Earth Day/Election Day 2008
Do we vote to save the earth?
Today is Earth Day and Election Day in Pennsylvania. The whole world knows that. Earth Day is like Halloween, a big secular holiday. And, Election Day in PA is known the world over because of the Hill/BO battle. Closer to home, there is a primary for the 5th Congressional District seat being vacated by John Peterson [R]. It has been particularly nasty in the final weeks of the campaign which has been of particular interest to us because a nephew is one of the candidates on the Republican side.
What gets buried in all of the hoopla surrounding the environment and politics is the “God factor”. On Sunday, I read as our call to worship Psalm 24. It begins:
The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,
The world and those who dwell therein.
Note, the earth and all its inhabitants belong to the Lord. Does that mean we are not to be good stewards of the environment? No. But, we must keep in mind, no matter how often it is repeated, that we are not “saving our” earth. We are to exercise dominion over what we have been given for we answer not to any agency of men, but to God. Likewise, when electing officials as public servants [Do the candidates know what they really are?], it is to be a civil magistrate for God…to do good and restrain evil. The world and all in it belongs to God as much as the physical earth. For, He is the Creator and Sustainer of all.
So on this combined Earth and Election Day, remember we do not vote to save the earth. Each of us is individually responsible for using what has been given to us in a responsible way. And, we are to vote for those candidates who would make good rulers, discharging their duties to all folk under their jurisdiction so that good would be able to be done and evil punished. So, go to the voting booth if you are in PA and then plant a tree. By keeping this in mind, you will be glorifying God Who is in charge and has set forth a way to do all things from eternity.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Tradition of the Church
Lost in the ‘60s
Tradition is anti-individual. In the 1960s in the USA, individualism became important. A traditional culture requires shared virtues and character traits in individuals agreed upon by the members of the culture as desirable. And, virtue and character are mediated by institutions of authority such as families, voluntary associations, schools and churches. The problem is that in the turbulent ‘60s all institutions of authority were under attack.
The result was that the “shared” ideals of the culture were not longer recognized as shared. Many were seen as the tools of oppression and control of the authorities who were only interested in staying in control. When the cry “Hey, hey, ho, ho, western civ has got to go!” was raised at Berkeley, it was because younguns no longer wanted to hear about the values of dead white men who represented the established order. The ‘60s radicals wanted freedom from the past. They were seeking a divorce from tradition. It was sociological postmodernism. I want my own social order because there is no correct, overriding social order binding on all folk. What is your tradition does not have to be my tradition.
Autonomy of the individual became the currency of the realm. And, the rest is…as they say…”history”. The unifying factors in our culture are few. Try to name a few. How about, anti-smoking? Global warming is trying to establish traction, but its 1st cousin environmentalism comes very close to universal acceptance. After all there is an “Earth Day” that is all about our collective responsibility to the earth. My dear wife reports even Campbell Soup is packaging with green labels as proof of their eco-friendliness. Question: If Lucky Strike brought back “Lucky Strike Green” [which for all you sub 60s, went to war in WW II] would that make smoking Luckys o.k.?
In academia, race, class and gender are big unifying issues. At least in the framework of being the apex of an enlightened culture, reaching a classless, raceless and genderless society would be a worthy goal. This has been difficult to achieve in practice since it takes tipping the scales in favor of the heretofore unfavored in order to achieve equity. And, this has taken decades of the full weight of government power to bring about redistribution between the classes and give advantage to minorities of color and sex. It is rather astonishing that the one authority that is acceptable is the government when used to advantage the disadvantaged!
There is a significant intersecting of this anti-authoritarianism and the contemporary church. When the culture was captured by those who wanted nothing to do with institutional tradition, the church reacted in one of three ways: Who cares, or separation from the culture, or adapting to the culture. We can all try to cubby hole into those responses certain denominations or churches with which we are familiar. But, the important thing to see is that “engagement” is not apparent in any of the responses. Whether it is “us v. them” or “keep away from them” or “we’ll become just like them”…there is a failure to take culture seriously except for their personal “hobby horse” reasons.
In what has become the modern evangelical church this is what we see. We are to pluck individuals from the culture and introduce them to Christian music, Christian entertainment, Christian novels, Christian exercise programs, Christian diets….you get the point. The Christian has to like Veggie Tales and CCM to be truly redeemed. Salvation is reduced to providing the saved with alternative consumption and entertainment opportunities. No thought is ever given to redeeming the culture by bringing folks to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and then impacting the world, and everyone in it, for Christ. Evangelicalism is busy creating a sub-culture that is waiting for the Rapture.
This is no different from the secular minded individual. That person has no time for spiritual matters. Those are private issues and have no impact on culture. Is that not the same result reached by our modern evangelical? Spiritual matters are all about separating us from the culture and creating our own culture. The big difference is that the non-Christian cares about his culture. When you think about it, there is a quite frightening result in both cases…faith is privatized!
The culture we live in is only good for scoring spiritual points. The Christian faith has become highly individualized. The Church Fathers, the history of the Church, the “solas” of the Reformation, none of it has any impact on the 21st century church. Acts tells us the apostles turned the world upside down for Christ. That is no longer a concern of the 21st century church. The institution of the church as the supernatural authority of Christ in this world to bring the Kingdom to fruition has been lost. Lost in the tsunami of anti-traditionalism leading to radical individualism all spawned by the social earthquake of the ‘60s.
Lost in the ‘60s
Tradition is anti-individual. In the 1960s in the USA, individualism became important. A traditional culture requires shared virtues and character traits in individuals agreed upon by the members of the culture as desirable. And, virtue and character are mediated by institutions of authority such as families, voluntary associations, schools and churches. The problem is that in the turbulent ‘60s all institutions of authority were under attack.
The result was that the “shared” ideals of the culture were not longer recognized as shared. Many were seen as the tools of oppression and control of the authorities who were only interested in staying in control. When the cry “Hey, hey, ho, ho, western civ has got to go!” was raised at Berkeley, it was because younguns no longer wanted to hear about the values of dead white men who represented the established order. The ‘60s radicals wanted freedom from the past. They were seeking a divorce from tradition. It was sociological postmodernism. I want my own social order because there is no correct, overriding social order binding on all folk. What is your tradition does not have to be my tradition.
Autonomy of the individual became the currency of the realm. And, the rest is…as they say…”history”. The unifying factors in our culture are few. Try to name a few. How about, anti-smoking? Global warming is trying to establish traction, but its 1st cousin environmentalism comes very close to universal acceptance. After all there is an “Earth Day” that is all about our collective responsibility to the earth. My dear wife reports even Campbell Soup is packaging with green labels as proof of their eco-friendliness. Question: If Lucky Strike brought back “Lucky Strike Green” [which for all you sub 60s, went to war in WW II] would that make smoking Luckys o.k.?
In academia, race, class and gender are big unifying issues. At least in the framework of being the apex of an enlightened culture, reaching a classless, raceless and genderless society would be a worthy goal. This has been difficult to achieve in practice since it takes tipping the scales in favor of the heretofore unfavored in order to achieve equity. And, this has taken decades of the full weight of government power to bring about redistribution between the classes and give advantage to minorities of color and sex. It is rather astonishing that the one authority that is acceptable is the government when used to advantage the disadvantaged!
There is a significant intersecting of this anti-authoritarianism and the contemporary church. When the culture was captured by those who wanted nothing to do with institutional tradition, the church reacted in one of three ways: Who cares, or separation from the culture, or adapting to the culture. We can all try to cubby hole into those responses certain denominations or churches with which we are familiar. But, the important thing to see is that “engagement” is not apparent in any of the responses. Whether it is “us v. them” or “keep away from them” or “we’ll become just like them”…there is a failure to take culture seriously except for their personal “hobby horse” reasons.
In what has become the modern evangelical church this is what we see. We are to pluck individuals from the culture and introduce them to Christian music, Christian entertainment, Christian novels, Christian exercise programs, Christian diets….you get the point. The Christian has to like Veggie Tales and CCM to be truly redeemed. Salvation is reduced to providing the saved with alternative consumption and entertainment opportunities. No thought is ever given to redeeming the culture by bringing folks to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and then impacting the world, and everyone in it, for Christ. Evangelicalism is busy creating a sub-culture that is waiting for the Rapture.
This is no different from the secular minded individual. That person has no time for spiritual matters. Those are private issues and have no impact on culture. Is that not the same result reached by our modern evangelical? Spiritual matters are all about separating us from the culture and creating our own culture. The big difference is that the non-Christian cares about his culture. When you think about it, there is a quite frightening result in both cases…faith is privatized!
The culture we live in is only good for scoring spiritual points. The Christian faith has become highly individualized. The Church Fathers, the history of the Church, the “solas” of the Reformation, none of it has any impact on the 21st century church. Acts tells us the apostles turned the world upside down for Christ. That is no longer a concern of the 21st century church. The institution of the church as the supernatural authority of Christ in this world to bring the Kingdom to fruition has been lost. Lost in the tsunami of anti-traditionalism leading to radical individualism all spawned by the social earthquake of the ‘60s.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Modern Culture
The Sad State of Mass Media
Can you find any hard news on the television? I mean a half to one hour of “news” not swallowed up or overshadowed by entertainment. Or, news without focusing on a personality. Like reporting on the Iraq conflict without a focus on Bush, Pelosi, Reed, Petraeus or Maliki. Allow the viewer to assess “successes” or “failures: by individuals elicited from the news events. All news is treated as a premise to a political or social position. Calling your program the “No Spin Zone” is itself spin.
During the 1996 election, I was interviewed at the Clearfield Diner about the election. Bill Clinton was running for his second term against Bob Dole. ABC was traversing I-80, stopping at diners along the way interviewing voters about their perception of the government as the campaign unfolded. Susan and I arrived at the diner about 10:30 a.m. I was treating her to breakfast after a dental appointment. When we arrived we could see there was something unusual occurring. A woman dressed like she stepped off the pages of Vogue was there with an attractive well dressed man and another man looking more like a Clearfielder in dress, but who had a large hand held camera.
The woman came to our booth and asked if we would be willing to respond to some questions about the election. It was late September or early October. I said sure, and she spoke to the GQ guy and I was interviewed. The questioner was a second banana on the ABC Nightly News at the time…doing weekend broadcasts. In the interview I opined that television was part of the problem because of its sound bite method of reporting where nothing was covered in depth and there was jumping from story to story without opportunities to contemplate what was reported. Off camera I related that Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death had an incisive critique of the cultivation of non-thinking by television. The interviewer had never read the book. I sent it to him later and received a nice note from him thanking me for bringing Postman’s writing to his attention.
When the show aired, the interviewer, who was anchoring the news that Saturday night, mentioned my concern about the lack of contemplation television permits. He then said that tonight they would take Mr. Kriner’s suggestion and allow the audience to think about the issue before going to commercial. This was followed by 30 seconds of dead time with a blank screen, an experiment that cost ABC money!
Unfortunately, things have not become any better, at least on television. The content of television is about forms [entertainment] and choices [zillions of channels]. That which is superficial not serious; glitzy not plain and outrageous not commonplace is what attracts the choice of the watching public. Television, like almost everything else in our culture has been commodified. And, we consume what we like or desire. In a circular way, television creates the desires and likes of the viewer by offering what it does. It is an endless cycle without a way out. Back in 1996, I was incorrect in my presumption. I thought if more time for thought was given to folks, they would come to decisions themselves. Folks do not want to think and the mass media does not want them to think either…a perfect marriage
Remember Huntley, Brinkley, Swayze, Cronkite? If you do not, go back and look at some old footage. It was television, and therefore images, but the speed, excitement, immediacy and entertaining value of what was presented was unbelievably different from today. Yes, the images shown were carefully chosen then as now to convey a point of view. But, it was not so consumer oriented. It was news. Today, news divisions of networks and cable outlets differ very little from their entertainment counterparts. In fact, the 24 hour news networks are plunging deeper into entertainment because “news” is their form of entertainment. And, with the 24 hour folks, they want to be the first to deliver the next, and do so with dispatch. They want the consumer to choose them as their source for Brittany and other Hollywood hyjinks, political dirt and Amber Alerts.
The Mass Media is in a sad state for delivering news. But, they are doing what their consumers want, helping them with their wants along the way. The print media is in retreat because of the lack of desire for in depth reporting on stories. But, there is some hope with the Internet. More and more print media organizations are using the internet for news than can be consumed without speed, show and immediacy. Twelve years later, using 20-20 hindsight, and knowing the explosion of 24 hour “news”, I think I would recommend a new alternative. The screen on your television should be blank permanently…not just for 30 seconds. Get back to reading your news so that you can contemplate what is reported. Let us dispense with the speedy, innovative images of a Mass Media that fulfills our desires and makes us shameless consumers of entertainment that is big on form with little or no content.
The Sad State of Mass Media
Can you find any hard news on the television? I mean a half to one hour of “news” not swallowed up or overshadowed by entertainment. Or, news without focusing on a personality. Like reporting on the Iraq conflict without a focus on Bush, Pelosi, Reed, Petraeus or Maliki. Allow the viewer to assess “successes” or “failures: by individuals elicited from the news events. All news is treated as a premise to a political or social position. Calling your program the “No Spin Zone” is itself spin.
During the 1996 election, I was interviewed at the Clearfield Diner about the election. Bill Clinton was running for his second term against Bob Dole. ABC was traversing I-80, stopping at diners along the way interviewing voters about their perception of the government as the campaign unfolded. Susan and I arrived at the diner about 10:30 a.m. I was treating her to breakfast after a dental appointment. When we arrived we could see there was something unusual occurring. A woman dressed like she stepped off the pages of Vogue was there with an attractive well dressed man and another man looking more like a Clearfielder in dress, but who had a large hand held camera.
The woman came to our booth and asked if we would be willing to respond to some questions about the election. It was late September or early October. I said sure, and she spoke to the GQ guy and I was interviewed. The questioner was a second banana on the ABC Nightly News at the time…doing weekend broadcasts. In the interview I opined that television was part of the problem because of its sound bite method of reporting where nothing was covered in depth and there was jumping from story to story without opportunities to contemplate what was reported. Off camera I related that Neil Postman in Amusing Ourselves to Death had an incisive critique of the cultivation of non-thinking by television. The interviewer had never read the book. I sent it to him later and received a nice note from him thanking me for bringing Postman’s writing to his attention.
When the show aired, the interviewer, who was anchoring the news that Saturday night, mentioned my concern about the lack of contemplation television permits. He then said that tonight they would take Mr. Kriner’s suggestion and allow the audience to think about the issue before going to commercial. This was followed by 30 seconds of dead time with a blank screen, an experiment that cost ABC money!
Unfortunately, things have not become any better, at least on television. The content of television is about forms [entertainment] and choices [zillions of channels]. That which is superficial not serious; glitzy not plain and outrageous not commonplace is what attracts the choice of the watching public. Television, like almost everything else in our culture has been commodified. And, we consume what we like or desire. In a circular way, television creates the desires and likes of the viewer by offering what it does. It is an endless cycle without a way out. Back in 1996, I was incorrect in my presumption. I thought if more time for thought was given to folks, they would come to decisions themselves. Folks do not want to think and the mass media does not want them to think either…a perfect marriage
Remember Huntley, Brinkley, Swayze, Cronkite? If you do not, go back and look at some old footage. It was television, and therefore images, but the speed, excitement, immediacy and entertaining value of what was presented was unbelievably different from today. Yes, the images shown were carefully chosen then as now to convey a point of view. But, it was not so consumer oriented. It was news. Today, news divisions of networks and cable outlets differ very little from their entertainment counterparts. In fact, the 24 hour news networks are plunging deeper into entertainment because “news” is their form of entertainment. And, with the 24 hour folks, they want to be the first to deliver the next, and do so with dispatch. They want the consumer to choose them as their source for Brittany and other Hollywood hyjinks, political dirt and Amber Alerts.
The Mass Media is in a sad state for delivering news. But, they are doing what their consumers want, helping them with their wants along the way. The print media is in retreat because of the lack of desire for in depth reporting on stories. But, there is some hope with the Internet. More and more print media organizations are using the internet for news than can be consumed without speed, show and immediacy. Twelve years later, using 20-20 hindsight, and knowing the explosion of 24 hour “news”, I think I would recommend a new alternative. The screen on your television should be blank permanently…not just for 30 seconds. Get back to reading your news so that you can contemplate what is reported. Let us dispense with the speedy, innovative images of a Mass Media that fulfills our desires and makes us shameless consumers of entertainment that is big on form with little or no content.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Tradition of the Church
Where is it located?
Not everyone agrees on the “correct” tradition of the church. Protestants do not agree that Papal infallibility or Marian worship are valid traditions. But, Protestants have their own traditions. The solas of the faith are surely the tradition of Protestants. A rejection of the solas is treated as a denial of the Biblical faith in Lutheran and Reformed believers. Now, not all Protestants embrace the solas, but their concern is with the lack of holiness they claim ensues from an individual not appropriating the faith. But, the basis of salvation by faith and not works which is the perceived Roman Catholic position holds sway in Protestantism in general. That is a tradition rejected by the Roman church.
So where do we go to determine what tradition is correct? Protestants would say we go to Scripture…sola Scriptura. The pitfall of that approach is to appropriate the Bible as the believer’s Bible instead of the church’s Bible. It leads. As some Roman Catholic wags would say to “many popes”! Each Protestant is free to interpret the Bible as he/she sees fit for his/her particular circumstances. Each individual has the right to interpret the Bible and determine what practices are acceptable in the church without any faith community telling him/her otherwise. Here, the priesthood of all believers becomes the sacred tradition above all others.
Obviously, no individual can interpret the Scriptures in a vacuum. Faithful use of Scripture can only be accomplished in a believing community who practice the truths of Scripture in their daily living. This makes the apostolic and patristic community and their practices indispensable to the modern day post-modern Christian. The apostles and those whom they taught and trained were the closest to the time of the Christ Who is worshipped and served. Their theological principles and practices represent the tradition of the church that was ultimately codified and legitimized into the Holy Scriptures which represent the Holy Spirit’s normative transmission of the truth.
The apostles and the early church fathers gave birth to the Christian tradition that has been passed on and flourishes to this very day. Disagreements on tradition notwithstanding, there is still a formative tradition of the church. Author D.H. Williams says:
Protestants may insist that tradition is not revelation, yet they might agree that the early tradition was and is an element of the Spirit’s providential working to define and preserve the church. Even as the Spirit continues to incorporate mew expressions of the church’s faith, hope and love into the body of Christ, it does so always under the guidance of Scripture and in “conversation with the patristic tradition.
Creeds, catechisms, hymns, doctrine and practices came from the church fathers as those who were delivered the faith and who helped develop the faith that is confirmed by the Holy Scriptures. Indeed, tradition is not revelatory in the sense Scripture is the revelation of the Triune God. Yet is has developed and is part of the transmission of the faith to the faithful.
For instance, the Nicene Creed became a vehicle of stating the tradition of the early church. The great Councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) were recognized by Luther and Calvin as important to the development of the church. And, this all happened within the framework of the community of believers. These church councils helped to define what would be a normative and universal understanding of orthodoxy as taught in Holy Scripture. It is in this early church period that we find tradition that can be looked to in the 21st century church. A tradition that leads to a basis of belief all can embrace.
Where is it located?
Not everyone agrees on the “correct” tradition of the church. Protestants do not agree that Papal infallibility or Marian worship are valid traditions. But, Protestants have their own traditions. The solas of the faith are surely the tradition of Protestants. A rejection of the solas is treated as a denial of the Biblical faith in Lutheran and Reformed believers. Now, not all Protestants embrace the solas, but their concern is with the lack of holiness they claim ensues from an individual not appropriating the faith. But, the basis of salvation by faith and not works which is the perceived Roman Catholic position holds sway in Protestantism in general. That is a tradition rejected by the Roman church.
So where do we go to determine what tradition is correct? Protestants would say we go to Scripture…sola Scriptura. The pitfall of that approach is to appropriate the Bible as the believer’s Bible instead of the church’s Bible. It leads. As some Roman Catholic wags would say to “many popes”! Each Protestant is free to interpret the Bible as he/she sees fit for his/her particular circumstances. Each individual has the right to interpret the Bible and determine what practices are acceptable in the church without any faith community telling him/her otherwise. Here, the priesthood of all believers becomes the sacred tradition above all others.
Obviously, no individual can interpret the Scriptures in a vacuum. Faithful use of Scripture can only be accomplished in a believing community who practice the truths of Scripture in their daily living. This makes the apostolic and patristic community and their practices indispensable to the modern day post-modern Christian. The apostles and those whom they taught and trained were the closest to the time of the Christ Who is worshipped and served. Their theological principles and practices represent the tradition of the church that was ultimately codified and legitimized into the Holy Scriptures which represent the Holy Spirit’s normative transmission of the truth.
The apostles and the early church fathers gave birth to the Christian tradition that has been passed on and flourishes to this very day. Disagreements on tradition notwithstanding, there is still a formative tradition of the church. Author D.H. Williams says:
Protestants may insist that tradition is not revelation, yet they might agree that the early tradition was and is an element of the Spirit’s providential working to define and preserve the church. Even as the Spirit continues to incorporate mew expressions of the church’s faith, hope and love into the body of Christ, it does so always under the guidance of Scripture and in “conversation with the patristic tradition.
Creeds, catechisms, hymns, doctrine and practices came from the church fathers as those who were delivered the faith and who helped develop the faith that is confirmed by the Holy Scriptures. Indeed, tradition is not revelatory in the sense Scripture is the revelation of the Triune God. Yet is has developed and is part of the transmission of the faith to the faithful.
For instance, the Nicene Creed became a vehicle of stating the tradition of the early church. The great Councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) were recognized by Luther and Calvin as important to the development of the church. And, this all happened within the framework of the community of believers. These church councils helped to define what would be a normative and universal understanding of orthodoxy as taught in Holy Scripture. It is in this early church period that we find tradition that can be looked to in the 21st century church. A tradition that leads to a basis of belief all can embrace.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Tradition of the Church
For Protestants?
It is often proffered that Roman Catholics differ from Protestants in that the former have two sources of authority: Scripture and tradition, meaning the teachings of the church. Protestants, on the other hand, believe in Scripture alone in that truth is mediated by the Bible alone and not by tradition in and of a church. Authority for belief and living comes from Holy Scripture and not from teaching or tradition of any church body. The early Reformers declared God’s Word to be the final judge of all teaching of the church, the so called tradition.
The unintended consequence of such a position is to isolate Protestants from much of church history. It is as if Luther, Calvin and the other Magisterial Reformers actually invented the real church and that all that came before was bogus or irrelevant. For 1500 years all the folks who called themselves Christians had it totally wrong. They had no concept of interpreting the Bible nor did they have a clue on the person and work of Christ. Before the Reformers there was no “real” church. We should call them the Inventors, not the Reformers. Of, course that was not the case, the Reformers desired to reform the church. They knew it was Christ’s Church and they wanted Christ and His Gospel returned to the position of centrality it once had.
The Apostle acknowledges the tradition of the early church. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, he states:
So then, brothers and sisters stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by spoken word of by our letter [ESV].
Paul confirms here that he has been teaching and transmitting the tradition of the church. That is all of which a Christian must know, believe and live. Paul did not create a tension between what was revealed and what was taught. The tradition of the church was an aid to the inspiration process of the Holy Spirit.
In the early church, tradition became a way of transmitting the teaching of the apostles. When you think about it, in the first centuries of the church much of its development came from the transmission of tradition. There was no inerrancy of Scripture doctrine in the early church. Why? There was not yet a standard collection of inspired texts. And, we have no idea how available Paul’s letters and other texts were to believers of the day. So, Paul reminds the Thessalonians that tradition was passed on in word and writing. The faith was first imparted in early confessions, singing of hymns and through baptismal instruction when folks made a public profession of their faith in Christ.
The Word of God has always been paramount for the Church and believers. Yet, in the early church, God’s Word was confirmatory of what had been preached and taught. Much like in China today where the Word is at a premium, the early church grew through what was taught by the apostles and those trained under them. They taught the truth in the traditional beliefs of all those who called on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Tradition and the inspired Scripture developed on a parallel track and the Holy Scripture became the normative revelation of what must be believed and lived for all believers.
What Protestants need to understand is that the entire history of the Church has been superintended by the Holy Spirit. The Church is a supernatural work of God. Tradition was not the antithesis of Scripture for the early church. Protestants are as dependant on the tradition of the early church as much as Roman Catholics are. Church history, and especially that of the early church fathers, is not to be dismissed but understood as part of God’s plan for His Church. Tradition is not another source of truth but is part of the deposit of truth transmitted to believers as revealed in its completeness and sufficiency through the inspired Scripture.
For Protestants?
It is often proffered that Roman Catholics differ from Protestants in that the former have two sources of authority: Scripture and tradition, meaning the teachings of the church. Protestants, on the other hand, believe in Scripture alone in that truth is mediated by the Bible alone and not by tradition in and of a church. Authority for belief and living comes from Holy Scripture and not from teaching or tradition of any church body. The early Reformers declared God’s Word to be the final judge of all teaching of the church, the so called tradition.
The unintended consequence of such a position is to isolate Protestants from much of church history. It is as if Luther, Calvin and the other Magisterial Reformers actually invented the real church and that all that came before was bogus or irrelevant. For 1500 years all the folks who called themselves Christians had it totally wrong. They had no concept of interpreting the Bible nor did they have a clue on the person and work of Christ. Before the Reformers there was no “real” church. We should call them the Inventors, not the Reformers. Of, course that was not the case, the Reformers desired to reform the church. They knew it was Christ’s Church and they wanted Christ and His Gospel returned to the position of centrality it once had.
The Apostle acknowledges the tradition of the early church. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, he states:
So then, brothers and sisters stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by spoken word of by our letter [ESV].
Paul confirms here that he has been teaching and transmitting the tradition of the church. That is all of which a Christian must know, believe and live. Paul did not create a tension between what was revealed and what was taught. The tradition of the church was an aid to the inspiration process of the Holy Spirit.
In the early church, tradition became a way of transmitting the teaching of the apostles. When you think about it, in the first centuries of the church much of its development came from the transmission of tradition. There was no inerrancy of Scripture doctrine in the early church. Why? There was not yet a standard collection of inspired texts. And, we have no idea how available Paul’s letters and other texts were to believers of the day. So, Paul reminds the Thessalonians that tradition was passed on in word and writing. The faith was first imparted in early confessions, singing of hymns and through baptismal instruction when folks made a public profession of their faith in Christ.
The Word of God has always been paramount for the Church and believers. Yet, in the early church, God’s Word was confirmatory of what had been preached and taught. Much like in China today where the Word is at a premium, the early church grew through what was taught by the apostles and those trained under them. They taught the truth in the traditional beliefs of all those who called on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Tradition and the inspired Scripture developed on a parallel track and the Holy Scripture became the normative revelation of what must be believed and lived for all believers.
What Protestants need to understand is that the entire history of the Church has been superintended by the Holy Spirit. The Church is a supernatural work of God. Tradition was not the antithesis of Scripture for the early church. Protestants are as dependant on the tradition of the early church as much as Roman Catholics are. Church history, and especially that of the early church fathers, is not to be dismissed but understood as part of God’s plan for His Church. Tradition is not another source of truth but is part of the deposit of truth transmitted to believers as revealed in its completeness and sufficiency through the inspired Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)