"Therefore, brothers, stand and hold the traditions which you have been taught either through word or through our letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15, my translation).
Blogger Karl referenced this verse in his musings on the brouhaha between Jeff, Tripp and myself (and various participant-spectator commentators). "Traditions" is actually a misleading translation, because it can give the understanding that there were multiple traditions in the Church amongst which these first-century religious consumers could choose. More literally "traditions" is "things handed over [or handed down]," that is to say, the unified body of Tradition, in its various particular manifestations (dogma, practice, liturgy). Compare 2 Thessalonians 3:6.
In an essay I've posted on my website, I point out that what Paul is talking about here is important. The context is that a letter purporting to come from Paul and teaching false doctrine had come to the Thessalonian church and created confusion. To what did Paul appeal to assert the genuineness of his own epistle? Not to another letter, but to his oral teaching while among them.
Don't be afraid, Protestant friends and neighbors, I'm not going to jump into the so-called "secret" oral tradition of the Apostles. (In any case there's nothing "secret" about it, since it's well-documented from the first century on.) But I do want to point out something: the Thessalonian Christians were not able to opt out of observance of the tradition. Despite confusion, Paul asserted this apostolic authority, and called all to the tradition. Anyone one who did not follow the tradition was to be "disfellowshiped." "Have nothing to do with them," Paul says. Now I don't know exactly what that looked like then. Maybe it only applied to week-day interactions. Maybe they were barred from the Eucharist. I just don't know. And I'm not suggesting that we exlude from our lives everyone who doesn't agree with us.
My point is much more basic and general: we don't have any option to not follow the tradition. And in light of the recent discussion: particularly is this so when it comes to doctrine and Scripture. We may wrestle with it and question it. But we do so on its own terms. We do not dictate to the Church's tradition. It doesn't work. Look at the Great Schism. Look at the Protestant Reformation. Every time human opinion has been elevated over the tradition, division and animosity occurs. Does anyone seriously entertain the notion that women's ordination in ECUSA has brought about justice? Hardly. It's just shifted power to other people who misuse it as badly, or even worse, than those who went before. Forget arguments about justice and rights; this has been shown to be, for many, about power and control. So we're back to the argument about whether this--and other practices that differ from tradition--can legitimately claim to be in line with the Gospel.
In short, this is about authority. Is an invidual's or group's authority greater than the tradition? The tradition has been questioned and challenged for two millennia. My money's on the tradition.
Posted by Clifton at January 10, 2003 01:23 PM | TrackBack