What do you think?
Rate this book
Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today
The Orthodox Church, presented here in a newly revised edition, has become an indispensable classic on the history of the Orthodox Church and the unique position it holds in today's world. Fr Meyendorff reviews the great events and the principle stages in a history of nearly two thousand years, its diversity not only in Eastern and far-Eastern countries, but also in the West and in the whole world. He also presents the culture and spiritual tradition of Orthodoxy, its connection to other Christian churches, its religious activities in various communities and its position and actions in former Eastern communist countries.
199 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1965
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 7, 2026
Very clear and helpful. Major problems and questions left unanswered, but no more than any other EO presentation.
February 14, 2019
I have no memory of this book, so I'll let one of the very comprehensive comments on my review go before my review:
1) Byzantium didn't fall until the mid-15th century. The Balkans then spent a few hundred years under Ottoman rule. The states that would later become Russia spent a period under Tatar rule at a separate time. Russia and Eastern Europe later spent about 80 years under Communist rule.
In reality, that's a fraction of the last thousand years. It also ignores the fact that Byzantium was arguably the most prosperous empire of all time, as well as the rise and fall of multiple Orthodox Christian empires during the last thousand years, including Serbian, Bulgarian, and Russian.
Now, let's look at Israel.
- Slaves in Egypt for 400 years
- Destroyed by Assyria
- Exiles in Babylon
- Ruled by Persia
- Ruled by Greece, Syria, and Egypt (again)
- Ruled by Rome
How about Jesus Christ? He had to flee his home to avoid Herod (a government official), who killed thousands of infants on a whim. He then returned home for a government census. Later, His prophet, John the Baptist, was executed by a government official. Then He was executed by a government official. And then most of the Apostles were executed by government officials.
The Church then underwent hundreds of years of brutal persecution before the conversion of Constantine and Edict of Milan in the early 300s.
Even then, much of the Western Empire would fall under pagan rule and much of the Middle Eastern parts under Muslim rule.
The history of the Bible and the Church and the Incarnation is one that includes regular periods of persecution. Why would the modern (Orthodox) Church be different?
2) pg. 166: "His first efforts were directed toward translating the New Testament and essential liturgical texts into Japanese."
pg. 167: "The Japanese Orthodox Church has about 36,000 faithful, one bishop, and thirty-eight priests, all Japanese."
Why did St. Nicholas of Japan immediately translate the Bible and Liturgy into Japanese if he didn't want to convert the Japanese? Why are all of the priests Japanese?
The author covers numerous other examples of this same approach, including the translation of Church materials into Aleutian languages in Alaska, or the liturgy being celebrated in 20+ local languages in a single region of Kazan.
He also covers the conversion of the Slavs. The Cyrillic alphabet was literally invented (and is named after) Orthodox missionary Saints.
Fr. Meyendorff himself wrote in English and French.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but it seems you've completely skewed the facts to suit your own biases. The Orthodox Church only continues to grow larger and stronger in the West.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now my original review:
I walk away from this book thinking two things.
1) Wow, Orthodox history is basically one oppressive regime after another destroying their lives. You’d look fondly on your first thousand years too if your second thousand were as awful as theirs has been.
2) I wonder if this is how people in non Christian countries that read about Christianity and find it interesting (but know they’ll never get to try it) feel. I feel the same way when I read about Hasidic Judaism. It’s this amazing thing that you can’t be a part of. But Orthodoxy claims its universal, its just kind of not really, unless you speak Russian or Greek. It’s funny that even when Fr. Meyemdorff was discussing mission work on other countries it was never in the sense Protestants or Catholics would think. It was a Russian priest going to japan because some Russian immigrants went to japan. There was no intention of converting the Japanese. Same with America. It’s like, well we got kicked out of the mother country so now we’re going to move to America and totally isolate ourselves and not speak English. Which is crazy, because Orthodoxy would sell like hot cakes here. Fr Meyendorff refers to this nationalism as a scourge on the church.
But it was a good overview. A little dated since it’s now 60 years old, and the World Council of Churches wasn’t nearly as important as he thought they’d be. He also thought western orthodox rites would catch on but all I can find are orthodox chats bashing the concept. So Fr Meyendorff was the orthodox thinking they needed, but not that they wanted.
1) Byzantium didn't fall until the mid-15th century. The Balkans then spent a few hundred years under Ottoman rule. The states that would later become Russia spent a period under Tatar rule at a separate time. Russia and Eastern Europe later spent about 80 years under Communist rule.
In reality, that's a fraction of the last thousand years. It also ignores the fact that Byzantium was arguably the most prosperous empire of all time, as well as the rise and fall of multiple Orthodox Christian empires during the last thousand years, including Serbian, Bulgarian, and Russian.
Now, let's look at Israel.
- Slaves in Egypt for 400 years
- Destroyed by Assyria
- Exiles in Babylon
- Ruled by Persia
- Ruled by Greece, Syria, and Egypt (again)
- Ruled by Rome
How about Jesus Christ? He had to flee his home to avoid Herod (a government official), who killed thousands of infants on a whim. He then returned home for a government census. Later, His prophet, John the Baptist, was executed by a government official. Then He was executed by a government official. And then most of the Apostles were executed by government officials.
The Church then underwent hundreds of years of brutal persecution before the conversion of Constantine and Edict of Milan in the early 300s.
Even then, much of the Western Empire would fall under pagan rule and much of the Middle Eastern parts under Muslim rule.
The history of the Bible and the Church and the Incarnation is one that includes regular periods of persecution. Why would the modern (Orthodox) Church be different?
2) pg. 166: "His first efforts were directed toward translating the New Testament and essential liturgical texts into Japanese."
pg. 167: "The Japanese Orthodox Church has about 36,000 faithful, one bishop, and thirty-eight priests, all Japanese."
Why did St. Nicholas of Japan immediately translate the Bible and Liturgy into Japanese if he didn't want to convert the Japanese? Why are all of the priests Japanese?
The author covers numerous other examples of this same approach, including the translation of Church materials into Aleutian languages in Alaska, or the liturgy being celebrated in 20+ local languages in a single region of Kazan.
He also covers the conversion of the Slavs. The Cyrillic alphabet was literally invented (and is named after) Orthodox missionary Saints.
Fr. Meyendorff himself wrote in English and French.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, of course, but it seems you've completely skewed the facts to suit your own biases. The Orthodox Church only continues to grow larger and stronger in the West.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now my original review:
I walk away from this book thinking two things.
1) Wow, Orthodox history is basically one oppressive regime after another destroying their lives. You’d look fondly on your first thousand years too if your second thousand were as awful as theirs has been.
2) I wonder if this is how people in non Christian countries that read about Christianity and find it interesting (but know they’ll never get to try it) feel. I feel the same way when I read about Hasidic Judaism. It’s this amazing thing that you can’t be a part of. But Orthodoxy claims its universal, its just kind of not really, unless you speak Russian or Greek. It’s funny that even when Fr. Meyemdorff was discussing mission work on other countries it was never in the sense Protestants or Catholics would think. It was a Russian priest going to japan because some Russian immigrants went to japan. There was no intention of converting the Japanese. Same with America. It’s like, well we got kicked out of the mother country so now we’re going to move to America and totally isolate ourselves and not speak English. Which is crazy, because Orthodoxy would sell like hot cakes here. Fr Meyendorff refers to this nationalism as a scourge on the church.
But it was a good overview. A little dated since it’s now 60 years old, and the World Council of Churches wasn’t nearly as important as he thought they’d be. He also thought western orthodox rites would catch on but all I can find are orthodox chats bashing the concept. So Fr Meyendorff was the orthodox thinking they needed, but not that they wanted.
Read
January 12, 2022Some great explanations of how the East and West became different in the chapters about the early church and the schism. Also some important things to learn about the Russians under communism, since the liberal-democratic-capitalist machine of many hoaxes has been used to build us into the coming American eco-techno-communism since before even then. We will see something similar in America, just a slower (Fabian), more comfortable (Huxleyan), and more technologically enforced (Orwellian and full spectrum dominant) version.
In the above and in the account of the Russian church during the revolution, we see a topic of primary importance when it comes to the *history* of the church, which is church-state relations. We see the author leaves it open what the Byzantium model of symphonia means, saying [page 24] that the details were never worked out, beyond that one should not be *subject* to the other. But wait, the earthly should not be subject in any way to the heavenly? I doubt this was the meaning in Byzantium. Further we see the author criticize St Tikhon of Zadonsk's teaching on [page 96] to give up all worldly things, which in the monastic context is not extreme or unique to him but simply orthodox. This recurrs in his critical remark on patriarch Nikon, who he says tried to establish supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power as in accord with the theory of the Third Rome (page 92), and this provoked Peter the Great later to react with more state power. Yet I've seen Nikon's reforms spoken of as attempting a separation. And this seems to be just a criticism of the Byzantine model, which that theory of Third Rome attempts to uphold. He strikes a balance as the church did between Sts Joseph and Nil on church property (91). And while he praises the wisdom of the Russian church under St Tikhon of Moscow and his apolitical attitude after his prison release, he strikes a balance by noting how patriarch Sergius went too far in accomodation. (pg 114). So it's hard to know what Dr Meyendorff's view is here, but occasionally he shows some Western liberal colors. Obviously the church and state are distinct, and have distinct roles, and so should not have a merged religio-political role occupied by a single person, as in the case of the Roman pontiff. Meyendorff would agree, and also agrees that the scope of their distinct authorities has places of overlap, and so he says that the church being removed from public education with the youth is lamentable. But isn't this precisely where the spiritual is trumping the temporal? He doesn't want *secular* education. But this would subordinate the state, which from its autonomous point of view wants a purely pragmatic situation, in which the quantity of people included and getting along would be maximized. If the operating system or worldview of the state should not be its own, but the church's then this is subjection. The state's autonomous worlview is simply realpolitick and the fallen human obssession with its own reason and judgment.
And there is some sketchy ecumenism at the end, where he admits we are doctrinally and inflexibly opposed to the other so called "churches," with whom we cannot 'unite' since we already have the unity which they would have to convert to to achieve, but he implies that we need to pursue these heretics in larger numbers in the WCC, and win at that democratic game of fashionable endless discourse they're playing without understanding the equally inflexible globalist Rockefeller founding and aims of this group. Should our bishops go their if the pockets of all heretics are filled and checks are signed to the effect that they have this agenda and their ears are closed? Perhaps there are better places of mission than in the den of vipers, where a better approach is probably scolding them for being willfull and well-paid heretics and not caring about the media fanfare against them that would ensue.
In the above and in the account of the Russian church during the revolution, we see a topic of primary importance when it comes to the *history* of the church, which is church-state relations. We see the author leaves it open what the Byzantium model of symphonia means, saying [page 24] that the details were never worked out, beyond that one should not be *subject* to the other. But wait, the earthly should not be subject in any way to the heavenly? I doubt this was the meaning in Byzantium. Further we see the author criticize St Tikhon of Zadonsk's teaching on [page 96] to give up all worldly things, which in the monastic context is not extreme or unique to him but simply orthodox. This recurrs in his critical remark on patriarch Nikon, who he says tried to establish supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power as in accord with the theory of the Third Rome (page 92), and this provoked Peter the Great later to react with more state power. Yet I've seen Nikon's reforms spoken of as attempting a separation. And this seems to be just a criticism of the Byzantine model, which that theory of Third Rome attempts to uphold. He strikes a balance as the church did between Sts Joseph and Nil on church property (91). And while he praises the wisdom of the Russian church under St Tikhon of Moscow and his apolitical attitude after his prison release, he strikes a balance by noting how patriarch Sergius went too far in accomodation. (pg 114). So it's hard to know what Dr Meyendorff's view is here, but occasionally he shows some Western liberal colors. Obviously the church and state are distinct, and have distinct roles, and so should not have a merged religio-political role occupied by a single person, as in the case of the Roman pontiff. Meyendorff would agree, and also agrees that the scope of their distinct authorities has places of overlap, and so he says that the church being removed from public education with the youth is lamentable. But isn't this precisely where the spiritual is trumping the temporal? He doesn't want *secular* education. But this would subordinate the state, which from its autonomous point of view wants a purely pragmatic situation, in which the quantity of people included and getting along would be maximized. If the operating system or worldview of the state should not be its own, but the church's then this is subjection. The state's autonomous worlview is simply realpolitick and the fallen human obssession with its own reason and judgment.
And there is some sketchy ecumenism at the end, where he admits we are doctrinally and inflexibly opposed to the other so called "churches," with whom we cannot 'unite' since we already have the unity which they would have to convert to to achieve, but he implies that we need to pursue these heretics in larger numbers in the WCC, and win at that democratic game of fashionable endless discourse they're playing without understanding the equally inflexible globalist Rockefeller founding and aims of this group. Should our bishops go their if the pockets of all heretics are filled and checks are signed to the effect that they have this agenda and their ears are closed? Perhaps there are better places of mission than in the den of vipers, where a better approach is probably scolding them for being willfull and well-paid heretics and not caring about the media fanfare against them that would ensue.
May 27, 2022
This book gives a high level overview of the history of the orthodox church. It is pretty good, mainly because it is brief. It feels like the author has constrained himself to a word limit, which is great for this kind of book.
This being said, I feel like the sections on Russia were over-long. There was a chapter on the Russian church and then on communism which focused mainly on communism in Russia, so it was two chapters of a 10 chapter book.
The postscript, necessary because the book was originally published in 1960, is also rather dry. It doesn't mean much to me if so and so is the new patriarch of such and such place, it is just a name on a page. What are their activities?
As this sort of book (i.e. history book) goes, it didn't seem too egregiously polemical or biased.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ecumenism slant of the book. The author seems to be a big supporter of this, within church to heal schisms and outside church as a sort of missionary activity to reach out to Catholics and protestants.
I say this because I have heard other clergy, who seem as sensible as fr. Meyendorff, criticise ecumenism as a heresy, and a precursor to a possible perennialist "Beast" religious system. There is a concern that it would lead to compromise and corruption.
This being said, I feel like the sections on Russia were over-long. There was a chapter on the Russian church and then on communism which focused mainly on communism in Russia, so it was two chapters of a 10 chapter book.
The postscript, necessary because the book was originally published in 1960, is also rather dry. It doesn't mean much to me if so and so is the new patriarch of such and such place, it is just a name on a page. What are their activities?
As this sort of book (i.e. history book) goes, it didn't seem too egregiously polemical or biased.
I'm not sure how I feel about the ecumenism slant of the book. The author seems to be a big supporter of this, within church to heal schisms and outside church as a sort of missionary activity to reach out to Catholics and protestants.
I say this because I have heard other clergy, who seem as sensible as fr. Meyendorff, criticise ecumenism as a heresy, and a precursor to a possible perennialist "Beast" religious system. There is a concern that it would lead to compromise and corruption.
October 25, 2020
Good book to get a high-level perspective of (eastern) Church from an eastern perspective. I found the pre-schism section to be very helpful. Understanding the subjection that the Church received under the Arabs, Turks, and Communists gives context to the perceived insularity of EO from a lot of modern Christianity. The sections on the Russian Church was interesting to hear of its missionary efforts and how it responded to communism. Towards the end there is a chapter on the status of all the different EO church but it is a bit dry because it's a lot of stats and the book was written in the 60s so also a bit dated. There is a chapter on theology and mysticism to give a high level overview and identification of the emphasis' of Orthodox thought, which tends to be different than western Christianity. The last chapter is on Orthodox ecclesiology and how it differs from Roman and Protestant expressions. I think the Orthodox critique of ecumenism was helpful saying that unity ought not be focused around the bare minimums but the fullness of the faith.
TLDR: Good overview of history. A bit dry at points. Go-to if you're interested
TLDR: Good overview of history. A bit dry at points. Go-to if you're interested
August 13, 2020
I read this book as research for my novel The Name of Hero.
September 21, 2026
Informative with helpful perspectives. Ware’s The Orthodox Church surpasses this work, especially for an introductory reading. This is a nice follow-up as it treats details with greater attention.
Read
July 27, 2011Not a big fan of anything religous
August 25, 2013
Excellent read. Church history written for the lay person.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews