Picture Christianity throughout its history as a giant tree that has continually grown for numerous generations. Some of its branches have gone one way, some another. Some are more in line with their roots in the apostolic church and the straight trunk of the first few centuries. We might call this trunk the “ancient catholic church” as opposed to later developments in the Western (Roman) Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Other branches, unworthy of a place on the tree, have withered and fallen off.

Now picture your church’s place on this massive tree. Your own church is but a tiny leaf, hanging from a small twig, shooting from a thin branch, attached to a large limb, connected to a thick bough, growing from a massive trunk. The diverse Christian churches and denominations of today (the various branches of the tree) are not necessarily united to each other through visible, institutional unity. However, every generation has been connected to the apostolic and ancient church by legitimately receiving its core beliefs and practices.

For example, every believer who has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was baptized by somebody who had also been baptized by a predecessor. This line of baptism, though it may have taken various forms throughout history, connects present-day believers to the church of the first century. The same may be said of ministry ordination. Today’s ministers, who have been tried, tested, and approved by other ordained ministers, stand in a long and ancient line of those who had been themselves ordained by the “laying on of hands,” a practice that reaches back to the apostles, themselves. Evangelicals are also connected to the rich legacy of their Christian heritage by receiving—intact and unadulterated—the apostolic and prophetic Scriptures, as well as the core message of the Christian faith. Many participate further through orders of worship, hymns, liturgies, and denominational structures, which were passed down from previous generations.

By studying church history, evangelicals can connect to their own tradition actively, consciously, and critically. They can seek out their spiritual ancestors, experiencing familiarity and a feeling of kinship with the people of faith who preserved Scripture, took a stand for the gospel, reformed church practice, and glorified God with their words and works. They can see their own particular traditions in light of a broader spectrum of emphases and practices, understanding their own church’s attitudes and actions in light of its history. By re-establishing an active and conscious connection to their rich legacy, they will also be equipped to sort through the positive, negative, and neutral aspects of their beliefs and practices, led by more than mere personal preferences or thoughtless traditionalism.

Connecting to a rich legacy of the faith will therefore add a previously unknown depth to personal faith and corporate worship. It has the power to shape the identity of both individual believers and local churches. This identity will help us to transcend our own lonely and seemingly insignificant place on the greater tree, making us aware that we are all part of something far bigger than ourselves.


    21 replies to "Why Study Church History? Reason #4 – Studying church history will connect us to a rich legacy"

    • Irene

      Hello, Mr. Svigel! Glad to be reading your series of posts here. I think you are right in so many ways about studying church history.

      Since we both agree that our identity is shaped by our connection to history, I hope you’ll let me, as a Catholic, pick at your tree analogy.

      The tree model shows branches being farther or nearer to the trunk, but all receiving the same life from the root. Here’s the alternative analogy from my point of view: The ancient church is a large wooden boat, floating down the river to eternity. Luther hacked some wood off the side and made a raft. So Protestants too are on the river, and even though their “life” comes through the ancient church, they are separated from it, and are not accepting of all the graces God has given to help us on our way. ( Maybe Orthodox have built a near exact copy but are sailing without a captain (: ? ) But you are so right that how we view our history shapes our identity — or vice versa?

    • Michael J. Svigel

      Irene, thanks for the comment. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this. My Ph.D. work was in the theology of the first few centuries, with an emphasis on second century Christianity, so my perspective on “catholic” Christianity is going to be a little different. Because I have respect for the idea in St. Vincent of Lerin’s canon (c. 434) of what it means to be truly “catholic,” (taking the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all), my definition of “catholic” must apply to every period of the church, especially that of the first few centuries. So, this leads me to conclude that the true church includes all of its diverse branches that are united around the fundamental doctrines of the faith (i.e., the Rule of Faith). Later developments in ecclesiastical canon law necessarily fall outside of Vincent’s canon, as they were not held by the earliest church. So I will stick with my tree analogy as reflecting the original meaning of…

    • C Michael Patton

      Or we could say that the rcc was a deadening part of the tree that the Reformers pruned and has very little connection to the root. 🙂

    • Michael J. Svigel

      @ Michael. I hesitate to do that, because unlike historical and contemporary heretics, they hold to all of the core elements of the Rule of Faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and to a lesser degree the Eastern Orthodox Tradition) are not guilty of removing elements from the core of orthodoxy, but adding elements that were never believed everywhere, always, and by all… then attempting to enforce them on everybody, everywhere, from that time forth (e.g., purgatory [RCC only], the seven sacraments, papal infallibility [RCC only], intercession of saints, transubstantiation [dogmatically, RCC only, though EOC has a non-dogmatic concept of metousia], apostolic succession [not talking about episcopal or presbyteral succession, which is seen from the beginning], the immaculate conception, etc.). By Vincentian standards, the developed dogma, as it is pressed as binding dogma, seems to transgress Vincent’s canon, as it tries to force NEW doctrines into what is supposed to be an unchanging…

    • Michael J. Svigel

      Okay, so where are the rest of my comments. The post window said I didn’t exceed my limit! 🙂
      Last words of earlier post: “catholic” Christianity.
      Last words of later post: “core.”

    • C Michael Patton

      I agree Michael. And I have gotten in a lot of trouble many time for saying the exact same thing! I was just kidding with Irene. She is really a nice gal who lives up to her namesake.

    • Michael J. Svigel

      I understand. I am consistent in this, too. Many Baptists have added to the core by insisting on a particular mode of baptism. Or some Protestants have also added to the core by insisting on a particular explanation of the atonement. Some Reformed have added to the core by insisting on certain Calvinist distinctives. (Etc.) So, while I believe there are members of the elect remnant within all of the “Rule of Faith” traditions, some have obscured the Rule by adding rules, making it less plane. Others have neglected the Rule by teaching everythign flat (that is, everything becomes equally central). However, those sects which deny the Rule of Faith explicitly (Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, etc.) are not part of the tree.

    • C Michael Patton

      I love it!

    • C Michael Patton

      Same argument I made here.

      http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/24087889

    • Irene

      Dr. Svigel,

      I still think the tree gives a false sense of connectedness and here’s why:  the different denominations have different developments/additions.  These are not only different but often contradictory.  The Holy Spirit who sustains the Church does not produce error in this way. For ex: the Spirit does not lead a Baptist church to teach Mary as certainly a sinner, while leading the CC to declare the Immaculate Conception.   And it doesn’t matter whether these additions are essentials or non-essentials, as long as they are held to be true.  The  “sap” cannot grow different truths. There must be a disconnect somewhere.  It’s actually easier for me to go for Michaels ex of the CC being the dead stump and the Protestant C being a new offshoot from the root, because then there is some separation. 

    • Michael J. Svigel

      Irene, the Holy Spirit sustains the church in maintaining the essentials of the faith: those things that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Your statement assumes a certain theory of doctrinal development–the infallible addition of new binding doctrines through the magisterium (this theory of doctrinal development is itself a development, rendering it a circular argument). In RetroChristianity I discuss the issue of doctrinal development (chapter 6). In fact, that chapter is available free as a sample chapter at http://www.crossway.org/books/retrochristianity-tpb/. I agree that the Spirit would not lead one part of the church to conclude Mary was a sinner while another to the immaculate conception. But your assumption is that this is the Spirit leading one of these views. You are therefore assuming that the Spirit continues to reveal new doctrine (because the immaculate conception doctrine is demonstrably not original as it develops in the medieval period).

    • Tony

      Dr. Svigel,

      If Regula Fidei as developed by Ireneaus means that which is believed everywhere by all, doesn’t it mean that an error that developed early on and was largely embraced would have been passed along since it would have fallen under the category of Regula Fidei? To use the tree analogy, when the tree was very young, it could have developed a bad part of the trunk that was preserved simply because it was embraced by all.

      Or are you saying that over the course of time God would have pruned that off branch?

      Just a question I’ve had since looking at the early church’s handling of heresies.

      Best,
      -Tony

    • Michael J. Svigel

      Tony, if that’s the case, then we’re in big trouble. There’s nothing in the Regula Fidei that’s not already clearly articulated in the prophetic or apostolic writings (OT and NT), so your hypothetical situation would mean the doctrinal error was already in apostolic teaching. Vincent’s canon requires that the “everywhere, always, by all” goes all the way back to the apostles (included in the “always”). Vincent himself considers the possibility that the WHOLE CHURCH might stray into novelty (new doctrine): “What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty” (Commonitorium 3[7]). So, even if some great teachers or the whole church were to err, we are to return to “antiquity”—the earliest form of catholic Christianity. This is why I will refuse to submit to new doctrines as required dogma.

    • Michael J. Svigel

      Let me add that this is the reason I will not accept as authoritative dogma the new doctrines of the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, veneration of icons, intercession of saints, purgatory, seven sacraments dispensing saving grace, etc. They are demonstrably NOT part of antiquity. In this, I believe I am the true catholic, as Vincent wrote: “He is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing . . . [who] resolves THAT HE WILL BELIEVE THAT, AND THAT ONLY, WHICH HE IS SURE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS HELD UNIVERSALLY AND FROM ANCIENT TIME; but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or another, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, he will understand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial” (Commonitorium 20[48]).

    • Tony

      Dr. Svigel,

      “There’s nothing in the Regula Fidei that’s not already clearly articulated in the prophetic or apostolic writings (OT and NT).”

      This statement makes me nervous. I’ve always understood Regula Fidei as that which has been believed everywhere and by all. Regula Fidei focuses on the belief of the believer as the Spirit has illumined him/her to believe, whereas the Apostolic Tradition (read, Scripture) is part of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon the prophets and apostles (Eph 2:20). It seems to me like this is confusing the two. I’m not sure Regula Fidei should be treated synonymously with Scripture.

      Of course, the other possibility is that I’m missing something significant in your argument 🙂 Is this laid out more in “Retro Christianity”?

      Best,
      -Tony

    • Michael J. Svigel

      Tony: Let me just quote one of Irenaeus of Lyon’s articulations of the Regula Fidei:

      “This then is the order of the rule of our faith:… God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith. The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man. And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind…”

    • Michael J. Svigel

      What I mean is that there is nothing in the content of the Regula Fidei that can’t be substantiated by Scripture. Augustine puts it this way: “Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves… These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes.” (On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
      So, though the Scripture is not synonymous with the Rule of Faith, there is nothing in the Rule of Faith that is not already found in the Scriptures. This means, then, that the content of the Regula Fidei in all its parts goes back to the Scriptures themselves. Therefore, there can be no development of the content of the Regula Fidei, only faithful rearticulation.

    • Jason

      So basically summarized by the Creed?

    • Karen

      Some years ago I noticed that many churches do not teach Christian history. In my ignorance, I asked at that time if we could study Church history, & I was asked basically why & what was my agenda (sad). Over time I realized that one could go to online forums & see in a real short time what denominations believe as primary–for all other topics will fall away in short order. It truly is an eye opener to see sometimes what is emphasized and what is also downplayed due to the cause of what is emphasized. But the good news is that most denominations today all get their views from the Bible. I can definitely see it. Thereby, as I said before, those that teach the WHOLE Bible are the best teachers. Teaching only favorite passages of emphasis leaves lack.
      I also believe the good thing about studying the past (even though it is quite a roller coaster ride) is that it helps us to be more gracious to each other, more understanding. ..if we chose to be as such.

    • Michael J. Svigel

      Karen, your last point is worth re-emphasizing: “I also believe the good thing about studying the past . . . is that it helps us to be more gracious to each other, more understanding.”
      I have definitely experienced this in my life. I appreciate my own tradition as part of a broadly diverse Body of Christ worldwide and historically, but I’m not dogmatic about our distinctives, having come to appreciate the strengths of other traditions as well.

    • Michael J. Svigel

      Jason, the relationship between Creeds and the Regula Fidei is not one-to-one. Let me put it this way: in the early church baptismal confessions and creeds were memorizable, static formulations of the content of the Regula Fidei. The confession/creed did not vary in its language, whereas the Regular Fidei could be expressed in different language. Let me use an analogy: Regular Fidei is to a Creed as a cola is to Coke. Coke, Pepsi, RC, etc. are all specific formulations of the general category “cola beverage.” Basically, the ingredients are the same. None of the creeds/confessions contradicted each other, and their content was always drawn from the same body of essential Trinitarian truths, but they didn’t always overlap. So, when Augustine calls the “creed” the “Rule of Faith,” he’s referring to its function of pointing out the central and essential truths in summary fashion.

Comments are closed.