The Flow of Ideas in Church History: From the Early Church to the Modern Era

A talk to students at Conestoga College, Kitchener, Ontario

By Dr. James A. Hughes

I’d like to speak to you concerning the history of Christianity viewed through the eyes of the history of the church. The history of Christianity includes the history of the church. So by studying the history of the church we can learn much about the history of Christianity. And since Christianity is as old as the history of man (which may strike you as quite a statement), the history of the church goes back to the beginning of the history of man.

But usually when we think of studying the history of Christianity and therefore of the church, we begin with the coming of Christ to the earth some two thousand years ago. And this is where I want to begin.

But first I want to say something about the teaching of church history. In spite of what people think, church history is a subject worth studying today. Its supposed irrelevance is due to a number of factors, one of which is tied to the way this subject is taught. It seems that those teaching church history often fail to give sufficient attention to the connection that the thinking of the people of one generation has with the thinking of the people of the next generation. This is a serious mistake. What people think in one generation greatly affects what people think in the succeeding generation, and this is surely true in the history of the church.

There is a flow to church history, or in its history there is a flow of ideas or beliefs from generation to generation. For example, a lively church takes the teachings of the Bible seriously. But if the church in one generation believes these teachings but doesn’t live in accordance with them, the church in the following generation will invariably water down these teachings. Unhappily it will still be called a church, but it will be mainly a church in name only. And this may well be the case today, to a great extent. And of course a church in such situation doesn’t have anything vital to say to a culture. What it says isn’t worth listening to, and therefore the church is written off as irrelevant.

This having been said, let’s take a short walk through certain periods in the history of the church to see the flow of its beliefs and ideas and their relevance today. A look at the period of the Early Church will help to lay a foundation for this.

With the coming of Christ, a new era began for the church; and the designation the Early Church is given to the church as it existed at the beginning of this era, i.e., from the time of Christ’s coming through approximately the 4^th century. My focus will be basically on the period of Christ and His Apostles when I use the term the Early Church.

The Early Church believed that Christ taught the absolute truth concerning Himself (i.e., that He is God) and that Christ taught the absolute truth concerning His mission (which was to save people from their sins through their receiving Him as their LORD and Saviour). The Early Church also believed that Christ’s Apostles taught the same truth. And it adhered to the teaching of Christ and His Apostles and proclaimed this teaching within the regions of the Roman Empire. And it should be noticed that the thinking of the Romans was based on the thinking of the Greeks before them. And the thinking of the Greeks began with man and not with God, or it began with gods who were limited, i.e., with finite gods who were creatures of man’s imagination and thus who could be manipulated by man. So it still meant that man was in control. In the thinking of the Greeks and therefore of the Romans everything revolved around man.

Of course this thinking worked itself out in practice. Since the Romans believed that man was at the center, it was natural that emperor-worship would develop. This caused a problem for the Early Church. It viewed worship of the emperor as idolatry, and thus it refused to render such worship. This resulted in its being persecuted.

This problem for the Early Church is to be seen in terms of the Roman Empire’s view of the state. The Romans considered the unity of the state supreme. Therefore anything that disrupted this unity wasn’t tolerated. And since the worship of the emperor was considered a vital part of the unity of the state, those who refused to worship the emperor were viewed as enemies of the state and thus liable to the penalty of death.

There was another problem that statism caused for the Early Church. The Roman State was considered absolute, and thus it wouldn’t tolerate anything that judged it and its actions. The Early Church’s absolute was God’s law that judged the Roman state. This issued in a clash between the church and the Roman state. And this clash resulted in Christians being thrown to the lions in the arena. This of course amounted to persecution in its severest form.

The persecution of the church ended with the coming of Emperor Constantine in the 4^th century. Christianity became a legal religion in the year 313, and in 381 it became the state religion of the Roman Empire. This resulted in a dramatic change for the church! But it was a mixed blessing. Along with the removal of persecution came indifference to the things that really count. The church was sapped of its vitality, because many came into the church who were indifferent to the great teachings for which the church had stood during the days of persecution.

Also when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, an alliance between the state and the church resulted. There’s certainly nothing wrong with an alliance between the state and the church. There should be an alliance between the two institutions. But a wrong view of such an alliance resulted eventually in either the church interfering in state affairs or the state in church affairs. The separation of the two institutions wasn’t maintained. So serious church-state problems developed.

And serious church-state problems have persisted right up to the present day. Church-state problems are definitely front and center in our day, especially as they relate to the issue of the separation of church and state. Much of the difficulty concerning the separation of church and state has arisen because of a confusion between religion and church. Religion and church aren’t to be equated. There should be a separation of church and state but not of religion and state. But our culture has separated the state from religion. This is why we have what is called a “secular state.” This is the result of events that began long ago in history, including the history of the church. There is a flow to history, some of which is good and some of which is bad. And the present church-state and religion-state situation is bad indeed.

And not only is there a church-state, religion-state problem today; there is also a theological problem. Theology, the science about God, is pooh-poohed or made light of in our so-called secular society. But our society is the loser for this. And I want to show you why. Nobody can rightly doubt that man is finite and thus limited. There’s nothing wrong with man’s being finite and limited. This is the way God created man. But man isn’t only finite and limited. There’s something abnormal about man in his present state. His thinking is misdirected. His will is misguided. And his affections are misplaced. He has tensions within—this is the psychological problem. He has poor relationships with others—this is the sociological problem. And he is alienated from a God who is infinite and unlimited—this is the theological problem. But because the theological problem is made light of in our day, we have psychological and sociological problems that defy solution. This is what happens when you begin with man and not with God. And this means that we’re right back where the Greeks and Romans were in their thinking. There’s a flow to history. The Greeks and Romans thought man was at the center, and so does today’s culture. Beginning with man instead of with God the Greeks and Romans didn’t have an answer to the great problems or questions of meaning and purpose in life, and our culture doesn’t either.

If you begin with man, you can’t get any higher than the Greeks did; but the Greeks didn’t get off the ground (in terms of solutions to the great problems of life). But in spite of this the church has tried to incorporate Greek thought into its teachings down through the centuries. This is very noticeable, for example, when one studies the history of the church during the period called the Middle Ages (the period dated approximately from the 5^th century to the 15^th century). During this period there were not only clashes between church and state for the ascendancy but also there arose a mixing of Greek thought and Christianity.

This mixture was evident, for instance, in the labors in the 13^th century of the philosopher-theologian Thomas Aquinas (whose teachings have had a tremendous influence on the Roman Catholic Church and on much of Protestant thought). Aquinas, out of respect for the Greek philosopher Aristotle, opened the door which led to placing the revelation which God has given and human reason on a par with each other. And revelation and reason were seen to be in different areas: revelation was in the area of grace (or in the heavenly area), whereas reason was in the area of nature (or in the earthly area). This led to revelation and reason being divided by a cement wall as it were. This amounts to thinking that God’s revelation has no relevance so far as earthly things are concerned and that man’s use of reason is all that’s necessary in conducting earthly affairs. And isn’t this a picture of what our culture in general thinks? In its thinking God has become irrelevant. He isn’t the guide. The so-called experts in the specialized fields are viewed as the guides.

So in the battle between God and man it may appear that God has lost. But this isn’t really the case. God never loses, in spite of appearances. God in His providence controls all the affairs that take place on earth. His hand is never off the controls. And thus His hand is always on the controls so far as the church is concerned. Sometimes the church is down (when God judges it). And sometimes it’s up (when God blesses it). And there’s no question that it’s down in our day. The church is weak, and this shows that it’s under God’s judgment.

But the church was up in the 16^th century. In that century a great reformation took place. This reformation changed the face of Northern Europe. It began in the church and affected the whole of society. As the church went so went society.

What happened in the church that caused this great change? Many in the church returned to the great teachings of Christ and His Apostles. That is, they returned to the great teachings of the Early Church. Thus God worked in power in the church, and this had a positive effect on society. God raised up leaders (called Reformers) such as Martin Luther (the German Reformer who sparked the Reformation by posting 95 theses for debate on the church door at Wittenberg) and John Calvin (the French Reformer who helped to spread the Reformation in France and Switzerland, especially in Geneva). These men believed in the sovereignty of God and not in the sovereignty of man. And because the Reformers began with God in their thinking and not with man, their thinking was opposed to that of the Greeks. They dealt with the same questions (the great questions of life) but were convinced that the answers to these questions didn’t come from themselves. They didn’t bow to man but to God who has revealed Himself. The Greeks bowed to man—that was their problem. And in the Middle Ages there was a mixture—a bowing to man (in other words, to human reason) along with an attempt to bow to God. And this created a problem. Whereas the Reformers at the time of the Reformation bowed to God alone. And thus they had a solution to the problems confronting man.

As you have doubtless noticed, I’m presenting this material from a certain viewpoint. I’m dealing with the vital issues of life, and everyone takes sides concerning these issues. There is no neutrality in connection with these great matters. And in the war of ideas being waged today, the battle lines are drawn between those who claim that there are answers to the great questions concerning the meaning and purpose of life and those who claim that it’s impossible to have answers to these questions. These great questions have captured the attention of thinkers from time immemorial, and the church of all institutions should have answers to such important questions. If it doesn’t, it has no reason to exist. It should long to honor God and His Word, where the answers are to be found. But a large segment of the church has followed the culture in trying to remove God from its life. This is shown in the way people in the church live. They live as though they’re not accountable to God. So in a real sense the church is in a predicament with reference to answers just as much as the culture.

I want to make it clear that not all that is called the church is living like the culture and is thus groping blindly for answers. There are those in the church who want to live for God and obey His law. But much of the church has become culturally conditioned. And this is one of the tragic repeats of church history. In a sense, church history as well as history in general repeats itself. Of course there’s a linear aspect to history, i.e., history is moving in a line toward its predetermined consummation. But there’s also a cyclical aspect to history. History repeats itself. And if we don’t learn the lessons of history, we repeat the mistakes of history. The church needs to be reminded of this constantly.

This is one of the values of studying church history. By studying church history we see the rights that were done and the wrongs that were done in the church, and why they were done and the good or the bad that resulted. The church has had a history, and this history has had a tremendous effect on the church in our day—and on the culture at large.

But there’s a tendency in our day to view church history as something that’s insignificant. History books that are written today are an example of this. The part that the church has played in society is either underemphasized or omitted in these books. And thus a vital aspect of history has been lost to today’s readers.

This relates to my purpose in this brief survey. My purpose is to show you why we are where we are in our thinking today, and what that thinking is and the vital part church history has played in this. I began with the Early Church and looked at the Middle Ages and the period of the Reformation, and then I jumped to the present day. At this point I want to fill in the gap. How did we get from the thinking of the Reformation to the thinking of today? In other words, how did we get from a high point in the history of the church at the time of the Reformation to the low point of today?

I think the main influence was a movement called “the Enlightenment.” The Enlightenment was an 18^th century movement in Europe that questioned traditional beliefs and emphasized human reason and the so-called scientific method. In the context of the Enlightenment, to emphasize human reason amounts to rationalism, i.e., it amounts to making human reason the all-determining factor with reference to one’s beliefs. Surely a person is to use his reason concerning what he believes, but rationalism places a premium on man’s reason and thus places man at the center in terms of his beliefs (harking back to the Greeks). And the scientific method is the method used to determine the truth or falsity of a belief. So it’s man’s reason that determines (through the use of the scientific method) whether a belief is true or false, according to those who have been influenced by Enlightenment-thought.

And Enlightenment-thought has had a devastating effect on how people view the authority of the Bible, Christianity’s and the church’s law-book. Man’s reason becomes the judge of what is to be accepted or rejected in the Bible. This was evidenced recently. Seventy-four scholars, members of the so-called Jesus Seminar, came to the conclusion that only about 20% of what the Bible claims Jesus said He actually said. The things they claim He said are sociological. And the things they claim He didn’t say are theological. For example, they claim that Jesus did say: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (a sociological statement). But they claim that Jesus didn’t say: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (a theological statement). This seminar’s results are an example of man’s reason judging God’s revelation. In other words, they’re an example of the influence of the thought of the Enlightenment on present-day thinking. And also they’re an example of the influence of Enlightenment-thought on the church, for theologians (those in positions of influence in the church) were doubtless engaged in the “Jesus Seminar.”

Looking again at the statement “[i]f anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,” which those engaged in the “Jesus Seminar” claim that Jesus didn’t say but which the Bible claims He did say, it should be mentioned that of the three principal monotheistic religions (i.e., the religions claiming to worship one God, namely, Christianity, Judaism and Islam) only Christianity recognizes that Jesus is God. And therefore according to Christianity Jesus’ words that a person should take up his cross and follow Him are totally reasonable.

Now because we’re living in the modern era of the church, I want to say more about this era in terms of the church. Secularism is dominant in our society. Not only has secularism engulfed the state; it has also infiltrated the church. Nothing is considered sacred in our culture, and the church has been affected by this. It accepts whatever is culturally convenient. And there’s no question that the church has been relegated to the backwaters. And religion is considered to be a private matter. It’s viewed as having no place in the public arena. And it’s viewed as simply one compartment of life, and an insignificant one at that. And in our pluralistic society no religion is considered the true religion. So everything is up for grabs.

The only religion accepted by the culture is a vague civil religion, which is a religious mixture not called a religion and which means anything anybody wants it to mean. Probably this religion is accepted by the culture simply because it gives the impression that the culture has a moral base. And the culture uses the church to promote this impression. So the culture’s calling the shots.

The church should be molding the culture, but in our day it’s the other way around. The church is being molded by the culture. A basic reason for this is that by and large the church has lost its message. And therefore it has nothing to say to the culture. So it and Christianity are considered outmoded. We’re living in what many have called a post-Christian era. But in a so-called world come of age or an enlightened age the picture isn’t pretty. Exhibit A: Look at the violence in our cities! People are afraid to walk the streets. I think it’s clear that the church must bear a great responsibility for this. Much of the church has become morally and spiritually bankrupt. And this has had a disastrous effect on the culture, from the government on down. God’s rulership has been denied—all across the board! And thus our culture is in trouble—all across the board!

And to add to our culture’s (and indeed the church’s) troubles is the fact that much that is called “Christianity” isn’t really Christianity, in the historic or Biblical sense of the term. In other words, it’s Christianity in name only. It actually amounts to a different religion, which uses the same words as historic Christianity but has emptied these words of their historic meaning. That is, it has given meanings to these words that are different from the meanings given to them by Christ and His Apostles. Implied in this is a denial of the exclusiveness and distinctiveness of Christianity.

How did this come about? A strand of it can be traced to the influence of the study of comparative religions. Around the turn of the century, the various religions were studied for the purpose of noting their similarities (not their differences). This led to a leveling of the religions. That is to say, it was contended that all the religions have basic elements in common. So-called interfaith meetings are based on such a contention. This contention was given a thrust in the 60’s when what is called the “ecumenical movement” was in vogue. The word “ecumenical” literally means “the inhabited world.” Although the ecumenical movement has lost a lot of attention, it has a worldwide focus. This focus is of course on all the branches of what is called the Christian religion. But it apparently has wider intentions than this. It seems that the object in view is that eventually all the religions of the world would be included in the ecumenical orbit. A one-world, man-centered religion would be the outcome. And this would include more people than some might think, because everybody is religious (in spite of what many, if not most, people today believe). A person’s religion is either God-centered or man-centered. Those who are considered non-religious (or consider themselves non-religious) are simply worshipping man instead of God. So these persons would be included in the envisioned one-world, man-centered religion. And unhappily, this would doubtless include some people in the church—and even some among the clergy. Should we be surprised then that the churches are in a mess today? And what about the culture at large? When historic Christianity is repudiated, as is the case in general today, we shouldn’t be surprised that things are topsy-turvy and that world leaders are wringing their hands trying to cope with domestic and international problems. Historic Christianity is a world-and-life religion. It’s a universal religion embracing every area of life. So its principles apply when one is dealing with both domestic and international matters. And since Christianity is a God-centered religion, God is to be considered in all decisions that are made by the governments in church and state, as well as by individuals. But our leaders in church and state are forgetting this in their decisions; so they’re trying to solve problems on their own. But they simply wind up creating more problems.

When the great truth that God rules over the affairs of the church and the nation is repudiated, the church and the nation are asking for trouble. The Early Church knew this: it believed in the absolute rulership of God. But this believing legacy wasn’t passed on. So the church in the Middle Ages tried to divide the rulership between God and man, which brought darkness to both church and nation. But God in His mercy caused a reformation to take place in the church and thus brought light to both church and nation in Northern Europe. But this didn’t last. The so-called Enlightenment burst upon the scene. Its devastating effects are still felt in both church and nation. We’re reaping not only what our generation has sown but also what previous generations have sown. There’s a flow to history. If we don’t understand the past, we’ll never understand the present—we’ll never understand why both the church and the culture are in the trouble they’re in today and why people are searching for something that will give meaning to life.

The search for meaning is very evident today. A vivid example of this is found in the Oct. 10, ’94 issue of Maclean’s, in an article entitled “The New Spirituality.” According to this article there’s “a massive search for meaning in life” or “a massive quest for a new spirituality.” Money, education and success haven’t brought people a meaningful life. So they’re still searching for something that they hope will give life meaning. In this connection, it’s mentioned in the article that “most people need a new language [or way of communication]. . . that makes spirituality real for them again.” But is this really the answer? The way we communicate is very important, but so is what is communicated. We should communicate clearly to the people of our day; but we should also communicate that which has stood the test of time, namely, the message of historic Christianity. This message, which is totally up-to-date and gives meaning to life, is of course grounded in the past. But many people today believe that the past has nothing to say to them. They’re living only for the present. But the present has no meaning apart from the past. A present not grounded in the past is an empty present. And an empty present brings emptiness and uncertainty to people’s lives. So it’s not surprising that there’s a search for certainty and meaning in life. But the spiritual search mentioned in the article in Maclean’s is really going down a dead-end street. For people are “sampling a smorgasbord of beliefs” in an attempt to find meaning in life. But I must say with concern that they won’t find meaning in life by sampling the smorgasbord. It will simply cause more confusion in their lives and more fuzziness in their beliefs.

But this sampling can occur when the church isn’t meeting people’s needs. Much of the church has left its historical teachings and beliefs and thus is floating aimlessly on the sea of an empty present. And therefore it’s in no position to meet the needs of people. This is the tragedy of the church. And the tragedy of the church is the tragedy of the culture. Both the church and the culture are sampling a smorgasbord of beliefs. And this leads to the statement that really sums up what is discussed in the article in Maclean’s. Here’s the statement: “Spirituality is so much more than can be confined to any one religion or belief system.” This statement pinpoints the problem connected with this spiritual quest for meaning, for it implies that no single religion or belief system can bring satisfaction to man. And this statement further implies that no single religion or belief system is a complete system which answers the great questions of life. And thus it’s considered necessary to sample the smorgasbord of beliefs. But the result is that one comes up with a patchwork of beliefs which can’t be united to form a sufficient belief system. And one can’t live on the basis of such a jumble of beliefs. To try to live on such a basis is to fly in the face of reality.

Now it’s obvious that what I’ve presented is an indictment against both the church in its present state and the culture in its present state. I’ve tried to look at the situation realistically, and this is the only valid conclusion that I think can be reached. This is surely a pessimistic assessment. Does this mean then that the church has no future? It certainly doesn’t mean this! Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church. And Christ can make this claim stick, for He is both God and the Head of the church.

But these are dark days for both Christianity and the church. And because they’re dark days for Christianity and the church, they’re dark days for the culture. The culture thinks that it has thrown off all restraints. It’s an anything-goes culture. And this means that it’s a culture enslaved by its own lack of restraints. And thus it’s a culture on a slippery slope. This provides a great opportunity for Christianity and the church to speak, not only with a message of judgment but also with a message of love and concern. The God of Christianity is a God of justice, but He’s also a compassionate God. This is the message the world needs. And only Christianity can provide it.

But many consider Christianity irrelevant in our day. Does a religion rooted in the past really have anything to say to 20^th-century man? It certainly does! Is this century so different from the previous ones that a religion that met the needs of man then no longer meets his needs? Not at all!

In spite of great technological advancements, the 20^th century isn’t basically different from preceding centuries. Because God and the general needs of man remain the same, there’s a sameness pervading every century. God isn’t relevant in one century and irrelevant in the next, and the basic needs of man met in one century aren’t unsatisfied in the next.

The great illusion of our day is that we are so different from those who went before. And we think that everything that went before was crude and unsophisticated. But is this a realistic assessment? Hardly!

Even our technology has been built upon the past. Let’s never forget this. There’s a continuity between the past and the present. We can’t throw out the past and still live meaningfully in the present. The past is speaking to us, and we need to listen.

To live realistically in the present we must know something about the past. We have lost a sense of history. And we need to recover this. The drama of history is portrayed before us. It leaves a stream that flows into the present, and we must not turn a blind eye to this great fact.

We are playing fast and loose with the present, because we have a faulty view of the past. And we have a faulty view of the past because the God of history, who also stands over the present, isn’t taken into account. Nor is His plan. The plan of God underlies the stream of history, and it’s in God’s plan that there’s a church in the world. From the beginning of history God has had a church in the world; so history has no meaning apart from the history of the church. It’s the great epochs in the history of the church that have been instrumental in the flow of history. History has shown that the church has had a profound effect on the direction that history itself has taken.

And the story of the church is involved in the story of Christianity. So Christianity has something to say to the 20^th century. It spoke to previous centuries, and it speaks to our century.

But the tragedy is that our century isn’t listening. It’s a century in rebellion against God, and thus it’s turning a deaf ear to what Christianity is saying. Our century hears what it wants to hear, and it certainly isn’t taking seriously the claims of Christianity. And therefore as our century nears its conclusion it’s going with lightning speed down the road to ruin. Only the God of Christianity, using a revived church, can stem the tide.

Copyright © 1996, Jon Hughes. All rights reserved.