My point was simply that in some cases, those traditions are rules.
Right, but there's a difference between a law of nature: the rules by which the universe operates, and laws created by humans, which are rules created by some kind of collective choice.
The second kind aren't fundamental. They just mean that the collective "we" has chosen that we ought to do something in some particular way. I really don't think there's a difference between them and tradition.
I would have assumed that my reference to rules as being rules of denominations and church bodies would have clearly conveyed that I was talking about the second kind of rule. I can’t imagine anyone here thinking thinking in terms of the first kind of
And I think the difference between “tradition” and “rule” is that it’s usually the second that a superior might have grounds for taking action if you go against it. Whether they would or not is a different matter. It’s the difference between “we (usually) do it this way” and “we’re required/supposed to do it this way.”
When I was in the choir at Liverpool Met the organist kept to more sombre stops in Lent and unleashed the trumpets and bright stops at the Easter Vigil with fanfare for the Alleluia.
I recall that at the same place some years ago the then Archbishop decided that Mauday Thursday's solemn mass was the ideal time to celebrate the golden jubilee of the late Queen Elizabeth by performing Zadok the Priest with it's repeated Alleluias, even more bizarrely he'd decided the best place for this was after communion, before the solemn procession to the place of repose. I think for multiple reasons this was the most egregious breach of liturgical norms I've ever personally witnessed.
When I was in the choir at Liverpool Met the organist kept to more sombre stops in Lent and unleashed the trumpets and bright stops at the Easter Vigil with fanfare for the Alleluia.
I recall that at the same place some years ago the then Archbishop decided that Mauday Thursday's solemn mass was the ideal time to celebrate the golden jubilee of the late Queen Elizabeth by performing Zadok the Priest with it's repeated Alleluias, even more bizarrely he'd decided the best place for this was after communion, before the solemn procession to the place of repose. I think for multiple reasons this was the most egregious breach of liturgical norms I've ever personally witnessed.
Easy, @LatchKeyKid. If you are Orthodox and put capital letters on things and make them into proper nouns you make them sacrosanct ...
😉
And nice one @Baptist Trainfan but joking aside, this is pretty much how traditions and Tradition develops.
How can it be otherwise?
We work these things out in the context of our particular faith communities and traditions.
Ok. It's confession time.
I am nothing if not eirenic and am always very careful not to 'weaponise' Big T Tradition and to use it as a club to beat my fellow Christians and Shipmates about the head.
I don't always succeed and apologies for that.
On the thread about receiving communion twice in one day, @Lamb Chopped opined that it was no big deal and that God would have told us if it were otherwise - in scripture presumably.
I half-jokingly quipped that God has indeed told us - through Holy Tradition.
And yes, I do believe that.
But this doesn't mean I think God is going to chastise or punish anyone who does things differently or that everyone has to do what I do.
The thing is, it ain't about me and what I like or dislike or my particular preferences - although it is obviously our own personal choice and convictions that lead us to whatever church or faith t/Tradition we inhabit and espouse.
Of course, there are difficulties. Who is to say which of those who espouse some form of Big T Tradition - I'm thinking of the RCs, Orthodox and 'Oriental Orthodox' here - have the right 'take' on it?
Whatever the case, speaking for myself, I am more keen to find and celebrate the overlaps and commonalities between Big T and small t t/Traditions rather than focus on the differences - which isn't to say that I don't acknowledge that these exist.
There is a 'dogmatic core' around which we can all unite.
But to all intents and purposes Big T Tradition does prescribe particular practices and beliefs - be it the Nicene Creed, liturgical seasons such as Advent, Lent and Easter, hymnody, iconography, the scriptural canon and so on.
It's all meant to form a seamless whole.
And yes, it is meant to be a living tradition even though the joints may creak at times.
I think there is a distinction to be made between Tradition and traditional.
Tradition is more to do with God continuing to speak to the church and tradition is a case of "we've always done it this way and nobody is going to budge us." I once was organist in a Yorkshire church that had a choir that was of the second type - it wasn't the most musically pleasing experience of my life.
I have seen somewhere that Edward Hope Patten (the priest who restored Marian devotions at Walsingham), when introducing some some new piece of ritual would announce to the congregation: "Next Sunday, as is our custom, we shall do ..."
For Lutherans, the traditions being discussed above are all adiaphora meaning they are neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture, We do stick more or less to the basic common catholic mass and liturgical year with its appointed readings because that is the way we do things. It is part of the identity we take on.
In Fiddler on the Roof Tevye tries to hold on to Tradition because that is the way it has always been, but as each of his oldest daughters are married off the walls that had been set up because of tradition began to fall. First, the tradition of the matchmaker fell. when the first daughter fell in love with a tailor. Second, the tradition of quiet conservatism fell when the second daughter got involved with a radical. Then the tradition of ethnic separation fell when the third daughter was rescued by a gentile. There were two other younger daughters not of marrying age yet, but the implication is other traditions would also likely fall. The fiddler on the roof symbolizes the precariousness of trying to maintain tradition amidst constant change.
Point is, there is a time when some traditions even in the church have to change. I remember the time when the Roman Church insisted the Mass had to be in Latin, but that changed. Now the Roman church is struggling with how communing divorced individuals conflicts with their teaching on marriage as a sacrament. And, while mainline Protestant churches have pretty well resolved the issue of welcoming LBGTQA people, it is still an issue with other conservative and evangelical bodies.
Change is aways knocking on the door. The issue is how do we address those changes with the message of the Gospel.
And, while mainline Protestant churches have pretty well resolved the issue of welcoming LBGTQA people,
Really? Which ones can LGBTQ+ folk feel confident in their welcome in any church of that denomination they attend, or at least feel confident that any hostility will be dealt with appropriately by leaders?
And, while mainline Protestant churches have pretty well resolved the issue of welcoming LBGTQA people,
Really? Which ones can LGBTQ+ folk feel confident in their welcome in any church of that denomination they attend, or at least feel confident that any hostility will be dealt with appropriately by leaders?
In Australia I think it varies within a denomination.
UCA churches and ministers have the option of having/conducting LGBTQ+ marriages. Some will and some won't. I know of a church where the minister would but the elders wouldn't allow their church to be used, The minister had to use other venues.
The United Church of Christ is the most progressive of the mainline denominations in the US, and as of 2022, only 36% had voted to become Open & Affirming, their official designation for LGBTQ+-friendly congregations. I imagine plenty more congregations are actually welcoming to the LGBTQ+ people coming through their doors without having gone through the ONA process, but people can't know that without risking rejection. And when they have eschewed a process the denomination has been promoting since the 90s, I question the depth of their commitment to marginalized people. (Stat in this PDF: https://www.ucc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2023statisticalreport.v11webUPDATED.pdf)
While there is still some dissent within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, largely because we are a congregational body, I would say close to 80 percent of the congregations are open and affirming.
Nick can speak to the Presbyterian Church USA but I do know the congregation here in our town is open and affirming.
The Episcopal Church is also open and affirming. The priest that retired last month was lesbian. She and her wife were very well received.
The Methodist Church in the United States recently went through a peaceful separation with congregations refusing to be open.
While there is still some dissent within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, largely because we are a congregational body, I would say close to 80 percent of the congregations are open and affirming.
Do you know of any statistics? I find it very hard to believe that the ELCA is way out front of the UCC on this.
Officially, there are 1055 ELCA congregations that are part of the Reconciling Works program, the open and affirming organization within the ELCA. Another 355 have started the process to become Reconciling in Christ. All the local synods, the dioceses of the ELCA, have taken an open and affirming position as all the seminaries.
But this does not include congregations who are unofficially open. In the congregation I attend, it was open without being an official member of Reconciling Works for as long as I have been a member. The president of the congregation was gay when our family joined 30 years ago. Several young people had come out and the congregation gave them its full support. When we formally decided to join reconciling works it still took about four years to complete the process.
While congregations are slow to join, a good percentage of the clergy would say they are open. More often than not, they know they are ministering to LBGTQA people.
In the ELCA social statement on Human Sexuality the church body recognizes four possible positions a congregation can take.
Some believe that same-gender relationships are not in accordance with Scripture and should not be recognized or supported.
Others hold that same-gender relationships are acceptable when they are lived out in lifelong, monogamous commitments, but they do not support the blessing of such unions.
A third group believes that same-gender relationships are acceptable and should be supported, including the blessing of these unions.
Finally, some affirm that same-gender relationships are acceptable, should be supported, and that individuals in such relationships can serve in public ministry.
After the social statement was accepted many of those who believe same gender relationships were not in accordance with Scripture left the church body. The rest of the church body falls within the other three categories. The congregations that are officially part of the Reconciling in Christ/Reconciling Works organization make up the fourth category, but the vast majority of congregations--and here there are no official statistics fall into the other two categories where they would accept long term monogamous relationships or they would go so far as to bless those relationships, if not allow for their marriage.
Note: since the Human Sexuality statement was passed in 1996, the definition of gender identity has expanded to not only same sex, but to transgender, asexual, bisexual and questioning issues. While there is no official tracking of which congregation is in what category, it seems to me more congregations are becoming more open.
So, there’s a little bit of actual date in your posts, @Gramps49 , and a lot of anecdata. What actual data supports your claim that close to 80 percent of ELCA congregations are open and affirming.
Nick can speak to the Presbyterian Church USA but I do know the congregation here in our town is open and affirming.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Book of Order (our equivalent of canon law) states that a minister may perform the wedding of anyone able to marry under civil law, and that such wedding may take place on church property. This authorizes same-sex weddings without explicitly saying so. However, the Book of Order also explicitly states that “nothing . . . shall compel a minister of the Word and Sacrament to perform nor compel a session to authorize the use of church property for a marriage service that the minister of the Word and Sacrament or the session believes is contrary to the minister of the Word and Sacrament’s or the session’s discernment of the Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God.”
Similarly, the Book of Order allows the ordination of LGBTQ+ persons as deacons, elders or ministers, but no person or congregation can be compelled to elect an LGBTQ+ person to ordered ministry (or to an installed position for a minister), or to participate in such an ordination or installation.
So the current situation is one of many churches welcoming LGBTQ+ persons into congregational life (ditto many presbyteries), while many others, while hopefully not ungracious, may not be as welcoming in terms of full inclusion. The status quo is one of expected mutual forbearance on all sides.
And fwiw, “open and affirming” isn’t a term I encounter too often in the PC(USA). Which isn’t to say that many churches couldn’t be described so, just that it isn’t a phrase we use as much as some other denominations. The two counterparts to the ELCA’s Reconciling in Christ congregations would be More Light Presbyterians and the Covenant Network of Presbyterians. Of the PC(USA)’s approximately 8,500 congregations, somewhere between 250 and 350 (based on the latest info I can find) are More Light congregations. The Covenant Network has 400+ member congregations; that will include overlap with More Light. (The church in your town, Gramps, is not More Light or Covenant Network, as best I can tell.)
The Methodist Church in the United States recently went through a peaceful separation with congregations refusing to be open.
My United Methodists family and friends would use a number of adjectives to describe recent years. “Peaceful” would not, I don’t think, be among them. “Painful” would. I’ve had a number of conversations with United Methodist clergy. It was really, really rough here, and it was worse–including litigation—in other parts of the country.
And just because a congregation stayed UMC does not mean that congregation can be fairly described as “open and affirming,” or whatever term United Methodists use.
Sorry, Gramps, but your claim that “mainline Protestant churches have pretty well resolved the issue of welcoming LBGTQA people” strikes me as glib, as only seeing what you want to see. It doesn’t strike me as reflecting reality.
Just to point out, as an Episcopalian, not all churches or dioceses are open and affirming.
Since 2018, the position as regards dioceses has been that a Bishop who does not support same-sex marriage must invite a fellow Bishop who does to provide oversight of any same-sex marriages that occur within their diocese.
This means that an individual priest who wishes to solemnize a same-sex marriage may do so, even if their Bishop is opposed to the practice.
As regards parishes, individual priests are free to decline to solemnize a marriage for any reason, including but not limited to the fact that they don't want to marry a same-sex couple or a divorcee. Individual rectors retain control of what happens in their parishes, and can choose not to permit a same-sex marriage in their parish.
Some approximation of the open and affirming position is the majority opinion, but there's a significant minority who take the "traditional" position. You can expect a new set of resolutions at this year's Convention that further codify how to manage the compromise of being a denomination that affirms same-sex relationships whilst allowing a minority of members to continue to hold the traditional view.
Some approximation of the open and affirming position is the majority opinion, but there's a significant minority who take the "traditional" position. You can expect a new set of resolutions at this year's Convention that further codify how to manage the compromise of being a denomination that affirms same-sex relationships whilst allowing a minority of members to continue to hold the traditional view.
Right, "traditional" -- because people aren't holding onto this view because of tradition so much as morality, at least as they define it. Traditions that are handed down from one generation to another do change. If something is traditional, you can adjust it to suit people's current needs. If something is right or wrong, you can't just change it.
The Orthodox idea of "Tradition" doesn't really seem like the tradition to me, at least not the way I've seen Orthodox traditions described, because they're too fixed, too immutable.
I think the Orthodox understanding of Tradition is really a different thing from “traditional,” or from a Fiddler on the Roof understanding of “Tradition.”
What the Orthodox mean by Tradition strikes me as the exception to the saying “etymology isn’t meaning.” The Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition is where etymology does shed light on meaning—tradere, meaning “deliver” or “hand over.”
Tradition in the Orthodox sense means the teachings and practices that have been received by one generation and handed over to the next generation, with the understanding that this faithful “handing over” can be traced back to the early Church, if not the apostles themselves.
It’s the idea reflected in what Paul wrote to the church at Corinth: “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, . . . .”
So the key idea, as I understand it, is that the Holy Tradition has been handed down unchanged from generation to generation. By definition, Holy Tradition is not supposed to be changeable.
I am not, of course, Orthodox, so I trust one of the Orthodox folk here will correct what I’ve gotten wrong.
Well, they're obviously not going to pick a different word to suit me! But I wish they would. If they're not going to allow traditions to change, those traditions are basically a closed canon. May as well call them scripture.
This may be getting into epiphanies territory but in my research preparing a reply to Ruth's question I am finding the younger generations, especially the Gen Z generation to be less than half to no more than two thirds of them identify as exclusively heterosexual.
I think the differences between the polls has to do with methodology and the age of the generation respondents. It appears as Gen Z gets a little older, they have a better understanding of who they are.
This is an example of why the Church as to find itself more flexible to which marriages it will solemnize.""
Would it be fair to say the Rite of Marriage is a Holy Tradition, but the nuances liturgy is more of ordinary tradition?
As I said, Lutherans don't make the distinction. The closest to a Holy Tradition is the institution of the Lord's Supper. We go practically world for word with what Paul says in his recounting of the Lord's Supper.
@Nick Tamen and @Ruth, there are far more knowledgeable Orthodox posters here who can better answer those questions.
I s'pose my attempt at an answer would be that yes, @Nick Tamen is along the right lines as to how Holy Tradition 'works' within an Orthodox understanding, but as with all these things there is a degree of elasticity.
The Orthodox do make a distinction between the NT canon and those extra-biblical aspects held within the orbit of Tradition.
Sometimes, it does appear that the boundaries are blurred or even non-existent.
Essentially, we could say that the only real dogmatic core is the Nicene Creed, but that would be rather glib and simplistic.
In practice you get a wide range of views on all sorts of issues within Orthodoxy as you would find in other Christian churches and denominations.
We do some weird stuff. As an aside, we had the ordination of a deacon in our parish yesterday. As he was being fast-tracked without going through the sub-deacon stage he was required to stand before an icon for an hour with a towel over his head and holding a jug of water while the service progressed around him.
His 8 year old daughter was upset because she felt they were humiliating her Dad.
I can understand that but equally I understand the powerful symbolism of this rather arcane ritual - a visual reference to service etc as in Christ's washing of the disciples' feet.
Anyhow, that's by the by, but yes, it would be fair to say that Big Tradition/s hold more of a place for us than they do in other churches.
Which doesn't mean that we switch off our minds or don't laugh at ourselves. The service was solemn and serious in places but there was good natured banter and jocularity too and for all his funny hat and robes, the Bishop brought in a very deft personal and familial dimension.
Would it be fair to say the Rite of Marriage is a Holy Tradition, but the nuances liturgy is more of ordinary tradition?
Not “a Holy Tradition,” no, at least not in the Orthodox sense, if I understand it right. Holy Tradition is understood to refer to a single, unified body of teachings and practices. Scripture and the liturgies, are not Holy Traditions, but rather are both part of Holy Tradition, singular; they are part of the unchanging and unchangeable teaching and practices of the Church.
@Ruth, I get it, though I will confess, I don’t think of changeability as being inherent in the word tradition. Traditions might change (probably slowly), but I’d see a major change as either rejection of an older tradition or “a new spin on an old tradition.”
In anny event, I think the definition the Orthodox use for Tradition is closer to the original meaning of the word. Using the word to specifically describe practices that are allowed to change, that are “how we’ve always done it,” is a later meaning. FWIW.
Thanks. Yes, in Orthodox terms Tradition tends to refer to the core body of belief, and yes that includes particular liturgies and hymnody, iconography etc as well as scripture.
Those are all part of Tradition, singular.
It doesn't refer to regional or ethnic variations in practice, so for instance the Bulgarians may do something differently than the Romanians even though both may 'mean' the same thing by it.
This can cause problems of course. In our study group after Vespers on a Saturday, I've noticed how some of the Romanians and Bulgarians etc ask questions that I would consider to be small t traditions and local variations rather than deeply theological or Big T issues.
Some of these young people have only seriously engaged with their faith now they are living here in the UK and are encountering Orthodox from different countries and cultures for the first time. So it's understandable that differences in practice are going to be where they start rather than meaty theological discourse of some form or other.
That's not to disparage or patronise them. Some of these people seem to absorb the faith kinetically as it were rather than in the more propositional way we are used to 'in the West.'
Again, at the risk of sounding like a stuck gramophone record, we need both.
I think Cardinal Newman was the first to theorise that tradition included the possibility of change, although he described valid change as the development of the core principles.
I'm not so sure about that. As far as I am aware the idea of Tradition has always included scope for some development over time.
What it doesn't have is the Puritan John Robinson (?) thing about, 'the Lord hath more light to bring forth from his most holy word ...'
There is, of course, the idea of the faith 'once for all revealed to his saints' but that doesn't rule out change or development over time within certain parameters.
Arguably, Newman was writing at a time when the RCC was ratcheting up the tightness of Tradition by a few notches. So that will have been the context.
Remember the Pope's declaration, 'Tradition? I am Tradition...'
What it doesn't have is the Puritan John Robinson (?) thing about, 'the Lord hath more light to bring forth from his most holy word ...'
Yes, the full quote—from a sermon preached to those about to set sail on The Mayflower—is:
We are now ere long to part asunder; and the Lord only knoweth whether ever I shall live to see your faces again. But, whether he hath appointed this or not, I charge you, before him and his blessed angels, to follow me no further than I have followed Christ; and if God should reveal anything to you by any other instrument of his, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth by my ministry; and I am confident that the Lord hath more light and truth yet to break forth out of his holy Word.
(Emphasis added.)
It’s interesting to read the quote in context; the line is followed by Robinson’s lament that Lutherans and Reformed of his day were both stuck, as it were, “and will go no further than the instruments of their reformation” (meaning they they will insist on what Luther or Calvin said and nothing else). “This is a misery much to be lamented, for, though they [Luther and Calvin] were precious shining lights in their times, God hath not revealed his whole will to them; and were they now living, they would be as ready and willing to embrace further lights as that they did receive.”
So the quote is not so much about ongoing, new revelation as it is about new understandings of what is in Scripture, and about studying and following Scripture rather than teachers or leaders.
It is unquestionably a particularly Protestant perspective.
Incidentally and if it wasn’t obvious, More Light Presbyterians, which I mentioned above, takes its name from this quote.
We do some weird stuff. As an aside, we had the ordination of a deacon in our parish yesterday. As he was being fast-tracked without going through the sub-deacon stage he was required to stand before an icon for an hour with a towel over his head and holding a jug of water while the service progressed around him.
His 8 year old daughter was upset because she felt they were humiliating her Dad.
I can understand that but equally I understand the powerful symbolism of this rather arcane ritual - a visual reference to service etc as in Christ's washing of the disciples' feet.
That is not missing out being a sub-deacon, just following the most common practice of being a sub-deacon for the minimal amount of time, but still performing his sub-diaconal duty of waiting on the bishop, in this case by holding the jug of water, the bowl, and the towel, ready to wash the bishop's hands before the Great Entrance.
Ok. I must have misunderstood. There was some blurb about it in a handout, which is more explanation than we usually get.
Thinking about it, I do remember him washing the bishop's hands at some point, after a pretty long wait ...
I joked that we could invent various other things for him to do, such as standing barefoot in a bucket of ice or standing on one leg wearing pink braces and a clown's nose while the Bishop and clergy sniggered behind the iconostasis ... 😉
I'll get myself into trouble yet ...
Lord have mercy!
Meanwhile, @Nick Tamen, yes, I remember seeing the full quote from John Robinson (not the Honest to God one) back in my restorationist days.
We used to apply it to ourselves.
The Lutherans and Calvinists had only gone so far. We were taking things further - charismatic gifts, restoring 'David's fallen tent' and the Ephesians 4 ministeries etc etc yadda yadda yadda.
Once we'd done that we'd take over the world!
I kid you not.
I've often wondered what 'more light and truth' would consist of and how it might differ from what we have already. Nobody's really been able to tell me.
I wonder whether the More Light Presbyterians would be able to help and how their 'More Light' would make any difference to what other Presbyterians and everyone else has?
I'm here if @Lamb Chopped and others want to continue discussions started on the thread about receiving communion several times on one day.
And I don't bite.
Nobody is saying that the sky is going fall in or people are going to lose their salvation simply because they receive communion several times in one day. Ok, it's not seen as something that we 'should' do according to Big T Tradition but nobody's saying that people are going to be punished or lose out in some way if they receive communion more often.
Heck, I think it was King Henry II or III who received communion 3 times a day on the grounds that 'whilst it was good to hear about one's Friend, it was far better to meet him face to face.'
Receiving that often sounds excessive to me but it ain't up to me and it would have been a matter between the King and the King of Kings.
Any of us could adhere to Big T Tradition in a propositional or 'head-knowledge' way without showing the fruits of it in terms of showing love and compassion and all the other Christian virtues.
We aren't going to be judged on how many times we received communion but whether we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those who were sick or in prison ...
Everybody seems to get the jitters when I cite the Big T word when observations like the one above are part of that same Tradition and is probably something we'd all agree on.
Relax people.
Try to understand what I'm actually saying not what you think I'm saying.
The reason why any of us here profess the Christian faith at all is because someone has 'traditioned' it on to us and passed it down. Whether by writing a Gospel or an Epistle or preaching a sermon or writing hymns or showing us love and compassion and by word or deed what it means - however imperfectly - to follow Christ.
We can have Big T or small t. What we can't have is no t.
Everybody seems to get the jitters when I cite the Big T word when observations like the one above are part of that same Tradition and is probably something we'd all agree on.
Relax people.
I don’t think anyone gets the jitters.
I suspect some people may get a sense of déjà vu all over again, since it’s really become something of a recurring theme.
The RC understanding is that Tradition is a part of ongoing Revelation. Its the Church interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Spirit. So the early conciliar definitions about the divinity of Christ or the Trinity are not contained in Scripture but are developements in understanding. They are a part of Tradition.
Tradition (as far as I understand it) is about dogma, not practice. Newman was the first to unpick the idea that Tradition (in dogma) develops as the Church deepens its understanding.
Whereas traditions are more to do with how things are done, ranging from liturgical texts to the length of lace on an altar cloth, to what kind of votive candles are used in a particular place. Not to downplay their importance, because these things can loom large in peoples' lives.
Everybody seems to get the jitters when I cite the Big T word when observations like the one above are part of that same Tradition and is probably something we'd all agree on.
Relax people.
I don’t think anyone gets the jitters.
I suspect some people may get a sense of déjà vu all over again, since it’s really become something of a recurring theme.
We really do get it.
Ok. Forgive me, but I think you get it. Not all Shipmates seem to and I apologise if I've got the wrong end of the stick and am doing them a disservice.
Hence my missive about 'man-made traditions' over on the frequency of communion thread.
I may be paranoid and it probably says more about me and my posting style than anything or anyone else but I sometimes get the impression that it's a case of 'Oh no! Here comes Gamaliel. He's probably going to expect us all to grow big beards, wear funny hats and burn our musical instruments or backing tracks...'
Not so much that, but I think we are in danger of getting the "communicating" and "tradition" threads a bit muddled - though I appreciate that one is a spin-off from the other.
I liked your comment (on the other thread!): "I've come across plenty of people who are Pharisaically self-righteous about their lack of formal liturgies, perceived lack of 'tradition' and their belief that they are truer to the NT and the Gospel than those nasty people in that other church down the road". I realise that that reflects your past history (Arthur Wallis and the axe being laid at the root of the tree, perhaps? Or even, though I doubt it, the sectarian spirit of Martyn Lloyd-Jones?).
The question though that I'd like to ask is whether these people are as numerous as they once were? I know that there are still a lot of "Bible-believing" Christians who won't mix with other groups which they feel are shallow, liberal or heretical; but I've not met in recent years anyone who would write off any group except themselves as not being part of the Church.
Yes, I had the 'restorationist' thing in mind and yes, the kind of reformed-flavoured evangelicalism of figures like Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who was much admired in restorationist circles as it happens.
My point though, wasn't so much as to single them out but to suggest that we can become Pharisaical about almost anything and everything, be it the date of Easter, styles of hymnody or iconography or whatever else.
Both the Orthodox and the RCs of course would insist that their Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. 'We have seen the True Light, we have found the True Faith...' as the Orthodox Liturgy has it.
Neither body these days, thankfully, would insist that Christians in other churches are not 'true Christians' or that their churches are 'heretickal conventicles' but you do come across individual blowhards who act that way.
I s'pose the point I'm angling towards is that it's fine to be proud of our own traditions - and I can see why the Baptists value the 'church meeting' and 'soul-competence' for instance.
The Methodists can be justly proud of their hymnody.
The Salvation Army can be justly proud of the work it does with homeless people etc.
In the same way it's fine to be proud of being British or French or Indonesian or whatever else provided it doesn't topple over into chauvinism towards everyone else.
So what I'm getting at is that it's surely fine to celebrate our distinctives, whatever they might be, provided we don't use them as a club to beat other people over the head with.
I know I've laboured the point with the 'man-made' thing but it seems to me that all of us have some kind of concept of divine/human synergia. Baptists, for instance, believe that God works in and through the collective decision-making of the gathered 'church-meeting'.
Orthodox, RCs and some Anglicans would apply that to the great Church Councils (however many they acknowledge and accept.
We'd all generally have some kind of concept of that in relation to the canonisation of the NT.
Is the Baptist 'church-meeting' then a 'tradition of men' because other Christian bodies don't practice it?
Are the Creeds 'traditions of men' because jostling clerics thrashed them out under Imperial diktat?
How do we decide what is a 'tradition of men' and what is a trustworthy saying (or doing) worthy of all acceptance?
How far do we stretch any of this? Is a 'wee cuppie' a 'tradition of men', is an Orthodox priest's flowerpot hat as much part of Holy Tradition as the Nicene Creed?
All those things are traditions of men - women weren't invited to the meetings and councils and what-not. One of the reasons I don't believe in any of it. You can say God works through the imperfect vessels people present, but God could have told those ancient councils that they needed some female representatives. That God did not makes me think God wasn't present. It's all just men talking to each other.
You can say God works through the imperfect vessels people present, but God could have told those ancient councils that they needed some female representatives. That God did not makes me think God wasn't present. It's all just men talking to each other.
I wouldn’t discount the possibility that God did tell those men they needed some female representatives, and they responded with “well, that’s clearly not God talking, because that’s just crazy talk.”
Not so much that, but I think we are in danger of getting the "communicating" and "tradition" threads a bit muddled - though I appreciate that one is a spin-off from the other.
I liked your comment (on the other thread!): "I've come across plenty of people who are Pharisaically self-righteous about their lack of formal liturgies, perceived lack of 'tradition' and their belief that they are truer to the NT and the Gospel than those nasty people in that other church down the road". I realise that that reflects your past history (Arthur Wallis and the axe being laid at the root of the tree, perhaps? Or even, though I doubt it, the sectarian spirit of Martyn Lloyd-Jones?).
The question though that I'd like to ask is whether these people are as numerous as they once were? I know that there are still a lot of "Bible-believing" Christians who won't mix with other groups which they feel are shallow, liberal or heretical; but I've not met in recent years anyone who would write off any group except themselves as not being part of the Church.
My suspicion is that there are plenty who think it but wouldn't say it and wonder why evangelical Anglicans (for instance) are anglican at all...
I think there's still a lot of that around, @Twangist but by and large my perception is that evangelicals are generally more open to Christians from other traditions than they may have been about 30 or 40 years ago.
@Ruth, sure, although I doubt we'd have found any forums (fora?) in many places around the world 1600 years ago where women had much of a decision-making role. Sadly.
It would be interesting to speculate how things may have turned out had they been involved.
All those things are traditions of men - women weren't invited to the meetings and councils and what-not. One of the reasons I don't believe in any of it. You can say God works through the imperfect vessels people present, but God could have told those ancient councils that they needed some female representatives. That God did not makes me think God wasn't present. It's all just men talking to each other.
Terrific post. I showed it my wife, and she cheered.
All those things are traditions of men - women weren't invited to the meetings and councils and what-not. One of the reasons I don't believe in any of it. You can say God works through the imperfect vessels people present, but God could have told those ancient councils that they needed some female representatives. That God did not makes me think God wasn't present. It's all just men talking to each other.
The NT texts show evidence of female leaders of churches having their names masculinised. Patriarchy raising its head again to stifle the contribution of women?
You can say God works through the imperfect vessels people present, but God could have told those ancient councils that they needed some female representatives. That God did not makes me think God wasn't present. It's all just men talking to each other.
I wouldn’t discount the possibility that God did tell those men they needed some female representatives, and they responded with “well, that’s clearly not God talking, because that’s just crazy talk.”
Undoubtedly patriarchy stifled/stifles women, but why didn't/doesn't God intercede? OK, that leads to the usual arguments, as to why God doesn't do things, but I think Ruth's points remain.
All those things are traditions of men - women weren't invited to the meetings and councils and what-not. One of the reasons I don't believe in any of it. You can say God works through the imperfect vessels people present, but God could have told those ancient councils that they needed some female representatives. That God did not makes me think God wasn't present. It's all just men talking to each other.
You can say God works through the imperfect vessels people present, but God could have told those ancient councils that they needed some female representatives. That God did not makes me think God wasn't present. It's all just men talking to each other.
I wouldn’t discount the possibility that God did tell those men they needed some female representatives, and they responded with “well, that’s clearly not God talking, because that’s just crazy talk.”
Comments
And I think the difference between “tradition” and “rule” is that it’s usually the second that a superior might have grounds for taking action if you go against it. Whether they would or not is a different matter. It’s the difference between “we (usually) do it this way” and “we’re required/supposed to do it this way.”
I recall that at the same place some years ago the then Archbishop decided that Mauday Thursday's solemn mass was the ideal time to celebrate the golden jubilee of the late Queen Elizabeth by performing Zadok the Priest with it's repeated Alleluias, even more bizarrely he'd decided the best place for this was after communion, before the solemn procession to the place of repose. I think for multiple reasons this was the most egregious breach of liturgical norms I've ever personally witnessed.
Wow.
I note that the gospels have criticism of the tradition of the elders that overlook the weightier parts of Torah.
Question. How does the adjective "Holy" affect the understanding of "tradition"?
😉
And nice one @Baptist Trainfan but joking aside, this is pretty much how traditions and Tradition develops.
How can it be otherwise?
We work these things out in the context of our particular faith communities and traditions.
Ok. It's confession time.
I am nothing if not eirenic and am always very careful not to 'weaponise' Big T Tradition and to use it as a club to beat my fellow Christians and Shipmates about the head.
I don't always succeed and apologies for that.
On the thread about receiving communion twice in one day, @Lamb Chopped opined that it was no big deal and that God would have told us if it were otherwise - in scripture presumably.
I half-jokingly quipped that God has indeed told us - through Holy Tradition.
And yes, I do believe that.
But this doesn't mean I think God is going to chastise or punish anyone who does things differently or that everyone has to do what I do.
The thing is, it ain't about me and what I like or dislike or my particular preferences - although it is obviously our own personal choice and convictions that lead us to whatever church or faith t/Tradition we inhabit and espouse.
Of course, there are difficulties. Who is to say which of those who espouse some form of Big T Tradition - I'm thinking of the RCs, Orthodox and 'Oriental Orthodox' here - have the right 'take' on it?
Whatever the case, speaking for myself, I am more keen to find and celebrate the overlaps and commonalities between Big T and small t t/Traditions rather than focus on the differences - which isn't to say that I don't acknowledge that these exist.
There is a 'dogmatic core' around which we can all unite.
But to all intents and purposes Big T Tradition does prescribe particular practices and beliefs - be it the Nicene Creed, liturgical seasons such as Advent, Lent and Easter, hymnody, iconography, the scriptural canon and so on.
It's all meant to form a seamless whole.
And yes, it is meant to be a living tradition even though the joints may creak at times.
Tradition is more to do with God continuing to speak to the church and tradition is a case of "we've always done it this way and nobody is going to budge us." I once was organist in a Yorkshire church that had a choir that was of the second type - it wasn't the most musically pleasing experience of my life.
I have seen somewhere that Edward Hope Patten (the priest who restored Marian devotions at Walsingham), when introducing some some new piece of ritual would announce to the congregation: "Next Sunday, as is our custom, we shall do ..."
'Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.'
In Fiddler on the Roof Tevye tries to hold on to Tradition because that is the way it has always been, but as each of his oldest daughters are married off the walls that had been set up because of tradition began to fall. First, the tradition of the matchmaker fell. when the first daughter fell in love with a tailor. Second, the tradition of quiet conservatism fell when the second daughter got involved with a radical. Then the tradition of ethnic separation fell when the third daughter was rescued by a gentile. There were two other younger daughters not of marrying age yet, but the implication is other traditions would also likely fall. The fiddler on the roof symbolizes the precariousness of trying to maintain tradition amidst constant change.
Point is, there is a time when some traditions even in the church have to change. I remember the time when the Roman Church insisted the Mass had to be in Latin, but that changed. Now the Roman church is struggling with how communing divorced individuals conflicts with their teaching on marriage as a sacrament. And, while mainline Protestant churches have pretty well resolved the issue of welcoming LBGTQA people, it is still an issue with other conservative and evangelical bodies.
Change is aways knocking on the door. The issue is how do we address those changes with the message of the Gospel.
Really? Which ones can LGBTQ+ folk feel confident in their welcome in any church of that denomination they attend, or at least feel confident that any hostility will be dealt with appropriately by leaders?
In Australia I think it varies within a denomination.
UCA churches and ministers have the option of having/conducting LGBTQ+ marriages. Some will and some won't. I know of a church where the minister would but the elders wouldn't allow their church to be used, The minister had to use other venues.
Nick can speak to the Presbyterian Church USA but I do know the congregation here in our town is open and affirming.
The Episcopal Church is also open and affirming. The priest that retired last month was lesbian. She and her wife were very well received.
The Methodist Church in the United States recently went through a peaceful separation with congregations refusing to be open.
Do you know of any statistics? I find it very hard to believe that the ELCA is way out front of the UCC on this.
But this does not include congregations who are unofficially open. In the congregation I attend, it was open without being an official member of Reconciling Works for as long as I have been a member. The president of the congregation was gay when our family joined 30 years ago. Several young people had come out and the congregation gave them its full support. When we formally decided to join reconciling works it still took about four years to complete the process.
While congregations are slow to join, a good percentage of the clergy would say they are open. More often than not, they know they are ministering to LBGTQA people.
In the ELCA social statement on Human Sexuality the church body recognizes four possible positions a congregation can take.
Some believe that same-gender relationships are not in accordance with Scripture and should not be recognized or supported.
Others hold that same-gender relationships are acceptable when they are lived out in lifelong, monogamous commitments, but they do not support the blessing of such unions.
A third group believes that same-gender relationships are acceptable and should be supported, including the blessing of these unions.
Finally, some affirm that same-gender relationships are acceptable, should be supported, and that individuals in such relationships can serve in public ministry.
After the social statement was accepted many of those who believe same gender relationships were not in accordance with Scripture left the church body. The rest of the church body falls within the other three categories. The congregations that are officially part of the Reconciling in Christ/Reconciling Works organization make up the fourth category, but the vast majority of congregations--and here there are no official statistics fall into the other two categories where they would accept long term monogamous relationships or they would go so far as to bless those relationships, if not allow for their marriage.
Note: since the Human Sexuality statement was passed in 1996, the definition of gender identity has expanded to not only same sex, but to transgender, asexual, bisexual and questioning issues. While there is no official tracking of which congregation is in what category, it seems to me more congregations are becoming more open.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Book of Order (our equivalent of canon law) states that a minister may perform the wedding of anyone able to marry under civil law, and that such wedding may take place on church property. This authorizes same-sex weddings without explicitly saying so. However, the Book of Order also explicitly states that “nothing . . . shall compel a minister of the Word and Sacrament to perform nor compel a session to authorize the use of church property for a marriage service that the minister of the Word and Sacrament or the session believes is contrary to the minister of the Word and Sacrament’s or the session’s discernment of the Holy Spirit and their understanding of the Word of God.”
Similarly, the Book of Order allows the ordination of LGBTQ+ persons as deacons, elders or ministers, but no person or congregation can be compelled to elect an LGBTQ+ person to ordered ministry (or to an installed position for a minister), or to participate in such an ordination or installation.
So the current situation is one of many churches welcoming LGBTQ+ persons into congregational life (ditto many presbyteries), while many others, while hopefully not ungracious, may not be as welcoming in terms of full inclusion. The status quo is one of expected mutual forbearance on all sides.
And fwiw, “open and affirming” isn’t a term I encounter too often in the PC(USA). Which isn’t to say that many churches couldn’t be described so, just that it isn’t a phrase we use as much as some other denominations. The two counterparts to the ELCA’s Reconciling in Christ congregations would be More Light Presbyterians and the Covenant Network of Presbyterians. Of the PC(USA)’s approximately 8,500 congregations, somewhere between 250 and 350 (based on the latest info I can find) are More Light congregations. The Covenant Network has 400+ member congregations; that will include overlap with More Light. (The church in your town, Gramps, is not More Light or Covenant Network, as best I can tell.)
My United Methodists family and friends would use a number of adjectives to describe recent years. “Peaceful” would not, I don’t think, be among them. “Painful” would. I’ve had a number of conversations with United Methodist clergy. It was really, really rough here, and it was worse–including litigation—in other parts of the country.
And just because a congregation stayed UMC does not mean that congregation can be fairly described as “open and affirming,” or whatever term United Methodists use.
Sorry, Gramps, but your claim that “mainline Protestant churches have pretty well resolved the issue of welcoming LBGTQA people” strikes me as glib, as only seeing what you want to see. It doesn’t strike me as reflecting reality.
Since 2018, the position as regards dioceses has been that a Bishop who does not support same-sex marriage must invite a fellow Bishop who does to provide oversight of any same-sex marriages that occur within their diocese.
This means that an individual priest who wishes to solemnize a same-sex marriage may do so, even if their Bishop is opposed to the practice.
As regards parishes, individual priests are free to decline to solemnize a marriage for any reason, including but not limited to the fact that they don't want to marry a same-sex couple or a divorcee. Individual rectors retain control of what happens in their parishes, and can choose not to permit a same-sex marriage in their parish.
Some approximation of the open and affirming position is the majority opinion, but there's a significant minority who take the "traditional" position. You can expect a new set of resolutions at this year's Convention that further codify how to manage the compromise of being a denomination that affirms same-sex relationships whilst allowing a minority of members to continue to hold the traditional view.
Right, "traditional" -- because people aren't holding onto this view because of tradition so much as morality, at least as they define it. Traditions that are handed down from one generation to another do change. If something is traditional, you can adjust it to suit people's current needs. If something is right or wrong, you can't just change it.
The Orthodox idea of "Tradition" doesn't really seem like the tradition to me, at least not the way I've seen Orthodox traditions described, because they're too fixed, too immutable.
What the Orthodox mean by Tradition strikes me as the exception to the saying “etymology isn’t meaning.” The Orthodox understanding of Holy Tradition is where etymology does shed light on meaning—tradere, meaning “deliver” or “hand over.”
Tradition in the Orthodox sense means the teachings and practices that have been received by one generation and handed over to the next generation, with the understanding that this faithful “handing over” can be traced back to the early Church, if not the apostles themselves.
It’s the idea reflected in what Paul wrote to the church at Corinth: “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, . . . .”
So the key idea, as I understand it, is that the Holy Tradition has been handed down unchanged from generation to generation. By definition, Holy Tradition is not supposed to be changeable.
I am not, of course, Orthodox, so I trust one of the Orthodox folk here will correct what I’ve gotten wrong.
See https://www.vice.com/en/article/teens-these-days-are-queer-af-new-study-says/ versus https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/05/two-thirds-generation-z-identify-exclusively-heterosexual/
I think the differences between the polls has to do with methodology and the age of the generation respondents. It appears as Gen Z gets a little older, they have a better understanding of who they are.
This is an example of why the Church as to find itself more flexible to which marriages it will solemnize.""
Would it be fair to say the Rite of Marriage is a Holy Tradition, but the nuances liturgy is more of ordinary tradition?
As I said, Lutherans don't make the distinction. The closest to a Holy Tradition is the institution of the Lord's Supper. We go practically world for word with what Paul says in his recounting of the Lord's Supper.
I s'pose my attempt at an answer would be that yes, @Nick Tamen is along the right lines as to how Holy Tradition 'works' within an Orthodox understanding, but as with all these things there is a degree of elasticity.
The Orthodox do make a distinction between the NT canon and those extra-biblical aspects held within the orbit of Tradition.
Sometimes, it does appear that the boundaries are blurred or even non-existent.
Essentially, we could say that the only real dogmatic core is the Nicene Creed, but that would be rather glib and simplistic.
In practice you get a wide range of views on all sorts of issues within Orthodoxy as you would find in other Christian churches and denominations.
We do some weird stuff. As an aside, we had the ordination of a deacon in our parish yesterday. As he was being fast-tracked without going through the sub-deacon stage he was required to stand before an icon for an hour with a towel over his head and holding a jug of water while the service progressed around him.
His 8 year old daughter was upset because she felt they were humiliating her Dad.
I can understand that but equally I understand the powerful symbolism of this rather arcane ritual - a visual reference to service etc as in Christ's washing of the disciples' feet.
Anyhow, that's by the by, but yes, it would be fair to say that Big Tradition/s hold more of a place for us than they do in other churches.
Which doesn't mean that we switch off our minds or don't laugh at ourselves. The service was solemn and serious in places but there was good natured banter and jocularity too and for all his funny hat and robes, the Bishop brought in a very deft personal and familial dimension.
One of these both/ands ... 😉
@Ruth, I get it, though I will confess, I don’t think of changeability as being inherent in the word tradition. Traditions might change (probably slowly), but I’d see a major change as either rejection of an older tradition or “a new spin on an old tradition.”
In anny event, I think the definition the Orthodox use for Tradition is closer to the original meaning of the word. Using the word to specifically describe practices that are allowed to change, that are “how we’ve always done it,” is a later meaning. FWIW.
Thanks for the additional thoughts, @Gamma Gamaliel.
Those are all part of Tradition, singular.
It doesn't refer to regional or ethnic variations in practice, so for instance the Bulgarians may do something differently than the Romanians even though both may 'mean' the same thing by it.
This can cause problems of course. In our study group after Vespers on a Saturday, I've noticed how some of the Romanians and Bulgarians etc ask questions that I would consider to be small t traditions and local variations rather than deeply theological or Big T issues.
Some of these young people have only seriously engaged with their faith now they are living here in the UK and are encountering Orthodox from different countries and cultures for the first time. So it's understandable that differences in practice are going to be where they start rather than meaty theological discourse of some form or other.
That's not to disparage or patronise them. Some of these people seem to absorb the faith kinetically as it were rather than in the more propositional way we are used to 'in the West.'
Again, at the risk of sounding like a stuck gramophone record, we need both.
What it doesn't have is the Puritan John Robinson (?) thing about, 'the Lord hath more light to bring forth from his most holy word ...'
There is, of course, the idea of the faith 'once for all revealed to his saints' but that doesn't rule out change or development over time within certain parameters.
Arguably, Newman was writing at a time when the RCC was ratcheting up the tightness of Tradition by a few notches. So that will have been the context.
Remember the Pope's declaration, 'Tradition? I am Tradition...'
It’s interesting to read the quote in context; the line is followed by Robinson’s lament that Lutherans and Reformed of his day were both stuck, as it were, “and will go no further than the instruments of their reformation” (meaning they they will insist on what Luther or Calvin said and nothing else). “This is a misery much to be lamented, for, though they [Luther and Calvin] were precious shining lights in their times, God hath not revealed his whole will to them; and were they now living, they would be as ready and willing to embrace further lights as that they did receive.”
So the quote is not so much about ongoing, new revelation as it is about new understandings of what is in Scripture, and about studying and following Scripture rather than teachers or leaders.
It is unquestionably a particularly Protestant perspective.
Incidentally and if it wasn’t obvious, More Light Presbyterians, which I mentioned above, takes its name from this quote.
That is not missing out being a sub-deacon, just following the most common practice of being a sub-deacon for the minimal amount of time, but still performing his sub-diaconal duty of waiting on the bishop, in this case by holding the jug of water, the bowl, and the towel, ready to wash the bishop's hands before the Great Entrance.
Thinking about it, I do remember him washing the bishop's hands at some point, after a pretty long wait ...
I joked that we could invent various other things for him to do, such as standing barefoot in a bucket of ice or standing on one leg wearing pink braces and a clown's nose while the Bishop and clergy sniggered behind the iconostasis ... 😉
I'll get myself into trouble yet ...
Lord have mercy!
Meanwhile, @Nick Tamen, yes, I remember seeing the full quote from John Robinson (not the Honest to God one) back in my restorationist days.
We used to apply it to ourselves.
The Lutherans and Calvinists had only gone so far. We were taking things further - charismatic gifts, restoring 'David's fallen tent' and the Ephesians 4 ministeries etc etc yadda yadda yadda.
Once we'd done that we'd take over the world!
I kid you not.
I've often wondered what 'more light and truth' would consist of and how it might differ from what we have already. Nobody's really been able to tell me.
I wonder whether the More Light Presbyterians would be able to help and how their 'More Light' would make any difference to what other Presbyterians and everyone else has?
And I don't bite.
Nobody is saying that the sky is going fall in or people are going to lose their salvation simply because they receive communion several times in one day. Ok, it's not seen as something that we 'should' do according to Big T Tradition but nobody's saying that people are going to be punished or lose out in some way if they receive communion more often.
Heck, I think it was King Henry II or III who received communion 3 times a day on the grounds that 'whilst it was good to hear about one's Friend, it was far better to meet him face to face.'
Receiving that often sounds excessive to me but it ain't up to me and it would have been a matter between the King and the King of Kings.
Any of us could adhere to Big T Tradition in a propositional or 'head-knowledge' way without showing the fruits of it in terms of showing love and compassion and all the other Christian virtues.
We aren't going to be judged on how many times we received communion but whether we fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited those who were sick or in prison ...
Everybody seems to get the jitters when I cite the Big T word when observations like the one above are part of that same Tradition and is probably something we'd all agree on.
Relax people.
Try to understand what I'm actually saying not what you think I'm saying.
The reason why any of us here profess the Christian faith at all is because someone has 'traditioned' it on to us and passed it down. Whether by writing a Gospel or an Epistle or preaching a sermon or writing hymns or showing us love and compassion and by word or deed what it means - however imperfectly - to follow Christ.
We can have Big T or small t. What we can't have is no t.
That is physically impossible.
I suspect some people may get a sense of déjà vu all over again, since it’s really become something of a recurring theme.
We really do get it.
Tradition (as far as I understand it) is about dogma, not practice. Newman was the first to unpick the idea that Tradition (in dogma) develops as the Church deepens its understanding.
Whereas traditions are more to do with how things are done, ranging from liturgical texts to the length of lace on an altar cloth, to what kind of votive candles are used in a particular place. Not to downplay their importance, because these things can loom large in peoples' lives.
Ok. Forgive me, but I think you get it. Not all Shipmates seem to and I apologise if I've got the wrong end of the stick and am doing them a disservice.
Hence my missive about 'man-made traditions' over on the frequency of communion thread.
I may be paranoid and it probably says more about me and my posting style than anything or anyone else but I sometimes get the impression that it's a case of 'Oh no! Here comes Gamaliel. He's probably going to expect us all to grow big beards, wear funny hats and burn our musical instruments or backing tracks...'
😉
Or more likely, not 'both/and' again ...
I liked your comment (on the other thread!): "I've come across plenty of people who are Pharisaically self-righteous about their lack of formal liturgies, perceived lack of 'tradition' and their belief that they are truer to the NT and the Gospel than those nasty people in that other church down the road". I realise that that reflects your past history (Arthur Wallis and the axe being laid at the root of the tree, perhaps? Or even, though I doubt it, the sectarian spirit of Martyn Lloyd-Jones?).
The question though that I'd like to ask is whether these people are as numerous as they once were? I know that there are still a lot of "Bible-believing" Christians who won't mix with other groups which they feel are shallow, liberal or heretical; but I've not met in recent years anyone who would write off any group except themselves as not being part of the Church.
Yes, I had the 'restorationist' thing in mind and yes, the kind of reformed-flavoured evangelicalism of figures like Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who was much admired in restorationist circles as it happens.
My point though, wasn't so much as to single them out but to suggest that we can become Pharisaical about almost anything and everything, be it the date of Easter, styles of hymnody or iconography or whatever else.
Both the Orthodox and the RCs of course would insist that their Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. 'We have seen the True Light, we have found the True Faith...' as the Orthodox Liturgy has it.
Neither body these days, thankfully, would insist that Christians in other churches are not 'true Christians' or that their churches are 'heretickal conventicles' but you do come across individual blowhards who act that way.
I s'pose the point I'm angling towards is that it's fine to be proud of our own traditions - and I can see why the Baptists value the 'church meeting' and 'soul-competence' for instance.
The Methodists can be justly proud of their hymnody.
The Salvation Army can be justly proud of the work it does with homeless people etc.
In the same way it's fine to be proud of being British or French or Indonesian or whatever else provided it doesn't topple over into chauvinism towards everyone else.
So what I'm getting at is that it's surely fine to celebrate our distinctives, whatever they might be, provided we don't use them as a club to beat other people over the head with.
I know I've laboured the point with the 'man-made' thing but it seems to me that all of us have some kind of concept of divine/human synergia. Baptists, for instance, believe that God works in and through the collective decision-making of the gathered 'church-meeting'.
Orthodox, RCs and some Anglicans would apply that to the great Church Councils (however many they acknowledge and accept.
We'd all generally have some kind of concept of that in relation to the canonisation of the NT.
Is the Baptist 'church-meeting' then a 'tradition of men' because other Christian bodies don't practice it?
Are the Creeds 'traditions of men' because jostling clerics thrashed them out under Imperial diktat?
How do we decide what is a 'tradition of men' and what is a trustworthy saying (or doing) worthy of all acceptance?
How far do we stretch any of this? Is a 'wee cuppie' a 'tradition of men', is an Orthodox priest's flowerpot hat as much part of Holy Tradition as the Nicene Creed?
We can go round in circles.
My suspicion is that there are plenty who think it but wouldn't say it and wonder why evangelical Anglicans (for instance) are anglican at all...
@Ruth, sure, although I doubt we'd have found any forums (fora?) in many places around the world 1600 years ago where women had much of a decision-making role. Sadly.
It would be interesting to speculate how things may have turned out had they been involved.
Terrific post. I showed it my wife, and she cheered.
The NT texts show evidence of female leaders of churches having their names masculinised. Patriarchy raising its head again to stifle the contribution of women?
Kinda hard to trust them on other stuff then.
That's all religion is.