Sorry to blather on about all this, but I'm on my own peregrine trajectory regarding Tradition, Scripture and the Church, and what I believe about all this. Consider this a continuation of the previous posts on relativism, borders and such.
I said earlier that Tradition is that with which we inescapably have to do. I must confess, the two church groups with which I have been aligned in my life, the non-denominational Christian churches and churches of Christ and the Episcopal Church, have, frankly, not done so well with Tradition.
For the Stone-Campbell churches (the non-denoms), Tradition has always been a bad thing--at least mostly so. We never did want to jettison Tradition completely. But Tradition took a back seat, way in the back, to Scripture. We were all about "restoring" the New Testament pattern of the Church in our day. Not that the Church itself had been lost, mind you (though different restorationists would give different opinions on that). Rather, the simplicity and robust faith of the New Testament Church, so we believed, had been organized away in favor of bishops and hierarchy, formal theology and liturgy. (I'm caricaturing the Stone-Campbell position just a bit, but not a lot.) Tradition came in to play only when blessed by the clear and consistent witness in Scripture. To overstate somewhat: if you could book-chapter-and-verse it, it could stand.
Trouble is, such a position, well-intentioned though it is, is either utterly naive, or overly hubristic. The fact of the matter is, we do not approach Scripture apart from tradition (in modern hermeneutical terms, "presuppositions"). Case in point: Alexander Campbell, one of the early leaders of the Stone-Campbell movement, wrote a book which has been given the title Christianity Restored. (The book was actually a series of magazine articles Campbell had written serially, so take the title with a grain of polemical salt and attribute it to the publisher, not to Campbell.) In the book, Campbell is arguing for the "Restoration Plea" noted above: to "restore" the New Testament pattern of the Church in our day. But with what does Messr. Campbell begin? Hermeneutics. It's obvious to me, though I cannot speak for Alexander, that one will come to the same conclusions from reading Scripture as Mr. Campbell . . . if you follow his hermeneutical method. And on what was the method based? The Enlightenment thinkers John Locke and Francis Bacon. Even Campbell has his tradition. And with it he interprets and applies Scripture.
For the Episcopal Church (ECUSA), the odd thing is, for the most part Episcopalians have not wanted to buck Tradition. Given that they arose from the English Reformation, and thus had certain evangelical foundations, this is saying something. They kept the traditions of baptism and the Eucharist, of clerical ordination, the church kalendar, and so forth--all woven throughout with evangelical flavor. (Different periods and regions of ECUSA have been more and less Protestant than others, so there's some variations within my general point.) Oddly enough, however, over the last few decades, ECUSA has given less and less weight to Tradition. Taking our cue from modern sociopolitical movements, we went from an all-male priesthood to female clergy, we've restructured the liturgy in such a way so as to remove almost all masculine references to God--in some cases replacing them with feminine references, and we've definitely moved away from the traditional morality of the last two thousand years, not merely in terms of gay and lesbian concerns, but now also accepting those in conjugal relationship who are not married on the same terms as the married. (If your head is spinning, sit down and breathe into a paper bag.)
So, I am from a movement who rejects Tradition outright, and have lately been in a group who pick and choose (on the basis of modern mores shored up by theology) what of it they want to adhere to and what they want to reject.
Yes, I know of Stone-Campbell ministers who have a deep respect for Tradition. I correspond with them regularly. I also know of Episcopalians (whole dioceses, mind you) who are as horrified as I at the mishandling of Tradition by their fellow Episcopalians. But this does not negate the trends and ethoi.
There is another way. A better way. Indeed, one that I think more honest--if one will claim Christ's name. That is to take the Tradition of the Church as is. Let it and Scripture tell us where we're wrong. Scripture and Tradition do not carry their authority because some uptight celibate males got together and said so. (Though that is the modern caricature of what happened.) Rather, they carry their authority because they, like us, are given life and indwelt by the three-personed God. Not for nothing is the Incarnation an important fact and doctrine.
"To Thee, our Lord, do we commend our bodies and our souls. Do Thou bless us, have mercy on us and grant us eternal life."
Posted by Clifton at November 27, 2002 01:27 PM | TrackBack