The assumption is that the church is a building being built, a tree growing up, or a human being maturing.
All are metaphors that apply in many cases (and the Bible does so), but they aren’t sufficient to justify a “theory” of doctrinal development.
The church is a pilgrim through the ages. It constantly thinks it now knows reality only to find that reality has changed. The church is a missionary assigned to move on into unknown territory. Yes, what she has learned in past mission fields can help her. But it can also delude her into thinking she knows all she needs to know.
And actually, she is many missionaries who go into different areas. The idea that Evangelicals in Asia need to rehearse opinions about medieval superstitions, or celebrate something that happened in Germany in 1517, is bizarre. That is not development. It is imperialism.
The church has one and only one document that is sufficient to the ages, the Scriptures. It is called to apply the Bible to the life it is living now. Not live in dreams of the past.
I’ve always thought knowledge of history was essential for intelligent analysis. But intelligent analysis is necessary to know what is worthwhile from history.
I agree, even including the ecumenical creeds.
I don’t see why knowing Church history is important.
Absolutely. The nineteenth-century ignorance that Nevin and Schaff hated so much is not the only dangerous error. And it is one thing to say that God is sanctifying the church in history, and quite another to claim to understand it. Ecclesiastes speaks to this conceit, and warns about compiling books.
AJ,
For one thing, God gave us the book of Acts.
AJ, it’s important in the same way that knowing your country’s history or your family’s history is important. It enriches your understanding in the now and enables you to be grateful for the sacrifices that others made (knowingly or not) on your behalf.