One of the ineffable truths that a theologian must face is the connection between their own study and the past. In almost every way, the development of theology is dependent on the historical development of the Church’s thought. The foundational blocks of every legitimate theological thought are placed there by people who have most likely long since past. In a big way, the life of the Christian is or is found in History. With the help of Rowan William’s book Why Study The Past, this paper will posit five reasons why the study of the past is important and how the study of history informs Church ministry.
History is important for the church because history is apart of who we are as worshipers of God. We use it to gage both how right and how wrong we are regarding our theology. As we compare the situations of our theological convictions with the theological development through history, it is important for us to take what looks strange in light of that contrast and use it as a tool to refine our theological comprehension. Within history, we see inconsistencies, both past and present that help guide our understanding toward the God who we are searching for. The reality of the situation is that from our modern perspective, we expect that the development of theology, historically speaking, has developed in a way that makes our modern context make sense, when this may not be the case at all. It is more likely that development of theology turns out the way it has in a way that seems utterly backwards to us. Williams points out, “Eusebius and John Foxe wrote what we can’t help seeing as bad twenty-first-century history – but they were not trying to write good twenty-first-century history.” When we read Eusebius’ writings, and we see the things that he focuses on as he relays the first few centuries of church history, we see that the things which are important to Eusebius are not necessarily the facts but the plot. The things that should be interesting to us, the things that we should be looking for, are how the church managed to get through three centuries of persecution.
The claims of the early Church were mixed up not only with the theological questions of the day, and not just with the political circumstances, but also with the historical congruency of the martyrs and the practical concerns of the local ecclesia. The theological result therefore, is incredibly complex and intermingled with the extra-theological issues. Often the tendency is to want to just take the theological deliberations of history as an isolated whole. It is one thing to point to the conclusion of the council of Chalcedon being the Chalecedon creed, it is an entirely other matter to delve into the 405 years of church history that lead up to those conclusions. We also need to keep in mind how the political circumstances so greatly effected the results of that council. It is not just a council that produced pages that go in our hymnals, there were Christians who were dying up until the point that Constantine united his empire under the banner of Chrystendom. Constantine marked the end of hundreds of years of persecution. In this light, the Church militant and triumphant would have meant a marked difference in the lives of every day Christians. We also see how much the unity of the church meant to the early church, not that we should be idolizing the past, for surely there was nothing idyllic about the early church. But at the same time, the church did not want to separate itself from its connection with the martyrs, in a lot of ways, the ecclesia of the first few centuries was the story of the martyr. The issues that the churched concerned themselves with most in the first few centuries had to do with whether it was excusable to escape death as a bishop. “The martyr is the conduit of divine presence who vindicates the claim to another citizenship.”[1] It was the connection with the martyrs that connected the local ecclesia to their actual home in heaven. This is also why the Gnostic controversies were so predominant. This connection that the church had with the martyrs and the death of a churchman, carries over into the discussion of whether Christ was human, divine, or both, and at its core, the debate was concerned with the unity of the Church. So far we have seen the ways in which studying history helps us to identify what is strange to us modern academics so that we can understand both what the past is trying to tells us and also so that we can be united in the story with the martyrs. But there are other reasons why we study the past. The next section focuses on the reformation and the extra
When we look at the reformation theologically, sometimes it seems fairly cut and dry regarding what happened and how it came about. The pope was bad, the catholic church had become corrupt and immoral, Luther busted into the scene and the rest of the reformation followed him. Faith, Scripture, and sacraments were of first importance and within the reformation a Christian could again become a Christian. Obviously, this is an over-simplification of the reformation, but to the average layman, what more is known? And truth be told, it would not be far off to assume that many people see the reformation just like a clean and clear cut distinction from the catholic church and that is all. If we were to compare this summary with what is happening in our own day, it would be very easy to idealize the reformation, after all our own experiences with the church seem muddled and almost heavy-laden with extra circumstances and church politics. We are surprised to find out that the reformation was in fact a very messy ordeal. Williams puts it well when he says, “The Reformation, when it happened was neither simply about theological disagreement, nor simply about the papacy over against emerging princely states; it was both, because of lack of confidence in the papacy as an institution that could plausibly solve problems.”[2] The reformation was neither a clear-cut break of protestants from catholics, nor was it only a theological disagreement, the reformation was the result of theological, political and social environments. Islamic documents had surfaced and spread as the Byzantine empire collapsed. The political thread that held Europe together, the church, had become corrupt and unstable. There was a developing sense of nationalism, people began identifying themselves by the region they lived in. The development of vernacular language made the distinction between region even stronger. The development of the natural sciences begin to shake the ground of established truths, truths that were established by the church, which brings about a sense of doubt rather than trust. These issues, along with the emergence of a middle class, and the discovery of new lands in the Americas make the situation in Europe ripe for a schism. All this to say that there is a lot more going on in the background than just Luther wanting to break apart from the catholic church, which of course is not something that he wanted. Luther’s desire was for dissent and reformation for the purpose of correction not divorce.
Finally, Williams points out the importance in understanding how things have come to be. He says, “People don’t want to think to hard about the actual process by which things come to be as they are. To think about processes here means both to understand that the record of the past is a record of change as well as continuity and to see that the way things presently are is something that itself has come to be, not something self-evidently right and final.”[3] Often we look at our modern circumstance and assume that the past must have been much of the same or, as Williams puts it, “The present in fancy dress.”[4] Honestly, as a young freshman in college, this was one of the most enlightening bits of knowledge that was handed to me. I had come from a non-denominational church whose focus was on mission and practically nothing else. I had received no biblical instruction, and my faith was largely shaped by experience and cultural influence. When I started studying the writings of Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, I began to see much of the values that I held and was taught. I began to realize the extent of influence that the past has on my present. In this sense, it is more so that the present is the past in fancy dress. As we come to understand how and why Luther began to dissent from the catholic church, as we come to understand the influence that Platonic philosophy had on Augustine, as we com to understand the effects of the 400 years that built up to the birth of Christ, we see that the past is so very strange in its presentation of events. We see in fact that the past, in many ways is wholeheartedly different from the present. But in these differences, we see how much we have been affected by current, or at least recent influence and circumstance. For instance, Williams makes a point about how Karl Barth saw historical figures, “Barth’s Anselm, Barth’s Calvin, even Barth’s St Paul, owe a lot to Barth’s Kierkegaard; and Barth’s brilliant reinterpretation of Calvinist doctrine about predestination is clearly advancing a vision Calvin could not have owned.”[5] Our perceptions and the things that influence us shape our thought and enable us to read the past in new light. But it is imperative that we recognize this new light and not assume that our thought was Calvin’s thought. We are joining a conversation that has been going on for over 2000 years. In order to take part, we must approach the conversation with an air of humility.
We conclude now, having an understanding of the importance that studying the past has on our thought. By studying history, we come to see the strangeness, of both the past and the present. Through studying the past, we are joined with the martyrs who died for the church. By studying history, we are able to understand that no instance is ever a standalone circumstance, never simply a theological, political, or cultural issue but very much so affected by any influences. And, through studying the past, we can recognize how we are influenced by our environment and that we read the past through our modern lens. By becoming aware of these four aspects, we are better equipped to interact with our church family, in order that we might grow into what God has created us to grow into.
References
Williams, Rowan. Why Study The Past?: The Quest For The Historical Church. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment