I knew none of this. Blows my mind. Both that none of this was ever taught in the church I grew up in (yes, we had some “special” series of Sunday School classes but never went into this, no West/East differences every brought up - it was just Jesus died for our sins, be good so you won’t burn in hell with all the other heathen people who don’t believe in him). All i know about Charlemagne is the Steely Dan song I love so much
Beth Ann, wild isn’t it? They hand us the kiddie menu: Jesus died, be nice, avoid hell, while the full banquet of history gets locked in the vestry. Charlemagne wasn’t just some medieval mascot, he rewired Christianity itself. No wonder the church never mentions it. Better to keep folks humming Steely Dan than asking how empire dressed itself up as gospel.
Whilst I agree with much of what you've said here, I would query your characterisation of Augustine, which is a commonly held one in Orthodox circles. Augustine isn't nearly as legalistic and guilt-obsessed as some make him out, and he was named as a universal teacher by two Ecumenical Councils. In my opinion, he follows the neo-platonist theology of the Cappadocian Fathers pretty closely, even in his Triadology, although of course he made significant errors in areas of grace and predestination. Most of the damage was done by later Western theologians who interpreted what he said through later Western developments you have outlined here!
I’ve been so focused on torching the industrial shame machine that I didn’t pause to ask if Augustine himself would’ve even recognized what got built in his name. You’re right—his ideas were complex, and a lot of what we blame him for came later, twisted through centuries of fear, control, and imperial theology.
But I’ll be honest: it’s hard to care about the finer points when the whole system ends up telling people they can only know love through God—while making damn sure they never feel it from anyone around them. That disconnect wrecks people. And no amount of theological precision fixes the emotional fraud.
Still, you gave me something I needed. Not to defend Augustine, but to stop flattening the past just to score points in the present. I’ve got more unlearning to do.
Virgin Monk Boy
(wading through the rubble, looking for something true)
I completely agree! I absolutely object how some of his ideas have essentially been weaponised against people, especially original sin. But as you say, I'm not sure he'd recognise how these things came to be understood later in church history. Regardless, your article points to a deep problem with Christianity's general relationship with political and imperial power.
I knew none of this. Blows my mind. Both that none of this was ever taught in the church I grew up in (yes, we had some “special” series of Sunday School classes but never went into this, no West/East differences every brought up - it was just Jesus died for our sins, be good so you won’t burn in hell with all the other heathen people who don’t believe in him). All i know about Charlemagne is the Steely Dan song I love so much
My the things i learn from you 🤯
Beth Ann, wild isn’t it? They hand us the kiddie menu: Jesus died, be nice, avoid hell, while the full banquet of history gets locked in the vestry. Charlemagne wasn’t just some medieval mascot, he rewired Christianity itself. No wonder the church never mentions it. Better to keep folks humming Steely Dan than asking how empire dressed itself up as gospel.
Whilst I agree with much of what you've said here, I would query your characterisation of Augustine, which is a commonly held one in Orthodox circles. Augustine isn't nearly as legalistic and guilt-obsessed as some make him out, and he was named as a universal teacher by two Ecumenical Councils. In my opinion, he follows the neo-platonist theology of the Cappadocian Fathers pretty closely, even in his Triadology, although of course he made significant errors in areas of grace and predestination. Most of the damage was done by later Western theologians who interpreted what he said through later Western developments you have outlined here!
Fair point, Ben. I ran too fast past the nuance.
I’ve been so focused on torching the industrial shame machine that I didn’t pause to ask if Augustine himself would’ve even recognized what got built in his name. You’re right—his ideas were complex, and a lot of what we blame him for came later, twisted through centuries of fear, control, and imperial theology.
But I’ll be honest: it’s hard to care about the finer points when the whole system ends up telling people they can only know love through God—while making damn sure they never feel it from anyone around them. That disconnect wrecks people. And no amount of theological precision fixes the emotional fraud.
Still, you gave me something I needed. Not to defend Augustine, but to stop flattening the past just to score points in the present. I’ve got more unlearning to do.
Virgin Monk Boy
(wading through the rubble, looking for something true)
I completely agree! I absolutely object how some of his ideas have essentially been weaponised against people, especially original sin. But as you say, I'm not sure he'd recognise how these things came to be understood later in church history. Regardless, your article points to a deep problem with Christianity's general relationship with political and imperial power.