Christian tradition and Protestant denial of it

[Mary Meg]

So let me preface by saying, I know not all Protestants are the same and I know they don't all deny Christian tradition in the same way. Once again, where I'm coming from is a very small corner of the American Evangelical world -- but most of what I have seen personally looks like this.

One of the first things I got interested in that led me to want to study the Early Church is wondering what happened to all the Apostles after the New Testament ends. The story seems to just end abruptly with Paul sitting in house arrest, then some time later we see John stranded on the Isle of Patmos. And most everybody around me seemed, oddly, to be content with that. I asked questions, and the general answer I got was, "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say."

That didn't really sit well with me. I studied history, and we knew exactly what happened to Augustus Caesar and all his family, even where they were buried. We had stories about people from the same time period as the Bible in the history of the Roman Empire... but when it comes to Jesus's disciples, they seem to have simply sailed off the map of history. When I pointed this out, somebody responded, "I guess they just weren't that important to history."

Weren't that important to history? Christianity changed the face of the whole world, and these Apostles were the men who carried it to the ends of the earth! And what happened to them wasn't important to anybody to record or remember?

And then, with a sickening feeling, I began to realize that that wasn't exactly true.

Protestants (meaning Evangelicals) just don't read those books. Not only do they not read them, they pretend they don't exist. It's probably true that most of the people I asked simply didn't know any better, but somewhere along the line, somebody consciously declared, "We know there are these traditions, and we're going to ignore them."

Why ignore them? Because they're "Catholic"? Is everything "Catholic" automatically untrue? I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

The line I hear again and again is "we don't need 'traditions of men'". But that isn't at all what Jesus was even saying. Tradition is the handing down of knowledge, about who we are and where we came from. It doesn't have to be an obstacle to faith, but can enhance it and even inform it.

So yes, I guess I'm complaining a lot in this post, but it had a point when I started. How does your particular group handle the early history and tradition of the Christian Church? If you embrace it -- do you verify it? If you treat it with skepticism, why and how? If you ignore it as unimportant, why?

 

[Dave-W]

Protestants (meaning Evangelicals) just don't read those books. Not only do they not read them, they pretend they don't exist. It's probably true that most of the people I asked simply didn't know any better, but somewhere along the line, somebody consciously declared, "We know there are these traditions, and we're going to ignore them."

Why ignore them? Because they're "Catholic"? Is everything "Catholic" automatically untrue? I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

Many will not like my answer to that.

It was NOT the first time in the history of the church that an "absolute severance .... separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe," happened. It occurred in the middle and later 2nd century following the Bar Kochba revolt where Rome destroyed the entire province of Judea, scattered Jews all over the empire and came down hard on everything that even looked Jewish. So the church leaders did an absolute severance from the Judaism that our Lord and the Apostles were true to, they separated themselves from all cultural and religious understanding that made the backdrop for the gospels and letters, and denied that New Covenant believers could even keep any cultural traditions from Judaism.

Once that has been done, it is much easier to do it again. And again. And again ...

 

[Mary Meg]

It occurred in the middle and later 2nd century following the Bar Kochba revolt where Rome destroyed the entire province of Judea, scattered Jews all over the empire and came down hard on everything that even looked Jewish. So the church leaders did an absolute severance from the Judaism that our Lord and the Apostles were true to, they separated themselves from all cultural and religious understanding that made the backdrop for the gospels and letters, and denied that New Covenant believers could even keep any cultural traditions from Judaism.

Forgive me... but can you explain the connection to me? Wasn't the Roman state also cracking down on Gentile Christians? Why would the destruction of Judea by the Roman state lead Christians to turn against the Jewish background of Christianity rather than cling to it?

As I've pointed out before, I see fault lines between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians long before Bar Kochba -- and it had much more to do with Jewish persecution of Christianity than Gentile persecution of Judaism.

That's not to say that the loss of the Jewish context of Christianity wasn't sad and even devastating... But Paul makes it clear that Gentiles don't have to be Jews or observe Jewish laws or festivals to be Christians. He wrote his letters in Greek for the wider world, not in Hebrew for the select few who could read them. Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers goes to pains to express Hebrew concepts in Greek. The Hebrew context is surely important, but apparently, nobody thought it was essential...

 

[AMM]

I am Eastern Orthodox now, and we have a very high view of history and tradition. However, I used to be Lutheran - I believe Lutherans are very unique in the protestant world in that they accept tradition, they read the writings of the "church fathers" (people after the apostles), and they follow similar worship practices to the ancient church. My introduction to Christian tradition as a Lutheran is actually what eventually brought me to Eastern Orthodoxy

 

[Mary Meg]

It was NOT the first time in the history of the church that an "absolute severance .... ...

And in any case, it wasn't an absolute severance. The Christian Church retained and insisted on reading and holding to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. There were people who wanted to discard them as unimportant or even contrary to the New Covenant, but those people were soundly rejected.

 

[Dave-W]

So yes, I guess I'm complaining a lot in this post, but it had a point when I started. How does your particular group handle the early history and tradition of the Christian Church? If you embrace it -- do you verify it? If you treat it with skepticism, why and how?

We go back to the pre-church traditions. Start from there, the Judaisms (yes - plural) of the first century. What fits with New Covenant theology and what does not?

As to church traditions, we look at them from a Jewish viewpoint. Believers in Messiah are given the task in Romans 11 to make them (traditional Jews) jealous. So we have to have something that they recognize as theirs but they do NOT have it presently. If we have something totally foreign, they will never be jealous for it.

Romans 11:11
I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.

We treat anything that is NOT the Gospel that becomes off-putting to Jews to be treated with skepticism and usually ends up rejected.

 

[Dave-W]

And in any case, it wasn't an absolute severance. The Christian Church retained and insisted on reading and holding to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament. There were people who wanted to discard them as unimportant or even contrary to the New Covenant, but those people were soundly rejected.

And that is a miracle of GOD imo. Those who wanted to delete them were in the majority.

 

[Mary Meg]

We go back to the pre-church traditions. Start from there, the Judaisms (yes - plural) of the first century. What fits with New Covenant theology and what does not?

So -- thinking like a historian -- what are your sources for understanding first-century Judaism(s)?

So we have to have something that they recognize as theirs but they do NOT have it presently. If we have something totally foreign, they will never be jealous for it. ... We treat anything that is NOT the Gospel that becomes off-putting to Jews to be treated with skepticism and usually ends up rejected.

The fact is, though, that the Church did lose the Hebrew context for something like 1700 years. For that long, there was no Messianic Jewish Christianity. So, do you deny it? Ignore it? Is that not exactly the same thing Protestants have done?

What I'm talking about, again, is traditions that inform us about the history of the faith. Not even anything at all to do with doctrine. Factual items like what happened to Peter and Paul, where the different Apostles ministered, where Jesus's tomb was. Is that to be treated with skepticism -- or as unimportant?

 

[Mary Meg]

And that is a miracle of GOD imo. Those who wanted to delete them were in the majority.

Says who? History records Marcion was branded as a heretic very early on and though he continued to have followers, what makes you say they were in the majority?

 

[Dave-W]

Forgive me... but can you explain the connection to me? Wasn't the Roman state also cracking down on Gentile Christians? Why would the destruction of Judea by the Roman state lead Christians to turn against the Jewish background of Christianity rather than cling to it?

Up until Bar Kochba, the Roman government did not see a difference between Judaism and Christianity. That is shown in Acts where the governor refers to Paul as a leader of the Sect of Nazarenes. "Sect" was the term used for Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, etc. IOW, just another branch of Judaism.

As I've pointed out before, I see fault lines between Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians long before Bar Kochba -- and it had much more to do with Jewish persecution of Christianity than Gentile persecution of Judaism.

Yes, those fault lines existed. I am not sure either side could entirely wrap their heads around the idea that Gentiles could be in covenant with the God of Israel without becoming Israelites themselves. So Christianity had to be an entirely new thing, a new religion.

Those fault lines should have been healed. Instead they got worse.

 

[Peter J Barban]

My churches/denominations and there have been many in both America and Taiwan do not see any practical use for church history. It appeals mostly to intellectuals who long for tradition/roots. It does not appeal to progressives or pragmatists. While I know a great deal about church history, from and have even translated part of the Didache, no one really needs my knowledge. There is always something more helpful to share than church history.

If I, as a teacher and Christian intellectual, have no need of my historical knowledge except to type away on forums, how can busy pastors and church leaders have time to study or use such things?

Most regular people only have the attention span to focus on the sermon of the week, current events, and how to get by every day. Just get used to the fact that you are not normal/average.

Also, knowledge puffs up.

 

[Dave-W]

So -- thinking like a historian -- what are your sources for understanding first-century Judaism(s)?

Thouseands of documents exist from that time period. OF course there are the Mishnah and Talmuds. Beyond those there are hundreds of other writings, both religious and secular that describe a LOT of the first century Judean life.

 

[Dave-W]

Says who? History records Marcion was branded as a heretic very early on and though he continued to have followers, what makes you say they were in the majority?

Marcion was only the most egregious one in that camp. Many more wanted to eliminate the Hebrew scriptures. That is in part why the Orthodox use the Septuagint instead of the actual Hebrew text.

 

[Mary Meg]

Marcion was only the most egregious one in that camp. Many more wanted to eliminate the Hebrew scriptures. That is in part why the Orthodox use the Septuagint instead of the actual Hebrew text.

As far as we can tell, all four Gospel-writers used the Septuagint instead of the actual Hebrew text -- placing these word on the lips of Jesus -- as did Paul, at least in many cases. This could either be out of convenience, in not having to translate Hebrew into Greek when it had already been done (I can tell you, translation is hard work), or possibly because whoever was writing didn't know Hebrew. Many people in first-century Judea didn't. Aramaic was the primary spoken language in northern Judea (Galilee), and many people didn't speak Hebrew at all. It's entirely possible Jesus didn't speak Hebrew, or much of it if He did.

And that's probably why most Christians ended up using the Septuagint: because after just a little while, almost nobody knew Hebrew. (And after a little while longer, almost nobody in the West knew Greek...)

 

[Dave-W]

This could either be out of convenience, in not having to translate Hebrew into Greek when it had already been done (I can tell you, translation is hard work), or possibly because whoever was writing didn't know Hebrew. Many people in first-century Judea didn't. Aramaic was the primary spoken language in northern Judea (Galilee), and many people didn't speak Hebrew at all. It's entirely possible Jesus didn't speak Hebrew, or much of it if He did.

If the greek text was NOT directly taken from the Septuagint (as you say for ease of translation, and also to make sure it was correctly written) then what would have been taken was one of the hundreds of Targums in Aramaic.

Our Lord would have been fluent in Aramaic and would NOT have taught in either Greek or Latin. Little known thing - He had a disciple (Simon) who was of the sect of the Zealots. Had our Lord been speaking anything OTHER than Hebrew or Aramaic, a Zealot would have stayed far away.

Sometimes niggling little details like that become important.

 

[Mary Meg]

Our Lord would have been fluent in Aramaic and would NOT have taught in either Greek or Latin. Little known thing - He had a disciple (Simon) who was of the sect of the Zealots. Had our Lord been speaking anything OTHER than Hebrew or Aramaic, a Zealot would have stayed far away.

Yes, it's pretty clear he spoke primarily Aramaic, since Mark and Matthew take the time to put those words on His lips and explain them.

 

[Strugglingsaint]

So let me preface by saying, I know not all Protestants are the same and I know they don't all deny Christian tradition in the same way. Once again, where I'm coming from is a very small corner of the American Evangelical world -- but most of what I have seen personally looks like this.

One of the first things I got interested in that led me to want to study the Early Church is wondering what happened to all the Apostles after the New Testament ends. The story seems to just end abruptly with Paul sitting in house arrest, then some time later we see John stranded on the Isle of Patmos. And most everybody around me seemed, oddly, to be content with that. I asked questions, and the general answer I got was, "Nobody knows, the Bible doesn't say."

That didn't really sit well with me. I studied history, and we knew exactly what happened to Augustus Caesar and all his family, even where they were buried. We had stories about people from the same time period as the Bible in the history of the Roman Empire... but when it comes to Jesus's disciples, they seem to have simply sailed off the map of history. When I pointed this out, somebody responded, "I guess they just weren't that important to history."

Weren't that important to history? Christianity changed the face of the whole world, and these Apostles were the men who carried it to the ends of the earth! And what happened to them wasn't important to anybody to record or remember?

And then, with a sickening feeling, I began to realize that that wasn't exactly true.

Protestants (meaning Evangelicals) just don't read those books. Not only do they not read them, they pretend they don't exist. It's probably true that most of the people I asked simply didn't know any better, but somewhere along the line, somebody consciously declared, "We know there are these traditions, and we're going to ignore them."

Why ignore them? Because they're "Catholic"? Is everything "Catholic" automatically untrue? I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

The line I hear again and again is "we don't need 'traditions of men'". But that isn't at all what Jesus was even saying. Tradition is the handing down of knowledge, about who we are and where we came from. It doesn't have to be an obstacle to faith, but can enhance it and even inform it.

So yes, I guess I'm complaining a lot in this post, but it had a point when I started. How does your particular group handle the early history and tradition of the Christian Church? If you embrace it -- do you verify it? If you treat it with skepticism, why and how? If you ignore it as unimportant, why?

I'll try keep it as brief as possible.

Church history is important for us, in that it helps us have an overview of what has happened since the Early Church, gives us an insight, their writings give us other point of views or confirmation on beliefs regarding the Bible etc...

However, it (church history and the early church fathers) is not to replace Scripture, does not hold authority over Scripture and does not affect our salvation (although it might give insight to Soteriology or whatever the case may be).

Everything we need for salvation and sanctification and life and godliness is revealed to us in Scripture and we don't need anything extra Biblical, no more revelation needed as it has been perfectly revealed in the Bible for us. I hear you say "What about..." yeah that's for another discussion, for the sake of not going on another debate, I will assume you understand why we have the Canon we have today.

Furthermore, the Apostles ceased after John died. As in there is no apostolic succession, because no-one meets the requirements to be an Apostle (and thus hold a sort of "Thus says the Lord" authority).
Hope that sheds some light on at least how we view things.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

This is something that I have been concerned with as well. Being Lutheran to start with and nondenominational Charismatic after that, before my adventures into the Eastern Churches that started just before I turned 30. I have some very elaborate analogies and anecdotes why I believe this is a mistake. I will save those for future Blog posts here or maybe even future threads on the subject. But the proverbial ostrich with the head buried in the sand does come to mind, and its easy to cite. And I will also answer with 2 easy anecdotes.


The first was my visit to the "Computer History Museum" when I lived in Silicon Valley. At the time when I visited that museum 5 years ago, I was pretty confident I had a good understanding of the history of computing after reading various books and watching various programs on Discovery, History Channel etc. I knew that there were analog computing machines, and ancient ones as well, but in spite of my past education I only knew a fraction of what was there. (I really only thought of computing as a modern digital thing, that had some antecedents in analog computing, adding machines, sewing punch card machines, abacus, etc.). The tour changed by assumptions, where I realize that analog was the norm, and our digital computing is really just a new way of building on that, but in a way that also transforms it (a bit like a new covenant).

Welcome | Computer History Museum


There was a great Jewish article (non-messianic) that describes the role of history and heritage in Jewish identity. It was called "Like Children and Not Like Slaves". It spoke very eloquently of Jewish identity in terms of the past, especially in Existentialist terms. In the Bible, the Jews largely got their identity from their tribe. The promises that God made to them for an inheritance were largely tied up to their specific tribal allotments. Slavery however posed a specific threat to them; because slavery tended to erase people's knowledge of their history (not knowing their parents) and that also touched on their ability for hope because that historical link was severed so that also impacted their hope to inherit from the promises of God etc. And of course it had other detrimental affects (erasing the context by which we understand things etc.).


Anyway that kind of void also is true in Christianity as well except that it is self imposed and considered beneficial. I however don't think it is largely beneficial. The saying "Nature abhors a vaccum" comes to mind and I have seen aspects of that first hand. (Where Protestants, especially "Spirit Filled" ones (Charismatic and Pentecostals) preach things based on scriptural assumptions. And those assumptions, are reminiscent of the saying/joke of "What happens when we assume?".)


Anyway back to the museum of computing! I always knew my past Evangelical outlook on seeing history as purely supplemental was problematic, but it only dawned on me much much later how much it was. We do not study any other subject this way! And the fact we treat the topic of faith this way shows there are some pretty powerful ideologies at work behind the scenes.

 

[Dave-W]

Everyone - please pray for Mary Meg and her family. They are under a very bad storm with tornadoes in it.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Why ignore them? Because they're "Catholic"? Is everything "Catholic" automatically untrue? I really don't understand this absolute severance that seems to define the Protestantism I know -- separation from everything that came before, denial of anything that isn't expressly what we believe. Scripture as the absolute and only source of knowledge -- not just about faith, but about history and science and other things too.

I will add the only thing worse that someone claiming "That is unscriptural" / "unbibical" (when they don't have any other background of Christianity and Judaism outside the interpretation of their faith tradition), is when Protestants do end up studying Church Fathers after they have been goaded by Catholics and Orthodox, and do so purely out of spite. It is a case of "Be careful what you wish for."