Jim Deitsch

October 9, 2018

Eastern Churches: History and Theology

Assignment 7
Although Ware does not explicitly present us with falsehoods in his narrative, he does leave out

key details. For example, Plokhy tells us how Vladimir (spelled henceforth this way for

continuity’s sake) attacked the empire and won his bride. “By choosing Christianity, he gained

the prestige of marrying into an imperial family, which promptly elevated the status of his

house and realm.” (p34) Ware is content with merely telling us that Vladimir “was converted to

Christianity and married Anna.” It is technically true, but it leaves out the political motivations,

which are an important part of the story. Ware goes on to say that Vladimir was “earnest to

Christianize” his empire and implies that he does it out of a genuine attachment to Christianity.

(p75) Plokhy would likely assert that the actions were much more politically motivated than

Ware would like to admit. Although Vladimir is the easiest example, the trend of Ware focusing

on theology and Plokhy focusing on politics is a recurring trend in the readings.

A striking similarity between the two authors is the focus on the idea of preservation

through religious unity. Ware says that “More than anything else, it was the Church which kept

alive Russian national consciousness in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, as the Church

was later to preserve a sense of unity among the Greeks under Turkish rule.” (Ware 79) Plokhy

says that “There was a sense of the unity of all lands under the rule of the Kyvian rulers… the

inhabitants of those lands were considered ‘ours’ as opposed to foreigners and pagans.”

(Plokhy 47) It is perhaps only this unity that allowed the religious traditions to survive the

tumultuous political timeframe they existed in.

 The Russian Primary Chronicle (RPC) is interesting because it does not shy away from

political realities as Ware has a tendency to do, but also wholeheartedly embraces flowing

theological language. For example, Vladimir’s men tell him “we went to Greece, and the Greeks

led us to the edifices where they worship their God, and we knew not whether we were in

Heaven or on earth.” (RPC 9) Vladimir then attacks the Greeks anyway. The RPC does not pick

politics over religion, or vice versa, but rather embraces the idea that the two can exist side by

side in historical harmony. The desire to not be “ignorant pagans” eventually led to the

Christianization of the Russes (RPC 7), a process that culminated with Vladimir “rejoicing that

he and his subjects now knew God himself.” (RPC 11) Plokhy would probably view this with a

healthy dose of cynicism, since it was also the politically expedient thing to do.

Catalyst: Ware wants us to believe that Vladimir had pure, apolitical intentions. The RPC wants

us to believe that the fact that Vladimir had political intentions should not mean they are not

pure. Plokhy, in contrast, takes cynical view of the conversion, since it was the most powerful

political move that Vladimir could make. When examining a historical figure in the context of

religion, is it always necessary to approach the situation with as much cynicism as possible? Is it

every okay to just give someone the benefit of the doubt (like Ware), or should we always

assume ulterior motives (like Plokhy)?