In the past I wrote how I can be underwhelmed by “the classics.”
So, why should we read them?
Well my good friend Clive Staples addresses this very question in the preface of my “classical work” by St Athanasius.
First, he states that it’s far better to wrestle with the primary sources of developmental Christian theology.
The reason, he asserts, is that if you read the foundational documents as they were written and interact with the issues they were trying to address (which are not different to the ones we face today) then we will be far better equipped to understand our faith than just digesting the secondhand outcomes.
For, Mr Lewis’ second point, is clear. If we only jump onto the modern writings for our theology, then we are interacting with a conversation which has been well underway. We miss centuries of what has happened previously. There are learnings to be had in the theological journey.
Third, as we read old books, then our modern issues can be put into perspective. As I alluded to above, we see that - indeed - there is nothing new under the Sun. We can learn the familiar arguments and old missteps.
When we spot their “classic” fallacies, we can learn to better spot our own.
When the “classics” wrestle with foundational questions, we can learn how the original thinkers accounted for them.
As C.S. writes, two heads are better than one.
Modern and old.
Contemporary and classic.
My biggest problem is working out what “classics” I should read next.
No comments:
Post a Comment