Introduction

Evan Roberts was a sham revivalist and Peter Price, his arch-critic at the time, was the true voice of God during 1904-05 Welsh revival. When did you ever read a Christian author making these points? The answer, of course, is never. All we’ve ever read says quite the reverse. And yet the truth, I would contend, lies somewhere in between these two polemical points. Our history, however, seems to have been infected by a lack of critical objectivity.

Historical study infected by empire

‘You know, sometimes I think the worst thing that colonialism did was cloud our view of our past. Without the white man, we might be able to make better sense of our history. We might look at some of our former practices and decide they are worth preserving. Others, we might grow out of. Unfortunately, the white man has made us very defensive. We end up clinging to all sorts of things that have outlived their usefulness.’

This is a quote from Barack Obama’s Dreams from My Father, a book he wrote many years ago and long before he considered running for president. It’s a great read and follows his at times tortured quest for his African roots. The last section of the volume deals with his first ever visit to Kenya to meet his father’s side of the family. Whilst there he meets a history teacher, Dr Rukia Odero, and it is she who comes up with the wise words quoted above. She was referring, of course, to black African history and how their understanding of their own history has been infected by colonialism. All nations affected by imperialism could probably make the same comment. To be so dominated for a long period can make one look at oneself and see the good as bad and the bad as good; doubting that there was anything really good about the nation before it came to be ‘civilised’ by the colonial power.

The simple, yet profound, point she makes is that the context of the historian needs to be accounted for as much as the context of the historical event itself. These days the big thing in the study of history is that the context of a certain event is taken into account as we try to understand that event. So for example, to have a correct understanding of the Irish potato famine, we would need to understand the cultural and economic context of the time – for those issues would have had some impact on the course of the events. What Odero is saying is that we also need to understand the context of the person who is looking at that history. So, to carry on with my example, as we read a book on the famine it would be good for us to consider the author’s context – is he or she Irish or English; is he or she to the left or right politically etc? For these issues could well have a bearing on how that book was written and possibly even give us a skewed view of what exactly happened.

Empire-infected church history

But what about church history? Could we apply this theory to the church also? If our understanding of a nation and its culture is affected by colonialism, then can our understanding of church also be affected in the same way by imperialism? In a new, occasional, series I want to look at this issue of ‘empire-infected church history’ (if you can think of a better term, then go ahead, make a suggestion in the comments section below).

There are two aspects to this question. First there is the context of the historian being infected by imperial thinking. If we accept that way back in the fourth century CE the gathering of believers we know as church was infected by imperial thinking (or should we just call it the imperial spirit?), to what extent has that thinking affected our understanding of church history through the ages? As we leave Christendom behind – willingly or not – is our understanding of our past coloured by its values?

An example of this would be how we view one of Christendom’s most enduring values, an insistence on doctrinal unity. Take, for example, the teaching on the nature of Jesus’ being, his twin nature of being both human and divine. In the fourth and fifth centuries the full force of imperial power came down on those who argued against this teaching. The church, under the heavy guidance of the Emperor, had come to a settled position on the question and all had to agree. Those who did not were persecuted. This desire for doctrinal unity is still a strong force in church life. Churches – even whole movements/denominations – have paradoxically split in two because of this value. And anyone questioning this doctrine – and many others – are, certainly within some church circles, treated with much suspicion, even hostility. This value of being united around the ‘truth’ is of the utmost importance – history teaches that this is so. But does it? This is how we read history, for sure. This is what I was taught some 20 years ago when I did my undergraduate degree at Bangor. But is this understanding of history infected by the Christendom mindset? And if it is can we know look at doctrinal unity in a different light?

Second there is the context of the historian being of a nation affected by imperialism/colonialism. That is, do I as someone from Wales, a nation dominated by empire for so many hundreds of years, read church history in a way that is affected by that imperial domination and the scars it has left me with?

An example of this could be – and this may well be very controversial – the Welsh understanding of its own revival history. It is my contention that we in Wales, because of the damage done by empire, have made our revival history an essential part of our identity. So much so, that you will be hard pressed to find any critical writing on revival history by authors from within the conservative church traditions in Wales. Most of the work done is positive – even hagiographical when dealing with individual revivalists like Evan Roberts or David Morgan. I am not saying that truth has been distorted – only that its interpretation has been given a positive spin. A perfect example of this would be the almost deafening silence on the slow drift away from the chapels from 1906 onwards. Such a fact doesn’t help the picture of ‘Wales a land of revivals’.

Correcting our view of the past

My point is this: we all claim to be objective as we approach our history but in truth most historians have an element of the subjective about their work. But if we are to move forward away from Christendom then we have to have a correct view of the past and our understanding of it. Only by doing so can we stop ‘clinging to all sorts of things that have outlived their usefulness’.

If you enjoyed this post why not share it with others by clicking on the bar below? Thanks.