I think I can give a rough outline of church history, and I don’t mean the founding of my own church. The BBC has a six DVD set which promises to fill in many of the details I would miss. It’s called A History of Christianity: the First Three Thousand Years. Hosted by Dairmaid MacCulloch, professor of history of the church and fellow at St. Cross College, Oxford, this historical overview looks well-worth your time, though I can’t tell if MacCulloch will lead viewers down a dark road of doubting the supernatural and God’s testimony in the world or leave the faith examined but uncondemned. After watching only the first disc, I believe he will remain respectful, if nothing else.
Here’s a list of disc titles:
Program 1: The First Christianity
Program 2: Catholicism: The Unpredictable Rise of Rome
Program 3: Orthodoxy: From Empire to Empire
Program 4: Reformation: The Individual Before God
Program 5: Protestantism: The Evangelical Explosion
Program 6: God in Dock
I received the first disc for review. Ambrose Video is distributing the DVDs and has a trailer on their product page.
“The First Christianity” was beautiful filmed, as you’d expect. Professor MacCulloch says he won’t shy away from controversy, but he doesn’t delve deeply into it either. His explanation of the major argument over the divine vs. human nature of Jesus did not attempt to settle it with Scripture. He only presented the proponents with their claims and described how the arguments fell out.
In this part of the series, MacCulloch describes what he calls the eastern road out of Jerusalem. “For centuries,” he says, “Christianity flourished in the East, and indeed, at one point, it was poised to triumph in Asia, maybe even in China. The headquarters of Christianity might well have been Baghdad rather than Rome, and if that had happened, Western Christianity would have been very different.”
On that road, he stops in Syria at the Church of St. Simeon. Simeon reportedly lives on top of a column for 37 years and preached twice a day to his many visitors. MacCulloch notes that Simeon set up his ministry near a market thoroughfare during a time when many in the church were secluding themselves. That demonstrates Simeon’s heart for the mission.
Another fascinating stop on the eastern road was the Da Qin Pagoda, the remnant of a church planted by Assyrians in the 600s. Buddhists have taken up residence there and prevented the film crew from going in, but the evidence of such an early start for the church in China is stirring on its own. You can see photos of pagoda here.
The Oxford historian states, “Religious belief can transform us for good or ill. It has brought human beings to acts of criminal folly as well as the highest achievements of goodness and creativity. I tell the story of both extremes.” As the New Atheists grow increasingly shrill, this story of religious mockery and faithful victory may be the very story we need to have told.
How did they get 3000 years? Is there a disc 0 with the Old Testament hidden in there somewhere?
They may be rounding up from a number over 2,000.
I used to love church history, but the more I studied it, the more questions I found.
One frustration I had in my church history classes was that up until the Reformation, Christianity was equated with the Roman Catholic Church. I was told that Christianity reached Denmark or Scotland or Uraguay when Roman Monks planted a church there. Then a few years later the Roman Church was recognized as erroneous.
The planting of other churches gets a bit of lip service, but little follow up comes into play. Many older branches still exist today, such as the Eastern Orthodox in Russia and Greece, the Coptic church in Africa, or even the church started by the Apostle Thomas in what is now India. Are these not considered truly part of the Christian Church or do we ignore them because of their dearth of impact and/or limited access to obscure or non-extant documentation?
Also, the more I’ve studied church history, the more I see early doctrines and practices such as Gnosticism and Montanism that were condemned as heresy by the early Roman Church now broadly reflected in a variety of protestant denominations. Should these now be accepted as part of the broader Reformation or were our Catholic predecessors correct in condemning these errors?
Of course I have found answers to many of these questions. The reformation was more concerned with correcting corrupt practices and administration of the church. Doctrine was addressed insofar as it had been corrupted. Core teachings were still held, though not followed. Many teachings condemned by the early church are still heretical and should still be condemned. Many early branches have remained obscure because they failed to carry out the great commission, became ingrown and thus irrelevant.
Coptic Christianity has always been a minor part of Christendom, and arguably isn’t as important. But the Greek Orthodox used to control the most powerful Christian country (the Byzantine Empire) and still hold sway over large parts of Europe. Ignoring them was probably a mistake.
A few minutes of this DVD were shot in an eastern church. I don’t remember if it was Orthodox. It may have been Syrian in heritage. A priest described what he thought was a richness in his tradition, but it was heavy on ritual and word inflection. It may be fair to call it Christian, but is it biblical? Do they miss the gospel by straining at the inflection of recited words?
I’m not sure I know what you mean by “core teachings were still held, though not followed.” What are you saying?
At the time of the Reformation, basic teachings on the person of God and the deity and humanity of Christ were still held by the Roman Church. Other doctrines such as salvation by faith in Christ were stated, but their practice emphasized a salvation by good works. Grace was redefined to mean God giving the power to do the good works to earn salvation rather than the giving of salvation outside of good works.
Phil: It may be fair to call it Christian, but is it biblical? Do they miss the gospel by straining at the inflection of recited words?
Ori: Wouldn’t this depends on the effects of straining to inflect the recited words correctly on the congregation? If it reminds them to be scrupulous in fulfilling God’s commandments, then it has the same effects as the complex laws of Leviticus were supposed to have – it is good. If it lets them concentrate on ritual and feel they don’t have to worry about the interpersonal commandments, then it is bad.
Different people have different personalities, and naturally have different things they find helpful or harmful. This is even stronger if you look across cultures.