Sunday, November 20, 2005

Tradition

[This short entry on Tradition was a brief devotional piece I gave at church this Sunday night, and therefore the original audience was a congregation of protestant Christians. This was by no means an attempt at a substantial exposition on my understanding of the church's tradition, nor even a well-thought-out essay, but merely a comment given to a group of believers about my appreciation for Christian tradition in a time when many of my peers shy away from such a notion.]

Tradition. What comes to your mind when you hear that word? Does it remind you of all the things you ought to do because you were told to? Do you think of a time-honored practice or principle? Do you think of the way religion should be and how things are changing too fast? For some of you does it evoke an emotion of scorn and contempt for things people have told you must be done “for the sake of tradition?” Do you think of those things your parents love about church that you don’t understand? While tradition can refer to customs and habits, or an inherited pattern of thought or action, I would like to paint for you a healthy picture of Christian tradition.

My most basic understanding of the word tradition comes from its Latin root, tradere, which can mean: to hand over, surrender, deliver; to hand down, bequeath, transmit, pass on; to relate, recount; to teach. Now, of course, that Latin word does not mean all those things in every context, but it can help us understand what Christian tradition is: the principles and practices of our faith that have been delivered, handed down, or passed on to us; the very gospel that we must relate, recount, and teach to people new to the Christian faith.

Throughout the life of the ancient church, before there were any major divisions, the holy fathers of the church gathered in ecumenical, or universal, councils to deliberate and affirm matters of the Christian faith. In the year of our Lord 381, in Constantinople, the holy fathers gathered with such a purpose. There, and at every ecumenical council thereafter the following creed was confirmed. We should not think that this creed was written at the councils, but rather it was already in usage in the churches, and was merely affirmed by the fathers to be the true faith handed down from the Apostles and the fathers of the faith. It is known today as the Nicene Creed, and is the Christian doctrine most agreed upon by churches East and West, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestant denominations, including ourselves. This has meaning to me, since it is the gospel that we share, the creed that unites all of Christendom, despite our divisions. This is the creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, and we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

What has been handed down, or passed on to us? Isn’t it more than just all the things our parents told us to do in church? Isn’t it even more than any creed we have said? Having heard and believed the gospel of Christ, have we not been instructed in true piety and devotion, whose essence consists of: holistic, loving obedience and service to God; love and service to others; submission and obedience to those in authority over us; and the proclamation of the good news? And have we not learned that these ends may be accomplished by means of prayer, attention to the Holy Scriptures, continuing in the sacramental life of the church, and full reliance on God—so that we may be enabled by his Spirit to exhibit the divine virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness and self control?

This is the whole gospel—my tradition, and I hope yours as well: We have heard the good news, and, having turned from the Devil and sin, we believe in Christ’s words, life, death, and resurrection. These have been preserved in the writings of Scripture and the teachings of his Apostles. Let us obey what we have heard, imitating Christ and continuing in him, that we may participate in the Divine life of God, and hope for his eternal kingdom.

Let us be thankful for this gospel tradition, and let us hand it down, deliver it, pass it on to our families, to our friends, to our enemies, and to all who have ears to hear.

2 comments:

  1. Great point to make . . . I am definitely interested in the historicity of your statement . . . and I would rather not be sick to my stomach when I find out the truth, but as we all know, history does not always reflect what we wish it did. From what I have heard from educated people on this campus is that many heretics recanted. But I have no empirical data for you. I'll look into it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. rob,

    I don't really see the connection between your comment and Scott's post besides the superficial connection of content, that being you are commenting on the creed itself.

    You have made a statement but not really made a point. I wonder what it is you are trying to convey? The most common discipline in the Early Church for heretical teaching was excommunication, anathema. Yes, Christianity of the Middle Ages struggled with using more violent means to end heresy, yet this was by no means a faithful adherence to the biblical narrative. The historical context of the age does help us to understand the great concern to eliminate such heresies but the manner in which it was conducted can hardly be called Christian.

    But that really has very little to do with Scott's post. Does the fact that men have use immoral means of opposing heresy invalidate the veracity of the creed? By no means. The creed Scott posted lays down essentials of the Christian faith; the reality is that if you cease to believe it you cease to be Christian. While one may choose to deny its content they may do so while acknowledging they are no longer within Christian orthodoxy.

    Heresy is one of the gravest sins because of its temporal ramifications. A "different take" on Christianity may not just be a "different take" but may in fact be heretical and therefore be unorthodox. So all that to say I still am not sure what point you were trying to make. By no means am I attacking you but really seeking clarity from your comment.

    ReplyDelete