Religious history and church history; two subjects which ought to be academic partners, but often contain a vast chasm between the two. ‘Religious history’ (which is a synonym for ‘Christian history’ when it involves medieval-modern history of Western Europe) is typically the remit of academia; these are the books which are published by Oxford University Press, Yale University Press, Manchester University Press…you get the picture.
On the other hand, ‘church history’ is remitted to ‘church historians’ who – more often than not – are pastors who have studied historical theology or ‘church history’ at seminary – many of whom have even completed PhDs on this subject. These experts typically publish their materials in the ‘Christian’ publishers such as Baker Academic, InterVarsity Press, (i.e., specific Christian publishers who are also renowned for publishing Christian devotional books, bibles, inspirational reads, etc)
So what is the difference, and why the distinction? On the face of it, it may appear that those who write the former are the ‘secular’ non Christian academics who are seeking to analyse various people and movements. The latter might initially be identified as the actual Christians writing their own history. Often, this might be the case; indeed, it is not infrequent for church historians to be pastors or involved in Christian ministry in some facet.
However, there are certainly exceptions – I am both a Christian, and writing academic ‘religious’ (i.e., Christian) history. I would not identify myself in the camp of ‘church historians’ however, and I think it is fundamentally important that the history of Christianity is given more attention by those using the ‘religious history’ model, and not exclusively by the ‘church history’ model. I hope I will persuade you why this is important.
Firstly – ‘Church history’ has an agenda. Now this is true of all history, to be fair. All written histories have some kind of bias – contextual, cultural, etc. The way I write history (regardless of what I study) will inevitably be determined by how I view the concepts I am researching, and how my culture (and sub cultures) have influenced my biases. This doesn’t have to be a problem – as long as it is addressed. As long as you recognise the agenda, its existence doesn’t have to be detrimental to enjoying such literature.
What is the agenda of ‘church history’? It is, in a sense, to promote the mission of Christianity. While this can have subtle differences which will be incorporated based upon denominations and doctrinal positions it mainly involves the following:
- Evangelizing – many ‘church histories’ will be saturated in ‘preaching’ of the gospel message. Not infrequently these narratives will mimick the tone and content of a sermon.
- Discipleship – church histories, especially hagiographic literature, is meant to encourage the readers to grow and mature in their faith. Due to this, there is often a moral message/argument in the histories. Characters involved are often presented in the best light in order to offer solid ‘examples’ which other Christians might emulate in their lives. And this particular point leads me to the second point of my argument.
Secondly – ‘Church history’ de-humanizes people. By this I do not mean it degrades them – far from it. Instead, ‘church histories’ (as noted, especially hagiographies) tend to elevate people. It presents them in such a fine light that it seems they did little wrong. Errors which are addressed are often presented in such a way to suggest that they were eventually rectified and overcome. However, in presenting ‘saints’ in this manner, historians do a disservice. These ‘saints’ do not represent the ‘everyman’ when he/she has a relationship with God – instead they create a bar which is too high to jump for most mortal human beings.
I believe that ‘religious history’ provides a solution to this potential issue which, if untethered, could easily end up providing a version of ‘fake news’ to its readers.
- ‘Religious history’ allows these narratives to be shared, within their own contexts and cultures
- ‘Religious history’ respects the Christian message which was lived out by its proponents
- ‘Religious history’ provides a realistic view of the life – warts and all – that these individuals and their communities embodied.
Rabbit Trails 