I would love to use this blog as a reflection point for things I'm learning in class. Here's an excerpt from an online discussion for our Christian Tradition class:
"Our whole discussion Tuesday blew a lot of my "boxes" up. Driving home from class, I could feel the shifts rumbling inside:
• The interpretation of the Church being of higher value than the inerrancy of Scripture
• The very human factor in the formation of the Canon versus a view that pretty much calls the Canon innerant as well
• The value of church tradition rather than it being stuffy and old
• The value of Catholic and Orthodox traditions rather than them just being those "could be born again (i.e. but not likely)" people.
I am beginning to view the role of tradition as far more important in Scripture and its interpretation than I ever did before. Community begins carry even more weight in light of this. I find myself fascinated to learn more about these ideas but also scared of the sacrifice it might require to become less independent and more dependent on my faith community. I think this is difficult in our culture especially. We have been taught that independence and freedom is of the utmost value, no matter the cost. Viewing tradition, church community, as the anchor for our faith and interpretation flies in the face of the American Dream in many senses..."
Thoughts?
7 comments:
Sounds really interesting. A couple weeks ago on a Tuesday night Jeff talked about boxes that we live in, and basically said, there is no box.
There is no box for us to be stuck in. Which in turn leads to a lot of freedom.
Cool stuff, would be fun to be going through these classes with you guys.
-A
First let me say that I hope both you and Matt do this more - I want to vicariously get a Masters with you.
Second, I get nervous with discussions like this - I realize the impact of tradition and I believe all of the dissension in the Christian faith usually boils down to tradition verse perceived biblical interpretation. The reason I get nervous is that I feel like a lot of Catholics are hindered in their spiritual walk when church tradition speaks on par with scripture, in the effect that they don't even read the bible. But the same bad practical theology happens on the other side too (kinda like Calvinism vs. Arminianism) when people assume their denominations/churches/pastors interpretation of scripture is inerrant.
Thus one persons conversion experience came with a conviction that they should not go to see movies, so everyone else then shouldn't go. Which as I write it sounds stupid, but there were tons of people in the church I grew up in that believed movie theaters were sinful - (or dancing/drums in worship/nose piercings/tattoos/dressing up for church, ect, ect).
This is why I really appreciated some of the Rob Bell/Ray Vander Laan discussion on rabbis. They expanded my understanding about how each rabbi was interpreting the Law for God's people, each had a slightly different take on how it should look. So we all have this responsibility to study and seek to know God more and live it out. But it will look different for each person - which is totally American.
Hopefully I'm making sense, but if I'm going to error, I want to error on the side of something more objective than human tradition, which is why I believe the scripture builds a more objective foundation (still with tons of subjective interpretations).
I'll shut up now.
Church community=family
Kevin, thanks for your thoughts!
You mentioned that our traditions can have pretty varied views when it comes down to the nitty gritty. I forgot to explain that by "tradition" I mean it in the broader sense of the foundations that have held true over centuries. Many of the "traditions" that I think our generation is reacting to right now aren't really traditions in this sense. I didn't realize until recently how new many of our North American Protestant traditions really are.
You also mentioned wanting to have a more objective foundation than human tradition--the idea that Scripture is more objective. I think it's really a both/and type of thing since 1) yes, Scripture was chosen as the texts that were believed to be most in keeping with Christ's teachings, but 2) the texts in our canon were not only written, but also compiled by humans. Seems like a lot of room for messiness and subjectivity. Actually, as we have started exploring some of the early church controversies and where the majority landed (forming things like our Nicene Creed). These processes were fraught with not only messiness but also flat out sickness. People making very political moves, fighting for power, position, etc.
That's where my faith is in something larger than both Scripture and tradition: the person of God himself. I love that I can trust that he and thus his redemption will triumph despite all of our blunders...
Anyway, enough of my thoughts for now. :)
p.s. live vicariously through us all you want! :) we'll appreciate the opportunity to process what we're learning with people and continue being challenged to think through things!
Hey I was talking to a friend of mine recently in Indiana. Anyways, she said that she has a few blogs her and her friends link to off my site. Yours is one of them.
So keep the mid-west in mind as you write!
Let's me you and Matt grab some coffee here soon!
I'm with you on the broader definition of tradition, but I'm still not totally with you on the greater than scripture and tradition part. I totally get what you mean and I understand the frail 'humanness' that compiled the canon - but it is the way in which God chose to condescend His infinite knowledge to our quite finite brains.
At best it is a work of humans (power struggles, personalities, biases and the like), so God will always be beyond the text, but as humans I believe we must live within the text. It is the best objective thing we have to define our lives by. I think God has given us enough to build boundaries with and then given us plenty of room to be diverse within those boundaries.
My fear is that some will take a conversation like this and feel that they can then chose to take some of the text and not all of the text.
The other question would then arise, what does it mean in Proverbs and Revelations when it says to not add to the text? Is that only for the books they're in?
But it is convoluted at best. The canon was decided on and I can put my trust that God had his hand in that, but that is also tradition then too.
Post a Comment