Prescriptive History
In my studies I have come across a book that has been recommended that I read. It is unimportant as to what book and what authors contributed to this book for our topic. However I will briefly tell you it is a book that looks at theology as seen throughout the SBC. This book is not a difficult read, one could breeze through it in an hour or two if a quiet opportunity presented itself. The content is not bad at all, in fact it is slightly informative and some chapters are quite well done.
What is the problem with this book and many like it? The problem comes through the premise, generally, that by studying a few characters in history one can ascertain what people believed, whether it be religiously, socially or politically. It should be apparent that this line of reasoning is extremely misleading. As much as one may like or support some leader in history, it should not leave people to believe that the populace that followed said leader would be in 100 percent agreement with the beliefs which he held. In fact it is more appropriate to realize that most would not agree with a large minority of what the person believed and might even possibly agree with a large minority of what his opponents believed or some mixture therein.
There also is another problem that can be seen through this methodology. An implicit premise is held that for any group, institution, or movement that by looking back on history a clear path of belief must be set. For instance, as Baptists there are groups out there who love to look back and say, “we did not believe this way, therefore we should not believe this way.” This argument is greatly used in the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Some, the Calvinists, look back to some figures in Baptist history that were Calvinistic and stake their Baptist Theology claim in these giants of the faith. Yet, the same argument is made from the Arminian side by those who find their own heroes of the faith in history and stake the claim upon those fellows. Then you back up a few feet and see that there were both Calvinists and Arminians at different points in history and even contemporaneously. Furthermore, you see that there are other options in this debate that can be held “traditionally” and the water becomes even more muddied and you are left with the question “what is right?”
Well the answer to that question should arise once it is seen what is truly going on and that is something called prescriptive history. This is the belief that if we see a belief in the history of our group then we should believe it. History becomes prescriptive. It is another appeal to tradition. Therein lies the problem. There is an appeal to tradition.
This is what is truly bothering me with this book and this argument. It is the belief that tradition has some, rather large, authority over us. As a Baptist I am of the mind that our authority is found solely in God and it is mediated through the Bible. To make a claim for theology that is based upon “that is what we are traditionally” flies into the face of the idea of Authority only in God. I do not intend to discuss the theological aspects of what I am arguing, but only point out a flaw in the historical methodology.
What I am not advocating is a denial of tradition. There is a place in our beliefs for tradition, but when history is used prescriptively it is relegated to a higher authority than it should be deemed. We have much to learn from those who came before, but we must always keep in mind that they could have been wrong as much as you and I can be wrong. We are all sinful beings fighting the fight between flesh and Spirit. So please when you are arguing something do not find your favs of your traditions’ theological heritage and flaunt them. That weakens your argument, slightly degrades their ministries and does not give a fuller picture.
What is the problem with this book and many like it? The problem comes through the premise, generally, that by studying a few characters in history one can ascertain what people believed, whether it be religiously, socially or politically. It should be apparent that this line of reasoning is extremely misleading. As much as one may like or support some leader in history, it should not leave people to believe that the populace that followed said leader would be in 100 percent agreement with the beliefs which he held. In fact it is more appropriate to realize that most would not agree with a large minority of what the person believed and might even possibly agree with a large minority of what his opponents believed or some mixture therein.
There also is another problem that can be seen through this methodology. An implicit premise is held that for any group, institution, or movement that by looking back on history a clear path of belief must be set. For instance, as Baptists there are groups out there who love to look back and say, “we did not believe this way, therefore we should not believe this way.” This argument is greatly used in the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Some, the Calvinists, look back to some figures in Baptist history that were Calvinistic and stake their Baptist Theology claim in these giants of the faith. Yet, the same argument is made from the Arminian side by those who find their own heroes of the faith in history and stake the claim upon those fellows. Then you back up a few feet and see that there were both Calvinists and Arminians at different points in history and even contemporaneously. Furthermore, you see that there are other options in this debate that can be held “traditionally” and the water becomes even more muddied and you are left with the question “what is right?”
Well the answer to that question should arise once it is seen what is truly going on and that is something called prescriptive history. This is the belief that if we see a belief in the history of our group then we should believe it. History becomes prescriptive. It is another appeal to tradition. Therein lies the problem. There is an appeal to tradition.
This is what is truly bothering me with this book and this argument. It is the belief that tradition has some, rather large, authority over us. As a Baptist I am of the mind that our authority is found solely in God and it is mediated through the Bible. To make a claim for theology that is based upon “that is what we are traditionally” flies into the face of the idea of Authority only in God. I do not intend to discuss the theological aspects of what I am arguing, but only point out a flaw in the historical methodology.
What I am not advocating is a denial of tradition. There is a place in our beliefs for tradition, but when history is used prescriptively it is relegated to a higher authority than it should be deemed. We have much to learn from those who came before, but we must always keep in mind that they could have been wrong as much as you and I can be wrong. We are all sinful beings fighting the fight between flesh and Spirit. So please when you are arguing something do not find your favs of your traditions’ theological heritage and flaunt them. That weakens your argument, slightly degrades their ministries and does not give a fuller picture.
posted by Madison | 9:02 AM
|
8 comments
