The Winners get to write the history

But does this mean that the winners are wrong? Maybe...but maybe not. I think there is a popular thread of thinking these days that yearns for the winners to always be wrong (either morally or literally in their retelling of history) Or at the very least, they wish to assert that there isn't really a wrong or a right and that history is wholly dependent on the teller and the listener. (Therefore I declare that Hiroshima never happened. Hey, why not, North Korea denies history all the time!)

Anyway...getting off topic here. In discussing "The DaVinci Code" I meantioned that we live in a culture that LOVES conspiracy, hates powerful hierarchies, and adores the thought of exposing them as bedfellows. Part of what is fueling a resurgence in so called "gnostic" Christianity or some odd mish-mash or Arianism is the notion that the 1st Ecumenical Council represented the hijacking of Christianity by the wealthy and the politically powerful for their own nefarious purposes.

Many Protestants buy into the same notion, albeit with slightly different conclusions (i.e. Nicea got the theology right - don't ask how - but the politically powerful then screwed up the practice of the faith and it just went downhill from there as they hijacked the simple "organic" faith of the Church.) I'm not following that vein today though.

Bad news for the modern gnostics, Arians, and general DaVinci code believers who seek to cheer for the underdog: You are cheering for the wrong guy. Questions: Who was it that was banished and exiled numerous times by the politically powerful? Who was it that is often referred to as standing "against the world"? Ahhh... Saint Athanasios, that's right! And he was (eeeeek....run away!) ORTHODOX, not an Arian! And who was persecuting him? The Arians! Hmmmm. So if you take a step back before Nicea, you get a different perspective: those asserting that Jesus was just a man were persecuting those who believed He was God.

So you see, the story of Nicea fits right into our beloved notions of the underdog winning the day and overcoming the politically powerful. And so those that adore such a victory ought to be chanting the Nicene Creed with me - it represents victory of the underdog fighting for truth. And as we all know, those who fight against the tyranny of the politically powerful are ALWAYS right, right? So, I'll see you next sunday...email me and I'll let you know when the next catechism class is.

Unfortunately, in true non-Hollywood style, the Arians still held most of the power for quite sometime after Nicea....but that doesn't make for a very good ending does it?

And you know, St. Athanasios really isn't unusual. Some of the best known Orthodox Saints: Sts. John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and Maximus the Confessor all stood against the politically powerful and suffered greatly for it. In the end however...standing against the politically powerful doesn't auomatically make you right - as much as we might like to think so. But again, if you do think so, our doors are open - come on in.

Now, standing against the Politically Correct? AXIOS!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Even small knowledge of Church history puts a lie to the notion that the rich and powerful run the Church. And the most astonishing fact is how little this is known.

-Rick
Mimi said…
Axios indeed!

I think the heart of it is a general lack of knowledge about the Ecumenical Councils and what was going on at the time.

Do you know a good book on them? I've been looking and not found one yet.
fdj said…
I think the absolute best is Pelikan's series on doctrine. Particularly the first 3 books.

James
Anonymous said…
I would caution though that Pelikan's series is a very dense read, not something you can wade through without some effort... Or at least that is how I found it!

Rade
Mimi said…
Rade, I'm so glad you said that. When James gave that reply, I thought "I'm such a flunky. I tried to read the first volume and got way bogged down and finally returned it to the Church Library"

Popular Posts