I need some church history resources that are NOT reformed

[jenniferlee]

We are using biblioplan this year, which I am excited about.  I would really like to add some some alternate church history from a different perspective since mostly they offer reformed materials.

Does anyone have any good places to start?  

biographies, or texts or even just stories are fine

this would be for 6th grade and up through high school.

 

Thanks

Jen

[Candid]

Believe it or not most of the resources Tapestry of Grace uses for Church History are generic protestant ones such as the above mention Church History in Plain Language. 

 

I don't know how wide a time period you plan to cover but the ones found in Year 3 which is 19th century on the Civil War are pretty darn good. 

[KarenNC]

You could look up topics in the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/. They offer a cd, but I've only used the articles online that are free.

[dovrar]

David Bentley Hart's The Story of Chrisianity

[Pretty in Pink]

We have The Church in History. I bought it when we were doing TOG a few years back. I'm honestly not sure about the perspective, and I feel ignorant typing that, which I am on this subject. I can't even remember exactly what reformed means. <blushes>

 

One of the reviews on Amazon specifically criticizes this book for it's reformed theology, so it may not be what you are looking for. I mostly remember that my ds hated reading this book.

[Candid]

We have The Church in History. I bought it when we were doing TOG a few years back. I'm honestly not sure about the perspective, and I feel ignorant typing that, which I am on this subject. I can't even remember exactly what reformed means. <blushes>

 

One of the reviews on Amazon specifically criticizes this book for it's reformed theology, so it may not be what you are looking for. I mostly remember that my ds hated reading this book.

 

It's pretty center protestant. IF it has any slant at all, it is dull. ;)

[Candid]

I forgot, I do often suggest this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Christianity-Church-Present/dp/1565635221/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1378552916&sr=8-4&keywords=story+of+christianity+gonzalez

 

That's a two volume bind up, so it is longer than anything Tapestry uses. Gonzalez approaches church history from a sympathetic but secular viewpoint. I felt he follow more RC and Orthodox threads in modern times than other more protestant volumes do. 

[MIch elle]

I've started to watch this BBC dvd series: Christianity in Three Thousand Years  I borrowed it from the library.  It's a VERY abbreviated version of the book.

[jenniferlee]

Thanks for some good ideas!  that bbc series looks amazing.  

I'm sure I'll have a good start with some of this stuff.  

Jen

[tvaleri]

Actually, the TOG resources are very Reformed and even contain outright errors. (I've corresponded with Mrs. Somerville about some of the issues).

 

We found Christian History Made Easy by Rose Publishing to be a delightful inexpensive resource as we went through Year 2.

 

http://www.rose-publishing.com/Christian-History-Made-Easy-Rose-Bible-Basics-Series-P453.aspx#.UizSFMZOOSo

 

TruthQuest also has amazing notes if you can get past the wordiness  =)

 

Shalom,

Teresa in NC

[Julie in MN]

It's pretty center protestant. IF it has any slant at all, it is dull. ;)

 

Heehee, I love Church History in Plain Language.  Guess I'm just a nerd. 

 

I did have to read it aloud to my ds and "enthuse him" about the story of all the various issues of division that have come up over the years, that have been on people's hearts to the point that they would die for them, since ds just likes everyone to get along :)

 

I'd have to read it again to know which side they lie on.  I don't remember my ears perking up at anything overly Reformed or not.  My memory is that they were quite sympathetic towards Amish type denominations, if that means anything.

 

P.S. We have the First 2000 Years DVD and it's an overview, meaning it's easier for me to forget because I didn't get into a lot of details but has the advantage of putting things in order in my brain.

 

The 3000 Years one left me puzzled, but I suppose they mean either we're drawing on the Hebrew roots of Christianity, or that we're entering the third millenium??

 

Julie

[Candid]

Actually, the TOG resources are very Reformed and even contain outright errors. (I've corresponded with Mrs. Somerville about some of the issues).

 

We found Christian History Made Easy by Rose Publishing to be a delightful inexpensive resource as we went through Year 2.

 

http://www.rose-publishing.com/Christian-History-Made-Easy-Rose-Bible-Basics-Series-P453.aspx#.UizSFMZOOSo

 

TruthQuest also has amazing notes if you can get past the wordiness  =)

 

Shalom,

Teresa in NC

 

Is it possible you could document this in terms of book and errors. Not a ton, but show us what you are finding? Typical errors would be doubly helpful vs. outliers. 

[Candid]

Heehee, I love Church History in Plain Language.  Guess I'm just a nerd. 

 

I did have to read it aloud to my ds and "enthuse him" about the story of all the various issues of division that have come up over the years, that have been on people's hearts to the point that they would die for them, since ds just likes everyone to get along :)

 

 

 

It's the Dialectic book that we found totally boring. Church History in Plain Language is less so. I switched my youngest up to the R book for this reason plus TOG gives questions and answers for Plain Language but not for the Kuiper book. 

 

I do think there is probably a protestant over RC bias in both books. 

 

However, a positive view of Mennonite roots is NOT something any serious reformed scholarly type would have. Go over and read on the Puritan Board about Mennonite roots if you don't trust me on this. Which tells me it's probably pretty middle of the road protestant. 

[Little Nyssa]

You might want to look over at the Orthodox Homeschooling social group, or Crossing the Tiber.

[Chris in VA]

I have to read Christianity  First 3000 Years for a class. I don't recommend it at all. Although engaging, it totally bashes the bible in a typically liberal fashion. It draws some sketchy conclusions, too. 

 

I really liked Plain Language. Easy to read, fairly accurate, fairly unbiased. 

[vonfirmath]

Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley is good.  The author seems to be on the liberal side and explores all sides of church history (liberalism, social gospel, catholicism, reformed, etc).  At only about 500 pages, it was a fairly easy and engaging read.

 

I LOVED this history. Maybe he's liberal? I'm very conservative and didn't notice it when using this book for a church history course a few years back.

[Joan in GE]

We are using biblioplan this year, which I am excited about.  I would really like to add some some alternate church history from a different perspective since mostly they offer reformed materials.

Does anyone have any good places to start?  

biographies, or texts or even just stories are fine

this would be for 6th grade and up through high school.

 

Thanks

Jen

 

Do you mean by 'not reformed' as in Roman Catholic? or not Roman Catholic and not Protestant?

 

There's Miller's Church History - which is neither of those..

 

http://www.stempublishing.com/history/MILLER.html

 

HTH,

Joan

 

[Candid]

Do you mean by 'not reformed' as in Roman Catholic? or not Roman Catholic and not Protestant?

 

There's Miller's Church History - which is neither of those..

 

http://www.stempublishing.com/history/MILLER.html

 

HTH,

Joan

 

 

This is a good question: I've been mulling this distinction over myself. I really, really wish some of those that say Tapestry materials are reformed would provide some examples. "Reformed" means a very particular protestant flavor, but it shares many things in common with other protestant denominations, but less with RC or Orthodox. 

 

I can't tell from comments in this thread what anyone means on this particular point. Allow me to point out again that Tapestry includes bios of the Wesleys, Billy Sunday, and others who are decidedly not reformed (protestant yes, not reformed). Precision on this would be helpful. 

[WTMCassandra]

In junior high, we really liked the History Lives series. It is Protestant but didn't seem militantly so or militantly reformed to me.  It also corresponds really well to the four-year cycle.  Here is a link to the first one:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Peril-Peace-Chronicles-Ancient-History/dp/1845500822/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379279964&sr=1-1&keywords=history+lives+series

 

In high school, we are doing Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language that others have mentioned, and we like that as well.

[wingedradical]

<<I've been mulling this distinction over myself.>> There is a very large distinction. 

 

Anabaptist, Catholic, EO, so-called Armenian and free church ideas are very different from one another! In some areas, you might find more agreement between an Armenian point of view and EO point of view and it other areas, the EO will more closely resemble the RC or Reformed or whatever. 

 

In the US, many people have melting pot religion going and people hold a mish-mash of conflicting theologies. People in Reformed churches, where lay people tend to be more educated on their tradition, people tend to not notice the bias because for them, Reformed = Protestant. In fact, I read a post on this site where someone said as much. I used to be Reformed and had that tendency as well (I'm now more neo-Anabaptist). Reformed theology has grown much over the last few years and is the basis of many homeschool curriculums. I consider anyone who believes the fundamentals of Christianity my brother or sister, but not knowing the differences in traditions and theological frameworks will make for confusion in your life and that of your children's. At least that's my opinion. I wouldn't consider my children (or myself) well educated unless they knew the differences.

[Candid]

<<I've been mulling this distinction over myself.>> There is a very large distinction. 

 

Anabaptist, Catholic, EO, so-called Armenian and free church ideas are very different from one another! In some areas, you might find more agreement between an Armenian point of view and EO point of view and it other areas, the EO will more closely resemble the RC or Reformed or whatever. 

 

In the US, many people have melting pot religion going and people hold a mish-mash of conflicting theologies. People in Reformed churches, where lay people tend to be more educated on their tradition, people tend to not notice the bias because for them, Reformed = Protestant. In fact, I read a post on this site where someone said as much. I used to be Reformed and had that tendency as well (I'm now more neo-Anabaptist). Reformed theology has grown much over the last few years and is the basis of many homeschool curriculums. I consider anyone who believes the fundamentals of Christianity my brother or sister, but not knowing the differences in traditions and theological frameworks will make for confusion in your life and that of your children's. At least that's my opinion. I wouldn't consider my children (or myself) well educated unless they knew the differences.

 

I'm afraid your post just puzzles me more. I would generally not think that lay people who are "more educated" would not be more likely to assume other protestant traditions are the same as theirs. In fact, I would assume the reverse: more knowledge means the ability to understand the distinctions; the greater the knowledge the greater the distinction. 

 

However, I must admit that examples would be helpful in figuring this out. I'm afraid I'm at the point in regards to Tapestry specifically to begin to think that people are just repeating what they've heard or assuming that because the authors are open and honest about their own view point it must pervaded everything they write and use. The reason I think this is because I have yet to see any evidence myself (note in my posts above several clear examples of inclusion of other points of view) and when I ask for examples I have yet to get them. 

 

However I'm willing to admit that someone can be aware of one distinction but not others. For instance, this is my year to read commentaries and strive to find a variety of commentaries. For Genesis I read R. R. Reno's commentary on Genesis. While there were points where he was actively trying to chart a course of ecumenicism there were other points when it was clear that he was not aware that some turns of phrases were hugely alien to a protestant reader (I especially noticed those in regards to Mary). On the other hand I enjoyed his commentary and found much to learn from it. 

[wingedradical]

I meant they could be educated about their own point of view and not about the points of views of others and therefore, mistakenly assume theirs was the Christian point of view. And anyone can be guilty of this. I didn't mean to particularly criticize them. Honest!

 

I, too, use resources from many traditions and gain from them all. I just think it is good to recognize what tradition they are because otherwise, you will eventually experience inconsistency or paradigm clash.

 

Let me give a short example: I said I am neo-anabaptist. As such, my view of the place of government in society is very different than the average Reformed view. Therefore, Reformed people will come to conclusions that I no longer accept. Vice versa, I will arrive at conclusions that they will think are very strange - perhaps, in some sense, UnChristian. Like, I am not a complete pacifist but because of our view of government and violence, the thought of going to West Point never occurred to my children. A patriotic Reformed person might think it his responsibility to do so. To understand each other (and respect the position of each other), it is better to understand the entire underpinnings of a religion that views its country as a "Light on a Hill - Reformed - and a neo-anabaptist, who is suspicious of any and all power structures in this world.

[wingedradical]

I'm sorry I was confusing. I meant they could be educated about their own point of view and not about the points of views of others and therefore, mistakenly assume theirs was the Christian point of view. And anyone can be guilty of this. I didn't mean to particularly criticize Reformed people. Actually I respect them greatly.

 

I just get a little wacko (-: on the subject of understanding other theological points of view - probably because I didn't for so long. 

 

 

[Joan in GE]

I meant they could be educated about their own point of view and not about the points of views of others and therefore, mistakenly assume theirs was the Christian point of view. And anyone can be guilty of this. I didn't mean to particularly criticize them. Honest!

 

I, too, use resources from many traditions and gain from them all. I just think it is good to recognize what tradition they are because otherwise, you will eventually experience inconsistency or paradigm clash.

 

Let me give a short example: I said I am neo-anabaptist. As such, my view of the place of government in society is very different than the average Reformed view. Therefore, Reformed people will come to conclusions that I no longer accept. Vice versa, I will arrive at conclusions that they will think are very strange - perhaps, in some sense, UnChristian. Like, I am not a complete pacifist but because of our view of government and violence, the thought of going to West Point never occurred to my children. A patriotic Reformed person might think it his responsibility to do so. To understand each other (and respect the position of each other), it is better to understand the entire underpinnings of a religion that views its country as a "Light on a Hill - Reformed - and a neo-anabaptist, who is suspicious of any and all power structures in this world.

 

do you have a link you like explaining what a 'neo-anabaptist' is?

 

Also, in your post #21 I was confused about your meaning in this sentence "People in Reformed churches, where lay people tend to be more educated on their tradition, people tend to not notice the bias because for them, Reformed = Protestant." I would think that if people are more educated about their traditions, it would make it easier to recognize what is 'not' their tradition...perhaps it's my misreading of English...

 

Joan

 

[Candid]

I meant they could be educated about their own point of view and not about the points of views of others and therefore, mistakenly assume theirs was the Christian point of view. And anyone can be guilty of this. I didn't mean to particularly criticize them. Honest!

 

Thanks! I agree that if you are narrow in your structure you can assume everyone else thinks the same.

 

 

I, too, use resources from many traditions and gain from them all. I just think it is good to recognize what tradition they are because otherwise, you will eventually experience inconsistency or paradigm clash.

 

I also agree with this. Sometimes it is simple stuff like vocabulary. In a non religious setting, I was once in a meeting where a entrepreneur who was starting a bookstore was getting advice on his business plan from a panel of experts. I was fascinated to realize that they were clashing with him over the term "returns." At the time bookstores could return books to wholesalers for credit. This isn't done in most other retail businesses. The panel assumed he meant returns by customers and couldn't understand his high number shown for this. 

 

 

 

Let me give a short example: I said I am neo-anabaptist. As such, my view of the place of government in society is very different than the average Reformed view. Therefore, Reformed people will come to conclusions that I no longer accept. Vice versa, I will arrive at conclusions that they will think are very strange - perhaps, in some sense, UnChristian. Like, I am not a complete pacifist but because of our view of government and violence, the thought of going to West Point never occurred to my children. A patriotic Reformed person might think it his responsibility to do so. To understand each other (and respect the position of each other), it is better to understand the entire underpinnings of a religion that views its country as a "Light on a Hill - Reformed - and a neo-anabaptist, who is suspicious of any and all power structures in this world.

 

While I think I mostly follow this, I have to say that I would not expect to find much on any of this in a church history book, a comparative theology might include such details, but church history, no. I would expect if anything on church, military, war, etc to come up that it would be a series of references like: early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, St. Augustine comes up with Just War Theory, and Anabaptist were pacifists. I'm not even sure all these details would come up even in a detailed church history. 

 

I think after reading what you say here, I would prefer folks not say they want a church history that is "not" but rather say what sort of church history they would like. As an example, you might wish to use an Anabaptist church history. 

 

Instead what I see in this thread a shifting sand. The OP says she wants a church history that is not reformed. But the response are all over the place, lots of people suggest Church History in Plain Language which I think is pretty middle of the road protestant, but is not RC or Orthodox at all. Karen suggests a RC source. BUT what if the OP is a baptist? Maybe she'd like a Baptist church history?

 

I will continue to object to folks who categorize Tapestry's materials as reformed unless they give examples. I have asked here and in other threads and have yet to get any answer on this issue. Without proof, it is at best a meaningless claim, at worse it violates the ninth commandment. Without specific examples, I can't tell. 

[Candid]

do you have a link you like explaining what a 'neo-anabaptist' is?

 

Also, in your post #21 I was confused about your meaning in this sentence "People in Reformed churches, where lay people tend to be more educated on their tradition, people tend to not notice the bias because for them, Reformed = Protestant." I would think that if people are more educated about their traditions, it would make it easier to recognize what is 'not' their tradition...perhaps it's my misreading of English...

 

Joan

 

 

I don't think it is your reading of English, but now that the poster has explained I think I understand at least a little of what she was getting at. 

[Joan in GE]

I'm sorry I was confusing. I meant they could be educated about their own point of view and not about the points of views of others and therefore, mistakenly assume theirs was the Christian point of view. And anyone can be guilty of this. I didn't mean to particularly criticize Reformed people. Actually I respect them greatly.

 

I just get a little wacko (-: on the subject of understanding other theological points of view - probably because I didn't for so long. 

 

Thinking about Candid's comment and what you have written here...I think I was assuming a perspective that might not be there if someone has never been part of different groups...

 

It would be very helpful if there were a huge table showing the differences and similarities among all the different Christian groups....anyone made one?

 

Hopefully,

Joan

[vonfirmath]

Instead what I see in this thread a shifting sand. The OP says she wants a church history that is not reformed. But the response are all over the place, lots of people suggest Church History in Plain Language which I think is pretty middle of the road protestant, but is not RC or Orthodox at all. Karen suggests a RC source. BUT what if the OP is a baptist? Maybe she'd like a Baptist church history?

 

I will continue to object to folks who categorize Tapestry's materials as reformed unless they give examples. I have asked here and in other threads and have yet to get any answer on this issue. Without proof, it is at best a meaningless claim, at worse it violates the ninth commandment. Without specific examples, I can't tell. 

 

BTW I consider myself Baptist. I do not consider myself Reformed or RC or Orthodox or Protestant.  I am aware that the "world" sees me as Protestant. I saw nothing objectionable in Church History in Plain Language and immediately put it on my shelf to refer to in the future after the class was over.

 

[Candid]

BTW I consider myself Baptist. I do not consider myself Reformed or RC or Orthodox or Protestant.  I am aware that the "world" sees me as Protestant. I saw nothing objectionable in Church History in Plain Language and immediately put it on my shelf to refer to in the future after the class was over.

 

 

I think Baptist church history is fascinating although I have not studied it directly, but I find a lot of people believe what I suspect are misconceptions about where mainstream baptists in the US came from. 

 

I have no idea what church history to suggest, but usually a pastor or some other geeky person in a church will have some ideas.