A Simple Summary of Church and Western History–Introduction

An introduction to the process by which, in seeking the approval and sponsorship of those in political power, and the delusion of holy conquest, Christianity, as defined by its victorious leaders, has consistently denied the possibility of a living, individual friendship with God. First in a series.

“History is written by the victors.” Maximilien Robespierre (1794) (one of the losers of the French Revolution).

“… history is written by the victors and framed according to the prejudices and bias existing on their side.” U.S. Senator George Graham Vest (1891) (who was also a former Confederate congressman, i.e., one of the losers).

This observation is particularly true of standard treatments of “Church” history. “Sacred” Church history has always been written mainly to justify historically the positions and actions of the group from which the author comes, to prove that group (or “movement”–a collection of related groups) is “right” as against its competitors. And usually “sacred” histories–at least those that are and continue to be noticed–are written by scholars from groups that have enjoyed at least some measure of political or military victory, from the viewpoint of that group, in order to justify efforts at further worldly triumph. This is not, however, the background or purpose of the current historical summary.

I will now attempt a very brief summary of Western history, from the birth of Jesus (probably about 4 BCE) to the present, centered around God’s work with his people. This history will be limited mostly to events in Europe and Asia west of what became the easternmost boundary of Islam, though I will also speak briefly to developments in Africa and Asia in the early centuries and to the Americas after 1492. I believe this focus will adequately explain the main currents in history.

Fundamentally, early Christianity was based on the possibility of having a living, personal relationship with God through his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the key, both to faith and to the history of the last 2000 years, much of which is explained by the efforts of “Christian” organizations and their political sponsors to deny the truth of this in practice in order to maintain control of the “faithful.” One the one hand, people who are carefully trained to believe that their leaders always speak for God, or, at least, always act for God in their official capacity, so that God will punish any dissent, are very docile. On the other hand, people who are allowed to believe that God may sometimes speak to them or guide them directly, without leaders telling them what God is saying, are more difficult to dupe. Then add to that the kind of disruption that true prophets or persons of spiritual discernment have had, historically, when they confront whole communities and those in power, and it is easy to understand why Christian leaders, seeking the approval and sponsorship of those in power, have characteristically done all they can to deny their flock the possibility of a living relationship with God, one in which God speaks.

As I stated at one point in my last post, What I Believe–stated simply, the birth of Jesus, God coming into the world as one of us, is the central event in all human history. Most Christian authors who have written works on “Church History” would agree, at least, that some event that involved Jesus’ earthly life–his Incarnation, his appointing of the Apostles, his Crucifixion, his Resurrection, or Pentecost–was the central event in human history.

But my approach differs from most “Church” Historians in three important ways. First, I do not view “Church” History as something separate from history in general, the history of the world in which the Body of Christ operates. Nothing about “Church” History makes it “sacred.”

Second, I do not give the overwhelming importance most “Church” Historians do to the formal actions of the institutional human church organs. Often, what was going on behind the scenes, in folk belief and in interactions between Christian groups and secular political entities was just as important as, or even more important than, the formal acts of church organizations in determining the course of history, even that of the churches themselves.

Finally, I do not take a “triumphalist” approach. That is, while I view God’s work among his people as the theme that holds human history together, I do not see that work as involving believers, or any group of them, conquering or coming to dominate the world or any part of it. I reject the Political Illusion (or, Political Delusion) that the purpose of the Church, the Body of Christ, is to build “Christian” communities or nations in which even the unbelievers can recite the Creed or act and talk like “good Christians.”

The purpose for which we were left here is, as I said at the end of the last post, to show those around us that there is an alternative to their rebellion against God by permitting him to remake us (not them!) into the image of Jesus while they watch, and by letting him speak through us. Jesus himself will return physically, with his angels, in his own time, to put down all other authorities and to himself rule the nations. When that time comes, we will not need to lift a finger to help him conquer–all of his enemies will fall before the words of his mouth–though we will thereafter reign with him. In the meantime, we invite others to come to him by word and example, and often by patient suffering, not by force.