One of the clarifying realities I was able to articulate from reading Worship and the World to Come (Glenn Packiam) is that my own history both in church and beyond have shaped my theological convictions. I think this kind of recognition allows me to loosely hold my own preferences, to be less defensive, and more charitable toward brothers and sisters whose history has also shaped their theological convictions.
But history also shapes the modern Church.
Our church is in the process of affirming a new statement of faith, and to that end, our elders have preached through the various tenets of the proposed statement of faith. Much of the conversation we have as a staff team around secondary issues - is how the church has historically wrestled and resolved their own questions. This can be a comfort: Christians have believed, celebrated, and affirmed these specific truths for generations. Smarter Christians than me have given their lives to read, study, embody, and articulate these truths. But this can also become an excuse: Christians have believed, celebrated, and affirmed these specific truths for generations. Therefore we can rest in their understanding rather than grapple with our own.
Hear me, I am speaking of second-tier issues. I make no claim that we should diverge from the historic church in orders of first importance. Those truths which all followers of Jesus - regardless of denomination - must hold in true faith and that would be defined as historically orthodox. I am speaking of second-tier issues - those things which brothers and sisters can hold loosely with a variety of conviction and expression, and still be in fellowship with one another.
Similarly to acknowledging that no one is neutral, and that everyone carries their own preferences, when we can acknowledge the visible and invisible ways history has shaped us, our people, our denomination, and our churches, we can honor that which is worthy of honor, and we can lean into the sanctifying work of semper reformanda.