Christianity: The Architecture Of Evil Men | By Joseph J. Washington

March 27, 2026

The empire named them. The question is whether you still answer to it.

Most people who identify as Christian have never paused to ask a foundational question of spiritual discernment: who gave you that name — and why? The answer, when pursued honestly and without sentimentality, leads not to the upper room in Jerusalem but to the administrative offices of the Roman Empire. This is not an abstract theological debate. It is a raw testimony against the machinery of institutional religion — and a direct confrontation with what The Living GOD actually commanded.

The Roman Roots of a Label Nobody Asked For

Acts 11:26 records that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch around 43–44 CE, but the Greek verb used — chrēmatisai — implies the name was assigned by outsiders, not self-selected. Antioch was a heavily Roman-administered city, and the suffix "-ianus" (as in Christianus) was a distinctly Latin construction Romans used to denote the followers or slaves of a prominent figure — the same suffix pattern seen in "Caesarianus" (a partisan of Caesar). This was not a term of honor; it was a political label stamped by the empire's governing class.

The broader Roman context makes this even more pointed. By the time the label circulated meaningfully in Rome itself, it carried mockery — followers of a man the empire had publicly executed as a criminal. Paul and other missionaries may have eventually leaned into it rhetorically (1 Peter 4:16 shows this reclamation in action), turning the insult into a badge — a pattern later repeated by groups like the Puritans and Methodists. But reclaiming a slur and originating a name are entirely different things.

The Disciples Never Claimed the Title

Before "Christian" became common, followers of Jesus referred to themselves as people of "The Way" — a term rooted in Jesus' own words ("I am the way, the truth, and the life" — John 14:6) and used consistently throughout Acts (9:2, 19:9, 22:4, 24:14). They also called themselves disciples, brothers, believers, and saints. Not one of the twelve apostles or Paul himself ever used "Christian" as a self-identifier in their own writings.

The irony is glaring: the label was invented by the same imperial power that authorized the crucifixion, and it was the label that ultimately stuck to define a world religion.

For deeper exploration of how language is used as a tool of power and how sovereignty begins with naming yourself, this question is explored philosophically in The Status Quotes — Joseph J. Washington's ongoing essay series on psychological freedom and intellectual independence.

Constantine, Nicaea, and How Rome Turned Faith into Policy

Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE not out of genuine theological curiosity but because religious division was fracturing his empire. The Arian controversy — whether Christ was divine or a created being — was destabilizing cities and threatening civil order. Constantine himself was not yet baptized and held the pagan title Pontifex Maximus (high priest of Rome's state religion) simultaneously. He pressured roughly 300 bishops to reach consensus by majority vote, and the resulting Nicene Creed became enforceable imperial law — not a grassroots declaration of faith but a government decree.

The persecution backdrop is critical here. From Nero in 64 CE through Diocletian's brutal campaign ending in 305 CE, Christians were tortured, executed, and had their properties confiscated for over two centuries. The Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which preceded Nicaea by 12 years, explicitly noted that ending persecution would "help secure public order" — the stated motivation was imperial stability, not spiritual conviction. Populations decimated by religious purges cannot farm, trade, or pay taxes. Constantine's tolerance was as much fiscal policy as it was theology.

Catholicism as Rome's Pantheon, Rebranded

What emerged from the Constantinian merger was not the faith of the early disciples — it was a synthesis. Constantine entered Christianity still wearing the garb and ceremonial office of Babylon-descended pagan priesthood, and the institutional church absorbed this. The Roman Pantheon had always operated on the logic of intercessors — lesser deities who mediated between humans and the supreme gods. The Catholic system of saints functionally replicated this architecture exactly: patron saints replaced patron deities, feast days mapped onto pre-existing pagan festival calendars, and shrines to saints occupied the same cultural space as temples to gods.

Scholars and observers have long noted that in heavily Catholic regions, the emotional and devotional weight given to Mary and saints often exceeds what is formally directed toward God. The theological distinction Catholics draw between latria (worship due only to God) and dulia (veneration of saints) is a doctrinal firewall that, in practice, many adherents do not observe. John Calvin noted this plainly — that the distinction was invented precisely to permit divine honors to saints while maintaining technical monotheism.

The structural parallel between Roman institutional religion and modern spiritual control is examined more broadly at The Architecture of Truth — the central hub connecting all four pillars of this work.

The Affront to Universal Salvation and The Living GOD

The doctrine of Universal Salvation — that Christ's singular sacrifice was sufficient, complete, and unrepeatable — has no logical room for a tiered system of holy intermediaries. The entire theological weight of the New Testament epistles argues that the veil was torn (Matthew 27:51), meaning direct access to the Father was restored through Christ alone. A system requiring saintly intercession implicitly argues that this access is insufficient — that you still need a human go-between, which is precisely the priestly-mediator structure the sacrifice was meant to dismantle.

The Living GOD — the God of Jacob, Abraham, and Isaac — is introduced in the Torah with unambiguous exclusivity: "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3). The First Commandment does not say "no other gods except saints" — it is categorical. When a religious institution places statues in sanctuaries, assigns prayers to named figures other than God, and organizes festivals around those figures, it is — by the plain standard of the Hebrew scriptures it claims to inherit — operating in direct violation of the foundational covenant. The emperor who formalized all of this never surrendered his pagan priesthood title while doing so. That lineage matters.

Your Relationship with God Does Not Pass Through Rome

This post is not an academic exercise — it is a call to spiritual discernment. The raw testimony of scripture is not ambiguous: the disciples walked The Way. They did not walk a denomination, a creed voted on by government-appointed bishops, or a saint calendar inherited from a pagan empire. Your relationship with God — direct, unmediated, and covenantal — was purchased at a price that made every human intermediary permanently redundant.

The name they gave you was never yours. Reclaiming your identity before The Living GOD begins with knowing where that name came from — and refusing to let the empire define your walk.

🔖 Frequently Asked Questions

What does Acts 11:26 say about the name "Christian"?

Acts 11:26 records that disciples were first called Christians in Antioch around 43–44 CE. The Greek verb chrēmatisai indicates the name was assigned by outsiders — likely Roman administrators — not chosen by the disciples themselves.

What did followers of Jesus call themselves before "Christian"?

Before "Christian" became common, followers of Jesus called themselves people of "The Way" (Acts 9:2, 19:9, 22:4, 24:14), as well as disciples, brothers, believers, and saints.

Why did Constantine convene the Council of Nicaea?

Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE primarily to resolve the Arian controversy, which was causing civil unrest across the empire. His motivation was imperial stability, not personal faith — he remained unbaptized and held the pagan title Pontifex Maximus at the time.

What is the difference between latria and dulia in Catholic theology?

Latria refers to worship due only to God, while dulia refers to veneration offered to saints. Critics, including John Calvin, have argued this distinction was created specifically to permit near-divine honors to saints while maintaining the appearance of monotheism.

What does "The Living GOD" require in terms of direct relationship?

The First Commandment (Exodus 20:3) and the tearing of the Temple veil (Matthew 27:51) together establish that The Living GOD demands exclusive, direct relationship — not mediated through saints, priests, or institutional hierarchies.