- Jun 18, 2007
- 3,263
- 771
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Christ is Risen!
I'll provide the links first in order to ease future navigation through this project. Each link will be "dead" until the post corresponding to that era goes up.
The Apostolic Age: AD 33-70
The Church Under Pagan Rome: AD 70-313
The Classical Church of Late Antiquity: AD 313-602
The Church of the Early Middle Ages: AD 602-1054
The Church of the High Middle Ages: AD 1054-1453
The Church of the Renaissance and Reformation: AD 1453-1776
The Church and Modernity: AD 1776-1945
The Church and Post-Modernity: AD 1945-2012
This post initiates the beginning of a major undertaking. The goal of these posts is to provide an educational, topical overview of Christian History from an Eastern perspective (that is, focusing on the contributions of East AND West, including the Oriental Orthodox and East Syriac traditions). In most narratives of Christian history, the East is a footnote except for the crises immediately around the Ecumenical Councils, especially after the fall of the Western Empire (ironically at the exact time that the East reached the height of its power and influence). This imbalance creates a false sense of history, and is due in part to the polemical nature of Christian history itself. One cannot be neutral on this topic, because (and this is important) Christian history is the history of God among His people. What one says about the Church's past becomes potentially normative for her future - even if one uses Christian history to argue against tradition, one still views that history as a battleground for contemporary theology. Ignoring Christian history is itself a statement about Christian history.
We must also avoid the errors of anachronism and reductionism. Anachronism, a word we shall use often in this project, is the act of reading today's concerns, terms, categories, and positions "backwards" into older circumstances in a way that inadvertently misinterprets the older circumstance. For example, if one were to interpret the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution as, functionally, "enforced state agnosticism" this could be anachronism (as that is a more 20th c. concern - the original public schools were overwhelmingly Protestant, not secular). Marxist historians are notorious for anachronism, applying their narrative of class warfare to almost any story of history as a reductionist scheme. "Reductionism" is another word that warrants unpacking. There is a tendency, on all sides of Church history, to "reduce" people's motives and situation's complexities in order to make them "fit" one's preferred narrative. Secular historians tend to reduce motives to economics and politics (essentially, the pursuit of power); Christians can, at times, can turn Christian history into hagiography (glossing over more embarrassing moments). Each "checks" the other effectively - Christians, and their persistent belief today, remind historians that authentic religious piety not only exists but exerts a power in people's lives and decisions that can easily rival economic or political concerns. Secular historians remind Christians that the Church definitely played in politics and, as a result, call us today to examine our own motives and practices (and if they genuinely match the Gospel).
The absence of neutrality makes selecting what text to read and what narrative to listen to quite difficult (unless one is already solidly at home in a given confession). Three major branches dominate the field: Protestant, Catholic, and Secular. The Protestant branch is divided between more radical Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, on the one hand, and the more conservative Lutheran and Anglican historians on the other. All, however, are keen to show how the Church started out strong, then declined and, by the 16th c, needed reforming on some level. For Protestant historians, the Apostolic Age is the "golden age" of the Church, and all else merely an imitation of varying degrees of success or failure. In many Protestant traditions, the need for Reform is a constant one - the Church is always seeking to reform itself in order to return to its proper roots. The earliest Christian texts (the New Testament) thus become THE documents of theology, as they are the only "pure" (that is, untainted by later decline) evidence of the golden age - the Apostolic Age.
The Catholic Historians take a longer view, and see the Apostolic Age as indeed normative for the modern Church, but grant a larger degree of freedom for the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit (so that, albeit in a different way, later developments can likewise be seen as inspired by the Holy Spirit). In particular, the Catholic historians are keen to see themes that came to the forefront in the 9th through 15th c. as prefigured in seed form during earlier ages. The height of papal influence and power (in terms of immediate political authority) in the 13th c. is seen, in some ways, as the golden age to which prior ages were building and from which future ages have declined. That is an oversimplification, but it places incredible importance on the scheme of history from the 1st through 9th century - Catholic historians are keen to show that the thematic emphasis on the high middle ages (the 11th - 13th c.) avoids being "anachronistic."
The Orthodox "golden age" tends to be the Byzantine Period (in particular the early Byzantine period from the 4th through 6th centuries). Everything after Justinian, with the notable exception of the conversion of the Slavs, tends to be regarded as a decline (politically) and an attempt to maintain continuity in the face of radically changing circumstances. There can be a strong tendency towards "reactionary" views within, in particular, conservative Orthodoxy that see anything "new" as de-facto "heretical." This masks the real vitality and creativity of later Byzantine thinkers (e.g. Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas) as well as the ongoing real-politik of Orthodoxy in negotiating its ancient faith in new circumstances. If the secular world is obsessed with the new and grant it an almost automatic value over and against the old, today's Orthodox traditional mindset can be anachronistically applied to history in the opposite way. Due to the later schisms, the contributions of Western Christianity also tend to be de-emphasized. This is also due to a 20th century concern over the "Latin Captivity" of the 17th through 19th c. (where Western theologians and theological methods were quite emphasized within Orthodox thought). Again, anachronism can mask the truly Orthodox (albeit not Eastern) spirit of the 1st millennium West.
This project takes what, I believe, is an Orthodox approach that attempts to be sensitive to the potential weaknesses of that approach. As such, I will attempt not to judge the "new" without understanding first the context under which it came to be - every generation must appropriate the Gospel to itself, not merely parrot the prior generation's words but rather receive and preach the same Spirit in their own, new, context. Simultaneously, I will attempt to highlight Western developments as well and show them in a positive light (in particular in the 1st millennium) - or at least to describe as best I can both sides of an issue. I will not shy away from apologetically awkward moments, but neither will I bow to secular reductionism of religion to mere politics / economics. Instead, I hope to show the incredible cultural, social, and spiritual vitality of the Church while recognizing its own (self-admitted) flaws.
Feel free to critique that approach! This thread serves as the place to discuss "meta" issues like our METHOD for approaching history, or the purpose of "doing" church history, or any such thing. I'm laying my cards on the table in terms of my own bias and approach; if you have an alternative, please voice it. This is, however, in St. Basil's Hall quite intentionally; debate by non-Orthodox is not welcome. Vigorous discussion by inquirers certainly IS welcome (and the line here is a bit grey, but we'll work it out as we go).
So that's the program. This post will link to each of the major eras, which, in turn, will provide an overview of that era and links to the topics discussed in that era. The next post will deal specifically with the narrative of history, giving a brief overview of AD 33-70: the Apostolic Age.
In Christ,
Macarius
I'll provide the links first in order to ease future navigation through this project. Each link will be "dead" until the post corresponding to that era goes up.
The Apostolic Age: AD 33-70
The Church Under Pagan Rome: AD 70-313
The Classical Church of Late Antiquity: AD 313-602
The Church of the Early Middle Ages: AD 602-1054
The Church of the High Middle Ages: AD 1054-1453
The Church of the Renaissance and Reformation: AD 1453-1776
The Church and Modernity: AD 1776-1945
The Church and Post-Modernity: AD 1945-2012
This post initiates the beginning of a major undertaking. The goal of these posts is to provide an educational, topical overview of Christian History from an Eastern perspective (that is, focusing on the contributions of East AND West, including the Oriental Orthodox and East Syriac traditions). In most narratives of Christian history, the East is a footnote except for the crises immediately around the Ecumenical Councils, especially after the fall of the Western Empire (ironically at the exact time that the East reached the height of its power and influence). This imbalance creates a false sense of history, and is due in part to the polemical nature of Christian history itself. One cannot be neutral on this topic, because (and this is important) Christian history is the history of God among His people. What one says about the Church's past becomes potentially normative for her future - even if one uses Christian history to argue against tradition, one still views that history as a battleground for contemporary theology. Ignoring Christian history is itself a statement about Christian history.
We must also avoid the errors of anachronism and reductionism. Anachronism, a word we shall use often in this project, is the act of reading today's concerns, terms, categories, and positions "backwards" into older circumstances in a way that inadvertently misinterprets the older circumstance. For example, if one were to interpret the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution as, functionally, "enforced state agnosticism" this could be anachronism (as that is a more 20th c. concern - the original public schools were overwhelmingly Protestant, not secular). Marxist historians are notorious for anachronism, applying their narrative of class warfare to almost any story of history as a reductionist scheme. "Reductionism" is another word that warrants unpacking. There is a tendency, on all sides of Church history, to "reduce" people's motives and situation's complexities in order to make them "fit" one's preferred narrative. Secular historians tend to reduce motives to economics and politics (essentially, the pursuit of power); Christians can, at times, can turn Christian history into hagiography (glossing over more embarrassing moments). Each "checks" the other effectively - Christians, and their persistent belief today, remind historians that authentic religious piety not only exists but exerts a power in people's lives and decisions that can easily rival economic or political concerns. Secular historians remind Christians that the Church definitely played in politics and, as a result, call us today to examine our own motives and practices (and if they genuinely match the Gospel).
The absence of neutrality makes selecting what text to read and what narrative to listen to quite difficult (unless one is already solidly at home in a given confession). Three major branches dominate the field: Protestant, Catholic, and Secular. The Protestant branch is divided between more radical Reformed and Anabaptist traditions, on the one hand, and the more conservative Lutheran and Anglican historians on the other. All, however, are keen to show how the Church started out strong, then declined and, by the 16th c, needed reforming on some level. For Protestant historians, the Apostolic Age is the "golden age" of the Church, and all else merely an imitation of varying degrees of success or failure. In many Protestant traditions, the need for Reform is a constant one - the Church is always seeking to reform itself in order to return to its proper roots. The earliest Christian texts (the New Testament) thus become THE documents of theology, as they are the only "pure" (that is, untainted by later decline) evidence of the golden age - the Apostolic Age.
The Catholic Historians take a longer view, and see the Apostolic Age as indeed normative for the modern Church, but grant a larger degree of freedom for the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit (so that, albeit in a different way, later developments can likewise be seen as inspired by the Holy Spirit). In particular, the Catholic historians are keen to see themes that came to the forefront in the 9th through 15th c. as prefigured in seed form during earlier ages. The height of papal influence and power (in terms of immediate political authority) in the 13th c. is seen, in some ways, as the golden age to which prior ages were building and from which future ages have declined. That is an oversimplification, but it places incredible importance on the scheme of history from the 1st through 9th century - Catholic historians are keen to show that the thematic emphasis on the high middle ages (the 11th - 13th c.) avoids being "anachronistic."
The Orthodox "golden age" tends to be the Byzantine Period (in particular the early Byzantine period from the 4th through 6th centuries). Everything after Justinian, with the notable exception of the conversion of the Slavs, tends to be regarded as a decline (politically) and an attempt to maintain continuity in the face of radically changing circumstances. There can be a strong tendency towards "reactionary" views within, in particular, conservative Orthodoxy that see anything "new" as de-facto "heretical." This masks the real vitality and creativity of later Byzantine thinkers (e.g. Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas) as well as the ongoing real-politik of Orthodoxy in negotiating its ancient faith in new circumstances. If the secular world is obsessed with the new and grant it an almost automatic value over and against the old, today's Orthodox traditional mindset can be anachronistically applied to history in the opposite way. Due to the later schisms, the contributions of Western Christianity also tend to be de-emphasized. This is also due to a 20th century concern over the "Latin Captivity" of the 17th through 19th c. (where Western theologians and theological methods were quite emphasized within Orthodox thought). Again, anachronism can mask the truly Orthodox (albeit not Eastern) spirit of the 1st millennium West.
This project takes what, I believe, is an Orthodox approach that attempts to be sensitive to the potential weaknesses of that approach. As such, I will attempt not to judge the "new" without understanding first the context under which it came to be - every generation must appropriate the Gospel to itself, not merely parrot the prior generation's words but rather receive and preach the same Spirit in their own, new, context. Simultaneously, I will attempt to highlight Western developments as well and show them in a positive light (in particular in the 1st millennium) - or at least to describe as best I can both sides of an issue. I will not shy away from apologetically awkward moments, but neither will I bow to secular reductionism of religion to mere politics / economics. Instead, I hope to show the incredible cultural, social, and spiritual vitality of the Church while recognizing its own (self-admitted) flaws.
Feel free to critique that approach! This thread serves as the place to discuss "meta" issues like our METHOD for approaching history, or the purpose of "doing" church history, or any such thing. I'm laying my cards on the table in terms of my own bias and approach; if you have an alternative, please voice it. This is, however, in St. Basil's Hall quite intentionally; debate by non-Orthodox is not welcome. Vigorous discussion by inquirers certainly IS welcome (and the line here is a bit grey, but we'll work it out as we go).
So that's the program. This post will link to each of the major eras, which, in turn, will provide an overview of that era and links to the topics discussed in that era. The next post will deal specifically with the narrative of history, giving a brief overview of AD 33-70: the Apostolic Age.
In Christ,
Macarius
Thanks Macarius!
