Glory to God For All Things

Formed in the Tradition

Thinking of raising Christian children (in the light of St. Silouan’s family experience), I offer these few thoughts. The Nativity season offers many opportunities for families to be guided by Holy Tradition – just as we are also swamped by the distorting demands of commercial culture. May God guard our children and keep us all by His grace.

+++

Sometime back, I watched a group of linguistic-psychologists (of varying sorts) in a panel discussion (CSPAN). All of them were involved in advising political campaigns. What they know about the science of language and how people actually make decisions versus how we would like to think we make decisions was staggering. Among the most staggering of agreed pieces of data was that 98% of the process of so-called rational decisions are actually unconscious. That is to say, that most of what goes into a rational decision is something that is far deeper than rationality (rationality turns out to be only the tip of the iceberg and not a very big tip at that.)

Thus, it would seem when it comes to reading Scripture, it is likely the case that most of what we think of as “interpretation” is also beneath the surface of rationality (and thus beneath the surface of “literalism” or the “plain sense”). All of this knowledge has a frightening aspect when considering politics – but a confirming aspect when considering our religious world. It argues all the more strongly for the role of Tradition, Liturgy, the many things that we engage in that are not strictly “Scripture interpretation.” It is not until the heart itself is reformed (that place where some very large percentage of our thoughts and decisions are made) that our reading will actually be changed. If the heart is not being rather consciously (on the part of the Church) formed by the pracatices we have been given (prayer, fasting, almsgiving, veneration of icons, crossing oneself, etc.) then it is likely being formed by something else. It seems that we will either be formed by the Tradition of the Christian Church or by the traditions of modern mammon. Thus I will gladly entrust myself to the Church.

Apparently Romans 12:1-2 does not have any middle ground.

I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a retired Archpriest of the Orthodox Church in America. He is also author of Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe, and Face to Face: Knowing God Beyond Our Shame, as well as the Glory to God podcast series on Ancient Faith Radio.

Posted

in

by

Clare Freeman

Comments

31 responses to “Formed in the Tradition”

  1. Formed In The Tradition : St. George Church of Prescott

    […] Source Share and Enjoy: […]

  2. Formed in the Tradition « Glory to God for All Things | Mike Spieles on Parenting Today

    […] Visit link: Formed in the Tradition « Glory to God for All Things […]

  3. mike Avatar
    mike

    ..interesting post Father stephen…the use of NLP techniques employed in the ‘persuasion” businesss is not widely known by the public in general but are utilized daily in business practices as well as political and government propaganda efforts..neural linguistic programming is just one of the many psych ops in use…As far as the influence of the unconscious mind on decision making is concerned an excellent book titled:”Strangers to ourselves”/discovering the adaptive unconscious: by Timothy D. Wilson offers some valuable insights on the subject…i understand your view of how relying on the traditions of the church could save us from falling into many modern errors but as a former protestant and seeker im faced with the dilemna of WHOSE ancient tradition to follow..Catholic or Orthodox of which both espouse their “rightness”…..

  4. Ibn Battenti Avatar
    Ibn Battenti

    Excellent point mike. I would without hesitation say that the answer to this thorny issue (as it may sometimes appear) is found through prayer (individual and communal) but also in wisdom — and she, without a doubt, is justified by her children…

  5. fatherstephen Avatar
    fatherstephen

    Mike,
    “Tradition” functions very differently within Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Modernity plays a major role within contemporary Catholicism – in a manner unlike anything I know within Orthodoxy. Varying reforms have had a way of creating “many versions” of Catholicism. I’m not sure how that experience is accounted for by them.

    Orthodoxy, by its very ecclesiology, requires that Tradition be a continuing, lived experience. It is primarily to be found within the liturgical tradition of the Church. The breakdown of liturgical tradition in the West – both in Protestantism and Rome – would (from an Orthodox perspective) make “tradition” far more academic.

    Thus, there is a real “apples and oranges” issue when it comes to comparison. Those are my (brief) thoughts on the matter.

  6. Lina Avatar
    Lina

    Mike, I preface this remark by saying that I have only been Orthodox for less than a year. Things I love the best so far are the sense of holiness, confession and forgiveness, the call to holiness, the sense of being part of the whole cloud of witnesses and the timelessness of the liturgy. No fast food services but a lingering banquet that I often don’t want to end.

  7. jjamesd Avatar
    jjamesd

    Mike,

    I would offer my lowly “ditto” to Fr. Stephen’s reply, as well as Ibn’s. I would only add that as a former Protestant minister who struggled for over 10 years in that no man’s land of deciding which way to finally go (Rome or Orthodoxy), and having a certain deep appreciation for both, part of the final discernment process for me had to do with an answer to the question, “Which tradition can I trust with my heart, my soul, my life?” in that there comes a point after all the study, prayer, reflection, reading, conversation, and what not (all very necessary, by the way, at least for most) – a point at which one has in a very real sense to get out of the “driver’s seat” of one’s life and yield to the witness and direction of another, or in this case to that of a particular Tradition (without, of course, surrendering one’s personal accountability for the decision, and for continuing discernment).

    When I finally was compelled to stop avoiding that question, the answer became obvious (not at all easy for me, but obvious).

    I was Chrismated in the Orthodox Church this past Holy Saturday.

  8. Cheryl/Miriam Avatar
    Cheryl/Miriam

    I just read a book on this the other day, specifically in how the idea of “liturgy” shapes us (not just liturgies in Church, but “liturgies” in other areas of life as well). The book was called Desiring the Kingdom, by Jamie Smith.

  9. The Dubliner Avatar
    The Dubliner

    I agree, Fr. Stephen–“Orthodoxy, by its very ecclesiology, requires that Tradition be a continuing, lived experience.”

    Tradition in all sense is returning to start, the setting stones I would say, not a changeable pattern or consistently altering word like “advancement;” by any means, advancement means progress by human standards, which is the anti-history.

  10. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    About Tradition …

    In the west there is a tradition that the Magi were kings and that there were three of them. I believe the tradition even moved onto saying their names were Caspar, Melchior and Balthasaar and that they were baptized by St. Thomas into Christianity and the Church. Matthew 2 speaks nothing of the sort.

    How much tradition is too much? Can we trust the Spirit in the Church to keep even our traditions true and right?

  11. Nathan Fischer Avatar
    Nathan Fischer

    Matthew, interestingly, St. Paul refers to Jannes and Jambres in the New Testament, which are the names given to the magicians who confronted Moses in Exodus. These are nowhere recorded until second temple Jewish literature. St. Paul seems to have no issue with this. I wouldn’t make too much of those sorts of things. They enter into the memory of the Church, sometimes differently in different places, but they do not change the story itself, and those details may sometimes even contain something remembered (and finally written down) that otherwise might have been forgotten. People in the ancient world often don’t seem to write things down unless they’re afraid it might be forgotten.

    I don’t know enough about the Magi to know if that’s what happened here. But if St. Paul isn’t bothered by such things, I don’t let them bother me, either. 🙂

  12. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Nathan. It doesn´t really present such a big problem for me. I think the problem comes about when other Christians (as an example) who know that Matthew 2 mentions no kings and no number of Magi and for whom Church tradition is problematic begin to shake their heads. Why … they ask … the need to add to the story something that isn´t in the written record (Holy Scripture)? Doesn´t that simply add static to an otherwise clear line? Doesn´t it lead down a fairy tale road for everyone involved?

  13. Fr. Stephen Avatar
    Fr. Stephen

    Matthew,
    “…something that isn’t in the written record…”

    Forgive me, but this is something of a protestant conundrum – the elevation of a text to the place of authoritative history. I think it comes out of the Protestant/Catholic debates that went back and forth about what “must” be believed, etc. It created false notions about the nature of the Scriptures, as well as the nature of history itself, in my opinion.

    It is always possible to wrestle with the questions of how “precisely” history is represented in a particular Scriptural narrative. Is it “photographic” or is it “iconic,” for example? I suspect that it varies. As people of the lens, we want film – or, at least, film-level accuracy.

    The Scriptures are the writings that the Church has authorized for reading in the Church. They have lots of kinds of materials that work on a variety of levels. If we become nervous about all of it – look at the Creed. There’ll you see a very careful recitation of what we believe. Or, at least, the essentials of the faith.

    I have no reason to reject the stories in the Protoevangelium of James, for example, though it is not canonical. Most of it has found its way into the feasts of the Church.

    I think our historical mindset is largely born out of our need to manage and control (which is inherent in modernity). It’s not that historicity isn’t an interesting question – it’s that answering that question does not deliver to us what we imagine. It does not give us management and control. And management and control themselves don’t deliver what we imagine. Mostly, they give us anxiety, anger, and depression.

    The life of the Church is the life of God within us – into which we’re invited to live. The language of that life is worship. In the course of that worship we sing songs, we tell stories, we venerate icons, we lift our hearts to God and give thanks for all things. The stories we share have a variety of levels of history in them. As much as we can, it is better to sing them than to analyze them.

    I suspect that there is more danger in refusing fairy tales than not. We’ve been doing this now (being Church) for 2,000 years. “Down that road” has already taken place, and we’re ok. We’ve got greater dangers from the dis-enchanters and the arms merchants who are trying to blow up the fairy tales everywhere they can, while trying to sell us a new tale of horror that they market by other names.

  14. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    So you are O.K., Fr. Stephen, with three kings who were eventually named and then baptized by St. Thomas into the Church even if we don´t have any historical evidence of such? I understand what you are saying about history (and I agree with it mostly). My question is: If the Church says it is so even though we don´t have any historical evidence, is that O.K. because we trust the Spirit to manage all these things??

  15. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Matthew,

    Just to address your to current question (I found Father Stephen’s previous reply about historicity both thorough and clear)…

    Perhaps a comparison to the legal system will help. If you hold some office within the system, you are obligated to respect legal decisions.

    In a given case, the Court issues a ruling and all parties abide by that. Each side may have some alternative evidence they presented, but the verdict need not issue a ruling about any individual piece of evidence. As a matter of history, the legal record will not reflect whether some specific presentments were “factual” or not. The prosecutor and the defense attorney can continue to hold contradictory opinions about them. As to guilt, however, the verdict (while it can be appealed) must be adhered to by all officers of the Court.

    To me the usefulness of the analogy is not that it is precise, but it is something all present-day Americans are familiar with. We accept that for *contemporary* events (with eyewitnesses and modern data collection) finding consensus about details is nigh impossible, yet we seek perfect clarity about events that happened thousands of years ago!

    Did OJ do it? Does whether or not the gloves fit settle the issue? (That is, if they fit, he certainly did; if they did not, he certainly did not?) Do we have to know whether or not they fit to render a verdict?

    OJ (factually) was found not guilty in a criminal trial yet liable in a civil proceeding because the burden of proof was lower in the latter. Likewise, for Church dogma such as the Creed, believers desire something nigh indisputable. For opinion, the standard is less. And for literary details (e.g. what were the Wise Men called?), we don’t want to strain out gnats.

    Coming from a Protestant background (as you do), I appreciate not having to dispute unknowable details overmuch anymore. They–i.e., the need to be right–often do lead to “anxiety, anger, and depression.”

  16. Nathan Fischer Avatar
    Nathan Fischer

    I don’t want to answer for Father, but it’s hard for me to refrain from this conversation. 🙂 I love these questions! I have sat with them a lot over the years.

    I find the language of “historical evidence” to be ambiguous. There are many things within the Church’s memory that would not meet the criteria of “historical evidence” and yet we confess that they are an actual memory preserved by the Church for a purpose. When lived, oral, and written tradition no longer meets the criteria for “historical evidence” all kinds of problems are created.

    When stories pop up in written form for the first time, and when the wider Church does not reject but in fact embraces those stories, I normally take this as a sign that something has been written that was previously remembered, either in oral form or in written (even if we don’t have access to previous writings anymore). But even if it is “novel” to a certain extent (a new story with little basis in material history), even in cases where accounts seem “fantastical,” the account itself is normally remembered in that way for a reason. People do not remember things if there is no reason to remember them. Remembered stories matter, even when they aren’t “historical.”

    People don’t always know why a story resonates, but the fact that a story does resonate and becomes preserved means that there must be something within the story that is True or Good or Beautiful. And in that vein, even *useful*. Where modernity has messed with these stories, they’ve often become shallow and less meaningful, and ultimately they will be forgotten. The stories that are remembered point to something deeper.

    Father mentioned that we are people of the lens – but even the lens is a frame that includes a focal point. And what is recorded needs to resonate with us in order for it to be worthy of preservation and memory. I have taken many thousands of pictures and videos of my children over the years, but what I save from those photos and videos is significantly fewer than what I captured. Why? Because some of them capture the *moment* or the *feeling* or something much deeper than either of those things more than others do. Over time, I sometimes review those recordings and I further “sift” the most important ones from what I saved.

    So much of this is easily distorted in our modern time, because we record so much that is not worth recording, and we tell so many stories that aren’t worth remembering. We churn out content like our lives depended on it, and we don’t take the time (or allow time) to sift the stories and let the good ones rise above the mass of bad ones. But this kind of “sifting” very much took place through time pre-modernity.

    We also have no history that is not traditioned to us. Historical memories and stories that are preserved are preserved for a reason, and there is a context that is often preserved with them. With texts, we do not receive them as texts that are understood without the very tradition that accompanies them. The very act of preserving is an act of tradition, to an extent. What is normally meant by “historical evidence” is a requirement for something *outside* a given tradition that points to some kind of so-called “objective” third-party evidence for the witness of the stories passed down through a tradition. Rarely, if ever, are the many thousands or millions of voices within the Church’s Tradition itself taken as “evidence” or valid witness.

    When I’m talking to Protestant friends who place demands upon the Church for “historical evidence” in order to justify various stories, beliefs, rituals, veneration, etc, my first (usually unspoken) thought is normally: “You want non-Christian verification of the Church’s memory? Why, precisely?” If we cannot trust the Church’s memory, I don’t know why we would trust non-Christian artifacts that the Church explicitly did not preserve. But even more than that, I know that what the Church preserves, it does so for a reason. And the manner in which the Church engages with stories is imminently more *human* than the way we engage with stories as modern people.

    Which is all my very long-winded way of saying, for myself, I’m not only O.K. with accepting the stories the Church has preserved as they have been preserved (regardless of external historical evidence for them) – I’m *grateful* that they *have* been preserved in the manner in which they’ve been. Those stories are meaningful in ways that no story told according to the criteria of “historical evidence” will likely ever be. To the extent that some of them are more symbolic than “materially factual” doesn’t bother me at all. This whole world is symbolic (sacramental). The Church remembers what it remembers for a reason. Better to focus on the reason and to live within the story than getting bogged down in questions of “what really happened” (which we cannot answer, anyway, and do nothing to aid us in living our life in Christ).

  17. Fr. Stephen Avatar
    Fr. Stephen

    Matthew,
    There’s a difference between “the Church says it is so,” and the Church repeating, “It is said…” And the Church is quite comfortable with pious repetitions of what has been said, without worrying too much about their historicity – so long as the pious repetition contains nothing that is harmful to the faith. It’s modernity that is so anxious about all of this – and – strangely – it’s modernity that is harmful to the faith. We need to be healed.

  18. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Mark, Nathan and Fr. Stephen.

    You have all made good arguments. I have a lot to think about. I have even more to pray about.

  19. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello again Mark, Nathan and Fr. Stephen.

    I just wanted to add that the Magi controversy started a few days ago at work. My colleague who is a former JW turned some sort of evangelical knows I am Catholic. He brought up the historical issues surrounding Matthew 2 and wanted to challenge Church tradition.

    It is very difficult for me to discuss and debate this kind of stuff on the fly while drinking a coffee on break. It´s much easier for me to formulate my thoughts here on the blog in writing. I have more time to think things over and I receive so much really good input from all of you.

  20. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Matthew,

    Part of my Christmas celebration included being at a house in which one activity was a quiz about which parts of the Christmas story were “real” (i.e., mentioned in Matthew or Luke) and which were not. If viewed under the second definition, then it was easy to avoid argument!

    What many praise about Orthodoxy is its fullness. Matthew and Luke themselves have different details. For that matter, if the Church Councils had decided to include only the Gospels of Mark and John, we would know nothing of Christ before His ministry and have no Christmas story at all.

  21. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Mark.

  22. Nathan Fischer Avatar
    Nathan Fischer

    Thank you, Matthew. I’m right there with you on a lot of these things. I often fail but still try to keep in mind Fr. Thomas Hopko’s 55 Maxims, in this case, “Don’t try to convince anyone of anything.” None of our family are Orthodox or Catholic, so Christmas can include some interesting conversations, as well. The longer I’m out of the Protestant millieu, the easier it gets to not engage. I don’t feel a need to defend the Church or the Tradition. I’ll leave that to God. Better for me to focus on points of agreement and to try and point out the goodness of God where possible.

  23. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Nathan said:

    “Better for me to focus on points of agreement and to try and point out the goodness of God where possible.”

    Now that seems like great advice! 🙂

  24. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Hello Mark. How did you avoid argument during the Christmas story discussion?

  25. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    What bothers me a little, Nathan, is that I would love to have the kind of discussions we have here with people in my corner of the world. Most people, however, seem to be not very interested, and if they are interested they seem locked in their mindset and perspective. Also … maybe they wouldn´t even understand what I was trying to get across. Finally, my German is not good enough to talk about deep philosophical, theological and spiritual topics. 🙁

    Hence … you offer up good advice! 🙂

  26. Nathan Fischer Avatar
    Nathan Fischer

    Haha, I don’t think that’s just your corner of the world. 🙂 I love talking to people. But what might initial seem like an open and meaningful conversation can quickly turn into a debate or an argument.

    For what it’s worth, I learned that advice from Father Stephen. 🙂 One of his articles that has really stuck with me over the years is this one:
    https://glory2godforallthings.com/2009/11/24/thanksgiving/

    For me, it’s been a really important reminder when I’m with family and friends. Especially the words of his father-in-law: “I don’t know about that. But I know that God is good.”

  27. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Nathan.

    I want to remember and experience the goodness of God.

  28. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    and be thankful for it as well … 🙂

  29. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    Those stories are meaningful in ways that no story told according to the criteria of “historical evidence” will likely ever be.

    In a somewhat silly way, I’ve rediscovered this on a personal level while re-reading children’s books. The stories of Winnie-the-Pooh and Charlotte’s Web resonate with humanity and goodness. Reading them has actually provided a great deal of clarity and context concerning the issues in this discussion.

  30. Matthew Avatar
    Matthew

    Thanks so much Byron.

  31. Mark Spurlock Avatar
    Mark Spurlock

    Matthew: I accepted that “right” or “wrong” on the quiz as whether the two Gospels (on which the quiz was based) explicitly mentioned those details.

    As a comparison, FDR appears as a character in the musical “Annie,” and Annie’s script calls for FDR to be seated in his wheelchair. A (student) director wanted the wheelchair to be authentic for the 1930s. Interestingly, FDR had a minimalist wheelchair especially designed for him so as to conceal that he required one. Most of the time, he would not let himself be photographed in the wheelchair and almost never used it in public events.

    In staging the play, then, the director had to choose among a kind of historical accuracy (a period wheelchair the audience would expect to see), the most likely way the event would have occurred in real life (no wheel chair), or staying faithful to the script as written by the playwright and yet being historically “real” (FDR’s modified wheelchair).

    Of course, Annie is fiction, but, if it had happened, would we want the artistic choice to be made on accuracy, something the director wanted to convey about the character of FDR, or something minimally disruptive to audience expectations?

    A Nativity Pageant featuring Wise Men, for example, has to use a concrete number. If we assume the “right” number is unknowable, then why not stay with the convention of three to avoid having one’s audience be taken out of the moment by this disruption? Having some other number makes a statement–a statement that almost certainly shapes how some view the production in its totality.

    It had better be worth it!

    To get back to the quiz (and more succinctly), I love the people with whom I had gathered too much to want to argue with them at Christmas time 😀 I looked for where we could agree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

Your generous support for Glory to God for All Things will help maintain and expand the work of Fr. Stephen. This ministry continues to grow and your help is important. Thank you for your prayers and encouragement!

Donate via PayPal now »

Latest Comments

  1. Well … even if I don´t emotionally or physically experience something when I take communion (for example) … I think…

  3. What could be more experiential than inner, ontological change? Anything less than this is simply mind gymnastics. It seems to…

Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast

Please Read

About
Ground Rules for This Blog

Categories

Archives