Idols of History:  Is Older or Newer Better?

“Now all the Athenians and the foreigners . . . would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.”^[1]

Say not, “Why were the former days better than these?”  For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.^[2]

The consequences of the truth being exchanged for the lie – leading to worshiping Creation – can be explicit and gross, as Paul notes in Roman 1.  Yet worshiping creation can also be more nuanced, even disguised as a wise thing.  Afterall, Satan, the father of lies,^[3] is described in serpent form as being “more crafty” than any other beast.^[4]  And, Satan disguises himself as an “angel of light” and accordingly, his servants “disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.”^[5]  What this means is that bad ideas can appear to be good ones.  Lies can appear truthful to the culture as well as the church.

Because we are both finite (created) and fallen (sinful), we can be duped by these disguises.  Two pagan trends influence the church and culture to foster idols of history: (1) The absolutizing of the past – ascribing ultimacy to the traditions of man over the word of God as did certain religious leaders^[6]; and (2) The yearning and churning for the “newest” cutting edge things as did the pagans on Mars Hill.^[7]  Both efforts forget that “there is nothing new under the sun”^[8]  and both reflect an impulse to worship something in Creation, rather than the Creator.  Let’s get to the gist.

History as Normative?

Every Christian experiences it, or will do so.  You’re involved in a ministry or church context and something seems to change.  Whatever triggers this feeling, you begin to long for a prior time, a veritable golden era of real spiritual bounty.  You may even formulate it this way: “If we could only return to ‘real Christianity and culture,’ that is, the way it was during:”

• Pre-COVID Worship
• The Urban Church planting zeal of the 2000’s
• The Church growth and Seeker-sensitive expansion of the 1980’s
• The Reagan Era of friendliness to Faith & Family
• The 1960’s Charismatic Renewal
• Pre-Vatican II Catholicism
• The Evangelicalism of the 40’s and 50’s
• Early Pentecostalism’s Azuza Street Revival
• Fundamentalism’s early 20^th Century
• The Missionary zeal of post-antebellum America
• The Antebellum South
• The 2^nd Great Awakening under Finney
• The 1^st Great Awakening under Edwards and Whitefield
• Protestantism’s Scholasticism
• Calvin’s Geneva
• Luther’s Germany
• Pre-reformational “unity” during medieval scholasticism
• Christendom before the Great Schism between East and West
• The Apologists and the Ante-Nicen Fathers
• The Desert Fathers and monks
• 1^st Century primitive Christianity – (no doubt minus the martyrdom!)
• Being with Jesus on earth^[9]

We would rarely express this explicitly, but our hearts pine for some prior era, or a least of some idealized version of it, where folks “did Christianity right” – supposedly.  This reflects another instance of the truth being exchanged for the lie.  How so?

First, the idealized past era is almost always inaccurately and selectively portrayed.  We are clamoring for a false version of the past, elevating an historical falsehood.  By doing this we are saying not only “this is good,” but that “this is best.”  It’s a rear-looking vision of utopia.

Second, this methodology denies progressive sanctification – that Christ is growing and nurturing His Church and People into maturity in time toward Consummation.  Jesus’ kingdom parables make this point repeatedly:  Wheat and Tares – it’s a WHEAT field, yet one with weeds; Mustard Seed – that which is small becomes large; Seed Sower – bears fruit exponentially; Leaven – growth alters things qualitatively, et al.

Make no mistake:  The Christian faith is an historical faith,^[10] but we worship Christ, not history, nor a particular instantiation or snapshot of Christ’s historical work.  The press of redemptive history is forward, not backward:  Redemption moves to Consummation. 

Moreover, “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”^[11]  To focus on that which has happened – that which is historically “seen,” as the supposed ideal Christian context, actually can undermine real hope and faith – no one drives a car well by fixing both eyes on the rearview mirror.  Nostalgia can be deadly.  

Yet at the same time, one of the frequent sins recorded in Scripture involves forgetfulness^[12] – failing to recall or remember that which has gone before.  Indeed, redemptive history serves a crucial purpose:

as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.  Do not be idolators as some of them were.^[13]

So while forgetfulness can be sinful, we may not idolize the past.  How do we resolve this tension?  We must cherish the past without clinging to it.

Today, well-intended pockets of the church may at times insist on repristinating some prior time as being the ideal or apex of Christian context and expression.  One fad today, often dressed in somber seriousness, proposes that the height of Christian confession and practice today must cohere with certain (highly selective) Reformed creeds and confessions.^[14]  Thus, one is viewed dimly if one fails to use the precise 16^th or 17^th century formularies in describing the faith or some aspect of it.^[15]

Another current example follows the same “retrieval” modality but seeks to implement it in a Protestant Scholastic tradition for today.  The projects of the Davenant Institute come to mind as illustrative of this modality.  Davenant is a fine institution showcasing many talented and godly scholars.  And certainly, knowing, understanding, and benefiting from the past is not equivalent to idolizing it.  I use Davenant only illustratively because it is self-consciously clear about its mission to utilize the past in a particular way.

Davenant approaches its work from a self-conscious “retrieval” focus by:

 “Retrieving the riches of classical Protestantism to renew and build up  the contemporary church.”^[16]

Its “vision statement” is a bit more specific and still chimes the tones of “recovery”:

In an age when the church has become progressively unmoored from its roots and unable to speak with conviction,^[17] the Davenant Institute is committed to re-integrating past and present and re-integrating Word and world.

• We return to the sources, mining the legacy of a mere confessional Protestantism and creatively applying it to the needs and questions of our own age.^[18]

And what about Davenant’s doctrine?  This too is “retrieved” and spawns consequences.  This preferred doctrine – not based on ecumenical creeds – erects boundaries for support and cooperation vel non with other Christian programs or projects.  As Davenant describes it, note the inchoate tribalism that arises.  Anything in Davenant’s determination that deviates from certain select preferred confessional standards will not be supported as part of this “retrieval” endeavor:

Davenant is committed to the system of doctrine contained in the Reformed Protestant family of confessions, represented chiefly by [six listed] and shall seek in all its activities to avoid supporting programs or projects that would tend to undermine these doctrinal commitments.^[19] 

This commitment actually moves toward incoherence because it is arbitrary.  What weight, if any, do non-chief statements or confessions carry, even if they express truth?  How much must another Christian project or program “tend” to “undermine” before it needs to be avoided?  And, what comprises “support” for such things?

Who decides which of the confessions matter to this project?  Can ones that may hold a position Davenant disfavors – perhaps the Savoy Declaration which embraces an optimistic eschatology – be ignored or rejected?  On what principled basis?  The Savoy Declaration certainly qualifies as being within the “Protestant family of confessions.”  Davenant’s selection and adherence to good doctrine is admirable, but at points arbitrary as expressed and applied here.

Also, even among the doctrinal standards Davenant invokes, such as the Westminster Confession – yet not its accompanying catechisms – Davenant’s retrieval modality still has a problem:   Which version of the Confession is to be “retrieved”?  The 1647 original version or the revised 1788 American version?  Or, does Davenant simply mix and match, depending on the outcome it seeks regarding a particular situation or application “to the needs and questions of our own day?”  This matters.^[20]  Why so?  The American revision significantly changed the confession in some crucial theological and ethical areas.^[21]  This obviously will impact what exactly we are retrieving and consequently which lines are to be drawn for supporting or avoiding projects.  The 1647 and the 1788 versions differ regarding:

• Chapter 20 – On Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience^[22]
• Chapter 22 – Of Lawful Oaths and Vows^[23]
• Chapter 23 – Of the Civil Magistrate^[24]
• Chapter 24 – Of Marriage and Divorce^[25]
• Chapter 25 – Of the Church^[26]
• Chapter 31 – Of Synods and Councils^[27]

It’s likely that Davenant realizes these shortcomings because it employs several wiggle words – the cynic might call them “weasel words” – when describing its theological commitments.  Consider the invocation of these terms: “represented chiefly,” “tend to undermine,” and “system of doctrine” – such terms are quite elastic and malleable and again lead to indefiniteness and indeterminacy, and thus arbitrariness, not certainty or rootedness at all – the promise of historical and rooted absolutism sounds good – and yet remains – at many key points – illusory.  This is inherent to every attempt to make some historical moment “ultimate”  or normative and not something unique to Davenant’s approach.  If this “retrievalist” methodology can impact or generate confusion regarding a good organization like Davenant, how much more can it distract – or even derail – less erudite Christians?

Newness as Normative?

An opposite error, which can similarly become idolatrous, is to embrace the pagan ethos of the Athenians and foreigners “spending their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.”^[28] This comprises a near addiction to the “latest and greatest” – this is fallacious because it assumes that if it’s new, it’s necessarily better.  This fallacy is frequently combined with good old American pragmatism:  If it works, it’s necessarily good.^[29]  

Both of these fallacies have sprouted ancillary industries to “aid the church.”  Leadership seminars,^[30] personality tests to assess “fit” and “fitness”^[31], branding audits^[32], church growth metrics, seeker sensitive tactics, church planter assessment centers,^[33] and a myriad of “how to” conferences:  small groups, “worship” dynamics, being “missional,” “______ [insert current fashionable cultural trend] justice,”^[34] et al.  The subliminal message is clear:  Unless you’re current, you’re losing – get the next next NOW!  Scripture attaches this ethos to pagan thinking.

This modality absolutizes “future history,” deeming it superior to the past.  Progress, growth, and change–- are better.^[35]  This zealous focus on product or project newness often leads to ignoring traditions^[36], as well as dismissing or even despising persons with experience and wisdom, instead of respecting them.^[37]  

How can God’s people move forward and avoid these twin errors?  Must Christians just pick their poison – either constantly seeking what’s new as do the pagans or instead concretizing a human tradition erected in the past, treating it as the ideal?  The Gospel provides light for escaping this dark tunnel.  And, yet, we may not be Pollyanna; we must be realistic.

Living by lies always precipitates consequences whether intended or not.  TXC equips God’s people to unearth the embedded lies impacting church, culture, and conscience, so they can navigate today’s culture with moral clarity, moral conviction, and moral courage, thereby warning the church and liberating it to proclaim the Gospel without cultural hinderances.  TxC does believe in a form of rooting – rooting out lies that live. Here’s the bottom line for rooting out these idols of history:  Cherish the past; avoid clinging to it – avoid absolutizing the traditions of man over the word of God.  Invest in innovation; avoid making it your exclusive hope – avoid the pagan fetish for newness.  And, never forget:  it’s the truth that sets people free; let’s not exchange it for some disguised lie.^[38]

---

^[1] Acts, 17:21

^[2] Eccle. 7:10

^[3] Jn. 8:44

^[4] Gen. 3:1

^[5] 2 Cor. 11:14

^[6] As Jesus notes, religious leaders sometimes teach “as doctrines the commandments of men.  You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”  Mk. 7:7,8

^[7] Acts 17:21

^[8] Eccle. 1:9

^[9] People desiring this may want to consider John 16:7 where Jesus teaches: “I tell you the truth:  it is to your advantage that I go away.”  Not being proximate with Jesus pre-Pentecost is better.

^[10] See, e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-14 and Jn.1:14, 15

^[11] Heb. 11:1

^[12] Jesus, after chastising the congregation of Sardis, called them to: “Remember, then, what you received and heard.  Keep itand repent.”  (Rev. 3:3) 

^[13] 1 Cor. 10:6

^[14] Note too that this ignores other orthodox Christian traditions.

^[15] One “hot” area here is the press for a return to “classical theism” focusing on God’s simplicity – a formula that more often than not draws from Greek philosophy and medieval scholasticism than from the Christian scriptures.  See Peter J. Leithart, Creator:  A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1 (2023) for an interaction with and assessment of classical theism and Divine simplicity.  The Center for Classical Theology (“CCT”) describes its purpose as “fresh studies that encourage evangelicals to retrieve the theological method and confessional commitments of the Great Tradition to advance systematic theology today.”  https://credomag.com/center-for-classical-theology-2/ – Notice the term “retrieve.”  Now, this statement is fine as written, however, when one deems the prior “theological method and confessional commitments” non-negotiable or absolute, problems can arise.  Tell tale signs of this trend are often marked by using the terms “recover” or “retrieve” – See, e.g., R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confession:  Our Theology, Piety, and Practice (2008).  Now again, knowing and benefiting from the past is important; absolutizing it, however, is idolatrous and we can deceive ourselves by confusing the two, if we are not careful.  This is not to say at all that Dr. Clark or the CCT are advancing or embracing idolatry; they are not.

^[16] https://davenantinstitute.org/

^[17] Note the assumptive language employed here:  not following “the sources” is impliedly THE cause of less conviction and less stability.  In other words, if people only returned to [certain preferential] sources, maturity would blossom.  This reflects the analytic misstep of mono-causism, that is, claiming a consequence arises from a singular cause.

^[18]https://davenantinstitute.org/about/

^[19] Id. Again, there are good and faithful people involved with Davenant and its work and they are doing the broader church a service in making these resources more broadly available for our edification; the temptation arises when folks equate that which is “retrieved” to “thus says the Lord.” When that happens, folks become more clanging cymbals than edifying lovers of the brethren.  (1 Cor. 13:1)

^[20] Note:  these confessional changes occurred precisely because of historical exigencies, which means that an historical development regarding a doctrinal confession cannot be rightly deemed normative in any absolute sense.  And, if that’s the case, then why should a person or group “lock into” and “retrieve” some historical moment as if it comprises some talisman or decoder ring for unlocking the “real mature faith”?  If the point is Christians in the past have done some good work and we can benefit from studying them – OK, but that’s insufficient to warrant the pedanticism that often travels with some social media warriors enamored with this project.  In some respects, this “retrieval methodology” reflects the less sophisticated more free-wheeling “restorationist” movement of Alexander Campbell in the 19^th Century – ironically, the false prophet Joseph Smith, having interacted with Campbell, not uncoincidentally grabbed the shirttails of this “restorationist” vibe in manufacturing his “restored” faith, Mormonism.  Benjamim E. Park, American Zion – A New History of Mormonism (2024), 48,49

^[21] See, e.g., www.opc.org for a side-by-side comparison – the differences are significant.  So, which controls and why?  Is it simply a matter of preference, but if so, then it cannot actually be normative and binding.  Picking and choosing the doctrines one wishes to follow or reject sounds suspiciously contrary to adhering to some settled and rooted tradition.  “Retrieval” in many cases simply reduces to picking a preference and labeling it a precept.  See, Director’s Dicta, March 18, 2004, truthXchange.com.  The reality is that long before the Reformed Confessions were formed, the faith had been “once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3)

^[22] Does Davenant desire the civil magistrate to censure issues of conscience contrary to Christian doctrine as the 1647 versiondescribes?  In other words, are matters of conscience to be criminalized?

^[23] Does Davenant affirm that it is sin to refuse to take an oath as the 1647 version affirms?

^[24] Does Davenant agree that the civil magistrate may call synods, be present at them, and govern them to assure they are transacted “according to the mind of God” as the 1647 version affirms?  Put differently, would Davenant really want California’s Governor Newsom or President Biden presiding over ecclesiastical synods?  Consistent “retrievalism” would necessarily countenance this possibility.

^[25] What does Davenant conclude as to the lawful degrees of consanguinity for marriage?  Which are to be “retrieved”?  Recall that Davenant’s retrieval project requires not supporting projects which “tend to undermine” the system of doctrine expressed by these confessions – as we see in the case of the Westminster confession of Faith, the later American version contradicts the original at several key points.  This in turn will influence which and how to support other Christian efforts.

^[26] Does Davenant advocate, according to the 1647 version, that we “retrieve” that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist, the man of sin, and the son of perdition?  May it support projects that reject or fail to affirm these convictions?  

^[27] Does Davenant affirm that the civil magistrate “may lawfully call a synod” (1647), or is that authority only vested in ecclesiastical officers (1788)?  If the sitting magistrate is a faithful and orthodox Catholic, may he lawfully call the synod?  Probably not under the 1647 version because he would be deemed an “open enem[y] of the churches” by virtue of being Catholic.

^[28] Acts, 17:21

^[29] Pornography is without question economically profitable, therefore it’s good??!!  Obviously not.

^[30] For years, Willow Creek led this niche with its annual Global Leadership Summit, https://www.willowcreek.org/gls/

^[31] The utilization of pagan methods has multiplied with many evangelicals relying on the Enneagram as the newest tool to assess leadership for ministry.  TxC will soon publish an analysis regarding the Enneagram.  Other examples “assessing” personality wiring include the Leading from Your Strengths program, https://www.ministryinsights.com/product/leading-from-your-strengths-assessment/

and the chestnut taxonomy popularized by Tim LaHaye, Spirit-Controlled Temperament (1994, new edition), a baptized version of ancient, not particularly Christian, notions of human anthropology.

^[32] Consultants “advise” churches and ministries to change names and relaunch – sometimes repeatedly, because “new” attracts new attendees.

^[33] The Acts 29 network, Sovereign Grace Ministries, and 9Marks come to mind.

^[34] “Poverty,” “gender,” and “racial” justice are current “hip”– and culturally safe – trends.

^[35] “Change” also is the modality of the cancer cell as well.

^[36] Cf., “So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”  (2 Thess.2:15)

^[37] 1 Tim. 5:1 as well as the 5^th Commandment

^[38] Jn. 8:32