Seventh Sunday after Trinity, 2002

How These Sources of Knowledge are Interdependent

One of the fundamental distinctives of Anglican thought is the proper recognition of the interdependence of Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. These three sources of knowledge of God are deeply interdependent, and a misunderstanding of the nature and proper use of any of these sources will likely lead to significant problems in the life and practice not only of individual Christians, but also of Christian corporate bodies as a whole. This morning, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the way in which Scripture, Reason and Tradition depend upon each other, and the problems that arise when and if any of these sources is wrongly thought to be practically independent of the other two.

First, what is the nature and proper use of Holy Scripture? St. Paul teaches in 2 Timothy chapter 3 that scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:15-17). For our purposes, it is not necessary to have a detailed theory of how God inspired the Scriptures, suffice it to say that the end product is a true and completely reliable guide to the character and will of God, and that it is infallible with respect to its intended teaching. It follows from this that we can safely rely upon the Bible to be a guide to what God is like and how we ought to respond to Him if we would be in right relationship with Him.

It is also important to note that the Scriptures themselves indicate that they are intended to be a sufficient account of what is required for people to be in communion with God. Or, in the words of the 39 Articles, "the scriptures contain all things necessary for salvation, so that whatever is not found therein, or may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man as requisite or necessary for salvation" (Article 6).

Having said this, I need to point out an objection that has been raised to this, and talk a little bit about the answer to this objection. Most passages in the Bible that refer to the importance of Scripture refer to the Old Testament. So, we need to be careful not to assume that just because scripture is important, it follows that scripture is complete. It may be that scripture is something that we use to test the teachings of men, but that it stands in need of something else to complete the content of what we need to believe to be saved. For instance, in Acts 17, the Berean believers are praised for testing St. Paul's preaching by the Old Testament. Now obviously, the preaching of the Gospel does add some content to the Old Testament, (for example, the doctrines of the incarnation and resurrection) so some people think that passages such as that, and 2 Timothy 3, and in fact every passage in Scripture that speaks of the importance of Scripture, simply teaches at most that they are perfect as far as they go, and so the Bible never denies that we stand in need of additional revelation, through the Church, in order for us to be really complete in terms of what we need to know to be in a state of salvation.

Now in response to this, Anglican theologians point out, I think correctly, that there is a class of passages that seem to indicate that God's purpose in the production of the New Testament works was that the Church would have a canon of writings that would set forth the Gospel in a complete manner, which would then be useful as a rule of faith and a yardstick against which human teachers would be measured.

For example, in John 20:31 we are told that the account of Jesus Christ in his gospel was written so that, "ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name." Notice that the gospel account was written for the purpose that we might believe certain things concerning Jesus, and that this would facilitate the realization of life through Him. Notice also that the gospel passage does not say, that we might believe in Him, and then join ourselves to some tradition, and then go on to learn further things so that we might have life. Now, if there are things necessary for salvation that are not contained in Scripture, then it is possible that a person could in fact believe John's testimony about Jesus, but fail to realize life through Him. While incorporation into the Church is necessary to actually enter into spiritual life, it is not because the Church possesses knowledge of some sort beyond that documented in Scripture, but because the Church is a part of Christ in the sense that the members of the Church are grafted spiritually into the Church and into union with her Head, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, in Luke Chapter 1 we read the following: [see Luke 1:1-4]. Now the point in writing this inspired Gospel was that we might know the certainty of the things in which the reader had been instructed. In other words, the written record was given to strengthen the credibility of the oral tradition. So while certainly the testimony of the Church is indispensable in establishing the nature and content of the canon, it remains the case that God intended the Scriptures to serve as a tool that might serve to confirm and verify the Gospel preached. But this means that the Bible must be complete with respect to that which is necessary for salvation, or else the Bible would not be able to guarantee that we had the right faith, if two or more groups claimed to hold the Scriptures as true, but incomplete. In other words, if you think that the Bible leaves out some things that are necessary for salvation, then you can't use the Bible to 'know with certainty' the truth of the faith delivered traditionally, because the Bible simply won't include the whole faith.

Also of importance is the fact that in Jesus' teaching it is clear that the traditions of the covenant people are counted as worse than useless if they conflict with the scriptures: "Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" and "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mathew 15:3,9). It is important to note in both cases that the problem was an imposition upon Scripture of 'regulations' that in effect undermined the spirit of the Old Testament. As Bishop Browne writes in his commentary on the Thirty-Nine Articles:

It is true, the traditions spoken of were Jewish, not Christian traditions. But the principle was much the same. The Pharisees claimed such traditions as divine. They professed, that they were the unwritten word of God, handed down from the time of Ezra, through the doctors of the Law, and the members of the Great Synagogue. They did not deny the value of the written word, but added the unwritten traditions to it. These they considered, not as corrupting, but as completing the truth. Yet our Lord declared that they "made the word of God of none effect by their tradition" (Mark 7:13). And thus we may fairly infer that our Lord condemns the general principle of making any addition to the written word, by doctrines professedly handed down from father to son. We see, at least, no difference in principle between the oral traditions of the Jewish, and the oral traditions of the Christian Church." (Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles , p. 139).

But what if traditions merely add to the Scriptures without conflicting with them? This is a logical possibility given the passage just cited, though this does not apply to the passages we looked at earlier. What I hoped to point out by citing Jesus' condemnation of the abuse of tradition is that it entails that we must be able to look to Scripture directly so as to determine when and if traditions are in fact undermining or making 'of none effect' the commands of God. If we as individuals, whether laity, priests, or bishops, are never permitted to criticize the Church collectively, then as a matter of practical fact, the Scriptures provide no check whatsoever on the abusive accretion of tradition condemned by Jesus, who Himself, the Son of God, cited the authority of Scripture, not His own authority, in rebuking the religious leaders of His day. Not that He could not have spoken simply on His own authority, but He intended to give us an example of the right use of Scripture.

So then to review, the Scriptures are intended to be profitable to the end of making us mature and fully equipped to follow Christ, they are intended as a witness to the Gospel of Christ, and they are the standard by which all human teaching and traditions are to be measured. It seems that two important conclusions follow from this discussion: the Scriptures are in principle sufficient for salvation, in the sense that no doctrine necessary to salvation is missing from the canon. Because if doctrine necessary for salvation were missing from scripture, then we could not very well use the Scriptures to judge human teaching, because we would have no practically credible way of saying what if any supplemental doctrine was in fact binding upon us, at least no way in which Scripture was our guide. In addition, remembering our Lord's rebuke of the Old Testament Church's leadership, we ought to conclude that we must be very careful to avoid adding any doctrines over the teaching of scripture, because of the evident danger of distorting or obscuring the truly central elements of the faith.

But if this is the correct understanding of Scripture, what place or role is there left for the Traditions of the Church in our coming to know of God? There are several roles that the testimony of the Church plays in our attempts to come to an understanding of truths about God. Let me first begin with a comment on what the term 'tradition' means. This term has a significant range of meaning, and it is important to keep straight what is meant in any given use of 'tradition' or 'church tradition' when discussing this.

First of all, by 'tradition', some times people mean to refer to the whole body of thought of those who call themselves Christians. So, on this definition, even heretics would be considered part of the 'tradition' of the Church, though of course a minority that was condemned by the majority of the Church. Nevertheless, it is important to note that from an historical point of view, this definition makes sense, because to exclude certain groups from membership in the Church would presuppose that one already had a standard by which to determine whether a group was truly of the Church. In other words, you cannot appeal to the majority tradition of the Church to define the extent of the Church, and at the same time exclude people from membership in the Church because they dissent from the tradition of the Church, without presupposing the correctness of the majority on some other grounds.

Let me put it differently. Suppose that I asked how you know that there are three persons in the divine nature. If you said, because the tradition of the Church affirms the doctrine of the Trinity, then I could respond, 'well, what about the Arians in the Church?' At which point, you might say, 'But the Arians are not really in the Church!' Well, perhaps they are not, but you can't argue that they are not Christians, not in the Church, because they don't believe in the Trinity, and at the same time argue that the Trinity is true on the basis of the supposed fact that all Christians believe in this teaching. The reasoning is perfectly circular.

Another understanding of 'tradition' is that it is the body of doctrine found in the proclamations of the ecumenical councils of the Church. This is problematic because no two traditions agree on what these are. There are six councils that have been endorsed by the general consent of the Church. Anglican theologians recognize just these six, noting the peculiar historical subordination of the last two. From ancient times the first four have been widely held in a higher regard than any later ones in many quarters of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox communion recognizes two or three more than this, and the Roman Catholic Church several additional ones. So to a large degree the councilar 'tradition' of the church is dependent upon which part of the Church one is speaking of.

The last conception of 'tradition' that I will discuss here is that body of doctrine that has been received always, everywhere, by all as necessary to the faith. This third idea of catholic tradition does in fact correspond roughly to the dogmatic decrees, though not the canons, of the first four councils. (Many of the canons of these councils, by the way, were never practiced throughout the church at any time. In fact, some were widely ignored the moment they were enacted, even in diocese whose bishops had voted for the canons). The essential idea of this conception of 'tradition' is that the corporate testimony of the faithful, while it may have authoritative expression in councils, is a witness of the covenant people to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Councils have no power or authority in matters of doctrine except insofar as their decisions comport with the teachings of Holy Scripture. Scripture stands in judgment over Councils, not vice-versa. This is clearly taught in Article 20 of the 39 Articles.

Nevertheless, when there is consensus in the Church on an interpretation of Scripture, and in particular when such a consensus is voiced by an assembly of Bishops and affirmed by the faithful throughout the world, there is a tremendous epistemic authority that such a consensus carries. In other words, when the Church speaks in the form of a general council that is universally accepted, especially when the issue adjudicated is a matter of the nature and essential content of the Gospel, as was the case in the early councils, it is extremely unlikely, given God's promises of provision for and protection of the Church, that the tradition of the Church in the sense we are speaking of here would be wrong. Put another way, if Christ is to be with the Church always, even to the end of the age, how could the Church universally err in a fundamental of the faith? Or yet again, if the great majority of professing Christians from the earliest days held to a certain belief that relates to the heart of the gospel, and there is no significant continuous dissent from that among professing Christians, what is the practical likelihood that we will discover that in the Providence of God the whole vast majority of the Church just misunderstood the Gospel prophesied in the Old Testament, preached by Jesus, documented in the New Testament so that we might know it with confidence, and safeguarded in the tradition of those appointed by the Apostles for the very purpose of keeping the faith whole? It seems that we must question not only the wisdom but also the love of God if the working of Christ for the salvation of mankind was so completely frustrated for hundreds or thousands of years because of human folly. Surely God's working in history would not be so fruitless.

So then while Scripture is the supreme standard, there is a significant epistemic authority that resides in the universal Church. This is not to say that appeals to scripture from national or local churches, or even individuals, are unwarranted or inappropriate in secondary issues or on issues where there has been no universal consensus. But if one truly wishes to follow Christ in the best way one can, then when the catholic church throughout the world has spoken as one, on a matter of the essence of the faith, with numerous plausible passages of Scripture that can be cited in favor of the Church's ruling, we must acknowledge that is unlikely to ever be the case that any individual interpretation of Scripture will be likely to be correct, and rather thankfully embrace the manifold witness of truth in Scripture and Tradition. If this principle were followed, the many non-Christian cults such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses that have deceived many, would simply not exist.

If Scripture, then, is a final authority and source of knowledge of God, and church tradition is an important and at times decisive interpretive authority, especially in defining the canon of scripture and the central doctrines of the faith once for all delivered to the Saints (as St. Jude says), what is the role of reason in the mix? I will quickly note three. First, you cannot identify the right religious tradition without reason. Not only can you not decide whether you should be Pentecostal or Eastern Orthodox, Fundamentalist or Anglican, you cannot even decide based upon tradition whether you should be Christian or Muslim or Buddhist. There are many religious traditions in the world, and it is plainly circular just to appeal to the teachings of a given tradition, or the scriptures of a given tradition, as the basis for committing oneself to it. You can't just say, "Well, Baptists teach that you should be a Baptist, so I guess that I should be a Baptist", or "Muslims teach that the Koran is the word of God, and that the Koran teaches that you ought to be a Muslim, so, one ought to be a Muslim." Clearly, some outside standard must exist to help sort this out.

Second, within the Christian tradition, there are problems sorting out what is the actual teaching that has been universally agreed upon. What counts as universal agreement? One element seems to be that agreement must transcend both regional boundaries and be consistent throughout the whole history of the Church, or at least from the time that an issue came under discussion, no matter how unanimous official opinion may have been at one time or another within a particular tradition. The Bishops of the Roman Church at one time, and for a long time, held that you had to be in communion with the Pope to be saved. The Bishops of the Eastern Church were largely Arian for almost two generations. They even had Arian councils approved by the Emperor. But in neither of these cases do even the communions involved hold to these beliefs now. So, whether by critiquing doctrinal assertions, or examining the historical extent of a tradition, we must use reason in identifying the faithful catholic tradition from among the many other doctrinal and other movements that have arisen throughout history.

Third, tradition is important in acting as a counterweight to the influence of our contemporary culture, but in a way that depends upon the right use of reason. This is a lesson that modern Americans would do well to remember. God has blessed us greatly, but this does not mean that the distinctives of our culture should be an interpretive guide to the Bible. Ironically, while too little emphasis on Tradition may lead to excessive dependence upon our own culture, too much emphasis on Tradition may simply lead to excessive dependence upon the local culture of another time and place. Reason must be a co-operative guide in our interpretation of Scripture, and must be employed in the study of the Bible, so that both as individuals and perhaps more importantly as a community, we can come to see our own cultural biases.

One of the features of Anglicanism that I respect and value the most is the careful and thoughtful attention that Anglican thinkers have given to the question of the relationship of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. God has given us each of these as a means of coming to know and love Him. If we neglect any one of these three, we deprive ourselves not only of a means of knowing God, but of a means of safeguarding the integrity of our understanding of the other two. Mature Christians must be faithful and thoughtful students of Scripture, careful in thought, and eager to learn from the wisdom of the Holy Catholic Church, Christ's inheritance from all nations of the world, steadfast in the faith, kept by the Holy Ghost until the return of her blessed Lord, who loves her, cherishes her, and has promised to be with her always. Amen.

Return to Sermons