This is my interim review of “The History of Christianity I – RTS on iTUnes U”, a survey lecture course by Dr. Frank A. James III, President RTS Orlando and Professor of Church History and of Historical and Systematic Theology, Texas Tech University, B.A., Westminster Theological Seminary, M.A., Ph.D., Oxford University, D.Phil.
Having listened to 20-25 hours of Dr. James’ lectures I am inspired to write an interim review of his course, The History of Christianity I.
I have three points, of course, to make. First, Dr. James is a racist, second, his course i biased and third his lectures are unchallenged.
To paraphrase Dr James, he said, My heart is warmed that a Hispanic, a minority, played such an important role in the early history of The Church, especially when we think of think of the early Church as dominated by WASPs. He was speaking of Constantine’s spiritual adviser from Cordoba Spain — who’s name escapes me. Why is that racist?
Spain is part of Europe proper. If Europeans are minorities than who are the majority? Spain is not Mexico and it is not Hispanic as we speak of Hispanics today, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say that Spaniards were underrepresented, compared to today. in the early Church. But what then of the WASPs? The Visigoths had not yet taken Rome and the Anglos were still fighting the Saxons (never mind the Normans) to establish the upcoming powerhouse, Great Britain. Well, as an Italian I have seen my people called minorities in more modern times, even though they ruled the Empire in the days at issue.
What of being a Protestant? There were no Protestants in Constantine’s day, there were oly Christians. SO praising a “minority” as not “Protestant” and not an “Anglo Saxon” and yuet important to The Church is so fatally flawed that no more need be said.
What of bias? Dr. James is subtly biased. Although he frequently juxtaposes his lectures (unashamedly and clearly biased in favor of Evangelical Protestants) against Catholicism, the manner in which he sets up his points, chooses his topics and passes over uncomfortable thought shows a clear bias unbecoming of University quality lectures. But then again, as will be made doubly clear in the discussion of my third point, this is not proper scholarship. Clearly that I have listened to so many hours, and the fact that I eagerly look forward to another 30-50 hours reveals my belief that he is worth listening to, that he is a a quality speaker and has tons of good information, but I caution iTunes U listeners and his students to realize he is biased and make a scholarly efforts to find that bias and deal with it as seems fit to the listener.
What of challenge? RTS is not a proper university and these are not proper university lectures. I am to his discussion of Anselm, and in the preceding 25+ hours he has yet to be challenged by any student. Perhaps challenges have been edited out, but one cannot tell from his lectures. To be sure, many questions have been asked, but those questions are of a clarifying or repeating nature and not to pose a challenge. Where is the intellectual curiosity?
Any curious type (sorry Doc, you are wrong, some of us do think about the fine theological points you speak of and that is why you make them available – and thank you for it), or anyone wrestling with these finer points the doctor is making might ask, for instance, If God (blessed be his name) is the Creator of all things, then why does Augustine say he did not create evil and that to say so would be, in effect, heresy?
I love these lectures and write here to both encourage anyone to listen to them, but to do so with fair warning that if you have not drunken the Evangelical Cool-Aid you shold listen carefully and critically so as not to be lead down the path of misunderstanding by a wolf in sheep’s clothing.