Sarx

OLLOWING The earlier post about Tradition, there was a good, sort conversation between several parties, especially Arturo. And two things came to mind in that conversation, which I’ll venture into now. By mixing them, I will probably annoy the flying heck out of nearly all participants. That’s partly my intent, I admit: but I want to wrestle, mostly, with the Label Serge gave me on his blog.

I well understand what he means by “Liberal Protestant” yet I think I’m quite traditional within that mould. The important issue is, can one be a Traditional Liberal Protestant? To break it out in the pattern of the Amplified Bible, is it possible to be Liberal – big tent, open to multiple possibilities, allowing for various interpretation and not withholding fellowship; Protestant – rejecting the possibility of an infallible church (in Serge’s wise definition, which means there are quite a few Protestant Orthodox and Roman Catholics); and Traditional (here is where I think I’ll annoy people) – Committed to working within the boundaries of ‘orthodox Christianity’ and yet seeking to expand them rather than be limited by them; is it possible to be all of these at the same time?

Arturo said Tradition was what you got from those immediately preceding you.
Donald replied that Tradition was what you passed to those who came after you.

It’s worth noting that the definition of the Biblical Greek word, “Paradosis” can mean either what is handed on to you or what you hand on. Let’s go for *both* and imply some intellectual content in the middle.

One Orthodox priest said to me once, “There is a reason we don’t use the Didache any more [as a valid liturgical rite]. The Holy Spirit keeps the Tradition of the Church alive and lets some things die.” To which my sassy mouth was heard to reply: “Why, then, did the Holy Spirit let it be rediscovered and used again?” Once you start pinning the blame for things on the Holy Spirit (ie, an infallible church), you have to be willing to say, essentially, this is the Holy Spirit but that isn’t. Which, under the cover of a Pious Platitude, is the same thing as saying we need to engage in our human reason. Let me say that another way: no one who believes in an “Infallible Church” (embodied pope, councils or sola scriptura, whatever) does so without engaging his reason exactly the same way that Protestants do; the difference is in the labels we use to describe the process. I say, “let’s try this and see if it works”, you say “the infallible church has said…” I say some things are no longer valid and you say the Infallible Church has let them die.

What happened with the Protestant Reformation that made the break total? What happened there that did not happen with the Great Schism? Nothing, if you ask me. And in that light, Rome and Orthodoxy severed Una Sancta irreparably.

Or maybe not: and there is a Church, after all, that is bigger than our petty disputes imagine?

What is the difference between the open idolatry of Lay Superstition that Arturo calls “folk Catholicism” and the arguments over human sexuality. Tell me why the hundreds of weavings of Christianity with pagan cultures around the world is valid, but our modern changes in understanding of human sexuality isn’t?

Either we’re all, pardon my French, f-ed. Or else we’re all ok.

The issue in all cases is what was prohibited to the Jews (images, idolatry, etc) is acceptable to us because, in Christ, we understand more. And, more importantly, even though those other, non-Jewish cultures were not connected with God before, now they are, in Christ, and so parts of their world – even some parts that conflict with Judaism as we know/knew it – are find, baptised, as it were. Yet we draw a line at human sexuality and we justify it making claims of “infallible church” and “Holy Spirit acting”.

Either side makes the same claims. I admit I’m unable to speak in this matter without more than a modicum of bias, yet I’m willing to say that I will trust God to make up the difference. And I can trust God to do that, too, when I welcome you – a reader who may disagree with me – to God’s table.

The previous post generated a very interesting comment from Arturo:

I would thus say that “tradition” is something that is not ideal; it is something that works. It is not determined by ideology because it is not ideal; it is religion with all of the blemishes, it is Faith as it has to be. I would like to say that the attack on tradition started with the Protestant Reformation, but Catholicism since then has also treated this tendency as an enemy within; the old canard of lay “superstition”.

In the end, the first principle that I start with is that the most certain starting point is tradition as it has been passed down to you immediately by those who preceded you. It is a foolish errand to try to figure out how the “first Christians” thought or acted; for all we know, they could have been a bunch of fornicating magicians who used the name of Jesus to put curses on people (there is some evidence that this was the case in some places). You can’t determine belief by archeology. In the end, you have to go with what has been put into your own hot little hands, tempered a bit by reason. I emphasize, however, “a bit”.

He hit on two very optimal points, I think: 1) tradition is not ideal; and 2) tradition as it has been passed down to you immediately by those who preceded you.

And that’s where I trip up. I promptly noted that A) it leaves out Protestants; and B) you can’t go home, either. And the replies indicate that they agree with me.

In the end, says Arturo. You have to go with what has been put into your own hot little hands, tempered a bit by reason. I emphasize, however, “a bit”.

I think it’s more than “A bit”.

If there’s room in Christianity for the cross breeding that Arturo documents over and over (calling it Tradition) – as well as for the stuff we see in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic adoption and adaptation of pagan tales, semidivine personages and practices (also called Tradition) – then I see nothing wrong with the possibility of hearing what this culture has to say about sexuality.

We are making room within the Tradition for a new thing as someone did at each point in the past: if you believe the myth that St Luke painted the first icon, or if you believe the history that they were adopted from Alexandrian funerary images someone had to be first. The first departure from Jewish Synagogue worship into Gentile houses must have been scary. But someone did it.

Using the old “Anglican Tripod” we get

• Scripture
• Tradition
• Reason

Scripture – and including the writings of the saints which expands and enlightens biblical text – is, essentially, just part of Tradition, so what we get is:

• Tradition (including Scripture [including the writing of the saints])
• Reason

Tradition is most clearly expressed in the liturgy (including the daily office, Eucharist, private devotions like the Rosary, the Saints, etc). Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. And liturgy is our response to the Holy – not something God commanded. (Yes, I know there are those who try to prove that some denominations are, essentially, the Jewish Temple continued but even then, unless you’ve got an Ark of the Covenant, we’re all offering liturgical strange incense.) Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me” and anything beyond that is human intervention – including reading the Gospel.

We all critically engage our reason in the adoption and adaptation of Tradition to our local cultures and way of life. To pretend otherwise is denial.

And from this engagement we use our reason to develop or evolve liturgies to present our knowledge and experience of God to those around us. This is both the source of and our response to Tradition. Tradition may well be what we receive from our Mothers and pass to our children – but it is in the middle stage, when it is ours in the first person, that we engage and critique it, prayerfully, with our reason.

So what we are left with is

• Reason

With which we enter into conversation with God as we understand God’s self-revelation to us, and from which conversation we develop and evolve our traditions through our experience – in the process of which we weave the tapestry of Tradition, which includes scripture and the greater theological doctrines.