TRADITION.
From G.K. Chesterton:
Tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of the common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record...Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father (Orthodoxy, 42).
I struggle with tradition. One one hand, I believe it has an important place in the life of the Church and of the individual Christian. It reminds us of our proper place in time and history: we are young women and men in a young denomination in a young country. Tradition tells us that we should think carefully before we neglect the accrued communal knowledge of millenia gone by. Tradition says that our physical and ideological mothers and fathers can teach us much, and that, before we do anything, we are wise to listen to the voices of the dead. It teaches us humility and reminds us that, just as the church came into existence without us, it will go on without us.
But that's not the end of the story. Tradition can be the muck that clouds our theological eyeglasses. Tradition can teach us to hold onto the status quo, regardless of who or what gets in the way. Chesterton's democracy of the dead can easily become a sort of fascist state, with those who held power in the past continuing to maintain their stranglehold on us. And we should never forget that, while our forbears teach us much good, they also occasionally teach us to hate, to enslave, to dominate, to destroy, and ironically, to never look back.
So how do we deal with tradition? There are many Christian traditions that concern me, but two are relevant to the focus of this blog (Aside: I should note here that watching CNN this morning reminds me that the focus of this blog may be a little off. I am a wealthy white male in a rich nation who ate a very large breakfast. Not a lot of people can say that. But back to the topic at hand.).
What do we do with our traditional posture toward women and toward the LGBT community? How do we discuss these traditions, and when, if ever, do we dismiss them?
After my comments above, it should be clear that I would never argue that we should dismiss tradition lightly. Our mothers and fathers are to be respected and we should always have our ears open to their voices. But sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they have read the Bible wrong, and sometimes years of human advancement teach us that we should move on and leave them behind. And occasionally, we discover that we should just step out of one tradition and into another better tradition(While there are long traditions of misogyny and homophobia in the Christian world, there are competing traditions of communalism, progress, liberation, and tolerance), or we discover that we should find a sort of via media.
Many theologians are abandoning the old interpretations of Scripture for new ones. While I don't think we should automatically dismiss all traditional doctrine and hermeneutics, I believe some new ways of reading scripture are necessary to wipe the muck off our lenses. That muck may have come from medievalism, Enlightenment rationalism, romanticism, fundamentalism, tribalism, and yes, even Western capitalism and individualism. We have to think about what the 2,000 years has done to us. We should hold onto the old way if we can. But love, prayer, community, etc, may lead us to believe that we and our forebears were wrong and that the tradition must change.
Beyond our Biblical interpretation, there is a tradition of discrimination and marginalization of gays and lesbians that we have to rid ourselves of. Our parents believed lesbians and gays to be perverts (or inverts). To them, gay men are lispy, limped-wristed caricatures focused only on sex and the conversion of as many young boys as possible. We all have AIDS, and we hope to give it to as many people as possible. But slowly, humanity (or at least significant chunks of it) is learning otherwise. As people get to know more of us, they discover that homosexuality is not invariably pathological. They discover that we are their sisters and brothers, that we love and want to be loved back, that we aren't always looking for the next covert sexual encounter. All lesbians don't secretly long to be men, nor do they "just need to meet the right guy." We are boring, just like everyone else. We are dentists and accountants and lawyers and waitresses and students. We aren't all defined by our sexuality, and we don't all live in the gay ghettoes of major cities.
Humanity, and the part of humanity that is in the Church, is learning that our ancestors may have been wrong. Traditional ways of looking at Scripture may have been wrong, as are traditional ways of relating to your gay neighbor. The tradition of marginalization faces a competitor: the tradition of acceptance. It has roots, and it isn't going anywhere.
We don't know everything, and we shouldn't dismiss Tradition lightly. But in this specific case, we have to look back, shake our heads, and say "never again." We have to join the competing tradition, or start our own, but we can no longer participate in the Old Way.
Tradition is only democracy extended through time. It is trusting to a consensus of the common human voices rather than to some isolated or arbitrary record...Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father (Orthodoxy, 42).
I struggle with tradition. One one hand, I believe it has an important place in the life of the Church and of the individual Christian. It reminds us of our proper place in time and history: we are young women and men in a young denomination in a young country. Tradition tells us that we should think carefully before we neglect the accrued communal knowledge of millenia gone by. Tradition says that our physical and ideological mothers and fathers can teach us much, and that, before we do anything, we are wise to listen to the voices of the dead. It teaches us humility and reminds us that, just as the church came into existence without us, it will go on without us.
But that's not the end of the story. Tradition can be the muck that clouds our theological eyeglasses. Tradition can teach us to hold onto the status quo, regardless of who or what gets in the way. Chesterton's democracy of the dead can easily become a sort of fascist state, with those who held power in the past continuing to maintain their stranglehold on us. And we should never forget that, while our forbears teach us much good, they also occasionally teach us to hate, to enslave, to dominate, to destroy, and ironically, to never look back.
So how do we deal with tradition? There are many Christian traditions that concern me, but two are relevant to the focus of this blog (Aside: I should note here that watching CNN this morning reminds me that the focus of this blog may be a little off. I am a wealthy white male in a rich nation who ate a very large breakfast. Not a lot of people can say that. But back to the topic at hand.).
What do we do with our traditional posture toward women and toward the LGBT community? How do we discuss these traditions, and when, if ever, do we dismiss them?
After my comments above, it should be clear that I would never argue that we should dismiss tradition lightly. Our mothers and fathers are to be respected and we should always have our ears open to their voices. But sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they have read the Bible wrong, and sometimes years of human advancement teach us that we should move on and leave them behind. And occasionally, we discover that we should just step out of one tradition and into another better tradition(While there are long traditions of misogyny and homophobia in the Christian world, there are competing traditions of communalism, progress, liberation, and tolerance), or we discover that we should find a sort of via media.
Many theologians are abandoning the old interpretations of Scripture for new ones. While I don't think we should automatically dismiss all traditional doctrine and hermeneutics, I believe some new ways of reading scripture are necessary to wipe the muck off our lenses. That muck may have come from medievalism, Enlightenment rationalism, romanticism, fundamentalism, tribalism, and yes, even Western capitalism and individualism. We have to think about what the 2,000 years has done to us. We should hold onto the old way if we can. But love, prayer, community, etc, may lead us to believe that we and our forebears were wrong and that the tradition must change.
Beyond our Biblical interpretation, there is a tradition of discrimination and marginalization of gays and lesbians that we have to rid ourselves of. Our parents believed lesbians and gays to be perverts (or inverts). To them, gay men are lispy, limped-wristed caricatures focused only on sex and the conversion of as many young boys as possible. We all have AIDS, and we hope to give it to as many people as possible. But slowly, humanity (or at least significant chunks of it) is learning otherwise. As people get to know more of us, they discover that homosexuality is not invariably pathological. They discover that we are their sisters and brothers, that we love and want to be loved back, that we aren't always looking for the next covert sexual encounter. All lesbians don't secretly long to be men, nor do they "just need to meet the right guy." We are boring, just like everyone else. We are dentists and accountants and lawyers and waitresses and students. We aren't all defined by our sexuality, and we don't all live in the gay ghettoes of major cities.
Humanity, and the part of humanity that is in the Church, is learning that our ancestors may have been wrong. Traditional ways of looking at Scripture may have been wrong, as are traditional ways of relating to your gay neighbor. The tradition of marginalization faces a competitor: the tradition of acceptance. It has roots, and it isn't going anywhere.
We don't know everything, and we shouldn't dismiss Tradition lightly. But in this specific case, we have to look back, shake our heads, and say "never again." We have to join the competing tradition, or start our own, but we can no longer participate in the Old Way.
posted by GR at 8/13/2005 12:50:00 PM
2 Comments:
GR-
I know countless others have said this to you, but I must thank you again for living so transparently and boldly. In the past weeks I have come to appreciate the importance of living in tension. As scientific, western, modern people we want to have an answer for everything. We WANT to know if being gay is okay, or if it must be condemned. We feel uneasy with "I don't know." But, in hearing your struggles, and in the comments on my own blog, I have learned that sometimes "I don't know" is often the best answer, especially if followed by "so I won't stand in condemnation, but will seek to be Christlike in my actions."
Thanks again for being so open, and for not abandoning "us" yet!!!
Well, I'm not leaving yet, but I just took a quiz to determine what denomination I belong in (hey, I'm bored and it was sent to me by a friend). Apparently, I'm a liberal Quaker. The C of C was 13th on the list. hmmmm...
Thanks for your comment, though. Really.
Post a Comment
<< Home