Who says history is boring or is not relevant for today.  I am 5 weeks into my first class on the Patristic writers and I’m in awe.  I’m in awe not only of the writers but the people who they were writing to; the people living in the Roman empire during times of peace, turmoil, oppression and desperation.  What struck me first was their faith.  They stood strong in what they believed.  Secondly, they struggled and their faith did too.  Thirdly, the church struggled with them,  and not only with doctrine but how best to minister to the church’s growing numbers.  Through the Novatian and Donatist Controversies, you could feel how men were wrestling with the reality of both facts and emotions, along with the definition and application of forgiveness, repentance and grace.   Through the readings I experienced their pride, anger, self-righteousness, humility, grace and the Gospel.  What a roller coaster!

Another interesting thing I’ve noted so far is the absolute truth in Solomon’s statement from Ecclesiastes 1:9  “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun”.  I knew this to be true but never realized how clearly relevant it was to the church today.  In my readings I experienced church growth and decline, revival and mediocrity, heresy and subtle doctrinal error, reformation and theological entropy, piety and hypocrisy, personal sacrifice and personal gain, persecution and state religion, suffering and joy.  Another roller coaster. 

Mark Dever, pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC spoke about his pastoral reading program a few years back.  In it, he recommended in addition to Scripture, the reading and re-reading the Patristic’s on a schedule or some regular basis.  I thought to myself, knowing Mark Dever’s character, doing so probably has great merit.  However in my case, with so much to read and so little time, I relegated the Patristic Fathers to some far-off and future date.  This was partly based on my preconceptions that they would be boring and very uninteresting.  Wow, was I wrong.  Yes, it takes time.  Yes, the language is sometimes clumsy. Yes, it’s not easy but it’s definitely worth it. 

Just as an aside, one of my favorite little reads was something called The Didache or “The Writings of the Apostles”.  Whereas most experts don’t believe it was written by the 12 Apostles but actually by a group of people in the late 1st or early 2nd century, it contains some very interesting notes on church life during that time.  My favorite part is where it talks about the mode of baptism.  Come to find out, the early church was very “ecumenical” when it came to baptism.  OK Baptists, time for a little humbling here.  Yes, while it seems that the first century “Baptists” have the leg-up on the first century Presbyterians in the pecking order, it was clear that all three modes were in operation from AD 75-150.  It seems as if  immersion was preferred but it was not the only way.  Pouring came next and sprinkling, although not mentioned specifically, is alluded to.  By the way, cold water was also preferred over warm.  Maybe, that’s why pouring and sprinkling were added.  There’s nothing more “exciting” than being “immersed” in cold water.  The bottom line is that what the writers of the Didache said, water, in some way,  should be used during the baptism ritual.    Its a good reminder that sometimes by “majoring in the minor’s”, we lose sight of the bigger meaning of baptism.

I now have a greater appreciation of the religious freedoms we have in this country and the greater privilege of having the entire Canon of Scripture available, in so many formats.