Yersterday, Fr. David and I exchanged some responses to the article I linked to on male headship from a recent issue of Touchstone. In my last response, I indicated, though didn't detail, what I thought was the basis for the difference between our two responses. Nonetheless, let me suggest that perhaps the biggest gulf that lies between the two stances is in the relationship between them and the Tradition. These stances can perhaps properly be understood as the approaches of acceptance and suspicion.
Since suspicion is something of a loaded term, let me clarify what I mean. The very essence of Protestantism is to view the Tradition with skepticism. Though certain sociopolitical matters exacerbated the tensions between Rome and the men who would eventually break with Rome, nonetheless, in theological terms, the Reformers objected to the use which the Roman Church made of the Tradition, and increasingly with the Tradition itself. A, to me, legitimate gripe with regard to indulgences, soon led to criticisms of clerical traditions, liturgical traditions, sacramental traditions--all of which built to a suspicion of Tradition itself. Tradition, as the embodiment of the Faith of the Church in specific traditions, could not be taken wholecloth, but had to be sifted and culled for that which was True. Add to that a little Anabaptist fire, a little Restorationist primitivism, and soon Tradition, rather than being something to which Christians are to hold, became a dirty word, an anathema.
Add to this Protestant suspicion the critical sociopolitical projects fueled by Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, and their present incarnations in the various aspects of critical theory, which is the essential core of peace and justice movements, and Tradition is not only an anathema, it's positively evil.
In other words, present day (indeed, modern and postmodern) Protestants come "pre-wired," as it were, to be critical and suspicous of the Tradition of the Church One extreme simply throws out Tradition altogether. (I hardly think Fr. David is anywhere near this camp.) But mostly--and thankfully in increasing numbers it seems--Protestants appreciate significant portions of the Tradition, even if they view Tradition as the kernel which we need to strip of its extraneous chaff.
So when it comes to matters, such as I listed yesterday, of the issues of women's ordination, sexuality, male headship, abortion, the conversations take place on two different levels. The partners in the dialogue are all putting forth their best arguments, and critiquing their opponents, but they talk past one another because the beginning assumptions are completely different. Advocates for women's ordination, for example, begin with presuppositions based on modern concepts of humanity (egalitarian), then proceed backward to interpret the Scripture and Tradition in such a way so as to fit those presuppositions. Opponents of women's ordination begin with presuppositions that reflect a patriarchal concept of humanity (and frankly, despite how this word is understood almost totally perjoratively today, it is the only one that seemed etymologically fitted for this context--and this "patriarchal" view is labelled complemenatrianism), then proceed to handle Tradition and Scripture in line with that thinking. So even though the opposing sides use similar words and argue in similar ways, they're not even playing on the same field.
In other words, what I'm suggesting is that the debate on these matters can't even take place until we answer the question: what's our starting point? The brouhaha over the TNIV translation of the New Testament, over women's ordination, all revolve around this issue. Is the Tradition to be taken whole and lived to the best of our ability. Or is it to be tamed and shaped to fit the way we live?
Posted by Clifton at April 25, 2003 09:04 PM | TrackBack