Reflection: Seminary - History
Reflection: Seminary - History
During my time at Seminary I took five History courses as part of the MDiv program. They were; Early Church History, The Byzantine Church, The Slavic Church, Religion in America, and Orthodoxy in America.
There was a marked difference between the methodology used by the Instructor in the first two courses (Early Church History and The Byzantine Church) and the methodology used in the last three courses (The Slavic Church, Religion in America, and Orthodoxy in America). The first two courses were passive learning with emphasis on dates, names, heresies etc. It was very much repeat what you read or heard. Passive learning is excellent for the acquisition of trivia, base foundations, and regurgitation. The rest of the classes tended towards a more active learning style with students being given themes, doing the research, and then teaching the material to the class.
Most of the history related to Orthodoxy was more heritage than history. By this I mean it was unabashedly apologetic and Church centric ignoring the context and any failings or dark shadows. The touch points were attacks against heretics and positions against Latin Christendom. There was little room for any critical analysis. This approach creates an unrealistic view of history and denigrates its use as a tool. This is especially important as history is often a strong selling point in evangelism.
Too many evangelizing Orthodox portray the Orthodox Church as unchanging especially in regards to the Divine Liturgy. This is either dishonesty or ignorance.
It is important for MDiv students to know the history of the Orthodox Church. It is important for MDiv students to know the difference between the history and the heritage of the Orthodox Church.
The sad fact is that most MDiv students are not grounded enough in history to understand the context in which the Church grew and operated. Therefore the curriculum needs to be re-calibrated to overcome this deficiency. The curriculum should have three focuses. These three topics should be: Context, Relationship with Context, and Internal Relationship.
Context should cover the culture, societal structure and norms, methods of political and economic structure and control. Too often students of Orthodox history assume something is “Orthodox” when in fact it is a cultural norm or experience which has been adopted or baptized into the Church in a specific time, and place. It is difficult many times to differentiate the practice or norm because later scholars have often rationalized or theologized and explanation. Understanding the culture and the societal context will have carry over effects into other disciplines such hermeneutics, liturgics, pastoral practice, dogmatics etc.
Relationship with Context teaches the student about the church’s response or accommodation with the surrounding context. How did the Church view what was around it? Did the Church adopt, adapt, change or seek to change the surrounding context?
Internal Relationship will teach the student about changes within the Church. These changes are reactions to heresies or inter church relations, the rise and dominance of monasticism, the roles of martyrdom and other things which affected the theology and history of the Church from the inside.
The Class sequence should devote a semester to the Church from Pentecost until Diocletian. The second semester should deal with the conversion of the Roman world and Empire to Christ and the effects this had on the Church and the surrounding context covering the period through the Great Schism. The third semester should deal with the effects of the Schism and the rise of national identity churches (which can also be thought of as the absorption into the cultures of Orthodoxy).
In the class model that I took there were two semesters devoted to religion in America one on Non-Orthodox faiths and one on Orthodoxy in America. I was uncomfortable with both classes. The first I felt was not an honest history of religion in America but more of a class on the errors and vulnerabilities of other faiths in America. It was more akin to a combination of pity and evangelizing methodology. The second class was the most disturbing of the religious history classes. This class was heavy on excuse making for a lack of progress, triumphal towards the Orthodox Church in America, and did little to deal honestly with real issues.
I am undecided if there should be one class or two in regards to the history of religion in America. I think that we are better served if Orthodoxy is not separated into a separate class as it was when I studied. Perhaps Religion in America would best be served in two classes but divided as follows: Cover the history of religion in American following the model in the other history classes from native beliefs (they are still present and active in segments of our country) through the Wall Street Crash of 1929. I feel that this sets the stage for background and issues and the radical change in faith and government relations that occurred with the New Deal. The second class would cover from the New Deal forward. Dealing with the issues of the Orthodox separateness in this era will need to be thoughtfully covered without attempting to indoctrinate a single vision of should be in charge. Rather Orthodoxy exists in the modern American context and has been buffeted by the 1960’s and 1970’s just like the rest of the country. Our separateness into ethnic enclaves does not insulate us from what occurs around us. Perhaps we have focused too much on our internal squabbles and not enough on just getting on with what needs to be done.
Justinian
During my time at Seminary I took five History courses as part of the MDiv program. They were; Early Church History, The Byzantine Church, The Slavic Church, Religion in America, and Orthodoxy in America.
There was a marked difference between the methodology used by the Instructor in the first two courses (Early Church History and The Byzantine Church) and the methodology used in the last three courses (The Slavic Church, Religion in America, and Orthodoxy in America). The first two courses were passive learning with emphasis on dates, names, heresies etc. It was very much repeat what you read or heard. Passive learning is excellent for the acquisition of trivia, base foundations, and regurgitation. The rest of the classes tended towards a more active learning style with students being given themes, doing the research, and then teaching the material to the class.
Most of the history related to Orthodoxy was more heritage than history. By this I mean it was unabashedly apologetic and Church centric ignoring the context and any failings or dark shadows. The touch points were attacks against heretics and positions against Latin Christendom. There was little room for any critical analysis. This approach creates an unrealistic view of history and denigrates its use as a tool. This is especially important as history is often a strong selling point in evangelism.
Too many evangelizing Orthodox portray the Orthodox Church as unchanging especially in regards to the Divine Liturgy. This is either dishonesty or ignorance.
It is important for MDiv students to know the history of the Orthodox Church. It is important for MDiv students to know the difference between the history and the heritage of the Orthodox Church.
The sad fact is that most MDiv students are not grounded enough in history to understand the context in which the Church grew and operated. Therefore the curriculum needs to be re-calibrated to overcome this deficiency. The curriculum should have three focuses. These three topics should be: Context, Relationship with Context, and Internal Relationship.
Context should cover the culture, societal structure and norms, methods of political and economic structure and control. Too often students of Orthodox history assume something is “Orthodox” when in fact it is a cultural norm or experience which has been adopted or baptized into the Church in a specific time, and place. It is difficult many times to differentiate the practice or norm because later scholars have often rationalized or theologized and explanation. Understanding the culture and the societal context will have carry over effects into other disciplines such hermeneutics, liturgics, pastoral practice, dogmatics etc.
Relationship with Context teaches the student about the church’s response or accommodation with the surrounding context. How did the Church view what was around it? Did the Church adopt, adapt, change or seek to change the surrounding context?
Internal Relationship will teach the student about changes within the Church. These changes are reactions to heresies or inter church relations, the rise and dominance of monasticism, the roles of martyrdom and other things which affected the theology and history of the Church from the inside.
The Class sequence should devote a semester to the Church from Pentecost until Diocletian. The second semester should deal with the conversion of the Roman world and Empire to Christ and the effects this had on the Church and the surrounding context covering the period through the Great Schism. The third semester should deal with the effects of the Schism and the rise of national identity churches (which can also be thought of as the absorption into the cultures of Orthodoxy).
In the class model that I took there were two semesters devoted to religion in America one on Non-Orthodox faiths and one on Orthodoxy in America. I was uncomfortable with both classes. The first I felt was not an honest history of religion in America but more of a class on the errors and vulnerabilities of other faiths in America. It was more akin to a combination of pity and evangelizing methodology. The second class was the most disturbing of the religious history classes. This class was heavy on excuse making for a lack of progress, triumphal towards the Orthodox Church in America, and did little to deal honestly with real issues.
I am undecided if there should be one class or two in regards to the history of religion in America. I think that we are better served if Orthodoxy is not separated into a separate class as it was when I studied. Perhaps Religion in America would best be served in two classes but divided as follows: Cover the history of religion in American following the model in the other history classes from native beliefs (they are still present and active in segments of our country) through the Wall Street Crash of 1929. I feel that this sets the stage for background and issues and the radical change in faith and government relations that occurred with the New Deal. The second class would cover from the New Deal forward. Dealing with the issues of the Orthodox separateness in this era will need to be thoughtfully covered without attempting to indoctrinate a single vision of should be in charge. Rather Orthodoxy exists in the modern American context and has been buffeted by the 1960’s and 1970’s just like the rest of the country. Our separateness into ethnic enclaves does not insulate us from what occurs around us. Perhaps we have focused too much on our internal squabbles and not enough on just getting on with what needs to be done.
Justinian