Nestorianism

This topic was one of surprising personal interest for me. At the beginning of this discussion I knew something about the subject matter, I knew that Nestorianism was a heresy which made itself well known in Asia which resulted from a debate about the singularity of Jesus Christ. However I also assumed that the divide was much bigger than it was. I assumed for example that the east, as it were would have swallowed up the faith so much that it would be unrecognisable as my own (I am Roman Catholic). As such I saw the Nestorian faith much the same way I saw for example Zoroastrianism, as a faith which was interesting from largely a historical perspective, which, what do you know? Have some odds and ends that connect it with mine. The first major break in this theory was the use of the term Assyrian church in class, I had never before associated the Nestorian church, what in my mind was a purely historical phenomenon with this real live living church which was a fundamentally similar to my own. The second major break to my preconception was the article assigned intitled Oxtoby, "Christian Origins". As a lifelong Catholic with 12 years of Catholic school to my name, I was brought up with this information, and not a real word of it was unknown to me having celebrated the traditions all my life. Ironically the only part that I was unfamiliar with was the actual break with the Nestorian church, I found out later that that was the only part we were obligated to read, although I was familiar with the bare bones of heretical separation. This brings up once again the uncomfortable subject of whether or not people should be permitted or whether it is possible to give a real interpretation of what is essentially ones own religion from a historical point of view. It was certainly an incredibly uncomfortable experience having to go through those explainations of the key points of my faith for the first time with a real critical eye, looking at it not as a faith to be awed at but rather as a historical conceptions, to explore or even critique. There is still no doubt in my mind that Nestorianism is a fundamentally different religion than my own but if you asked me before today what was number 1 on my list of descriptions of Christianity, the single natural of Jesus Christ would not be high on my list of defining features. I was much more on a firm footing with the other articles. I found particularly interesting the descriptions of the daily life in the Tang dynasty not only were these rich in historical detail but presented a very interesting picture of a society that is probably the most like ours of almost any civilization in the ancient world. The image of hundreds of different religions, skin colors and points of view conjure up images of a society very much like our own Toronto. After a more nuisanced reading of course one discovers the fear that people had when confronted with these new religions and cultures, the ministry in charge of them, and the slowly closing fist of Chinese imperial xenophobia which would clench entirely in the events of the An Lushan rebellion just a few years earlier. As for the last article, the description of the Nestorians as almost apologetic of there faith does seem to be of great interest in terms of there theological development as a religion and could easily be attributed to an evolution of the faith due to there time in the east. However it seems much more likely given the circumstances, that like many faiths that are surrounded on all sides by potentially, but not openly hostile forces, they as individuals decided to leave well enough alone and not draw trouble to themselves by openly proclaiming superiority.