One of the things that I learned as I studied history in
college (and as I have continued to read it) is that there is no such thing as
an objective historian. Even the most conscientious
scholar brings certain perspectives, presuppositions, and paradigms to his or
her research. This may well determine
what the researcher deems important and may either aid or encumber the
discoveries made.
If this is true of history scholars, it is certainly true
of each of us as we think about our own history. Although our memories may be very vivid, they
may not necessarily be accurate. We
usually see only one side of events, even those events that we experienced personally. Our feelings about people and our place in
the world provide the filters through which we see the events of our past. We also impose interpretations that help us
make sense of the past but they are our interpretations.
The person who says “This is not the church I grew up in”
is not only saying something about the present but also about the past. Certainly, the church has changed due to the
influx of new people and the departure of the old due to death, relocation, or
choice. The thing that the speaker may
not realize is that the church that he or she perceived in “the good old days”
was not necessarily the church experienced by others at the same time. The teenager, even the one who is actively
involved in the congregation and its youth ministry, does not see the church
the same way as that the middle-aged mother who teaches Sunday School, the
long-term pastor, or the embattled chair of the deacons does! There is a lot more going on than one person
can perceive from a single point of view.
Very often we create our history out of our present day
needs, picking and choosing the events and people that provide the support we
need right now. This is not necessarily
unhealthy, but we should do this with a measure of humility, realizing the
expectations we bring to the task. Were
the “good old days” necessarily that good?
Comments