I currently have a love/hate relationship with Historic Christian Belief. Here's a few simple equations that sum up why:
Love = relevant reading - pointless homework
Hate = redundant lectures + uncomfortable chairs
Love + Hate = Historic Christian Belief
I've been learning so much about my faith in this focused J-Term class, but as soon as we start getting into the --- in my opinion --- completely irrelevant details, I lose touch with the main idea of the class. Lectures are typically based on the theological reflections of an old man, either bald or bearded (or both) living somewhere within the lingering shadow of the Roman/Holy Roman empire. Some were martyred, some wrote prolifically, one even went eunuch (O, Origen!), but the one thing they all have in common is the excessive amount of time spent on tweaking the works of art that were their theologies.
I realize that much of this tweaking was the result of off-kilter beliefs that required further investigation, but I've been a Christian almost my whole life, and I've never even
thought about most of this stuff, much less
wrestled with it. For instance: how is guilt transferred from Adam to the rest of humanity through the Fall? Traducianism says it's almost genetic, Creationism say it comes with each fresh new soul. Or what about sin itself? The Eastern Church says it's the corruption of "original sin"; the Western Church says it's "original guilt."
I say: Does it freaking MATTER?!
Either way, we're sinners in need of salvation. The class is really meant to highlight the common "pillars," if you will, of Christian belief, and I understand this.
But sometimes I wish Augustine would have left the constant reflection to his bathroom mirror.
