Tradition and Epistemology
Most Protestants believe that Tradition -- the substance of the Church's reflection on Scripture that has emerged over the last 2000 years -- is not a proper source of theological authority. Instead, many argue, that Sacred Scripture is the only proper source and it should be set against Tradition.
This is highly problematic. While in the abstract, it is correct that a particular belief or idea is not necessarily true just because it has been believed or practiced for a long time, it does not follow that Tradition ought to be rejected on these grounds. The impulse, indeed the need, to accept Tradition and bow to its authority is based on a proper understanding of the limits of human knowing and a right posture to the knowledge of others.
The need to accept authoritative Tradition is based on a kind of benefit of the doubt epistemology. If a certain Christian belief or practice is in question who should receive the benefit if the doubt, the contemporary interpreter who has a new reading of a given text(s) of scripture or the consensual reading of the Church's Great Tradition?
I argue that the Tradition gets the benefit of the doubt. I understand that in the abstract the contemporary interpreter may be correct and the Tradition wrong. But how do I know that? Really, in the end, only God knows for sure. But from my vantage point, the most prudent and wise response is to go with the consensual view from Tradition.
In my own Anglican Church there is a debate about whether or not homosexual behavior is legitimate Christian practice. Some are arguing that fresh insight from Sacred Scripture should lead the Church down a new path. Others (the majority) argue that the Church should stay with its traditional beliefs and practices regarding human sexuality.
Those who want to revise the Church's teaching may well be correct that the Church has been wrong about this issue. But the prudent and reasonable question to ask is, "Which source should receive the benefit of the doubt, the traditional view or the revisionist view?" Asked this way, one ought clearly to bow to the Tradition.
Embracing the Great Tradition is the most reasonable and prudent way forward in discerning proper Christian belief and practice. To reject it is unwise and possibly tainted by hubris.
5 comments:
Hey Peter,
for the most part I agree, however if you'll bare with me, I have two basic problems with this position.
1.- There seems to be an asumption that the "great Tradition" is a unified and consistent block of beliefs. But there have been different doctrinal positions throughout the church. But an honest, non-revisionistic look at Church history tells us that this is simply not so.
2.- "I understand that in the abstract the contemporary interpreter may be correct and the Tradition wrong. But how do I know that? Really, in the end, only God knows for sure."
Really? So there is NO room for believing that there can be no new insights brought out from Scripture? So, for example, we throw out the "New Perspective" simply because it doesn't perfectly line up with previous conceptions of Justification?
Wouldn't it also mean, for example, that we couldn't be Amillenialists or Postmillenialists simply because most of the Early Church was Premil?
Don't misunderstand me: I completely agree that Tradition has a substantial and fundamental role in hermeneutics. I agree that generally, we should asume Tradition has got it "right" when we come to a passage of Scripture and be wary of "new" readings of Scripture, simply because they are in fact "new".
Nevertheless I also think there is an ongoing tension in which the Church is always at work seeking to understand the Bible more and more, as it acquires new tools (like the Dead Sea Scrolls or new historic findings that shed light on the historical contexts behind the Biblical narratives) while at the same time respectfully and humbly listening to the Church Catholic through history as it has sought to interpret and reflect upon Scripture.
Greetings Peter.
You can be stronger than the "benefit of the doubt" epistemology because substantial portions of the doctrines of the church are the result of centuries of inquiry resulting in "justified true belief", the definition of knowledge with which I am familiar.
I am reading the first volume (of five) of Jaroslav Pelikan's - The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago:1971). After less than 200 pages I am still in the middle of Christ as creature.
I doubt that contemporary rvisionists could come close to the man-hours and diligent effort and detailed thought of the framers of what developed into orthodox doctrine. Therefore modernists (including those who come "post") deserve doubt until the universal church agrees that the new doctrine agrees with what has come before.
Scripture, understood as the Word of God, was always the ultimate test for the early Bishops and should be for us as well.
Excellent post. Tradition is innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa. Regarding the homosexual issue and other hot topic issues I think that even if Tradition were not a piece of the hermeneutic puzzle, Scripture would still triumph as holding to the Traditional understanding of the issue. Do you think that an "even playing field" hermeneutic is viable?
In other words, if groups (such as pro-homosexuality groups) want to use Scripture to justify their behavior then orthodoxy can do the same? The Anglican Communion has seen this with the women in ministry issue. Both sides go to the Scriptures for the final authority and the decision is based purely on exegesis.
Obviously Tradition plays the role in that it leans heavily complementarian. But given the "even playing field" hermeneutic, Tradition does not take a back seat as an interpretive method but rather it is innocent until proven guilty by Scripture. And Scripture vs. Scripture on the matter will decipher a decision whether Tradition has been right or not.
Pete,
You've been tagged with the book meme.
Jai+
Great post. I think modernism, with it's anti-historic bias (aka the belief in progress) puts tradition at a disadvantage. While I don't think I could hold to an Eastern Orthodox view of Tradition, the consensus viewpoint of the historic church should be given a lot of weight, and not easily discounted.
Post a Comment