Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
Hey, John Dixon here. Before we start the episode, I wanted to ask if you could take a few minutes to complete our 2025 Undeceptions listener survey. We've been doing the show for five years, if you can believe that, and our audience has grown significantly, which we are so grateful for.
And we want to get to know you a little more, what you like, what you think we can do better, and the other things you're listening to. Maybe there's stuff we need to learn from them. Plus, if you finish the survey, you'll go into the draw to win a book pack with some of the books of our excellent recent guests. Head to undeceptions.com forward slash survey. It'll really help us out. Thanks so much. An Undeceptions Podcast.
The ring of the fisherman, which bears the official papal seal, must be destroyed immediately following the Pope's death. The papal apartment is then sealed for nine days of mourning, a period known as "Sede Vacante," the time of the empty throne. Over the last several days, Catholic leaders from every corner of the world have flocked to Rome.
Today, in St. Peter's Square, the faithful pray that there is among them another leader who can unite their church, which has been so riven by change and dissent in recent years.
That's a clip from the Catholic political thriller film Angels and Demons, based on the book by Dan Brown, who incidentally also wrote director Mark's favourite all-time book, The Da Vinci Code, and starring Tom Hanks as Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, one of Mark's favourite characters in all. Well, he thinks non-fiction, but I'm going to say fiction.
It's all pretty ridiculous. In it, the death of the Pope sparks a murderous insurrection from the Illuminati, of course, spearheaded by the demonic priest Father Patrick McKenna, played by a clean-shaven Ewan McGregor.
The film plays with the idea that the upper echelons of the Vatican are part of a shadow government seeking to control the world. As I say, it's ridiculous. But there's no denying that throughout the last 2,000 years, the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope, has sometimes been at the forefront of global affairs.
The death in April 2025 of Pope Francis and the global fixation on the conclave that would elect the new Pope Leo has brought the papacy back into the spotlight. US President Donald Trump got in on the act.
Donald Trump apparently thinks it is really cute to pretend that he could be the next Pope, so much so he posted this AI image of himself as the pontiff and doing it while the Vatican and the Catholic world are still in mourning. It is a move that any other politician or public figure would be vilified for. The Catholic bishops of New York State were not amused, saying, quote, there is nothing clever or funny about this image, Mr. President. Do not mock us.
The president was asked about the post at the White House earlier. I had nothing to do with it. Somebody made up a picture of me dressed like the pope and they put it out on the Internet. That's not me that did it. I have no idea where it came from. Somebody did it in fun. It's fine. Have to have a little fun.
Whether you agree with President Trump that it's just a little fun, or like MSNBC you think it was a very, very serious point. My point is the Pope remains a big deal. And if we go back in time, he's an even bigger deal. Almost to the beginning of Christianity, the bishops of Rome played a role in geopolitics, not just theology.
For some, the Vatican and its popes are guiding lights to Christianity in the world. For others, they're symbols of decadence and the corruption of faith.
And you know what? I'm not going to solve that one today. This is not an ep about the papacy in general or the Roman Catholic Church itself. I want to talk about a particular bishop of Rome in the early history, someone who, to my mind, was a remarkable scholar, pastor, politician, missionary, ascetic, visionary and public works manager.
I don't have strong views about the late Pope Francis or the election of the new Chicagoan Pope Leo XIV.
But I am fascinated by the man who led Western Christianity, not Eastern Christianity, by the way, at the close of the 500s AD and the dawn of the 600s. It was a crazy time for Italy, Gaul and Britannia, and they needed the ultimate servant leader. And that's what they got in my favorite Pope.
Yes, shoot me Protestants, I have a favourite Bishop of Rome. I'm John Dixon and this is Undeceptions. Undeceptions
This season of Undeceptions is sponsored by Zondervan Academic. You can get discounts on their special Master Lectures video courses and free chapters of many of the books we talk about here on the show. Just go to zondervanacademic.com forward slash Undeceptions. Every episode of Undeceptions, we explore some aspect of life, faith, history, science, culture or ethics undeniably.
that's either much misunderstood or mostly forgotten. With the help of people who know what they're talking about, we're trying to undeceive ourselves and let the truth... All right, great. George, let's start with your dinner party pitch, right? So you're at a dinner party, your friends say, hang on, George, who on earth is Gregory the Great and why on earth would you write a book about him?
What's the headline? Yeah, well, there would be two things. One, he's the first monk to become pope. He stands at the crossroads both between the Greek world and the Latin world and between the ancient world and the medieval world.
So if you look into his writing and into his career, you see that he is this transition in all of these really important ways for what's going to become the medieval church, the medieval papacy, and so forth. Okay, got it. That's George Demikopoulos. He's the Father John Mayendorf and Patterson Family Chair of Orthodox Christian Studies at Fordham University.
as well as co-founding director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center and co-founding editor of the Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies. He's written one of the truly great books on Gregory the Great.
Gregory became the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, in 590 AD, through to his death in 604, at a time when the Western Roman Empire was crumbling and the Eastern Roman Empire was thriving. Remember, that's what we call the Byzantine Empire, even though they just thought of themselves as the continuation of the Roman Empire.
The papacy traces its roots to the Apostle Peter, traditionally seen as the first bishop of Rome, and the symbolic rock of the church. After him is Linus, then Aeneaclitus, and Clement, all from the 1st century. We have two sources for this early succession list, Eusebius in the 4th century and Irenaeus in the 2nd century, so pretty close.
And the earliest of these two sources, Irenaeus, is fascinating because it basically says Peter and Paul together were the founders of the Roman church who appointed together their successor. Here's the primary source.
But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall only take one of them: the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, at Rome. After founding and building up the church, the blessed apostles delivered the ministry of the episcopate
to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in the letters to Timothy. Anacletus succeeded him, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the lot of the episcopate. He had seen the apostles and met with them, and still had the apostolic preaching in his ears and the tradition before his eyes. He was not alone, for many were then still alive who had been taught by the apostles.
Fun fact, we actually have a full letter from this Clement, the Bishop of Rome. We'll link to it in the show notes. It's a wonderful insight into earliest Christianity. It was composed in the middle of the 90s of the first century, so that means it's as old as one or two of the texts that got into the New Testament.
The letter of Clement was written from Rome to the church in Corinth, a little over a generation after Paul had founded the church there. In the letter, Clement begs the church of Corinth to remember Paul's teachings about love, humility, and unity. Apparently, the Corinthian church was still a bit of a mess.
Throughout the letter, Clement doesn't claim scriptural authority. The letter was never considered a possible New Testament text. He doesn't even claim papal authority. He just pleads on behalf of the churches of Rome that the churches in Corinth obey the apostles. I love it.
Anyway, back to my point. The Catholic Church as we know it today didn't really exist in the early centuries. And although the bishops of Rome were important figures, the Roman Church was by no means where the main action was in this period. Power was in Constantinople, the capital of the ongoing Eastern Roman Empire.
The churches of Rome were in fact nothing compared to the churches of the East. We now all think of St. Peter's Basilica with its 20,000-person capacity, but that was only built in the 1500s. In the time of Gregory the Great, the greatest church was the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, the jewel of the worldwide church.
He lived in a turbulent time, so can you give us a sense of the Roman Empire, the world immediately around him? Yeah, you're right. It was a turbulent time. He is Pope when Rome is pillaged by barbarians, right? He's literally watching from the gates or from the city walls as thousands of Roman citizens are carried away into slavery.
And it's quite turbulent. The Roman Empire, as we think of it, no longer exists because Italy is basically a toss-up between the Byzantines who sometimes care about Italy and sometimes don't, and between a variety of Germanic tribes who are making incursions all over the peninsula. And Gregory very, very much sees himself as a Roman. ♪
Way back in AD 410, the Visigoths sacked Rome. Roman citizens in the West tried to rebuild or reimagine their glorious culture. And there was a succession of false starts and half-emperors. In the vacuum, the church increasingly looked like the most stable game in town.
Any semblance of Western imperial stability ended in the late 5th century. The barbarian warrior Odoacer deposed the boy emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476. Now that's the date usually regarded as the official end of the Western Roman Empire.
Almost 20 years later, in 493, a new Gothic leader named Theoderic united various other barbarian tribes to form the Ostrogoths, who finished what the earlier Visigoths couldn't. After killing Odoacer, they overtook Italy, established their own rule, and ended the Western Empire for good. Although their propaganda said they were the continuation of the empire.
Most locals just got on with trying to live their lives, pay their taxes and hope for better days. It's what conquered people usually do. The Gothic warrior aristocracy maintained surprisingly good relations with the church in Rome.
That church now owned major buildings and estates in the east of Rome, at the famous Lateran Palace where the Bishop of Rome lived, as well as in the former imperial park known as the Vatican on the west bank of the Tiber.
Constantine had donated those lands and constructed churches there 150 years earlier. Now, I know Vatican today means Catholic HQ with all of its riches and buildings and so on. But in this period, it was an out-of-the-way suburb on the edges of the city.
Now, you can forget all these dates and stuff, but the key thought is in these uncertain times of the 5th century, Romans increasingly looked to church figures, especially to the Bishop of Rome, as a source of social authority with a legitimacy that reached back into the previous centuries.
The model of the bishop as a kind of town mayor was now wholly accepted by the populace, especially since many bishops were in fact from the senatorial class. In these fractured conditions, as Rome crumbled and Europe groaned, the last non-Christians in the former Western Empire rallied to the church.
The church was seen as the source of stability, charity and of course spiritual comfort. Gregory was the right man at the right time, but he needed the support of the Byzantine leadership.
He very much sees the people we call Byzantine as Romans as well. He doesn't think of them as any different. He thinks that the emperor in Constantinople is the Roman emperor. But as we look at it from hindsight, things have changed dramatically. Yes, that whole division between Roman Empire and now the Byzantine Empire, or Byzantine Empire, as you often say in the U.S.,
But the Byzantines just thought they were the Roman Empire. They looked at people in the West and saying, what do you mean the Roman Empire fell? We're here. We're here still. There's a fabulous line in Anna Komanyi who is a princess, right? A Byzantine princess and very erudite.
And she offers a firsthand account of when the crusaders first show up in the 11th century. And she describes the skirmishes between crusaders and Byzantine armies as a battle between the Romans and the barbarians. Wow.
They are the Romans and the Italian crusaders are the barbarians. Oh, yeah. Okay. So going back to context. Okay. So that's the turbulent Roman Empire. Let's talk about Gregory's upbringing, his family and education in particular. Okay.
Yeah. So Gregory belongs to one of the ancient Roman families. He is raised in a sort of senatorial household. He would have received all of the benefits of that that someone in the middle of the 6th century could have. So he would have had the best possible education that money could buy in Italy in the 6th century.
I mentioned at the outset that he stands at this crossroads between East and West and the ancient, the medieval world. And we see even in his own education, these transformations. So Gregory is an extremely well-educated man. And yet he is always asking for Latin translations of Greek texts, which tells us that even though he studied Greek...
He actually wasn't in a milieu in which it was really imbibed, right? He didn't know Greek like Cicero had known Greek, right? Or even somebody like Ambrose of Milan had known Greek, just because Greek learning had gone into decline in the 6th century. And yet, one of the other really interesting... That might sound trivial, but the decline of Greek learning in Rome was symbolic of a pretty significant cultural shift.
Greek was the truly intellectual language. Gregory knew the language, but not in the way earlier Roman elites had. Gregory was amongst the wealthiest and most educated men in the West, but he represents a bit of a step down from the glory days of Rome.
And yet, one of the other really interesting things about him, his second professional position, his first professional position is he starts out as effectively the mayor of Rome. But in his second professional position, he resigns that post and becomes a monk. He is named the lead diplomat between the pope at the time –
and the Roman emperor in Constantinople, a position known as Apocrisiaris. And so he actually spends about six years in Constantinople and still doesn't know Greek. Yeah, right. I mean, that's extraordinary. I mean, surely he must have been able to get by in Greek. Of course. But tell me about that time in Constantinople as an official of the Roman church. He goes there. Yeah.
How would you summarize, A, what was he doing there? And B, what effect did the East have on him intellectually, spiritually? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Great questions. So in terms of what his role was, he was the permanent ambassador. So the same way that we would send an ambassador to the Vatican now or an ambassador to Moscow or Athens or London or wherever, right? Sydney. Right.
He was the sort of permanent ambassador. He was the papal representative to the emperor, right? It was still very important for the pope to have the imperial ear, and Gregory is a very important position. A monk becoming a diplomat is pretty weird, but when you look at Gregory's CV, it's unsurprising.
He had a meteoric rise in his 20s, becoming, as George said, the mayor of Rome. Then in his early 30s, he resigned his job, gave away most of his money, which was a lot, and turned his home into a monastery, committing himself to the contemplative, quiet life of a monk. He actually became pretty obsessed with building monasteries, commissioning a further six monasteries on family land in Sicily.
You can still visit Gregory's old house-turned-monastery in Rome today. It's the San Gregorio Magno Alcelio, located just a 10-minute walk from the Colosseum. I walked past it recently. Researcher Al tells me it gets 4.5 stars from 539 reviews on Google Maps. So there you go.
Going from elite public office into a life of contemplation and prayer would have raised eyebrows at the time.
But his spiritual retreat didn't last long. In 579, Gregory was appointed a deacon of the church, the step toward becoming priest, and sent as the permanent ambassador of the Bishop of Rome to Constantinople. The Vatican still has ambassadors from around the world.
Chief among Gregory's responsibilities was to lobby Byzantine Emperor Tiberius II for aid to help Rome defend itself against the Lombards. They're another scary Germanic tribe who were menacing the city at the time.
The Roman government is only at this moment transitioning from Latin into Greek. So even the Justinian's famous law book, which had been issued a couple generations before, that was still composed in Latin in Constantinople.
So the people of Constantinople are primarily conversing in Greek. Imperial government is making this transition from Latin to Greek. But Gregory definitively lived in the Latin quarter of the city.
And he clearly, we know from the sources, lived with a group of Latin-speaking monks in a monastery provided for them in this Latin quarter of the city. And he was kind of serving as the abbot of that monastery as a kind of side job. And actually in that context, because he's only going to see the emperor so often, in that context –
he drafts what will be his longest work. He wrote a 2,700-page commentary of the Book of Job, and he does that as lectures that he is offering for his monks there in Constantinople. But your other question was about Eastern Christian influences in Gregory's thought, and it is very clear that
that, theologically speaking, and in terms of spirituality, we should very much see Gregory along the lines with the Eastern, the major Eastern Christian figures like the Cappadocian fathers or Assyria of Alexandria, or even an origin, more so than even a figure like Augustine. He absolutely knows Augustine, there's no doubt about it.
but he has greater theological affinity with Eastern Christian sources. Do you mean because there's a kind of mystical flavor to his theologizing? I think that's exactly right. There's a kind of spirituality, a monastic spirituality that permeates all of his thinking, both about how to interpret scripture and how to live one's life,
And that just, it just resonates more. We find more continuity with other Eastern sources than we do, certainly than we do Latin ones. Constantinople was the place to be in the 6th century. The Vikings, who arrived on the scene about 150 years later, called it Miklagard, the Great City.
It was great. Sitting on the Black Sea with access to both the Silk Road trading networks of Central Asia and sea lanes to broader Europe, Constantinople was the crossroads of the world and home to around half a million people in Gregory's day.
J.R.R. Tolkien based the city of Minas Tirith in The Lord of the Rings on classical accounts of Constantinople, which described its incredible temples, stupendous walls and bustling markets. Of course, it's Istanbul today.
Back in the 6th century, it had all the hallmarks of a Roman city, but spiritually, a different style of Christianity was developing there, a more mystical style of worship, which would eventually grow into what we call Eastern Orthodoxy.
Here's an extract from a journal of the Orthodox Church of America on what was happening on the ground around this time. It references non-Chalcedonians, that's Christians who believe Christ had one human divine nature, instead of, as declared by the Council of Chalcedon, two distinct natures, fully human and fully divine.
The convergence of several factors caused numerous changes in the church's liturgical ritual and piety. These factors were the rise of the Constantinopolitan Church as the model for other churches, the development of the imperial churchly ritual, the appearance of the mystical theology expressed in the writings published under the name of St. Dionysius the Areopagite.
and the attempts of the church and state to reconcile the non-Chalcedonians. At this time, the practices of the Church of Constantinople were combined with the original Jewish Christian worship of the early church, the rule of prayer which had developed in the Christian monasteries, and the liturgical practices of the church in Jerusalem to form the first great synthesis of liturgical worship in Orthodox history.
Mysticism, connecting directly with God through liturgy and prayer, was pretty significant in this part of the world, and Gregory was right into it.
But Gregory's mysticism was not like the popular ascetic desert fathers who walked around naked or sat on poles for years eating nothing but lettuce. Gregory just wanted to avoid worldly wealth and he wanted to spend hours a day in prayer and praise and study and contemplation. But he did it all in order to be more effective in serving others.
There is that critical adage, so heavenly-minded you're of no earthly good. Well, Gregory came from the school of thought that said you could only be of profound earthly good if you were heavenly-minded.
If you're too much part of earthly society, Gregory thought, you'll be completely shaped by it, and so you'll be of little real good to it. The heavenly-minded person comes, as it were, from outside culture. They're able to see human culture with greater clarity.
And if they've had their heads up in the clouds of heaven, so to speak, they can return to earth with greater resources of divine love. That was Gregory's way of thinking. I suspect he was on to something. And it's why, after Pope Pelagius died in 590, the people of Rome wanted just one man to fill the papal shoes. Gregory. Stay with us.
This episode of Undeceptions is brought to you by Zondervan Academic and their new book, Boy Jesus, Growing Up Judean in Turbulent Times, by the wonderful Joan Taylor. The Gospels don't tell us much about Jesus' childhood. They tell us that he was a child of Joseph and
and Mary from the line of King David that he was born in Bethlehem and that after his birth his family fled to Egypt for a period before returning to Judea and settling in the north in the town of Nazareth. With so much of his childhood shrouded in mystery, scholars approach these early stories with some scepticism.
That's where Joan Taylor steps in. In this rich historical analysis, which I've really learned a lot from, Joan fills in the gaps for readers, explaining how the volatile situation in Jesus' homeland, his status as a Jew in Judea of the tribe of Judah, and growing up under Roman occupation, all influenced his outlook.
She also does a wonderful job of showing why some of the elements of the story that have been traditionally viewed as unlikely by some scholars actually deserve to be taken very seriously from a historical perspective.
like Jesus being born in Bethlehem, being born of the line of David, Herod's infamous massacre of the innocents, and so on. Boy Jesus is out now. So head to zondervanacademic.com forward slash underceptions. Don't forget the underceptions, where you can find discounts, free chapters, and of course, the book itself. ♪
Adeyemi isn't the answer to anything, and you know it. If you want to defeat... Defeat? This is a conclave, Aldo. You talk as if it's a war. It is a war, and you have to commit to a side. Save your famous doubts for your prayers. For God's sake, you cannot seriously believe I have the slightest desire to become Pope.
Oh, every cardinal has that desire. Every cardinal, deep down inside, has already chosen the name by which he would like his papacy to be known. Well, I haven't. Deny it if you like, but search your heart and then tell me it isn't so. Oh,
That's a scene from the recent hit movie Conclave, brought to life by our spare no expense in-house Undeceptions actors, producer Kayleigh as Cardinal Thomas Lawrence and director Mark as Cardinal Aldo Bellini. Conclave is a kind of political thriller all about the convoluted process of electing a new pope.
The conclave is a very recent thing. It's only a thousand years old. Gregory was selected not by a secret circle of papal appointees, but by popular election. But Gregory said nope to being pope.
That is Researcher Al's line. Anyway, Gregory ran away from Rome. Here's how the golden legend, a medieval book we already featured in our Mary Magdalene episode, puts it.
The Church of God, however, could not be without a head, and the people unanimously elected Gregory to be their bishop, although he made every effort to dissuade them. He had to be consecrated bishop of Rome, but the plague was causing havoc in the city, so he preached to the people, organized a procession, and had litanies recited, exhorting everyone to pray zealously to the Lord.
Even while the entire population pleaded with God, however, in any one hour 90 men died. But Gregory continued to urge all to pray until the Divine Mercy should banish the plague.
When the procession was finished, Gregory tried to flee from Rome but could not because they watched for him day and night at the city gates. At length, he changed his clothes and persuaded some tradesmen to hide him in a wine cask and get him out of the city in a wagon. When they reached a forest, he made for a hiding place in the caves and hid there for three days.
A relentless search for him was underway, and a bright column of light beamed down from the heavens and appeared over the place where he had concealed himself. A certain hermit saw angels descending and ascending in this beam. Of course, this led the pursuers to Gregory, and they carried him back to Rome and consecrated him as supreme pontiff. The Golden Legend
A theme running through the film Conclave is whether someone who wants to be Pope is the right person to actually be. Now, with or without the ascending and descending angels in that medieval account, it is likely Gregory genuinely didn't want the job. Okay, so Gregory is, he's an elite, he's an intellectual, he's
He's an ambassador, so he's in the world of politics. But you say he's imbibed this Greek, this Eastern mystical approach to classical theology. He's still classically theological, obviously, but mystical. And so he's really drawn to the ascetic life, to prayer, to study. And then he's invited to be the Bishop of Rome. Can you tell us?
What led to the elevation, to his elevation to be the Bishop of Rome? And am I right that he really, really didn't want it? Or is that just false humility? You know, oh, I don't want to be the president, that sort of thing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So an important scholar, British by the name of Conrad Laser, wrote a lot about this. And he speaks about it as the sort of rhetoric of humility. Yeah.
And how whether feigned or genuine, in a sense, doesn't matter because it still works a kind of magic in the popular imagination, right? So I happen to be – I read Gregory sympathetically just because I've been through the whole corpus. I think it is genuine. He really – and it's not so much –
It's not just pure humility, like, oh, I'm not worthy. He really doesn't like the responsibility of managing grain shipments and lumber shipments and rescuing slaves. Because he's more like a mystic, right? He thinks that's the higher life.
Yeah, he would much rather spend his time in ascetic retreat, ascetic contemplation, prayer. But did he actually run away when they invited him to take the position? Yeah, so we do have a source that says that he ran away and then the emperor's soldiers go and find him.
I don't know what to do with that. You know, it is a kind of trope. It could be genuine. It might not be. There are precedents going back hundreds of years that this is what a saintly figure does. Right. And so these are kind of, Hey, your graphic excerpts saying that he did this. I, I don't really know what to do about that. Like if, if that specifically happened, but I do know that for him, um,
Without a doubt, humility is the greatest Christian virtue. There is no other virtue like humility. And so even if he had moments in his life where he might not have been so humble, he
He genuinely understood it as something that he should strive for. And he developed this entire regimen of spiritual direction for how to coax people to be better Christians and in which humility was the ultimate goal. And you make it to that goal through a series of ascetic detachments and discipline and so forth.
Okay, so he becomes the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. How does he balance, once he's in the role, how does he balance his contemplative intellectual life, which he loves, with the very practical life of the Bishop of Rome at that time? Yeah, so it's really interesting. I mean, we don't have insight into, you know, how does he break down his day, so to speak. And we know that he is...
He is a very, very efficient and involved manager of the papal estate, for lack of a better word, right? So we have more letters that survive from Gregory's office than from any other figure from late antiquity. We have almost 900 letters that are his. They only come from the 14 years he's pope.
There's been a scholar who predicts that he may have composed, his office may have composed as many as 20,000 letters. These letters, now did you catch that? Almost 900 of them have survived, offer us a fascinating insight into the life of 6th century Rome.
For his day job, Gregory is dealing with a whole range of things, from menial tasks like grain shipments to things like who's fit to be a cleric, whether Jews could own Christian slaves or buy property from churches, evangelizing Sardinian pagans, disciplining misbehaving sons of clerics, there are a few of those, property disputes, and everything in between.
Here's a letter Gregory wrote to an abbot called Meletus, who was about to head on a mission trip to England to evangelize the pagans there. More about that in a sec. To my most beloved son, Abbott Meletus, Gregory, servant of the servants of God, since the departure of our companions and yourself, I have felt much anxiety because we have not happened to hear how your journey has prospered.
However, when Almighty God has brought you to our most reverend brother Bishop Augustine, tell him what I have decided after long deliberation about the English people, namely that the idol temples of that race should by no means be destroyed, but only the idols in them
"Take holy water and sprinkle it in these shrines; build altars and place relics in them. For if the shrines are well built, it is essential that they should be changed from the worship of devils to the service of the true God."
When this people see that their shrines are not destroyed, they will be able to banish error from their hearts and be more ready to come to the places they are familiar with, but now recognizing and worshiping the true God. And because they are in the habit of slaughtering much cattle as sacrifices to devils, some solemnity ought to be given them in exchange for this. So on the day of the dedication of the festivals of the holy martyrs, whose
whose relics are deposited there, let them make themselves huts from the branches of trees around the churches which have been converted out of shrines, and let them celebrate the solemnity with religious feasts. Do not let them sacrifice animals to the devil, but let them slaughter animals for their own food to the praise of God, and let them give thanks to the Giver of things for his bountiful provision.
Thus, while some outward rejoicings are preserved, they will be able more easily to share in inward rejoicings. It is doubtless impossible to cut out everything at once from their stubborn minds, just as the man who is attempting to climb to the highest place rises by steps and degrees, and not by leaps.
I find this amazing. He's saying, look, not everything in pagan culture is wicked. Sure, the idol itself is evil. Get rid of it if you can. But there's no need to destroy the buildings, he says. And even the cattle sacrifice. If the feast is held in honor of the gifts of the creator, why not let it continue for a while?
Gregory is a missionary theologian here. He's picking up the thought of the Apostle Paul from the New Testament. "Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law, though I myself am not under the law.
so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law, I became like one not having the law. Though I am not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law, so as to win those not having the law. To the weak, I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all possible means I might save some. 1 Corinthians chapter 9
I find this so fascinating. In fact, this primary text is one of the ones I set my doctoral students to study. So I asked George a little more about this mission trip to England and Gregory's approach to it. It's bonus content for Plus subscribers. If you're a Plus-er, enjoy. If you've got the regular episode, there's still lots of fun ahead. MUSIC
This episode of Undeceptions is brought to you by Speak Life and their new video-based course, 321, presented by the wonderful Aussie, now living in England...
Glenn Scrivner. G'day, mate. Glenn is a fantastic public advocate for the Christian faith in the UK. And in this course, he walks you through the core beliefs of the Christian faith. Glenn provides a basic Christian perspective on life, the world, and our place in it. 321 is a fantastic new way to explore Christianity. And it's also a brilliant way to share and deepen your faith if you're already a believer. So we
So it's both for skeptics and for believers. You can do 321 online in just a couple of hours, or you can space it out over a few weeks. I'm really excited about this because honestly, Glenn is an awesome bloke. Head to 321course.com forward slash underceptions to give it a go. There's no spam and no cost. That's 321course.com forward slash underceptions. You won't be disappointed.
Entrusted to burn John Paul II's notes, Cardinal publishes them instead. Defying a Pope's explicit instructions is not a widespread habit among Roman Catholic Cardinals, especially when the Pope in question is immensely popular, on the verge of sainthood, and no longer able to object.
So the decision by Cardinal Stanislaw Zivic to publish a book of Pope John Paul II's personal notes, even though the Pope's last will and testament requested that he burn them, has attracted no small helping of controversy and moral indignation. That's the first few lines from a 2014 New York Times article reporting on the publication that week of Pope John Paul II's personal notes as a book.
despite the Pope's desire for them to be burned after his death. Cardinal Djivic was Pope John Paul's secretary and one of his closest confidants. And he said he didn't have the courage to follow John Paul's orders to destroy the notes.
The Cardinal said the notes contained important historical information, including the Pope's religious meditations as a young and upcoming bishop to when he was suffering from Parkinson's disease towards the end of his life.
Regardless of what you think about the Cardinal's decision to defy the Pope's wishes, I reckon if they survive another 1400 years, like the many, many letters we have of Gregory the Great, they'll be a boon to historians.
As we've heard, Gregory the Great's letters have helped us piece together who he was and what life as a bishop of Rome looked like in the 6th century. You ask the question, how does he balance his day? He is definitely involved in the running of the papal machine. A quarter of his letters go to the men who are running the papal farms in Sicily.
So it's just active property management, making all kinds of decisions like that. He is actively involved in correspondence to the capital in Constantinople, to leading bishops across the West. He's intervening in various conflicts. He's trying to open negotiations with various Germanic kings in France and England and Spain and northern Italy.
But I think the balance – where does the balance come in? I think the balance comes in with him continuing to lead biblical study sessions. So he continues to offer commentaries on the gospels with his ascetics in Rome, and I think that's where he does it. He's kind of taken over the role of abbot.
And the people running the papal machinery for the first time are monks because Gregory is a monk. And I think he keeps that spiritualized discipline by doing this biblical exegesis with them. Now, I want to pick up something you just said because some of my skeptical listeners, when they heard you say papal farms –
you know, the grain supplies. I mean, he was probably in charge of the aqueducts as well, right? Yes. Yeah. The restoration of the aqueducts in Rome. Absolutely. So some of my skeptical listeners are going to be thinking, yeah, see, even right there at that early part of the Bishop of Rome, they were bossing everyone around and trying to take over secular power. That's kind of reading back into it, isn't it? In a kind of cynical way.
I would offer two responses to that. One, this distinction between secular and ecclesial is kind of modern and arbitrary, right? They're really, really integrated in the ancient world. In other words, Gregory is an aristocrat, whether he is an aristocratic senator or aristocratic bishop, the presumption is that he works for the good of the city, right? In other words, he commits himself to the good of the city. And the reality during the Lombard invasions,
of the latter part of the sixth century is there's no one else to do it. There is literally no one else to do it. He has access to leverage of resources, not only from his own personal wealth that he's basically given over to the church, his family's money,
But he is really the only one who can effectively get financial resources from Constantinople. No one else is able to do that. There are Byzantine governors in Ravenna, and they have no interest in Rome. In fact, the Byzantine governor in Ravenna and Gregory are often at odds with one another because –
for whatever reason those governors are willing to let Rome
be attacked by the Lombards so long as Ravenna isn't. They're willing to sacrifice Rome and Gregory has to negotiate with Constantinople and go over his head and so forth. Yeah. It's not power-hungry church. It's just there's good to be done and there's no one else to do it, so let's do it. Yeah, that's exactly right. History is sadly littered with examples of spiritual overreach for political power.
We've talked about it here on Undeceptions once or twice, or like a hundred times. But that really doesn't seem to be what's going on in the early 6th century with Gregory. Here was a man who gave up enormous power and wealth to serve as the leader of the church.
His happy place was in prayer in a monastery. But the devastations of Rome and in the West generally meant he felt compelled to serve in both spiritual and practical ways. The great Princeton historian Peter Brown points out that bishops in this period were, quote, expected to do anything. A bishop on the plateau of Spain, he notes, was responsible for rounding up the stray horses.
The Bishop of Palermo was nominated by the local governor as, I'm serious, the Inspector of Brothels. Gregory was the master of this weird combination of deep spirituality and surreal mundanity.
It's something he ended up writing about in what would become, arguably at least, the most influential book on leadership ever written. I want to move to the amazing book, The Regular Pastoralis. How do you translate that? The rule of the pastor or the guidance for the pastor? Yeah, pastoral rule. Can you try and do the impossible and summarize its aims and content?
Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So the first thing Gregory writes as Pope is this book of pastoral rule. And really, he sets out to do three things. He sets out to identify who should and who should not be in a position of spiritual authority. What will the responsibilities be or what are they for those in spiritual authority? And both of those have been done by previous authors in different ways.
What makes Gregory's contribution so unique is the third component where he identifies 36 pairs of personality traits. Old, young, male, female, rich, poor, and on and on and on, right? 36 of these binaries.
And then he identifies how a pastor recognizes these conditions. I mean, some are obvious, some are less obvious. And then offers a prescription for how a pastor should coax that individual into becoming a better Christian, right? And so, some of them are obvious, like old, young, male, female. Some of them are not quite so clear, like,
What do you do with someone who appears to be generous but is actually greedy? And what do you do with somebody who appears to be greedy but is actually generous, right? And those kinds – like he's really got this developed sense of trying to penetrate into who people are and what kind of pastoral guidance is necessary to make them better. So that's what the book sets out to do.
And there's some really interesting things in there. He doesn't really make a distinction between who the pastor is. Historically, people thought he just met bishops. But his language, I would argue, is deliberately slippery.
So the pastor is the abbot, the pastor is the priest, the pastor is the bishop, right? It could be any of these figures. It's anybody who's in a position of spiritual authority. Yeah. And the great Peter Brown from Princeton, one of the most important historians of this period ever, he waxes lyrical about
this pastoral rule and says it became perhaps the most important leadership book in history because secular leaders would read this book for advice. Can you tell me what was, what would be a secular leader's interest in this book? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So I, well now it's, it's, it's been a while. I can't remember who it is, but there is a very early King of England, um,
And I apologize for not remembering his name. There's a very early king of England who has it translated or maybe even performs the translation himself from Latin into Old English.
and makes copies of it and distributes it to all of his aristocrats as a model for governance, right? So in other words, right, the very notion that we have today, and sometimes obviously, like in our political worlds, obviously this gets exploited, but the very idea that some people hold that
Your leader needs to be morally sound so that they will then make decisions that are in the interests of the good, not necessarily the interests of themselves or the interests of just a portion of the community. That very conception that a prerequisite is moral soundness to be able to make the right decision, that effectively begins with Gregory, right? I mean, yeah, it's in Plato and so forth, but –
Gregory is the one who really takes that idea and develops it and introduces it to the Christian Middle Ages. And it's simply become a part of Western European, Western values for what leadership looks like. Yeah. And when a modern reader comes across certain sections that are all about humility, that the true leader must condescend to people.
in the best sense. The leader is a servant. Yeah. Often, a ruler, by the very fact of his preeminence over others, becomes conceited. And because everything is at his service, because his orders are quickly executed to suit his wishes, because all his subjects praise him for what he has done well, his mind, led astray by those who follow him, is lifted above itself.
forgetful of what he is, he is diverted by the commendations of others, and believes himself to be such as he hears himself outwardly proclaimed to be, not such as he should inwardly judge himself.
For the human mind is prone to pride even when not supported by power. How much more, then, does it exalt itself when it has that support? But he disposes his power aright, who knows how, with great care, both to derive from it what is profitable, and to subdue the temptations which it creates; and how, in procession of it, to realize his equality with others.
Paul showed no consciousness of this preeminence over his deserving brethren when he said, We do not lord it over your faith, for in faith you stand, and we are equals with you wherein we know you stand. It was as if he were not aware of his preeminence over his brethren when he said, We became little ones in the midst of you,
and again, and ourselves your servants through Christ. Supreme rank is, therefore, well administered when the superior lords it over vices rather than over brethren,
When rulers correct their delinquent subjects, it is incumbent on them to observe carefully that, while they smite faults with due discipline in virtue of their authority, they acknowledge, by observing humility, that they are only the equals of the brethren whom they correct.
Consequently, humility must be preserved in the heart and discipline in action. Superiors, then, should ceaselessly take care that the greater the external manifestation of power, the more it is to be kept in subjection internally. So, the truth in person, inviting us to the more sublime merits of virtue, says:
You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that are the greater exercise power upon them. It shall not be so among you. But whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your servant, and that he will be the first among you shall be your slave, even as the Son of Man is not come to be served, but to serve. Gregory the Great, The Pastoral Rule, Book 2
Let's press pause. I've got a five-minute Jesus for you. We've noted before on the podcast that humility wasn't a virtue in the ancient world.
The word actually meant something like pushed down low to the ground, and it was mostly a negative term. You could of course be humble toward the gods and toward the emperors because they were your superiors. It made sense. But humility toward an equal, let alone a lesser, was almost unthinkable in ancient Greek and Roman ethics. The whole thing was turned on its head by Jesus. That's not a theological hope. That's a historical statement.
Suddenly in the Christian literature of the first and second centuries, we see an explosion of the positive use of the word humility. It appears 25 times just in the letter we call One Clement that I mentioned before, that wonderful epistle written by the Bishop of Rome Clement in the 90s AD. He pleads with the Corinthians over and over amidst their disputes to adopt a posture of humility that puts others first.
From that ethical revolution, our Western world now completely assumes the value of humility.
There's the whole servant leader movement, which started with Robert Greenleaf and his book, The Servant as Leader in 1970. Then there's the book by Jim Collins from the early 2000s called Good to Great. It made the case, an entirely secular research-based case, that the most effective leaders combine what he called a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.
But these recent discoveries of the management industry really are just ancient Christian gifts to our world. And it can be argued that Gregory the Great, the Roman bishop or pope at the end of the 500s and beginning of the 600s AD, was the great turning point.
His book, called The Pastoral Rule, was largely about the way professional will and personal humility combine in effective leadership. The book itself was incredibly famous for the next at least 500 years. The great Princeton historian Peter Brown has made the point that while Gregory intended this book mainly to be read by church officials, it was in fact picked up by secular officials for centuries afterwards.
The book became the leadership book of the medieval world. Brown summarizes Gregory's answer to the question, "What is true leadership?" Gregory thought that he had found the answer in the figure of the Apostle Paul. Paul was the ideal pastor. Paul the contemplative had entered the third heaven and yet, with heartfelt empathy, he surveys with care the average person's marriage bed.
Condescension, a compassionate stepping down to the level of every person in the Christian church, was the key to Gregory's notion of spiritual power. It was condescension in the best meaning of the word. It echoed the dizzying act by which God himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, had bent to earth to touch every aspect of the human condition.
Christ also had both prayed on the mountaintop and gone down into the cities to heal the sick and comfort the downhearted. Based on the models of St. Paul and of Christ, the ideal pastor of Gregory must learn to be intimately close to each person through compassion, and yet to hover above all through contemplation. Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom
Gregory's pastoral rule cemented in the popular consciousness, if not always in practice, that leaders must wield their power only for the benefit of those they serve, always being fearful that power will go to their heads. This is a dramatic change from the attitude of Roman elites among whom Gregory had been born and raised.
As Gregory put it in Book Two, the person who uses power correctly knows how, with great care, both to derive from it what is profitable and to subdue the temptations which such power creates, and how, though in possession of power, he realizes his equality with others. Humility must be preserved in the heart.
and discipline in action. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve.
This is a brilliant statement of precisely what Jim Collins found in the top CEOs of America, a steely will and a humble demeanour. It's just that Bishop Gregory stumbled on the idea 1411 years before Professor Collins. And of course, Gregory got it from the servant king himself 560 years earlier.
Humility has nothing to do with having a low view of yourself or denying that you possess authority, gifts or power. Jesus, of course, certainly didn't have a low view of himself. Humility is lowering yourself with all of your power for the sake of those you love. The Lord of the universe giving himself for us on a cross. It's an amazing model of leadership. But forget leadership.
It's just amazing. You can press play now. You know, I mean, some people think, didn't the servant leadership movement of the 1970s invent that idea or Jim Collins in Good to Great? No, it's there in Gregory on a huge scale. So can you just say a little more about this idea of humility and leadership?
Yeah, well, I mean, to be clear, it's in the gospel, right? It's in the gospels, but what Gregory is doing is he's taking this gospel image of humility as being so central to what authentic leadership is, and he's developing an actual plan for it. Like, how do you functionally put it in place? And one of the arguments I make in my book about Gregory is,
is that this comes from his monastic background, right? This sort of asceticizing of scripture and, but an ascetic for being an ascetic for others, right? Not an ascetic for yourself. And so the pastoral rule then becomes the theory book, right?
Right? It's kind of the theory that he wants to govern by. And then if you look at his career, because again, he writes at the first year he's Pope, he's Pope for almost 14 years. If you look at the evidence of what he actually does as Pope, you see that he really, really consistently strives to put this into practice.
Right. And he sets the paradigm for what good leadership should be. Right. It's why so many other popes are named Gregory. Right. They all want to. Right. In other words, it's a nod to the sort of great contribution that Gregory had made. What about my listeners who aren't Christian believers, who aren't really sure what to make of the Christian faith?
Do you think Gregory has anything to offer them, intellectually, spiritually? Yeah, well, I would say that Gregory is the mediator, one of the key mediators of the ancient world to the modern, right? So something like...
The best attributes of – if you're not a Christian, you might not think that Christianity is great. But the best attributes of Christianity, the building of hospitals, the taking in of orphans, the social – like Christianity invents the idea of social justice. It really does. Gregory is someone who maximizes those commitments.
and establishes an institution to let them flourish in the Middle Ages. Now, do they become corrupted and problematic at different moments in history? Of course they do, just like everything does. But Gregory is somebody who brings the best of the Christian tradition and also channels the best of the ancient worlds.
That was a Facebook post written the other day by me. Some of my Catholic friends liked it, took it as a compliment. Other Catholics, not so much.
Same with Protestants. Some thought it was a nice statement that despite profound differences, there is a shared Christianity between all the brands captured in the Bible and the creeds. Other Protestants insisted that I should have expanded my list of disagreements. We have different ideas of grace, they said, different ideas of justification and so on. Now, I'm going to concede all the criticisms. I was just trying to convey a sentiment.
I personally can't delete all of church history between the Apostle Paul in the 1st century and Martin Luther in the 16th century. In that Catholic tradition, there is so much gold. Indeed, there is gold among the bishops of Rome, including Clement in the 90s AD and Gregory in the 590s AD.
A leader like Gregory allowed his faith to dictate how he led in very difficult circumstances. People like him help us understand what Christianity looks like in action. And honestly, I feel inspired thinking about it. Sixteen popes have taken the title of Gregory, but only one is called the Great. Gregory I the Great left an incredible legacy.
On the foreign policy front, he was constantly walking the tightrope of keeping his menacing northern neighbours at bay, while also staying on good terms with the Byzantines, who were not always very interested in keeping Rome well protected. When Gregory took office, Rome was in ruin, ravaged by violence, famine and disease. Despite this, he made his time count.
Gregory used his excellent administrative skills to organise emergency food supplies for the city, which came from the church's reserve grain stock. He also liquidated church property and his own property to fund the expenses of providing for the poor. And even after things stabilised, Gregory kept very close track of the church's finances and gave away generous swaths of its land profits to the needy.
In a letter to Bishop Protasius of France, he insisted that whatever the church has accumulated is in fact the property of the poor. Oh, I like that. But he was a reluctant leader. He would have preferred to stay praying and studying in a monastery.
But he knew that the God who left the glory of heaven to serve the world on a bloody cross demanded that his servants not only spend time in heavenly contemplation, but in dirty earthly service.
Throughout this episode, we've been listening to some classic Gregorian chants named after the hero of this episode, Gregory the Great. Now, it's not clear he actually deserves the credit, but long tradition says he invented the style. I'm going to go with it ought to be true, even if it isn't. Gregory died on the 12th of March, 604.
and his tomb's located in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. He got a shout-out very recently in the first Sunday message of the newly elected Pope Leo XIV. Leo said, In the Gospel, Jesus says that he knows his sheep and that they listen to his voice and follow him. Indeed, as Pope St. Gregory the Great teaches, people respond to the love of those who love them.
This was Gregory's gospel. This was his mode of being. It was his approach to life and leadership. We have been loved by heaven. So we respond to that divine love with love toward the earth. Let's move the world, he thought, not through force, but through love. Because people respond to the love of those who love them.
I wanted to say a big thank you to our Undeceptions Plus subscribers. Your support means we can keep doing this thing that we love. You can become an undeceiver yourself by heading to undeceptions.com forward slash plus, of course.
There's a few different support options starting at just $5 Aussie a month. And it opens up access to our extended episodes and a few other special things just for Plus members. One of the things Plus members get is first access to our special events. And we have plenty of those coming up in my home Australia as part of the launch of our new documentary film, The First Hymn.
The documentary chronicles the remarkable story of a tiny papyrus fragment found in the Egyptian desert with the earliest known Christian hymn, lyrics and musical notation written on it.
With the help of acclaimed musos Chris Tomlin and Ben Fielding, we've transformed the ancient song, 1800 years old, into a contemporary worship piece. And we're giving it back to the world to sing anew. The first hymn film is available to stream already in the US. Go for it, US. And in Australia, it's premiering at the end of this month in Sydney.
And then the team and I are zipping around the country to every capital city in Australia to host special Q&A screenings of the film. We'd love to see you there. Head to thefirsthymmovie.com for everything you need to know. And if you're in the US, that's where you can already stream it. thefirsthymmovie.com See ya. MUSIC
Underceptions is hosted by me, John Dixon, produced by Kayleigh Payne and directed by Mark Langdon Hadley. Alistair Belling is a writer-researcher. Siobhan McGuinness, our online librarian. Lindy Leveston remains my wonderful assistant. Santino DiMarco is chief finance and operations consultant as well as Italian pronunciation director. Editing by Richard Humwee. Our voice actors today were Yannick Laurie and Dakota Love as well as director Mark and producer Kayleigh.
Special thanks to our series sponsor, Zondervan, for making this Undeception possible. Undeceptions is the flagship podcast of Undeceptions.com, letting the truth out. An Undeceptions podcast. J.R.R. Tolkien based the city of Minas Tirith, which is the Elvish, in the Lord of the Rings on classical accounts of Constantinople.
You realise you're just going to get bagged out internationally. Oh, if listeners could see both Al and Mark's face. That is how you say it. It's Minas Tirith. I just finished Return of the King, too, like two days ago. Yeah, I'll have you know I finished my course in Ancient Elvish and that's just... But it's a city of men, though, so...
Yeah. Okay. Yeah, but I was giving the Elvish. Come on. Would one of you like to just coach John on how to say this properly? It's just Minas Tirith. I actually did look up the Elvish, and that is how Tolkien wanted it pronounced, and no one did. Gosh. In the movie. Including Aragorn. There you go. Maybe just leave it then. It could be fun. Okay, I'm doing that line again.
Because of the Philistines in front of me. J.R.R. Tolkien based the city of Minas Tirith in the Lord of the Rings. That's not any better. People will be like, what the hell is he talking about? Now you just sound like you're dismissing it, like a fairy tale or something. J.R.R. Tolkien. J.R.R. Tolkien.
Duh. J.R.R. Tolkien based the city of Minas Tirith in The Lord of the Rings on classical accounts of Constantinople.