Eastern Christianity

Week 4 - Eastern Christianity
The relationship between the east and the west particularly, the fall of the roman empire through to the 4th crusade.
In the 5/6th centuries the roman empire is under pressure from outside it’s boarders, we’ve looked at the goths and the franc kingdoms emerging who were pretty much brought into the fold as the military defenders. But much more threatening are those on the eastern boarders like the persian empires and the arabians. Not Islamic yet, but some Christian, some traditional type pagans. They would eventually become united under mohammed, and pose such a threat to the eastern empire that a lot of it would fall under arab, muslim control.
The last Roman emperor Romulous Augustine resigned in 476, effectively the date that people trot out for the end of the western empire. It was however briefly revived in the 6th century when a lot of the germanic tribes were brought under control of the western empire, 527-565 were re-conquered by Justiain. By 7th century it disappeared again when the arabs expanded there kingdom up to France where they were whopped.
After 7th century when speaking about the Roman empire, we are speaking about an increasingly tiny kingdom, an empire in name only. Christians in central and northern italy owe some kind of notional almost romantic allegiance to the emperor in constanstinople, and the pope for a long time still considers himself the emperors servant. Sees itself in a commonwealth of sorts, it doesn’t mean anything politically any more but all in the commonwealth have a kind of fondness for the monarch, a romantic attachment.
The real roman empire in the east is ceasing to be roman at all, it is becoming Greek. The court at Constantinople ceases to use Latin in its decrees, it is no longer the language of the army. Greek is now the language. The title emperor is dropped and replaced with Kings.
In the East, any connection with the greek half is gradually dropping away. A cultural gulf is growing up between them. The Western church is now dominated to Christianized Germans, they may have a notional allegiance, but never experienced the culture. Any differences in doctrine that later arise are due to cultural division.
2 big differences in terms of doctrine emerge - the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of the trinity.
Continuing dispute about who Christ is - 2nd person of trinity who are all equal in there divinity though different in there relationship to each other - councils of Nicene and Constantinople.
What’s this new problem - the doctrine that defined by two council in the 5th century - efficies in 431, calcedone in 451.
How can a human be the mother of God without being a God herself? God can’t have a mother a mother by definition - he’s eternal.
So the bishop of Constantinople, proposed that while it was not proper to call Mary the mother of God but it was proper to call her the Mother of Christ.
Even if the union between the divinity and the humanity came at a later point, the risk is the division of christ into two. If you accord to each of the two parts of Christ a full integrity, making it two people, you start hitting problems - was the human Christ possessed - spacesuit theology. But this puts down the humanity of Christ and his ability to relate to humanity - in suffering etc. The way its resolved, at the council of Calcedone, it’s okay to call Mary the Mother of God because she gave birth to one person, with a divine and a human nature united in one person. Fully divine and fully human sharing with each other in the one person.
BUT the fact that a council says something rarely actually resolves something.
By saying that it was okay that Mary was the mother of God the bishop who had objected got kicked out. He gathered himself supporters both in syria and in the persian empire and his followers known as Nestorian Christians spread along the empire along the silk trading routes and into China. When the arabs come and take over, they encounter Nestorian christians and are passed classical learning with it. Hence things like Aristotle are found within Islam.
There’s also a second schism at the other end of the nature of Christ, there are others that don’t like this tow natures in one person, they think it’s still two close to suggesting there’s two persons simply locked together.
Cyril of Alexandria (375-444) very orthodox but he was very suspicious of this two natures language, he said when the two natures were merged he said it was like a drop of milk dropping into the ocean, the milk is still there but the ocean is so vast, that it’s not proper to talk of Christ having two natures, he still recognizes that the milk is still there but it’s silly to talk of it as being a separate entity. He sees Christ as having a human nature fused with a divine nature. His followers are called the Monophysites. (or something!!!)
Problem is that this would take away from having a true human being. To really be a saviour he must be fully human. If a human being Jesus did not have body, soul, mind then there is something about us that was not fully redeemed. Only a human being can save other human beings. Cyril’s theory calls into question his humanity and therefore man kinds redemption.
Christianity in Egypt was still related to Cyril. After the council of Calceden, there were three groups, followers of the council, of cyril and nestor.
Cyril’s lot went down into Ethiopia, and it spread through syria as well following a concerted missionary effort to counter the nestorians.
The henotikon was an attempt to find a theology for reunion that was based on the theology of Cyril. He at least concedes that there are two natures. This is an attempt to bypass the council of Calcedene. This made some head way in the west, but as soon as it made any head way in the east, the west rejected it. Felix III excommunicated anyone who refused to accept the council of calceden, although he did this reluctantly. The pope sticks to his guns because he is setting himself against the emperor - at this point rome was ruled by germanic tribes so the pope had some protection. Papacy admits two governments but says that the government of the bishops is more important - hurrah Bishops have charge of the eternal souls so the bishops must always trump the world.
Eventually there is a resolution. but important precedent as been set - the papacy can call rulers to account.
recap:
1. Empire is under seize and also shrinking
2. As a result of invasion the east and the west are being culturally separate. In that cultural division the pope initially acts as a mediator but is increasingly torn between the two.
3. The east was deeply divided by three versions of post nicean Christianity, divided between theology of Christ’s humanity in relation to his divinity,
Justinian succeeded his uncle in the east in 527, his two empires were to unite the roman empire and to unite the east by bringing an end to the Christological divisions. Within 5 years of the beginning of his reign it already looked like the divisions in the east were going to break in to warfare.
e.g. 532, sports fans rioted and burnt down the main cathedral - church of the holy cathedral. The sports fans were divided into two groups the blues and the greens and there colors were associated with particular chariot drivers who raced in the hypadrome in Constantinople. The sporting divisions began to map themselves onto the religions divisions - calcedonians and monophysites. When that kind of civic disorder takes place so close to home - right in the emperors city the urgency to heal division is heightened.
So between 532 and 537, Justinian begins to rebuild the cathedral, it stands for Justinian’s perception of himself as the perfect Christian emperor. He views himself as the manager of the empire, the cathedral not only represents the religious but the political.
This is one of the first things he does as a symbol of his aspirations. Another important thing he does is that he commissions the codification of Roman law. So it is written down in one place - the civil law. This becomes a model for Christian kingship in the later middle ages, Justinian becomes a model king of sorts. Also becomes the model for the code of canon law and the model for the countries that use what we call roman law - scots, french, german, really everything except English law. But when James 4/5 tried to revived scots law in the 5th century, roman law rather than english was there model.
Justinian was fortunate in his choice of wife, because Theodora was monophysite, he was caldeonian and just by the very fact of there marriage, they managed to convince both sides it had the support of the imperial family. Theodora did a lot to support the monophysite interests earning the loathing of the calcedonians.
She founded monophysite monasteries which became mission based sites for missions in Sudan. She was also worried about nestorian persistence in syria, to bring the nestorians back into the fold converting them to monophysite christianity. So for a while Justinian and Theodora are playing both sides but not actually managing reconciliation. Until...
Justinian issues the Edict of the Three Chapters, condemning a number of theologians who were thought to be the founders of nestorian theology. The idea that by condemning them he showed Calcedonian christianity was not related to nestorian christianity.
The problem is that the three theologians are though orthodox by the east - pope included, so he rather feebly protested.
Justinian had re-conquered Italy and it was no longer in gothic hands so the pope vargilius didn’t have the protection that felix had, so justinian had him beaten up - how nasty.
Vargilius, relented.
Constantinople II (553)
Person hood of Christ discussed - human nature within divine nature - basically another attempt to resolve thing, does for a while in the east although the divisions soon break out another. In the west, it results in the excommunication of the pope.
People thing that the pope has sold out to the monophysites, excommunication was lifted at his death - shame!!!
Hymn of Justinian - key words - who without change didst become man.
New nature proposal - monothelite/monergite
New pope approves.
harmonious relationships seem to be solved in the west, but arguments still raging in the east.
When pope died in 638, the new pope Martin decided that the previous pope had been a heretic.
The new emperor, was so outraged he had Martin tortured, exiled and eventually executed. How mean!!
This had two sort of contradictory effects on the papacy.
When Martin decide previous pope had been heretic he did so appealing text in matthew - i am the rock etc. makes earliest papal appeal to that authority, but he is criticizing his predecessor, will come back to bite papacy later. Because one of the myths that the church later developed was that no pope had ever fallen into heresy. But Anorius, had according to martin.
Can a pope actually fall into heresy? But if a pope does, how do you deal with it and who can pull rank on the pope?? It was later decided that if a pope fell into heresy he was no longer pope so there could never be a heretical pope - very tenuous medieval theology.
There is no tidy resolution to this controversy.
Calcedonian wins mainly through attrition, its the religion of constantinople and greece but for the rest of the east, monophysite prevails but when islam moves in the christianity that survives, its monophysite maintains because its non roman and can’t be regarded as all that threatening.
So onto iconoclastic controversy.
Jumping into the 8th century...
eastern empire limited to western end of turkey, greece, the balkans, sicily and southern italy - remains of the greek speaking empire. The rest is under muslim rule. So the enemies of the empire have had dazzling success, reducing eastern empire by well over 2 thirds. A shadow of what it was once was in the east and certainly in the west. And the dispute over the use of holy images is turned up in this almost identity crisis that eastern christianity experiences as a result of this defeat.
If we have suffered these disasters who or what is to blame. Secondly if we are to achieve success again to repel these invaders, how will we win Gods favor. Holy images had a role in both of these questions because on the one hand images are to be instrumental in repelling invaders, they believe images are helping them in military endeavors, on the other hand when they experience defeat particularly by a culture that rejects images, perhaps it’s God anger at the images being shown.
Christians have been madly painting pictures from very early on. The illustration tends to be either highly figurative, or biblical.
Thursday’s lesson
Icons.
We saw pictures of richly painted churches, on the whole it’s accepted until the 7th century, when the empire finds itself under pressure from islam, so it needs to be decided what use icons have. Are they powerful vehicles or whether the success of islam is actually God’s punishment.
Islam refused to use images of created thing, representational art usurps Gods prerogative as creator. So Islamic art tends to be geometric decoration.
Example, some bishop held up the cross - not a crucifix but the two crossed bars, which repelled Islam's. So images began to be whitewashed and replaced with a simple cross.
Council of constantinople (the false one) called: Argument that God is beyond depiction because how do you draw the divine? If your saying that the depiction shows both in one figure you’re monophsyite because your saying it’s a mish mash of two natures. Criticizes John of Damascus, arab theologian living in syria.
John outlined the theology of icons as thus:
As human beings we have bodies and the way we find out about things is through our bodies we need to use our senses. ALL knowledge comes through bodies.
So in order to communicate with us God comes to us as we are, he uses our bodies to reveal himself to us, through words, signs (e.g. burning bush) etc.
God does this in Jesus Christ when he takes a body in order to communicate with us as a human being, he chooses to come to us visual in the body of christ.
So God uses images, fires, words, doves... but finally God becomes an image in Christ.
If God chooses to become visible then you can represent him as he has chosen to represent himself.
Jesus becomes a kind of a key to understanding all the other images around us, the whole world is a kind of code, but Jesus is the key to understanding that code.
If you can understand Jesus and how Jesus images God then you can understand the way in which everything else reflects God.
John lives in this universe which is a visible sermon, everything around you have a sermon to preach but it has to be understood through the key of Jesus, the first image of God, everything else is created through him, the world IS a image of Jesus.
He understands that icons are just things, and if we image that an image of jesus is Jesus himself we are wrong, it’s not Jesus it’s a picture. He sees idolitary is possible, but in so far tha you venerate what is represented there that’s no idolotary that’s worship paid to God. You can worship i tow ways - directly - ‘latria’, or you can worship his creatures as a form of his work, but you should never venerate the creatures as if they were Gods, John calls this veneration - ‘proskynesis’ - so when you venerate or kiss a statue, it’s kind of a second hand tribute to God.
In around 811, the Bulgarians invaded from the north and defeated the army of the emperor and decapitated him, and the leader Krum turned the head into a drinking cup. The same problem arises again - why is this happening?
In 818, the new emperor ordered all of the images removed, another council in constantinople is called.
Finally in 843, Michael III and his mother Theodora (the regent), (supporters of icons tended to be women), read out a declaration at the beginning of lent, in which the imperial family declares that icons are fine, date still celebrated as the feast of orthodoxy in the east.
The photian schism 9th century, breach between east and west getting really serious now.
Empress Theodora, eventually got over thrown by her teenage her son, Michael III, part of this cue against his mother, meant getting rid of the bishop Ignatius who fled to Rome. Michael found Photius, a layman but he seemed to be a safe pair of hands, someone who would work in support of emperor, he’s quickly ordained, and made a bishop. In this period when a bishop was elected, or ordained, it was customary that he send a letter to all the bishops in the area, or as a patriarch the other four patriarchs, this is what Photius did. The pope, Nicholas I saw this as an opportunity to apply some pressure, yes i’ll recognise you as bishop if you sort these things out for me.
Nick wanted control over sicily and the south of italy, these areas had always been greek speaking and fallen under the juridiction of rome in theory, but they were greek speaking enclaves in the western empire, but they were kind of annexed by the east, but the pope said he wanted at least spiritual jurisdiction.
Secondly, the bulgarians were beginning to get interested in Christianity but didn’t want to be subject to the east, so they had asked the pope to send latin missionaries, so the pope said he wanted to have control over the bulkans, which wasn’t actually a greek speaking area, again he wanted spiritual control so he could continue his mission.
He also did not want laymen appointed bishops anymore, otherwise any political type could be patriarch, it needed to be monks or priests.
Michael said yes to not appointing laymen but not the other requests.
This doesn’t stop the bulgarians agitating for roman missionaries and in 866, Khan Boris I said letters to Nicholas asking about the differences in the east and west asking why there were differences and who was right.
By this stage it’s becoming common for western clergy to be celebate, in the east they continued to marry. And more importantly, the westerners had also added a new bit into the creed in relation to the holy spirit - filioque - meaning ‘and the son’
With the father, he is worshiped / With the father and the son, he is worshiped and glorified.
In the New western version, the son is begotten from the father, in the east, both the son and the spirit, came from the father.
The West, Jesus was always there.