Let us not forget that the divide between Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism is wide and perilous. The Eastern church boldly claims that it is the one true Church, and that those (like us) who worship outside its bounds have never received the Lord’s Supper, hold to manifold heresies, are born of schism, and can have no assurance of salvation.
It ought not, therefore, be thought that our differences are trifle, or are peripheral in nature, or merely matters of liturgical taste. It is true that some modern Orthodox thinkers leave room for the possibility of salvation outside the Eastern Church, but nothing definitive can be said. Orthodoxy has spoken fairly clearly over the centuries. There is no salvation outside the Church.
Wrestling with such claims of exclusivity has troubled me mightily over the years. I well remember the anxiety and inner turmoil I felt while exploring Roman Catholicism as a young Christian. The sense of authority on offer, their interest in things ancient, the finely chiseled doctrine, the vast number of adherents—these all pressed upon me a deep sense of epistemological uncertainty, causing not a few dark nights of the soul.
I could wish that Eastern Orthodoxy didn’t make such bold claims, but they do; and given what I have experienced in recent years, my guess is that many of you reading this know of friends or family who have headed East.
Enter Father Josiah Trenham.
Having studied under R.C. Sproul, and having served as a licensed minister in the PCA, he nevertheless took a sharp turn away from Protestantism, ultimately joining Easter Orthodoxy. He is now a respected priest with obvious acumen, competently defending Orthodox theology. A brief perusal of him on YouTube will bear this out.
Among the various videos one might find from him, I’d like to interact with one particular point made in one particular clip. It’s a nine-minute video entitled “Sola Scriptura vs Holy Tradition.” You can find it here. Slide to the 5:03 mark for the interviewer’s question: How do the Orthodox regard the authority of Scripture in relation to apostolic Tradition?
Allow me to summarize Father Trenham’s line of reasoning.
After appealing to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul enjoins the saints to obey the Traditions they were taught, whether by word of mouth or written letter, Father Trenham makes a straightforward observation. Since Paul taught the Thessalonians in person for roughly a year and a half, it would be absurd to imagine that the practices established by Paul would suddenly become defunct or obsolete upon his leaving, or ultimately dying. Equally absurd would be the notion that upon Paul’s death, the only binding teachings would be those written down for them.
This is an entirely fair point.
Building upon this observation, Eastern Orthodoxy claims that (capital T) Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and that it has faithfully maintained this Tradition (in all its various expressions) down to the present. The faith once for all delivered to the saints is an entire body of Tradition given to the Church that guides and directs her steps.
These are bold claims, but not especially unique ones. There are other groups that claim ecclesial supremacy as well. The Oriental Church would like to chime in, for example; so would Rome; and even our favorite friendly cult, Mormonism.
Given our current, fragmented context, claims of primacy, and claims of ecclesial preeminence place honest inquirers in the unenviable position of having to wade through vast amounts of historical and theological material. For most people, the task is at best overwhelming, and at worst, essentially impossible, given their inability to access historical documents, adequately parse the wealth of data, properly understand each group’s views, etc. This reality alone should give one pause. Is it really the case that one particular Christian institution is ultimately correct to the exclusion of all other groups?
However we view this hurdle, Eastern Orthodoxy claims to be the one true Church to the exclusion of all others. For that reason, it ought not be dismissed cavalierly.
Here’s how I would begin to evaluate what Father Trenham said.
I am entirely open to the idea of capital T Tradition. This is to say that I am willing to grant that if we were living in Thessalonica under the authority of the apostle Paul, we would undoubtedly have greater theological and liturgical insight regarding certain issues. At the very least, 2 Thessalonians 2:6 wouldn’t be quite so mysterious.
But when it comes to discerning where this Tradition is to be found in the church fathers, the issue quickly becomes more than a little challenging. In fact, I would argue that the task becomes overwhelming, if not maddening. Not only is it hard to discern what the church fathers meant at times, but the sheer diversity of views and practices defies unanimity. How is a person supposed to discern what is binding oral Tradition from among this grand mix?
Here Rome has a rather convenient response: Papal infallibility.
But, of course, the East doesn’t bow the knee to Rome, nor does it hold to a Roman view of doctrinal development. Here I would point again to what Father Trenham argued: Paul laid down a body of doctrine and practice constituting a Holy Tradition, the nature of which goes beyond Scripture, and which is necessary for salvation. And they have it.
Ok. Granting that, where is it? Amid all the writings, where is the binding apostolic Tradition in contradistinction to all the inconsequential customs, errors, adiaphora, and ambiguity?
Allow me to illustrate the point with a section taken from an early document called The Didache. Scholars debate the date of its composition, but perhaps a fairly safe bet would be to say between 70 AD to 150 AD.
Here’s a section where the Eucharist is discussed. We read:
Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.
And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy to the dogs.”
But after you are filled, give thanks this way:
We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
But permit the prophets to make thanksgiving as much as they desire.
Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.
The instructions found in The Didache are both fascinating and insightful, providing a window into early practice. But like so many things found in the early writings, there is a certain simplicity to the format. Sometimes it is argued that this simplicity is due to persecution. Christians couldn’t develop a rich liturgy in public localities of worship, as we see later in the 4th century. But how do we know that is the case? What if the simplicity found in Christian gatherings is not only customary but essentially normative? What if that is what Paul enjoined?
A number of other things could be said in this vein. One could ask why we don’t pray as The Didache instructs. Is this a practice established by an apostle? Or not? The Eucharist also appears to occur in the midst of a meal. Is that a binding tradition Paul handed down? Or not? Is it right to allow the prophets to give thanks as much as they desire? Is that apostolic? Is it apostolic for said prophets to give thanks as they please? Why or why not? The Didache also tells us to receive those who teach all these things. Is that apostolic? And if a person teaches something different than what is found in The Didache, we are not to listen to him. Is that apostolic? Admittance to the Eucharist hinges upon a fairly simple prerequisite, namely, baptism. Is fencing the table beyond that wrong? Why or why not?
When we thread together the various documents found in the apostolic fathers, along with other 2nd century and 3rd century writings, these kinds of peculiarities and differences multiply. At every juncture, we not only have to ask ourselves whether or not we understand what was originally meant, but the central question always arises: How do we discern what, say, Paul taught and established as binding in these writings? If anything at all!
The truth is that we are presented with a sparsity of evidence in the earliest decades after the apostles. We don’t have much information regarding early Christian liturgy. And what information we have differs in significant ways from later liturgical rites. The fourth century is really where things take off.
But, of course, the 4th century is just a touch later than the first and second and third centuries. If you consider how much the United States has changed since its inception, developing (or eroding) in all manner of diverse ways, one might raise an eyebrow at the suggestion that the oral teachings of Paul really began to be nailed down in the 4th century.
The same is true concerning doctrinal matters more generally. Where in the Epistle of Barnabas, precisely, are Paul’s oral teachings written down? Or where in 1 Clement? Or Polycarp? Or Tertullian? Hippolytus? Augustine? What is the exact criteria to be used?1
Since we are handling uninspired documents in the case of such authors, the task of discerning Tradition quickly drowns in an ocean of claims and counter claims. We can easily dismiss what doesn’t accord with our own peculiar doctrinal tradition, or we can easily raise a shout of triumph when some particular bit supports our own peculiar notions.
Anyone familiar at all with the clash between the East and West, and the near endless volumes produced in favor of each side, will immediately feel like they have been thrust into a centuries-old knot that nearly defies comprehension.
Such schisms are bad enough, but when they result in a kind of hermetically sealed institutional exclusivity, resulting in broad anathemas for all outsiders, one can’t help but wonder if something glorious hasn’t been lost while trying to maintain an injured and myopic vision of catholicity. It is one thing to think that certain groups fall short in diverse ways, but it is another thing to say that every other branch of Christianity is spurious and not part of Christ’s body.
By way of illustration, I would point inquiring minds to the following videos. This, and this, and this.
As we reflect on this, I cannot help but think that the first great council held in Jerusalem teaches us to be cautious here. One must be incredibly careful not to erect unnecessary yokes, or stipulations, which hinder or bar entrance into God’s kingdom. As Peter proclaimed, “He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.” And then, he added, “We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:9, 11)
God is extremely gracious. Think of the publican who beat his breast and would not lift his head (Luke 18:10-14). Think of Rahab the prostitute (James 2:25). Think of the words of Christ to his disciples when they barked at others doing exorcisms (Mark 9:38-41). Think of God’s desire for the salvation of mankind (2 Timothy 2:4), and his desire to see those wandering from the faith to find repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
At the end of the day, Eastern Orthodoxy makes very bold claims about itself (which they are free to make), but those claims, insofar as they purport to align with the oral traditions handed down by the apostles, must be clearly evidenced, and they must provide a clear and robust criterion by which outsiders can test such things. Discerning what is or what is not oral apostolic teaching instantiated in later writings is wildly challenging. I would dare say that it is effectively impossible, especially when there are a host of other groups making similar claims, thus muddying the waters even further.
Surely a Ph.D in historical studies is not required to even begin to adequately parse the data, especially when so much is at stake. Because to stress again, if we are wrong, we Protestants are, at best, dangling precariously, since we have not formally come into contact with Christ’s living presence found in the Church. As it has been expressed by the Orthodox: outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church.
So by way of summary, I would boil (part of) my concern down to a handful of bullets.
- Early Church worship and liturgy differ in marked ways from Eastern Orthodoxy. It not only appears to have been expressed more simply, but certain practices of Eastern Orthodoxy are either absent or faintly visible, lacking compelling evidence. [The most charitable way I could frame the above sentence would be to say that such practices appear to be absent or appear to be faintly visible to this writer.]
- Ditto for the New Testament.
- In the same way that Eastern Orthodoxy can see in the church fathers a diversity of opinions regarding the role of Peter and the keys of the Kingdom (so far as the primacy of Rome is concerned), it is obvious that there is a multiplicity of views in the church fathers that don’t accord with the practices and theology of Orthodoxy.
- None of this should be terribly surprising. Even in the earliest days of the church, as seen throughout the NT, congregations and leaders went astray in a variety of ways. The same is no doubt true after the apostles left the scene. Thus, adjudicating oral apostolic Tradition from other forms of tradition is fraught with difficulty.
- Appeals to the authority and preservation of the church doesn’t negate the central question: Where are the oral teachings exactly in these later documents? Noting the reality of an apostolic Tradition during the days of the apostles is quite different than locating said Tradition in the church fathers.
- One must also be cognizant of the dangers of tradition masquerading as the Word of God. Surely the NT teaches us to be aware of such pitfalls as evidenced with the Scribes and Pharisees. Human tradition can easily be elevated to an ungodly status.
- Therefore, when there appears to be prima facie reasons (1-6) for exercising great caution with the claims of Orthodoxy, and therefore prima facie reasons for viewing their claim to Tradition as highly suspect, it is easy to envision the aforementioned reasons as pointers indicating that Orthodoxy has but only (small t) tradition, not the full, unadulterated deposit of Tradition (which supposedly contains critically important truths not contained in Holy Scripture).
1When asked a similar question by Francis Chan, Hank Hanegraaff waxed eloquent for a good bit, but in the end, he simply avoided the question. See around the 11:15 minute mark here.
The Sound of Doctrine 