The "Common Christian"

In reading Pelikan's  The Christian Tradition, I appreciate the way he notes that our understanding of the development of Christian belief is often colored by the materials we have available to study. In one sense, what we know about Christian doctrine in its earliest days is really what a small number of apologists and writers believed. It is rather like assuming that modern theological discussion in churches consists of those issues that the systematic theologians choose to discuss. As an active pastor, I know this is not the case.

Pelikan is careful to note this tendency. We don't have much choice but to find our data on Christian doctrine in those documents extant today. We certainly can't read lost works! At the same time, what was believed and taught in the church at large was not likely as detailed as the academics of that day make it sound. Pelikan looks for clues to the doctrine of what might be called "common Christians" in the liturgical writings and practices that we know from the era.

Belief was likely much simpler and more direct for most Christians. Few would undertake to read, much less try to understand, the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, or Irenaeus. They would simply hold to the early creedal statements and the teaching of their pastors and bishops, and practice the liturgical traditions they knew.

This is really no different for the modern church. Despite widespread education in the West, few Christians take time to study academic theology and wrestle with the complex issues about which theologians argue. Most Christians (even leaving aside the casual and cultural Christians who have little understanding of their faith at all) are confessional; they accept what their church teaches without concerning themselves about all the details of those positions. They engage in the liturgical practices of their church without worrying about just what all of that symbolizes.

This might seem like a harsh criticism, but I don;t mean it in that way. While I would like to see more of the members of my church engaged in deep study of the Scriptures and researching why we believe as we do, I understand that this is not a major priority for most people. It also demonstrates a trust in the clergy and leaders of the church. Most church members of any denomination will believe that their pastor is someone who understands the faith, and can teach them what is true and necessary to live for Jesus.

Of course, this places a burden on those who are teachers. We have the trust of many, and must not abuse that trust. One of the reasons for the rise of heresy in the early church was an insistence by heretical teachers that they alone could be trusted, that they alone had the truth. They took the trust of their followers and abused it to enhance their own teachings. We must be careful that what we teach is the Word of God and not our own ideas.

I see no reason to anticipate a rise in theological interest in the church at large today. (In some segments, it may even be that the reverse is true!) The "common Christian" will continue to believe and to practice Christianity as taught by those who lead them. The concerns of academia will not necessarily be theirs, but their Christian belief will be far more representative of the faith of our era than the mass of our theological writings. This should humble us, even as it encourages us to teach faithfully.