SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • teleologist: Thanks you for the opportunity to express our opinions with the time that we had. Tongues will cease,...
  • Orthodoxdj: As Tolkien said to Lewis as they parted on that fateful night in Oxford, “Goodbye.”
  • Livingston Dell: I didn’t always comment as frequently as I had liked to on these articles, but I always...
  • Nikolai Volk: You know, we had a hell of a run in these comment sections. I’ve had many a great discussion with...
  • David Strunk: Hey Joe, I also appreciated what you guys did here, and always had this blog on my RSS feed to see the...
  • Amy K. Hall: Thanks for starting the blog, Joe. It was an honor to be included.
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Friday, March 5, 2010, 10:00 PM

    I opened my mail box today and happily found a package with Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (Viking, March 2010), a monumental work by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford University and author of The Reformation and Thomas Cranmer, both highly acclaimed books.

    Here is how the publisher describes his latest contribution: “Once in a generation a historian will redefine his field, producing a book that demands to be read – a product of electrifying scholarship conveyed with commanding skill. Diarmaid MacCulloch’s Christianity is such a book. Breathtaking in its ambition, it ranges back to the origins of the Hebrew Bible and covers the world, following the three main strands of the Christian faith.”

    Here is an endorsement of the book from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury: “A triumphantly executed achievement. This book is a landmark in its field, astonishing in its range, compulsively readable, full of insight even for the most jaded professional and of illumination for the interested general reader. It will have few, if any, rivals in the English language.”

    I do not know when I will have the time to read this massive book. At random, I turned to page 1005 and started reading on the future of Eastern Orthodoxy:

    The sufferings of the Orthodox and the ancient non-Chalcedonian Churches of the East through the twentieth century, combined with the mushrooming of other Christianities, have given traditional Eastern Christianity a much diminished numerical share in the contemporary spectrum of Christian activity. In 1900, the Orthodox were estimated as 21 percent of the world’s Christians; that had declined to 11 percent at the beginning of the twenty-first century, while the Roman Catholic proportion, thanks to its growth in the south of the globe, had risen from 48 percent to 52 percent. Yet this decline in ‘market share’ should be viewed in the context of the huge rise in Christian numbers generally – and more importantly, it is worth remembering that the Christian obsession with statistics, triumphalist or alarmist, is even more recent than the general Western secular fascinating with them . . . .

    More important in the eyes of the Orthodox or the non-Chalcedonian Churches might be an older preoccupation: the revival in the life and morale of monasticism, that institution which is so central to their life and spirituality. From the 1970s, both Mount Athos and the Coptic monasteries of Egypt have seen a sudden and unexpected revival, bringing new recruits and new hope, albeit sometimes accompanied by an ulta-traditional attitude to the modern world. A major element in this on Mount Athos was the restoration of full community life to most monasteries after centuries when monks had tended to live individually, not generally as hermits, but pursuing their own spiritual paths. What remains to be seen is how this other-worldly spirituality and emphasis on an ancient liturgy can find a constructive relationship with modernity. We have seen how the Churches of the Eastern Rite and beyond found their cultures constrained in succession by two unsympathetic powers: from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries, the Ottoman Empire and its outliers and the Islamic monarchy of Iran, and then, in the twentieth, the short-lived but far more hostile power of Soviet Communism. Paradoxically, these oppressions were also shelters from pressing theological problems – what, in a different context, the poet Constantine Cavafy called ‘a kind of solution’ – for the Churches were mostly too preoccupied with survival to look beyond their walls. The Western Church in its Protestant and Catholic forms had struggled with various degrees of success to find a way of addressing children of the Enlightenment – efforts frequently scorned by the Orthodox. Out of all Eastern Churches only the Russian Orthodox Church in the last years of the tsars had much chance to do this. Now that the Orthodox cannot escape the task, the effects of Eastern Christianity will be interesting (pp. 1105-1106).

    In two paragraphs, knowledge was gained and a big question was raised. I did not know that traditional Eastern Christianity has “a much diminished numerical share in the contemporary spectrum of Christian activity.” I did not know that there has been a “revival in the life and morale of monasticism” at Mount Athos and the Coptic monasteries of Egypt. And I did not know that oppressions against Churches of the Eastern Rite “were also shelters from pressing theological problems.” Diarmaid MacCulloch asks a fascinating question: Can “this other-worldly spirituality and emphasis on an ancient liturgy . . . find a constructive relationship with modernity”? Put differently, how will the Orthodox undertake the inescapable task of “addressing children of the Enlightenment”?

    If two paragraphs provide this much reflection, I cannot imagine what 1184 pages will provide.

    8 Comments

      Alison
      March 6th, 2010 | 12:12 pm | #1

      This book looks very interesting indeed. I already own his book on the Reformation, but I have not read it yet. I also recently heard him speak on the BBC program In Our Time on a podcast about John Calvin.

      Peter Boston
      March 6th, 2010 | 4:52 pm | #2

      Joseph endured the enmity of his brothers, enslavement, and false imprisonment so that he would be in a position to nourish God’s Chosen People and rescue them from famine when the need arose.

      Perhaps the Orthodox Church has endured much and followed a different path since the Enlightenment for reason also.

      I can only speak for myself. Perhaps I am a bellwether. Perhaps not, but the ancient tradition and the direct connection to the apostolic era that only the Orthodox Church can provide is a source of comfort and grounded truth to me in these postmodern times.

      Eric Rasmusen
      March 6th, 2010 | 6:37 pm | #3

      Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church.[15]
      Wikipedia says, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church

      The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 300 million [4][5][6][7][16][17].

      Orthodoxy is the largest single religious faith in Belarus (85%), Bulgaria (83%), Republic of Macedonia (72%), Cyprus (80%), Georgia (89%), Greece (95%)[18], Moldova (98%), Montenegro (74%),[19] Romania (87%), Serbia (84%),[20], Russia (80%),[21] and Ukraine (80%).[22]

      I would guess that Prof. MacCulloch is using this kind of figure for his estimate. But if he used *average weekly attendance at church* or any other measure of belief as opposed to being in a country predominantly of one denomination as his measure, I wonder if the Orthodox would even make it to 2% of Christians worldwide,rather than 11%? Back in 1900, I would guess that the Russians actually were devout Orthodox, in which case the decline is even bigger than it looks.

      Alison
      March 7th, 2010 | 5:34 pm | #4

      Here is the link to the In Our Time podcast:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qvqpz.

      In Our Time is a BBC program.

      Perry Robinson
      March 7th, 2010 | 7:15 pm | #5

      There is some truth in what Jenkins and MacCulloch say, but there is something to keep in mind. Orthodoxy in Russia had a fair amount of intellectual exposure to and engagement with Enlightenment thought loing before the Soviets existed. Second, there isn’t really much that is new in Englishtenment thought since Neitzche either. Third, here I think is a better question.

      Did Orthodoxy reach a “constructive” relationship with antiquity? Did Russia? Just think about it for a moment. To understand the thought of western Europe, you have to grasp in reasonable measure Plato and Aristotle, but this is not true of Russia.

      orthodoxdj
      March 8th, 2010 | 4:11 pm | #6

      One day I hope all of this east/west crap will die. Truth is neither east nor west. God is neither east nor west. For many Orthodox “Western” is a putdown. I really don’t get it. Even amongst Orthodox folks, there is suspicion about the OCA and Western Rite Orthodoxy. A little understanding will go a long way for all. If we would listen more and argue less I think we would move forward a lot faster.

      Dale Coulter
      March 11th, 2010 | 11:27 pm | #7

      I missed this blog when it was initially published. I like Diarmaid. He is a great scholar and was quite pastoral in his approach to students when I was a Oxford. I envied those who had him as their doctoral advisor.

      Dale Coulter
      March 12th, 2010 | 6:18 am | #8

      I did my doctorate at Oxford in the late 90s. However, I studied the Middle Ages while Diarmaid was/is a Reformation scholar.

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact