Fascinated by Hank's journey. Used to listen to him, often annoyingly so, when he was the "Bible Answer Man" so when I saw he was confirmed into the EO Church I was quite amazed. Jarislav Pelikan as well.
So of course there are debates and attacks and defenses as to his move and the arguments against EO. One that stood out, however, was from the daughter of Walter Martin. She stated that the EO do not look to the Bible as the final authority.
If you've spent any time studying what it is the EO believe you'll find that is not accurate. What they do believe is that the interpretation of the Bible is what is key and that interpretation is through the lived and share experience of The Church.
I tend toward the EO idea that as the Bible itself was formed within Tradition then the common idea of 'Bible alone' as sole authority loses its footing. The books chosen were developed within Tradition and the writings within those books were developed orally within a Tradition and the use of these books even today occur within Traditions. Even outside of the RC and EO church, mainstream denominations develop a Tradition and beyond this the non-traditional churches all develop their own tradition within which to support a body of believers.
So if the 'Bible only' is all that matters, the challenge is understanding why so many denominations and why it is that there are so many different interpretations of the same book.
I think the strength of Tradition isn't so much that it is on equal weight as the Bible (I think that is a false dichotomy) but that the Bible is the anchor against which Tradition is based. If a Tradition is in conflict with Scripture I don't believe that Tradition will stand without 'Tradition' to safeguard Biblical interpretation the risk is ever present for the individual to become the interpreter which, taken to a logical conclusion, makes the individual god.
As for those who criticize the bureaucratic nature of the Church (usually stereotyped as the Catholic Church), the non-denominational variety running amok today will inevitably become institutionalized. It is the natural trajectory of the doings of men. What was once liberating and free ultimately becomes structured and this structure is bureaucratic in nature or it is a free-for-all. We are not the Spirit and therefore must lean on the Spirit to guide us which means that in order to do this boundaries are needed. Those boundaries are the structure(s) of the Church.
It's already been done once, though obviously we are fallible men so our history of said Church is a testament to this, and anyone who thinks we are free from it happening again are missing the larger historical picture of how it developed in the first place. The debates going on about 'doctrine' today, though in a new cultural context, are little different than those of the first few centuries.
I tend toward the EO idea that as the Bible itself was formed within Tradition then the common idea of 'Bible alone' as sole authority loses its footing. The books chosen were developed within Tradition and the writings within those books were developed orally within a Tradition and the use of these books even today occur within Traditions. Even outside of the RC and EO church, mainstream denominations develop a Tradition and beyond this the non-traditional churches all develop their own tradition within which to support a body of believers.
So if the 'Bible only' is all that matters, the challenge is understanding why so many denominations and why it is that there are so many different interpretations of the same book.
I think the strength of Tradition isn't so much that it is on equal weight as the Bible (I think that is a false dichotomy) but that the Bible is the anchor against which Tradition is based. If a Tradition is in conflict with Scripture I don't believe that Tradition will stand without 'Tradition' to safeguard Biblical interpretation the risk is ever present for the individual to become the interpreter which, taken to a logical conclusion, makes the individual god.
As for those who criticize the bureaucratic nature of the Church (usually stereotyped as the Catholic Church), the non-denominational variety running amok today will inevitably become institutionalized. It is the natural trajectory of the doings of men. What was once liberating and free ultimately becomes structured and this structure is bureaucratic in nature or it is a free-for-all. We are not the Spirit and therefore must lean on the Spirit to guide us which means that in order to do this boundaries are needed. Those boundaries are the structure(s) of the Church.
It's already been done once, though obviously we are fallible men so our history of said Church is a testament to this, and anyone who thinks we are free from it happening again are missing the larger historical picture of how it developed in the first place. The debates going on about 'doctrine' today, though in a new cultural context, are little different than those of the first few centuries.
No comments:
Post a Comment