III. AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE ON TRADITION

                        A. The need for tradition

            1. General reasons

            Human beings cannot live without traditions. We are, structurally, social beings, existing in societies based on tradition, which is a principle of conservation and of continuity. Without it every new generation would have to start absolutely everything all over again. Historically we may detect a dynamics between two opposite and inseparable force: renewal and conservatism. Without renewal life would be boring. In fact it would stop having any meaning. Everything would be just routine, and man as a creative being bearing the image of God would disappear. Yet without conservatism progressive renewal would not possible. Everything would be chaotic and unstable. Tradition, we may argue, holds the two in creative tension. It tells the human person that he (or she) is not an accident of history, but is a chapter in a long story, thus giving meaning to the person and allowing her the freedom to actualize her potential.

            However, if tradition is corrupted and transforms itself into traditionalism, it becomes oppressive and creates reaction. Indeed, the anti-traditionalists cannot help but create their own tradition, only less profound and effective. If anti-traditionalism is applied consistently over a long period of time, the result is total instability, the loss of values in society and eventually the death of man as man.

            Our intention with this introduction is to describe in general terms the story of tradition, but behind the words there is a sad story. It is the story of the Christian Church, built on solid traditional moral and religious values, which were eroded in time and become stale. It is the story of reaction against traditionalism, which has been carried away into over-reaction and `through the baby with the water in the bath tub'. The result has been at various times in history, fragmentation, instability, suspicion and a new form of traditionalism. Will now wisdom prevail?

            Outside the Church, where this anti-traditionalist passion, expressed through the humanism of the Renaissance and the rationalism of the Enlightenment, was pressed to its limits the result historically has been various expressions of despair, death, decomposition or, in more sophisticated, post-modern terms, deconstruction. Who is going to show the world the way back? Or is it a question of `the blind leading the blind'?

            2. Ecclesiastic reasons

            In an article entitled `The Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church', Fr. Florovsky discusses the famous saying of St. Vincent of Lerins: "We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all". This, he believes, is the proper way of establishing `the double "ecumenicity" of the Church - in space and in time'.[1] We find here a nuanced analysis of St Vincent's widely accepted model, which stands in sharp contrast with Florovsky's earlier very critical discussion of the matter (published 1934).[2] A summary of Florovsky's paper in 1963 will be, we believe, a good introduction to our evaluation of the meaning of tradition in the Orthodox Church.

            What the author tries to establish in his later paper is the absolute necessity of the concept of tradition for a correct interpretation of Scripture. He states that no one of the criteria proposed by St. Vincent - universitas, antiquitas and consensio - could be absolute or adequate by itself. `"Antiquity" as such was not yet a sufficient warrant for truth, unless a comprehensive consensus of the "ancients" could be satisfactorily demonstrated, And consensio as such was not conclusive, unless it could be traced back continuously to Apostolic origins.'[3] Thus, orthodoxy can be recognized by a double recourse - to Scripture and to tradition. To this Florovsky adds carefully: `This did not imply however that there were two sources of Christian doctrine'.

            Why then was it absolutely necessary to invoke the authority of "ecclesiastic understanding"? The answer is obvious: the Scriptures were interpreted in different ways by individuals and many times it seemed to yield quite opposite meanings. According to St. Vincent, followed by Fr. Florovsky and by most Orthodox theologians, the only protection against the danger of relativising the meaning of Scripture is to respond to it with an appeal to the mind of the Church. However, this does not make tradition into an independent authority or a complementary source of faith:

"Ecclesiastic understanding" could not add anything to Scripture. But it was the only means to ascertain and disclose the true meaning of Scripture. Tradition was in fact the authentic interpretation of Scripture. And in this sense it was co-extensive with Scripture. Tradition was actually "Scripture rightly understood".[4]

            Such a comment can be said to represent the opinion of the majority of the Orthodox theologians and it is undoubtedly the prevalent understanding in contemporary Orthodox theology.

                        B. The genesis of tradition

            1. The context

            According to Georges Florovsky the authority of tradition was first invoked in the second century, during the struggle against Gnostics, Sabellians, Montanists and Marcionites.[5] In fact the Gnostics were those who appealed first to the principle of antiquity as a justification for their beliefs. This challenged the early Church to balance antiquity with universality and consensus as criteria for establishing the orthodox character of a certain belief.

            On the other hand, the heretics were themselves quoting Scripture in defence of their position. This forced the orthodox Christians to ask a fundamental hermeneutic question: What should be the principle of Scripture interpretation that would bring forth its correct meaning? The answer was unequivocal:

Scripture belonged to the Church, and it was only in the Church, within the community of right faith, that Scripture could be adequately understood and correctly interpreted. Heretics, that is - those outside of the Church, had no key to the mind of the Scripture. It was not enough just to read and to quote Scriptural words - the true meaning, or intent, of Scripture, taken as an integral whole, had to be elicited. One had to grasp, as it were - in advance, the true pattern of Biblical revelation, the great design of God's redemptive Providence, as this could be done only by an insight of faith... But this faith was not an arbitrary and subjective insight of individuals - it was the faith of the Church, rooted in the Apostolic message, or kerygma, and authenticated by it.[6]

            It is hard not to appreciate the soundness of this kind of reasoning, especially in the context of the heated debate over orthodoxy in the second century. What is more surprising is this very modern, almost Polanyian line of argument, which speaks by itself of its relevance, whatever the concrete historical circumstances.

            2. The process

            The appeal to tradition changed its character in the course of history. In the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian the Apostolic past was at hand. The main concern in that period was with the original foundation of the Christian faith, with the initial "delivery" of the kerygma. Later on, in the third and fourth centuries, the main concern was with the "preservation" of the message of the Gospel.[7]

            We may distinguish three stages in the development of tradition. They are not consecutive, but build one on the other, so that at present tradition is a combined result of these stages of development.

            The first stage, the oral Apostolic tradition, dates from the birth of the Church and was the means through the Holy Spirit has sustained the life of Church in the first decades of her existence. It was rooted in the preaching of the Apostles and created the dogmatic and liturgical context in which the primitive Church was supposed to grow. This does not mean that the Church existed without Scripture at that time. The Old Testament, interpreted in light of the Christ-event, provided the Apostles and the Early Church with an even more solid foundation for her life and ministry. Thus, Christianity was not an absolutely new thing. It was the fulfillment of the Messianic expectations of the Old Testament prophets.

            The second stage "fixed" of the oral Apostolic tradition in the books of the New Testament. It took place in the second half of the first century, but three more centuries were necessary for the Church to come to agreement on the canon of the New Testament. Not all the Apostolic tradition is contained explicitly in the New Testament, but the essential criterion of validation of a certain book as part of the canon was conformity to the Apostolic tradition. In fact, the Councils did not decide which books to be accepted and which books to be excluded from the canon. They have only sanctioned in an authoritative manner the universal practice of the Church.

            The third stage is that which followed the writing of the New Testament books. It was concerned with the preservation of the Apostolic heritage, but also with reformulating the kerygma in terms that would respond to the various challenges that confronted the Church. It was first of all the time of the Church Fathers and of the seven ecumenical Councils, which represent the common heritage of the Church. It is also the time when particular theologies and local traditions were developed. Some of these became part of the universal wealth of the Church, some were abandoned as the conditions that made them necessary have disappeared, while others have been rejected as wrong or unuseful. The criteria of selection were now the Apostolic kerygma and the Holy Scripture.

                        C. The Orthodox meaning of tradition

It is the time now to return to the model of Pelikan concerning the different meanings of tradition. In its terms, the Orthodox Church sees tradition as an icon. It is neither the ultimate reality, nor just a token, an arbitrary sign, which could be replaced with any other. Tradition, in the Orthodox understanding, embodies in a mysterious way the reality it represents, the revelation of God. Its purpose is not to attract attention to itself - that would be idolatrous, but to the reality it represents. Nevertheless, the way towards that reality is through tradition. There is no other way.

            1. What tradition is not

            It is very easy for those outside the Orthodox environment to misunderstand what the Orthodox mean when they speak about tradition. This is why it is useful to clarify first of all what tradition is not. The following significant quotations will provide a good overview:

'Tradition was not just a transmission of inherited doctrines, in a "Judaic manner", but rather the continuous life in the truth.'[8]

`Tradition is not only a protective, conservative principle; it is primarily the principle of growth and regeneration. Tradition is not a principle striving to restore the past, using the past as a criterion for the present.'[9]

`Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not a historical principle.'[10]

            A common feature of the above statements is that they are not formulated in absolute terms. They do not tell us what the tradition is not (with the exception of the fact that it is not an anachronistic principle) - as if they would have an apologetic character, but rather that tradition is not just what it is thought in some circles to be - in other words, they are correctives for certain misunderstandings.

            In other words, tradition is all those things - a `transmission of inherited doctrines', a `protective principle', a `memory of words', but it cannot be reduced to them. Such a view would be passeistic. What these texts try to tell us is that tradition is not like a picture of a past event. It is rather the mysterious presence of that past among us, not as an oppressive weight over our heads, but as a foundation for growth.

            2. The different forms of tradition

            We can talk about tradition both in a general and in a restricted sense. By tradition in the general sense the Orthodox Church means the entire life of the Church, which includes the Holy Scripture. Tradition in its restricted sense refers to the preaching and the testimony of the Church, whether oral, written or monumental.

            The oral tradition was handed down especially in liturgical form and contains elements that did not enter the New Testament (such as those concerning clergy, the veneration of the Holy Virgin, of the saints and of icons, etc.).

            The written tradition contains the dogmatic formulations of the seven ecumenical Council, the Creeds, the works of the Church Fathers and the canonic rules. Not all canonic rules have the same authority. Many of them are reactions to various historical circumstances and lose their usefulness when the conditions that made them necessary have changed. Some also have only a local sphere of operation.[11]

            The monumental tradition is incorporated in Church buildings, mural paintings, icons and other ritual objects. They have a high symbolic value and are non-conceptual ways in which the spiritual content of the Orthodox faith is communicated to its adherents.

            3. The 'silent' tradition

            Jaroslav Pelikan, commenting the conclusions of John Henry Newman's book Arians of the Fourth Century makes the following observation: `The specific content of the Apostolic tradition had to remain secret because so much of it, in the precredal "traditionary system, received from the first age of the Church" had been not dogmatic, but liturgical in its form'.[12] He explains this in the sense that much of tradition was not intended for those outside the Church, but for the "insiders". Fr. Florovsky would not totally agree with this interpretation.

            The starting point of Pelikan may have been a passage from St. Basil's treatise on the Holy Spirit. It says: `Of the dogmata and kerygmata, which are kept in the Church, we have some from the written teaching, and some we derive from the Apostolic paradosis, which had been handed down en mysterio. And both have the same strength in the matters of piety'.[13]

             Florovsky explains that for St. Basil kerygmata were what later came to be called dogmas or doctrines - the authoritative teaching that the Church professed publicly. Secondly, by dogmata he meant the complex of `unwritten habits' incorporated in the liturgical life of the Church. In this context the author believes that it would be incorrect to render en mysterio by "in secret", which would a certain esoteric character of tradition, more in line with Gnostic than with Christian thinking. The right translation would be "by way of mysteries", more precisely through the sacraments.

            This does not deny the `silent' character of certain traditions, which, according to St. Basil had to be kept unwritten in order to prevent profanation at the hands of the infidel, a reflection of the time when Christianity was a persecuted and secretive religion. To what extent was the insistence on the `silent' character of tradition a relevant matter in the new conditions, after Christianity came out of the catacombs as the official religion of the Empire is a matter of discussion. We believe this is an expression of the conservative spirit which is prevalent in Orthodoxy.

                        D. The functions of tradition

            1. Tradition versus Scripture

            There is no uniform position in the Orthodox Church concerning the dynamics of Scripture and tradition. Some authors tend to give Scripture a higher authority, which makes their position compatible, at least to a certain extent, with the Protestant understanding,[14] while others insist that Scripture and tradition have the same degree of authority.

            Sergius Bulgakov is a very articulate proponent of the first opinion. He says in his book The Orthodox Church:

... the Word of God is above all other sources of faith, especially of all tradition in all its forms. Tradition adapts itself to the different needs of different epochs; Holy Scripture, that is the voice of god addressed to man, has absolute value, though revealed under a conditioned historical form... Holy Scripture and tradition are unequal in value. First place belongs to the Word of God; the criterion of the truth of Scripture is not tradition (although tradition testifies to Scripture) but on the contrary, tradition is recognized when founded on Scripture. Tradition cannot be in disagreement with Scripture.[15]

            On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox dogmatician Christos Androutsos represents a different position. He makes the following statement in his Symbolics: `The acceptance of the Tradition as source of the same value with the Holy Scriptures is historically and logically correct and necessary'.[16]

            The explanation for the difference can be found in the two directions that divide Orthodox dogmatics in the twentieth century. Androutsos represents the older direction, which is a form of Orthodox scholasticism of Roman-Catholic origin, having its roots in the theology of the counter-Reformation. This explains its lower view of Scripture and the respective higher view of tradition, as a reaction on the Reformed insistence on the principle sola scriptura.

            The other direction, more apophatic, represented by Sergius Bulgakov and other Russian theologians, in Russia and in the Diaspora, as well as a number of other writers such as Dumitru Staniloae, John Zizioulas and Kallistos Ware, stands under the influence of Pseudo-Dyonysius, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas. Even if this group of theologians is more inclined than the others to affirm the supremacy of Scripture over tradition, at the same time, because of their sacramentalism, they tend to give an exaggerated importance to the liturgic use of Scripture, which is considered by far the most important one.[17] The result is a neglect of the private use of Scripture in the life of the Orthodox believer.

            Fr. Ion Bria formulates in his book Destinul ortodoxiei [The Destiny of Orthodoxy] a number of principles governing the dynamics of Scripture and tradition.[18] They are an excellent summary of the Orthodox position on this issue:

a. `God reveals His presence, His grace and His works through His Incarnated Word and through His Spirit, in and through His People, the Church.'

b. `The Word and the Spirit of God cannot be separated; therefore the Holy Scripture and Tradition are inseparable in the life of the Church.'

c. `The testimony of the Holy Scripture and that of Tradition form a unified whole; therefore they are complementary and concomitant for doctrine and praxis in the Church.'

d. `The Holy Scripture in its entirety has a normative authority, affirmed by Tradition.'

e.` In Tradition the Church connects the word of the Gospel with the reality and the concrete conditions of those who believe.'

            The resulting picture is that of a mysterious connection between Scripture and tradition in the context of the Church. It can be compared, at least to a certain extent to the hypostatic union of the two natures, divine and human, in the Person of the Incarnated Son of God.[19] This connection is emphasized even more when we see tradition as a the means to arrive to a correct interpretation of Scripture.

            2. Tradition as a hermeneutical principle

            `One might suggest', says Florovsky, `that the Scriptures are the only authentic record of the revelation, and everything else is no more than a commentary thereupon. And commentary can never have the same authority as the original record.' Then he adds: `There is some truth in this suggestion...[20] By this he means that tradition is indeed a commentary, an interpretation of the written revelation contained in the Holy Scripture, but that it is more than that. It is itself a form of revelation. In this sense it preceded Scripture and, after the books of the Bible were written, it preserved those elements of the Apostolic preaching which were not contained in it.

            In another very important passage for our discussion, Fr. Florovsky explains the reason why the Early Church, and following her the Orthodox Church, believe that such a hermeneutical principle is necessary:

Tradition was in the Early Church, first of all, an hermeneutical principle and method. Scripture could be rightly and fully assessed and understood only in the light and in the context of the living Apostolic Tradition, which was an integral factor of Christian existence. It was so, of course, not because Tradition could add anything to what has been manifested in the Scripture, but because it provided that living context, the comprehensive perspective, in which only the true "intention" and the total "design" of the Holy Writ, of Divine Revelation itself, could be detected and grasped.[21]

            A wise maxim says that "facts are simple things until set in context". In other words, facts do not carry meaning. They may mean one thing or another, sometimes totally opposite, depending on the large framework in which they are set or on the perspective from which they are analyzed. What `tradition as a hermeneutic principle' tries to do, is to ensure that the facts we gather from our reading and study of Scripture do not come to mean something else than what they were intended to mean. How does this work practically? First of all, by coming to the Scriptures from the ground of the Church, equipped with the "mind of the Church", and secondly, by submitting the results of our research to the authority of the Church, seen as a "hermeneutic community". Such an attitude could simply called loyalty.

            3. Loyalty to tradition

            Loyalty to tradition does not involve stagnation and rigid conservatism, nor servile imitation. Loyalty to tradition did not prevent the Fathers from creating new words in order to protect the unchanging faith of the Church. We are called not just to learn the Fathers, but to learn from them. They have changed things in their time; we are called to follow their example in a creative way. But this should never mean change for the sake of change, nor autonomous and individualistic initiative.

            If we understand what tradition really is and in what intimate way it is connected with Scriptures, it will not difficult to accept the necessity of dedication to tradition. For, as Georges Florovsky comments: `Loyalty to tradition does not mean loyalty to bygone times and to outward authority; it is a living connection with the fullness of Church experience.'[22] The Church did not start with and probably will not end with us. It is an act of realistic humility to show respect for the work of the Spirit and to accept as a privilege and a manifestation of grace the opportunity offered to us to be part of this wealth of spirituality and to make it grow through our personal contribution

                        E. Critical considerations

The fact that something is a tradition, does not make it automatically right. The Orthodox agree that we need to use discernment and selectivity in the reception (or rejection) of certain traditions. Some traditions are simply wrong. As we have already said, "antiquity" is a necessary, but not a sufficient criterion for the legitimacy of tradition. A genuine tradition should be able to be traced, directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, back to the Apostles and also to be confirmed by the universal consensus of the Church.[23]

            The model seems to be balanced theoretically, but practically speaking the issue is not so simple to resolve. First of all, the consensus is not easy to discover because of the diversity in the local traditions. From them one has to discern what is universal and timeless and what is just of limited value.

            Secondly, individual differences (one should rather say "personal", in Orthodox language), sometimes really sharp ones, still persist and have always been there between theologians. Some issues have been resolved in time; others, among which also very old ones, are still discussed, while the Church is constantly confronted with new challenges.

            And finally, if the balance between Scripture and tradition is inclined in the direction of tradition, in time, traditions foreign to the spirit of Scripture may be allowed in the corpus of tradition, without the`immune system' of the Church being able to react. Obviously, the Orthodox do not see this as a serious danger, since the `rule of faith' can still function as a protection. Sergius Bulgakov goes basically in this direction when he says:

... the connection between Scripture and tradition being so close, a man not knowing the Bible cannot be considered as deprived of Christian instruction, where the vacancy is filled by living tradition: oral, cultural, plastic. And just as the Church, at its best moments, has had the power to exist without the written word, certain communities continue to live without the written word, certain communities continue to live without the Scriptures in our day.[24]

Since this leaves a definite impression of putting down the importance of Scripture, he adds: `A Christian can and should have a personal attitude towards the Bible, a life united with the Bible, just as he should have an individual prayer-life.' Then he goes on, giving the example of the Church Fathers, who were really men of the Word.

            In order not to be guilty of subjectivism, let us use a short example from the Protestant realm. Argyris Petrou, pastor of the Greek Evangelical Church in Toronto writes in a polemic paper in which he tries to answer the question `to what extent is Orthodoxy compatible with Evangelicalism?':

The Church is under the authority of the Scriptures and not the Scriptures under the authority of the Church. We do not expect anything else to be elevated to the same or higher level than that of the Word of God. We believe the Word of God to be final and complete.

We do not reject tradition altogether, but we judge the validity of tradition by the Word of God.[25]

            From the examples given above we get the impression that something is really missing. Moreover, the reality does not justify the optimism, either in the Orthodox or in the Protestant circle. Lack of instruction in the Scriptures in the Orthodox circles has opened the gate for a lot of confusion and syncretism, while a practical neglect of tradition in the Protestant milieu has given birth to liberalism and continuous fragmentation.

            Besides the practical reasons, coming from historical experience, there are also some theoretical objections to this kind of optimism. If we can manage to restore the core of revelation without Scripture, is the Bible necessary anymore, or we can do without it? And if we can survive without tradition, why should we stick to the canon and the dogma established by tradition?

            The issue leaves the impression that a delicate mechanism is somewhat out of order, or, to use a better illustration, it is like in an ecosystem, where one of the important species tends to disappear, and the balance of the whole living system is in danger.

            We believe that a possible solution to this problem can be found by a dynamic application of the model proposed by Jaroslav Pelikan, in the context of the model of Trinity. In the center of the model we propose there is Scripture and tradition, as two distinct, but inseparable elements. "Ontologically" they are consubstantial, both being equally forms of revelation, but "economically" Scripture has authority over tradition, in same manner in which the Son has authority over the Holy Spirit.

            Now, if in the delicate balance of this mechanism there is any interference (by assigning "economical" identity between Scripture and tradition or by assigning some ontological superiority of Scripture over tradition) the whole mechanism breaks down.

            A viable model of the relationship between Scripture and tradition would involve seeing this inseparable pair as an icon of revelation. In this sense they embody, but are not identical with the reality they represent, each having a specific role in the "economy" of the process.

            However, if one of these elements fails to direct us towards the reality it represents and attracts our attention towards itself, this transforms it into an idol and by reaction the other element is transformed into a mere token, an arbitrary sign which does not carry within it the reality towards which it points out.

            Our model is only a proposal, and the space of this paper does dot allow for a detailed analysis of it. We believe, however, that there is some potential in it and we shall be able to pursue it in future research.