Something Old, Something New: On Often Being Misled by the New
Even though I believe in being in touch with cutting edge scholarship, I remain very much of a traditionalist in many ways. Many beliefs people hold concerning the final return of Jesus–including events leading up to it–are relatively new. For example, a doctrine such as the “secret rapture” associated with some very popular books in our country, and unfortunately now throughout the world, was not believed until the early part of the nineteenth century.
We must beware of what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery.” The tradition of the church is not infallible, but it should not be discarded easily. I am cautious about any “new interpretation” in part because we too are influenced by our own cultural context and may fail to see what our ancestors saw. There needs to be balance, of course. Neither the past nor what is “pop” should be accepted or rejected without careful thought.
On the one hand, we must beware of accepting an interpretation or practice merely because it appears to have stood the test of time (think Luther and the Reformation, a movement that challenged beliefs held for more than a thousand years).
On the other hand, we must be equally cautious about accepting an interpretation, not matter how popular it is today, that does not find its roots deep in the history of the church. What is more tragic is accepting beliefs that have no scriptural basis whatsoever.
Related posts:
Excellent insight!
Clearly when the word “catholicity” is used to describe the great Christian tradition it indicates “catholic” not only in terms of hermeneutic and fidelity to scripture but also chronologically. If an innovative interpretation of scripture (the secret rapture) would not have made any sense to the original audience of text it should be immediately suspect.
Your last sentence is insightful. Thanks for the contribution.