NeoZine » History » The Fear Factor
The Fear Factor
October 26th, 2008 | 25 Comments 
Recommended? 0
Yes! 
No!
traditionalism
The antidote? History proves the Bible is subversive against church traditions and institutions, but it requires courage and a willingness to start fresh. Spiritual revolution was often triggered in church history when people started reading the Bible with new eyes, and it produces a Christianity marvelously consistent with the earliest Christianity.
When Christian communities get tangled in traditions, the “Fear Factor” spreads and grows, and the Bible gets irrelevant and confusing. Grand institutions are built for security, but institutions also snuff-out spiritual life and relationships.
The keeper of God’s word was the Catholic Church, the only religion in all of Christendom. The supreme religious leader, the Pope in Rome, crowned the Kings who became rulers of the Holy Roman Empire stretching from Sicily north to Poland. The Emperor was ruler of the temporal world while the Pope and his Bishops reigned supreme over the Spiritual world. — PBS.org
We call it Institutionalized Christianity to distinguish it from Biblical Christianity, because none of the above is found in the Bible, nor does it resemble anything found in Christianity prior to the collapse of civilization.
And it’s a fear-driven religion.
Codified Confusion
Odd, superstitious, sick and even horrifying traditions began their incubation in the darkness of the Middle Ages, after Rome fell. As the curtain raised centuries later, Christian churches were replaced by a thing called “Christendom”. It was a beast of snarled beliefs still difficult to trace today. They were disjointed, poorly-reasoned beliefs, often mixed with local superstitions and the rampant racism and fears of Medieval Europe.
Transubstantiation, for example, emerged from the Dark Ages stained by bloody purges of Jewish communities, called Pogroms: the burning, looting, murderous slaughter of peaceful, unarmed civilians by “Christian” armies and mobs. “Praise the Savior, Jesus!” they would sing above the screams of burning children and mothers and cursing fathers.
One of the justifications used for slaughtering Jews was Transubstantiation, a widely-held belief in Christendom. This superstitious belief works much like a heavenly Star Trek transporter beam, and Jesus Christ is materialized inside the wine and wafers of Christian communion (to be precise, Jesus materialized but still remained invisible). The Transubstantiation beam begins when a priest utters (in Latin) a precise, somber incantation, similar to a magical spell.
Then comes the weird part: once Jesus is trapped in the wine and wafers, he’s vulnerable (obviously). “Handle With Caution” rules are complex: an altar boy holds a special “Jesus-catching” tool under each communicant’s chin to catch a falling Jesus-crumb before it hits the ground.
But the greatest threat to Jesus-wafers are Jews. They could stab the Jesus-wafers and kill Jesus again, and many times a Jew was spotted sneaking into a church at night with a knife to stab Jesus. Thus the peasants launch another Pogrom against Jewish villages, torch it, and sing while Jewish children and adults are screaming and burning.1 The reader may be offended at this disrespect toward a sacred tradition, but someone should speak for the victims too.
How did this absurd superstition get so enshrined in Christendom? No church councils, scholars or Papal Bulls established it. But bloody massacres surround Transubstantiation, and it’s an emotionally-charged, dogmatic superstition, and by the Early Renaissance it was woven into the culture. No authorities — civil or ecclesiastical — wanted to change it.
Transubstantiation was finally codified and given a (somewhat) thoughtful foundation at the Council of Trent, but that was later, in 1544. Unfortunately, the Bible was overshadowed by the urgent need to combat Protestantism, so preserving “The Traditions” were paramount at Trent. Fear dominated the Council of Trent.
Fearful Traditions
So little thought or discussion supported these strange, new traditions, and it’s nearly impossible to trace with certainty their historical development. Some of these beliefs were appearing by the 4th Century when Constantine dissolved “The Great Church” into Rome’s government. At that time, Roman bureaucrats from the old pagan system jumped on career opportunities with the new Roman church, and maybe some were Christians, but many church authorities were unfamiliar with the Bible. This was especially true for Constantine, the self-proclaimed “Pontiff Maximus” (high priest). He knew precious little about the Bible.
The ignorance factor in the new ecclesiastical order required attention, and Pope “Gregory the Great” undertook the challenge and established many of these gnarled beliefs. He only wanted to rectify the biblical ignorance in his far-flung ecclesiastical empire. Gregory was a formidable intellect, and the precision of our modern calendar is one of his great achievements. He was also perceptive, and saw Roman authority crumbling fast in the 6th Century.
Working under tremendous pressures before chaos descended on Europe, Gregory desperately gathered the writings still accessible from across the empire and tried to distill them in Dialogs and Sermons. He hoped to stabilize Christian beliefs.2 But this was a daunting and impossible task, because he was under far greater pressures in the political arena. There was no longer a Roman Emperor in Rome, so the job fell in Pope Gregory’s lap. One scholar summarizes Gregory’s pickle:
On the one hand he was an able and determined administrator, a skilled and clever diplomat, a leader of the greatest sophistication and vision; but on the other hand, he appears in his writings as a superstitious and credulous monk, hostile to learning, crudely limited as a theologian, and excessively devoted to saints, miracles, and relics. –Norman Cantor
Gregory’s confusing legacy seeded Medieval Christianity with faulty scholarship. One of the most glaring errors was his misinterpretation of Augustine’s writings about salvation-by-grace.3 He thoroughly garbled it, so by the Renaissance a well-entrenched, complex system of religious works emerged which resembled nothing of Augustine’s writings about grace.4
Fear built a foundation of beliefs that incubated in the Dark Ages.
So went the Dark Ages: layers and layers of odd beliefs stacked on top of each other and glued together by the dogmatic minds of feudal Europe. Only a fresh start could unsnarl this tangled web.
The Courage to Start Fresh
It began early in the Renaisance: a fresh return to the Bible, headed by courageous man named John Wycliffe. He was the most eminent biblical scholar in England, and this position made him untouchable.
He dared to break all the rules and translated the Bible into common English!5 The Wycliffe Bible is a treasury of Old English, immanently useful for scholars today.
It was a best-seller! Without the help of printing presses, England was flooded with an astounding number of handwritten copies. People were so hungry to read the Bible after long centuries of church monopoly.
It kicked off a spiritual revival in England as people found spiritual life through the Bible. A movement spread across England called The Lollards (because they muttered when they prayed–a strange thing for those accustomed to the chants of the Mass). Authorities desperately tried to stamp out these subversives, but it was a spiritual awakening impossible to suppress.
The Vatican itself took action soon after Wycliffe’s death, and sent a solemn Anathematizing Committee from Rome to dig up his bones and perform the solemn candle-light ritual that anathematized him (sending him to hell).6 Then they burned the bones and scattered the ashes. Apparently the Vatican thought their ceremony yanked Wycliffe out of his heavenly haunts and sent him to hell where God should have sent him in the first place!
They feared Wycliffe even in the afterlife!
Wycliffe set in-motion a long chain of rebellious movements triggered by more and more common-language translations of the Bible. Huss, Luther, and the brilliant linguist Tyndale all launched famous translations, spurred by Gutenberg’s printing press. Every time the Bible hit the streets, people rebelled en masse against ecclesiastical authorities and their unbiblical traditions.
Tyndale’s efforts were especially brilliant, because he went to Amsterdam to leverage new printing technology that reduced the entire New Testament into a palm-sized, highly-subversive format that flooded England.
The Fear-Killer
At last, here is a well-grounded fear: the subversive nature of the Bible! It attacks the assumptions of the authorities. It exposes so many of the silly, flimsy traditions that maintain social order through fear, such as racism, sexism, and slavery. When it was written, Christians were killed and hounded because they had the courage to rise above the rigid social order of the Roman world:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28 (NASB)
Such words coming out of the 1st Century AD were unparalleled for thousands of years. Still today the holy scriptures of all the other world religions maintain strict dividing walls between the sexes, races, and rigid social castes.7 But the Bible calls for Christians to understand that with Jesus,
He Himself is our peace, who made both Jews and Gentiles into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, Ephesians 2:14
The Bible’s greatest threat against tyranny is its attack against blind faith, a tool used by religious overlords to dominate ignorant masses. Richard Dawkins is almost silly in his stereotype of “biblical blind faith”, when in fact the Bible says blind faith is reprehensible:
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 2 Peter 1:16 (NASB)
“Blind faith” is one of the most insulting rumors spread against the Bible, considering the many superstitious, blind-faith institutions and beliefs it overthrew in history. Dawkins was one of the chief perpetrators of it until he met Lennox at an Oxford debate in 2007.8
It’s no wonder the “god of this world” wages an all-out war to keep the Bible out of circulation. People hold an unreasonable fears about it, like it’s the only book in the world nobody can really comprehend, and trying to do so might warp the human mind. Even in the modern era communists were terrified of Bible circulation, not because it contains a call-to-arms like Karl Marx’s writings, but because the Bible promotes independent, free thought.
Without any clear idea of why they’re so scared, people are strangely aversive to reading the Bible for themselves.
Today the same fear of reading the Bible for oneself still rages in people’s hearts. I once gave a copy of The Scarlet Thread to a friend (a survey of the Bible), and he began reading it voraciously. He was amazed as he read the Bible for himself without a priest! But he was Serbian and Eastern Orthodox, so when his priest found out he was engaged in a self-taught Bible study, the man’s enthusiasm was drowned with dour warnings about how complicated the Bible is, how dangerous it is to read it without a formal seminary education, and how nearly-impossible it is for anyone to truly understand. My Serbian friend dropped the project like a hot potato.
He was too afraid to study the Bible himself!
Spread the Revolution!
Contrary to popular myth, the Bible is easily understood by the common man. Wycliffe’s generation could understand it, and they rediscovered a revolution of spiritual life. Certainly our modern generations can grasp it far easier: we’re better-educated, can access more study tools, and we don’t have to hide and study the Bible in dark caves by candle-light!
History is undeniable proof that the Bible contains something wonderful and revolutionary. Authorities were terrified to see it falling into people’s hands. These authorities knew the Bible challenged their traditions and threatened established order. Yet this is precisely why God wants the Bible spread as far and wide as possible:
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery! Galatians 5:1
The Bible is anything but oppressive! It prods, challenges, uproots, revives and revolutionizes the human heart. The Bible propagates freedom, according to its own claims.
At Xenos we’ve stumbled accidentally upon this amazing fact: when a Christian group breaks out of the traditional 10-20 minute “homily”, when people really teach and study the Bible, when everyone engages in it, then hearts come alive by it. Then people care very little for organ music, choirs, “sacred” Worship Services, and the musty, old traditions of the Medieval church.
Footnotes:
- See Rausch, Legacy of Hatred, with extensive documentation of the racism surrounding Transubstantiation. [↩]
- See Olson, The Story of Christian Theology. [↩]
- Augustine, On Nature and Grace, an attack on the Pelagian view of salvation-by-works. [↩]
- See The Story of Christian Theology, Gregory the Great, in loc. [↩]
- Download and read Wycliffe’s translation to get a feel for ancient English. His Bible is one of the earliest English writings, and almost 200 handwritten copies remain today. [↩]
- See The Dawn of Covenant Theology, where we describe the superstitious ritual of Anathema. It requires a papal delegate and 12 other preists standing around in a circle, with candles, repeating a strict forumla similar to a witch’s spell. [↩]
- Islam is famous for its demeaning and even cruel treatment of women who won’t conform to the Koran’s dress codes. The Hindu scriptures are famous for a cruel caste system and its doctrine of women as those who must pay the price of bad kharma from a previous life — including the practice of burning widows alive on their husband’s funeral pyre. The Book of Mormon is also notorious for its injunction against allowing blacks to become Mormons, up until the late 1900s. [↩]
- Dawkins was left flustered and speechless because his was unable to build his case against Christianity when Dr. Lennox proved that “blind faith” was despised in Biblical Christianity. Without an false, dysfunctional faith to argue against, Dawkins becomes quite hobbled in his crusade against Christianity. Lennox: “For Christianity, faith isn’t blind. Delusional gods are roundly condemned in the Bible…” See the 2007 Dawkins-Lennox debate online. [↩]
Related posts:
Filed under: History · Tags: catholic theology, church history, institutionalized church, reformation, reformed theology, Reviews
25 Responses to "The Fear Factor"
Leave a Reply
In This Edition
- Detroit Police Harassment - Californians not allowed to define marriage by Smooth Jazz (8/11/10)
- Federal Court Declares Families ‘Unconstitutional’ - Californians not allowed to define marriage by Jackie (8/10/10)
- Federal Court Declares Families ‘Unconstitutional’ - Californians not allowed to define marriage by Smooth Jazz (8/10/10)
- Federal Court Declares Families ‘Unconstitutional’ - Californians not allowed to define marriage by Greg (8/10/10)
- Federal Court Declares Families ‘Unconstitutional’ - Californians not allowed to define marriage by Adam Esterle (8/10/10)
- Sacred Space - the objectification of religion on 8/31/10
- Strange Details in Stephen’s Defense: A New Accounting - understanding sacred space on 8/12/10
- Federal Court Declares Families ‘Unconstitutional’ - Californians not allowed to define marriage on 8/10/10
- Detroit Police Harassment - what is your opinion? on 8/3/10
- The Outlaw World - an introduction and primer on 7/14/10
Subscribe!
Loading...Bible Teachings!
New Webs!
Fear. Now that is a weighty four letter word. I have been considering how man’s default mode in the presence or activity of the Lord is fear. Whether it is on a large scale as the institutionalized church or on a more personal level. We seem to rely on our rules or the law to relate to God. Rules eliminate the need for personal love relationships – a love relationship that Christ’s life manifest here on earth.
As believers we are set free from the bondage and death of sin – Christ set us free so that we may live life and live it abundantly. A life lived in love is free from the fear of punishment. This freedom ought to be a true impetus towards growth – yet so often I find that I or others stumble about – trying to love others as if we still live in the dark. Why is that?
It helps me to recall that I have not only been set free from the bondage of sin but that I can freely approach God through grace:
Hebrews 4:14-16
14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. 16Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
Grace combats the deep freeze and paralysis of fear. Our hearts become alive when we move towards the heart of God – He causes growth in us so that we can move towards others. We can love others without fear.
This just amazes me. Life lived in grace and by grace is so worth risking failure. Thanks for writing this article. I look forward to more.
While reading this I shutter to think what my evangelical-turned-Catholic friend might say if she stumbled across this. But there it is again: fear. I’ve been afraid to boldly denounce the church traditions which have held people captive for so long. The contents of this article are exactly what I’ve wanted to communicate to her as what is wrong with traditional Christianity, Catholic or Protestant. But I never recognized that fear was the key motivation in church history. It makes perfect since though, given the political concerns and the scandalous nature of grace, as well as humans’ fear of change.
This is so strange…Lisa is asking us about fear at home church? Should I share about my fearful Catholic past? I think I will…
A 4-letter word, that’s good, Lisa! I’ll bet Jesus feels that way about our “hallowed” fears, and just shakes his head like he did with his disciples when they started belly-aching. Good rundown on the implications of fear, Lisa – undoubtedly, rules are always “safer” (or so they seem, until they tie you all up, and then they’re monsters!).
[...] (taught earlier this year). “Fearless” is a precise title. It is antithetical to The Fear Factor characterizing [...]
that was sweet
[...] The Fear Factor – is a bridge to these new ministry efforts, especially the “sending” strategy underway. [...]
Excellent post. Now if we could just find a church in Cleveland that teaches Christ without the “sacred cow” traditions that don’t have a Biblical basis.
This will begin a series of posts, as invited by Mrs. McCallum, to correct the errant information in the above article. We have been discussing this article, which I believe to be both uncharitable and libelous in regards to the Catholic Church, on theophiles.org. Any members of this site are welcome to join us for discussion.
Fear the Catholics! They bring man-made traditions! Fear the Catholics! They killed Jews! Fear the Catholics! They are superstitious! Fear them!
For an article that talks about being a fear-free church, I see a lot of fear that someone would be entangled with the Catholic Church. Most of this fear shows itself as exaggerated rhetoric, ascribing the worst motives to Catholics, and distortion of Catholic beliefs. Fear the Catholics! They aren’t Biblical! They are Institutionalized!
And so, because of fear, you shed Tradition and replace it with personal interpretation of Scripture, in contradiction to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”. And this personal interpretation of Scripture has led to 30,000 Protestant denominations, where Tradition has guided the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church for almost 2000 years.
Now before we get too far into Tradition, I should probably explain what Tradition is. Sacred or apostolic Tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different. Tradition is not legends or mythological accounts or customs or practices which may change.
Why should we have Tradition? Well, at the top of this article it implies that “Christianity marvelously consistent with the earliest Christianity” is desired. So, we should go to the Church Fathers to see what they say about Tradition:
Eusebius of Caesarea writes:
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition”
Irenaeus writes:
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
and
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Clement of Alexandria writes:
“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).
The list goes on and on of Church Fathers affirming the necessary role of Tradition to prevent heresy. And in fact, we can see this in the early Church.
There were many disagreements in the Early Church. The nature of the Trinity and the nature of the Incarnation were two of the enormous ones. All sides had scriptural backing for their positions. These disputes were settled at various Councils using Tradition and it is only via Tradition that the natures of the Trinity and the Incarnation can be determined. The Bible simply does not give us enough information on these topics. BTW, search your Bible for the words Trinity and Incarnation. You may find the concepts, but you won’t find the words. (More on that in a different post.)
Tradition is essential in understanding the Bible. Those who have done away with apostolic Tradition have created their own. Their Tradition consists of things like “Believer’s Baptism”, “Sola Scriptura”, and “TULIP”. But these are new Traditions and inconsistent with the Early Church Fathers.
Should you fear Tradition? Only if you fear loving correction.
That is a very well-documented and poignant response, Entity. Thanks for taking the time.
But “libelous” is, I think, a misplaced word. In 2004 John Paul II apologized for almost 700 years of inhumane crimes under the Holy Office of the Inquisition against Jews and other “hetetics”. Was John Paul being libelous? Was he also fearful?
You capitalize the word “Tradition” like “Bible”, but I think any “Tradition” that tortures, maims and burns people alive should be questioned, don’t you? Why revere such Tradition?
If the Pope apologized for the Tradition of the church, doesn’t that mean Tradition is flawed?
If by “loving correction” you mean thumb screws and burning people alive, then yes, Tradition is “loving correction”.
I should clarify that my respect for the “early church” is very much limited to the Apostolic Age, not the Post-Apostolic Era. Those you quote, above, are mere men who were not inspired by the Holy Spirit to write scripture. They are no different than you or I. That doesn’t mean everything they write is bad, but it does mean their writings deserve much scrutiny — and the same for my writings, or yours.
Your quotation of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is a much-abused passage by advocates of Tradition. It explicit says, “the traditions which you were taught by us” and not by someone else. Would the church bureaucracy have us believe their Tradition is on equal footing with Paul the Apostle?
Here is the definitive statement on why Tradition is not so good:
Mark 7:13 “thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
Why do I capitalize Tradition? This is common for many Catholics to designate between Tradition (the doctrinal teaching of the Church from the Apostles) and tradition (a method of doing things). There is no church doctrine (Tradition) that would say to have pogroms. Many Protestants confuse infallibility and impeccability, saying that because the popes have sinned and some have been very flawed, that this disproves infallibility, which has to do with the teaching of doctrine regarding faith and morals. However, they are unrelated, just as Tradition and evils done by the church are unrelated. The sins of Paul do not invalidate his writings.
I should clarify that my respect for the “early church” is very much limited to the Apostolic Age, not the Post-Apostolic Era.
2 Timothy 2:2 states “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” Oral Tradition is instructed here to be passed on and considering that the canon of the New Testament was not determined until approximately A.D. 367, oral tradition was all they had to guide them to which scriptures were inspired.
I would presume that you consider the matter of the canon of the New Testament closed. On what authority do you accept the canon as presented? The table of contents are not part of inspired scripture. If you do not rely on the Tradition of the Church in this matter, what has determined the canon?
Would the church bureaucracy have us believe their Tradition is on equal footing with Paul the Apostle?
Paul’s writings found in the NT or Paul’s oral teachings? Because in the Apostolic Age, other than the Old Testament, of which there were multiple canons, they did not have most of the writings. Most everything was oral teaching (Tradition) at that point.
Here is the definitive statement on why Tradition is not so good:
Mark 7:13 “thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
That is why the Church teaches that Tradition cannot conflict with Scripture. Only traditions that conflict with Scripture are ruled out in that verse.
A website that gives a good explanation of Tradition is http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp. I hope you will take the time to read it so we can be using the same definition of the words.
I look forward to continuing this dialogue.
I appreciate your answers, and they show a real thoughtfulness and understanding of Catholic theology.
Your interpretation of Mark 7:13 is especially thoughtful, and clearly you put God’s Word in its proper place as the definitive authority for Christians. On this point we can agree as Christians, and it’s not a small point.
I, for one, appreciate the scholarly work available to us from church history. The findings of church councils can be very helpful, although no church council can claim to hold authority over God’s Word.
However, I’m afraid you over-emphasize the role “oral tradition” played in the growth of the church. Even while the Apostles were living, they were acutely aware of each other’s writings, and referred to them as “Scripture”.
For example: 2 Peter 3:15-16 (NASB) …just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The above verse torpedoes the “oral tradition” model. They were aware of each others writings during the Apostolic age, and also called them “inspired” like “the rest of Scriptures”.
For obvious reasons, the Roman Catholic church is the originator and strongest proponent of this obscure and unverifiable “oral tradition”. It assumes great importance in Catholic dogma. If it is so vital, why isn’t it clearly articulated in the Bible? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 can only describe Paul’s teachings while visiting Thessalonica, and 2 Timothy 2:2 describes the process of Christian discipleship, like Matthew 28:18ff. It is very uncharacteristic for Paul to be so vague about something so vital.
Because it is so vague and unverifiable, “oral tradition” is a multi-headed hydra of eclectic beliefs.
Each of the “church fathers” you cited above write about the “Scriptures” we call the “New Testament” today, and they all pre-date your 367 date. (Apparently chosen because we’ve found a letter from that year mentioning the word “canon”?) Irenaeus is very early (2nd C) and is in possession of almost all the NT books (See citation here.).
There is no church doctrine (Tradition) that would say to have pogroms
The Holy Office of the Inquisition surely must qualify as the most elaborate and devastating pogrom ever launched against European Jews (mostly in Spain and Italy), and it was established and confirmed by a long succession of Papal Bulls. This was an evil institution, a central pillar of Roman Catholic authority and rule throughout Europe, and not merely a sinful “slip-up”. Without that “Holy Office” there would be no Roman Catholicism today.
Now please understand, I’m not saying the Vatican is the same today. It isn’t. But I am saying the Vatican is capable of perpetrating great wrongs, just as Protestants have also done. Please read “Heartless Institutions” and my equally-harsh critique of Protestant institutions — we fare no better.
Mr. McCallum,
If the Roman Catholic Church were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow, there would still be Tradition. Surely, you are aware of the Eastern Orthodox? This is not properly understood as a Roman Catholic/Protestant matter; that is a very parochial view.
“Oral Tradition” is what led to the writings which we affectionately know as “The Bible”. There was a generation between the time when Jesus was crucified and when the first Biblical writings were made. There were several generations between when Jesus was crucified and when the last Biblical writings were made.
Let’s also clarify what “Oral Tradition” really means. It means the stories which were told, the sayings which were recited liturgically, the very contents of the life of the Church (universal). This “Oral Tradition” alone was the witness of the Church (universal) for a generation. It may not have been entirely oral, of course, that’s a bit of a misnomer.
Lastly, the Bible itself is the product of Tradition. Some writings were included, others were excluded. Why? How? This process of sorting and sifting and gathering took hundreds of years. Yeah, sure, Mark was in pretty much from the beginning. But Revelation was not. Hebrews was not. John was not. At least in some places, that is. The Church (universal) eventually formed a consensus in the mid-300′s, which we all must trust to have been the work of the Spirit. There is no Bible apart from the Tradition which selected it.
And that, really is what Tradition is; the work of the Spirit in the Church (universal). It cannot be inconsistent with the Bible, or it is not properly Tradition.
I commend the following article to you for your consideration:
http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm
My apologies for neglecting our distant cousins in the east. It is a parochial & Western view to overlook the Orthodox — especially reprehensible since they are the original & true custodians of Tradition, from which the Roman See departed. (Am I mistaken on this?)
It’s a little unclear what time span you envision between the original events and the historical writings, but I presume you mean the NT was written in the Apostolic Age under Apostolic authority. Which means, of course, the role of “Oral Tradition” is fairly scant if eyewitnesses are recording their own narratives. Although the historical record leaned on oral testimonies (cf. Luke), it’s really a misnomer to call “eyewitness testimony” an “oral tradition” — unless you’re late-dating the original manuscripts beyond the Apostolic Age, and that’s an altogether different discussion.
It is true as the centuries dragged on and various corrupt parties began pandering forgeries (eg, the Gnostic “Gospel of Thomas”), and as more opportunists entered the fray with forgeries, the need to clean out the garbage became quite pronounced. However, it is untrue that Christians were without the corpus of authoritative Scriptures until Constantine called for consensus. I already cited Peter above, and all the 2nd C Fathers were clearly in possession of the texts.
Most notably, “canon” didn’t become an issue until much later precisely because it was not confusing until later.
Having said all that, I’m not denying the authoritative nature of Christian Orthodoxy. “Testimony” is the right term to apply to the long history of Christian consensus, and our concensus involves the most vital doctrines which define Christianity. It is best to keep the Christian Testimony centered on the tenants of Christian Orthodoxy, such as the Nicene Creed.
But it’s the “short history” of “Testimony” I find so implausible, and I’m not alone: Eastern Orthodox churches also reject the Council of Trent, for example, and other “Church Councils” the Roman Catholics held among themselves (claiming the rest of us are bound by them), not to mention the multitude of Papal Bulls.
While I agree Christian Orthodoxy is authoritative, I disagree that its authority is equal with that of the Scriptures themselves. And just as a preemptive strike (because I know the response), let’s be clear that “Canon” is a different question than “Inspiration”. The Canonization by later councils did not confer divine Inspiration on the original MSS — church councils merely acknowledged what God did, and He did it without their help.
Unfortunately, being in a meeting all day, I don’t have sufficient time to respond to this, so I’m going to do the easy-out thing and post a link. Alex Jones was a Pentecostal pastor who began studying the Early Church. Read here for his results.
BTW, he is a noted speaker and I believe the Akron area would be within the area he is willing to travel. I can understand how he would be threatening for a Protestant church, but if you want an expert on early church worship, this is the guy to invite to talk. He is a deacon at a few churches.
And just to clarify, as per Entity: “There is no Bible apart from the Tradition which selected it” — if the “Bible” is God-inspired Scripture, as it claims to be, then there was most certainly a Bible long before anyone “selected” it. “Tradition” simply acknowledged what already existed. “Tradition” takes a back-seat role, and we all hate back-seat drivers, don’t we?
P.S.: for Metallurge — I’m amazed at how the so-called scholar you cited doesn’t know anything about 2 Peter 3:15-16…I hate to sound so derogatory, but it’s such a glaring omission that I can’t help pointing out what most entry-level Bible students know!
He makes an elaborate case that the epistles weren’t really considered “Scripture” until the 4th C., relying on Nestorians (well-known heretics) — then leverages Muslim scholar Abu-el-Quasim ibn `Askir to make the case for “Oral Tradition”?
Holy Jamoly. We’re expected to believe that oral traditions are more reliable than written records? Quoting `Askir, “Do not take them from written records, so they may not be touched by the disease of textual corruption.” There’s a brilliant point: oral tradition is more reliable than the written record.
“Thus, the church existed for roughly twenty years with no New Testament books, only the oral form of the teaching of the apostles,” he says. But it is well-known and well-attested that the Disciples immediately wrote down their collective memories in what German scholars dubbed the “Quelle”, or Q-source. We don’t have it today, but their scholarship is difficult to refute on this point, and he’s apparently unaware of it. Papius from 100 AD said the Apostles called it “The Logos”. So I think his case at least has some historical holes in it.
His paper tries to elevate “Oral Tradition” primarily on the premise that “Canon” was not established until later. But it’s a ludicrous argument: he admits all the churches possessed inspired Scriptures, and they recognized them as inspired, yet somehow he fails to understand that “Scriptures” was the operative term used by early Christian churches, not “Canon” (a term which became important only later in response to the proliferation of new forgeries).
He goes on and on about the unsurprising fact that some church libraries were incomplete for several centuries. And what does that prove? Only that church libraries are under-funded, as they are today!
From Entity: “Oral Tradition is instructed here to be passed on and considering that the canon of the New Testament was not determined until approximately A.D. 367, oral tradition was all they had to guide them to which scriptures were inspired.”
I don’t think you mean this. They had all the writings from apostolic and non-apostolic or psedopigraphic sources in front of them that they had to sort out. It wasn’t oral tradition that carried them for 300 years. It was many things written down.
@Entity re: opportunity to hear about “Worship Services” — why bother?
Why bother to hear about Early Church worship services?
At the beginning of your article, you commented on “a Christianity marvelously consistent with the earliest Christianity.” I just thought you and your church might want to hear from an expert on what the earliest Christianity was like, so that you could have “a Christianity marvelously consistent with the earliest Christianity.”
Hehe, but Entity, you might have missed my point that my respect for the “Early Church” ends with the Apostolic Age. The superstitions & traditions that crept in after that are actually quite yucky!
Well then, the church had certainly jumped the shark by the time it decided the canon of the OT and the NT and settled disputes about the Incarnation and the Trinity. How do you know that Arius wasn’t right? It wasn’t the Twelve Apostles who settled the matter. Maybe the Trinity and Incarnation are just superstitions and yucky traditions!
But Entity, I’m not saying the “Church Fathers” & Co. were useless.
I’m just saying they’re no different than you or me, and what they have to say is “interesting”, maybe even useful. Certainly not “hallowed” — nor on any equal footing with the Apostles, by any means.
That’s the part I don’t get: I’ve studied those Jamokes extensively. Origen cut off his testicles. So what? The “Church Fathers” had issues just like Ted Haggart. I’ve read sharper minds from other eras.
These so-called “Church Fathers” are way over-rated, and the 12 Apostles whom Christ chose as the real “Church Fathers” — along with their writings — are way under-rated.
Frankly, I can’t think of any “Church Father” who could hold a candle to Francis Schaeffer, and besides, Schaeffer’s more relevant. The old Church Fathers did a good job against Nestorius, but our real fight today is against Dawkins & his foaming hatred. So John Lenox is a far more worthy read than Tertullian today, even though Tertullian was certainly a worth read once — still is, to some degree.
I have been very reluctant to comment further, but I will make some additional observations.
The question of Tradition and the authority of the Church as the keeper of authentic Tradition and authentic little-o orthodoxy is a very important one. Whom shall we believe?
I believe that the Church (universal), the Body of Christ, stretches back to Jesus in its unity, that we have inherited the faith transmitted to us by those who came before us in Christ. The Spirit is one, not many. We are unified in Christ with the very first believers. We ought to be concerned to see that our faith would be recognized as little-o orthodox by those who came before. The heresies which the early church fought are the same heresies which we must guard against today, truly they are!
As an aside, as Entity rightly pointed out, it took a very long time to resolve many theological issues of little-o orthodoxy which we consider settled today. Are you a Trinitarian? Do you believe Jesus is fully-God and yet also fully-human? Do you believe the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament? Do you believe matter is evil, and spirit is good?
It’s not as though true Christianity disappeared from the scene after the apostolic age. It’s not as though we today have received the Bible as a distant message in a bottle washed up on our shores. We are not left to scratch our heads as to its meaning. The Spirit informs us, yes. In community. Not only in our present community, but in the community which stretches back to the original disciples themselves. The Body did not disappear from the scene until it was somehow reconstituted in these latter days! May it never be so!
The Body has been damaged greatly through schism. We have been unable to convene an ecumenical council for nearly a thousand years! Is it any wonder that the voices of the Church Fathers seem distant and less-relevant?
As another aside, it is interesting to me that you would select Origen and Tertullian to mention by name… What of Athanasius? Or John Chrysostom? Or the Cappadocians?
We shall see if Francis Schaeffer or John Lenox is still being studied in a thousand years or two, as these are.
I think the real fight we are in is largely an internal one against sin. How many church leaders today are seen to be Holy? How many Christians witness to the world of the glory of God, through the way they live their lives? Are Christians known today in the world by their love? Not nearly enough. Not nearly enough! I will leave the Richard Dawkins of the world in God’s hands. He can change even them, for He changed me and rescued me from my own body of death. Praise be to God!
We are called to love even Richard Dawkins with the love of Christ.
Well certainly here is where we can agree with a great spirit of unity, brother: that Jesus is Lord, the Risen Christ who saved us from our sins, and he is the head of the church universal, which is his Body, and God is certainly big enough to work through all the many different organs of the church.
The differences between Christian ‘traditions’ does not trouble God as much as it troubles us, I think. Are we not biased towards own traditions? Even at Xenos we have our ‘holy traditions’ which I’m sure some young upstart will challenge some day.
Consider God’s own Word: 1 Corinthians 11:19 (NASB) For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
This kind of “shakeout” is indeed the final arbiter, and it’s God’s will. Maybe your traditions are indeed superior to mine. I don’t think so, but we should give each other the freedom to practice the tradition(s) each of us have received. Wether “our faith would be recognized as little-o orthodox by those who came before us”, as you said above, maybe so. But I doubt it, because I think we’re “standing on their shoulders”, so-to-speak, benefiting from their work as well as their mistakes (I’m not going to cut my balls off like Origen, believe me).
Now you can purchase a Baby Bibb to advertises your own tradition of “worship”!
In the final analysis, it isn’t important what you or I believe, but rather what God believes, and for that I think His revealed Word is a very competent instrument–much more so than church councils. Church councils didn’t invent the Trinity: God already existed as three persons in one essence. The writers of the NT believed God was three persons in one essence, and that’s what matters (that’s the criteria used by church councils, too). Of course, the work of the Council of Nice provided a very helpful way to explain what was already known (certainly known by the NT writers).
But also there was much useless wrangling with obtuse nuances in the history of theology, and too many church councils were caught up with such silliness.
Here’s the negative side of the legacy of church councils: did you know the division between eastern & western Christianity boiled down to a dispute over ONE WORD in one of the creeds they were arguing over? That’s right. Did Jesus “issue forth from the Father” or rather “issued from the Father”?
I wrote a definitive article on this entire matter of church tradition, and it’s very short and to-the-point: read The Wrong Schlong and I think you’ll understand.
Hey Some good interesting content on here. Nice work.