As someone who is trying to make sense of why Orthodoxy is the
true faith, I look to aspects in her which I find are in conflict with my own
Protestant faith. And the one that stands out the most is that of tradition. In
my personal experience as a Protestant, I was taught to see tradition as not
necessarily bad, but not something that should be seen of equal importance to
the Bible. Like many Protestant Christians, I equated traditions as 'man-made';
now, as someone who is exploring Orthodoxy, I start to see the irrevocable
place that tradition has, especially in the context of faith. In this post, I
will direct my point towards why we should consider church tradition when
considering 'which is the true faith?'
When people look for a church in which to congregate with, they do
it on the basis of 'what tradition does this church follow?' It's inevitable to
do so, because in the context of faith, church tradition is what defines what
one is to believe and how they are to practice their beliefs. If a tradition
appeals to you, it's what you're going to want to adopt as your own. This is
especially true for the Protestant Christian, despite the claim that many
Protestant Christians and groups make that they don't follow any man-made
traditions, just the Word-of-God.
For the Protestant, the only tradition that they subscribe to is
'Sola Scriptura'. Yet, here we must point out that in the Protestant Church,
while many mainstream groups have similar core beliefs, we have 30,000+
denominations with their distinct traditions and names. Why, one may ask? All of these denominations
(including the ones that claim to not be denominations) are subject to the
interpretation and traditions of one man or woman, who started a movement; each
with their own idea of tradition and interpretation of Scripture. Examples
would include Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Seven Day Adventist,
and the list goes on; and within those denominations we would find subset
denominations with variances to what its founder(s) originally had in mind;
tweaked with as to improve its theology, often times to better suit the
understanding of the tradition being propagated. And a lot of times, these
tweaks can be and are issues of conflict within congregations, sometimes
resulting in even more splits.
How is it that most claim 'Sola Scriptura' and yet arrive to
different doctrinal differences? Many would contend that actually isn't the
case, that the majority of those denominations coincide in the essential
doctrines. However, aside from this notion of 'coinciding essential doctrines' (that
in truth ignores the disagreements and divisions that arise from these
essential doctrines) this in turn leads to the important question of whether
the essential doctrine that these modern day Christian groups supposedly share
are in essence the same essential doctrine that was taught in the early Church
during its first centuries before becoming championed by the Emperor
Constantine (a point in history to which many Protestant Christians attest that
Christianity became infused with diabolical corruption at its union with the
State at the hand of Constantine). A quick look at the history of the early
Church, the writings of the early Church fathers, and the history of the Bible
will lead us to the answer that such assumption that what Protestant Christian groups believe to be the same as the early Christians is actually a false one. And
should push us to continue to investigate what the early Church actually
believed.
Of course, one must be
aware that many, after taking a look at early Church history and what the early
Church fathers wrote about, would contend, "The early Christians were
right on some things, but they were also wrong. We may be wrong on some things,
but what they had wrong, we know better now know because of logic." Personally,
I find such a notion ludicrous. If that is their justification for continuing
in what they consider to be the 'right tradition', I would consider it to be a
poor one.
To anyone who makes such a justification, I ask "What
makes the founders and leaders of what we have as a 30,000+ denominational
Protestant Church more special and more authoritative than the early Church
leaders and disciples who, despite their imperfections, fought for unity in the
traditions of the Church, and had received their teachings from the disciples
of the Apostles, and the Apostles who in turn received their teachings from
Jesus Christ himself?" If one considers the importance of the traditions in the Church, one can not ignore that while it's certainly true that the Orthodox Church underwent internal schisms, their traditions (including their theology) are unified. The same cannot be said about the Protestant Church.
The Orthodox/Catholic church overcomes the "problem" of 30,000+ denominations within its on ranks by the very thing pointed out. That is addendums to the present day tradition. In other words without adding to the interpretation of Scriptures by use of church traditions, the Catholic church would have clear schisms also. [Frankly it does among American Catholics] The lack of schisms does not point to strict orthodoxy. To the contrary it point to a synergistic, all inclusiveness labeled orthodoxy. Addendum of church tradition status que is not orthodox, but it is a way to claim validity. That is what I call, "the pot pointing at the kettle and calling it black".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScripture tells us that there were divisions in the early Church when it came to non-essential doctrines . The Apostles never said that the Church would remain united in all doctrines nor did they "fight" to bring such kind of unity within themselves. In fact, the early church was divided over several issues, but these divisions were on minor doctrines and did not affect their main doctrinal stand.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Jesus and the Apostles wanted unity among the brethren. That does not mean there was unity as expected; and that is not a problem. For instance, God wants us to be perfect, but that doesn't mean we are perfect. We are imperfect. Its not wrong to be imperfect; the fact of the matter is that we are striving to become perfect. Likewise, God wants unity in the church. But that does not mean that the Church is united, nor does it mean that unity is the measuring yard to find the true church. Also, just because the church that you go to is united in your doctrines does not mean that that church is the true church. You could be united in false doctrines. And when we look at the doctrines of the Orthodox church, we find that they are very far from what scripture teaches us. The true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right.Alignment with scriptural teaching, (not "apostolic succession") is the determining factor of the truthfulness of a church.
Acts 20:32 "I commend you to God and to THE WORD OF HIS GRACE, WHICH IS ABLE TO BUILD YOU UP and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified (i.e the Church)."