Church History for Modern Ministry

Why Our Past Matters for Everything We Do

Dayton Hartman

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781577997009
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Histoire du Christianisme

With all the pressing demands of modern ministry, why make time to learn church history? Is it relevant to worship and ministry today? Pastor Dayton Hartman argues that church history is not old news, but a vital component of a healthy ministry.
In Church History for Modern Ministry, Hartman explores the importance of church history and shows how an understanding of our past can help us address contemporary issues. The faithfulness, discipleship, and perseverance of the early church can help today's church stand firm in times of change.

1

BACK TO THE FUTURE

“Martin Luther was a chump.” Yes, I said it. I used to believe it. In fact, reflecting on my early adulthood, I had the nastiest case of chronological snobbery I’ve seen outside of KJV-only circles.

So what if Martin Luther (1483–1546) ignited the Reformation? Who cares that he preached a biblical gospel? Today many evangelicals consider much of Luther’s thought to be in error, or at least in poor taste. Worse yet, although he was arguably one of the greatest theologians of his time, the most average of theologians today seems undeniably superior.

Why? Well, we have Logos Bible Software, and Together for the Gospel conferences, and we can live tweet major theological events. Who live-tweeted the posting of the Ninety-Five Theses? Nobody! That’s probably a good thing. Can you imagine the hashtags #IFixedYourDoctrine or #TetzelFail? Those would be the tamest. When angry, Luther’s vocabulary was less Dr. Phil and more Lewis Black. Since Luther’s revolution was neither televised nor live tweeted, it obviously has little value, except for that whole defending the gospel thing.

Not until I had spent a full year in pastoral ministry did I begin to see the value of what has come before. I remember wrestling with my own explanations of the relationship between the gospel and works. Then I started looking more closely at Luther’s works to see what this “old timer” said in error. I was shocked that, rather than being amused by Luther’s errors, I was overwhelmed by his insight. Luther’s wrestling was, in a sense, my wrestling. Luther’s pastoral burden to preach grace to his church was, and is, my burden. Still, even after accepting and embracing the theological riches of Reformation leaders, I maintained my disdain for the early church fathers and the creeds they helped form. After all, those Catholics love creeds, and they revere many of the early church fathers. Therefore, creeds and the church fathers must be useless to me as a Protestant pastor.

As I delved more deeply into apologetic writings, however, I latched onto Francis Schaeffer (1912–1984), only to see that he occasionally referenced the early church fathers. Even though Schaeffer’s thought changed my life, I dismissed his occasional church history references as proof that “nobody is perfect.”

Chronological Snobbery The assumption that the current intellectual culture is inherently superior to any previous period. Thus, old is bad.

Martin Luther (1483–1546) This Augustinian monk ignited the Protestant Reformation through his Ninety-Five Theses (1517) and his argument that salvation is God’s gracious gift, received by faith alone in Christ alone.

Francis Schaeffer (1912–1984) This American evangelical became widely known for his unique blend of Christian apologetics, cultural assessments, and Reformed theology. Schaeffer moved to Switzerland where he established the renowned L’Abri Community.

Then I began to engage Mormons and Muslims in my community. The claims that they made about church history shook me. In response, I decided to scrutinize their accusations against the first Christians. I dove headlong into the early church fathers. I embraced this new direction in research so completely that I purchased Philip Schaff’s (1819–1893) massive 38-volume set of translated early church works.1 It was incredibly cumbersome to use, but it looked amazing on a bookshelf. Just having it in my office made me feel—and probably look—smarter. As I made my way through this series, I found that my Mormon and Muslim friends were sorely mistaken in their understanding of early church history—and that I was too.

The early church fathers were incredibly helpful. Instead of seeming strange and foreign, they seemed familiar and welcoming. I was surprised by how much Justin Martyr’s (100–165) apologetic writings applied to our culture. I was moved by the seriousness with which Augustine (354–430) undertook efforts to disciple young people. I found myself at home among early Christians, struggling to hold onto biblical doctrine while striving to express it clearly.

In short, this multi-year journey into church history changed my view of the creeds, preaching, discipleship, pastoral care, and cultural engagement. I am a different and, I believe, better pastor because of church history. Now, more than a decade since my first foray into church history, I am a church planter. I also teach church history and historical theology to seminary students.

By wrestling with church history, I have identified a number of dangers inherent to ignoring the past, as well as many benefits to knowing what has come before us. These benefits have convinced me that pastoral ministry is maximally effective only if carried out in light of lessons from our history. Before moving into some of the practical benefits of knowing church history, let’s look at how unfamiliarity with church history can cause dangerous error in doctrine and practice.

IGNORANCE IS DOCTRINALLY DANGEROUS

Throughout the Back to the Future series, Marty McFly, a hapless teenager, continually saves the present, and the future, by going back to the past in his DeLorean. While the series didn’t help anyone understand anything about science (still, how cool is a flux capacitor?), there is one valuable takeaway: The past was once the present, and the present is what dictates the future. For Christian theology, this is an invaluable reminder.

For pastors, ignoring the past is both foolish and dangerous. During my first stop in vocational ministry, I met a young man who had only recently been called to his first pastorate. Over the next two years, I watched as this young, uneducated preacher moved from a shallow orthodoxy into the deep waters of heresy. As he preached week-in and week-out, he began to “see” things in the text of Scripture that led him to believe that Jesus was created by the Father. He began to embrace heresies condemned long ago as unscriptural.

In his mind, he had found something that no one else had ever found before; he was the next great theologian. But in reality, he was simply another hack heretic who would hurt believers and eventually drop out of ministry. Looking back, I wonder how a little knowledge of church history could have prevented his errors. What if he had been aware of the christological controversies in the early church and the orthodox response to the claims he was making? I believe he would still be in the ministry.

Philip Schaff A German Reformed historian, Schaff was one of the most prolific church historians of his day. He served as a professor at Union Theological Seminary (New York).

Christological Controversies During the fourth and fifth centuries, Christians debated the deity and humanity of Christ. Some heretics argued that Christ was created by the Father (Arianism); others divided his divine and human natures into two persons (Nestorianism); others conflated his divine and human natures (Eutychianism). Through the convocation of four ecumenical councils—Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451)—the church affirmed that Jesus is true God, sharing the same essence with the Father and the Spirit, and that his divine and human natures are distinguishable but inseparable in the unity of his person.

IGNORANCE IS PROBLEMATIC FOR POLITY

For many pastors, ignoring church history will not lead to theological errors regarding the deity of Christ, but it can lead to many practical errors. For much of my undergraduate education, I assumed that a democratically elected board of deacons who served in three-year terms led all churches throughout history. I was utterly floored the first time I found out that this was not the norm throughout Christian history—not even in my Southern Baptist tradition. I was shocked to learn that elders and deacons were not the same thing and that there were churches that took seriously both the distinctions between these roles and the biblical qualifications assigned to these offices. I began to rethink these matters, not because of a new approach to exegesis but because of history. These distinctions long existed, and the biblical qualifications for these roles mattered.

Exegesis The critical explanation or interpretation of a scriptural text.

Through this exploration I discovered that most Christians go through life with incredible historical bias and prejudice without realizing it. For instance, as an American, I assumed that democracy is a “Christian” thing and that churches have always practiced this form of government. I was wrong. I found that many, including my own tradition, had formerly practiced a much more biblical form of church government—elder-led congregationalism.

Moreover, as I began to examine the historical distinctions that led to the current state of my own tradition, I found out that Southern Baptists were not always deacon-led, democratic congregationalists who hate dancing and syncopated rhythms. Instead, ours is a tradition that emphasizes baptism by immersion, religious liberty, regenerate church membership, and biblical authority (among other distinctives). History led me to understand that I was not a Baptist by tradition, but by conviction. Tradition that lacks biblical conviction can only lead to error. Convictions informed by traditions protect against error.

Congregational Rule In this model of church government, the congregation has the final authority—under the direction of the Scriptures—in matters of doctrine and church discipline. In its most biblically faithful form, a plurality of elders or pastors lead. However, some congregations, which misconstrue the biblical precedence for congregational rule, practice a form of governance far more indebted to American democracy than to the Bible.

This principle is incredibly important. It’s now a matter of public record that denominations are in decline. Most millennials find denominational affiliation problematic. One impetus for this disdain of denominations arises from a misunderstanding regarding the purpose of denominations. In my experience, most Baptists aren’t sure why they are Baptist. This alone would be bad enough, but many pastors in various traditions also aren’t entirely sure why they align with the denomination in which they find themselves.

I am convinced, pastors, that if you became aware of the historical-theological basis for your denominational tradition, you would either jump ship or become reinvigorated in your support for your tradition. If you are passionate for your tradition, many in your congregations will be as well. Stories shape our lives. Our traditions have a story to tell. It’s time we hear those stories a...