The traditions of the church

 

To suggest that the church can be divided into three main strands is, perhaps a little simplistic. Most churches will include members who would identify with more than one of these strands. It is easy to find churches that belong to the catholic strand which are also moderately liberal in their belief and practice. Similarly it is not hard to find evangelical churches that are moderately liberal or moderately catholic in some of their thought.

I am going to suggest that there may be substantial benefits for any one of these three strands when it is exposed to, and in dialogue with the other two. Before looking at this, I have taken a look at each of the three strands or traditions, and also at the pentecostal or charismatic as a movement which encounters all three traditions.

 

The Bible – “Evangelical” tradition

GENERAL (objective) view[1]

Karl Barth, a German theologian whose theological writings literally take up several feet on the library shelves was known to summarise everything he had wanted to say in his lifetime of study by quoting the children’s song:

 

Jesus loves me, this I know,

For the Bible tells me so.

 

People who emphasise the bible in their relationship with God over and above intellect, tradition, and current inspiration may be described as ‘evangelical’. Worship in this tradition is often dominated by the sermon and readings from the bible.

 

EXTREME

Bible literalist (sometimes called fundamentalist).  At the extreme end of this position are six-day creationists who reject scientific advance completely, and refuse to take into account any of the useful tools for bible interpretation provided by archaeology and up-to-date scholarship, even when this throws new light on the bible itself. Bible inerrancy is a term sometimes used by members of this group.

WEAKNESSES

Lack of respect shown to tradition and history mean that old heresies can and do recur unchecked.  Lack of respect given to intellectual challenge can result in failure to accommodate the intellectual, social and practical needs of the world as it constantly changes.  The evangelical wing of the church is noted for its missionary zeal far more than its concern for social change. At their worst, evangelical Christians can be seen to be narrow and moralising, sanctimonious, harsh and judgemental. In such cases, the old saying 'ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est' (where compassion and love are found, God Himself is there') comes to mind (1 John 4:7).  A tendency to use ‘proof texts’ to ‘prove’ a particular spin on their teaching can result in imbalance in their teaching.  This often leads to a ‘gospel’ being preached which simply does not stand up when tested against the whole of the bible, against the example of Jesus Himself, and against tradition, love and compassion, and intellect.  It is not difficult to find this extreme among American Southern Baptists.

STRENGTH

Its high regard for the inspired nature of the bible means that it takes very seriously the bible as the church's main guide to the Christian faith.  Taken alongside intellectual testing, and scrutiny of history and tradition to ensure that the old traps are not revisited, the evangelical tradition can, and does, revitalise and challenge moribund areas of the church.

JESUS

Jesus clearly takes a very high view of scripture, and uses it to settle and to refute arguments.  On a number of occasions (the temptations, the argument about healing on the Sabbath etc.), Jesus uses scripture over against 'proof texts' to show that God has to be listened to in the whole bible, and not just in a few choice tracts.  The evangelical wing of the church frequently falls into the trap of proof texting. 

Jesus also reproves the bible scholars of his day for failing to listen to the prophets.  The prophets, both then and now, always cry out for justice, mercy and peace.  If a rigid interpretation of scripture is militating against justice, freedom or peace (or all of these), then it has to be challenged. Jesus sits lightly to the bible when he tells us that the Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).  In that instance, he uses intellect to make sense of what God wants.  In the case of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:3-11), he lets compassion motivate him into going against scripture by not advocating that both the woman and her lover be stoned to death!  (Deut 22:22 & Lev 20:10)

 

History and doctrine – “Catholic” tradition

GENERAL (objective) view

 In the catholic understanding, it is the continuity of God’s leading of the church down through the centuries that is important along with all the accumulated teaching (Christian doctrine) that has developed over that time. The Creeds and the Liturgy are essential to the catholic tradition and its belief is expressed in worship or liturgy especially in the context of the Eucharist or Mass.

 

EXTREME

Attachment to tradition to the exclusion of intellectual analysis and biblical testing and interpretation can lead to a very bigoted position which defies argument both from scriptural and intellectual viewpoints.

WEAKNESSES

Possibility of harmful doctrines creeping in and being left unchallenged because they are an agreed part of 'our Catholic tradition'. At its worst extreme, catholic worship can degenerate into just 'going through the motions' (2 Tim 3:5) - following the outward form of religion- ...).

STRENGTH

Awareness of tradition means that, alongside proper balance from intellectual and biblical challenges, the catholic tradition can offer a high degree of stability, with freedom from extremes in worship, practice and belief.

JESUS

Jesus attacks the traditionalists when their interpretation of the bible leads either to the favouring of one person or group of persons against another, or when it goes against love and compassion (Mark 7:9-13).  He is prepared to sit lightly both to tradition and to the bible in certain instances, when intellect or compassion show the need..

 

Human reason – “Liberal” tradition.

GENERAL (objective) view

Particularly through the last two hundred or so years the liberal church tradition has evolved. This emphasises the need to submit our faith and practice to the critique of human reason (which is nevertheless God-given). This often leads to openness to other ways of thinking as well as scientific theories and methods and the light they throw on the Christian faith (biology, psychology and sociology are all therefore important, to give just three examples) as also is the light that they throw on the bible. The agenda of the world (the poor, the place of women etc.) or the local context is often important in the liberal approach. 

EXTREME

The Sea of Faith movement (after Don Cupitt) represents the far extreme of the liberal tradition. It is widely misunderstood to be nothing more than atheistic humanism which represents Christianity as a moral framework rather than a theistic faith.

WEAKNESSES

Liberal Christians have, in the past been very sceptical about religious experiences, miracles, the supernatural, and the emotional dimension of the Christian faith.  For this reason, liberals have often been written off as unspiritual by those who have not taken the time and effort to engage in dialogue with them.  During the late nineteenth and twentieth century, much of the then accepted theological scholarship was in the hands of liberal scholars.  Without the necessary checks and balances against bible and tradition (and, indeed, prophecy), it is hardly surprising that twentieth century theological texts reach some extremes which are already proving to be an embarrassment to large sections of God's people - including a great many who would be happy otherwise to be designated 'liberals'.

Rationalism resulted in many liberal Christians neglecting both scripture and tradition during the nineteenth and twentieth century to the extent that a substantial part of the protestant church turned towards Unitarianism. There are still Unitarian churches in existence today, and it is significant that some of them describe themselves as the 'thinking person's church'. It is of interest to note that the Jehovah's Witnesses came out of one of the nineteenth century Unitarian sects – a group which called itself the ‘Bible Students’, which perhaps says much about the JW’s approach to Christianity.

STRENGTH

Strong awareness of the emphasis in the bible and the teachings of Jesus about social justice, equality, human rights and peace.  Liberals tend to be at the forefront of Christian pressure towards social change.  They will involve themselves in politics, and will be unafraid to endure persecution for speaking out on behalf of those whom they see as being oppressed - even when that oppression is being carried out in the name of the church.

It is worthy of note that much of the social change brought about by Christians in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries has been brought about by liberal Christians.  One might especially consider members of the Quaker Christians in this context.

Today, as in the past, liberal Christians challenge us to re-interpret scripture into a changing and challenging world. This was the case when slavery was abolished. Conservative evangelical Christians could 'prove' the case for slavery from scripture and could not for the most part, support abolition. The motivation for this change came not from scripture, but from reason, alongside compassion.

JESUS

Jesus was regarded by some as being at the liberal extreme, but not by others.  (See supplementary comments for the position of Jews at that time.) His cries for justice and peace at the expense of slavish adherence to entrenched positions with regard both to scripture and to tradition are deeply reminiscent of the passion of the liberal Christian of today.

There are many examples of liberal behaviour in the life of Jesus, but one might care to consider the full implications of the meeting with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well (John 4:5-29) from the viewpoint of a Jew of any persuasion to understand his liberal position.

 

Charismatic (pentecostal) Experience

The charismatic or pentecostal movement is not strictly a fourth tradition, but rather, a movement that is found in all three of the traditions identified above. It began in the evangelical wing of Christianity, and is currently strongest in that wing.  It is strong within the catholic tradition, but currently at its weakest within the liberal wing. As liberals encounter the charismatic movement, they may need to analyse and understand before accepting it. Less intellectually inclined Christians tend to jump in and think later (perhaps reminiscent of the apostle Peter?).

 

GENERAL (objective) view

In the charismatic movement appeal is made to the believer’s direct experience of God which can manifest itself in various ways. Charismatic worship is often characterised by allowing times for the believers to experience the presence of God through say, worship including praying or singing in tongues, and to hear what the Holy Spirit might be saying or doing through prophecy. The gifts of the Spirit as described by Paul in (1 Cor 12:4-10) are expected to be in operation. The ministry of healing is perhaps the best-known gift.

The pentecostal movement teaches that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit as described by Paul, are given by God to the church today, and should be accepted and manifested within the whole body of Christ.

WEAKNESSES

Since pentecostalism is a movement rather than a tradition of its own, its weaknesses tend to show as emphases in the weaknesses of the tradition in which Charismatic Christians find themselves. As an example, in the evangelical wing, Charismatic Christians who do not have the checks and balances of reason and tradition firmly in mind can over-spiritualise their faith and become 'too heavenly minded to be any earthly use'.

STRENGTHS

The Spirit challenges and enlightens. The gifts of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor 12:4-10.) are there for the building up of the body of Christ and will enlighten and enliven the church wherever they are in operation. In the catholic tradition, the spirit will challenge the church to look again at its understanding of tradition. In the same way, it will challenge evangelicals to re-visit scripture and to see new things in it (Matt 13:52). For the liberal Christian there will be challenges to look beyond rationalism and see the bigger picture: God's picture.

The coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost brought a new dynamic to the first Christians. Before, they believed. Afterwards, they knew: firsthand and with unshakeable conviction. They went out to teach: not from scripture; although they quoted from scripture, neither did they did they teach from tradition: although they quoted the traditions of their forefathers. The first disciples taught directly from what the Spirit had written on their hearts. Thus it was that Paul, a traditionalist, suddenly began to teach what was, by his own former standards, extreme liberal teaching. Similarly, Peter, who had until that time always been ruled by scripture, took an extreme liberal position with regard to the food laws, and with respect to contact with gentiles (Acts 11:5ff). The bible-Christians of his day were horrified, and Peter soon afterwards went back on what God had commanded (Acts 15:1-32 and Galatians) This led to the council of Jerusalem - the first of many deep and painful divisions in the church over issues of belief.

Philip put what would have seemed a bizarre interpretation on the words of Isaiah when he encountered the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8-27-39). Also, he completely ignored the scripture (Lev 21:20), which tells us that a eunuch is beyond salvation. He did this because that is what the Spirit led him to do.

The phrase in Acts 'it seemed good to the Spirit and to us' is a telling one. Receive the inspiration, but first test it out with other Christians (of all traditions?). If there is dissent, then one has to question the nature of the 'inspiration'.

JESUS

Jesus used all the gifts of the Spirit described by Paul. Not only that, but he encouraged His followers to do so.

 

FURTHER NOTES ON JUDAISM

At the time of Jesus, there is strong evidence of all the strands of belief that we have seen above.

The scribes and the Pharisees were the orthodox of their day. They followed two main schools, those of Hillell and Shammai. Although both were tied strictly into belief in the authority of scripture, the school of Shammai was closer to what Christians would perceive as evangelical, whilst the school of Hilell was more akin to the traditionalist (catholic) Christian approach, but with liberal tendencies. The words of Jesus align him more closely with the teachings of Hilell than with those of Shammai. It is perhaps to the Sadducee party that we should look to find the extremes of liberalism. The Zealots too had something of a liberal outlook, although in their case, they allowed their drive towards social action to move them into a terrorist position. One might make comparisons here with Christian Crusaders and with the inquisition.

 

SUMMARY

The situation in the church ('on the ground') is not quite as distinct as the above might suggest.  As an example, I would cite the Cristadelphian Ekklesia [2].  Christadelphians teach that the bible is exact and true in every possible way.  This includes the way in which the world was created (Gen 1 & 2), and the way in which the world will end (Rev).  The bible is treated by Christadelphians as a kind of scientific textbook. (bible inerrancy). However, Christadelphians are also very intellectual, so many of the liberal teachings are within their remit.  It is maybe because of this that Christadalphians are Unitarian; the trinity is a 'man made doctrine', and is not scriptural.

 

The extremes of all three of the positions that I have identified above are viewed by the mainstream of Christianity as being on the fringe of, if not completely outside, the realm of orthodoxy.  I asked a Christadelphian friend about salvation.  He believes that Christadelphians are the only ones who will be saved.  However, he said that there might just be salvation for those who read the bible, and understand it. My feeling about this is that my friend was implying that 'through the bible alone comes salvation'.  To me, this is remarkably similar to a pre-Vatican-two Roman Catholic understanding, (taken from Augustine [3]) that outside the (Roman Catholic) church, there is no salvation. A catholic friend spoke to me some time before Vatican two about salvation being possible 'for those who cling to the outside of the ark of salvation'.  For him, the ark of salvation was the Roman Catholic Church.    Mainstream Christians might want to reflect on the idea that 'by grace alone' is the only way to salvation (Eph 2:8).

 

The conclusion that I draw is that all who are at the extremes of the various Christian traditions believe absolutely that they are right, and that they, and only they, can be saved. I feel that among mainstream Christians, that those who are at any of these extremes are often closer to being part of a cult than they are to being part of Christian orthodoxy.

 

It is likely that most Christians belong to a particular tradition for one of two reasons. Some will have been introduced to a church by family or friends, and will never have been made aware of the existence of anything outside that tradition. In earlier, times, that was perhaps the most common experience. The other reason, which is becoming increasingly common, is that of people searching around or 'church tasting', until a church is found which suits that person emotionally or intellectually.

 

Increased choice is good. One problem that is seen to arise because of this is an increase in the number of churches that attract like-minded people. It is always comfortable to spend time with those whose views we share. This kind of mutually supportive group can soon become exclusive if it has no external challenge, as those who argue against some of the more extreme thinking and ways find themselves forced to leave that church.

 

Many of what one might describe as the 'new churches' are focussed on a small aspect of the gospel message. If that focus becomes really extreme, the church has frequently been known to split; two new churches result.  One is extreme and the other more moderate.

 

The motive for forming a 'new church' has often been the paralysing effect of too great an adherence to tradition. The opposite of that is for the church to ignore tradition altogether, and when that is the case, as some of the new churches discover to their cost, history begins to repeat itself.

 

Some years ago, I had the painful duty of listening to the evidence regarding one of the local churches that was at that time part of the URC tradition. Under the leadership of a strong personality who had a somewhat paranoid side to him, the church had deliberately and methodically rejected all of those members who had opposed the resulting extremism. The justification was always made using phrases such as 'you are possessed by an evil spirit', and 'God says you are wrong'. It was the painful decision of the URC to expel that particular church (and minister) from membership of the URC. The evidence put forward has made me very aware of the danger of such a process of change towards any extreme.

 

My own conclusion is that without a healthy balance between all three of the major traditions that we have reviewed above, along with the ongoing enlightenment that the Holy Spirit brings through the charismatic movement, the church can be neither whole nor healthy.

© The Revd Barry Drake MA – April 2007

 

SOME SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Scrip refs – Jesus, scripture and tradition

Matt 9:13 - mercy not sacrifice

Matt 9:14 - fasting

Matt 12:1-8 - Jesus lord of the sabbath

Matt 12:10-14 - healing on the sabbath

Matt 15:1-10 - denial of God's word by their tradition

Matt 19 - the rich man - who can be saved?  What is impossible for mere man is possible for                God.

Matt 21:23-26 - By whose authority do you do these things?

Matt 23 - the Woes - esp. vv13 et seq.

Mark 12:1-12 - The question of authority - and the tenants in the vineyard.

Luke 7:29-30 – Scribes, Pharisees and John the Baptist

Luke 7:39 – Pharisees and the anointing of Jesus

Luke 10:10 – The Kingdom is near wherever the followers of Jesus are welcomed

Luke 11:42-end – The teachers neglect justice, peace - kill prophets - burden people (the                     woes)

John 8:3 - the woman caught in adultery- see Lev 20:10 & Deut 22:22