How does history, that is, the past and writing about the
past, shape Christian identity and interpretation today?
The past: “There was
when he was not”
There are countless examples within the history of
Christianity of people, events, or concepts which have influenced Christian
identity today. Although the early
church has been inundated with theological debate and controversy from the very
beginning, there were a few issues which proved to be more tenacious and
troublesome for church unity. Debates in
the early church ranged from the expectations placed on Gentile converts to
Gnosticism to treatment of the “lapsed” within the church. Each of these debates were settled through extensive
theological argument, the Christian example (“holiness”) of those involved, and
later, by the authority of the emperor.
Instead of sketching out a brief summary of several of these
debates, it is more useful to look at one particular series of events in
Christianity’s past which has had a definitive and lingering effect on our
present Christian identity: this series of events has to do with the heresy
known as Arianism, the ancient church’s response to it, and the ramifications
of that response in today’s church.
Arianism arose out of some of the theological questions that
had been asked earlier in Christian history; the work of Justin Martyr, Origen,
and others combined theology and classical philosophy, and introduced the idea
of the Logos, the Word of God made flesh.
The idea of the immutability of God meeting the mutability of the world
in the Logos became hugely important in the church’s doctrine, particularly in
the East. Arianism struggled with the
nature of the Logos, and whether or not Christ is co-eternal with God. Arius argued basically that Christ was the
first and greatest of all God’s creation, but that he was made, not begotten;
this would imply that Christians worship a creation, or deny the divinity of
Christ altogether. Justo Gonzalez states
that Alexander, then bishop of Alexandria where the controversy was rooted, considered
the matter to be inextricably entwined with the theology of salvation – God
reconciled humanity to himself by being made incarnate. Arius and his followers instead argued that
Christ saved humanity through his independent, perfect obedience to God’s will.
The debate became widespread after Alexander publicly
condemned Arius’ doctrine, and the Eastern church was critically divided into
those who supported Alexander and those who supported Arius. At the time that the debate had broken out,
Licinius was still ruler in the East, and Constantine in the West. Constantine eventually defeated Licinius and
decided to intervene in the debate in Alexandria which was imperiling church
unity. He therefore assembled a council
of bishops at Nicea in 325.
The Nicene council dealt with many different theological
controversies, but the most important of these was Arianism. The council ultimately anathematized Arius
and his followers, and developed the Nicene Creed, which helped define
Christian orthodoxy for the whole church.
Fresco in the Sistine Salon in the Vatican of the first Council of Nicea.
(Image from: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/COUNCIL_OF_NICEA_Fresco_in_the_Sistine_Salon_Vatican_t.jpg)
Even now, the Nicene Creed epitomises the lengthy, vital,
and sometimes heartbreaking work of theology that was done by the early
church. Liturgical services today include
either the Nicene or Apostles’ Creed as a reaffirmation of orthodoxy, and most non-liturgical
denominations, although they might not recite them, hold the creeds in a great
deal of respect. Christian identity
today has undoubtedly been shaped by past controversies and by events like the
great ecumenical councils, including the Council of Nicea. Christian identity is defined through
orthodoxy, and orthodoxy has been defined through very real struggles which
occurred early in our history.
Writing about the
past: the invaluable work of primary source historians
Much of the legacy of the Christian church has been
preserved through the writings of early church historians and biographers –
people like Tertullian (second century), Eusebius of Caesarea (third and fourth
century), Antonius (fifth century), and others.
Much of the earliest details and history of the Christian church might
have been lost had it not been for the faithful work of early historians.
One such historian, the Venerable Bede, wrote an extensive
history of the Christian church in England encompassing the first six centuries
of the Common Era, Historia ecclesiastica
gentis Anglorum. Within this work,
Bede included many documents which he and his helpers gathered. Although many of these documents still exist,
Bede’s work is an invaluable contribution to the Christian church; he not only
wrote a comprehensive history of one aspect of the church, he did it in an
intentional, impersonal, and apparently representative way. (By comparison, Antonius, an early biographer
of Simeon the Stylite, presents a highly opinionated and generous summary of
Simeon’s life which leaves the reader unconvinced of the facts, although his
work is, in its own way, an invaluable resource.)
Works like the Historia
and even Antonius’ biography not only provide a respected summary of historical
events, but they also provide insight into how the early church was encouraged
by its own members and example. Antonius
wrote as a contemporary of Simeon; the editor of Perpetua’s diary was obviously
inspired by her example of martyrdom; Eusebius preserved the opinion of that
part of the church which considered Constantine’s reign to be a positive
turning point for Christianity.
Each of these historians, in his own way, brings a vital
act of remembrance to the modern church by his record of events. The risk
that is run is that the modern church then accepts that one account as the definitive account of events, which in
some instances (such as that of Simeon the Stylite) might do little to convince
a modern believer of the subjects’ undeniably important influence and/or
example. Should that be the only record
of those subjects’ lives and ministry, other aspects of their story might be
completely lost. Naturally, an
incomplete or biased record is far preferable to a lost record, and for this
reason the modern believer has a responsibility to interpret the text in light
of the larger picture of the history of the church and where the text fits in
that picture.
