Tradition and Sacraments

For eight years my wife and I went to Walnut Creek Community Church in Des Moines. Over that same period of time I became more and more interested in early Christian beliefs and practices, which seemed in some key ways incredibly different from what modern American evangelicalism offers. Over time I felt like I couldn't really continue at Walnut Creek in an honest, full-hearted way anymore. In some strange way turning thirty made me want to follow through with my beliefs in a stronger way.

Anyway, this is a paper I wrote at the time. I gave it to the elders/pastors at Walnut Creek and to some of our closest friends at the church.


Tradition and Sacraments

In each church some doctrines are considered somewhat optional while others are held as absolutely core. Recently I've had to acknowledge I have beliefs which put me at odds with core beliefs of Walnut Creek.

Interpretation of Scripture
In practice, evangelicals pay little or no attention to what the church has believed throughout history when interpreting the Bible. This practice is typically known as sola scriptura. To begin with, the Reformers themselves had a high degree of respect for the church fathers, and I'm persuaded this is not how they understood this phrase. Be that as it may, I believe the evangelical approach of ignoring tradition when interpreting the Bible is flawed.

First, let's look at it from a human perspective with an analogy. Imagine a Supreme Court justice who becomes convinced the courts have distorted the Constitution over the years. Wanting to remain true to the Constitution, he decides he will base his decisions on the text of the Constitution itself and nothing else. What could be wrong with that? In keeping with his belief, he refuses to consider or even read the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, or the opinions of any court before the year 1970, the year he started law school. As time goes on, people notice his decisions become more and more bizarre. He seems to emphasize certain portions of the Constitution over others. He's unaware that some of his decisions directly contradict what we know to be the Founding Fathers' intentions from other documents.

Although he may intend his stance to be very conservative, he ends up inventing something new and therefore "non-conservative" out of the words of the Constitution. How could this happen? First, he ignores the context around the Constitution and the nation it actually created 225 years ago. Since the Constitution doesn't interpret itself, he will find it difficult to fully appreciate its meaning. Second, by not interacting with other, earlier interpretations of the Constitution, he may unintentionally read his own hidden biases and modem preconceptions into the text.

I believe the same principles hold true when interpreting the Bible. Although the Bible alone is the infallible word of God, like any other document the Bible does not interpret itself infallibly. Otherwise, honest, well-educated, Bible-believing people would not be able to come to opposite conclusions on doctrinal issues. It's simply a fact that there is always a human element to interpretation, and therefore the door is opened to bias, preconceptions, and honestly mistaken interpretations.

When we neglect to consult the church of the past, we may be revealing a hidden modernist attitude. We may think of earlier Christians as being superstitious or ignorant, simply because they didn't know as much about physics, chemistry, and so forth as we do. In many ways, their worldview really was much different than our current post- Enlightenment, postmodern culture. Therefore, it's easy to disregard their beliefs.

However, the Bible was written to certain people at a certain time in history. Even from a strictly historical perspective, it makes sense to find out how those earliest churches' understood it. After all, these Christians had access to written and oral sources that have since been lost. Church leaders from the second century were just a generation or two removed from the apostles.
As I was thinking about this, I imagined what it would be like to actually talk with an early church father. Pretend for a moment that you have a time machine and can travel back to the year 150 A.D. You look up Justin Martyr, a man who would one day pay the ultimate price for his faith, and start talking about Christianity with him. You agree on many issues, but when you bring up a certain issue, he peers at you with a questioning look, "You believe what? Are you from Corinth or something?"

Modern Christian: "No, that's what the Bible says. Don't you believe in the Bible?"

Justin: "Sure we believe in the Bible, but we don't interpret those verses in quite the same way you do. In fact, I don't think your interpretation really does justice to other parts of the Bible."

Modern Christian: "My commentary puts it all together. It all makes sense to me."

Justin: "OK, but there are several churches in the area which were founded by apostles not all that long ago. They all believe the same way about this issue, and in fact what you're saying contradicts that stance. Could all these churches which were founded by apostles have accidentally misinterpreted what the apostles said - in the same way?"

Modern Christian: "Who knows? It's been sixty years since the last apostle died. I don't see any reason for me to accept your human traditions."

Justin: "I'm not asking you to accept every word I say as if it were inspired by God! Still, shouldn't we get the benefit ofthe doubt? Why do you think you know more about what the apostles believed than we do? Who will know more about what you believed: someone in the year 2070, or someone in the year 3900?"

Modern Christian: "Umm..."

So much for my dramatic aspirations.

The Bible itself gives evidence of an active oral tradition in the early church. This tradition is not viewed as a negative thing, something to be replaced by Scripture as quickly as possible. John knew of many other miraculous signs Jesus had done which he left unrecorded in his gospel (John 20:30, John 21:25). Paul's instruction to Timothy to entrust to reliable men the things he had heard Paul say (2 Timothy 2:2) is a demonstration of early oral tradition in action. Paul not only condones this organic, oral method of passing along apostolic teaching, but he encourages it. The amazing thing to me was discovering these "reliable men" from the late first century and early-to-mid second century for myself. Many of them left writings that provide evidence about their beliefs. These men include martyrs like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr. The New Testament church described in Acts did not disappear off the face of the earth, only to be resurrected centuries later.

From a theological perspective, we should not see God as Deists do. He didn't inspire the New Testament, step back into heaven, and merely hope that Christians wouldn't misinterpret the Bible and lose the gospel. The picture we see of God is quite different from this Deist view. In Acts he actively intervenes in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. In Revelation he warns he will take action against those churches which deviate from his will. As the Head of the church, he has never relaxed his authority over the church, and he has never given up directing the church.

In fact, Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would never overcome his church (Matthew 16:18). This should give pause to those who posit a falling away from the gospel very early in the life of the church. I can't imagine a more stunning victory for Satan. Granted, it's possible that there was always a hidden church that held on to the pure gospel even while the institutional church forgot it or rejected it. At best, that's an argument from silence, an argument which can neither be proved nor refuted.

Jesus also promised the Holy Spirit would always be with us. I believe that's true not only on an individual basis, but on a church-wide basis as well. It seems that evangelicals unintentionally accept this as well, at least in one limited aspect: the New Testament canon. 367 A.D. is the first time a written list of the New Testament books exactly matches our modem list. Up to that time, some churches might omit Revelation or II Peter, while others might include a book like I Clement. If the church was corrupt by 367 A.D., we should feel free to ignore that human tradition and come up with our own canon, perhaps based on modem Biblical criticism. So, how would we decide what goes in the Bible? Would it be apostolic authorship? Many modem scholars dismiss the apostolic authorship of Ephesians, 2 Peter, and 1 and 2 Timothy. No one knows who wrote Hebrews. We could quickly come to several different conclusions over what should be included in the Bible.

For me at least, the reality is that I've always had an unspoken faith that the Holy Spirit was guiding the church. I believe he wouldn't let the church go wrong on such an important matter. It makes little sense to ignore the early church when interpreting Scripture, but listen to it on the more important matter of what is Scripture.

I know this leaves a lot of questions unanswered. To be honest I'm not sure myself how far to trust tradition. I don't read church fathers as if they are equivalent with the Bible; after all, they sometimes contradict each other and even themselves! Still, I think the evangelical position is too extreme when it ignores tradition altogether, and I know there's valid middle ground between that position and the position of Catholicism. I want to make it clear that I don't believe Catholicism's claim that the pope can make up new infallible tradition whenever he wants, whether it's supported by the Bible or not (i.e., the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, etc.). For now I'm willing to say that the more ancient and widespread a belief was in the church, the more likely it reflects apostolic teaching and the Holy Spirit's guidance. Therefore, we should mistrust an interpretation of Scripture that contradicts those early, widespread beliefs.

Means of Grace or Symbols?
As I read the church fathers over the past several years, some things seemed very familiar to me: the centrality of Jesus's death and resurrection, his divinity and humanity, and salvation by grace through faith, to name a few. However, other things were disturbing.

The primary cause of this disturbance was the early Christian belief that baptism and communion are means of sacramental grace and not just symbols. Calvin provides a good explanation of this difference in his Institutes: "God, therefore, truly performs whatever he promises and figures by signs; nor are the signs without effect, for they prove that he is their true and faithful author." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chap. XIV). Calvin elsewhere observes that the Anabaptists had made the sacraments into "empty signs."

Did the early Christians really believe that in baptism our sins are forgiven and that in communion Christ's body and blood are in some sense really present? Let's see what they had to say in their own words.

Ignatius (c. 105 A.D.):
"They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/igna/ig2smyraeansshort.html

Justin Martyr (c. 160 A.D.)
"And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3935_744654

Justin Martyr (c. 160 AD.):
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3903_733473

Irenaeus (c. 180 AD.):
"For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-64.htm#P9597_2800282

Irenaeus (c. 180 A.D.):
"But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P8324_2319830 (point 5)

Tertullian (c. 220 AD.):
"There is absolutely nothing which makes men's minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible."
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-49.htm#P11466_3245563

The Nicene Creed (325 AD.)
"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."
http://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html

I found myself thinking, "No! This can't be true! The early church didn't believe this, did they? I thought the Catholics made this up in like 900 AD. or something. Plus, God can't forgive sins through baptism because that's nothing but works salvation!" You see, a belief in sacramental means of grace (specifically baptism) had always been a key signal to me that someone didn't understand the gospel. Yet, here were these early Christians who apparently believed the same thing. So... who didn't understand the gospel? Then I read both Luther and Calvin and discovered the Reformers had basically sacramental views of baptism and communion as well. To my surprise I discovered that even the Puritans practiced infant baptism. How were all these people seeing this stuff in the Bible?

Slowly, as I read the Bible through the eyes of these other Christians, things began coming into focus. Verses such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27, Colossians 2:12, and Romans 6:3-4 started to make more sense to me. Look them up for yourself. Try to read them without preconceptions. Maybe this older tradition has some Scriptural support after all. Maybe the evangelical interpretation of these verses is actually less straightforward than the traditional interpretation. Perhaps we have imposed a certain systematic theology and worldview onto the Scriptures instead of letting them speak for themselves.

One of the first questions people ask me is, "Do you think you have to be baptized to be saved?" The answer is no. The best Scriptural example is the thief on the cross. He was never baptized and he never took communion, but Jesus promised he would be with him in paradise that day. Let me be clear. I believe God works through the sacraments, but I don't believe God works only through the sacraments.

Stepping back, I think part of the reason evangelicals disagree with baptismal regeneration is that we think it's a "work," and we therefore believe it violates Titus 3:5. But where is this identification between baptism and works taught in Scripture? In reality it's just a classification we've made on our own. I maintain that if baptism is a work, praying the sinner's prayer or even the act of believing itself could equally be considered works. It's misleading to simply label any human action in salvation as "salvation by works."

Another part of the problem is that we are afraid people will trust in sacramental rituals instead of in Christ. This is indeed a valid concern. It's also a danger for those who believe they're saved because they once walked down an aisle or prayed a certain prayer. When sacraments are received in faith, they shouldn't distract us from Christ - instead, they unite us with him. On the other hand, I don't think sacraments automatically give grace even when a person is unbelieving or unrepentant. As 1 Corinthians 11 warns, a sacrament can actually bring judgment on a person who receives it improperly. They aren't magic.

Finally, for me part of the problem was the whole idea of any physical thing accomplishing a genuinely spiritual effect. It seemed somehow less superstitious to see a purely spiritual cause for a spiritual effect like forgiveness. But then I began thinking more about how our salvation came about in the first place. The Incarnation was quite physical. Jesus was born, grew to adulthood, died on a cross, was buried, and rose again. And yet these physical events had immense spiritual significance. Viewed in that way, it makes more sense that God could continue to invest physical acts with true spiritual significance.

So, I can't accept evangelicalism's complete denial of sacramental means of grace anymore. I know there are extremes on the other side as well, but I think there's a valid middle ground –I just don't claim to know precisely what it is yet.

I hope I've made clear some of the boundaries I see. I hope it's also clear I'm not planning on hopping the next plane to Rome so I can kiss the pope's foot. It's true that in many ways I feel uncomfortably adrift. Still, I know a few places I do not want to end up! I continue to pray that God would lead me toward a fuller understanding of his word and his truth. I would ask for your prayers as well.