Those Doomed To Repeat History?
Ed Darrell quoted this the other day, and I disparaged it. Mr Darrell gets exasperated when history is misquoted, misused or ignored. Which is ironic because this quote, ignores, misuses and offers a mistaken interpretation of history. The quote:
“In the beginning the church was a fellowship of men and women centering on the living Christ. Then the church moved to Greece, where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome, where it became an institution. Next, it moved to Europe, where it became a culture. And, finally, it moved to America, where it became an enterprise.”
Shall we consider just a few ways in which this was wrong?
- There was no “church” when Jesus was performing his ministry prior to the resurrection. The church thing followed immediately after His Resurrection.
- Then the church moved to Asia Minor, Greece, Egypt, Rome, India and throughout the Mediterranean.
- The church was well established in Rome, recall Saints Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome well before Origen (a Alexandrian Copt) turned the tools of philosophy to the service of theology.
- Examine the early “Greek” church, and their early founders. St. Cyril and St. Athanasius … of Alexandria (Copts). The three Ecumenical Heirarchs, Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom … all Cappadocian, i.e., modern day Turkey (hint: not Greece). In fact, I have trouble identifying right off any prominent Greek Saints from Early Antiquity.
- Next actually examine the Eastern church which came out of “Greece”. It is known for its mysticism not its Aquinan/Aristotelian philosophical logic.
- The Christian church’s movement to Rome didn’t make it an institution. It made it a persecuted cult. Three centuries later, when “Rome” was supplanted by Constantinople as the capitol it became a state religion. It is dogma among modern political philosophers, who are amazingly ignorant of the next 1000 years of the Roman state, that state and religion don’t mix. They look at the Reformation and English history for their ideas on that. Conveniently ignoring any historical trends which don’t fit their preconceptions.
And that’s just a start.
Filed under: Christianity • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Somehow, you forgot to mention that the quote is from the Rev. Richard Halvorson, former chaplain to the U.S. Senate. It comes from a speech he gave to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in which he challenged all Christians to hold fast and true to Jesus.
There are other things one can say about Christianity along its path, but at key periods the church has been exactly as Halvorson described it.
Ed,
I disagree. I think that yes, there are things one can say about Christianity along its path, but the things you quote (from Mr Halvorson) is completely wrong and lacking in any rational grounding in history.
At times you chide people for ignoring history and I thought appreciate being historical accurate. The problem is with that quote is that there is no historical basis for it.
It’s actually amazing looking at it, I can’t figure out anything said there that is actually accurate.
Ed,
Let’s just take two of the sentences, “Then the church moved to Greece, where it became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome, where it became an institution.”
Can you tell me anything that would support this. I fault the chronology as well as the details of the suppositions and their locations? Can you defend the quote in any way?
The line about Greece is not a perfect fit — I suspect Rev. Halverson was trying to make a reference to what each civilization and culture is famous for — Greece is famous for philosophers, Rome famous for institutions, Europe (especially in the Renaissance) for culture, and the U.S. for enterprise.
So it’s not a perfect fit. But the early church did take from Greece much of the philosophy that had been thought to work from the Greek philosophers, including errors by Aristotle and others.
There is no doubt Halverson is right about Rome, whether we talk about the Eastern Roman Empire based in Constantinople, where the church was adopted as “official” (and protesting church leaders banned by the state), or Rome, where the crowning of Charlemagne was exactly the sort of thing that institutions do. There is no way to deny that the church in Rome was an institution during the next millennium at least. As you note, state and religion were married during much of that time — how much more institution do you need. (Ah, remember Mae West: “People say marriage is a great institution. But, honey, I ain’t ready for no institution.”)
Take a look at the family portraits of the Medici family, whether it was the one Medici crew with Mom cast as the Virgin Mary and the children filling other roles, or the other Medici-commissioned painting showing the magi on their way to greet Jesus — with the three magi bearing the faces of three of the Medicis, and the rest of the retinue of the magi bearing the faces of the friends and associates of the Medici family. Or look at the way the popes used music, chant especially, to spread the faith — and the way singing the wrong chant form could result in a death penalty. Surely you’re familiar with Luther and Calvin and the roots of the Reformation — which was a cultural revolution if nothing else.
Surely you don’t contest that the church in the U.S. is, all too often, an enterprise, do you?
Halverson was warning against missing the point of faith, as many others have through the centuries.
I think you’re putting a lot of energy into claiming the church has never fallen out of its intended purpose, never fallen away from the path Jesus directed. And I think any student of history would find that claim impossible to defend.
Ed,
Aquinas brought philosophy, i.e., Aristotle, into the Church … that happened somewhat after “Rome entered” the picture, being in the 13th century … in Italy. So then if you want to stretch Aristotle -> church as “next” that would be after the Roman “as Institution” notions.
Greece was famous for philosophy and rhetoric. These were seen as very different ways seeking understanding. Many of the early church fathers were rhetoricians not philosophers.
Theologian John Zizioulas remarks that in the 4th century a remarkable synthesis occurred in the Eastern church. That the theologians (largely from today’s Turkey, i.e., Cappadocia) managed to synthesize and combine Jewish, Greek, and Christian understandings of Truth. Where the Jewish was historical, the Greek Eternal, and the Christian centered on Christ (John’s gospel centering Christ as Logos). However their techniques were not philosophy for the most part but rhetoric. And … the best known early church fathers known for philosophy Justin Martyr and Origen were Cappadocian Roman and Egyptian (Coptic) respectively.
Question, how was Christianity as Culture a European thing, in a way in which Christianity in any other culture was not?
How was Christianity as “Institution” a uniquely Roman thing?
I have no idea what you (or Mr Halverson) mean by “enterprise”? It is a nebulous enough term that I think that it’s meaningless … and I am more familiar with earlier history than American religion. However, the anti-establishment themes and independence of the Baptist churches seem to belie that notion at the very least.
Uhm, how do you understand that? I’m making a much smaller claim. I’m claiming that that statement, while likely a popular conception of events is a bad misconception and misstatement of history. It gets order wrong (for example the church got to Rome withing mere decades in the first century of arriving in Greece … long before “institutions” or “philosophies”). It gets the who wrong. It gets influences wrong. It gets damn near everything wrong.