To Correct Many Modern Problems, We Must See Past the Historic Point of View
I have read and heard many critiques of the American evangelical church. Each one usually focuses on a particular issue, yet they all seem to fall short in identifying the root cause of why things are the way they are in “Big Eva.” I would like to offer one. We find this root cause stated for us in The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. It is called the “Historical Point of View.” You will find it in Letter 27:
“… it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another. But thanks be to our Father and the Historical Point of View, great scholars are now as little nourished by the past as the most ignorant mechanic who holds that “history is bunk.””
This is of course from the devil’s perspective. Even though we are not to be ignorant of Satan’s schemes, I find this one hard at work in the American church, with no opposition outside of the Reformed camp. Behind everything, whether it relates to worship, ecclesiology, evangelism, music or whatever else, cutting the church off from the past plays a big part in the current state of American Christianity.
Fundamentally I sense an underlying arrogance, even hubris, that we know better. Our S.T.E.M obsessed education and culture leads to pride. This works particularly well in conjunction with The Historical Point of View. We seem to think because we are so technologically advanced that we are smarter than previous generations and nothing these people say could possibly be of value. This is reinforced by our lack of education in the humanities, even believing them to be intellectually inferior and unworthy of our time. How will they help me make a living? I find the exact opposite to be true. Even though John Calvin knew nothing about computer science, virtually no one living today could hold a candle to him concerning the truths of Christianity or what it actually means to be a human being.
My own experience in theological education provides another example of The Historical Point of View. Never in my entire time at Seminary was I assigned to read a significant theologian from the past. No Augustine, Luther, Calvin or even Bavinck (from just a hundred years ago). Most of our time was spent trying to counter the ridiculous assertions of modern liberal professors. This of course has its place but should not be the emphasis. This is a significant departure from the education of ministers in the past. Not only were they familiar with the great theologians of the church but also with the great non-Christians thinkers of the past (good and bad). Thus they were able to keep their congregations from being taken “captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Col 2:8).” There is after all nothing new under the sun, unless it is hidden and obscured by The Historical Point of View.
Contributing as well to the success of the Historical Point of View is what I believe to be a misapplication of John 16:13: “When the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth.” This misapplication can be attributed primarily to the emphasis of feelings and emotion brought by feminism. This verse of course was absolutely true for the Apostles, the recipients of this promise. They were led into infallible truth. Surely the Spirit leads us today but not in the same sense as we find in this verse.
Instead, The Historical Point of View is all too happy to make us think the spirit leads us in the same way, leading to our own exegesis which arrogantly ignores the past. This exegesis being heavily influenced by “my truth” leads us to rely on our feelings. But as Bavinck says in his prolegomena, “Feeling is especially unfit to serve as the epistemic source of religious truth, for feeling is never a prior thing but always something that follows later. Feeling only reacts and yields a sensation of what is pleasant.” No one looks to a confession or catechism to provide a check. We just continue to do what feels right.
I think it is important for us rather to see the application of John 16:13 as it comes to us across generations. It took the church three centuries after the death of the Apostles to make a definitive statement about the deity of Christ. Do you think the Apostles were ignorant of his deity? It seems as if the church immediately descended into bad theology. It had no clear confession or statement of the truth. It needed to search the Scriptures and make a statement of the truth. Subsequent generations then built on it. If theology is considered a science (as it once was) then each new discovery depends on the work of those who came before. We reject this idea today. This is the focus of Screwtape’s advice to Wormwood. If he can get every generation to reinvent the wheel it becomes easier to introduce falsehood and heresy into the church and particularly its worship.
Great swaths of the American evangelical church have abandoned, even rejected the great confessions of the Reformation or the creeds of the early ecumenical councils. For a portion of the year, I, as a snowbird, attend a large nondenominational church that has refused to adopt a confession. This results in ignorance of both their existence and content. I believe this to be the case in many large evangelical churches. This is probably the example par excellence of The Historical Point of View in action. There is a strong bias against doctrine. Many think that doctrine divides. What are the confessions other than statements about doctrine?
Leaving our past behind results in a church that is almost too evangelical and/or too pragmatic. Many things can be said about this, but lack of substance and tradition (rightly understood) has been cited in many articles here for the abandonment of “big Eva” in favor of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Take preaching, for example. It is either entirely focused on reaching the lost (too evangelical), or on more practical, egalitarian issues (too pragmatic). The former results (like the mathematical analogy of the greatest common denominator) in never getting past the elementary doctrines of Christ and onto maturity; always milk not solid food. Again, Bavinck says, “Focusing on practical theology and preaching is problematic because it’s theological starting point is not God but humanity’s need for salvation.” I wonder how this focus will fare in the increasing persecution I think is coming to the American church. Which do you think will be more helpful in persecution and hardship; knowing the “pantokrator” (The Almighty, Rev. 1:8), or Hallmark theology (i.e. follow my feelings)? We think there is no benefit in just proclaiming the glory of this infinite, eternal, unchanging God whose holiness and power might cause you to rethink the casual way in which many approach worship.
Finally there is the great exchange. Even though Screwtape’s advice was focused on preventing an intergenerational transfer of knowledge, it is also applicable in other ways that our culture rejects the historical aspects of Christianity. The Historical Point of View prevents us from seeing what we have lost. As a result there are many comparisons which we fail to make. Take, for example, architecture. Here we have truly abandoned transcendent beauty and majesty for an overwhelming, even suffocating egalitarianism and pragmatism. Instead of Christ Church Episcopal in Philadelphia with its sublime beauty and elevated pulpit communicating the primacy of the word, we have the Home Depot concrete box complete with a stage. The stage communicates entertainment. The preaching slowly fades into the background. A search of the Westminster Confession (21.5) would teach us that there is much more to worship than just the band.
Even in music we see the great exchange. For some reason I think the words of Abide With Me – “Hold thou thy cross before my closing eyes, shine through the darkness, point me to the skies” might be more comforting to my elderly brother or sister, while they watch their bodies fail before their eyes, than most of the contemporary Christian music I hear regularly in worship. That may just be me.
Some serious introspection with the Heidelberg or Westminster Confession as our guide would, I think, do wonders to correct many abuses if we could only get past “The Historical Point of View.”
Image credit:
And so the only ones who claim to have a monopoly on the right answers while escaping pride are those who follow the Reformed tradition? We must be exceptional.
On the other hand, Sketchley might look at the Western Church from the 18th century on. Why? Because in the pre-revolutionary time of nations like France, Russia, and Spain, the dominant branch of the Church in a given nation has a strong tendency to support wealth and power. And in those nations where revolutions occurred, the Church suffered unnecessary but understandable persecution while the reputation of the Gospel was seriously tarnished. Why do you think Critical Theory and Post Modernism came into existence and grew?
I do not claim to have a monopoly on right answers. My challenge to you is this – can you show me a more comprehensive, in depth exposition of the Christian Faith other than the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF)? I would say that previous generations (i.e. lay persons) instructed and chatechized by the WCF know more about Christianity than 99% of those attending a large non denominational church. The Historical Point of View denies them the ability to access it.
Great article. Very pithy and erudite.
Here some thoughts that go along side it for consideration.
“Most of our time was spent trying to counter the ridiculous assertions of modern liberal professors.”
Bet that was true.
“It seems as if the church immediately descended into bad theology.”
Remember that Paul wrote to the Ephesus church in acts that grievous wolves would come from among them. Thus it is not necessarily a failure but God’s appointed trial which resulted in crystalizing Christiology.
“It had no clear confession or statement of the truth. It needed to search the Scriptures and make a statement of the truth. Subsequent generations then built on it. If theology is considered a science (as it once was) then each new discovery depends on the work of those who came before.”
Good but not complete. Theology is man’s synthesis of Bible doctrine. Studying what went before is essential to responsible pastoral leadership but the ranking member in the scholarship room is the scriptures alone. It’s not dependant on man.
“Lack of substance and tradition (rightly understood) has been cited in many articles here for the abandonment of “big Eva” in favor of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.”
Maybe for the reprobate – but the Lord said to Sadducees ye know neither the scriptures nor the power thereof. It is Pharisees/Saducees looking to existing doctrine not the scriptures that was their undoing. We can’t measure the yard stick by the cloth. But look to yardstick, the substance. Tradition is man made and comparable.
Big Eva’s problem is she is ignorant of the scriptures. I have no relationship with her. She is not my creation or my Father’s. The Lord’s churches in the Bible are independent of the world’s thinking. Especially worldly churches. True pastors, as you recommend, should consider theological shift historically but must preach the Doctrine from the scriptures authoritatively for God’s Word to be glorified rather than a faulty man made structure which a creed, novel or catechism is. Useful? Yes. But should never be preached. That’s for God’s word only.
Phrases like ‘reformer’ beg the question of what are you reforming. Historically it’s was the Roman Catholic church. Thus it was doomed to failure then, and now.
The better approach is to be a part of a NT church as described in Acts. Such a church can trust that its message, testimony, fecundity, and service will convict others as God dictates. For our purpose is only to glory to God and the edification of the saints that were given by God to that church.
Thank you for your kind comments. I too believe in the motto of the Reformation: Sola Scriptura.