Christian History

[Peter]

Why is Christian history so shunned by so many? I went to a Christian (re. Protestant) college, grew up in a Protestant church, teach in a Protestant secondary school. Yet the only history I've heard comes directly from the book of Acts or goes "When the Apostles died the Roman Catholic church took over and ruined everything."

If history is ever discussed it begins with Tyndale or Luther.

Why?

Peter

 

[david01]

Probably the simplest answer is that Christian history, like most history, is extremely complex and nuanced. It seems that every group has their particular version of history, Christian or otherwise. Toss in modern revisionist historians and you end up with a real kettle of fish. Pre-Reformation histories tend to divide between Roman Catholic versions and Eastern Orthodox versions. There are genuine hurdles to leap to determine which, if any, version is accurate.

 

[E.C.]

Why is Christian history so shunned by so many? I went to a Christian (re. Protestant) college, grew up in a Protestant church, teach in a Protestant secondary school. Yet the only history I've heard comes directly from the book of Acts or goes "When the Apostles died the Roman Catholic church took over and ruined everything."

If history is ever discussed it begins with Tyndale or Luther.

Why?

Peter

In this example, it could be to cover any idea that Protestantism did not exist before the Reformation; only which could lead to leaving Protestant ways.

The one smart thing Jim Jones ever said was "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it". I think that when a new Protestants group comes along it needs to focus on how things "feel" more than how things came about otherwise there is no momentum for growth.

 

[Peter]

Probably the simplest answer is that Christian history, like most history, is extremely complex and nuanced. It seems that every group has their particular version of history, Christian or otherwise. Toss in modern revisionist historians and you end up with a real kettle of fish. Pre-Reformation histories tend to divide between Roman Catholic versions and Eastern Orthodox versions. There are genuine hurdles to leap to determine which, if any, version is accurate.

To respond to david01, Jaroslav Pelikan was a professor of Church history for almost 50 years, as a Protestant. Towards the end of his life he converted to Eastern Orthodox. And yet, his scholarship had been so complete while a Protestant that he didn't have to rewrite the texts he wrote. His history and development of Christian doctrine, which took some 40 years to complete, is the most comprehensive, even handed work on the subject.

His work was not in researching what other people had to say on the subject. He researched original documents in their original languages.

Not too many years ago I picked up a copy of the Christian History magazine, a part of the Christianity Today magazine. This magazine dealt with the Church of the first three centuries. At the beginning of the magazine there was a section entitled "Did You Know?"
In this section there were over twenty entries that outlined practices within the Church during the first three centuries. Of those 20+ entries, only two are no longer practiced...in the Orthodox Church. (almost all of the entries are no longer practiced by the RCC)

I found this information while researching the ancient Church and wondering what had become of it. And it came from a Protestant source. In fact, every Protestant text I looked to backed the claims of the Orthodox faith.

Why, even Martin Luther refered to the Christian East as the Churches "better half," this is where the term originated, and suggested that Rome be reformed according to it's model.

My wife recently went back to college, the same one we met in and I graduated from 20 years ago. Her Bible prof. actually taught the class that the Bible was put together by a bunch of guys sitting down at a big table and sorting through the available texts! And this guy is a seminary grad! To top it off, my wife suggested he read Pelikan's book "Whose Bible Is It?" He said he hadn't heard of it and asked where he could get a copy of it. My wife told him he could find a copy in the college's library!!!!!

True scholarly work is available. I believe the reason for the lack of Church history at so many Christian schools is 1) laziness and putrid scholarship, and 2) a fear of the truth.

I am a former Protestant who found his way into the Orthodox faith via history. I have two good friends who both have doctorates in history, and teach in a Reformed based college, who have either asked me for resources for their lectures, or refered me as a resource for their students. I've done my homework. But why did I have to do it outside of my time of working towards my degree?

Where's the history teaching?

Peter

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Christian history is shunned largely because it doesn't support a clear passage of particular doctrine that would satisfy most any denomination.

The history is so convoluted that for most people it only raises doubts, and doesn't build up the certainty in belief that they desire.

So people ignore it, preferring to "know" what must be true about history to support their own beliefs, rather than look at the facts.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think this thread poses a deep question not so much to the people here but to society as a whole.

We are taught about the Greeks and mythology. We are taught about Hitler and WWII. We are taught that Macro Evolution is fact though many contest it for lack of proof. We are taught many contraversial historical items that can have contradicting sides and yet religion or history arounf religion of Yehwah is shunned.

My daughter who is 17 even said a teacher said they were not allowed to discuss God. My daughter has gone from being excitied about religion to not wanting anything to do with it and I suspect public education is involved directly or indirectly or both.


WHY?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I think this thread poses a deep question not so much to the people here but to society as a whole.

We are taught about the Greeks and mythology. We are taught about Hitler and WWII. We are taught that Macro Evolution is fact though many contest it for lack of proof. We are taught many contraversial historical items that can have contradicting sides and yet religion or history arounf religion of Yehwah is shunned.

My daughter who is 17 even said a teacher said they were not allowed to discuss God. My daughter has gone from being excitied about religion to not wanting anything to do with it and I suspect public education is involved directly or indirectly or both.


WHY?

Well the first problem is there is really no neutral way to teach it without some denominational group getting angy.

It is generally easier to ignore something altogether than to negotiate something that satisfies everyone.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well the first problem is there is really no neutral way to teach it without some denominational group getting angy.

It is generally easier to ignore something altogether than to negotiate something that satisfies everyone.

If we studied the letters of the men that were around in the first 300 hundred years couldn't we have a teaching on what they wrote and why?

It seems this is a logical and bjective approach to teaching facts because we are using existing writings and not heresay.

 

[E.C.]

Or phrasing things to sound objective.

Example: the Great Schism.

Roman Catholics say the Eastern Orthodox left the Church.
Eastern Orthodox say the Roman Catholics left the Church.

Putting the two next to each other with the reasons as to why would help instead of saying "This side left that side which left everyone ticked off".

It is possible to state why things are the way they are without showing any indication of bias. The problem is no one wants to do it.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

If we studied the letters of the men that were around in the first 300 hundred years couldn't we have a teaching on what they wrote and why?

It seems this is a logical and bjective approach to teaching facts because we are using existing writings and not heresay.

But then people would differ on what these people were saying, and try to interpret them into their own doctrinal leanings (or reject them altogether as heretics, and there are plenty of writings from that period most any group would call "heretical").

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Or phrasing things to sound objective.

Example: the Great Schism.

Roman Catholics say the Eastern Orthodox left the Church.
Eastern Orthodox say the Roman Catholics left the Church.

Putting the two next to each other with the reasons as to why would help instead of saying "This side left that side which left everyone ticked off".

It is possible to state why things are the way they are without showing any indication of bias. The problem is no one wants to do it.

Oh there's always a bias.

 

[E.C.]

Oh there's always a bias.

True.

However, attempting to minimize it would help considerably.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

True.

However, attempting to minimize it would help considerably.

Look at it this way:

A completely unbiased book is useless.

It is just a mess of unorganized information, representing every conceivable view, with no attempt to say which is more likely or important than another.

The whole point of a book (and of teaching) is to whittle everything down to what is relevant in an organized and austere fashion.

All of which introduces a bias.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But then people would differ on what these people were saying, and try to interpret them into their own doctrinal leanings (or reject them altogether as heretics, and there are plenty of writings from that period most any group would call "heretical").

I am sure some would nit pick and that is seen in all the teachings of history (I think). The majority sees Nazis as a bad thing but some smaller groups see them as good and even christian. But it is still taught.

I do not see anything with my example of the early church writings to give sway to not doing it. And it can be documented with out taking sides and left to the students to decide much as they do with other stories of history like the civil war in the USA.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

True.

However, attempting to minimize it would help considerably.

I agree.

I especially like my conversations with EO and try hard to stay 'unbiased' in language as much as possible.

 

[david01]

Thank you, Peter, for your detailed response to my post.

Unfortunately, in today's educational environment there is a lamentable lack of instruction not only in history but also in many other areas such as geography, grammar, and linguistics. There are a variety of reasons other than laziness and a fear of the truth (which would not apply in the area of geography). I believe the primary reasons lie in competing interests and in political correctness. The curricula of the present schools tend to be filled with studies in popular topics as well as topics deemed to be necessary. Unfortunately, history has fallen into the same category as ancient languages - interesting in an arcane way, but not necessary.

If history was the only criterion for determining one's church affiliation, then Orthodoxy could claim a preeminent position. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending upon one's perspective) it is one among several criteria for most Christians. Other criteria include biblical fidelity and the role of tradition. Orthodoxy, as with every Christian denomination, has accreted a variety of traditions and variant practices that, in some instances, border strongly on superstition. There are a variety of means of defining and defending these traditions, with history being one.

For most church members history, biblical fidelity, and tradition play a small role, if any, in their decision to affiliate with a church. Familial ties are, by far, the greatest deteminant of church affiliation, followed by marital ties in which one partner converts to the other's religion. For those who are, as common parlance now says, "unchurched" societal factors, such as those diesplayed by groups such as the Mormons, play a large role in their decisions to affiliate with a church.

The hstoric role of architecture as a method of recruitment for many denominations seems to have played itself out during the twentieth century with the rise of Modernism in architecture and the subsequently banal buildings constructed by virtually every denomination.

The weighting of these criteria in the minds of various Christians has inevitably resulted in the current situation. Along with that, of course, the rise of secular humanism during the twentieth century has made serious inroads into Christianity in general and in European Christianity in particular.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Why is Christian history so shunned by so many? I went to a Christian (re. Protestant) college, grew up in a Protestant church, teach in a Protestant secondary school. Yet the only history I've heard comes directly from the book of Acts or goes "When the Apostles died the Roman Catholic church took over and ruined everything."

If history is ever discussed it begins with Tyndale or Luther.

Why?

Peter

Because studying those who received the Faith directly from the Apostles that Jesus commissioned would expose the many errors of Protestantism.

 

[E.C.]

Because studying those who received the Faith directly from the Apostles that Jesus commissioned would expose the many errors of Protestantism.

We have a winner!

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Why is Christian history so shunned by so many? I went to a Christian (re. Protestant) college, grew up in a Protestant church, teach in a Protestant secondary school. Yet the only history I've heard comes directly from the book of Acts or goes "When the Apostles died the Roman Catholic church took over and ruined everything."

If history is ever discussed it begins with Tyndale or Luther.

Why?

There are probably a lot of different factors that go into this. There are certain things that American Christians share with Americans in general. Americans tend to have a shallow historical awareness. There is more emphasis on the practical, and history isn't seen as immediately relevant.

Also most denominations typically teach history in terms of their own denominational history. That means they roughly start when their tradition, movement or denomination began, and only reference other groups when they interact or have an impact on their tradition. So folks might know about their denominational history, but are very sketchy about anything outside of that.

I wouldn't say most people shun history. I've taught church history classes, and know that there are people - Protestants - who sincerely want to learn about church history.

If you don't mind me asking, which protestant denomination were you involved in?


LDG

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

The one smart thing Jim Jones ever said was "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it".

Jim Jones obtained that saying from another source. Its a slight twist of an original statement by [SIZE=-1]George Santayana.[/SIZE]


LDG