Another reader expressed some disconcertment after recently discovering some troubling news about a prominent figure in church history. Believing this individual to be a juggernaut of the Christian faith, this person was somewhat taken aback at discovering previously held beliefs do not always comport with reality. Below is a portion of my response which you may find useful as well.

***********

I can appreciate how shocking it can be to discover the darker side of human nature, especially those figures that played a prominent role in the history of the church. With that said, however, after the initial disappointment, I would submit to you that the mercy of God is seen to be magnified all the more when we realize how gracious God is to fallen humanity. That is, it is particularly remarkable to consider how God redeems His creatures and uses them for extraordinary measures to bring Him glory.

As a person studies church history, I would like to suggest a word of caution, if I may.

There is often an imbalance when investigating the past, and our tendency can be to idolize individuals to the point where we think they can do no wrong. It is easy to gloss over the trouble spots in light of the good. This aspect is not just relegated to church history. It is also found in secular history as well. One particular example that comes to mind is the life of George Washington. Finding numerous websites designed to prove the Christian fervor of Washington is not difficult at all—albeit a task that requires more than the historical record merits, the truth be told.

For example, I noticed one conservative website quote the conclusion of Washington biographer Jared Sparks, who concluded after publishing a 12 volume series that our nation’s first president was a devout Christian. Of course, Sparks, a Unitarian minister, has a different perspective of what a Christian is than the rest of Orthodox Christianity. The problem, however, is that his subjective conclusion does not reflect the actual evidence found in the twenty-eight volumes of Washington’s papers. In them, there is only one reference to Jesus—and that was by accident. So, there is no primary evidence for such a conclusion. Historians can only speculate at best. The search for "true truth", therefore, can thus be elusive.

Then there is the other extreme where some individuals have such an antipathy for church figures that they can do no right. There are some that take this attitude towards Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers.

A third category is to try to discredit everyone no matter what they did, good or bad.

There is another area in the study of church history in which care must be taken. That is, in the matter of labels such as "replacement theology". The label is misleading because there is no "replacement". The concept behind the label contends that the church is the "true Israel of God", not that the church replaced Israel for the church existed before Israel. God has always had a called out assembly of the elect. Perhaps "surpass" would be more applicable, just as a butterfly surpasses a caterpillar—it does not replace it. And so labels too have to be dealt with carefully lest the true position of each camp be misunderstood. Labels such as Calvinism, Arminianism, amillenialism, Dispensationalism, and so on can be misleading. I prefer to discuss the "doctrines of grace" rather than the term "Calvinism", though a Calvinist I am when properly understood.

And we have yet to mention movements that come and go. Modern day movements would include the Charismatics (The Third Wave), New Covenant Theology, Preterism (full and partial)—and the list goes on and on.

It takes a lot of years and hard work to sort all of this out—but the time spent is well worth the effort.