Appreciating Church History as a Baptist, Part Two

In my first post I noted the tendency of Baptists generally not to be interested in church history. Exceptions tend to be few and far between. I also note the belief of some people (generally Roman Catholics or Orthodox believers) that studying church history would, almost invariably, lead people to join one of the ancient Christian faiths. That certainly happened to John Henry Newman, as noted in the previous post, who became a Roman Catholic. I knew many Evangelical Christians who were shocked and confused (and dismayed?) that Hank Hanagraaff, “The Bible Answer Man,” had joined the Greek Orthodox church. I have heard of Catholics confused as to why C.S. Lewis did not become a Roman Catholic with the suggestion that if he lived longer, surely he would have shifted. This is despite Lewis giving pretty clearly stated reasons why he would not consider changing his faith tradition.

I will admit that if I decided to join one of the ancient faiths, I do think it would be Eastern Orthodox, although I really don’t have much interest, if any, in joining any of these. That is not to say that I am thoroughly happy with being a Baptist, or an Evangelical, or a Protestant, or any particular label. Every group has its flaws. It seems like many Baptist groups (including my own) are almost reveling in these flaws today. But here are a few thoughts on how I really appreciate Church History while being a Baptist. Or more directly, why I feel good about studying Church History without a compulsion to leave the Baptist tradition.

The least commendable reason is inertia. Change is wearisome. To change I need both PUSH (something driving me out of where I am at) and PULL (something pulling me to an alternative). I think it is safe to say that there is some PUSH in terms of dissatisfaction with what is going on among “Evangelicals” in the United States where the faith tradition is being driven way off-course, in my view. However, that PUSH generally just makes me look for a more nuanced and perhaps integrated understanding of the Christian faith rather than a desire to wholly change identity. That is because I don’t feel a PULL to an alternative. Again, this may not be the most commendable reason. It is, however, honest and the driving reason for a large percentage of the population not changing faith identity. Another reason that is not that commendable is enculturation. I was enculturated into the Baptist tradition, and there are many things I greatly appreciate in that tradition. One of the biggest one is its flexibility— a quality that many of the ancient faiths are less known for. And while I see the value of liturgy, especially in primary orality cultures, I don’t really have much of a desire to be part of a group that is “high church” (even though “low church” megachurches that make services appear more like a pop concert is not really for me either).

As I said these first two reasons are pretty common to most people, but are not all that interesting. Let’s go to more important reasons.

3. I look at church history through the lens of cultural anthropology. I really think it is the way that all Christians should. Here is what happens with most (?) Christians. When they read church history, that look for “their tribe.” This goes back to how Christians view Jesus. A theologically liberal versus theologically liberal Christian versus a Christian mystic is likely to see Jesus through his or her own tribal lens. A theologically liberal Christian may focus on passages of Jesus emphasis on the poor and loving one’s neighbor. A theologically conservative Christian may focus on passages of Jesus proclaiming salvation and following the one true way. A Christian mystic may focus on “the hard sayings” of Jesus. We look at history through a cultural lens and if we cannot find our tribe in church history we might invent the tribe (like the “trail of blood” theology of Baptists). But our culture exists in locale and in time. Baptists in Ghana, Africa today are VERY different from Baptists in England, which are very different from Baptists in Arkansas in the United States. But this is true of time as well. Baptists in the 1725 are very different from Baptists in 1825, 1925, and 2025. And this is true of Christians of all sects and traditions. One should absolutely anticipate that Christians of different ages will be different. It is Christ first and Scripture second that give us our centering as a diverse unity. If I find that Christians at a time in history typically would venerate (or at least “seem” to worship) Mary the mother of Jesus, I don’t have to pretend that they are like me or that I should be like them. To imitate them exactly, at any point in history, is flawed. I am not supposed to recreate the church of 34AD or 534AD or 1834AD. I am supposed to be part of the 2025AD church which should be dissimilar to all of these other churches. Finding that there is a church that tries to maintain a greater continuity with one of the streams of church history is fine—- perhaps even commendable in some sense— but it does not make it superior. If the church is centered on Christ and Scripture it is part of the same family as the other traditions. That is not to say that one cannot learn from history. WE ABSOLUTELY SHOULD LEARN FROM HISTORY. Learning from is not, however, the same as imitating. The arguments for and against icons in church history can give us insight into struggles that we may face today. However, to identify one side as being right and one must completely follow their lead and the other side is wrong and must be shunned, is probably not really learning from history.

4. The last reason I will give is that as one studies church history one finds that simplistic views break down pretty fast. I was brought up to see Baptists as the ones who pretty much got everything right and every other tradition getting it more wrong (and the further away from Baptist distinctives the more wrong one finds things). Church of Christ (at least some denominations within this faith tradition) see their denomination founded in 33AD (and even put this on their church signs). History does not seem to support this, but also doesn’t wholly contradict it. There are doctrines that can find themselves weaving through the earliest times in Christian history until today, even if these threads may be considered insignificant by others. The Roman Catholic church has at times seen itself as the one true church… sometimes going to great length to drive home that point (even with the use of violence). One can, however, see reasons to support the ancient aspirations for the Roman Catholics, while also seeing clear challenges to this primacy. Pentecostals and Charismatics also often see church history supporting a thread of their traditions from the time of St. Peter until today. While these interpretations seem rather “Procrustean” (look it up if you want), their views are not completely unwarranted. The point is that Christian History or Church History can be better described as Christian or Church HISTORIES. While there has always been a desire to simplify, sanitize, or reduce histories to a simply and straight line, this correlates poorly with the events of the past. The histories of the church are messy and the church is often at its best (in my view) when it embraces that diversity rather than desiring to crush it.

So Yes, I am very comfortable with being Baptist while loving Church History. I don’t need to find Baptists hiding between the lines of “official” church history. Even if this was so, and there were certainly “proto-Protestants,” they would still be very different than myself. And that is fine. No Roman Catholic or Coptic or Armenian, or Church of the East, or any other group should expect to find their faith culture in the present mirrored perfectly in history— even in those streams of church history that seem to be the source of their form of Christianity today.

Some may see this as cop-out— like I am trying to make something positive in history out of something negative for my tradition. But I really don’t think I am doing mental gymnastics. In fact, I think those who try to push their own flavor of Christianity into the 1st century church (for example) has to go through an awful lot more mental gymnastics than simply recognizing that they, in the early church, are culturally separate from us due to the barriers of space and time.

I also believe we can learn more from Church history (or histories) if we don’t try to remake them in our image.

You will notice that I am not actually noting differences in doctrine in this post. Sure, I could express my rejection of some aspects of Mariology, or Sacramental Theology or Adoration of Relics. And yes, those are (somewhat) important issues to me. However, the question in these two posts is the effect of Church History on one’s faith journey. I can look back, for example, to the Medieval church and find inspiration in the chaplains who served in roadway chapels for the Christian pilgrims enroute to holy sites and relics of saints for healing or other blessings. I can see in these chaplains something that is valuable to me in serving those in need in their spiritual (or non-spiritual) life pilgrimages. I can be inspired by the faith that drove the pilgrims to holy sites without necessarily embracing their theology. I can desire to emulate some aspects of the Nestorian missionary priests who moved along the Silk Road in the first millenium establish trading posts, churches, hospitals, and educational institutions. I can do so without trying to make them like me… or try simply to copy them.