I’m sharing this study of the history of Christianity from the Useful-Charts YouTube channel because I think it’s really helpful. What I’m going to do is link and embed this video here, and then share some thoughts that I have from the video centering on Jesus’ two parables of the Mustard See and Leaven. I recommend watching the video first, but, I’ve written this post in such a way that you can read it alone without watching the longer video.
Here’s the History of Christianity:
Now, before I make the points I want to make, I think it will be helpful to make a few observations: first, while the author was raised in a Christian denomination, he since converted to Judaism and is not Christian, which shows in this video (both for better and for worse); second, while the author shows an awareness of various theological viewpoints, he’s approaching this from the perspective of secular academia, which means this video will upset some believers who aren’t used to interacting with secular academic views on Christian because he will not recognize the work of God or give priority to God’s word; and third, this video doesn’t wade into theology very much, meaning that it doesn’t cope with some of the most important details that are relevant to the development of Christianity across time. So Christians will see things differently from this video because we believe God’s hand is still active and the nuance of theology that he ignores is very significant to us. However, this video is still very helpful precisely because by ignoring these thorny issues it is able to pay attention to the setting in which Christianity grows and develops over time, which I believe is very important when trying to understand ourselves as Christians.
I also want to offer some preliminary thoughts on how this author structured this study that I want to share before I make my point: first, for my purposes, it would’ve been more helpful to share this chart as an upward “tree” rather than a downward lineage because it would’ve reflected Jesus’ parable of the mustard tree, so imagine the first period he describes as a trunk growing upward; second, I disagree on his take about pre-Nicene Christianity because he suggests these were competing versions of Christianity much like our modern understanding of denominationalism, whereas I think they were rejected corruptions. He’s taking the secular-view, which envisions not “one original version” of Christianity, but multiple converging and emerging versions that eventually consolidated through power-struggles into the “Nicene Christianity“. My view is that in the person of Jesus we have “one original version” of the Christian faith that he taught to his disciples, the faith once and for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3), and the Church then began to work that faith out in radically different contexts and times. So, much like the mustard tree of Jesus’ parable, we have roots and an identifiable trunk from which the whole tree grows. I will, obviously, reject Zoroastrianism and Hellenism as contributors to the Christian faith (although they were part of the context out of which Christianity comes), and I reject Gnosticism and Jewish-Christianity (what he later calls Ebionite Christianity) as “competing versions”; I think they were merely rejected corruptions. And I think my view is evidenced both by their historic “extinction” and subsequent rejection every time they attempt to reemerge throughout history.
So, for the points that I’m going to make here, it will be helpful for you to picture this history of the Christian Church as both a mustard tree and leaven that spreads throughout the world. There is, indeed, one trunk. There is, indeed, one leaven. And the one who decides which branches get cut off is the Gardner (i.e. God). So we can understand envision the growth of the Church like a tree and like leaven without necessarily having to decide which branches will be cut off and which won’t.
Let’s consider two of Jesus’ parables:
Matthew 13:31–33 (CSB) — 31 He presented another parable to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. 32 It’s the smallest of all the seeds, but when grown, it’s taller than the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the sky come and nest in its branches.” 33 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and mixed into fifty pounds of flour until all of it was leavened.”
Jesus says that his Kingdom will be like a small mustard seed that becomes greater than all the other nations on earth. And, he compares it to leaven being mixed into the whole world. His point is that his Kingdom would grow from a small band of disciples into the greatest Kingdom on earth, not like the nations who expand by military and economic conquest, but like leaven that is mixed into the nations and spreads within them! And this is precisely what we’ve seen happen, as Christianity is now bigger than even the most populous nations on earth, growing from within them, and giving more financial aid to the poor, displaced, and afflicted than even the richest nations on earth. Put simply, what the history of the Christian Church shows us is that God’s people have spread throughout the world and grown into a mighty Kingdom.
Now I want to share my framework for how I interpret Christian history, which I think is illustrated nicely by this video (even though it’s not the author’s point):
1) Christianity’s early development centered around the identity of Jesus and our spiritual relationship to him. We see divisions that are primarily concerned with the nature of Jesus. You’ll notice that the results of these divisions are far more decisive, with breakaway views ultimately becoming “extinct” (the author’s term). These corruptions about the nature of Jesus were rejected across the board and have always been rejected every time they were reintroduced throughout history, showing where the Christian faith is firmly united. This era was about establishing the foundations of the Christian faith and is where we see what the author calls “Nicene-Christianity” ultimately clarified.
I see the idea of “stages” in Christian growth reflected in different ways: I think we see this idea in Paul’s discourse to the Ephesians where he describes the Church as “growing into maturity” (4:13), as a body that all believers work to “build up” (4:12), and as our going from “children” to “mature” (4:14, 16). Although the one Christian faith has been entrusted to the Church from the beginning, our understanding of that faith has to grow and mature, like a child who must put away childish thinking and become mature. We have struggled to understand how to work out this faith in the complexities of this world. And we do not always get things right. God alone can judge us. And God does “cut off branches”, which is why we must take these things seriously and “contend earnestly for the truth”, but “with love and gentleness”, “striving to maintain the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace”. But it seems clear to me that this growth and maturity is evident across the scope of Christian history.
2) Christianity’s second stage of development begins to be concerned with the identity of the Church. We see divisions that are primarily concerned with the nature of the Church herself. So you’ll notice that the results of these divisions create branches that continue to grow, split, and merge even to this day. These divisions created “communions” within broader Christianity that were united by their theological understanding and shared self-identity. Each of these communions were based on the faith that was clarified in the Nicene confession, but they were worked out in dramatically different contexts and times. This era was about laying the groundwork for how the Christian faith would be broadly understood and expressed, which is why it focused so heavily on things like “orthodoxy” (i.e. Christian beliefs), “orthopraxy” (i.e. Christian practice), and “ecclessiology” (i.e. Church structure). And this is where Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Eastern Orthodoxy begin to be clarified, with the offshoots of the Reformation first beginning to appear.
Here the question “who is the real Church” first begins to become relevant. What is clear is that every branch attempts to trace itself to the root. Some do so more successfully to others (depending on one’s starting convictions), but this era does begin to grapple with the question of “authentic vs. counterfeit Christianity“. What I want to argue is that it’s certainly possible to say that one is counterfeit when we can see that they’re not growing out of the trunk of the tree, we must defer to God as the gardener to prune the tree (See John 15). Our task is not to answer “who is the real Church“, but to advocate for the truth within the body and participate in building her up in “love and good works“. Then we will bear good fruit and be shown to be of God.
3) Christianity’s third stage develops in close parallel to the second, and is concerned with the relationship of the Church to the world. We see divisions that are political in nature and primarily concerned with how the Church responds to the State’s interests. This sees the rise of “State churches” along with those whose distinctives are primarily political in nature. For example, we see “the Church of England” in Europe where the Church is inextricably joined to the State juxtaposed with “congregational churches” in America who, although separate from the State, are primarily distinguished from from their European roots by their incorporation of democratic principles into their ecclessiology and theology. This era eventually gives rise to the political distinctions of “liberal” and “conservative” that we use today when describing churches. And it’s where the Church wrestles to cope with the complexities of this world within a Christian framework (i.e. the Christian faith).
My study of Christian history has suggested that each stage pulls forward and refines the developments of the last while incorporating new understandings and practices to mature the Church’s overall understanding and life. What I find interesting is that branches that developed during prior stages continue to grow and be seen in subsequent stages, which is where I think much of the conflict arises within Christianity as new offshoots struggle for space within the overall tree. I think this is particularly evident in “generational studies” that examine schisms between generations, as past generations struggle with new growth and new generations struggle to incorporate the truths of the past. I also think all five stages that I’m describing here can be observed happening within each generation. This leads me to conclude that attention should be given within the Church to recognize and discern the difference between “passing trends” and “budding new-growth”. There are trends that come and go, which are based very much in the culture of the moment, and then there is growth that realizes something bigger that God is doing. Our task is to make sure that we don’t allow potential corruptions to get introduced into the Church through passing-trends, while not killing new growth in the tree overall.
4) Christianity’s fourth stage of development begins to be concerned not only with her theological knowledge, but with the outworking of that knowledge into one’s personal life. We see this phase of development characterized in the first and second “Great Awakenings”, where the Church emphasized one’s personal conversion experience and began pushing a missional-framework that has radically changed how the Church understands her purpose and identity (even in other branches). Many scholars identify this as the beginning of Evangelicalism. This era gave rise to concerns for the individual’s experience of the Christian faith. From this came many of the restorationist, holiness, and charismatic movements that have impacted the Church. And this impact is often seen well beyond the initial offshoots. For example, the phrase “I’m just a Christian” (as opposed to a denominational title) has influenced Christian thinking across denominational lines. The same can be said of talking about one’s “personal relationship with Jesus”.
I’ve noticed that each phase includes a period of criticism that is reflected upon the past (what I call “the Church’s period of ‘self-reflection’), which is then followed by a period of criticism that is reflected back upon the new growth by branches that grew up in past stages. This is why the individualism of Evangelicalism is now beginning to receive criticism (even from within itself) as the Church seeks to correct imbalances. While every phase thinks it has “arrived”, it’s necessary that each phase incorporate the lessons of the past into their future so that the new growth can be healthy and fruitful. I would argue that there are examples throughout Christian history of movements that might’ve had something to contribute, but, errors within the movement either killed or greatly limited the fruitfulness of that branch, putting it in danger of being “cut off” (at the Gardener’s discretion). Again, it’s not our task to do the cutting, nor to boast when one branch is cut off, but rather, in recognizing that some branches might have been broken off, that we “not be arrogant, but beware, because if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.” (Romans 11:20–21).
5) I believe we’re beginning to see the emergence of a fifth-stage of development in Christianity that was overlooked in this video because it’s still in its early period of growth, but I believe is nonetheless seen among that group simply labeled as “non-denominational Christianity”; I think we’re beginning to see concern for the Kingdom of God and Christian unity. We are seeing divisions that are primarily concerned with defining our Kingdom mission, defining Christian unity in missional and fundamental terms, and expressing our corporate identity in personal terms as one Christian community. By my anecdotal observation, non-denominational churches are seeing fresh growth along these lines that is even impacting older branches, and are actually becoming one of the largest branches within Christendom (there are problems with this term, but allow it for now) which suggests to me that this is the next phase of growth in the Church.
Something might’ve stood out as strange to you about my commentary in this post: I framed the growth of each stage in terms of “division”. And this might not be the most natural way of thinking, but, the language comes from the agrarian symbolism that I’m basing this study on. Pictured as a tree, any gardener will tell you that it’s necessary to prune if you want the tree to grow and be fruitful. My view of Christian history is heavily influenced by Jesus’ parables and teachings. The way that I see the Church is very different from someone who sees the Church purely along institutional lines. I don’t accept that there’s one true institutional Church because I do not think the one true Church is fundamentally “institutional.” In fact, much of the tragedy I see in history when Christians persecute one another comes from an institutional view of the Church. Rather, I see the Church in terms of a body, a tree, leaven, a net, a Kingdom, a people, and a community. Growth does not come from perfecting systems, form, or programs. Growth does not come from campaigns. Growth comes when people embrace the faith of Jesus and enact that faith in real terms. We make mistakes, and I think there are movements that appear to have produced the evidence of real Christian fruit, which I think have significant errors. I’m thankful that I can step back and let God decide what to do there, having done my part to advocate for the faith that I have attained.
Okay, what do you think? Sound off in the comments below!
A Dedicated Faith 