What Went Wrong...

My last post, some weeks ago, lamented the end of a journey. I have been able to give some thought to that journey and have reached a few conclusions.

Several years ago, I started down a path inspired by Tom Oden's "Rebirth of Orthodoxy". I may have misunderstood a bit of what he was saying in that book, but here is what I thought was the central thesis:

The "God-breathed" scriptures are alone the final authority by virtue of their inspiration, but the history of orthodoxy is the history of exegesis, and as such is a path toward greater Christian unity.

As I understood Oden, tradition has great value as a guide to the interpretation of scripture, but scripture remains the objective source of Christian truth. Whatever authority is given to tradition is secondary and derivitive and must be rooted in the Biblical text.

I saw in the Anglican doctrinal statement, the 39 Articles of Religion, a beautiful balance of absolute commitment to scripture as the final authority with respect for the history of how the church has understood scripture. Traditon, if one reads the articles in a normative fashion, is never allowed to assert as "necessary for salvation" anything that is outside the limiting boundaries of the Biblical text. This is why I chose one particular path and rejected others. I was never quite willing to reconsider Rome or follow other evangelicals to Eastern Orthodoxy because my evangelical commitment to the authority of scripture would not allow it, no matter how much I respected aspects of the early church that seemed compatible with either. For both Catholics and Orthodox, tradition plays a role that in some way subordinates the written Biblical text. The 39 Articles clearly insisted that whatever role the creeds, the liturgy and tradition may play, the source and limit is always the writte Word.

But the Anglo-Catholic influences, present in Anglicanism since the Reformation and increasingly prevalent since the days of the Tractarian movement, seems to have introduced an understanding of the role of tradition that goes "beyond what is written". Nineteenth century polemicists like J.C. Ryle were harshly critical of the "ritualism" introduced by Pusey, Newman and others, practices which had a place in the history of Christianity, but did not have a clear warrant in the text of scripture. The use of vestments, candles, incense, particular arrangement of church furniture all came under scrutiny as the excesses of the "traditions of men".

Tradition

T. M. Moore has a second installment of his Contending For the Faith series on Colson’s Breakpoint website. Surprisingly to me, the topic this time is “Anti-Traditionalism and Ahistoricalism”. Moore seemed to indicate in installment one that he would be dealing with heresies, old false teachings that keep rearing their ugly head in contemporary evangelicalism. So this topic caught me by surprise. But it is a pleasant surprise. Moore introduces the topic:

“Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular are characterized by a wariness of, if not an outright aversion to, tradition… in the main, Christians today have adopted the chic contemporary view of all things traditional or historical: What could this possibly have to do with me?”

A number of evangelicals, like D. H. Williams are attempting to reconnect with tradition without going to the excess of making tradition equal to scripture. I believe most, however, remain staunchly opposed to tradition, seeing anything “traditional” as “pharisaical”. Moore describes this.

"This scorn for tradition—“anti-traditionalism”—and for the past in general—'ahistoricalism'—takes a variety of forms. In Christian worship it can mean abandoning traditional hymns, forms of music and liturgy, and even approaches to communicating God’s Word. It involves a studied lack of interest in anything written in previous generations, especially anything ancient—only what is hot and new is worth reading. It is exhibited by Christians who are woefully ignorant of the vast, rich heritage of Christian cultural achievement but who do not consider themselves to be in the least disadvantaged for it. It is visible in the seemingly unquenchable need that some church leaders demonstrate for always finding new ways to do and say things, all “old” methods and ways—including the precious heritage of doctrine and Christian confession—being regarded as inapt for our contemporaries. The anti-traditionalism and ahistoricalism of our day is much more in tune with the spirit of the age than with the spirit of the Church that transcends all ages."

Moore makes a point others have made, that all of us embrace some form of tradition. This is a major theme of Leslie Newbegin’s book, "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society". Newbegin argued that none of us can think from point zero to a conclusion, that in order to think at all, we have to assume something is true. What we assume to be true is generally what we have learned from a particular heritage, whether it be science, history, nationalism or faith.

“Today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists cannot completely escape the tradition and history they seek so eagerly to avoid. They still sing about the cross and the empty tomb, dramatize a morality of love for neighbors, assemble at familiar times for the rituals of the faith, and make use of disciplines and practices handed down from the generations that have preceded them in the Church. For all their attempts to deny their ancient or recent provenance, or to condemn the traditions of other communions, today’s anti-traditionalists and ahistoricalists, of whatever stripe, cannot escape immersion in some elements of the longstanding heritage of the life of faith, even as they earnestly work to create new traditions and begin new histories, packaging them for the consumption of curious inquirers and aspiring wannabes.”

Moore admonishes Evangelicals not to ignore the past and abandon the heritage that informs orthodox belief.

"In the midst of all this tradition-denying and history re-writing we would do well to consider Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians: 'Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us.' We cannot live apart from some traditions, some immersion in history. So we’d better make certain that, whatever course we steer, we are careful to connect our chosen practices with those of the apostles and of the generations who, having received, adapted, and practiced those traditions with the evident blessing of God, have preserved the faith of Christ for our benefit today.

While I tend to think that some former evangelicals have embraced too much tradition, placing it over scripture in some areas, I also suspect Moore’s welcome urgings do not go quite far enough. There is a big difference between tradition as a fondness for the “old” hymns of the 16th or 19th centuries or arrangements of church government that support “deacon” boards vs. “elder” boards as opposed to the critical “traditions” which defined the orthodox creeds, finalized the canon of the New Testament, defeated the heresies of the early church. In other words, there are traditions and there is tradition. Tradition, as I understand church history, is the “passing along” of the apostolic faith, not quaint familiarity with customs of a few generations ago. It is the soil in which sound doctrine grows and the grid through which scripture can correctly be understood. Tradition creates nothing new, but is the consensus of what the church has always believed.

How desperately pluralistic and fragmenting Protestantism needs to stand on the consensus of the giants of church history again. Moore is right in seeing anti-Traditionalism and a-historicalism as departures from the faith. Hopefully, more evangelicals will move back toward the standards of the whole of church history and not just back to the Reformation.