Evangelicals and Tradition
Introduction
Can the church exist without tradition? This is the fundamental question in D.H. Williams’ work, Evangelicals and Tradition. According to Williams, the Protestant rejection of tradition is not only ignorant, since the sola statements of the Reformation are a tradition,[1] but also dangerous. Tradition to Williams is the guide, the rule by which we can evaluate the Christian life. Even if flawed, Williams work is sure to force careful consideration of how one practices faith and tradition.
Overview
Starting off Evangelicals and Tradition, D.H. Williams looks at how conversion was handled in the early church. From there he lays out his purpose of showing that tradition is necessary, as well as defining terms such as ‘Catholic’.[2] After this base, he then moves on to discuss the early Church fathers, how they are viewed in tradition, as well as early issues of canonicity. Williams says that the Patristic fathers stand above the rest of Church history in establishing and giving authority to scripture.
In chapter 3, Williams begins to show that through history, tradition has existed in harmony with scripture. He insists that tradition ensures the correct reading of the Bible. The concept of sola scriptura is also discussed as a possibly dangerous view if taken too far. Tied into this discussion, he looks at how the Reformation viewed tradition originally, compared to how modern Evangelicals view it. He shows how many views held today would have been alien to the Reformers of the sixteenth century.
Lastly, Williams lays out the resources of the ancient church. He correctly feels that few modern Christians understand the treasures available. He lists creeds and confessions like the Nicene Creed and the Jerusalem Creed, as well as books of ancient church practices. The regula fia, or rule of faith, in the ancient church is also discussed in how it can apply to today’s church.
Reaction
It is hard to be ambivalent about Evangelicals and Tradition. Whether one agrees with Williams or not, he requires the reader to think about how they judge church practices. This fresh look is challenging, but necessary for the modern Evangelical church. Too often practices are embraced or condemn without thought and solely based upon what a specific church has done in the past. By examining the total church tradition over time, Williams really makes one think about what traditions are appropriate, and what are not.
Also striking about this work is the portrayal of a symbiotic relationship between tradition and scripture. Often times these two entities are cast as opposites or natural enemies; neither can exist in a balanced and helpful relationship. That is precisely the relationship Williams talks about existing in the early church. Tradition was not the equal of scripture, but it did perhaps provide a baseline of orthodoxy to help understand scripture. It is a fascinating observation that merits consideration.
Review
D.H. Williams makes several good points throughout his book. To begin with, he shows that Evangelicals by-in-large are ignorant of tradition in church history. As Williams says, “A multitude of leaders within the free church tradition…rarely bother with questions about the role of the church’s ancient tradition or its relation to Scripture” (17). Instead, he points out, tradition conjures up images of robed priests chanting and swinging incense rather than what tradition historically was, that is, a practical application of scripture. He rightly argues that this ignorance must not remain within evangelicalism.
Also of importance are the examples he uses to show the true role of tradition by the church fathers. As Williams says, “The tradition, or the catholic teaching, was the distillation of biblical truth and theoretically always existed in an interrelated harmony with Scripture.” (85). He is careful to maintain that while both tradition and Scripture are important to the fathers, they always viewed Scripture as the ultimate authority. As the fifth-century bishop Philoxenus said, “If one should seek something outside of these things which are set down in Scripture, one cannot understand.”[3] Williams also uses Augustine to show the role that tradition played for that father. “They see,[4] or at least believe they see, that they have gained the ability to expound the holy books without recourse to any rules.”[5]
The last great point Williams makes is that the sixteenth-century Reformers were not trying to break free of church history, or tradition, but rather the misuse of that tradition. For example Calvin said, “You know…that our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours, but that all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the church.”[6] Williams stress that the abolition of tradition was not the intent of the Reformation, but rather a restoration of tradition to its complimentary position beside Scripture. It is a lost fact and an important point to ponder.
For all that is good about Evangelicals and Tradition, there are a few lacking points. For starters, William seems to be unsure of the purpose of his book. The introduction states, “The intent of this book, therefore, is not to argue for the legitimacy of tradition but to illuminate its place within Christian thought” (18). However as shown above, he has gone to great lengths to show the legitimacy of tradition in the Patristic church. This internal confusion is shown in chapter three when Williams rails against only literal interpretation of scripture, as tradition includes mystical interpretation, but then after several pages condemns non-literal methodologies. Focus is lacking at times from Williams.
Also problematic is Williams lack of consistency as to what are legitimate traditions, and what are not. When speaking against the individualism of Protestantism brought on by the rejection of tradition, Williams talks about the Council of Trent as the antidote. “In opposition to anyone who interprets Scripture according to his own understanding, the Council of Trent insisted the preeminence of the ‘holy mother church, whose it is to the judge the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures’”[7] (99). While he makes a valid point, his appeal to the Council of Trent for support is, at best, misguided. The same council ruled in favor of adding the Apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical, books to the Old Testament. Certainly Williams is not advocating such a position, but how is the distinction between the two points from the same council to be made? How should the judgment on one issue be accepted and the judgment on the other rejected? Williams, sadly, is silent on such a judgment.
Sources
When looking at the sources listed for Evangelicals and Tradition, one name, cited twice, instantly grabs attention. Bart Ehrman is twice[8] referenced in the resource section. Considering that Ehrman would stand outside of traditional orthodoxy, much less Christianity altogether, it is puzzling that he is cited as a resource for the Patristic fathers. Even if there is valuable knowledge to be gleaned from him, the polarizing nature of Ehrman might turn evangelicals off to the message of Tradition.
Another major source for the book is the Patristic fathers. The church fathers that Williams quotes the most are Origen and Augustine. From quotes by both of them, Williams tries to prove his point. Both are excellent sources; however Williams fails to address that both at times strayed from traditional orthodoxy. Origen, for example, was a forerunner theologically of Arius who viewed Christ as subordinate to the Father.[9] Even Augustine held a transubstantiation view of the Eucharist[10] which the target audience of evangelicals would not hold too. These deviances should not disqualify their quotes, however caution should be applied when looking them.
Lastly, Williams primarily draws from scholarly sources from the 1980s or earlier.[11] This is in part due to the subject matter of the Patristic fathers. It is not as populated a field as others, such as eschatology, are. However, since Williams’ work delves into theological tradition, it is disheartening not to see more recent works being cited. A consistent twenty year gap between book and source is longer than one would hope to find in a serious scholarly work.
Conclusion
Williams poses a significant question for modern Evangelicals. Whether or not they agree with his conclusion, the perception of tradition must be reexamined. By searching the roots of Christianity, Williams shows that tradition has always played a role in the Church and in how the Church is run. Perhaps somewhere between the rejection of tradition in Protestantism and the glorification of tradition in Catholicism, a balance can be reached for the modern believer. Thought provoking and easy to read, Williams’ work is a great read for the scholar and lay person alike.
[1] Williams, Tradition, 125.
[2] Williams correctly shows that the term simply means universal and does not necessarily have to be tied to Roman Catholicism (14).
[3] Philoxenus, Fragment 28. Quoted by D.H. Williams: pg. 89.
[4] In context Augustine is talking about believers interpreting solely by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
[5] Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, preface 4.
[6] John Calvin, Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto, in A Reformation Debate, ed. J.C. Olin (New York: Harper, 1966), 62. Quoted bhy D.H. Williams: pg. 123.
[7] In-line quotation from “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures”, 4th session, April 8, 1546.
[8] Bart Ehrman, ed. After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Bart Ehrman and A. Jacobs, eds. Christianity in Late Antiquity, 300-450 C.E.: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
[9] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Oak Harbor: Logos Systems, Inc., 1997).
[10] Augustine Sermons 227, A.D.411
[11] Of the two works from the 2000s, one is the previously mentioned Ehrman book.
No comments:
Post a Comment