« Three Christian Fatalities Inside Gaza | Main | Richard John Neuhaus, RIP (Updated) »
January 7, 2009
Dying Christianities
Philip Jenkins is writing about a Christian history we don't know--and would probably rather avoid.
Philip Jenkins, one of today's authorities on the global church's past and future, has released another highly regarded - if sobering - account of Christianity outside the West. The Lost History of Christianity (Oxford, 2008) tells the winding story of the faith's rise and fall in the Middle East and Central Asia, particularly in Mesopotamia, which became the center of the early church and its wide-reaching cross-cultural missions. The theologies practiced here, those of the Jacobites and Nestorians, were later considered heretical by the Christianized Roman Empire. Yet most of today's dwindling Iraqi Christian population considers one of the strands its "spiritual ancestor," says Jenkins in his most recent CT article, "Recovering Church History."
Jenkins sat down with Beliefnet editor (and CT contributor) Patton Dodd to talk about the book. Here are some of the most provocative excerpts:
On the Eastern church:
[The] Eastern world has a solid claim to be the direct lineal heir of the earliest New Testament Christianity. Throughout their history, the Eastern churches used Syriac, which is close to Jesus's own language of Aramaic, and they followed Yeshua, not Jesus. Everything about these churches runs so contrary to what we think we know. . . .
Just a suggestion. Perhaps we should think of these Eastern communities - the Nestorians and Jacobites - as the real survivors of ancient Christianity. In that case, the great Western churches we know, the Catholic and Orthodox, are the "alternative Christianities."
On early Christianity and Islam:
Christians survive perfectly well for centuries under Muslim regimes, and the relations between the two are often excellent. In fact, Islam borrows massively from those ancient Christian churches. They borrow a lot of the architectural styles of mosques, the worship practices, and customs like Lent, which becomes the Muslim Ramadan. In fact, if a sixth or seventh century Eastern Christian came back today, that person would probably feel more at home in a mosque than a typical Western church service. That comfort level might change once they explored the doctrines being taught, but the general atmosphere would be very similar. The more you look at these Eastern Christianities, the easier it is to understand that Islam and Christianity emerged as sister faiths.
On ?dying' religions:
We really don't know why religions die, and if they do, in what sense they might leave ghosts. One thing that strikes me is how much a dead religion influences its successor - how for instance the old Christianity left its mark on the successor faith of Islam.
Finally, there is a major theological issue that nobody addresses, the theology of extinction. How do Christians explain the death of their religion in a particular time and place? Is that really part of God's plan? Or maybe our time scale is just too short, and one day we will realize why this had to happen. But as I say, nobody is really discussing these questions.
Read the rest of the interview here, and share your reactions here.
Comments
"Christians survive perfectly well for centuries under Muslim regimes, and the relations between the two are often excellent."
I nearly spit out my coffee when I read that! Now, that's a whopper of a lie.
I think the key word in that sentence (that I have quoted) is "under."
The Christians ALWAYS lived UNDER Islamic rules. Historically, it certainly was never a two-way street of cooperation and harmony.
Historian Dr. Bat Ye'or summed it up with the following:
"In reality, the situation was much less idyllic: the Christians and Jews could survive only if they accepted Muslim political dominion and a situation of humiliation, which was aggravated by the obligation to pay increasingly burdensome taxes. So it’s no wonder that most of the Christians, even though they were not [always] constrained by force, converted to Islam on account of the constant economic and social pressure."
THE DECLINE OF EASTERN CHRISTIANITY UNDER ISLAM - 7th TO 20th CENTURY: FROM JIHAD TO DHIMMITUDE (Associated University Presses)
Posted By: Dr. Bulldog | January 7, 2009 12:56 PM
Catholic/Orthodox vs. Jacobite/Nestorian is a false dichotomy. Because of their antiquity and efforts over the centuries to restore communion, neither can be considered "alternative." Protestantism and Mormonism if anything may be more accurately called "alternative Christianities." My test? Only Protestants and Mormons think lands with substantial ancient Christian Churches are fair game as missions targets. Disrespect for ancient Churches is what truly makes any Christianity lost. There's the irony of Protestants calling other Christians "lost."
Posted By: L.T. | January 7, 2009 1:00 PM
Did Jenkins actually bother to research Christian life under Muslim rule or did he borrow some talking points from pro-Muslim advocacy groups? Dr. Bat Ye'or pretty much shattered that myth, as noted by the earlier post.
There is this romantic myth out there that we can find some direct line with the 1st century church and arab christians today. It's silly and unsupported by any evidence, but it gets repeated alot by the pro-Palestinian activists who like to use this myth to build rapport with Evangelicals. I would hope that more intelligent Christians would see through this.
Posted By: Tom | January 8, 2009 9:07 AM
I'm dismayed - but not surprised - to see the previous comments on this post. The book's about historic communities that have been ignored by Westerners for centuries. I think most of us have a tendency to characterize Christianity as a European religion... which it really isn't. Some historical background - and perspective - would be helpful (I think) and enlightening.
Posted By: centralPA | January 9, 2009 1:55 AM
I Abdul Sattar Soomro resident of Benarsi Ext.Colony behind apwa girls school Civil Hospital road Khairpur Mirs Sindh pakistan was appointed as clerk cum typist in Municipal Committee, Khairpur Mirs on 01-07-1981 due to to personal enemy on 04-01-2001 the then administrator Muncipal Commttee Khairpur has remove me from service on chrge misconduct due to his personal enemy because he was fight me on 20-12-2000 he was suspended me on 21-12-2000 menioned the charge sheet follows non any charge sheet given by him and in the process of 12 days he was removed me from service only showcause notice basis he has not accept my reply and without any enquirey on 4-1-2001 he has remove me from service only the process of 13 days remove my 20 yearsservice . on 15-07-2008 i was filled my departmental appeal with the Seceretary Local Govt. dept,Sindh at Karachi which is still pending and due to my poornes no any reply given me by the competant authritis the Taluka Municipal Officer also issued letter in my favourable consideration
Karachi which is again still pending
respected sir I am poor christian person belonging little children i can not aford to transportation updown khp to khi my family is in hunger possition i dont understand what can i do i trying 3 time to make suiside but my little childrens showing my eyes kindly help me in this regard to save me and my family godbless you with your whole family
requested to your honour to help help help me
and my family
with regards
Abdul Sattar Soomro
+923013411131,Pakistan
Posted By: Abdul Sattar | January 9, 2009 4:50 AM
Having done 6 years of research in Church History, accumulating some 3000 5x5 notecards covering more than 250 sources and 2000 yrs., I have read where Christians did survive under Islam. Survive is the key, for pressure and taxes were brought to bear. The problem with Moslems coming into the western world is that they will want to bring sharia law which tolerates Chrisianity, but does not allow it full freedom. Evangelism is forbidden. Already, in England some judges are willing for sharia law to be enforced and any Christians trying to evangelize in a Moslem area to be arrested. To one who believes in Moslem freedom to spread their faith due to the Baptist doctrine of religious liberty for all, this does not sound good or conducive to amiable relations for the future. I pray for a Great Awakening for the whole earth.
Posted By: Dr. james willingham | January 9, 2009 11:08 AM
I'm disappointed with Jenkins's argument that Nestorians might be the genuine heirs of antiquity whereas the Orthodox and the Catholic might possibly be the alternatives. The Nestorian controversy did not arise until the early fifth century. There is no reason to assume therefore that Nestorius's christology stretches back to the age of the apostles or the New Testament any more than the opposing christology which triumphed at Chalcedon in 451 A.D. and became the "orthodox" position.
Posted By: Quentin | January 9, 2009 11:20 AM
On the point of diverse (significantly so!) early forms of Christianity (or Jesus/Yeshua following, pre-Christian): They definitely existed. Even the NT, read carefully, gives clear indications of that, though few details.
As to creating myths, one of the biggest, most significant ones built up in the 2nd and 3rd centuries was that of a unified apostolic teaching (supposedly as authorized by God through Jesus). This supposedly led directly into an "orthodox" church in that line of divine authority... orthodox in relation to the many heterodox systems of theology and church groupings that sprang up rapidly in the 1st century. But orthodoxy emerged only gradually and much later.
If one reads much about that early period, and reads some of the earliest "fathers," their opponents, and the various literature of the time, it quickly becomes apparent that we, whether Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, have received a greatly oversimplified and seriously misleading account of how earliest Christianity developed, what it really believed, etc.
Among a number of summaries of some of these issues are "From Jesus to Christianity" by L Michael White and "Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman, both detailed, careful scholars.
Posted By: Howard Pepper | January 9, 2009 1:14 PM
This article is a typical example of a Western person who has never experienced religious discrimination pontificating something he has no idea about. I am a Christian from a Muslim majority country and believe me not for a single day let alone a few centuries the Muslims let you forget that as a Christian you are inferior to them, that they have nothing in common with you and they share the country with you as a superior being. The westerners who suffer from post colonial guilt and are terrified of being labelled Islamophobe, would go to any length to prove, includding themselves, that Islam is the religion of peace and really we don't have many differences with the Muslims, except some crazy fanatics. Well, the truth is that Islam obliges its followers to fight the unbelievers and kill them (Suras 9.5, 9.39, 9.113, 5.33, 2.216). The apologists would rather shut their eyes from the truth but if oou read the Quran, it is full of hatred, war mongering and discrimination towards other religions. The Muslims are supposed to base their lives on the Quran's teachings, therefore a true Muslim can not show anyhting but hatred and contempt for the Non-Muslims. I am just afraid that a vast majority of the Westerners are being fooled by the Muslim victim posturing and the ignorant pontificating of the likes of Archbishop Rowan.
Posted By: morris johns | January 9, 2009 4:59 PM
I've read my last book by Philip Jenkins. I thought he was an insightful scholar. But his comments on "dying Christianities" re the early Church and the later rise of Islam are far from the truth.One need look no further than Eusebius to see how New Testament Christianity triumphed over heresy and nonsense through the first three centuries. And, as mentioned in above posts, either Dr. Bat Ye'or is an honest historian in the use of numerous historical documents from all sides in the Jewish-Christian-Islam disputes from the 7th century even up to today (witness the killing of Christians in Iraq and Iran), or Jenkins knows something no other historian as ever discovered.
Posted By: Warren R. Angel | January 9, 2009 6:28 PM
In most of the posts above, it seems that we are comparing the treatment of Christians in Muslim countries 500-1000 years ago with treatments today. Instead it would be more useful to look back 500-1000 years and compare treatment of Christians in Muslim lands with the treatment of Muslims & Jews in Christian lands during the same time period.
It seems to me that most of the criticisms of Muslims could also be leveled against Christians before 1700. One difference is that Christianity has had a Reformation & Counter-reformation, while Islam has not. Another is the effect of rationalism and democratic ideals on the thinking of the west, along with 2 World Wars, which have changed the attitudes of Europeans to war and oppression. What would Islam look like if influenced by those same forces?
Posted By: Bruce Warren | January 14, 2009 11:07 AM
Although I do not presume to be an expert on Christian history, I do challenge everyone--especially Howard Pepper--to read the Apostolic Fathers (Sts. Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, etc.). Their testimony of the continuity and consistency of Christian teachings from the Apostles onward is air-tight and unattestable. In regards to "diversity" among Christians, I think St. Paul addressed that quite well with the Corinthians, and later with the Ephesians. After all, there is "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism." If there is one Faith, then honestly, which of the 33,000 types of Christian is really right? They cannot all be the Truth if they all disagree. Go back 500 years before Christ, and meticulously trace the worship of God through Judaism to Christ and His Church until now... what do we see? It'll take you a great deal of work, but the result is indisputable. Only one body laying claim to be the Church has maintained unchanging doctrine throughout the ages. Which one is it?
Posted By: Joseph Vanden Brink | January 15, 2009 7:47 PM
As to original Christianity one simnply works at determining what the NT says then examines what they said who came after the apostolic period. Obviously, those who agree with the NT are the successors whether lineage and connection can be established or not. These scholars are not all that impressive. I did 6 years+ of research in church history and found all kinds of ins and outs therein. There are streams flowing from the NT period which meander here and there and sometimes end up dying out and at other times become a rushing torrent. Being NT in practice, while difficult to establish and do, is the standard. The real thing now is the help of the Holy Spirit and the Third Great Awakening which wins the whole earth in one generation and perhaps for a 1000 generations. That is my prayer, that is my goal, that is my reason for living and dying.
Posted By: Dr. James Willingham | February 24, 2009 9:07 PM