausible in his sincerity.

We know some of Ausonius’ thinking because his correspondence has been preserved. But what of the average Roman noble? It seems likely that most of them were conventionally religious, and initially conventionally pagan. The reaction of pagans and non-Christians to the religion are strikingly similar across time and place (e.g., Romans and Chinese both accused Christians of cannibalism due to the transubstantiation). But over time the new religion won more converts, either sincere or self-interested, and laggards would be noticed. One can imagine insincere converts who in their hearts remained pagan going through the motations. But over the decades the whole nobility converted to the new religion, and so over the decades, it took “root in their heart” in a more thorough way. The psychological change may have been gradual and imperceptible to them. Even if a deep Christian belief never takes root, a deep Christian identity may do so.

Obviously this changes in the generation of the children. Born as Christians, paganism for them is a shadowy religion that wafts down vaguely and in a blur from their familial heritage. For them their identity is undivided. Born Christians, in a world of Christians, their thoughts are unperturbed by heresy.

The social element in religious conversion is well known. The Mormon Church* obtains most converts not through its missionaries, but through friendship connections. A non-Mormon family sees and gets to know a functional Mormon family, and aspires to that sort of bourgeois happiness and contentment. One thing I have noticed among some people who are non-Mormons in a Mormon matrix (I grew up around many Mormons) is that they begin internalizing the views and beliefs of the majority without doing so consciously. The pagans of the Roman aristocracy may have undergone a nominal conversion, but surrounded by more and more devout Christians, it is inevitable that the contempt they may have toward the new religion turns into easy acceptance and even belief.

Christianity “took” in the West. The nominal Christians of the early generations became self-consciously pious in later generations, and later Europeans took their Christian identity for granted. Not all belief systems are like this. Some are quite thin. Their staying power is ephemeral. But the dynamics of the initial conversion phase is probably general.

* I know they don’t call themselves that anymore.

17 thoughts on “From baptism to belief

  1. “But the dynamics of the initial conversion phase is probably general.”

    I think the subtext was pretty clear already haha

  2. Off-topic but what do you think about the small amount of steppe admix from 4000 BC NW Anatolia? Could it be Hittites?

  3. A non-Mormon family sees and gets to know a functional Mormon family, and aspires to that sort of bourgeois happiness and contentment.

    it may be a naive misunderstanding of the process formally known in the Church as Fellowshipping (assigning conversion targets to the congregation members to befriend and assist them in all sorts of questions from the household chores to business connections, and to involve them, gradually, in religious activities, and monitoring the outcomes). It’s very from “spontaneous passive aspirations” you describe, but rather an active, directional and well-planned activity.

    On the contrary, it’s often said the prime reason for the missionary work isn’t conversions, but fostering solidarity and communal consciecence of the young members.

  4. was this transformation to christianity similar to the secularization of western society? like, we’re kinda still christian but kinda not and the change is slow and almost imperceptible?

  5. I think this is a fair summary.

    One of the reasons Julian’s efforts in the mid 4th century to turn back the clock were doomed, is that you cannot beat something with nothing.

    Paganism was not a single belief or practice. It had no organization beyond local temples.

    The church had an organization, a priesthood recognized all over the empire, and a fixed doctrine (established at Nicea under the patronage of Constantine).

    I think an instructive parallel is the endurance of Hinduism against Islam. I think the key was the existence of the Brahmans as a universal priesthood.

  6. The parallels between this change and the change happening nowadays is striking. Scott Alexander pointed this out, and the thesis looks strong. However, the identity and rootedness of the modern day “pagan” (i.e., Christian–fascinating pagan originally meant villager) and the long-term effects of demography means I do not predict what John McWhorter calls “the religion of anti-racism” will take over in the long-run… Modern Christians have much stronger institutions and things like literacy. Like Europe a century or two after the arrival of the printing press, the elites could change to whatever denomination, but the peasantry would stick to what it was, unlike in earlier periods (I know you know this–you’ve written about it). I don’t know what *will* happen though. As they say, we’re living in strange times.

  7. I think an instructive parallel is the endurance of Hinduism against Islam. I think the key was the existence of the Brahmans as a universal priesthood.

    I tend to think it was more that Hinduism already had its existential crisis dealing with the rise of Buddhism. What information we have suggests that pre-Buddhist Hinduism was as alien to modern Hinduism as Rabbinic Judaism is to Second Temple Judaism.

  8. If I’m reading between the lines correctly, this post is incredibly depressing. Chesterton was right.

  9. Thanks for another typically good post.

    My view largely aligns with yours. We are in the midst of a major religious conversion, albeit one that is largely blind to itself. Woke religion is being publicly taken up by most all of our elites. I thought the recent NFL statement was very telling… one of the only elite corporate power centers for the “red team” has now bent the knee. (To be clear I don’t think the NFL was truly very conservative, they were simply corporate Neo-Liberal, but they were as close to a red team elite financial power as America had.)

    One point I want to make is that Woke Religion has zero chance to sustain any kind of cohesive society. It champions a lack of emotional regulation and a regression to raw tribal dynamics in an extremely diverse and multi-ethnic environment. As soon as it triumphs (which appears to be almost here), it will tear itself to pieces. After the purges…

    It’s a warmed over secularized Christianity without the Universalizing and redemptive aspects.

    I’m not Christian, but Christianity had the bones to support a truly sprawling and diverse cohesive civilization. I believe Islam and Buddhism have similar bones.

    Woke Religion has no chance, it is clearly most similar to Communism and Bolshevism in religious structure, which means that it likely maims and murders untold numbers of people in its host societies before it finally mutates into a different beast (see for example the CCP adopting Western corporatist oligarchic system) or collapses.

  10. Ryan,

    You are very correct. Wokeness is a religion. Its more than that though. Its a religious cult.

    Seeing people groveling, cleaning the feet and begging for forgiveness from other human beings (for things their ancestors did) confirms it. Its pretty pathetic.

  11. “The Christian religion presented a coherent and accessible ethos to the population and developed a sophisticated philosophy to appeal to the intelligentsia. It was functionally complex.”

    I’ve been reading a lot of late Roman history and historical fiction lately and that’s really not the impression that I get.

    Christians were taught by pagan philosophers, even after Christianity gained power. Neo-Platonist and other pagan philosophers looked down on Christian thought as unsophisticated and unintelligent. It was the religion of the urban poor and mob violence.

    How do you think that early Christian thought was more accessible or complex? It took quite a while before it was integrated with Greek philosophy to make a more complete worldview.

  12. Razib,

    Considering this model of religious conversion you present here, how much of it is applicable for the spread of Islam across the Middle East, Central, and South Asia?

  13. @Karl Zimmerman

    “I tend to think it was more that Hinduism already had its existential crisis dealing with the rise of Buddhism. What information we have suggests that pre-Buddhist Hinduism was as alien to modern Hinduism as Rabbinic Judaism is to Second Temple Judaism.”

    Have you read the books by Johannes Bronkhorst by any chance? His arguments are almost exactly the same as yours here.

  14. Considering this model of religious conversion you present here, how much of it is applicable for the spread of Islam across the Middle East, Central, and South Asia?

    some of my ideas are influenced by a book i read about the spread of islam in zoroastrian villages through forced conversion in the early modern period. fondness for the old religion faiths into hostility

Comments are closed.