Preserving Tradition (II) A Living Tradition

Preserving the Tradition - - - A Living Tradition

Written by Dan McDonald

          I can well understand my Protestant friends’ reluctance to put stock in tradition.  We all recognize from the Scriptures that many human traditions have gone awry.  Yet St. Paul speaks of a tradition that we are to observe, unto which we are to be faithful.  What is this tradition which large segments of the Church have always believed to be so essential to maintain?

            One of the writers who first somehow proved to me that tradition is something important was the Russian monk, theologian, scientist, inventor, mathematics professor, language expert, art historian, and martyr Pavel Florensky (1882-1937)[i]  He was a truly brilliant man whose invention of a type of machine oil, and his brilliance in mathematics helped him to continue teach at the University of Moscow even though he resolutely continued to teach wearing the cassock of his priesthood even in the days of Lenin and Stalin.  Stalin eventually had enough of him and he died a martyr’s death.  Florensky held that tradition was as essential to the maintenance and health of the Christian faith as was the Holy Scriptures.  That is an extremely difficult sentiment for any Protestant to accept.  But in reality Florensky did not view tradition with the same sort of definition we who are Protestants usually understand when we speak of tradition.

            Florensky described holy tradition by the term “ecclesiality.”  The Greek word translated into our English word “church” is the Greek word, “ecclesia.”  For Florensky the idea of ecclesiality which defines the concept of tradition is that the church is a living organism composed of people called out to live “the new life of the spirit.”  Hence church tradition is essential because tradition ultimately is shared life in the Spirit; the life of an organism who has a memory and an ability to reflect and treasure that which has been given to it.  Tradition or ecclesiality as Florensky perceives it is not primarily set forth in church councils, or papal decrees, or Bible commentaries; although all of these things may bear forth evidence of ecclesiality or tradition, but the central characteristic of holy tradition is that the church and its membership has been called to a continual living relationship with God the Father, in Jesus Christ the Son, by the Holy Spirit since the time Christ first blessed his church and called the Apostles to continue ministering in his name on behalf of his person by the Spirit until the end of the age.

            If for a moment we entertain the possibility that such a tradition, a tradition of life in the Spirit exists within the church then we can see how a holy tradition is not compatible with each person choosing their own interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.  The Scriptures are not a matter of private interpretation according to St. Peter.  This is because the Scriptures have been given not to individuals per se but to the ecclesia, the called out church of our Lord Jesus Christ.  While individuals and individuality is used by God as he calls men to minister and teach the Word of God to the church, the living tradition is always more comprehensive than any one individual’s ability to absorb all that has been given to the living church, whose head is Christ, and whose guide is the Holy Spirit.  The church, in communion with Christ by the Spirit unto God the Father in all things is the fullness of Christ on the earth.  The church is alive and the story of the church’s tradition is that through the activities of the church the members of Christ’s Church are blessed as there is an everlasting ongoing communion and sharing of the blessed life in Christ, unto the Father, by the Holy Spirit.

            One of the probable reasons why the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is so adamant on encouraging the brethren to not forsake the assembling of themselves together is because it was recognized in the Apostolic church that the church is the called out ones who are called out to come together to share in the life of Christ by the Holy Spirit.  This is also what St. Paul was describing in describing the importance of partaking of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, or the Eucharist by reminding them that in the participation of the Supper the body all partakes of Christ together.  The sacraments are not dead exercises in ritual but activities of a living organism being nurtured so as to grow into a fully unified organism.

            We see evidence of how important this concept of a living ecclesiality whenever we sing the ancient words of the Doxology.  We sing, “Praise God from whom all blessings flow.  Praise him all creatures here below.  Praise him above all ye heavenly host.  Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost.  Amen.” The singing of the Doxology is accompanied with the belief that in keeping with Hebrews 12:22-24, we come in worship to the heavenly Jerusalem where along with other great sights and realities we come to worship in the presence of “spirits of righteous or just men made perfect.”  (Hebrews 12:23).  God’s people worship in a multi-generational multi-dimensional gathering of the living church.  We are not just a handful of Twenty-first century born and bred men and women gathering to a church with a message from an old book.  We are men and women who as we address God the Father in our worship on earth are joined by men and women from every generation around the throne of the Lamb led by twenty-four elders and joined by a number of men and women that no man count.  Let a church that has a small number in attendance on Sunday morning never imagine what they are doing is a small thing.  For say there are thirty in attendance on a Sunday morning, that is only the visible earthly count.  As we address the throne of grace in our prayers, hear the Word of God read and proclaimed, and partake of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Supper there are the angels, seraphim, and the heavenly host including the spirits of righteous men made perfect joining us.  Perhaps the reason the Temple had Seraphim over the mercy seat was to remind all of us that our worship on earth is always connected to the eternal worship in the heavenly places.  This is the meaning of tradition as it is used in the Church.  We are those who have joined the called out ones who are called out to experience and share life eternal in Christ by the Spirit unto the Father.

            If such a tradition truly exists then we would be humble who imagine ourselves to have the wisdom of God.  If we believe in such a living tradition we would surely wonder when some element of Biblical truth and revelation seemed about to be denied we would wonder how the church in all times, all places, and in every age and culture thought about this truth that has gained our attendance.

            In the light of a living tradition, Anthony Kilmister asked an important question to the Episcopal churches of England and the United States about the legitimacy of a synod lasting five years in length of life had the authority to overturn a tradition of several hundred years by a simple majority vote.  He comments on such a situation, “The lack of consensus which is plain for all to see begs the question as to whether a Synod that has only a five year life-span has (or should have) the right to alter irrevocably the future shape and doctrine of the church.  Such a change would fly in the face of centuries and centuries of history – and belief.”[ii]

            Tradition in this understanding of the authority of tradition, rests not simply on the passed down customs, beliefs, teachings, and practices of the church, but in truth all these matter because they are the fruit and witness of a continuing living church that has been and remains in continual communion with God the Father, in Jesus Christ the Son, by the Holy Spirit, even as this Living Church has been in such a communion since the time of Christ.  It is this church, her works, her gifts, her stored treasure, and her continual life both on earth and in heaven that are represented to us in what we call the tradition of the Living Church.

            Perhaps these things sound crazy to some readers.  Perhaps these things sound interesting.  Perhaps some will even like the feel of this essay.  But where in Scripture is the idea of what Florensky called “ecclesiality?”

            Consider these words of St. John and I ask is he in these words inviting us to share in the life of Christ by sharing in the fellowship of the Church ordained by the Father, established in the Son, and guided by the Spirit?  St. John writes:

            That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – the life was manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us – that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.”  (I John 1:1-4)  This life of the called gathered church of our Lord Jesus Christ speaks to us today every time we are invited through the ministry of Christ’s Church to come unto Christ and believe upon him.  Near the end of our New Testament it seems as if the Word of God invites the wavering soul one last time to come to Christ.  Who invites us to Christ according to the Book of Revelation?  We read, “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come”.  (Revelation 22:17)

---

[i] http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6223.html

[ii] Restoring the Anglican Mind, Arthur Middleton, Gracewing.  Foreward by Anthony Kilmister, p.viii.  1968.

Considering Tradition and Christianity (Part I of an intended Series)

Preserving the Christian Tradition within Modernity

The Scriptural Basis for Believing in a Christian Tradition

The Good, the Bad, and the Baby in the Bathwater

Written by Dan McDonald

 

            There are several passages in the New Testament where Christ and his apostles reject traditions.  Our Lord reserved some of his most negative criticism for religious leaders placing their traditions above the Scriptures.  The Apostle Paul warned Gentile converts against being seduced back into the traditions of their forefathers.  For this reason many Christians feel warranted in believing that tradition is almost always at odds with the Word of God.  But the same Greek word translated tradition in all the negative uses that appear in the New Testament is used as well in a positive manner in II Thessalonians 3:6 and also in a few other passages.  In II Thessalonians 3:6 the Apostle Paul commands Christians to avoid certain people who do not live according to a certain tradition.  II Thessalonians 3:6 says, “Now, we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received from us.” (KJV)

            I want to encourage readers who might be comfortable believing that tradition is always negative to consider with me the perspective that there are good traditions as well as bad traditions described by the Apostles and the Scriptures.  I believe if we evaluate all the evidence regarding what the Scriptures say about tradition, that we will perceive that holding and teaching traditions is something essential to how God created us as human beings.  It is not a question of whether we will hold to traditions, teach traditions, and try to preserve traditions; but rather the question is whether or not we will be equipped to distinguish good from faulty traditions so as to make it our goal to hold, preserve, and teach the good while setting aside the bad.  We will look in a series of blogs at how to view, honor, use, and when necessary correct our traditions.

            Our first goal in understanding tradition, as taught in the Scripture is to develop a definition of tradition and see how the definition is used in the Scriptures.  Once we have defined tradition in such a way and have seen how the New Testament uses the word, we will I believe be able to see broader uses of the concept of tradition than a simple word study might show.  Word studies can help us see how the word is used in a context to present a concept that is also taught using other words as well.  The writing of the Apostles, like all excellent writings uses a variety of words to express a concept without becoming stale; while also using a single word with different applications in different contexts.  The Christian or Biblical idea of tradition is not limited to either negative or positive uses, nor is the Christian concept of tradition exhausted by a list of verses using the word “tradition”.

            The concept of tradition rooted in the Greek word translated into tradition means according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament words, “to hand over, deliver.” (http://studybible.info/vines/Tradition)  This concept of handing over is essential if we are to understand the Biblical understanding of tradition.  In both Greek and English our words for tradition and trade are related.  In commerce we trade goods and services with one another by handing them from one person to another, usually in exchange for some good or service or for a monetary exchange.  In trade commodities, goods and services move from one hand to another.  Tradition likewise involves handing something from one person or one generation to another.  Traditions involve the passing along from one to another of concepts, ideas, teachings, practices, rituals, and general ways of life expected to be continued in their essence and passed along to those who come afterwards.  I believe that if we describe “tradition” in such a way with a definition involving “handing over a way of living and believing and practicing” then we can see where tradition can be used well or poorly, for good or for bad by those participating in traditions.  This helps to explain why our Lord could speak strongly against the traditions of some of the Jews of his day which he believed violated the Word of God.  This explains why the Apostle Paul could at times speak to Gentiles about not being seduced once more into the traditions of their ancestors who were separated from the tradition rooted in Christ, the Apostles, and the revelations of God to the patriarchs and prophets.  It also explains why it was important to oppose brethren who no longer walked according to the tradition received from the Apostles.

            I want to make three brief observations in today’s blog regarding tradition.

1.         Do you see why holding to traditions in such an important feature of being human?  One of the great distinctions between human beings and the creatures of the field, skies, and seas is that human beings pass along thoughts, ideas, and ways of life from one generation to another.  We are rational creatures which learn and teach, imitate and role-model, follow and lead.  We who write speak of what we have learned that we might influence others.  This is part of the glory of being human beings.  This seems to me to be surely part of what it means that we are created in God’s image.  If we, as human beings pass along ways of life from one person and generation to another then the result must be that in instances traditions will result from such naturally occurring human interaction.  The creation of traditions is a natural phenomenon that cannot be eradicated without minimizing and harming our own humanity.

2.         If there is something very human in learning and teaching and developing traditions then would it not seem likely that when Christ became “fully man” as well as remaining “fully God" in order to redeem our humanity, that his redemption of our humanity would result in a correction and not abolition of our human participation in tradition?  The Apostle Paul spoke in II Thessalonians 3:6 of our need to beware of those who do not walk in the traditions established by the Apostles’ Teaching.  There is a passage which admittedly does not use the word “tradition” but seems to me to prepare one minister and all those after him to be consciously involved in handing off and passing a way of life from one generation to another through committing this Apostolic teaching to faithful men who would be able to teach others.  St. Paul writes to St. Timothy in II Timothy 2:1-2 to commit what he has learned from St. Paul to faithful men who would be able to teach others also.  This is in essence a command for one generation to learn the tradition of Apostolic Teaching and then to pass it along so the next generation would be able to continue to hear and pass along that tradition through a never-ending line of faithful men.  That doesn’t mean that the chain of faithful witnesses will produce an infallible tradition, but it does mean that God has instituted a method of conveying a tradition capable of being learned, taught, corrupted, and corrected to future generations.

3.  If tradition is something important within the way God has chosen to preserve and spread his Gospel and bring about the redemption and instruction of his people in each and every generation then the tendency to promote spontaneity at the expense of tradition should be a questionable rather than laudable characteristic within the church of our Lord Jesus Christ.  This is perhaps one of the ways in which otherwise sound Christians are brought to embrace fads which come and go which are treated in their arrival as leadings of the Holy Spirit and are reflected upon in their passing as misguided exuberance and spirituality gone astray.  This includes pet doctrines made the center of the Christian faith by someone who has just discovered the key to godliness for our present century to those who have found the ultimate new program to trigger church growth.  We would generally discover within the Christian faith that what God owns and uses in the life of his people is that sense and life of faith which has been received and practiced and taught from one generation to another wherever and whenever Christ has been proclaimed.  This will surely be so in the core matters of the faith unto the Day of Christ.

He Dreams

He Dreams:

Scribbling yearning to become poetry
written by Dan McDonald

He dreams of glory, fame and love.

But he fears those looking his way.

He wonders what will attract others

Whether towards or away from his soul.

 

He wants to be loved and held through the night

But more he just wants not to be cast aside.

In most of life he has pondered his falling short

Thus he has lost hope for finding glory, fame, and love.

He learns, he discovers, that he knew not what he wanted.

He pursued fame but it was eternity for which he yearned.

He pursued solitude when it was the simplicity

Of mystery speaking beyond words to his soul he desired.

Had he discovered fame he would have sought solitude.

Had he been treated as with glory and grandeur,

He would yearn only for simple common kindness.

All he had wanted was that which is meant for eternity.

In a moment he discovered it all when for a single moment

He found himself as if he were hidden in the heart of God.

Was it only a deceptive moment now to pass away?

Or an instance of reality discovered in time's deceitfulness?

Was it a beam of illumination casting its light in darkness?

He had yearned to be a poet joining rhyme, rhythm and reason;

He felt as if for a single moment he was hidden in the heart of God.

Or was that the moment he tasted eternity hidden in finite time?

He imagines he has discovered but is still prone to forget

That fame, glory, and even love grow cold

Until one’s soul and of course body as well are discovered

To be hidden away in the heart of God.

Eternity you are surely hidden away,

Yet you have brought me to say

Today is hidden away in eternity

And eternity is projected into this day,

and all found truly in the heart of God.

Who is it that defends Freedom?

Who is it that defends Freedom?

Some Fourth of July Thoughts

Written by Dan McDonald

 

                Freedom, like love, is something we all love and something we agree upon until asked its definition.  Freedom, like love, is something universally valued but with a meaning unique to every person.  Long ago the thought was coined about liberty that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance.  Our celebrations of the Fourth of July are not merely celebrations of an independence won more than two hundred years ago.  On the fourth of July, we celebrate the eternal vigilance necessary to maintain freedom and liberty.  Who should we then celebrate on this Independence Day?

                I think the answer is quite complex.  But perhaps a music analogy might help to frame my feelings and thoughts about freedom and liberty and who it is who helps defend and maintain freedom and liberty.  Bach has been considered the master of the fugue.  The fugue employs a music form known as contrapuntal.  In contrapuntal music, the music is created by blending two or more lines of music in which each line maintains and develops its distinct character but each of these lines of music is arranged to create an overall harmony that is blended to create the full sound of the composer’s intended piece.  The Merriam-Webster online dictionary describes counterpoint in music with this definition, “the use of two or more independent melodies into a single harmonic texture in which each retains its linear character.”

                In essence the political goals of the founding fathers both in declaring independence and in forming the Constitution was to create a nation wherein each and every individual, within our national union, would be able to live out their lives within their own distinct character and personality.  That is quite an undertaking, perhaps beyond what any earthly nation can promise or fulfill.  Perhaps that is why when one group of people begin to take the nation in one direction another group of people feel that everything is about to be destroyed.  What is liberty for one group of people is tyranny for another group of people.  If we try to limit our ideas of freedom to merely individual liberty then we are not committed to the same way of liberty as our founding fathers.  Our founding fathers dreamed not only of individual freedom but also of a more perfect union and a government to defend freedom.  My libertarian friends like to claim the founding fathers as their own, but our founding fathers were statesmen, politicians, and creators of government aimed at creating a national purpose that did not make meaningless or destroy the contributions of each individual seeking to retain the linear character or each person within the national union.  So perhaps the founding fathers took on something of a dream bigger than themselves.  Perhaps they never even realized how big of a dream or undertaking to which they were committing themselves and the nation they founded.  Thus perhaps those have it right who see the Fourth of July not only as a celebration of a victory won more than two hundred years ago, but as a time to pause in what can only be an eternal struggle for freedom and liberty as we ask, “and now where will we go and take this freedom of ours?”

                But the question I wanted to address in these words I write this day is the question “Who defends freedom?

                That is something you will also likely be able to answer with your own thoughts.  But here is my answer.  It is first and foremost the person who lives his own life freely and yearns for his neighbor to be able to live his own freely.  That is not easy for most people.  We want to create zones for our neighborhood not only for health and safety reasons but to coerce others to live just like us.  We tend to want neighborhoods that reflect our own individual values.  But one must ask is this sort of desire a denial of freedom or the foundation for a neighborhood of people who choose to associate together in a common purpose for a common conceived good?  Is freedom and liberty only an individual pursuit or is it a chosen common good?  Do you see how complex this creation of a nation built on liberty and freedom is?  To some degree this is why the founding fathers were lovers of states’ rights.  Virginians did not necessarily want the same sort of state as did the founding fathers in Massachusetts.  During the time of the Articles of Confederation, the new territories were to be settled in townships.  Each township would charter its own school and church, and so the pursuit of liberty would be a communally based township capable with a large degree of freedom for creating a society of one’s own choosing on the local level.  Freedom was about building better societies and communities and never merely about being able to pursue one’s own individual lifestyle.

                A lot of our modern celebrations of freedom focus on the soldier who has been willing to fight for our liberties, even knowing it may cost him his own life.  Certainly this is someone who can be called a defender of our freedoms.  But we should, I think, also be celebrating the men and women who called our government and government leaders to give an account.  Perhaps men like Thoreau and Snowden are as essential to the maintenance of freedom and liberty as the soldiers who offered their lives in national military service.

                As we have tried, in America, to create a nation built on liberty and freedom, it would seem that those citizens who obey the laws of the land, and live quietly and respectfully towards their neighbors would be candidates for those who best maintain liberty.  Liberty will be forever lost the moment a nation of people truly determine it is every man for himself.  Laws that serve to establish the boundaries for peaceful relationships among neighbors are essential to the creation of a society where individuals can possess liberty alongside social harmony.  So surely those who are law-abiding citizens promote and help maintain liberty.

                But we must not forget that our liberties and the liberties of many within our society have been won by those unwilling to surrender to unjust laws that oppressed men and women rather than freed them.  The founding fathers gave a list of reasons for their own paths of civil disobedience and rebellion.  We would not be talking about an American system of freedom without their determination to live in disobedience and rebellion to what they believed was tyranny.  Furthermore, for most of our early national history, freedom for a majority was celebrated at the expense of freedom for many others in the minority.  We didn’t imagine it worked that way in our theories of political science.  But the Native American and African-American, and sometimes in some places other minorities were not given the same degree of liberty or independence given to the majority.  One of the best observations of how breaking the law helped to foster liberty and freedom was made in regard to Rosa Parks’ refusal to go to the back of the bus.  A commentator summed up her action by saying on that day Rosa Parks refused to cooperate with the oppressor in her own oppression.

                Freedom is not an easy way of life.  Most of us find life more easily lived with convenient principles and expectations directing us.  But sometimes, when such principles are oppressive and such expectations are hurtful to our own dignity and that of others, our choosing to obey such principles and expectations is merely cooperation with the tyrant in our own oppression.  You and I will have many choices to make if we wish to maintain freedom.  These choices will not always be easy and they will often not be clear.  Usually they are not clear until hindsight.  Such is the case with Rosa Parks’ decision not to go to the back of the bus.  Many, both white and black, would have opposed her stand.  But she helped ignite the reformation of a culture by that one act.

                Quite often such decisions are not easily recognizable.  I remember a conversation regarding the movie, “The Hunger Games.”  Someone commented their thought that the movie was stupid, because they knew of no one who would participate in such games.  Movies and art often turn human life into absurd pictures of human life to make a point.  If instead of looking at “The Hunger Games” as a literal game, one looks at it as a portrait of reality in the absurd maybe we will think differently of the value of this movie.  Is it enough for a man or a woman when a national government calls its people to war to simply submit one’s self to the call to war?  That was the real life power of government given an absurd portrait in “The Hunger Games.”  There is in fact, in every national war a need for individuals to ask if this present war is a necessity for the defense of liberty or simply a use of power to coerce others for the sake of a regime that has lifted itself and its co-conspirators above the normal and ordinary rights of free men?  If one thinks of war as a sort of “Hunger Games” then the absurd plot of “The Hunger Games” is to be seen as something millions of men and women over the face of the earth have simply submitted themselves to for no better reason than that their government determined to choose to go to war.  The lead character in “The Hunger Games” chose to go to war but refused her government's reason for the war imposed upon a portion of the citizenry.  She chose first to fight for her sister, because her sister would have been more helpless than she.  Then she fought for a new friend, in many ways similar to her own sister.  She fought with her own values because an unjust warfare had been imposed upon her.  Finally when run out of choices she made the state determine if it would show itself the true murderer or allow the final two persons left in this imposed war to both live.  She felt every step of the way a prisoner of her circumstances, and simply tried to make the best of a bad situation.  When she made her stand, she likely felt as if nothing had changed.  Most everything remained for the moment all the same.  But, in reality, everything had now begun to change.  That is the story of “the Hunger Games.”  Oppression rules with all the power until confronted by an act of freedom.  Freedom first acting subversively by conforming to the legal code but contrary to the imposed purpose.  Finally freedom boldly challenges the power of oppression and at first nothing seems to change, but often at that very point everything is set in motion so that nothing can ever again remain the same.  That is the story that was told in "The Hunger Games".  It is the story of a person living among a people trained not to be free, finding their way first subversively and then boldly to be free. 

                Freedom is not very simple in the life of humanity.   Neither will it be simple to defend and maintain.  In the end, we will not likely always agree on how it is best defended and maintained.  That is because freedom is contrapuntal.  It is a glorious fugue where each individual in the song of liberty has his own character and nature and personality.  The fugue of freedom progresses by maintaining and retaining the distinct characteristics of each individual’s person within the building of a society.  The harmony requires the respect for other individuals' freedom as well as the following of one's own inclinations towards freedom.  That is the goal of freedom, a goal that is spiritual and like all spiritual values is progressing towards a day of fulfillment even though never quite fulfilled before the great day awaiting us.  Those are my thoughts about freedom for now.  I think I will go eat some hot dogs.  Let us celebrate freedom.  Let us dedicate ourselves to freedom.  Let us dedicate ourselves to the respect of other’s freedoms.  Let us realize freedom is precious and must be vigilantly defended and maintained in many diverse ways.  To everyone, I wish a very happy Fourth of July.