|
Chronological snobbery (to use C.S. Lewis's phrase) is a problem no matter which way one goes with it. Take commentaries, for example. Modern ones get read, and some Reformation commentaries get read, and the early church fathers also get read. But 19th century works (with a few exceptions such as Keil/Delitzsch, Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie, Hodge, and Fairbairn) are almost completely ignored. I believe that no period of theologizing is unimportant. First of all, there is still more to be discovered about God's Word, since it is infinite in depth. Secondly, each period of theology can correct some problems of other periods of theology. I believe we can correct other periods. For instance, I believe that modern commentaries on Song of Solomon do better than the Puritans on that book. I disagree that we should throw out all the Puritan works on that book, since Christ and the believer is definitely an application of that book. But to ignore the literal or discount it as the Puritans did is wrong, in my opinion. And I say this out of a profound respect for Puritan commentaries. There are modern works that will become classics. For instance, Douglas Kelly is coming out with a systematic theology that will be more than one volume. That will be on the level of Hodge, in my opinion. People will still be reading that one in a hundred years, I think. The other thing to remember is that all the works of the Reformers were once new as well. My opinion is that we cannot let go of the modern era and only read older works. We should not ignore older works either. A balance is desirable here.
|