|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christian tradition - how should we relate to it?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
It was four minutes to midnight last night when I wrote the following comment, which admittedly in the cold light of morning looks rather disrespectful of centuries of Christian thinking:
quote:
And even if there were a traditional view, I couldn't give a fig for it, because all I am interested in is the truth - particularly the truth of what the Bible says. How some people - even most people - have interpreted the Bible over the centuries is not binding on me.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Clearly we cannot just leapfrog over two thousand years of tradition, but on the other hand I think we all have the right to evaluate the views of others, no matter their standing and authority within the church.
I was brought up a Methodist, and was an active member of this church for a while in my twenties. I took a considerable interest in the teaching of John Wesley, and sought to "come to terms with" some of his views, for example, trying to make sense of the doctrine of Christian Perfection. I respected this as part of the tradition of my church, even if many of my co-religionists didn't think much of it (but still happily wallowed in the romance of the early Methodist story). Through trying to get my head round Wesley's views, I came to see that there was something valuable in this teaching (particularly the idea of sanctification by grace), but I would not have been able to gain these insights without first deciding to respect the tradition of my church. If Wesley had been of another denomination, then perhaps I would have just dismissed his ideas at the first sign of an intellectual problem. Of course, this doesn't mean that I agree with everything he said.
I think this is a positive example of respecting Christian tradition, but I have also been influenced by a line of thinking, known as 'primitivism' (not to be confused with the art movement by the same name), which seeks to "get back to the teaching and practices of the Early Church", thus effectively seemingly dismissing two thousand years of Christian thinking. I think this is a delusion, because how can we see "the Early Church" other than in the light of the thought forms that we have inherited over the centuries?
What do you think about your own church tradition?
How do you relate to it?
Do you just wholeheartedly submit to it, even if it doesn't always make logical sense?
Or do you feel free to dismiss a lot or even most of it, without feeling like an apostate?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
My natural inclination is to accept the traditional interpretation unless I have a compelling reason not to. Not having a knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Latin or Aramaic I am rather careful of placing too much weight on any particular passage of scripture in my own reading. I recognise that I am going to be reliant on the views of experts for much of my theology, and hence my instinct is to seek the orthodox opinion. If I cannot reconcile aspects of orthodox opinion, as has happened on certain decomposing equines, I will tend to assume that the issue of application is the incorrect one rather than the issue of doctrine.
As far as issues of liturgy and sacrament go, I tend to take the traditional as being read unless there is good reason to challenge it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
I believe we should certainly pay careful attention to Christian tradition, to the wisdom of how other faithful believers have interpreted and applied the Bible. If I as an individual find my interpretation of the faith at odds with what's been believed by Christians historically, then the balance of probabilities is strong that I've got it wrong.
Of course, there isn't just one tradition, and a majority vote is no guarantee of truth. While I would expect the truth not to be strikingly original, I believe the principle of "sola scriptura" - that the Bible alone is the final authority - is vital for ensuring the corrigibility of our traditions. Tradition is important, but our understanding of the faith must always be open to correction by listening afresh to God in scripture.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm increasingly becoming interested in tradition.
I can see what The Revolutionist is getting at but all too often 'sola scriptura' ends up as one's own idiosyncratic or personal interpretation of scripture becoming the 'sola' or deciding factor.
I can't see how we can have 'sola scriptura' to be frank. Scripture didn't come to us in a vacuum. It never stands alone.
I suppose if the 'sola fide' and 'sola gratia' things hold then we could say, in a similar way to the oft-quoted maxim, 'But the faith which saves is never alone', that scripture itself is never alone - but requires reason, tradition, experience or whatever tripod of quadrilateral it happens to be, to go with it.
Scripture, it seems to me, might be the 'main course' but it doesn't stand alone without side dishes - if I may put it that way.
I suppose the issue then becomes which side dishes we admit to the table ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I'm going for that tried and trusted Anglican three legged stool!
The Bible gives us something, but is in no sense the complete story. There is much it doesn't tell us and much that is confusing and even contradictory. More over, understanding the Bible and interpreting it in today's context(s) is not straightforward.
Tradition also gives us something. It is futile (and IMHO arrogant) to assume that we can reinvent the Christian faith in the 21st century with no reference whatsoever to how it has been understood and explained through the ages. But again it has severe limitations. Tradition cannot mean "this is how it was 2000 years ago and must be for eternity". Tradition itself is something that has changed (and continues to change) over time.
Reason gives us something as well. It helps us to take the understanding that we have of God (from the Bible and Tradition) and make sense it all in ever changing contexts. It enables us to begin to fill in some of the gaps ("if God is really the God of love and forgiveness that Jesus talked about, how might that change the way that we look at..... (fill in your own subject matter here)").
But it also has limitations, as even the most brainiest person is still just a fallible, limited human being. There are plenty of times when we need to step beyond reason into the area of faith (but that doesn't mean that we dismiss reason or that faith can be irrational).
So with regards to tradition, my feeling is this. We hear what it says and respect its insights. But we have to refuse to let it become a shackle. We weigh up what tradition tells us by referring back to the Bible and by using our own God-given reasoning abilities, so that we can retain what is good and have the wisdom to identify and reject what has been shown to be not good.
As a practical example of what I mean, I would take that knotty question of women priests and bishops. We listen to what the Bible says (paying especial attention to the way Jesus interacted with women) and then look at how the tradition of the Church has been over the ages. Using our reason, we see that the old ways of treating women as second-class citizens are no longer appropriate and are even offensive to most sane, rational people. So we dare to say that the tradition of keeping ordination to men only is one that can no longer be sustained and that it seems right and godly that this be overturned. (In so doing, we do not dismiss out of hand ALL tradition.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
We are fish, and Tradition is the river in which we swim.
That's not an original thought, but I can't remember who I stole it from.
It also doesn't say anything about how clean the water is.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Of course, there isn't just one tradition, and a majority vote is no guarantee of truth. While I would expect the truth not to be strikingly original, I believe the principle of "sola scriptura" - that the Bible alone is the final authority - is vital for ensuring the corrigibility of our traditions. Tradition is important, but our understanding of the faith must always be open to correction by listening afresh to God in scripture.
This is the right approach, IMO, albeit with an acknowledgement that we indeed cannot approach Scripture without bringing our own perspectives and biases.
I find it very puzzling when people speak of the 'Tradition of the Church' (usually with those capital letters) as if this is a unified thing. To the contrary, ISTM there are many traditions, in two senses. One particular stream of Christianity may well have taught one thing or done things one way at a certain point in time, and then completely switched position. And if you look at any particular time period, you may well have one church stream doing one thing, and another doing something totally different. What, then, do we take to be 'the Tradition of the Church'?
Then, if there is no unified 'Tradition of the Church', I think that undercuts the argument which claims God's approval on the tradition; I mean arguments to the effect of 'this is the deposit of tradition passed down to us, originating from the Apostles'. If there are many traditions, which is the God-approved one? I'm not sure how we can tell, without going back to the Scriptures in some way. (Not that I think there is one single God-approved tradition anyway.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
But when we come across a conflict in scripture, how do we address that? By examining the tradition of the church and by reason.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Of course, there isn't just one tradition, and a majority vote is no guarantee of truth. While I would expect the truth not to be strikingly original, I believe the principle of "sola scriptura" - that the Bible alone is the final authority - is vital for ensuring the corrigibility of our traditions. Tradition is important, but our understanding of the faith must always be open to correction by listening afresh to God in scripture.
With the greatest of respect The Revolutionist a few years ago I might have said more of less the same as you.
Now, having converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, my views on Tradition have changed. Holy Tradition or Apostolic Tradition is everything Jesus Christ taught to His disciples, and it was only later that it became the Written Word (the New Testament.) So this means that Holy Scripture came out of Holy Tradition, not the other way round.
Orthodox Holy Tradition is a little different from western Holy Tradition, because for us nothing has been added. Clarification, doctrine, the canon of scripture, yes, but nothing new. You will see that the seven Ecumenical Councils were to resolve problems and heresies in the Church, but don't in themselves present any new beliefs.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@South Coast Kevin - I think the most balanced view of this that I've come across comes from Andrew Walker's writings in 'Deep Church' where he puts forward the yardstick 'that believed everywhere and by all' as the determining factor in what constitutes Tradition. There is a difference between Tradition and traditions.
On one level, the bulk of 'Holy Tradition' as it were, the apostolic deposit, is something we all tend to agree on and can be found across all mainstream churches and denominations.
How tightly one buckles The Tradition of The Church (capital letters) depends on which tradition (Big T or small t) we belong to.
Either way, both big T and small t tradition is there and we have to deal with it - either, as Mark Betts and others have done by saying it is best expressed in one particular ecclesial body - whether RC or Orthodox - or by taking a more loose approach to the issue as is found in Protestantism.
Either way, we have to deal with it and can't sidestep or ignore it.
The danger, though, is that we each individually become the arbiter of our own tradition - every Protestant his own Pope as it were.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm increasingly becoming interested in tradition.
I can see what The Revolutionist is getting at but all too often 'sola scriptura' ends up as one's own idiosyncratic or personal interpretation of scripture becoming the 'sola' or deciding factor.
I can't see how we can have 'sola scriptura' to be frank. Scripture didn't come to us in a vacuum. It never stands alone.
I suppose if the 'sola fide' and 'sola gratia' things hold then we could say, in a similar way to the oft-quoted maxim, 'But the faith which saves is never alone', that scripture itself is never alone - but requires reason, tradition, experience or whatever tripod of quadrilateral it happens to be, to go with it.
Scripture, it seems to me, might be the 'main course' but it doesn't stand alone without side dishes - if I may put it that way.
I suppose the issue then becomes which side dishes we admit to the table ...
"Sola scriptura" refers to the Bible alone having final authority. It doesn't mean that other sources - tradition, reason, experience and so on - aren't important, even authoritative, but that what the Bible actually says is the supreme court of appeal for the Christian.
If you have multiple sources, you will end up using one of them to weigh up the others. Our cultural default is for our individual judgement to be the ruling standard. Often claims of "sola scriptura" are distorted into mere individualism, but properly understood it relativizes not only any claim by the Church or Tradition or whatever to absolute authority, but also that of any individual.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Orthodox Holy Tradition is a little different from western Holy Tradition, because for us nothing has been added. Clarification, doctrine, the canon of scripture, yes, but nothing new. You will see that the seven Ecumenical Councils were to resolve problems and heresies in the Church, but don't in themselves present any new beliefs.
The problem is that there isn't one tradition, but multiple streams, each of which claim to be faithful to the original teachings of the Gospel. Every tradition is also an interpretation of the history of tradition.
So the Catholic Church also claims to preserve original Christianity; Protestantism claims to recover it. At the Reformation, Luther, Calvin et al were very keen to deny the charge of originality. They didn't see themselves as coming up with a new interpretation, and went to the Church Fathers to argue that the Catholic Church at the time had departed from the true tradition of the Church.
Even if you see the Bible as the product of Tradition, then the fact that the canonical scriptures are the earliest written insight into what Jesus and the Apostles taught and handed down means that we can and should use the Bible to judge whether later Tradition is in keeping with the earliest Tradition of the Church.
[ 18. October 2012, 13:06: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I'm going for that tried and trusted Anglican three legged stool!
I'd add one more leg.
Generally, I try to give equal weight to scripture, tradition, reason and experience. I think that to overemphasize any of them leads to error. IMHO, evangelicals can over-emphasize scripture, leading to idolatory of the bible, Catholics & Orthodox can over-emphasize tradition, which can sometimes be unhelpful rather than freeing, some of the early Greek Christian thinkers over-emphasized reason, ending up with an over-intellectualized philosophy that lost its roots in faith, and charismatics can over-emphasize experience, ending up fooling themselves into something's too important, when it's not.
So, yeah, balance between those four is important for me. And I believe that they are the primary ways that the Holy Spirit speaks to us, in roughly equal measure too.
And I disagree with the notion that 'sola scriptura' means that the bible 'trumps' all the other ones as the prime authority, because to interpret the bible requires all the other ones in the first place .
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Tradition gets a veto over doctrines and actions contrary to tradition. However, the veto is more like the presidential veto of bills passed by congress than an absolute veto. Changing a position long held by the Church should not be undertaken lightly by an entire community and never by any on individual. Replacing the wisdom of the communion of saints with one's own novel interpretation is simply arrogant (albeit potentially very lucrative).
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
double post to add
The Reformation was a partial repudiation of one strand of Scholasticism not Christian tradition.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Changing a position long held by the Church should not be undertaken lightly by an entire community and never by any on individual.
But what do you mean by 'Church'? Even with a broad definition, like Gamaliel's 'all mainstream churches and denominations', how much doctrine and practice is there that we could speak of as 'long held by the Church'? I don't think it's very much, which means there's plenty of ground for reinterpretation of existing traditions.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
You raise an interesting point, South Coast Kevin. On one level, much as I admire Walker, he sounds like he wants to have his cake and eat it - but you'd need to read his article. I'm not sure if it's on line.
I do think there is room for diversity and so on but then we get into the issue of what is authoritative and what is personal opinion and so on.
On The Revolutionist's point - yes, I understand what sola scriptura is saying and is intended to protect. But then, scripture doesn't cover all the basis so how can it be 'the supreme court of appeal' on absolutely every single issue we might encounter?
It can only function, as Goperryrevs has said, with all or some of the other elements in place.
There's no way we can avoid having multiple sources. What a one-dimensional world we'd live in otherwise!
I'd like to know more about what you mean by sola scriptura 'properly understood.' In my experience that's generally short-hand for 'as I understand it ...'
I really don't see how sola scriptura avoids that.
What am I missing?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Changing a position long held by the Church should not be undertaken lightly by an entire community and never by any on individual.
But what do you mean by 'Church'? Even with a broad definition, like Gamaliel's 'all mainstream churches and denominations', how much doctrine and practice is there that we could speak of as 'long held by the Church'? I don't think it's very much, which means there's plenty of ground for reinterpretation of existing traditions.
The vast majority of it is long held by the Church. Disregarding tradition and coming up with novel interpretations of scripture is a relatively new practice in mainstream Christianity. Neither Lutherans, Reformed, Anglican, or later Methodist thought they were disregarding the teaching of the early church. Rather, they thought the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages disregarded the teaching of the early church. Even given the issues of contention, orthodox Christians agree on more than they disagree.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin - I think the most balanced view of this that I've come across comes from Andrew Walker's writings in 'Deep Church' where he puts forward the yardstick 'that believed everywhere and by all' as the determining factor in what constitutes Tradition. There is a difference between Tradition and traditions.
From my reading, of the Bible and elsewhere, the Vincentian canon of "that believed everywhere and by all" wasn't even as sure a measure as St. Vincent of Lerins wanted it to be way back in 434 A.D. I think there have been many views within Christianity, right from the beginning.
Perhaps "Jesus is Lord and has died and been raised" might qualify as meeting the canon. That leaves a lot to be worked out.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin - I think the most balanced view of this that I've come across comes from Andrew Walker's writings in 'Deep Church' where he puts forward the yardstick 'that believed everywhere and by all' as the determining factor in what constitutes Tradition. There is a difference between Tradition and traditions.
From my reading, of the Bible and elsewhere, the Vincentian canon of "that believed everywhere and by all" wasn't even as sure a measure as St. Vincent of Lerins wanted it to be way back in 434 A.D. I think there have been many views within Christianity, right from the beginning.
There certainly have been many views; the problem is not acknowledging that there are many views, but in concluding therefrom that all those views are equally plausible, probable, or defensible.
Truth either exists, or it does not. It has either been revealed to us, or it has not. I suspect that what lies beneath the postmodern approach is at best a conviction that truth is unknowable, at worst a cynical assumption that since all religion is made up, we may as well choose whatever pretty words we prefer.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Fr. Weber, I said nothing to say that all views are to be accepted, nor about how to sift the many views.
My intended emphasis was that simply saying "that which has been believed everywhere, and by all" is not helpful when there are many views, each of which has been believed somewhere by someone, and that it wasn't even such a simple criterion when St. Vincent of Lerins used the phrase.
[ 18. October 2012, 18:25: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
To be fair to St Vincent, he also included "always" as a criterion--which narrows it down a little, anyway.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Thanks for making the "always" explicit, Fr. Weber. I understood it implicitly, but it clarifies the quote to restore it. I also think that in applying the criterion, it's fair to start in 434 when St. Vincent was writing, even if I'm not sure I'll agree with him.
I think there's a lot that has developed since 434 though, so I wouldn't stop in 434 for my answer to the titular question of this thread.
It would be interesting to apply the criterion today to all the groups that call themselves Christian, and see if there's anything at all now, after two millennia, that all Christians everywhere and always have believed.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On The Revolutionist's point - yes, I understand what sola scriptura is saying and is intended to protect. But then, scripture doesn't cover all the basis so how can it be 'the supreme court of appeal' on absolutely every single issue we might encounter?
It can only function, as Goperryrevs has said, with all or some of the other elements in place.
There's no way we can avoid having multiple sources. What a one-dimensional world we'd live in otherwise!
I'd like to know more about what you mean by sola scriptura 'properly understood.' In my experience that's generally short-hand for 'as I understand it ...'
I really don't see how sola scriptura avoids that.
What am I missing?
I've already explained that I agree that there are multiple sources - there's no need to avoid that. We're free to use other sources, both in life generally and in helping us understand the Bible. But where the Bible speaks to a subject, it does so authoritatively.
Here's a fairly standard evangelical explanation of "sola scriptura" from Doctrine by Mark Driscoll:
quote:
Now, some also called this Prima Scriptura, but the point is that there are lesser courts of authority. Let me distinguish Sola Scriptura from Solo Scriptura. Solo Scriptura is that Scripture alone is our authority. We don’t believe that. We believe that Scripture alone is our highest authority. The Scriptures, for example, don’t tell us how to perform open heart surgery. The Scriptures don’t tell us how to repair a carburetor on an old vehicle. The Scriptures don’t tell us how to turn a double play. If we want to learn any of those things we need to find that information elsewhere. All of the time we go to science, we go to medicine, we go to sociology, psychology, we go to history, we go to all kinds of disciplines and we learn. And that’s all the result of general revelation, okay?
Back to one of my first points. The sciences, the social sciences, other means of learning all falls under the rubric of God’s image bearers working with general revelation. Some people know things about technology and about the environment and about the human body and about medicine and about diet and nutrition and all these kind of things. And we believe in Sola Scriptura, and that is we have lesser courts of lower authority. You can go to college, go to the doctor, read a philosopher, study medicine, science – whatever it is, that’s wonderful and good. That’s enjoying general revelation in its full, and then testing general revelation by special revelation. That whatever we’re learning there we have to check by Scripture and to see that it agrees with Scripture. If it doesn’t disagree with Scripture, then we have freedom.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - I can see the distinction you're making between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura, The Revolutionist - even if I shudder a bit at seeing Mark Driscoll used as a source for the distinction ...
But I still think there's more to unpack here.
Everyone - Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox - would see scripture as normative. Everyone would see it as authoritative - although there might be different views as to how that works out in practice.
But how do we apply it? Where do we draw the line?
Do we, for instance, reject some of the Marian aspects found in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism because 'it's not in the Bible' - when, arguably, some of the beliefs/events that surround the story of the Dormition (for instance) are said to have taken place after Matthew, Mark and Luke had written their Gospels ...
I know it's more complicated than that, but you get my drift.
It seems to me that the only way to get into a debate about those issues is to include tradition as well as scripture - which the Orthodox and RCs already do with each accusing the other of either going too far on that side of things or not far enough.
The issues that we can argue/debate about as far as scripture itself goes have to be related to the text itself - and on that score (other than the issue of what is and isn't to be regarded as canonical or deutero-canonical) I tend to see a fair bit of consensus. I might be wrong or naive, but RC and Orthodox Bible studies I've attended haven't been a million miles from Protestant ones. If anything, to be frank, the former were a lot richer and also more closely related to the text itself rather than the kind of airy-fairy pietistic tangents which seem to bedog certain types of evangelical Bible study - but that's another issue.
So what are we saying in concrete terms?
How does a Sola Scriptura approach actually help us - other than as a stick with which to beat the Catholics and reject doctrines or emphases we don't like?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Disregarding tradition and coming up with novel interpretations of scripture is a relatively new practice in mainstream Christianity. Neither Lutherans, Reformed, Anglican, or later Methodist thought they were disregarding the teaching of the early church. Rather, they thought the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages disregarded the teaching of the early church.
Yeah, I guess so - but I wonder if it just amounts to the same thing, really. I mean, it's pretty self-evident that the RCC of the middle ages accused the Reformers of 'disregarding tradition and coming up with novel interpretations of Scripture'. Right?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even given the issues of contention, orthodox Christians agree on more than they disagree.
Maybe. I just don't want us to downplay the differences, which I think are profound in some cases and cover a wide range of ground. But again, the validity of your statement depends on what we mean by 'orthodox Christians', doesn't it...?
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
There certainly have been many views; the problem is not acknowledging that there are many views, but in concluding therefrom that all those views are equally plausible, probable, or defensible.
Truth either exists, or it does not. It has either been revealed to us, or it has not. I suspect that what lies beneath the postmodern approach is at best a conviction that truth is unknowable, at worst a cynical assumption that since all religion is made up, we may as well choose whatever pretty words we prefer.
For my part, I'm not trying to say all views are equally plausible, probable, or defensible. I'm just asserting that no single Christian tradition has a monopoly on the truth, and also I suppose that I believe there's still new truth to discover. I don't think we should automatically dismiss a particular belief or practice solely because it's never been taught by a 'mainstream / orthodox Christian tradition'.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Do we, for instance, reject some of the Marian aspects found in Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism because 'it's not in the Bible' - when, arguably, some of the beliefs/events that surround the story of the Dormition (for instance) are said to have taken place after Matthew, Mark and Luke had written their Gospels ...
Well, as I mention elsewhere, the notion of sola Scriptura is broadened in some circles to mean, not just that Scripture is the highest authority, but that if it isn't mentioned in Scripture it didn't happen. So the Dormition, martyrdoms of the Apostles, etc are swept away as fables or superstitions rather than accepted (even provisionally) as beliefs that the Church has held from very early times.
The process whereby certain parts of the Reformed movement deduced the Regulative Principle of Worship is similar. In essence, if Scripture (in some cases, just the New Testament) doesn't mention a practice as a model for Christian worship somewhere, then we shouldn't do it. In other words, what is not prescribed is forbidden.
I think this is a mistaken view of Scripture, of course. The Bible is not a manual of How to Do Church--the Church was conducting services before the NT was written down. Not to mention that not every congregation in every city could afford a complete Bible, the wrangling over the canonicity of certain NT books, the general level of literacy in antiquity among the lower classes (in a word, low), and so on.
You also raise a good point about the differing views of what Scripture agrees with or permits. Clearly RCs don't see any conflict between the words of Scripture and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Most Protestants, however, do. Different ways of reading the Bible account for this in part, but I think at root of the disagreement lies the fact that Catholics and Protestants have very different ideas about theological authority, where it's located, who (or what) has it, and how it's used.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
...Scripture (in some cases, just the New Testament) doesn't mention a practice...
Tennis balls come to mind.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed, Fr Weber - I think that's the crux of it ...
@South Coast Kevin ... hmmm ... think about what you're saying:
'I don't think we should automatically dismiss a particular belief or practice solely because it's never been taught by a 'mainstream / orthodox Christian tradition'.'
Could you give us a hypothetical example of what kind of belief or practice you might have in mind and how we might authenticate it should it arise?
Why haven't we all accepted the Book of Mormon as a subsequent belief or practice, for instance?
Why haven't we all become Swedenborgians and joined his 'new church' like Freddy and W Hyatt (sp?) our Swedenborgian friends here on the Ship?
I think you're venturing out onto dangerous waters, my friend. If there were some new doctrine or development than how you go about weighing it against scripture and tradition and what criteria would you use?
Think about it.
I'm sure you'd agree it ain't at all straightforward nor even, perhaps, desirable.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@South Coast Kevin ... hmmm ... think about what you're saying:
'I don't think we should automatically dismiss a particular belief or practice solely because it's never been taught by a 'mainstream / orthodox Christian tradition'.'
...Why haven't we all accepted the Book of Mormon as a subsequent belief or practice...?
I think you're venturing out onto dangerous waters, my friend. If there were some new doctrine or development than how you go about weighing it against scripture and tradition and what criteria would you use?
What about guitars in church? Dangerous waters?
I don't think anyone here really means to propose we all live and worship like the Amish, rejecting anything new, although many arguments rely on "tradition" to oppose anything new the arguer dislikes, from an updated translation of the Bible to a different arrangement of Silent Night to a revision of the liturgy.
The Episcopal church I grew up in adhered to a tradition that women must have no visible role in formal worship -- they couldn't even be ushers! The reason? "Tradition."
To me, tradition is not a valid reason on it's own. The valid reason (if there is one) is the why behind the tradition. But too often when asked a genuinely curious "why" the "powers" say "tradition" as if that is the complete answer the question, and then say "you aren't allowed to question tradition" if asked why that tradition developed.
God invites us to question, to seek, to understand. "Tradition" is too often invoked to cut off the discussion, to inhibit understanding.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was thinking more of doctrinal developments rather than practices such as the use of guitars, or organs (which were radical innovations at one time) or instruments at all - although most of the Orthodox have an issue with musical instruments in worship preferring the unadorned human voice.
There was a photo online a while back showing an Orthodox priest using a tablet/kindle type implement to read from when conducting a service. Interesting ...
So it's not so much technology and so on that I'm referring to.
Even the Orthodox will use instruments in non-liturgical settings. I remember seeing two Orthodox monks in Greece singing a duet to the accompaniment of a guitar on BBC's Songs of Praise some years ago - but it wasn't a 'worship song' as such - more like the kind of instructional/folk-song style of thing that you might find at an RC youth group or similar over here in Western Europe or the US.
No - the thing I'm baulking at is Kevin's suggestion that there might be doctrines or new developments that none of us have noticed yet. I s'pose I would concede that were this to be the case it would need some kind of pan-Christendom council - rather like an Orthodox Ecumenical Council and then some - to debate the issue (whatever it might be).
Having belonged to a group that believed that it was recovering or restoring long-neglected truths and so on, I'm pretty suspicious of such claims.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Practically speaking I'd distinguish between the historical doctrines of the church universal as found in the creeds, and traditions of like - minded churches. I also sit on a four-legged stool and include experince as one of my legs.
One of the ways the Orthodox applies its views on tradition is to take any question and ask what the consensus on it was amongst the Fathers. In terms of the fundamentals of the faith this seems like a sensible starting point.
Protestant churches have other sources of tradition (although some don't like to admit it) treating the teachings of the likes of Calvin, Luther, John Piper, Tozer, Watchman Nee and others, in much the same way as older churches refer to the Fathers.
In the end, a good historical knowledge is an important guide to establishing doctrine and practice.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, Ramarius ... but how would or could that be applied in the kind of instance that South Coast Kevin has hinted at - where 'new truth might break out of God's holy word' as the Puritan Pilgrim Father John Robinson put it?
I'd suggest that any 'new truth' of that kind would have to receive some kind of universal consensus - but how could that be achieved?
I mean, look at things like Mudfrog's beloved Wesleyan holiness teachings - they've not been universally accepted. Neither has dispensationalism - nor salvation by grace alone through faith alone, come to that ...
How do we determine whether such things are 'noble sayings and worthy of all acceptation' as it were?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
What if tradition is not the solution but the terms in which the problem is conceived?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Jengie Jon, I agree with what you say, Tradition is the way we view our faith and belief. But I would add that Tradition is also the cloth from which solutions are partially made.
Parts of the Tradition become more useful and less useful over time.
On the heels of the apocalyptic parable of patience of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13), Matthew tells of Jesus teaching his disciples about the importance of discrimination in the Kingdom of Heaven.
We sift the contents of the net (v. 47f). We rummage about in our household goods picking out the old and the new (v. 52).
And (vv. 53ff) our friends and close relations will take offense at our jumped up interpretation of the Tradition.
On another Traditional thread on an adjacent board, Yes, I closely read what was written and responded to it quite thoughtfully, and in a way I thought totally on point, although you might not have agreed with what I had to say, and perhaps, even took offense at what you viewed as a lack of charity.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I'm going for that tried and trusted Anglican three legged stool!
The Bible gives us something, but is in no sense the complete story. There is much it doesn't tell us and much that is confusing and even contradictory. More over, understanding the Bible and interpreting it in today's context(s) is not straightforward.
Tradition also gives us something. It is futile (and IMHO arrogant) to assume that we can reinvent the Christian faith in the 21st century with no reference whatsoever to how it has been understood and explained through the ages. But again it has severe limitations. Tradition cannot mean "this is how it was 2000 years ago and must be for eternity". Tradition itself is something that has changed (and continues to change) over time.
Reason gives us something as well. It helps us to take the understanding that we have of God (from the Bible and Tradition) and make sense it all in ever changing contexts. It enables us to begin to fill in some of the gaps ("if God is really the God of love and forgiveness that Jesus talked about, how might that change the way that we look at..... (fill in your own subject matter here)").
But it also has limitations, as even the most brainiest person is still just a fallible, limited human being. There are plenty of times when we need to step beyond reason into the area of faith (but that doesn't mean that we dismiss reason or that faith can be irrational).
So with regards to tradition, my feeling is this. We hear what it says and respect its insights. But we have to refuse to let it become a shackle. We weigh up what tradition tells us by referring back to the Bible and by using our own God-given reasoning abilities, so that we can retain what is good and have the wisdom to identify and reject what has been shown to be not good.
As a practical example of what I mean, I would take that knotty question of women priests and bishops. We listen to what the Bible says (paying especial attention to the way Jesus interacted with women) and then look at how the tradition of the Church has been over the ages. Using our reason, we see that the old ways of treating women as second-class citizens are no longer appropriate and are even offensive to most sane, rational people. So we dare to say that the tradition of keeping ordination to men only is one that can no longer be sustained and that it seems right and godly that this be overturned. (In so doing, we do not dismiss out of hand ALL tradition.)
This is my position. I had a debate with some con-evo friends who were horrified that I took this approach to the Other Dead Horse - I was rather horrified that they go to an Anglican church but had never heard of this approach! But Tradition and Reason put Scripture into context and help us apply it, imo.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
I warm to the approach from Jengie and the Acolyte
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I think new knowledge can, with careful thought, change how churches think and act.
In some churches we see it with the question of women. Not that long ago women were widely assumed to be less intelligent than men. The university I attended admits that when it first admitted women (150+ years ago) they charged lower tuition to women because women's smaller brains wouldn't be able to learn as much as the men in the same class.
Changing understanding of just what is this creature we call "woman" leads to re-examining theologies built on the previous understanding.
On a different topic, I read a bit of Aquinas and saw culturally bound thinking we no longer believe. If I remember right, he ranks angels, and assumes each rank has all the skills and knowledge of the lower ranks, plus more. Today managers routinely outrank specialists in areas the managers know nothing about. Today's understanding that a good manager looks for people with abilities the manager lacks, challenges Aquinas basic assumption, and all conclusions built on it.
Now, angels is a marginal issue, but what else is built on the assumptions of past cultures we no longer agree with? The concept of a Pope, maybe? The best/truest knowledge always flows down from a top point? The concept of clergy being "man of God" (I heard that phrase just last week!) and laity can't possibly know God as well as their betters? "Obey the clergy, they have care of your soul?" Hmm, just who am I questioning now!
Scarey stuff, raising questions with implications about the whole structure of church, or worship, or how we deal with each other, what God wants of us. Sure, it's not as central as whether the virgin birth is true, but it affects an awful lot of what churches teach and try to enforce as "God's way."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't have an issue with the idea of changing perspectives and modifications over time - we've seen it over slavery, for instance, and no doubt we'll see it over attitudes towards women and gay relationships and other things besides.
I do have an issue, though, with the idea that there might be completely new doctrines that will emerge in the fullness of time - although I suspect that some sections of Christianity will morph and give rise to new quasi-Christian movements over time. This has been happening for some time already. I can see new and syncretic groups developing in future - particularly from a broadly charismatic source or foundation - and I can't say it's a prospect I warm to particularly.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
