The following is not designed to offend my Reformed brethren, nor is it designed to impugn the training I received from my parents and the churches in which I was raised. My goal, rather, is to share a perspective I have gained and have come to appreciate. Also, sometimes I get something stuck in my craw and I have to vent to get it out.
Here we go.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but Church history did not begin with John Wycliffe. Church history did not begin with Martin Luther. Church history did not begin with the Westminster Assembly or with the Synod of Dordrecht.
The history of the Christian Church history began with Jesus Christ and His Apostles (I can imagine the good Presbyterians shouting "It started with Adam" at their computers right now).
I was raised in a Reformed Presbyterian church. We were a little unusual, sure, but I was raised to respect and follow the confessions of the Reformed tradition. Studying Church history, which is a strong emphasis within this tradition, was emphasized by my parents throughout my childhood. I grew up thinking that Reformed people really knew Church history! However, when I began to study Church history independently in my early 20s, I realized that I had been exposed to very little Christian teaching before the Reformation. Yes, I had heard about figures like Augustine and Origen, but I had never read any of their works, nor I had I been taught any of their ideas. I had a basic understanding of the Ecumenical Councils, but I can't say that we ever analysed or genuinely appreciated any of the writings from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Post-Nicene Fathers, or medieval theologians.
Church history was presented sort of like this:
A.D. 30-100: Jesus and the Apostles
A.D. 100-300: Church Fathers (these guys were okay)
A.D. 300-1500: Evil Catholics (you can ignore all of them)
A.D. 1500-1700: The Reformers (these are the good guys!)
As I interact with those who were raised with a similar worldview and with similar emphases, it appears to me that my childhood was far from unique. Again, to be clear, I appreciate the fact we studied much more Church history than most Christians I knew (especially Evangelicals), but what I came to realize is that there were gaping holes in the way that the Reformed community studies historical Christian figures and the development of theological concepts. You see, we Reformed folks think we're doing a good job of studying Church history (and maybe we're doing better than most), but what we don't realize is that, when we study the Reformers, we're actually studying relatively recent Church history. Let me put that another way: when it comes to Church history, the Reformed tradition is relatively young. We're basically the America of Church history. Now, this fact doesn't necessarily speak to the merits or demerits of our tradition, but it does mean that we can hardly claim to understand Church history, and, by extension, Christian perspectives on the Bible and the world, if we haven't studied the lives and writings of those who lived in the 1500 years of Church history that occurred before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to that door in Wittenberg.
Moreover, the Reformers would be absolutely distraught to discover such ignorance of early and mid Church history. They were, after all, attempting to restore Christianity to its ancient purity and to reclaim the Church from centuries of extrabiblical perversion. As we seek to honor and continue their work, we must remember that these corruptions in the Church were incremental, so we can't simply pick a date in Church history and choose to ignore everything that came before it. We must see the whole picture if we are to discern true, Biblical Christianity from pagan additions. We must know all of Church history if we wish to know our place in it and if we hope to identify our own unbiblical traditions. If we would be truly Reformed, we must acquaint ourselves with the writings, theologians, movements, and ideas that shaped the Reformers and the Reformation.
You can see, then, the danger inherent in casually dismissing all ideas that are not Confessional or Reformed. It may be difficult for Reformed folks to hear this, but Christians outside of our tradition have made valuable contributions to Christian theology (that may sound obvious to most people, but it's pretty Earth-shattering for some Reformed people). The Reformed tradition does not have a monopoly on the truth, nor have we plumbed the depths of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is Biblical, but Sola Confessiona is not. Confessions have their place, but we need to keep them in their place. When we refuse to discuss issues simply because they are not Confessional, we miss the chance to expand our theological horizons and to understand our own beliefs more fully. I don't want to overstate my point here. Confessions are certainly important and useful, but they should not be conversation-enders.
I get it--history is hard. There is a ton of ground to cover and that ground just keeps expanding. It's difficult enough for our pastors and parents to teach us about our own theological traditions, so attempting to communicate 2000 years of Church history may seem nearly impossible. It takes hard work and dedication. To be clear, I make no claims to be a Church historian. I have spent the last decade studying Church history, but I'm only just beginning. Church history is a passion of mine, and I believe that the Biblical example suggests that all Christians should be students of their spiritual heritage.
I would not want to conclude without reassuring my Reformed brethren that I respect my Reformed heritage and I have no intention of abandoning my Reformed moors. However, studying all 2000 years of Church history allows me to admit that the Reformed tradition is exactly that, a theological tradition. It has important emphases and blind spots, strengths and weaknesses, heroes and villains. As with any tradition born out of controversy, some of our positions are the result of overreacting to genuine evils in the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that the Reformed Tradition is the best representation of the Christian faith, but it is not exhaustive of the Christian faith. If we truly want to know our spiritual heritage, we must study all of Church history.
Here we go.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but Church history did not begin with John Wycliffe. Church history did not begin with Martin Luther. Church history did not begin with the Westminster Assembly or with the Synod of Dordrecht.
The history of the Christian Church history began with Jesus Christ and His Apostles (I can imagine the good Presbyterians shouting "It started with Adam" at their computers right now).
I was raised in a Reformed Presbyterian church. We were a little unusual, sure, but I was raised to respect and follow the confessions of the Reformed tradition. Studying Church history, which is a strong emphasis within this tradition, was emphasized by my parents throughout my childhood. I grew up thinking that Reformed people really knew Church history! However, when I began to study Church history independently in my early 20s, I realized that I had been exposed to very little Christian teaching before the Reformation. Yes, I had heard about figures like Augustine and Origen, but I had never read any of their works, nor I had I been taught any of their ideas. I had a basic understanding of the Ecumenical Councils, but I can't say that we ever analysed or genuinely appreciated any of the writings from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Post-Nicene Fathers, or medieval theologians.
Church history was presented sort of like this:
A.D. 30-100: Jesus and the Apostles
A.D. 100-300: Church Fathers (these guys were okay)
A.D. 300-1500: Evil Catholics (you can ignore all of them)
A.D. 1500-1700: The Reformers (these are the good guys!)
As I interact with those who were raised with a similar worldview and with similar emphases, it appears to me that my childhood was far from unique. Again, to be clear, I appreciate the fact we studied much more Church history than most Christians I knew (especially Evangelicals), but what I came to realize is that there were gaping holes in the way that the Reformed community studies historical Christian figures and the development of theological concepts. You see, we Reformed folks think we're doing a good job of studying Church history (and maybe we're doing better than most), but what we don't realize is that, when we study the Reformers, we're actually studying relatively recent Church history. Let me put that another way: when it comes to Church history, the Reformed tradition is relatively young. We're basically the America of Church history. Now, this fact doesn't necessarily speak to the merits or demerits of our tradition, but it does mean that we can hardly claim to understand Church history, and, by extension, Christian perspectives on the Bible and the world, if we haven't studied the lives and writings of those who lived in the 1500 years of Church history that occurred before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to that door in Wittenberg.
Moreover, the Reformers would be absolutely distraught to discover such ignorance of early and mid Church history. They were, after all, attempting to restore Christianity to its ancient purity and to reclaim the Church from centuries of extrabiblical perversion. As we seek to honor and continue their work, we must remember that these corruptions in the Church were incremental, so we can't simply pick a date in Church history and choose to ignore everything that came before it. We must see the whole picture if we are to discern true, Biblical Christianity from pagan additions. We must know all of Church history if we wish to know our place in it and if we hope to identify our own unbiblical traditions. If we would be truly Reformed, we must acquaint ourselves with the writings, theologians, movements, and ideas that shaped the Reformers and the Reformation.
You can see, then, the danger inherent in casually dismissing all ideas that are not Confessional or Reformed. It may be difficult for Reformed folks to hear this, but Christians outside of our tradition have made valuable contributions to Christian theology (that may sound obvious to most people, but it's pretty Earth-shattering for some Reformed people). The Reformed tradition does not have a monopoly on the truth, nor have we plumbed the depths of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is Biblical, but Sola Confessiona is not. Confessions have their place, but we need to keep them in their place. When we refuse to discuss issues simply because they are not Confessional, we miss the chance to expand our theological horizons and to understand our own beliefs more fully. I don't want to overstate my point here. Confessions are certainly important and useful, but they should not be conversation-enders.
I get it--history is hard. There is a ton of ground to cover and that ground just keeps expanding. It's difficult enough for our pastors and parents to teach us about our own theological traditions, so attempting to communicate 2000 years of Church history may seem nearly impossible. It takes hard work and dedication. To be clear, I make no claims to be a Church historian. I have spent the last decade studying Church history, but I'm only just beginning. Church history is a passion of mine, and I believe that the Biblical example suggests that all Christians should be students of their spiritual heritage.
I would not want to conclude without reassuring my Reformed brethren that I respect my Reformed heritage and I have no intention of abandoning my Reformed moors. However, studying all 2000 years of Church history allows me to admit that the Reformed tradition is exactly that, a theological tradition. It has important emphases and blind spots, strengths and weaknesses, heroes and villains. As with any tradition born out of controversy, some of our positions are the result of overreacting to genuine evils in the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that the Reformed Tradition is the best representation of the Christian faith, but it is not exhaustive of the Christian faith. If we truly want to know our spiritual heritage, we must study all of Church history.
Comments
Post a Comment