Disclaimer: I am bad at book reviews. In fact consider this part one for this book cause I am not finished with it yet. (I mostly talk about things I’m learning from the book while piecing that together with others things I know or have learned. This then morphs into meaningful ramblings about the mandates of God toward the faithful. That’s all). I’ve read a great many works and spent some time researching history from various perspectives on church history. I’ve actually had this book on my shelf for about six years and am only now reading it. I think around the same time I bought this book I bought a few other church history books including, The Lost History of Christianity. That’s a really great book which covers some of the same things. More specifically it covers the early spread of the church in all directions except the west. It shows how rapidly the church moved east and found its home along the Mesopotamia, and south into Egypt and then further into Africa. The church even quickly spread into the far east. In any case this book was going to be more specifically about the Orthodox church and the early church spreading into Eastern Europe. Places we know now as Turkey, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, Russia, etc. The Balkan states, and the black sea states.
So far I am really enjoying this history. I know in the later half of the book he deals more with doctrinal and practical life of the church. There was tension but not necessarily hostility between the church of the west. The Orthodox recognized the leadership of the Pope in Rome throughout the first 10-11 centuries of the church. Though they had some disputes over doctrines primarily having to do with the the nature of of the trinity and how exactly to articulate it without becoming a heretic. Even after the schism some issues were still resolved by Orthodox missions by seeking the help or blessings of the church in Rome. It took some time for the schism to manifest throughout the whole church. Eventually it would. The relationship from East to West in complicated. Or at least it is for me. Someone who is still new to trying to understand both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy better. Most history books regarding the church and doctrine is western in its focus unless you are specifically starting with the early church, and unless you have specifically looked for books from the eastern perspectives. I mean even all the books I had previously read about the church in Eastern Europe, Eastern Asia, or Africa lead me to believe that the church only really started going there in the last 300 years or so once Protestant Christianity started its missionary movement. No doubt they are some exciting and incredible stories. But the Orthodox church, or really just the very early Universal (Catholic) church was already active in almost every major continent except the Americas by the fifth and sixth century of the church.
The Roman emperor Constantine has a fundamental place in the history of the early Church. This is even more so for the Eastern Orthodox Church. When Constantine moved the empire to modern day Turkey and established Constantinople it sort of marked the beginning of Orthodoxy’s uniqueness from the rest of the eastward moving church. Paul went west, and Pauline language is possibly more fundamental to the doctrinal attitudes and traditions in the west. Where as in the East there is a more of the language of the Apostle John in their doctrinal emphasis. These two perspectives really worked well I think in the early period before the schism. These were not points of contention, just two important perspectives that I think brought an important balance and healthy dialogue into the church.
Schisms are however important I think. If we believe it is important to have the church free of heretical ideologies then theoretically there comes a time when after great amounts of dialogue a split is necessary. The early church during the 7 ecumenical counsels had to label certain doctrines heretical and break ties with those that insisted on their views against the larger counsel of the church. This no doubt probably saved the church from many errors that could have devastated the churches effectiveness for centuries. There was a singularly strong doctrinal dispute between east and west regarding the nature of the trinity and weather or not the holy spirit also comes from Christ as well as the Father. To modern readers this might seem petty. But again probably very important as they knew first hand the many deviations from Orthodoxy that are possible with only the simplest of errors. The continued attempts from Rome of interference and control were not appreciated by the church of the east. In the the early church it was common and established practice to attribute great respect and honor to the heads of the great ecumenical centers of the church. Rome always had the highest place of honor followed by Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. However none of these Patriarchs were seen to have a kind of Kingly role over the churches within their region or beyond it. The church based in Rome increasingly began to see things in that way, this attitude of supremacy grew beyond what many believed the church to really be. To this day the Orthodox church maintains a much flatter hierarchy then is seen in the Roman Catholic church. Local leaders are given authority to be the primary decision makers in their churches. Many issues that have been taken to the ecumenical counsels concluded that it was up to the judgement of the local bishop or archbishop to decide. Many things do get decided at their counsels but that in itself is done with the guidance of archbishops, and patriarchs from various places around the Orthodox world. Its not simply top down. There is no doubt leadership, and places of honor, their is a hierarchy. Its just not like Roman Catholic. A great deal of respect is shown to any of the faith leaders within the orthodox church.
So while their are great leaders within the Orthodox church some are known as Patriarchs, some are simply Friars, but there are also laymen within the church who have earned great honor and respect as theologians and advocates of the faith. The Patriarch of Moscow for instance has great honor and respect. Some is obviously on account of having earned the title and the political and spiritual significance that comes with it. However, his authority is not absolute, or universal in regards to the churches of Orthodoxy around the world. He will be listened closely and shown the respect by many throughout the world but he does not issue decrees or orders of any kind to the Orthodox church around the world, neither in maters of worship or doctrine. He no doubt will have his say in those matters at the proper times and places when doctrinal matters are discussed and positions are clarified by the church but he is not the final say in these matters. Rather as the church insists it is the counsel itself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that guides such matters.
This is extraordinary to me. This has been the practice of the Orthodox church dating back to the first counsels of the church. Part of me understands that historically it was Constantine that was present and at times concluding the. One might question such counsels. One might consider their decisions to be guided by mere men without any divine guidance. This is true. Many do cast doubt on these counsels. This is really the challenge I guess. I’m very much inclined to believe they were guided by God. But Constantine, you say. Well yes he was a pretty bad dude if you know your history. Not the worst. But not an example of Christian temperance or kindness. Instead he was violent. He killed family members, and put to death heretics and Pagans after converting to Christianity. Does his zeal matched with his power as a Roman emperor and his tendency as a warrior towards violent solutions to problems disqualify him from the ranks of people used by God. Some essentially believe this. Is it possible that God knew exactly what kind of man he was and that his conversion was part of Gods plan to protect and enhance the early impact of the church. No doubt one can argue that the church was growing under persecution. But it also grew rapidly once it was declared the official religion of the Roman empire. I’m not saying Constantine is a figure without undue historical controversy and that controversy spills over into what we like to define Christianity as. Some would have Christians believing that following Jesus is defined one way. That the faith is only genuine if it is marked by 100% pacifism. No violence whatsoever. Or at the very least all forms of violence are evidence that the work of Christ is not complete in sinners who profess the faith. The ultimately it is to be rooted out completely. I have spent some time in my earlier days of scholarship and Christian zeal flirting with this concept. It seemed intuitive based on many passages that do encourage peace and love as great virtues and pursuits of those who profess faith in God and accept his the Kingdom of his Son in Christ. I have no problem believing that. Putting Jesus’ teachings in context however is something that I have also been conditioned to do. Even when I hear an excellent sermon or teaching unless they have done this well I sort of put it on the back-burner on low and then go do some digging or some thinking. For instance most of the time Jesus’ audience was an occupied Jewish people looking primarily for a new Warrior King like David who would lead them to victory over the Romans and take back all that their ancestors were promised. Jesus had a hell of a time trying to convince these Jews that he was their Messiah, but that the new Covenant was much broader in its scope then the borders of Israel. That the new family of God would include the Romans. So without going into to much detail, Jesus did not only talk of peace, his disciples spoke of baptisms, and spread the good news of this kingdom without borders. Churches were started and new disciples were made who continued to spread this message and share with all who believed the communion of Christ and his universal church.
Nations remained. Kingdoms remained. Borders remained. Laws of the land remained. The sword remained. War would have to be fought. The church would have to continue to share it message of hope and peace. This message would go on to save the world from paganism. In the wake of the fall of the Roman empire a new kind of civilization sprang up. Not one of utopia and lasting peace. But one unique from the lands of pagans. One filled with wonders, innovations, economic and architectural structures that lifted mans gaze towards God and towards a future were families can multiply and be nourished without end. Men continued to fight each other over their lands, over futures they believed they could have if they fought pagans and even heretics who’s Godless natures were all that threatened this future. They may have fought to much for our liking. But maybe our distaste for violence has caused us to miss something extraordinary. There was something new happening. Yes, laypeople might have missed some of the finer points of Christian doctrine and charity. But they were beginning to experience the cultural implications of world united under one King. Armageddon to the church of the middle ages was not something in the distant future. It was now, the enemy of our souls is prowling around like a lion looking for who it would devour. These enemies were real, they were to be converted or conquered. Maybe Armageddon is now, maybe by not fighting to some extent we are passively allowing the work of Satan to be done. This is not outside the realm of fundamental church doctrine. Some would disagree. However, there truly is no peace when the righteous of God do not resist the work of Satan. Our enemy is real, it manifest itself in our new institutions and inventions. Now we wonder if such innovations are merely ways that we have created in our depravity to sin more, to celebrate sin, and to indoctrinate the young into the life of sin and destruction.
Leave it to me to take a book review and go on long rabbit trail about the middle ages and the lost era of Christendom and the inevitable laments of bygone violent zeal for the One true God and King. Its silly to some I know. But I genuinely think it would be helpful for some Christians to try to grasp this historical expression of Christian zeal and at least consider finding a balance with their pacifism approach to the faith. Food for thought.
All Photos are from the church I am attending here in Lexington Kentucky. Saint Andrew Orthodox Church.
Bible on Tap 
