The reasons I reject the distinction between "Sacred" or "Church History" and secular History.
It is traditional in Christian circles to draw a sharp distinction between “sacred” Church History and “profane” secular Political, Economic, Military, intellectual or Social History and even “profane” Religious History (i.e., the history of all religions other than Christianity, as if God and his people have developed in a “sacred” enclosure isolated from the rest of the world. But this view is wrong in a very obvious way. All of the events of the history of Christianity—starting with the events of the life of Jesus—occurred in secular historical environments which affected how they occurred, why they occurred, and how they were received. Developments in Christianity also have often profoundly affected the course of secular history—which has, in turn, fed back into Christianity and affected its course. Therefore, I do not believe there is any magic “line” separating “sacred” Church History from “profane” secular History. They are both part of a single intertwined History of the people and institutions involved in them both.
Thus, I reject the traditional function of the academic discipline of Church History, as separate from the secular history of the places various churches operated. Traditionally, from the early hagiographies and martyrologies through the foundation of the modern discipline of Church History during the Counter Reformation and on to works written in various branches of Christianity in the last century, the function of Church History has been to show that the author’s denomination or broader tradition represents the “true” historic Christianity, and all of the other branches don’t. Thus, while usually relying upon verifiable facts, the discipline has tended to produce at least as much propaganda as explanatory history. The only way to avoid this is to 1) look for the “true” historical Christianity in the New Testament, with commentary from other sources to show how it changed internally over time and 2) to merge this history with the broader “secular” history that influenced and often directed these changes. That is what I propose to do.
