David DeLauro, over at Lest Blood Be Shed has an interesting post about the cultural bias present in the telling of history, and how, as his article is entitled…
All History is a Fiction.
My favorite excerpt, the last paragraph of the post, is regarding History and Christianity.
I would say that Theology is the same but even more tribal in nature. It’s a good thing may of the early church leaders knew this and wrote their story accordingly. The early church was very diverse and it liked it until it was taken over by “The Empire.” Christianity is a faith that should be based on a unity that brings about diversity not a unity that brings about uniformity as Constantine molded it. –David DeLauro
11 responses so far ↓
1 David DeLauro(ed) // Sep 28, 2004 at 2:53 pm
It’s amazing the things you will find out when you study different histories. Completely different perspectives for the same events! Did you know the early church ordained women or that many churches considered the life of Jesus to be where salvation was found not in worshiping Jesus’ blood! Moreover, bishops of the church knew about this varied belief system and wrote about it in an inclusive and accepting way (for the most part
)
2 David // Sep 28, 2004 at 2:59 pm
It surely is. It is also one of the reasons that I often find myself not understanding the way some modern religions construct their worldview and their policies. For example, I don’t understand why the Catholic church will not ordain women. If someone wants to serve God in the most respectful and meaningful manors possible, they should be allowed to do so, with full priveledge, regards of gender, color or sexual orientation. Can you give any more information on the writing you refer to, written by the Bishops, wherein it looked at things in an inclusive and accepting way? I think I would be interested to read that.
3 chuck // Sep 28, 2004 at 4:24 pm
Agreed on David’s question. I also would be interested in those reads.
Also, what time periods are you refering to when you speak of the early church leaders?
And are you speaking of the liturgy when you talk of Constantine’s changes toward uniformity or some other changes?
4 David // Sep 28, 2004 at 4:48 pm
Two really good books for early church stuff (60-300 C.E.) can be found below This first one is a general walkthrough of the history whereas the second book is the actual documents talked about in the first book. For example did you know according to The Apostolic Tradition you cannot be a polititian and be a Christian or that there should be a bishop (choosen by the congregation) for every church. As far as your question Chuck about liturgy. Constantine did change the liturgy in that he forced the latin rite onto all of the other church rites. There were many many forms of liturgy in the early church but when the latin empire claimed christianity the latin rite became the imposed liturgy on people. There were many other sweeping changes (like making bishops for regions instead of churches) that changed the face of Christianity forever.
Constantine’s motto in 312CE was “One God, one Lord, one faith, one church, one empire, one emperor” Diversity was not on his mind.
Dale T. Irvin and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement. Vol. 1.
Adrea Sterk and John Coakley, Editors. Readings in World Chrsitianity Vol. 1 (to 1453).
5 David // Sep 28, 2004 at 4:52 pm
Chuck if you want to know about the early church from the perspective of liturgy listed below is a really good book. Did you know that the “words of institution” were not part of early liturgies?
James F. White. A Breif History of Christian Worship.
6 Chuck // Sep 28, 2004 at 5:18 pm
From my very limited understanding, there was much debate as to what Christianity was, and who Jesus was at this time (as there is now). There were various heresies during these years which is why the Catholic Church needed to have an exact definition of what their beliefs were. Hence, the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds. The Church didn’t just fall on the ideas of the Trinity or of Christ’s 100% human and 100% God nature. It took the guidance of the Holy Spirit to build that Sacred Tradition which could be taught in a uniform way through the Magisterium. If everyone was able to put there own “spin” on these beliefs, each diocese would be taught what that particular pastor believed, not what is universally recognized by the Church as a whole. This is a difficult concept to swallow if one doesn’t believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, I know, but I do. I understand that there was a lot of politics going on between Alexandria, Istanbul, Jerusalem and Rome, but the fact remains that without a certain level of structure, the Church would have splintered into a million different ideologies. Sure, the early Church was a bunch of people breaking bread together, and that is great. I think it should still happen. But I also believe that once the Church grows to “worldwide” it must have a structure or instead of having one Church/Body of Christ, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, it will be a splintered mess of varying and contradicting ideologies. Did it come about in a way that was not perfect? Maybe. Do I still believe that the Roman Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and is the Way to bringing about the “City of God”? Yes, 100%.
7 David DeLauro // Sep 28, 2004 at 5:30 pm
The early church was able to be lead by the spirit (even more so than we, they ordained prophets and allowed them to speak outside of structures and traditions) in a unifing way that did not mandate uniformity! My point is history and theology because it is human is perspectival. Everyone and everything has a spin to it even the church. We can either accept it and embrace our diversity in perspective and live in unity and love or we can mandate uniformity and deny the varied manifestations of God. We can deny our own diversity! I refuse to believe God is that uncreative.
8 Justin // Sep 28, 2004 at 9:15 pm
In response to the initial notes about female ordination, I tracked down some documents discussing the authority of the Catholic Church in failing to ordain women (Women’s Ordination: It’s Infallible), Early Church Fathers exhibiting that belief (Women and the Priesthood), and some of the reasoning behind it all (Inter Insigniores). Lastly, an easy-to-read defense of there being a sacramental priesthood (Catholic Priests) different from the “royal priesthood” that we are all moving towards, can be found at The Priesthood Debate.
Pope John Paul II states that the Catholic Church simply hasn’t the authority to ordain women to the priesthood. It’s always been my understanding that rather than devalueing women and implying that they aren’t “as good” as men, this merely represents that women are different from men, in more ways than simply their reproductive organs. Members of the Magisterium are not any more “privileged” than the rest of us.
9 David DeLauro // Sep 29, 2004 at 9:10 am
Justin: If only what you said was true. Men are privilaged. If you think about it there are three levels of privilage on our Theologies. The right to rite, the right to administrate, and the right to worship. Women are denied the privilage of the highest levels of ritual, administration and maybe even worship but I’m unfamiliar with the hierachical nature of worship practices. That would be fine and good if the institutions (not necessarily Roman Catholic mind you) were able to confess the role this has had in devalueing women in the society at large, the fact that it grew out of a patriachal society that already devalued women, the theology rationalizing it came after it was already incorporated into the patriarchy of the church, and the patriarchal system is not forced upon non-patriachal tribes and societies.
But my statement was “history is a fiction” and it seems people have jumped all over my little tid-bits of information I’ve learned about the early church and how because of more recent histories (i.e. empire) it has been forgotten as insignificant.
If you read the book The Story of B by Daniel Quinn he speaks of another “Great Forgetting” that happened some 10,000 years ago at the time of the agricultural revolution.
10 Chuck // Sep 29, 2004 at 10:20 am
David, I’m sorry that it seemed that I jumped on your tidbits of information, but passing judgment in broadstrokes on the Catholic Church is difficult to swallow at times. It seems that everyone is incredibly willing to speak of the mistakes that the Church has made, but unwilling to admit its greatness. Sure, there are going to be problems along the way w/ any growth, that’s just the way it works, but right now I am confident that if I need guidance on the Truth, I can go to a central authority. Furthermore, many churches talk about how the Catholic Church has done nothing but terrible things while they benefit from the first 1400 years of our theological teachings. Maybe I’m wrong, but without a certain level of uniformity and structure it seems that we would quickly fall into moral relativism, where every person leads their own church. There are things that I do that the Catholic Church says are wrong. And, oh brother, does it hurt to try to change my ways! And a good part of me doesn’t want to change, but if I had my own “church” I could say that this is my manifestation of God and that this is wonderful diversity. Some diversity is good, don’t get me wrong, and there is a great deal of diversity in the Catholic Church, but I believe it can be taken too far.
11 Justin // Sep 29, 2004 at 10:23 am
Me: Members of the Magisterium are not any more privileged than the rest of us.
You: Men [members of the Magisterium] are privileged.
This is comes down to the slight misunderstanding and stress point that, I think, gets skipped over too quickly. I never said that men are not privileged. The full sentence is that men are not more privileged than women. The teaching authority is merely one of many roles that human beings are called to in the Church. and I think this comes back to understanding what we’ve each been called to. These roles are not privilege alone, they are responsibility. I think the mistake is in thinking of the Magisterium as some prize that only the extra-faithful get. It’s rooted in a dissatisfaction with one’s current calling, and would bring up the question of whether one hasn’t truly dedicated oneself to God’s calling for them.
Sorry if I’m going down a sidepath here. Just wanted to let you know my own thoughts/reasoning. I’ve got plenty of work I ought to be doing. Happy Hump Day!
Leave a Comment