Why I Study Church History
Round 1
In 2017-18, I began studying church history. I found a number of quality resources and end up listening to over 150 lectures on church history from variety of perspectives. And now , four years later, I’m turning to it again. Recently, I’ve been giving some thought to why it is that I’m doing this.
For round 1, I wanted to make sense of the people, movements, and thought that made up the Christian landscape we see today. I also wanted to understand how I was raised. It's not that I was even raised in a terrible way, it's just that it's a particular brand of Christianity and I want to know what it's called, if the movement is over or not, and what might be coming next.
Initially, I was obsessed over church history. I thought about driving out to Indiana because a friend was getting rid of a a bunch of boxes of church history books. I also thought about getting an MA in Church History. This highlights one of my dark habits: I dig excessively into something and then after a short time, forget about it and move on. But interestingly, these binge explorations are on a cycle because four years later, I’m returning to church history with some more degrees and life experience.
I set my heart on studying church history through lectures. At that time, I was walking and driving so I have plenty of time to listen to lectures.
1. The History of Theology-- Dr. Philip Cary
2. Handout Church History-- Dr. John Gerstner
3. A Survey of Church History-- Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
4. Church History-- Dr. Nathan Busenitz
As I worked my way through these lectures, what struck me most was that **every historical and theological event happened in reaction to something.** For example, the canon(s) of Scripture were developed as a defense against extrabiblical literature. The church councils met to discuss and correct theological statements made by heretics. Truths that had taken as traditionally true, had to be defended, reshaped, and codified. I came to learn that Calvin didn't create TULIP; Calvin's followers summarized the theology of *Institutes of Christian Religion* as a defense against Arminianism at the Council of Dordt.
I also came to realize that **interpretations and positions I hold dearly to today, is not what might be held commonly by other people around me in the United States, nor is it the way that people have held to be true throughout all of history.** The great debates over the in errancy and infallibility of the scripture that continue within conservative circle (especially within the Evangelical Theological Society) are new to the 21st century they are the church fathers. Included in this list is complementarianism, fundamentalism and literal interpretations of Scripture, young earth creationism, and dispensational premillennialism. All of those things are formulations of a more modern time.
That these views are "new" doesn't necessarily mean that I shouldn't believe them. Rather, I need to realize they are products of my time and that I should hold them lightly. This always raises a question why God made certain things in theology so complex changing with time and what am I to do with the fact that commonly held beliefs are relatively new.
Round 2--2024--Present
After letting these things percolate for four years, I've returned to study church history again. This time my focus was on the historical and theological influence of fundamentalism.
And Sunday school a few weeks ago one of the teachers was talking about a Bible verse, which is often misinterpreted in the King James. The verse is 1 Thessalonians 5:22: "Abstain from all appearance of evil..." The verse have something to do with don’t do anything that looks like it’s evil. This got a whole discussion going about the misinterpretation of the King James Bible and how the original text doesn’t emphasize the idea of "appearance." The common misinterpretations of this passage could be captured in a sentence like this: "If you want to maintain a good name and testimony in front of others, you must refrain from any action, language, or contact that gives the appearance of evil. And this is not just my suggestion — it is the commandment of God found in **First Thessalonians 5:22**." Practices strongly held by fundamentalists could include things like not playing cards, not going to movies, drinking alcahol, etc. These views are less tied to the text and more to the movement of fundamentalism. It was a fascinating discussion.
The other day, my uncle mentioned to me that growing up my grandparents were very open about the things that they believed and said you can bring up whatever you want at the table as long as you respect respectful. The fundamentalist mindset is more separatist than this which may include a refusal to engage with ideas contrary to those firmly held.
So I wanted to know more about where I came from and what are the values of fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that are so hotly contested today. What "evangelical" even means today is hotly contested. These ideas have played out recently in the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement, Together 4 the Gospel, Desiring God, and The Gospel Coalition. These discussions are also happening at Christianity Today, who is a little bit more on the liberal side, but makes good commentary. Reading these debates but they’re often overwhelming because I end up feeling like somehow I’m a bad person because I have a fundamentalist background and actually believe the Bible doesn’t have any errors.
So I emotionally want to try to understand what’s going on and had to not be overwhelmed by people from the anti-patriarchal anti-complementary or people like Kristen Kobes du Mez who write critically about patriarchal, anti-complementarianism, the rise and fall of purity culture, etc. This things are interesting and enlightening, but I’m trying to make sense of how to think about them which is one of the reasons why I understand what fundamentalism is and what are the movements of the 21st century in the United States that have shaped the way that I see theology.
I’m been reading *The Story of Christian Theology* by Roger E Olsen and his take on the fundamentalist/modernist split. Fundamentalism is that it is based on the 1910 *The Fundamentals* (edited by R.A. Torrey) which tried to react to liberalism as a as a movement. This volume contains 100 or so essays that articulated orthodox Christian believe which to my understanding overall these little essays are spot on, but overtime things were added to them. Additions included: dispensational premillennialism, young creationism, militant separatism, literal interpretations of Scripture, and firm belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. During the mid-20th century you have people like Carl Henry and Billy Graham coming to the forefront to define conservative evangelicalism and on the other side, you have people like Bob Jones, who are very separate and not engaged with culture and refused to interact with BIlly Graham.
I think the separatism associated with fundamentalism is permeates evangelicalism today. It’s the idea that if you hold to a different set of standards or values or nuance that I do I’m not going interact with you. Someone once told me he wouldn't let his kids have non-Christian friends.
This separatism and legalism gave fundamentalism a bad name. The term "evangelical" arose to define people who were holding to orthodox Protestantism but wanted to engage with culture. David Bebbington got it right when he identified the true components of evangelicalism as: activism, biblicism, conversion, and crucicentrism. The term "evangelical" now has come under attack for a variety of reasons which I’m not quite sure how to articulate right now.
Recently Eric Metaxas wrote in his book called letter to a Christian nation was that Christian lost the war on sex because they focus so much on conversion and evangelism not enough on discipleship.I don’t know how much I would agree with this because I think that conversion is a big deal. Yet, I think that evangelicals have a tendency to focus on doctrine more than they do activism and often times you see that more Main Line churches are more activist than Baptists and nondenominational churches. I think think this is concerning.
I think this topic warrants a lot of discussion as I think conversion really needs to be re-thought of and defined. I have written much on this in other places.
My study of church history has been enlightening. I don’t have all the answers, but I feel like I’m armed with some resources to be able to confront what’s happening around me and even challenged my own church practices and doctrines.
I often ask, Does it matter which camp I am in if I consider myself to be reformed or dispensational or the young earth creationism, or Young, Restless, and Reformed? I don’t know if it matters, but I’d like to know what these categories are when we speak around with more precision in historical knowledge what is happening here and how I can myself and others and teach and read and live God God‘s word before my family and I watching world with intelligence that doesn’t pollute or corrupt the church more than already is.
You also see the church in America falling and now we are like "oh no, we have to do something about this. " We live in a negative world as Aaron Renn might say. But we’ve always been like this, and things have been worse toward Christians than they are to us in America. But look at Europe. Europe is very secular and atheistic, and cultural Christianity is no more. That is now hitting America. (See writings by Stefan Paas). We’re like, "oh my gosh, what am I gonna do?" Why are we surprised and what we feel like we need to go have some kind of movement to get cultural Christianity back, I don’t think the world getting any better, but that is a topic for another day.