“Good church historians avoid the temptation of refusing to draw instruction from the figures and events of church history. Historians can be so committed to locating their subjects in their discrete historical contexts that they fail to remember that their subjects are participants in one common human history and therefore that they are able to serve as lessons or warnings for those of us who do not live within the same historical moment.”

I’m in the process of reading an excellent manuscript on Martin Luther, of which I hope to say more at a later time. Recently, I also finished reading an exceptionally fine study of the Westminster Standards by John Fesko. Both books have prompted me to reflect a bit on the benefits we receive from the work of good church historians such as these. It seems to me that good church historians typically avoid two temptations and, more positively, make at least two contributions to Christian theology and life.

First, the temptations good church historians avoid:

(1) Good church historians avoid the temptation of reducing the figures and events of church history to cheerleaders for a favorite contemporary Christian doctrine, experience, or theme. It’s an easy and far too common trap for historians to look down the well at an Augustine, a Luther, or an Edwards and see their own reflection in the water.

(2) Good church historians avoid the temptation of refusing to draw instruction from the figures and events of church history. Historians can be so committed to locating their subjects in their discrete historical contexts that they fail to remember that their subjects are participants in one common human history and therefore that they are able to serve as lessons or warnings for those of us who do not live within the same historical moment.

Second, the contributions good church historians make:

(1) Good church historians help us appreciate the social, intellectual, economic, and political contexts within which historical figures and events lived and occurred and within which alone they have their meaning. We will not be served well in reading the history of theology if, for example, we think that Jonathan Edwards’s views about divine sovereignty were the same as those of the Westminster Assembly or if we think that Luther’s views about the normal Christian life are the same as those of contemporary evangelicals. Good church historians paint a picture with sufficient contextual nuance to help us avoid such misunderstandings.