13 December 2006
Some Thoughts on the Relationship of Scripture and Tradition
This is a result of an excellent conversation at our pericopal study group this morning - no doubt fueled by Sister's cinnamon rolls! There is a two-fold relationship that is in tension between the two. First, at the time of the Reformation the accent was solidly upon Scripture as the touchstone for what is true in tradition, what can made to harmonize with the divine words. This is a critical use of Scripture in regards to tradition. But it is not the only relationship between the two, for Tradition when it is being true to itself is above all the proper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures - it provides "an interpretive lens," if you will, for the reading of Scripture. Lutheranism at its best fosters the tension implicit in this. Chemnitz, recall, speaks of Scripture under the category of Traditions in the Examine. Yet Lutherans know that not everything that parades around as Tradition is worthy of the title, for some fall under the condemnation our Lord spoke of: teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. I would suggest that Rome and the East have settled on the one side of the equation: Tradition is the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. This, as Fr. Heath noted, prevents them from ever critiquing the received tradition and it explains a lot about what has crept in over the centuries. It neglects to take seriously the words of Cyprian about how what is ancient may merely be "the antiquity of error." On the other hand, there is a definite tendency among Lutherans and others to accent the Scripture as critique of tradition to the point where it is forgotten that tradition is also how Scripture is read. The Churches of the Augsburg Confession clearly sought to lose neither side. And this is shown in what may justly be called "the catholic principle" - thanks to Fr. Fenton for coining the phrase, I believe, but its final origin goes back to Pelikan's work on the Reformation where he referred to "catholic substance." The position of the Churches of the Augsburg Confession differs from that of other Protestants in that they used an exclusive principle: what is not explicit in the Scriptures has to go! Our churches said instead, what is clearly contrary to the Scriptures has to go; what harmonizes with them we receive with joy. So the Augsburg Confession starts out with affirming, not the Scripture per se, but the decrees of the Council of Nicea regarding the Holy Trinity. Our Church is being most faithful to itself when it refuses to allow either side of the "circle" to predominate, but recognizes that the Church lives in the tension of them both. The reason during the Reformation that the accent was solidly on the critiquing function of Scripture was precisely to balance the unhealthy approach to Tradition which had captivated the Western Church. But even while accenting that side of the circle, the whoel was never forgotten! We may not teach that which is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures; they remain the touchstone for all that is to be believed, taught, and confessed in the Holy Church. We may not ignore the tradition, the teaching of the Scriptures, which comes down to us from antiquity, for it saves us from subjectivity, the "me and my Bible" mentality that destroys all churchly life. If this is all nutsy, I'll blame it on overdosing on the sugar in those tasty cinnamon rolls...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
This is a good topic on this anniversary of the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545 where, among other matters discussed, tradition was accepted as a source of faith. Tradition is also important in the life of the Eastern Church. I appreciate the "tension" you describe here since the slogan "Scripture alone", popularly distilled in our circles, seems to mitigate against a healthy understanding of Tradition in the life of the Church. This is likely not original but I like to think of this tension as being somewhat like the two natures in Christ. The Scriptures are divine revelation and the Tradition is revelation walking on earth in the life of the Church (Symbols, liturgy, etc.) Ironically, as I was driving home from Advent Vespers this evening (a tradition seemingly unpopular in these parts) I was thinking of Fr. Fenton's "catholic principle" and how I need to revisit that document. I recommend too a little book I read a few years ago entitled "The Vindication of Tradition" by Jaroslav Pelikan. (Would it be too far fetched to bring up a similar "tension" between the prayer and belief of "lex orandi, lex credendi" ?)
Not far fetched at all, Fr. May. Lex ordandi is prayed confession; Lex credendi is confessed prayer. Either without the other can end up in distortion! Both together live in a beautiful relationship. So Chemnitz, to clench the doctrine of the Trinity, turns not to Scripture, but to the liturgy and cites the Introit for Trinity Sunday and the Kyrie Fons Bonitatas.
Lutherans have a formula which seems to have been forgotten or, when it is remembered, is perhaps not understood; namely, norma normans, norma normata. That both phrases begin with norma is not insignificant.
As a true son of an English Northerner of Scottish and Irish heritage, I will ask: what good can any 'norman' be?
What examples would you give of errors that are *directly* contrary to Scripture, versus those that one might personally see as contrary to the *spirit* of Scripture or the various narrow defnitions of a given denomination's doctrines?
Chris,
Were you asking John or me or Tim? Or was it not directed at anyone in specific?
If at me, I would point to the practice of pleading the merits of the saints, the notion that our works are meritorious towards justification, the idea that the papacy has the power to release from Purgatory, the teaching that the pope is the head by divine right of the entire Christian Church and the vicar of Christ upon earth, the practice of withholding the chalice, the forbiding of marriage to priests, the teaching that a particular form of abstaining and fasting is obligatory upon the whole Church. There's a list for starters.
This is definitely a list of the abuses of the medieval and Renaissance Papacy, what of the other more touchy issues of the Sacraments of Holy Orders (inlcuding apostolic succession), Chrismation/Confirmation, Anointing, as well as with a fully traditional and accepted monasticism, with the rules of fasting as laid down by the Ecumenical Councils, the authority of Tradition, prayer to (not worship of) the saints, an actual committment to and widespread practice of prayer for the departed, etc.?
Maybe it would be helpful if we (Lutherans)adopted the distinction between tradition and Tradition.
It's somewhat akin to the distinction between catholic and Catholic. Lower case t tradition is tradition in the ordinary sense of the word -- how we've always done things, handed on. Four part hymnody for example. Upper case T Tradition is something handed on from the Apostles, not just long standing custom.
We (Lutherans) generally use "tradition" only in the ordinary sense. There are two problems with this. One is, we misunderstand Roman and Eastern apologetics, which sharply distinguish tradition from Tradition, thinking it's all tradition. The other is, we deprive ourselves of something of value in sorting out the whole tradition thing upper or lower case.
In a working sense, we could say that tradition thus understood corresponds to our (Lutheran) more commonly used word adiaphora. What we struggle with is, is there Tradition and if so what is its role and how does that fit with sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone. (Indulge me brothers, I insist upon a full translation of an ablative of means!)
May I suggest, our lumping both under tradition is a factor in the move some make who sense it isn't all lower case tradition and head East or to Rome. It's the flip side of the coin -- many in the RC or EO churches (from whence I came) mistake tradition for Tradition all the time as we mistake Tradition for tradition.
May I also suggest that a right understanding of all this exists throughout the Book of Concord. Most of what it rails against are examples of tradition being elevated to Tradition. Unless we understand the difference, we lose the significance of both those abuses and also the real issue of whether Tradition, not tradition, is a source of doctrine, or whether there can be a conflict between what is truly Tradition and Scripture. Finally we lose, since there can be no conflict, the value of Tradition.
Just a homespun example -- at home, I have done as the Little Catechism says the head of the household should do and have taught my kids to make the Sign of the Cross. (Es steht im Buch "machen", nicht "sagen"!) But I'm sure if we did that during the Divine Service we'd draw some looks!
Past Elder,
Very good thoughts. Are you familiar with Chemnitz' treatment of "Traditions" in the Examination of the Council of Trent? VERY worthwhile reading, if you've not had the joy.
LOL about the cross. Machen nicht nur sagen indeed! If you came to St. Paul's on a Sunday you would see NUMEROUS people making the sign of the holy cross, especially after receiving our Lord's body and blood, but at other times in the liturgy as well. In my home parish, it was not unusual either. In our school we teach the children to make it also - as we begin with an expanded version of the morning prayers from the Catechism.
Pax!
Christopher,
You know our answer to those questions. Chrismation lacks foundation in the Sacred Scriptures as something that has a divine promise to give grace. However, it is a beautiful custom to show and manifest the grace given in Holy Baptism. We happen to seal with oil all those who are baptized, as our Service Book permits. As a part of the rite of Baptism, an extolling of what our Lord is doing in that sacred mystery, it can be received and rejoiced in; as something that robs Baptism of the Scriptural promise that Baptism gives the Spirit, it cannot be tolerated.
Holy Orders may indeed be understood as a Sacrament, when understood in relation to the Ministry of the Word of God, which has God's divine command and promise.
Monastic vows, when understood to be meritorius and even to earn grace of supererogation is anathema to the Gospel itself.
You know what Chemnitz says of the authority of Tradition and how highly he holds much that has come down to us from the Fathers, but not all.
As to prayers to the saints, you also know the rejection of the practice was predicated on its lacking promise, command or example in the Scriptures, but above all (again, I know you've read the Chemnitz discussion of this) on where the practice had actually led in the Church - how numerous Christians had all but forsaken prayer to the Blessed Trinity and sought refuge only in the Blessed Virgin or their particular patron saints.
In all of the above, I believe the principle is rather consistent that when aspects of tradition (small t) have come in conflict with the Tradition (or the Divine Word and especially the Holy Gospel), they are set aside in the Churches of the Augsburg Confession. That's the "critiquing function" side of the "circle" I spoke of, which Orthodoxy and Rome back lack.
That was supposed to be "both lack!" : ( I need my coffee...
"Bless us O Lord, and these thy gifts, which we are about to receive. Through Christ our Lord. Amen."
This is the wording RC children (including myself) are taught to say grace before meals. It is the same prayer given in the LC (oder KK) worded slightly different. I love it when eating over at RC friends and they get all ecumenical and say a typical Protestant table prayer. I ask if I may offer a prayer as Luther suggests, then make the Sign of the Cross and say grace as worded above -- exactly what they would have done were I not there! That's my LOL on the practice! At the same time, I love joining in when Grandma (my late wife's mother, lifelong LCMS) intones "Come, Lord Jesus ... ". We can have them both!
I think it's in the Babylonian Captivity where Luther says some of these practices may have had a good purpose at first, but led to great misunderstanding -- the effect you refer to in Chemnitz' discussion. He writes how difficult it is to see Jesus'love when apparently he has to be cajoled into acting benevolently toward us by the intercession of the saints or his mother. I saw that time and again in the devotional life of my former affiliation.
Yet at the same time, the answer is not to act as if the dead were, well, dead. If the real death happens in Baptism when the old self is crucified, and death as commonly understood is really birth unto eternal life, in other words if the saints in heaven are truly alive, then it should be no more remarkable to ask one of them to pray for me or some other intention than to ask a saint here on earth to do so. In and of itself, it is an acting out of the belief that this eternal life stuff is for real. But so often it isn't in and of itself. The practice indeed has no promise, no command and no example in Scripture and can easily degenerate into a substitute for the kind of prayer that does.
So the challenge is, is it worth it to attempt to recover the original value Luther mentions? I don't think there is a yes or a no here. In view of the confusion generally and among those who use the name Christian about what DOES have promise, command and example in Scripture, I would say yes but it's well down the list! I would also say the answer is not to become Protestant about it either and refuse to see a value or a possibility of correct use.
I've been Lutheran for ten years as of yesterday. In one of my first potlucks, real Lutheranism to the core, I remember the regular coffee was labelled "Lutheran" and the decaf "Protestant". You get your theology where you get it! Made it clear to me! I'll admit, Chemnitz is one of those things I've read about more than read -- I'm making my way through my Wish List at CPH. If I weren't so old (56) I'd think about becoming a pastor -- but the thought of dealing with my first call about the time you guys are dealing with your last puts an aspect on retirement even Thrivent hasn't thought about!
Post a Comment