Why write revisionist history? Why re-work old theological points? Hasn’t the past done a good enough job with these things? Can’t we consider anything settled? Do we need to re-invent the wheel?
The answer to these questions is both a yes and a no. There are basic things that we can consider true. We know that Alexander conquered the world in the 4th century. We know that our God is both three and one. But as time passes the significance of these truths change. This is not only because there is growth in the amount of knowledge we have, but also because of moves in emphasis. Even as an individual grows older, so society grows older.
We don’t fully understand the meaning of events in our lives until we reach the present. We know the implications of Alexander’s Hellenism. The Trinity was formulated in opposition to Arius. As the church grows, the love of the Trinity stands in opposition to the monadic gods of Deism and Islam.
We can revise our understanding, in a false way. We can revise them without a desire for the truth or a desire to learn. Revision does not mean a revision of the facts themselves. We revise out of a desire to better understand the facts. To reject the task of revision is to lose the value of the past for the present.
The scientific community provides a good example. Scientists can appreciate and value the observations of the past (in fact they could do this more often), but they know that we have grown in our understanding of what is around us. The observations are often the same, but the significance of these observations changes. The observation is more fully understood by seeking greater comprehension.