I started reading Henry Chadwick’s The Early Church (Penguin, 1993) a year ago and only finished it last month. I feel as though this book has kept me company on a journey this past year, waking me up in stages to what I can best describe as the real Church.
The facts of history have a way of scattering illusions and smashing false absolutisms. I suppose one could say that my view of church history until recently resembled something of the Enlightenment hermeneutic of inevitable progress that’s charmed so many. I once saw the pilgrimage of the Church as a kind of steady, unbounded triumph of the Gospel over the many obstacles that were strewn along her path. Indeed, as I recall there is a popular work of church history that bears the title Triumph. I never read it and don’t intend to, but nevertheless the title was sufficient to sum up the views I once held.
It is not that I’ve lost hope in the Church. I’m not–at least I don’t think I am–a cynic by any stretch. It’s just that, the more I learn about church history, the more difficult it is for me to see the pilgrimage of the Church as an unstoppable victory march of any sort. There have simply been too many setbacks, lost battles and tragedies for any Christian to sum up the journey thus far with a word like “triumph”.
There is, for example, a thesis out there that the First Council of Nicea was a Constantinian machination to homogenize Christianity (or rather, “Christianities”) and thereby forge creedal unity that would safeguard the unity of the Empire. The (naive) counter-thesis, I suppose, would be that Council was nothing other than a genuinely spiritual event necessitated by the heresy of Arianism that threatened the very core of the Gospel.
The historical evidence, it seems to me, suggests that both theses hold some truth (perhaps one more than the other, though I don’t know enough to draw that conclusion just yet). I am not, by any means, suggesting a historical synthesis of the Hegelian kind. What seems to be the case is that the political and theological motivations for Nicea were fused, like two pieces of wax melted together. The outcome wasn’t so much a harmonious blend of two forces as much as it was an indelicate, indiscernible swirl.
But so what Nicea was in fact a political move of some sort? Does it invalidate the Creed? I don’t think so, though I used to fear that it would. I think the doctrine of the Incarnation stands on grounds more solid than the pure intentions of any emperor, bishop or deacon of Alexandria. I think it rests quite firmly on the witness of Scripture and the apostolic tradition. St. Athanasius, at least, seems to have thought the same.
I think the messes of history are many: the formation of the New Testament canon, the development of various liturgies, the controversy and aftermath of Chalcedon (nearer to my heart now than ever before), the condemnation of Origen, the Crusades, the Galileo incident (which, even after a more sober consideration of the facts, still shows Christians in pretty bad light)…. All these challenge the notion of church history as the record of a progressive triumph.
And what of absolutes? I’m not a relativist just yet, but many of things that I considered absolute, I no longer regard as such. The boundaries of the Old Testament canon, for example. Though my ecclesial affiliation is Syrian I find the the generosity of the Ethiopians quite intriguing, to say the least. The unchanging-ness of the liturgy is another. About time I gave up my idyllic notions about a “liturgy of the ages”, no? And if, I suppose, someone unearthed some strong evidence that Phoebe and Junia were more than deaconnesses then I’d say maybe it’s time we all re-thought a few certainties (but until then, I’m staying put)….
At times I wonder if I’m just slipping into a historicism of some sort—allowing history to absolutely shape, or rather reshape, my vision of the Church. (This, after all, has been suggested by some Catholic friends lately.) I’d like to think not. I’d like to think that I’m just learning to do what a teacher taught me to do some years ago—to read dogma historically rather than read history dogmatically. After all, the true Church must also be the real Church, no? Kyrie eleison.
September 19, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Wei Hsien,
Since throwing in your lot with the Miaphysites, have you personally rejected Chalcedon? Was this a difficult or significant decision for you?
-JAK
September 22, 2009 at 2:25 am
Justin,
An insightful and difficult question. Though I belong to a Church which does not accept Chalcedon as an ecumenical council, I am certainly interested in the pathway toward its “rehabilitation”, shall we say. While I appreciate what Chalcedon was trying to affirm as well as the theological middle ground it was proposing, I think it best to suspend judgment until the matter is thoroughly revisited—a position which I think is possible to take as an Oriental Orthodox.
Personally, the decision to “back up the bus” on Chalcedon wasn’t difficult. I had already developed tendencies in that direction some time before. As I became more aware of the severe limitations of language and the primacy of the apophatic mode in theology, I became more inclined toward a renegotiation of the controversy.
Do you have any particular thoughts about Chalcedon?
W.H.
September 23, 2009 at 11:07 am
Wei Hsien,
I am generally skeptical of any precise formulation of something so complex as the Incarnation. How can we determine if the Chalcedonian or the Miaphysite/Tawehedo approaches are correct (or the Assyrians, for that matter)? There are so few Biblical data that it is difficult for me to imagine how an elaborate Christology can be made from it unless it is unashamedly speculative.
Earlier today, I was discussing Open Theism with a friend who informed me that he learned that Clark Pinnock developed his Open Theism as a kind of devotional thought experiment, without any kind of dogmatism or an attempt at having the final word on theology. It seems to me like these Christologies could fit into that same tradition. If we assume (e.g.) the Miaphysite position, what can we deduce from this? How does this change our devotional life? Since all persons involved agree on the fundamental fact of the Incarnation it seems to me like the method by which it occurred is tertiary at best.
In reality, these disputes (cf. Filioque) are so arcane that they have little substantial bearing on the lives of those who inherited these traditions other than offhand references in liturgies or creeds. For the minority to whom these are relevant—some clerics and academics—these might be interesting or even important disputes, but most could hardly be bothered with the distinctions. I can appreciate that they mattered to certain socio-political communities several centuries ago as internecine Christian fighting and the defense of Christianity against outside religious influence but it all seems a bit like arguing about angels on the head of a pin to me.
Have you read this book? http://www.amazon.com/Council-Chalcedon-Re-Examined-V-Samuel/dp/1401016448/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253674475&sr=8-3 I wanted to read it myself, but it’s too obscure for interlibrary loan and I cannot justify the cost.
-JAK
September 23, 2009 at 11:10 am
P.S. – If/when you continue “Do not resist the one who is evil” I was considering posting my thoughts on your writing. I also had an interesting and depressing discussion with an ex-Quaker today who had given up his Peace Testimony and thrown in his lot with Just War evangelicals. I have no idea how he could formulate a war being just and it wasn’t clear that he knew either, so it seemed like he traded principle for expediency.
September 27, 2009 at 1:19 am
Justin,
I still in my head go back and forth about the best way to “settle” the Christological issues. On the one hand, it seems that our attempts to clarify/expound the mechanics of the Incarnation while holding on the mystery of Christ’s consubstantiality “with the Father and with us” have only introduced more schisms. On the other hand, the can of worms has already been opened and spilled all over the floor and there is little use in insisting that it should never have been opened in the first place, or, worse, that we should ignore it and “just move on”.
A key consideration, I think, is that the series of Christological controversies, unlike Open Theism, was not the result of a devotional thought experiment but rather that of urgent questions and claims that were raised from within the Church. In a sense, their historical moments have passed. Yet, it often seems to me, their relevance extends to the present. What the early councils were attempting to safeguard—the surety of the Incarnation and union of God and man in Christ—continues to hold great importance for our devotional life today (or at least it should). As a teacher of mine once said, if God did not become man, our share in the Trinitarian life would not be real and we should all go home and find better things to do. In short, I don’t think “just moving on” is an option. But living in the past—something Orthodox are quite good at doing—seems to get us nowhere either.
As for Fr. Samuel’s book, I borrowed Fr. Philip’s copy of it though I haven’t come close to reading it as yet. You should know that copies of it are available for really reasonable prices in India. The next time Fr. Philip goes to Kerala, I’ll ask him to get a few extra ones for me and ship one to you.
I think I’m done writing about nonviolence for a while, but I would like to invite you to publish your thoughts here in a guest post. This blog has never seen one of those before and I’m sure it would be a refreshing alternative to my pontifications. Please do consider this.
W.H.
September 27, 2009 at 9:34 am
Wei Hsien,
I completely agree with two points that (I think) you made:
1.) We cannot just ignore the fact that there are substantive—if arcane—differences between these traditions. Furthermore, these controversies are part of the defining characteristics of these traditions, so asking them to give up these formulations or pretend that they don’t matter is asking them to give up their identities.
2.) These ancient formulations did help to guard (little-o) orthodoxy from heresy in the development of Christian doctrinal history, so they are something more than a thought experiment. At the same time, they are certainly speculative or relativistic understandings of precious little Biblical data. Had (e.g.) Peter lived another 400 years, maybe he would have been a Miaphysitist, maybe a Dyophysitist, who knows? Certainly not me and I am skeptical that anyone else today does either. It seems to me that if some precise formulation of a Christology was urgently important to the apostles, it would have been recorded in the Biblical corpus. Since it was not, this leads me to believe that it is either a.) something that cannot be understood with such precision or b.) something that was itself contentious amongst the apostles. Of course, if the church (whomever that may be) is the guarantor of the faith, it is her responsibility and prerogative to make these kind of creedal and doctrinal statements.
So the continuing reality is that there is more than one Christology and it is not likely that a definitive explanation or source is going to come along to somehow obliterate all other contenders. In my mind, there is something a little disappointing about this, but also something a little encouraging about it as well, since it speaks to the adaptability and cultural fluidity of Christianity that it can allow for different faith traditions to understand a mystery like the Incarnation in their own way. I’m just glad that long gone are the days when internecine disputes are likely to lead to violence (with some exceptions…)
If you think of picking up a copy of Samuels’ book or Mar Aprem Mooken’s The Assyrian Church of the East in the Twentieth Century (Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2003), I wouldn’t complain, but you shouldn’t make it a priority. Thank you for the offer.
-JAK
October 2, 2009 at 3:24 am
If you could get a copy of Fr Samuel’s book for me too,I’d greatly appreciate! I’ve been wresting with Chalcedon for 30+ years. Amazon wants $100.00 for it!
October 2, 2009 at 3:51 am
Wei Hsien,
For what it’s worth, this book just arrived through interlibrary loan! So, don’t worry about your generous offer to me, and maybe you can transfer “my” copy to John.
-JAK
October 3, 2009 at 4:52 am
Just found a copy on amazon.com for 31.00 including postage. Huzzah!
October 4, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Justin and John,
Glad to hear that both of you have obtained Fr. Samuel’s book in one way or another. Fr. Philip doesn’t know when he’s going to India next, but I’ll be sure to ask him to grab a few copies. Maybe there will be a book giveaway of some sort here in the future!
W.H.