"Like it or not, we are heirs of this host of diverse and contradictory witnesses. Some of their actions we may find revolting, and others inspiring. ... Without understanding that past, we are unable to understand ourselves, for in a sense the past still lives in us and influences who we are and how we understand the Christian message. When we read, for instance, that “the just shall live by faith,” Martin Luther is whispering at our ear how we are to interpret those words—and this is true even for those of us who have never even heard of Martin Luther. When we hear that “Christ died for our sins,” Anselm of Canterbury sits in the pew with us, even though we may not have the slightest idea who Anselm was. When we stand, sit, or kneel in church, when we sing a hymn, recite a creed, or refuse to recite one, when we build a church or preach a sermon, as past of which we may not be aware is one of the factors involved in our actions. The notion that we read the New Testament exactly as the early Christians did, without any weight of tradition coloring our interpretation, is an illusion. It is also a dangerous illusion, for it tends to absolutize our interpretation, confusing it with the Word of God."
The previous paragraph is found in the introduction to The Story of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzalez. I love this paragraph not only because it expresses my thoughts, but it does so beautifully. This book is a very straightforward overview of Christianity from the time of Christ to modern day (1970s or so). It discusses the major figures in Christian history, traces the development of the church and rarely speculates (a very nice feature) it just gives the information available. I just finished reading about John of Constantinople or John Chrysostom -- if you don't know who he is you should definitely read this book.
On my wish list: that the Protestant/Evangelical/Pentacostal churches would start the catechism-like classes in the year prior to baptism - just as the early church did and the Catholic church still does. Off the top of my head here's my list of positive's and negative's to this idea.
Positive side:
it would give everyone the opportunity for a baseline of knowledge, a basic christianity if you will.
They would not come out with just basic doctrinal knowledge, but also a sketch of their history as well.
Postive/Negative:
It would raise the bar to become a christian (I'm sure some would see this as a negative, others a positive)
Negative:
It would delay baptism up to a year - the classes wouldn't really need to be a year, but neither would I like to see them be 6 week classes either.
It goes against the spontaneous feel of baptism, indeed most of our christian life today is seen as authentic if it is spontaneous (although I doubt people want their ministers to stop studying before a sermon).
2 comments:
I love that quote!
On the issue of catechism, I think that Sunday School on the Protestant side, was meant to or has the potential to fill that role. This education, could then take place before or after baptism, depending on the particulars of the individual. This would, of course, require intentionality of the church and a more stable church community than is common in urban churches these days.
That is a good point. I like the idea of a class, as long as it happens around conversion or baptism, in whatever form it might take.
Post a Comment