THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND THE RISE OF SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY: THE ROLE OF THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH By REBEKAH L. PIKKARAINEN B.A. Biblical Studies, Trinity Western University, 2021 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in BIBILICAL STUDIES and CHRISTIAN THOUGHT in the FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY March 2023 © Rebekah L. Pikkarainen, 2023 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE To those in my life who have sought authenticity and deeper roots, I hope this can be illuminative. ii THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This endeavor would not have been possible without my supervisor, Dr. Craig Allert, who played an essential role in the formulation and development of my thesis. He challenged me to defend my arguments, offered excellent critical, yet gracious, feedback, and encouraged me through the highs and lows of writing. My deepest appreciation as well goes to my second reader, Dr. Archie Spencer, for his invaluable contributions to my research journey and unwavering belief in my abilities. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Thomas Hatina, Stu Talené, and Kyle Parsons, for giving me direction, advice, and resources in memory studies, and for patiently responding to my endless questions. I also had the pleasure of working with Dr. Michael Wilkinson, Dr. Bruce Guenther and Dr. Daniel Worden. Their wealth of knowledge in their respective fields has been instrumental to the development of this thesis. I would like to thank Dr. Kent Clarke, for always having an open door to theological conversation and for offering unfailing moral support and encouragement, and especially for encouraging me to pursue my MA. I am also thankful to my fellow grad students, especially Naomi, Matthew, and Joshua, for the mutual encouragement and commiseration, the theological discussions, and support in this MA journey. Special thanks as well to Janaya, whose technical support and consistent cheerfulness were greatly appreciated. I am extremely grateful to my sisters-in-law Lindsey, Jessica, and April. They have been models of perseverance and dedication in pursuing their MAs through the diverse circumstances and challenges of life, including raising families, moving, experiencing loss, and working fulltime. And of course, I am thankful to Chris, Aaron, and Tapio, for their continual encouragement, empathy, and brotherly advice. I want to thank Hannah especially for always checking in on me, offering consistent moral support and a welcoming home, for challenging me with theological questions, and for her friendship. Thanks also to Ashley, for being a consistent friend and study partner, and helping keep me accountable to putting in the hours. Not enough can be said in appreciation of Lucy, for listening patiently to my passionate rants about my new discoveries and the minute details of my outlines, encouraging me through the phases of pessimism and lack of motivation, and ensuring I was well taken care of – not only throughout my MA, but also during our undergrad. I would not have made it this to this point in my education without her friendship and support. And to everyone else who has helped along the way, asked questions about my thesis, and offered words of encouragement … Thank you. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE iv Abstract The primary aim of this thesis is to demonstrate how the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) had a key influence on the priority given to Scripture – over the theological understanding of Tradition and Scripture working together – in evangelicalism. I propose that the trajectory initiated by the WCF led to an elevation of the authority of Scripture and a problematic rejection of Tradition. Within evangelicalism, the WCF offered justification for locating the sole authority over church doctrine and practice in Scripture, as exemplified in “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” A further aim is to incorporate a sociological discussion on the function of tradition and memory in collective identities. While theologians refer to sociologist Edward Shils’ Tradition to demonstrate the essential role of tradition in forming and maintaining a collective identity, the theological discussion on the Christian Tradition and evangelical identity can be enriched by employing further research from memory studies. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE v Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. Thesis 1 II. Historiography of Sola Scriptura in Evangelicalism 2 III. Tradition: Terminology and a NT Analysis 8 IV. Defining Evangelicalism 11 V. Outline 14 CHAPTER 1: MEMORY, IDENTITY, AND TRADITION ....................................................... 16 I. Introduction 16 II. Shils’ Thesis 19 III. Expanding the Sources: Memory, Identity, and Tradition 21 A. Toward a memory matrix 21 B. Continuity and change 26 IV. Beyond Shils: New Considerations for Theologians 28 CHAPTER 2: TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE IN THE PATRISTIC CHURCH .................... 31 I. Introduction 31 II. Tradition, Scripture, and the Patristic Church 31 A. Stability through Tradition 32 B. Growth through Tradition 38 C. Living Tradition 43 III. Scripture: A ‘Monument’ of Tradition 47 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE IV. Conclusion vi 50 CHAPTER 3: THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AND CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICALISM ................................................................................................................... 51 I. Introduction 51 II. Socio-political and Religious Context of the WCF 54 A. Era of confessionalism 55 B. Ongoing Roman Catholic-Protestant conflict 56 C. Developing civil war 58 III. The Westminster Assembly 59 A. Diverse goals for the Assembly 60 B. The Westminster Standards and the conclusion of the civil war 62 IV. The Doctrine of Scripture in the WCF 63 V. The WCF in Presbyterianism 66 VI. The WCF and Contemporary Evangelicalism 69 A. “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” 70 B. Contemporary statements of faith 75 VII. Conclusion 77 CHAPTER 4: DEVIATION FROM THE PATRISTIC VIEW ................................................... 78 I. Introduction 78 II. On Scripture and Tradition: A Comparison of the WCF and the CSBI 79 A. Scripture separated from Tradition 79 B. Scripture funds the revelation of Jesus Christ 81 C. The role of the Holy Spirit is reduced 83 D. The doctrine of Scripture becomes paramount 85 III. Conclusion 87 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE vii CHAPTER 5: MEMORY STUDIES, TRADITION, AND ITS RECOVERY ............................ 90 I. Introduction 90 II. Applying Memory Studies 90 A. Memory studies and development in the patristic church 91 B. Memory studies, monuments, and Scripture 93 C. Memory studies and the English Reformation 94 III. Renewing Tradition in Evangelicalism IV. Conclusion 99 105 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 108 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE ABBREVIATIONS ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers. CC Philip Schaff, ed. The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, vols. 1-2. CCF Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds. Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. CSBI “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” CT Jaroslav Pelikan. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971-1989. DBAM Tom Thatcher et al., eds. The Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media. London; Oxford; New York; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2017. ICBI International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. NPNF1 The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. NPNF2 The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. NRSV New Revised Standard Version. WCF Westminster Confession of Faith. viii THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 1 INTRODUCTION In the patristic era, Tradition and Scripture were seen as inseparable. One could not function without the other. Together, these pillars of the church embodied the immensity and significance of God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Together, Tradition and Scripture safeguarded and conveyed the revelation of Christ in the life of the church, through space and time. At some point in the development of Protestantism, however, Tradition was decisively separated from Scripture. The enormity of this loss cannot be overstated. Removing Tradition from this foundational role in the church is like removing a load-bearing wall in a house. American evangelicalism is one branch of Protestantism that has largely rejected Tradition. By resting authority over faith and practice exclusively on Scripture, rather than Tradition and Scripture, contemporary evangelicalism has lost a substantial part of its life-giving Christian heritage. There remains an inherent suspicion toward Tradition and an ongoing and unresolved polemic over the doctrine of Scripture. I. Thesis The primary aim of this thesis is to demonstrate that Chapter One of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), “Of the Holy Scripture,” was a key influencing document in the priority and authority given to Scripture – over the patristic1 understanding of Tradition and Scripture working In this thesis, the terms “patristic church,” “patristic age,” “patristic era,” and “early church” refer to the era of the church beginning in the post-apostolic era and spanning the first few centuries of church history up to and including the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE). 1 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 2 together – in American evangelicalism. The evangelicals in view are the contemporary “sola scripturists,” specifically those whose view of Scripture is laid out in the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (CSBI). As indicated in the CSBI, the WCF offered justification for evangelicals to locate the sole authority over church doctrine and practice in Scripture. This thesis contends that this evangelical view of Scripture, which excludes Tradition and yet claims to be in the “central church position,” is a deviation from the patristic view, which upheld a symbiotic relationship between Scripture and Tradition.2 A further aim of this thesis is to incorporate an interdisciplinary discussion from memory studies, a versatile field of study rising from sociology, into the discussion on the Christian Tradition. While theologians have referred to sociologist Edward Shils’ Tradition to demonstrate the essential role of tradition in forming and maintaining a collective identity, the theological discussion on Tradition can be greatly enriched by employing further research from memory studies. Frameworks and language offered by memory studies offer a new lens on Tradition, the development of evangelical identity, and the possibility of a renewal of Tradition in evangelicalism. II. Historiography of Sola Scriptura in Evangelicalism Sola scriptura has long been a bulwark of evangelicalism, functioning as the primary principle informing evangelical faith and practice. However, sola scriptura today, as it is expressed by some evangelical groups, does not mean what it did in the Reformation. A.N.S. Lane argues that “sola Scriptura did not for the Reformers mean nuda Scriptura,” where Scripture is the only source of There is a tension between these claims. The claim to be within the “central church position” implies a continuity with the patristic era. However, this thesis posits that the contemporary view of Scripture and Tradition does not align with the patristic view. 2 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 3 authority.3 Rather, the Reformers saw Scripture as the “final authority” over all other authorities of Christian doctrine and practice, including tradition, the church, reason, and experience.4 In contrast, recent polemic over the doctrine of Scripture in evangelicalism reveals an ongoing identification with sola scriptura, but with a different nuance. Mark Noll observes a “resurgence” in “evangelical Bible scholarship” beginning in the 1930s, which had declined severely in the previous decades;5 evangelicals in this era sought to renew their relevance in the realm of biblical criticism, rather than remaining withdrawn, and to retain their primary belief in the “Bible’s truthfulness.”6 Two camps emerged in this era. In the first, evangelical scholars adhering to “traditional interpretations” of Scripture found it “necessary to carry on academic work because erroneous critical opinions must be rebutted and correct views of Scripture reinforced.”7 The second camp allowed that biblical criticism “may legitimately produce conclusions that overturn traditional evangelical beliefs about the Bible.”8 While evangelical scholars in both camps use criticism differently in biblical interpretation, the common purpose of this interpretation is to clarify and convey biblical truth to the evangelical populace in order to edify its faith and practice. The underlying assumption of these evangelicals is that the Bible alone informs their faith – and therefore it must be interpreted accurately. In this 3 A.N.S. Lane, “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, eds. P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1994), 327. 4 Lane, “Sola Scriptura?” 323-327. 5 Mark A. Noll, Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986), 91. Factors that contributed to “an eclipse of evangelical biblical scholarship” in the early twentieth century include “the loss of institutional bases within the older denominations, a shrinking core of active Bible scholars, the spread of dispensationalism, the ascendancy of activism, the distrust of the university, [and] the disruption of the fundamentalist-modernist controversies” (60-61). 6 Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 143. 7 Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 156. 8 Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 158. Noll notes three views within this camp: the first, which is closest to the former camp, allows that “reversals of traditional views are possible, but in fact find that evidence does not require them”; the second “suggest[s] that the reversals arise from a better understanding of biblical intent”; and a third which allows that “reversals … may reveal minor mistakes in the biblical materials” (159-160). THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 4 thesis, the evangelicals that use biblical criticism to uphold an error-free biblical text will be called “classic sola scripturists,” and the evangelicals that allow biblical criticism to adjust traditional views of Scripture, or to point out errors in the text, will be called “new sola scripturists.”9 The classic sola scripturist position is rooted in Princeton theologian Charles Hodge’s (1797-1878) inductive method for theology: “the Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science. It is his storehouse of facts.” He further explains that the duty of the Christian theologian is to ascertain, collect, and combine all the facts which God has revealed concerning himself and our relation to Him. This is true, because everything revealed in nature, and in the constitution of man concerning God and our relation to Him, is contained and authenticated in Scripture. It is in this sense that ‘the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants.’10 For Hodge, sola scriptura meant that everything the Christian needs to know can be drawn from the Bible. Further development of this view is seen in A.A. Hodge (1823-1886) and B.B. Warfield’s (1851-1921) “Inspiration,” in which Scripture is described as “an infallible record of that revelation [of saving truth] absolutely errorless.”11 Another place the classic view is expressed is in the CSBI (1978). It states that “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching,” and that “the authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded.”12 This classic sola scriptura position is still alive and well in evangelical theology today. Theologian Wayne Grudem states that he is “very much in agreement with the ‘Chicago Statement.’”13 His definition of “systematic theology involves collecting and 9 While allowing biblical criticism to expand and revise interpretations of Scripture is not novel, it certainly offers new interpretations of Scripture, especially when compared with traditional interpretations. 10 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), 10-11. 11 A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, “Inspiration,” Presbyterian Review 2, no. 6 (1881), 227, https://archive.org/details/presbyterianrevi2618unse/page/225/mode/1up?view=theater. 12 The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” in Evangelical Review of Theology 4, no. 1 (April 1980): Statement 4-5:5. 13 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), xxii. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 5 understanding all the relevant passages in the Bible on various topics and then summarizing their teachings clearly so that we know what to believe about each topic.”14 In sum, the classic sola scriptura view is based on the premise that Scripture is the source of Christian faith, and that it must therefore be without error.15 The new sola scriptura position is proposed by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim (1979).16 In their proposal, they assert that the classic sola scripturist view is inconsistent with the view of the historic church: it was invented by A.A. Hodge and Warfield, under the influence of Francis Turretin (1623-1687), Protestant scholasticism, and the rationalist philosophy of Scottish common sense realism.17 In contrast, Rogers and McKim asserted the new sola scripturist view, allowing for “technical error” in the Bible.18 They claimed, as the classic sola scripturists did, that they were in continuity with the “central church tradition,” from the early church through to the Reformers and the seventeenth-century Westminster Divines.19 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1. Grudem does qualify his statement: “church history (including the great creeds of the church and the writings of major theologians in church history) and the study of philosophy can often be of great benefit in helping us understand what the whole Bible in fact does teach about various topics. But they do not contain any authority greater than or equal to the authority of Scripture.” However, his emphasis on the Bible alone remains clear in his ensuing discussion. 15 Grudem elaborates on the logic behind this view: “Since the words of the Bible are God’s words, and since God cannot lie or speak falsely, it is correct to conclude that there is no untruthfulness or error in any part of the words of Scripture. We find this affirmed several places in the Bible” (Wayne Grudem and Alexander Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, Second edition [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022], 30, https://search-ebscohostcom.twu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=3050271&site=eds-live&scope=site). 16 Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979). 17 Rogers and McKim, Authority and Interpretation, 265-310. 18 Thomas Buchan, “Inerrancy as Inheritance? Competing Genealogies of Biblical Authority,” in Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004), 49. Buchan contends that Rogers and McKim’s response to the inerrant position of the classic sola scripturists had “the same types of concerns as inerrancy, but in reverse”; thus, they could not “break[ ] free from the conception of biblical authority as inerrancy.” 19 Rogers and McKim, Authority and Interpretation, xxiii. 14 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 6 In response to Rogers and McKim, John Woodbridge defends the classic sola scripturist position through a thorough deconstruction of their historical research.20 One of Woodbridge’s stated goals is to see if Rogers and McKim’s sources truly affirm “technical errors” in Scripture, or whether these sources affirm the classic sola scripturist view, “that the Bible does not wander from the truth in anything it affirms or says.”21 His approach, however, is biased in favour of the classic sola scripturist position. It is common in historiographies of the evangelical doctrine of Scripture to note the Rogers and McKim proposal and its subsequent deconstruction by Woodbridge as a watershed in this history, as it sparked a controversy between the classic and new sola scripturist positions.22 Thomas Buchan compares the views on Scripture in both of these texts, as well as Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible (1982), which were all published in the same era.23 He concludes that each of them is “guilty” of “reading his late-twentieth-century evangelical conception of biblical authority back into the historical sources.”24 Further, the research of each of these scholars was “monopolized by the concept of inerrancy,” which “distorted” their historical claims and did not convey the “central Christian tradition.”25 Thus, the underlying focus for each of these sola 20 John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982). He posits that Authority and Interpretation “is not an adequate survey of the history of biblical authority. Rather it constitutes a revisionist piece of literature that apparently attempts to interpret the history of biblical authority with the categories of the later Berkouwer” (151). 21 Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, 27-28. 22 Richard Muller writes that Rogers’ work is a “misrepresentation of the history of the doctrine” of Scripture, and that he “imposes the term ‘inerrancy’ on the teaching of the seventeenth-century orthodox” (PostReformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume Two: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003], 100); D.A. Carson argues that the Reformers did not have a limited view on the “faith and practice” principle, which Rogers and McKim claim (“Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, eds. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge [Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986], 5; A.T.B. McGowan prefaces his approach to Scripture with a discussion of Rogers and McKim and Woodbridge (The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage [Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007], 97105). 23 Buchan, “Inerrancy as Inheritance?” 42-54. 24 Buchan, “Inerrancy as Inheritance?” 53. 25 Buchan, “Inerrancy as Inheritance?” 54. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 7 scripturists is on what level of error may be allowed in the Bible, and whether the “weight” of historical views supports their position, because the authority of Scripture is dependent on this answer. Buchan suggests that the framework on “biblical authority” needs to be “re-envisioned,” because “the goal of determining a ‘central Christian tradition’ of biblical authority is not ultimately feasible.”26 A.T.B. McGowan offers an alternative to the sola scripturist views, an “infallibilist position,” which he suggests is a “more biblical view of Scripture.” 27 In this view, Scripture is “as God intended it to be,” which allows for human errors in the text; through the Holy Spirit, “God is perfectly able to use these Scriptures to accomplish his purposes.”28 By restoring Scripture to its place as an outworking of the Spirit – which McGowan argues is the central church tradition – rather than merely as the source of doctrine, a logical argument for an error-free text is no longer necessary in the interpretation of Scripture.29 Further, McGowan connects the “demise of tradition” in evangelicalism with the “conscious determination towards sola scriptura.”30 He presents the relevant case of several charismatic Christians leaving the Campus Crusade organization: “the slogan ‘only Scripture’ had left them rootless and open to the wind of every new idea that swept through their churches.”31 As a response to this problem, McGowan briefly discusses the possibility of a renewal of Tradition in evangelicalism, with particular reference to the normative use of confessions.32 Buchan, “Inerrancy as Inheritance?” 54. McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 123-164. 28 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 124. 29 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 164. 30 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 184. McGowan is drawing on Stanley J. Grenz and John Franke’s Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. 31 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 167. 32 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 166-187. 26 27 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 8 This thesis contends that the sola scripturist positions, as Buchan suggests, approach Scripture with the wrong questions. Evangelical sola scripturists have a deep concern with the “inspired or inerrant character of Scripture’s revelatory truthfulness,” because it is from this premise that Scripture, the source of faith and practice, gains its authority.33 However, while the sola scripturists seek to align themselves with the central church tradition on Scripture, in effect they deviate from this tradition. While McGowan seeks to re-order doctrines so that Scripture is found within the doctrine of the Trinity, this thesis posits that a renewed authoritative understanding of Tradition, coinhering with a high view of the authority of Scripture – which aligns with the position of the patristic church – is the only way to embody a full, enriched Christian faith. III. Tradition: Terminology and a New Testament Analysis It is customary to use three terms for “tradition”: “Tradition,” “tradition,” and “traditionalism.”34 “Tradition” (capital T) is a “reality,”35 initiated by God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, which has been embodied in the life and faith of the church since her beginning.36 Further, it is that faith which is common to all Christians, which has been expressed and enriched through the theologians and devout believers of Christianity through the ages – all share in this same rich heritage.37 33 Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 158. See D.H. Williams’ Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 34-37; Everett Ferguson, “Paradosis and Traditio: A Word Study,” in Tradition & The Rule of Faith in the Early Church, eds. Ronnie J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2021), 29. Ferguson primarily has in view the former two terms. 35 Ferguson, “Paradosis and Traditio,” 29. 36 Williams argues that while evangelicals reject Tradition, which includes “the early history of the church,” it is still “their history.” Retrieving the Tradition, 5. See also Bernard Ramm, The Evangelical Heritage (Waco: Word Books, 1973), 11-21. 37 This common faith can be described in the early creeds. Vincent of Lérins calls it “that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all” (Commonitory 2.6 [NPNF2 11:132]). This “common” set of beliefs is not quite so simple, however, as evidenced by the complex development of the creeds and the major splits in Christian Traditions. Further, Tradition goes beyond a set of propositions declared by the ecumenical councils; it is lived out by the church, which will be discussed further in Chapter Two. 34 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 9 Tradition is essential to a healthy, dynamic Christianity; it connects the present church through its past to the apostolic church and Jesus Christ. The content of Tradition is the revelation of Jesus Christ, and its function is to both preserve that revelation and to transmit it across generations. Chapter Two will expand this definition, and how it is what Jaroslav Pelikan calls “the living faith of the dead.”38 The non-essentials of the Christian faith are termed “tradition” (lowercase “t”). These are doctrines and practices specific to particular churches,39 such as the Roman Catholic prayers to the saints and the mediation of the sacraments by a priest, or the Baptist practice of adult baptism and its symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper.40 While they are of great enough significance to divide churches, diversity among traditions does not compromise Tradition, the essence of the Christian faith.41 Lastly is “traditionalism,” in which certain traditions and customs of a church have been repeated to the point where their meaning and purpose have been lost, and they are practiced because that is “the way [the church has] always done it.”42 This can occur in any church. Pelikan argues that “it is traditionalism that gives [T]radition such a bad name,” since it represents “the dead faith of the living.”43 38 Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 65. To avoid confusion, I will avoid calling specific Churches “traditions,” except where they appear in a citation and the reference is clear. 40 This understanding of tradition is used similarly in memory studies; the use of the term “tradition” will remain consistent. The distinctions made here are of great importance to the discussion in Chapter Five, because “Tradition” is a far more encompassing term than “tradition.” To discuss a return to “Tradition” is not the same as recovering a “tradition,” which is a rite or custom that functions to remember and embody one element of the past. 41 C.S Lewis offers a clear analogy of this difference. He terms the essential elements, or Tradition, “‘mere’ Christianity,” which is the “hall” or connecting point of the Christian “house.” The different branches of Christianity are “the rooms.” There are “rules which are common to the whole house,” but everyone must choose a room, where “there are fires and chairs and meals,” or traditions (Mere Christianity [New York: HarperOne, 1972], xv-xvi). 42 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 12. 43 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 65. 39 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 10 A brief analysis of the New Testament (NT) understanding of the term παράδοσις, “tradition,” demonstrates that the NT writers expressed some of the differing uses of the term considered above.44 In the NT, the term παράδοσις is found in both nominal and verbal forms: the former refers to “that which is handed on” (παράδοσις), including knowledge and teachings, “customs,” “Jewish interpretations,” “the Christian message,” and “apostolic or ecclesiastical practices”; the latter is “the act of handing over” (παραδίδωμι), including of things, people (in the sense of betrayal), and “of teaching,” as well as the reception of these things (παραλαμβάνω).45 The term παράδοσις in the apostolic church was used in the sense of “Tradition” and “tradition,” or “traditionalism.”46 The expression of παράδοσις as “traditionalism” or “tradition” is evident in Jesus’ critiques of Pharisaic and “human” traditions on eight occasions, 47 and Paul’s opposition to “human tradition,” referring to empty philosophy (Col 2:8).48 However, παράδοσις is also used positively, in the sense of “Tradition,” by both Jesus and Paul. Edith Humphrey suggests that Jesus does not dismiss traditions altogether: he critiques the Pharisees for “elevating human commandments” at the expense of “the ongoing Tradition of God,” rather than using these human traditions to “aid in the keeping of the divine Torah” (Mark 7:9-13).49 Paul celebrates the Corinthians because they “maintain the traditions” which he “traditioned” to them (1 Cor. 11:2). This analysis is drawn primarily from Everett Ferguson’s “Paradosis and Traditio: A Word Study,” in Tradition & The Rule of Faith in the Early Church, eds. Ronnie J. Rombs & Alexander Y. Hwang (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2021), 3-29. 45 Everett Ferguson, “Paradosis and Traditio,” 4. 46 Ferguson demonstrates that this sense of Tradition continues on to the early Church Fathers; they too wanted to preserve and pass on the apostolic tradition which was handed on to them both orally and in the Scriptures (“Paradosis,” 8-28). 47 Ferguson, “Paradosis and Traditio,” 8. See Matt. 15:2, 3, 6, Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13. 48 Ferguson, “Paradosis and Traditio,” 8. Another example is Paul’s reference to his time as a Pharisee, when he was “zealous for the traditions of [his] ancestors” (Gal. 1:14). 49 Edith Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible Really Says (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 56. This passage is Humphrey’s translation. Her translation of “the Tradition” in this case derives from the Greek, τὴν ἐντολὴν (the commandment), rather than παράδοσις. However, “the commandment of God” also conveys the same sense of Tradition, especially as it is contrasted with the “παράδοσιν” of the Pharisees. Verse thirteen continues this contrast between Tradition and tradition: the Pharisees have made “void the word of God,” which is Tradition itself, “through [their] τῇ παραδόσει that [they] have παρεδώκατε.” 44 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 11 Likewise, he commands the Thessalonians to avoid those who do “not [live] according to the tradition that they had ‘been traditioned’” (2 Thes. 3:6) and to “hold fast to the traditions that [they] were ‘traditioned’ …, either by word of mouth or by … letter” (2:15). Further, Paul says that the Romans have “‘been traditioned’” with the “pattern of sound teaching” (6:17), that communion is what he has “‘been traditioned’ from the Lord,” and then “traditioned” to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23), and Jesus “‘traditioned his Spirit” to the church (John 19:30).50 While a negative, human traditionalism is referenced, there is a strong sense in the NT of a positive, apostolic “Tradition.”51 This Tradition contains both the “content” of the Christian faith (παράδοσις), that which is handed on and received, and the act of “transmitting” this content (παραδίδωμι) to the next generation to preserve and safeguard it.52 This analysis shows that the concept of Tradition would not have been unfamiliar to the apostolic church. To discuss the early church’s use of “Tradition” does not introduce a foreign idea to the teachings handed down by the apostles; rather, the early church could build on this early apostolic understanding of Tradition. IV. Defining Evangelicalism Since the identifying factors of modern evangelicalism are a key part of this thesis, the group in view needs to be considered. The problem of using the term “evangelicalism” as a category within Protestantism is that the movement has often been subject to caricatures, and serious definitions 50 Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition, 43. Edith Humphrey elaborates on the suspicion that has arisen toward Tradition in Protestantism because of the way that these texts have been translated in their Bibles. The positive instances of παράδοσις are translated along the lines of “teachings” that were “passed on,” but the negative instances more often use the term “tradition” with modifiers that imply their human and antiquated nature, fostering a negative bias toward Tradition (Scripture and Tradition, 27-34). This suspicion toward Tradition is considered further in Chapter Five. 52 Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, trans. A.N. Woodrow (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004) 84, 125. Congar states that in the earliest understanding, Tradition was seen as “the communication of the entire heritage of the apostles,” which is far more than “their writings” (22). See also Congar, Tradition and Traditions: The Biblical, Historical, and Theological Evidence for Catholic Teaching on Tradition (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1966), 237-240. 51 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 12 of the term can be too vague and imprecise to be useful in academic discussion.53 Additionally, any definition of evangelicalism must be sensitive both to the historical development and essence of the movement, as well as to its global scope and diversity. In this thesis, I define the evangelical movement, or “evangelicalism” as a highly adaptable movement54 within Protestantism which finds its roots most strongly in English Puritanism, Scottish Presbyterianism, and European Pietism,55 and grew substantially in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Awakenings in the trans-Atlantic triangle.56 The movement’s primary theological focus includes individual conversion based on justification by faith in the atoning work of Christ, maintains the central authority of the Bible in doctrine and practice, and is committed to evangelism and practical humanitarian work.57 Evangelicalism has a heritage of revivalism – beginning with the two “Great Awakenings”58 – the recurrence of which often derives from a push Noll aptly explains the problem: “the term ‘evangelical’ is a plastic one. Efforts to define it narrowly can lead to both strife among historians and battle among theologians” (Between Faith and Criticism, 2). 54 Adaptability is a key characteristic of evangelicalism Noll notes in “Defining Evangelicalism,” in Global Evangelicalism: Theology, History and Culture in Regional Perspective, eds. Donald M. Lewis and Richard V. Pierard (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014). Noll determines that “evangelicals are often flexible about nonessentials, which has been a key to their spread around the world.” This quality contributes to the “revivalistic fervor” seen in the history of the movement, and its “ability to adapt to local cultures” (21-23). 55 Randall Balmer, Evangelicalism in America (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016), ix. 56 David W. Bebbington’s well-known thesis argues for evangelicalism’s beginnings in the 1730s during the First Great Awakening (Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989], 20). Similarly, Douglas Sweeney, looking at American evangelicalism, classifies “evangelicals” as part of a “movement” based on “classical Christian orthodoxy” and “shaped by a largely Protestant understanding of the gospel,” but contends that they are “distinguished … by an eighteenth-century twist” (The American Evangelical Story [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005], 23-24). However, a strong case is made that evangelicalism predates the eighteenth century and is in continuity with the Reformation. See Kenneth J. Stewart, “Did evangelicalism predate the eighteenth century? An examination of David Bebbington’s thesis,” in Evangelical Quarterly 77.2 (2005), 135-153; A.T.B. McGowan, “Evangelicalism in Scotland from Knox to Cunningham,” in The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities, eds. Michael A.G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2008), 63-83; Ian J. Shaw, “The Evangelical Revival Through the Eyes of the ‘Evangelical Century’: Nineteenth Century Perceptions of the Origins of Evangelicalism,” in Advent, 302-323; Haykin, “Evangelicalism and the Enlightenment: A Reassessment,” in Advent, 37-60. Randall Balmer, Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1999), 14; and Noll, American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 9. 57 This part of the definition is based on Bebbington’s quadrilateral, four characteristics of evangelicalism: “conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentrism” (Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 4). 58 The First Great Awakening occurred in the 1730s and 1740s, the Second Great Awakening in the early decades of the 1800s (Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 20-21); Balmer, Evangelicalism in America, (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016), 31-32. 53 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 13 toward individual piety and purity.59 Revivals frequently stoked a desire to return to apostolic roots,60 and caused evangelicals to push back against stagnant institutions and traditions.61 Given that this research primarily considers American evangelicalism, Noll’s classification of “who” is evangelical is used: those groups which are descended from “fundamentalists of the early twentieth century along with their allies in the older churches of British origin (Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and, to a lesser extent, Congregationalists and Episcopalian) and the newer American denominations (Holiness, Pentecostal, and Restorationist).”62 Biblicism is the characteristic of evangelicalism that will be further considered in this thesis.63 Evangelicals emphasize the “devotional use” of Scripture, seeking to interpret the Bible for themselves through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.64 Evangelical preachers often assume they “can select virtually any passage of scripture and adduce from the text an authoritative, relevant, ‘applicable’ teaching.”65 The centrality of Scripture is a distinguishing feature in evangelicalism, shaping individual piety, its interest in millenarianism, and the ideals of evangelical activists and political movements.66 59 Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, 132-137. Stewart, In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017), 2. Stewart explains that “the nineteenth century, especially, witnessed Protestant attempts to recover afresh the original purity of apostolic Christianity.” 61 Williams states that “long inherent within fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is an antitraditionalism and anticredalism which has played a key role in its theological outlook and interpretation of the Bible. After all, Protestantism was born in reaction to the tyranny of ecclesiastical authority and practices exalted on account of their venerated traditions” (Retrieving the Tradition, 19). 62 Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 3. 63 Christian Smith states that biblicism, a “constellation of interrelated assumptions and beliefs[,] informs and animates the outlooks and practices of major sectors of institutional and popular conservative American Protestantism, especially evangelicalism” (The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011], 5). See pp. 1-26 for further description and examples of biblicism in American evangelicalism. 64 Bebbington, 14. See also Smith, Bible Made Impossible, 11. 65 Smith, Bible Made Impossible, 12. 66 For examples on this last point, forceful evangelical campaigns against certain sins in society, such as slavery, sexual sin, and drunkenness can be rooted in certain evangelical biblical interpretations. Bebbington, 13335. 60 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE V. 14 Outline Before exploring the deviation from the patristic view of the relationship between Tradition and Scripture, a broader, interdisciplinary survey on tradition and its function in society prepares the discussion for an introduction of new frameworks. Chapter One considers the development of memory studies in sociology, and how memory, as an approach to the past, has re-imagined the nature of identity formation and the way identity groups remember the past. Theologians studying Tradition give credit to sociologist Edward Shils’ Tradition, to support the argument that traditions are foundational to collective identity, and that modernity tends toward the rejection of old, seemingly unnecessary traditions. This chapter reviews Shils’ thesis and explores new concepts from memory studies, which are more expansive than Shils’ work on tradition. Rather than an exhaustive review of the sources, a few of the salient ideas from memory scholarship are considered. The concepts in view will be applied in the final chapter, to offer a new lens on the ensuing discussion. Chapter Two provides a definition of Tradition and examines its relationship to Scripture in the patristic church. Because Tradition is an immense subject, an analogy is provided to offer categories and language for discussing both the content and function of Tradition. The purpose of this definition is to set the groundwork for the claim that the elevation of the authority of Scripture in the late Reformation era sets up a deviation from the patristic view in evangelicalism. In Chapter Three, the connection between the first chapter of the WCF and contemporary evangelicalism is established. The complex background to the writing of the WCF by the Westminster Assembly in England is summarized. To trace the ongoing influence of the WCF, an examination is made of its role in American Presbyterianism and the influence of Presbyterianism on the development of evangelicalism. This connection is traced to the evangelical inerrancy THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 15 debates in the mid-twentieth century. The first chapter of the WCF, “Of the Holy Scripture,” is summarized, and a comparative analysis is made with the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Chapter Four defends the first claim of this thesis: that the rise in the authority of Scripture, a trajectory initiated by the Westminster Confession Faith, has directly contributed to evangelicalism’s loss of connection to Tradition. To accomplish this, the chapter lays out how the WCF and CSBI subvert the four observations made in Chapter Two on the patristic view of Tradition and Scripture. A return to memory studies in Chapter Five bookends this discussion by considering the loss of Tradition and the rise of the authority of Scripture as a central narrative of evangelical identity. Some of the new frameworks introduced in Chapter One are applied to the timelines of Christian identity development in the early church and in the English Reformation, and to the place of canonized texts within a collective identity. A few observations from memory studies are also connected to the ongoing discussion amongst theologians on the renewal of Tradition in evangelicalism. By applying memory studies to the theological study of Tradition, this chapter illustrates the benefits of connecting these fields and invites further discussion on the compatibility of these two fields of study. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 16 CHAPTER 1: MEMORY, IDENTITY, AND TRADITION I. Introduction Prior to the study of Tradition, Scripture, and the WCF, a survey on memory, identity, and tradition and their function in society prepares this study for the conclusions drawn in the final chapter. The purpose of applying memory studies is to show that the discussion of tradition and identity goes beyond religion and is applicable in many fields. By expanding the scope of Tradition research to memory studies, as developed in sociology, a deeper understanding can be gained concerning the disconnection of evangelicalism from Tradition.1 This move has already been made in a cursory way by theologians studying Tradition. One sociologist in particular, Edward Shils, has been employed in the argument for the recovery of Tradition. In Tradition, Shils argues that tradition is indispensable for human society – it is part of every aspect of human life, as it preserves and passes on the meaning, skills, and knowledge of the past. Further, it gives guidance to future generations and creates space for meaningful innovation.2 Jaroslav Pelikan draws on Shils’ work in Vindication of Tradition. In the book, Pelikan argues that the “rediscovery of tradition” is the first step toward its “recovery.”3 Society as a whole, and the groups that make it up, are unaware of the elements that make society what it is. Because modern A variety of terms have been used to identify this field of work, including “collective memory studies,” “cultural memory studies,” and “social memory theory.” Given that each of these terms also has more specific definition depending on the scholar, the broader term of “memory studies” will be used in reference to the overall field of memory work. 2 Edward Shils, Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983). 3 Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 23. He begins with the context of traditions in society as a whole before discussing Tradition. 1 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 17 society has forgotten the very existence of its own heritage, the rediscovery of tradition is necessary before it can even consider reconnecting to that heritage, or tradition.4 Pelikan points out that the social sciences have made much progress in this rediscovery, compared to “the home, the community, the school, and the church,” which have all failed “in their ability (or willingness) to transmit … the tradition.”5 Pelikan refers to Shils’ work in a footnote as a guide to the insightful study of tradition in the social sciences.6 Another aspect of Shils’ work is discussed by D.H. Williams. He argues that the rise of modern rationalism led to the rejection of the “normative power” of tradition.7 Williams points readers to Shils’ introduction as evidence of this shift.8 As Shils describes the significant role tradition has in society, he suggests that in post-Enlightenment, Western culture, the normativity of “past practice, arrangement, or belief” has weakened when faced with the “presumption of the efficiency, rationality, expediency, ‘up-to-dateness,’ or progressiveness” of the modern era.9 He further draws on Shils’ argument that the Enlightenment set “rationality and scientific knowledge” in opposition to “traditionality and ignorance.”10 Williams uses this evidence to demonstrate that 4 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 4-5. Here he draws a statement from Jerome Robbins, an actor who played the role of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof: “if it’s a show about tradition and its dissolution, then the audience should be told what that tradition is.” Pelikan goes on to suggest that before discussing the rejection of a tradition, the “next generation” must first take the time to understand it (19). 5 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 5-6. 6 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 83-84. Pelikan further draws on anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss to show that studies of “primitive societies” have shown “the role of tradition as the social glue that brings cohesiveness to a clan or tribe” (6). 7 D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 12. 8 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 12. He calls Shils’ text a “classic study.” 9 Shils, Tradition, 1. It must be noted that Shils and Williams make an over-generalization about the Enlightenment, as it was a multi-faceted, complex era of development in Western civilization, which had a variety of outcomes on Western culture and thought. 10 Shils, Tradition, 5; Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 12. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 18 “Christian leaders” in evangelicalism are ambivalent about having “continuity with the church of earlier ages” function as a guide for their churches.11 The use of Shils’ work by Pelikan and Williams is preliminary at best. Further examination of sociological study on tradition and memory can benefit the theological discussion on Tradition. Shils’ Tradition has been a small contribution to the expanding study of tradition, memory, and identity in sociology and other disciplines.12 Shils’ himself admits that his work on the phenomenon of tradition in society is meant as a starting guide; he invites scholars to “clarify, correct, and deepen the notions” in his book.13 Since Shils’ work was intended to be a starting point on the study of tradition, the primary purpose of this chapter is to introduce recent sociological work on tradition, memory, and collective identity and to propose revisions to Shils’ thesis. Sociologists have built on Shils’ work on tradition, which theologians have yet to take into account. The intent of this proposal is to explore that research and invite further discussion on how a more critical use of sociology can benefit the theological discussion on Tradition. The second purpose of this chapter is to offer preliminary implications based on these proposed revisions for the work on Tradition. Some of these implications will be drawn into chapter five, which posits that the loss of connection to Tradition resulted in a loss of elements of Christian identity in evangelicalism. 11 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 12. Olick and Robbins note that social memory theory has been used in “sociology, history, literary criticism, anthropology, psychology, art history, and political science.” Jeffrey K. Olick and Joyce Robbins. “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices,” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (Jan. 1, 1998): 106. https://search-ebscohostcom.twu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.223476&site=eds-live&scope=site. 13 Shils, Tradition, vii. 12 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE II. 19 Shils’ Thesis The purpose of Shils’ work is to look at the concept of tradition in society as a whole, analyzing the common threads of the phenomenon and demonstrating how essential it is for every sphere of life.14 He begins by demonstrating the modern disregard for tradition in favour of progress and change, as noted above. Shils then establishes a definition of tradition: Tradition – that which is handed down – includes material objects, beliefs about all sorts of things, images of persons and events, practices and institutions. It includes buildings, monuments, landscapes, sculptures, paintings, books, tools, machines. It includes all that a society of a given time possesses and which already existed when its present possessors came upon it and which is not solely the product of physical processes in the external world or exclusively the result of ecological and physiological necessity.15 The “validity” of the tradition, how long it has existed, and how it is passed on is not part of the “criterion” of a tradition; it is simply that which, “having been created through human actions, through thought and imagination … is handed down from one generation to the next.”16 The very scope of tradition in society indicates that it cannot be so easily disregarded. Because of the pervasiveness of the past in every aspect of the present, any rejection of a tradition can only be partial and selective: “even when they are ostensibly rejecting it, they still hold on to a lot of it.”17 While the past does have this strong influence on the present, there is room for innovation and modification of traditions. Innovation is necessitated by changes in circumstances, but these are made through the framework of the existing tradition.18 Shils briefly 14 Shils, Tradition, vii. Shils notes that studies have been done on religious traditions, art and literary traditions, and traditions in law. Rather than looking at a particular tradition, as is typically done, he wants to “see the common ground and elements of tradition and … analyze[ ] what difference tradition makes in human life.” 15 Shils, Tradition, 12. 16 Shils, Tradition, 12. 17 Shils, Tradition, 45. He adds that “the grip of the past is evident even in revolutions which claim to break away completely from the best of their own societies.” 18 Shils, Tradition, 45-46. How much modification occurs depends on the nature of the tradition. For rituals, legal codes, or texts considered “sacrosanct,” “new formulations” may be allowed when there are unforeseen THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 20 touches on memory: he ties individual memory and identity to the individual’s “sense of the past” – both of their personal experiences and how they perceive the past of “the collectivities” of which they are a part.19 Shils looks specifically at the “endurance” of tradition in both objects and practices, which function as a preservation of a collective identity.20 The former, meaningful objects from the past, includes buildings and ruins, antiques and memorabilia, monuments commemorating past events, coins and medals, works of art and literature, documents of the past, technology, skill or knowledge of a craft, knowledge of an intellectual field, and significant historical figures. The latter, past practices, also preserve and transmit the past. Shils includes in this category the traditions of lineage and territory, the norms of family life, the rituals and beliefs in a religion, the lens of educational institutions, and the state and its legal institutions. In the final chapters of Tradition, Shils discusses “stability and change in tradition,” looking particularly at patterns that can maintain or change a tradition.21 He describes factors which contribute to change, including the “rationalization and correction” of a tradition, which bring positive change to its adherents, or pressures to change through “syncretism.” He contends that “modern Western societies” have “a ‘dynamic’ ideal” that “requires departures from traditional ways of seeing and doing things,” which he calls “substantive traditions.”22 Even with this ideal, however, modern societies become “the victims of their own rationalistic, antitraditional circumstances. Less rigid traditions include art and literature, to which new, rather than identical, works are expected to be added. Shils also points out that some traditions are meant as “points of departure for new actions.” 19 Shils, Tradition, 51. 20 Shils, Tradition, 63-194. 21 Shils, Tradition, 195. 22 Shils, Tradition, 287. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 21 traditions.”23 Shils concludes that humans cannot exist without traditions; as long as they need “rules and categories and institutions,” or any form of order, tradition will persist.24 While this major work on tradition in society has been influential to ongoing scholarship, far more work has been done on tradition and the broader field of memory studies, which makes tradition a category within collective identity. III. Expanding the Sources: Memory, Identity, and Tradition The clearest way to demonstrate the expansive work done on memory, identity, and tradition in sociology is to identify key proponents of memory studies and key concepts that have been developed. Given the vast work done on memory, the primary elements identified here are those which contribute to the ensuing discussion on Tradition, the WCF, and evangelical identity. A. Toward a memory matrix Maurice Halbwachs (1877-1945), a pioneer of the field of “collective memory,”25 argues that “no memory is possible outside frameworks used by people living in society”; the identity of any group is based on the collective memory frameworks of the individuals in that group.26 Halbwachs explains that these groups are bound together through their collective memory – the framework of memories of the group’s past and the meaning of that past that relate the members 23 Shils, Tradition, 290. Shils, Tradition, 321. 25 See Werner Kelber, “The Works of Memory: Christian Origins as MnemoHistory—a Response,” in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Semeia 52, eds. Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 221; Barry Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory. Comparative Perspectives,” in Handbook of Cultural Sociology, Semeia 52, eds. John R. Hall et al., (New York: Routledge, 2010), 640. 26 Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, ed. and trans. Lewis A. Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 43. Halbwachs was influenced by anthropologist and sociologist Emile Durkheim (18581917) and philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941) (Jean-Christophe Marcel and Laurent Mucchielli, “Maurice Halbwachs’s mémoire collective,” in Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, eds. Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning [Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008], 141). 24 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 22 to one another. This framework creates an interpretative lens for the present group’s beliefs, behaviours, and practice.27 Halbwachs argues that only within the context of the collective identity can the individual “retriev[e] or reconstruct[ ]” their own memories.28 The term “collective memory,” as seen in Halbwachs’ work, is often used to designate a group’s common identifying memory of the past and the set of values and practices which distinguish the group from those outside of it.29 However, the nuance offered by Jan and Aleida Assmann and Sandra Huebenthal, which identifies collective memory as a stage in a group’s memory formation, may confuse the term. To distinguish the Assmanns’ and Huebenthal’s nuanced understanding of “collective memory,” the term “group memory” will be used for this broader sense used by memory scholars. A renewed look at Halbwachs’ work on collective memory by Jan and Aleida Assmann has brought considerable insight into the field. Jan Assmann (b.1938), building on Halbwachs’ work, introduced the theory of “cultural memory,” which examines “how socially formed images of the past are passed on to subsequent generations and persist for long durations.”30 Assmann develops language for two phases of Halbwach’s “collective memory”: “communicative memory,” the period of time where the “carriers” of an event communicate the memory to the group, and 27 Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, 53. Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, 52. Schwartz further explains Halbwachs’ view: “because every individual is entangled in a web of group affiliations, all personal memory operates within a social frame …. The calendar, religion, family, community, state symbols and rituals – these and other entities provide a framework by which individual memories can be mapped, located, and accessed” (“Halbwachs, Maurice,” in The Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media, eds. Tom Thatcher, et al. [London; Oxford; New York; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2017], 168-69). 29 Alan Kirk, “Collective Memory/Social Memory,” in DBAM, 59. Jennifer Todd offers some of the common categories for collective identities: “nationality, class, gender, famil[y], [and] career,” as well as ethnicity and religion (“Social Transformation, Collective Categories, and Identity Change,” Theory and Society 34, no. 4 [January 1, 2005]: 436). 30 Chris Keith, “Assmann, Jan,” in DBAM, 26–27. 28 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 23 “cultural memory,” when these carriers of the event have died.31 It is at a point, three to four generations following a foundational event, after the deaths of the last eyewitnesses, that for a formative memory to be carried on within and maintain relevance for a group, it must enter the latter, more lasting form of memory. Cultural memory “focuses on fixed points in the past,” transforming the past “into remembered history, thus turning it into myth.” By entering myth, the memory gains a “lasting normative, and formative power”; through commemoration, “the foundational past [is kept] alive in the present, and this connection to the past provides a basis for the identity of the remembering group.”32 The past is kept alive through the “artefacts of cultural memory,” which include “texts (e.g. books and steles), buildings (e.g. houses, temples, arches) and traditions (e.g. rites, calendars, festivity).”33 Aleida Assmann expands Jan Assmann’s work by “introducing a three-stage concept of social, collective, and cultural memory that assigns collective memory the middle ground.”34 Social memory is characterized by “emotional charge,” collective memory by “concise arrangement,” and cultural memory by “institutional determination.”35 Aleida Assmann posits that 31 Jan Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 36. 32 Jan Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 37-38. 33 Sandra Huebenthal, “Cultural Memory,” in DBAM, 70. Eviatar Zerubavel posits a similar list of commemorative elements that “bridge” the gap with between the present and the past, which he terms “mnemonic bridging”: specific locations, whether they have a monument, archaeological site, or are a place of pilgrimage; specific objects such as “relics and memorabilia”; and specific calendrical times, such as holidays, festivals, and anniversaries (Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003], 40-48). 34 Sandra Huebenthal, Reading Mark’s Gospel as a Text from Collective Memory (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2020), 165. Aleida Assmann’s work was received through Sandra Huebenthal and is referenced here through Huebenthal’s work. The main purpose of this background is to offer a segue into Huebenthal’s memory matrix, which will be applied in Chapter Five. Huebenthal references the German lecture where Aleida first introduced this triad: Aleida Assmann, “Soziales und kollektives Gedächtnis,” lecture in panel 2, “Kollektives und soziales Gedächtnis,” at the conference “Kulturelles Gedächtnis, China zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft, Internationale Konferenz zum künstlerischen und politischen Umgang mit der eigenen Geschichte in China, Der Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 2006” (www.bpb.de/system/files/pdf/0FW1JZ.pdf). 35 Huebenthal, Reading Mark’s Gospel, 168. Stu Talené explains that Aleida Assmann is “leaving aside [Jan Assmann’s] ‘communicative memory’” (“Explaining Competing Representations of the Afterlife in Luke-Acts: THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 24 cultural memory is formed following a “floating gap,” a term initially developed by Jan Assmann, and is a distinct separation from an earlier period of a group’s memory 80 to 120 years after the event.36 The floating gap is “a catalyst for the formation of cultural memory.” She further expands Jan Assmann’s work on the critical period approximately forty years following an event, the “generational gap.” Both of these gaps may occur from “experiences of crisis,” functioning as “catalyst[s]” for the next stage of remembrance, or a “change in media.”37 Sandra Huebenthal synthesizes Halbwachs’ and the Assmanns’s work by creating a table for the memory matrix and a detailed explanation of the three stages in the process of memory formation over time.38 Beginning with social memory, Huebenthal explains how “the individual recollection of events” is placed within existing “social frames.”39 Social memory is defined as a temporary form of memory, based on the immediate memories and “multiple perspectives” on the experiences of living eyewitnesses in the group.40 Since it “depends on its carriers,” social memory “usually dissolves with their disappearance.”41 A Social Memory Approach,” in Social Memory Theory and Conceptions of the Afterlife in Jewish and Christian Antiquity, eds. Thomas R. Hatina, and Jiří Lukeš, [Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2023], 326). 36 Jan Assmann draws on Jan Vansina for the “floating gap” concept. Both of these terms, while discussed by Jan Assmann, are worked out more fully by Aleida Assmann. See Jan Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 34-37; Huebenthal, Reading Mark’s Gospel, 155. 37 Huebenthal, Reading Mark’s Gospel, 168. 38 Huebenthal, Reading Mark’s Gospel, 166. She explains that Assmann’s “triad … seems to be the best basis for the development of a matrix introducing different kinds of social memory.” Huebenthal first uses this memory matrix in “Luke 24:13–35 and Social Memory in Luke,” in The Gospel of Luke, vol. 3 of Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, ed. Thomas R. Hatina, (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 85–95. 39 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments – Early Christianity through the Lens of Social Memory Theory,” in Memory and Memories in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Universities of Geneva and Lousanne (Jun 2–3, 2016), eds. Simon Butticaz and Enrico Norelli (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 2. 40 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 4. 41 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 4. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 25 What lives on is the collective memory, a “more official” form of the past experiences of the group, usually told from a single perspective42 in a “provisional final form.”43 It is the “social frame” that actively shapes how the reference group “commemorat[es]” and “semanticize[s]” events.44 Collective memory stores the narratives of the group, creates frames of memory, and is remembered through participation; it “takes place through participation in rituals, festivities and commemoration days,” and a certain “fixation” of the event occurs through the writing of texts.45 When the story no longer serves a function in the group, it may be “replaced” or simply forgotten.46 Collective memory lasts up to 120 years, and the salient event in view has been arranged into a set form during this time.47 Jan Assmann’s “floating gap” occurs somewhere between 80-120 years after the event, the stage at which the event shifts into cultural memory. This shift usually occurs after the deaths of the last witnesses to the event, or of the witnesses to these eyewitnesses.48 Huebenthal suggests that at this stage, the group has settled on a relatively “final form” of the event, and the way that it forms identity is streamlined. The event has entered the remote past, the arrangement of the narrative is institutionalised, and what remains is part of the group’s tradition. In the case of religious groups, texts cannot be altered at this stage, though there may yet be a “versatile canon.”49 42 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 4. Collective memory separates the “particular circumstances of [the] formation” of the memory. 43 Huebenthal, Reading Mark’s Gospel, 166. Unlike social memory, “collective memory, in contrast, is no longer limited in time; mental images become icons, and narratives turn into myths” (167). 44 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 2. 45 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 4-5. 46 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 4. 47 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 4. 48 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 4. 49 “Frozen Moments,” 5. Talené notes that neither Aleida Assmann nor Huebenthal consider the dates outlined in this matrix to form a “rigid and static model of how social memory works since process of remembrance is malleable at social and individual levels and at every stage in the matrix” (“Explaining Competing Representations,” 326). THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 26 Huebenthal’s memory matrix, which offers insight into the process of identity formation, will be explored further in the final chapter. B. Continuity and change Another development in memory studies is identified by Barry Schwartz (1938-2021). He describes two classic approaches to the past through memory studies: the “presentist” or “constructionist” approach, and the “traditionalist approach.”50 The presentist approach holds that group memory “is always in transition, always precarious. Memory refers to communities forging a past compatible with their shifting concerns and predicaments.”51 The way the past is remembered is biased toward present concerns and does not represent the “actual past.”52 In contrast, the traditionalist approach argues that “the historical record [is] essentially authentic.” Group memory is therefore a “a source of inspiration, knowledge, and moral direction” which is “inherited” from the past rather than created to suit the present.53 There are varying levels of influence from the past, but any modifications to rituals and traditions in the present are based on pre-existing narratives rather than novel ideas. Schwartz places Halbwachs under the presentist Schwartz clarifies that these two “perspectives are neither verifiable nor falsifiable; they are analytic fictions in terms of which observations of experience and memory can be compared” (“Culture and Collective Memory,” 640). Similarly, Jeffrey K. Olick states that “neither of these views … is a particularly insightful way to understand the complexities of remembering, which is always a fluid negotiation between the desires of the present and the legacies of the past” (“From Collective Memory to the Sociology of Mnemonic Practices and Products,” in Cultural Memory Studies An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, eds. Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning [Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008], 159). 51 Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory,” 640. Schwartz notes that this approach can “reduce culturally autonomous beliefs and values to politically motivated texts, narrative inventiveness, metaphoric constructions, arbitrary classifications and boundary-making” based on “the structure of present experience” (641). He further describes presentism as holding “social forms” as “invented”: “tradition, commonly defined as a conception or practice unwittingly transmitted across generations, becomes a conscious strategy adopted by political regimes to reinforce their authority” (“From Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of American Memory,” in The Collective Memory Reader, eds. Jeffrey K. Olick, et al. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011], 242-43). 52 The actual past here is “the raw past, ‘reality’ outside the imposition of frames, schemas, or even language to recall and discuss it” (Tom Thatcher, “Actual Past,” in DBAM, 18). 53 Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory,” 640. 50 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 27 approach, which arose from a common “post-World War I disillusionment” with the past.54 Shils is placed under the traditionalist approach, for his emphasis on the present generation’s inheritance of the past and its ability to modify its traditions only within the limitations of what it has received.55 Schwartz notes a few recent developments in memory studies that have brought about a more moderate understanding than the cynical presentism of how memory connects to the past. Evidence for “the obduracy of history” has limited the presentist assertion that the past is fabricated.56 The nature of collective memory is also better understood because of expansion in the field of surveys, which give better representation of “individual beliefs, feelings, and judgments of historical events” based on societal contexts.57 Lastly, Schwartz notes development of the “dialogical perspective” on group memory, which considers the cause and effect nature of “‘culture creation’ and ‘culture reception’”; in this view, group memory is “path-dependent” and “an ongoing process of meaning-making.”58 In light of these developments, it becomes clear that while changing contexts do influence present memories of the past, there nonetheless remains a substantial continuity with the past. Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory,” 641. Schwartz describes this approach as “cynical” because it “challenges the authority of the past,” “diminishe[s]” its “reality and relevance,” “discredit[s] grand narratives,” and overall views collective memory as “fabricated” to serve particular agendas. He states that “its favorite topics included misdeeds, victims, unpopular wars, and other malevolent happenings.” Since collective memory was viewed as fabricated to suit the present, rather than based on true historical events, “the past became more meaningless to more people.” 55 Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory,” 640. Schwartz further states that Shils “wrote about commemoration and tradition … richly” (Abraham Lincoln, 245). 56 Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory,” 641. Schwartz draws on Schudson (1992), Schwartz (2015), Fine (2001), and Fine and McDonnell (2007) to demonstrate “the past’s resistance to distortion.” 57 Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory,” 642. Schwartz references surveys done by Schuman and Scott (1989), Schwartz and Schuman (2005), and Corning and Schuman (2015), which suggest that objects and texts from a collective memory do not indicate that individuals hold the same beliefs in relation to them. 58 Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory,” 642. Schwartz references Olick, “Collective Memory: The Two Cultures,” Sociological Theory 17 (1999), 333–348, https://www-jstororg.twu.idm.oclc.org/stable/370189?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents. 54 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 28 Another problem arises in the consideration of continuity and change. Like Shils, other sociologists note an antitraditionalist tendency in the modern era. Schwartz observes that traditional societies are oriented toward their past through “memories and customs,” finding “a greater sense of identification and continuity with it.”59 In contrast, “modern societies … tend toward a traditionless state where practices are assessed according to legal principle and scientific reason”; they have great “historical knowledge” but are disconnected from that past. 60 Similarly, Danièle Hervieu-Léger discusses the modern problem of “the homogenization and fragmentation of collective memory.”61 The “mass of information” barraging the individual through modern media makes it increasingly difficult to organize the frameworks of memory that create a meaningful connection to foundational narratives of identity.62 Since religious groups are distinct because they “appeal to the legitimizing authority of a tradition” for their beliefs, the fragmentation of memory presents serious challenges to the maintenance of religious traditions.63 In view of both movement toward traditionlessness and the fragmentation of memory, maintaining a collective identity, a continuity with the past, becomes far more challenging. IV. Beyond Shils: New Considerations for Theologians Since collective memory studies in sociology looks at patterns in every type of collective identity, including religions, this work needs to be considered by theologians. References to Edward Shils are a positive start to this interdisciplinary connection. While Shils gives a helpful analysis of the phenomenon of tradition in society as a whole, sociologists have greatly expanded his work through the broader field of memory studies. Some of the contributions reviewed above are Schwartz, “Christian Origins,” 46. Schwartz draws on both Max Weber and Shils here. Schwartz, “Christian Origins,” 46. 61 Danièle Hervieu-Léger, Religion as a Chain of Memory, trans. Simon Lee (London: Polity, 2000), 129. 62 Hervieu-Léger, Chain of Memory, 130. 63 Hervieu-Léger, Chain of Memory, 83. 59 60 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 29 essential to the development of thoughtful ongoing discussion on memory, tradition, and identity by theologians. Memory studies allows an expansion of the language which can be used to talk about Tradition and tradition. Within the frameworks discussed above, “tradition” in the theological sense is best explained as an artifact of cultural memory, and “Tradition” has the same scope and centrality to Christian identity as cultural memory does to a group identity. This connection bears great significance in the way that Tradition can be approached by contemporary evangelicalism. Another important contribution is Huebenthal’s memory matrix, which demonstrates the formative role of the foundational events of a group to its identity and the necessity of development in the way the events are remembered. Without this development into cultural memory, the significance of an event for the group would be lost, and the group’s identity – as it relates to that event – would not be sustainable. This memory matrix is applied in two cases in the final chapter: first in the development of Christian identity in the early church, the model for which is supplied by Huebenthal; and second, in the foundational event of the English Reformation and subsequent writing of the WCF. Finally, the discussion on continuity with the past and deviation from it add nuance to this research. While changes in narratives of the past may be necessary for a group to maintain relevance in contemporary culture, the group can also lose sight of core values of the identity it claims to possess. This thesis contends that evangelicalism, which claims to be in continuity with the church historic, has strayed from the patristic view on the relationship between Tradition and Scripture by essentially rejecting any authority of Tradition and raising up the authority of Scripture in an unsustainable manner. Memory studies offer insight into the balance of continuity THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 30 and change in identity, which creates new ground for the discussion of a renewal of the patristic view. These insights will be taken up in chapter five, which connects the discussion of the deviation of evangelicalism from the church historic to memory studies. The purpose of this connection is not only to contribute updated material from sociology to the discussion on the loss of Tradition in evangelicalism, but also to create a new dialectic on the recovery of Tradition. In discussing Tradition and tradition in theology, theologians can no longer omit how the topic has been treated in sociology, and in the growing field of memory studies. In order to consider taking up past traditions, or to understand how they have been lost, theologians must enter this dialogue. There are new questions to be considered. In what ways does the study of collective identity reveal the importance of remembering the past? How does innovation factor into the changing nature of identity? Does the rejection of a narrative or tradition deemed irrelevant preclude a group’s ability to recover it? By exploring the interdisciplinary nature of memory and tradition, perhaps new ways forward can be discovered. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 31 CHAPTER 2: TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE IN THE PATRISTIC CHURCH I. Introduction In order to show the contributions memory studies can make to the study of Tradition, both the nature of Tradition and the loss of Tradition in evangelicalism remain to be developed. Tradition, as it developed and stabilized Christian doctrine and practice in the earliest centuries in the church, is a major source of Christian identity. The nature of Tradition and its relationship with Scripture in the patristic church, however, is a vast subject, and a great deal of selectivity is required. The primary purpose of this discussion is to set the groundwork for the claim that the elevation of the authority of Scripture in the late Reformation era is a deviation from the patristic church. This deviation will later be shown to have set evangelicalism on a problematic trajectory toward biblicism and a strict doctrine of biblical inerrancy that has left it stripped of its rich heritage, Tradition. The best way to describe the immense topic of Tradition, its function in the life of the patristic church, and its relationship to Scripture, is through an analogy. By comparing Tradition to a tree, it can be spoken of in terms of its stability, growth, and life. II. Tradition, Scripture, and the Patristic Church Tradition is vital to a healthy, dynamic Christianity. It is what connects the present church to the generations of its past through to the apostolic church and Jesus Christ. Jesus says to his disciples that he is “the true vine” (John 15:1, NRSV) and that his disciples are “the branches” who must “abide in [him]” (v. 5). Looking at a growing tree or vine, it is evident that any new twig that sprouts is directly connected to a larger branch before it, and another before that, and so on, until THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 32 the largest branch connects to the trunk or stalk itself. The twig does not simply sprout from the trunk. Even in cases where it is grafted into the trunk, the connection is weak, fragile, and unlikely to survive. It thrives best and can bear fruit in its original place. Similarly, each generation of Christians is directly connected to, indeed, reliant upon, the generation that went before it, and all those before that one. The trunk is Christ, to whom the apostles are directly connected. This connection to the life-giving Christian heritage – those strong branches that have gone before and strengthened their connection to the trunk, Christ – is Tradition. Three components of this analogy for Tradition are considered: it is stable, because it maintains the revelation of Christ through elements such as the rule of faith and the rule of worship; it is ever-growing, because as the church faces new challenges and contexts, developments in theology are necessary; and it is living, as each new generation of the church embodies and lives out the faith passed on to them.1 A. Stability through Tradition It was Tradition that preserved the essence of the revelation of Jesus Christ, and Tradition that stabilized the church’s interpretation of the revelation in light of opposing interpretations. Writings from the church Fathers demonstrate that Tradition preserved and guided the transmission of Christian faith and practice. Stabilizing elements of Tradition which safeguarded this faith include the written scriptures, the “rule of faith,” and the “rule of worship.” Scripture can be seen as a part of Tradition: it preserves accounts from the apostles concerning the revelation of Jesus Christ and what it means for the church, and it is transmitted by Other tree analogies have been made in this field. John Henry Newman draws on Mark’s comparisons of the kingdom of God to the growth of a tree (4:26-29;13:31-32), saying that these parables “distinctly anticipate[ ] the development of Christianity” (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989],73); Craig Allert contends that because of their ignorance of Tradition, evangelicals have been left “with withered roots as to the sources of the early church that should assist in sustaining it,” and no idea how “the essentials” of their faith “actually came to be essential” (A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007], 35). 1 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 33 the church to the next generation. The church Fathers were immersed in and dependent upon Scripture. However, Congar states that Tradition was seen as “the communication of the entire heritage of the apostles,” which is far more than their writings.2 As Irenaeus of Lyons (130-200 CE) notes in Against Heresies, the Gnostics “find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations.”3 What needed to be maintained was the true interpretation of Scripture, a stable lens of interpretation which allowed the reader to be pointed to Christ. Irenaeus describes this lens as the “apostolical tradition,” the authoritative words of the apostles which were faithfully handed down and “preserved continuously” through “successions of the bishops.”4 The apostolic tradition was found in the “rule of faith.”5 There was frequent occasion in the patristic church to state the content of the Christian faith in a concise manner, which takes the form of the “rule of faith.” Robert Jenson defines the rule of faith as the early church’s “communal … awareness of the faith delivered to the apostles” which “guided missionary proclamation, shaped instruction, identified heresy, and in general functioned wherever in the church’s life a brief statement of the gospel’s content was needed.”6 Even as it was a stable expression of the faith, the rule was expressed in a variety of forms, both 2 Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, trans. A.N. Woodrow (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004), 22. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1.3 (ANF 1:317). 4 Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.2 (ANF 1:415-416). Irenaeus does not have in view a single succession, in that only one line of succession could exist – though there is only one Tradition that is passed on. Rather, he refers to “successions of all the Churches” and the preservation of the apostolic tradition “by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” 5 D.H. Williams states that the rule “was a distillation of the Tradition in the sense that it was deemed to be synonymous with the apostolic faith itself” (Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999], 92). Everett Ferguson notes that for the church Fathers, the terms “gospel, truth, the rule were more common terms” used to reference Tradition (“Paradosis and Traditio: A Word Study,” in Tradition & The Rule of Faith in the Early Church, eds. Ronnie J. Rombs & Alexander Y. Hwang [Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2021], 29). 6 Robert Jenson, Canon and Creed: Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 15. 3 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 34 oral and written, as needed within the life of the church. An early example of such a statement is found in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, where Paul states that he has “traditioned” to the church the teaching of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection.7 Williams highlights that for Tertullian (160-230 CE), the rule of faith was “the link” that connected the apostolic tradition, which was handed down to the church, to the “present” church.8 It functioned as a witness to “the original message of the apostles” that was a tool for teaching and a way to “refute heresy.”9 The rule of faith was associated with the life and preaching of the church. The rule was the “church’s activity” found in Acts, the message spread “by word of mouth, in the synagogues, in the marketplace, on board ships, on the road.”10 Tertullian, in declaring that all churches are “apostolic,” states that their “(unbroken) unity,… their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality” are “privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.”11 It is the rule, the apostolic tradition, which directs the church into unity. A more practical example of the rule in the life of the church is demonstrated in a letter the emperor Constantine (ca. 280-337 CE) writes to the bishops at Antioch. In a decision over the election of the bishop, Constantine tells the bishops to choose “according to the rule of the Church and apostolic tradition.”12 Further, the rule of faith, as the substance of the apostolic witness, was used to oppose heresy. In his refutation of Praxeas, Tertullian states the rule of faith: We … believe that there is one only God, … that … God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was 7 Jenson, Canon and Creed, 16. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition 87. 9 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 87. 10 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 96. 11 Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 20 (ANF 3:252). 12 Eusebius, The Life of Constantine 3.62 (NPNF2 1:538). See Everett Ferguson, “Paradosis and Traditio,” 8 25. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 35 made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.… this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday ….13 The rule functioned as a norm, or “standard … for orthodoxy,” and Tertullian contended that Praxeas’ doctrines did not meet the standard.14 Even as it took different forms in changing circumstances, the rule was “a point of stability” which gave a concise summary of “the basic Tradition” which was familiar to all believers.15 In his refutation of gnosticism, Irenaeus also appealed to the rule of faith. The Gnostics who claimed to be Christian were attracting many followers with their promises of revealing secret knowledge of Christ that would free their souls, and had a unique interpretation of the scriptures. In response, Irenaeus sought to override their beliefs through his appeal to the authority of the apostolic tradition and the rule of faith, which was guarded and handed down within the church.16 Although the Gnostics presented their own interpretation of the scriptures, Irenaeus illustrates their error: they took a mosaic originally forming “a beautiful image of a king” and distorted its pieces to make “the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed.”17 Irenaeus argues that the true knowledge of the faith was publicly passed down through the apostles “Peter and Paul,” and this knowledge makes the mosaic of the king recognizable to all.18 Early in his argument, 13 Tertullian, Against Praxeas 2 (ANF 3:598). Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 92. 15 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 94. 16 Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.1-2 (ANF 1:415-16). See Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 90; Alister E. McGrath Reformation Thought: An Introduction, Fourth Edition (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 92-93. 17 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.8.1 (ANF 1:326). 18 Irenaeus, Haer. 3.3.1-2 (ANF 1:415-16). 14 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 36 Irenaeus says that “the Church, though dispersed through our whole world, … has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith,” after which he states the rule of faith, which differs in language from Tertullian’s.19 Irenaeus successfully refutes the Gnostics because of his appeal to the Tradition, which was handed down through the apostles and was summarized in the rule of faith. These uses of the rule to combat heresy reveal how the rule of faith is essential to Tradition. The rule was common knowledge to the church, recognizable, yet able to take a variety of forms. Tradition needed to be “living and flexible” to respond to the varying needs in the life of the church, yet it remained stable as it drew from its source, which is the revelation of Christ.20 Edith Humphrey laments the “erosion of the principle of the ‘rule of faith’” in the contemporary church:21 the rule is meant to be the measure for truth, brought from a rich “storehouse” of Tradition, which every believer ought to know and against which an interpretation of Scripture can be judged.22 The liturgy of the church also preserved and proclaimed Tradition, functioning as a hermeneutical “key” for interpreting Scripture, clarifying beliefs and maintaining orthodoxy.23 While the term “liturgy” may negatively evoke traditionalism, liturgy can be defined simply as the structure and routine practices, or “ritualized activit[ies],” that often take place in a liturgical Irenaeus, Haer. 1.10.1 (ANF 1:330-31). He begins with “The Church … [believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord ….” 20 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 94. 21 Edith M. Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible Really Says (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 156. 22 Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition, 162. This flexible rule of faith was largely used as a basis for the creeds and catechesis of the later centuries of the church. So even as its use faded, the principle of this measure of faith remained essential. 23 Jaroslav Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 30. 19 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 37 setting.24 Liturgy, or worship, encompasses the fullness of what the body of Christ does together, including prayer, the Eucharist or communion, baptism, Scripture reading, teaching, fellowship and singing. Yves Congar embellishes this description: “liturgy … procures entry into the Christian truths by way of prayer and actions, by familiar signs expressing men’s faithfulness and love …. through the intimacy of living experience.”25 Recognizing the role of liturgy in the life of the early church, Jaroslav Pelikan argues that the Tradition is “liturgical” before it is “dogmatic” and intellectual,26 which derives from the formula lex orandi, lex credendi.27 It was the voices of the practicing believers of the church, gathered together and embodying the faith through their worship, that upheld the gospel even before the theologians intellectualized it.28 Thus, Tradition contains a “rule of prayer” or “worship” alongside the rule of faith.29 Georges Florovsky posits that the rule of worship “was the first and initial layer in the Tradition of the Church,” and “was a solemn proclamation of [the church’s] Faith.”30 It stabilized Tradition through “the baptismal invocation” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, through the witness of “the Eucharist … to the mystery of Redemption,” and in the reading of Scripture for the purpose of “worship and meditation.”31 The rule of worship was powerful and 24 Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: The Biblical, Historical, and Theological Evidence for Catholic Teaching on Tradition (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1966), 428. 25 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 428. 26 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 29. 27 Maxwell E. Johnson translates this phrase as the “law of praying (is, constitutes, or establishes) the law of believing” (Praying and Believing in Early Christianity: The Interplay between Christian Worship and Doctrine [Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2013], ix). This phrase is credited to Prosper of Aquitaine (ca. 390-ca. 455), in De vocatione omnium gentium 1, 12, in Patrologia Latina 51. 28 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 30. Pelikan states that the Tradition “filtered up from the faithful (who are the church) to become the subject matter for the speculations, controversies, and systems of the dogmatic theologians.” 29 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 30. 30 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972), 84-85, https://www.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/rr/lode/florovsky1.pdf. 31 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 85. This baptismal rite was likely the “earliest Trinitarian formula.” THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 38 effective because it was embodied in the life of the church. It kept the gospel constantly present and stable in “the thousand of silent believers.”32 Both Florovsky and Pelikan use a poignant illustration from Basil of Caesarea (330-379 CE): Basil appealed to the “liturgical tradition” to defend the church’s worship of the Holy Spirit as a person of the Trinity.33 Basil’s opponents, “later Arians” who denied the divinity of the Spirit, wished to appeal to the authority of Scripture alone, but Basil sought “to prove the legitimacy of an appeal to Tradition.”34 In his treatise, De Spiritu Sancto, Basil draws on the doxology of the church given by “the unwritten tradition of the Fathers” to prove the divinity of the Spirit: “I charge [the Church] to preserve the faith … and to keep the Spirit undivided from the Father and the Son, preserving, both in the confession of faith and in the doxology, the doctrine taught them at their baptism.”35 Pelikan describes Basil as using a “method of justifying a liturgical practice, and thus also of drawing out its theological implications” to provide a doctrine of the divinity of the Spirit.36 This ritual practice of the church, which derived from the apostles, served to preserve a belief not addressed in Scripture that was later contested. B. Growth through Tradition While the scriptures, the rule of faith and the rule of worship were stabilizing, essential elements of the Tradition, they did not offer a detailed defence of the faith, nor could they adequately 32 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 30. Pelikan demonstrates these conclusions from John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845) and Arians of the Fourth Century (1833). 33 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 85. 34 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 85. Pelikan elaborates on the views of these opponents in his analysis of Basil’s treatise: “Basil's adversaries saw themselves as the defenders of Scripture against those who were substituting new-fangled formulas for those of the Bible. Basil’s liturgical usage on the Holy Spirit, they charged, was ‘without evidence and without precedent in Scripture’” (“The ‘Spiritual Sense’ of Scripture: The Exegetical Basis for St. Basil’s Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” in Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, ed. Paul Jonathan Fedwick [Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981], 339). 35 Saint Basil, Spir. 10.25-26 (NPNF2 8:16-17). Congar and Ferguson also make note of Basil’s appeal to unwritten tradition. Meaning of Tradition, 15; “Paradosis and Traditio,” 27. 36 Pelikan, “Spiritual Sense,” 343. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 39 respond to those who had differing conclusions on doctrinal issues, nor were they sufficient in addressing the variety of challenges that arose through the changing times of society. Both Congar and Pelikan maintain that it is in the face of these problems that the church has needed “innovation.”37 Pelikan posits that without “insight” and creativity when invoking Tradition as culture changes, Christians will be stuck in “traditionalism” – a freezing of the traditions of the past, which is “the dead faith of the living.”38 While Tradition is a stabilizing norm for Christian faith, Pelikan explains that those who draw on it can arrange it in new ways to expand on and discover new implications and meanings that can be applied in the present.39 Congar describes this innovation as “the old … [in] an original expression, clothed in a new vocabulary” and using “new resources” from the present to reply to “new problems.”40 Using a tree metaphor as well, Congar states that the development of Tradition is “the old sap, still living, bring[ing] life to a new tree.”41 There is a tension between continuity and change that must be embraced;42 anything else will result in an irrelevant or unrecognizable Christianity.43 Examples of development in Tradition 37 Congar, Meaning of Tradition, 118; Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 65. Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 65. Pelikan elaborates that traditionalism is when one is set on “the letter” of the law without giving room for “the spirit,” which enables growth and freshness in interpretation (71). 39 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 73-75. Pelikan is careful to note that these arrangements are “sought in [their] repetition of the standard formulas, not apart from that repetition”; the “new” meanings remain intimately tied to Tradition (74). 40 Congar, Meaning of Tradition, 116-17. 41 Congar, Meaning of Tradition, 116. 42 Pelikan states that “the relation between continuity and change has been a central concern of Christian thought from the beginning. All four evangelists … take great pains … to affirm continuity of the life and message of Jesus Christ with the revelation that had been given to Moses and the prophets …” (Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 8-19). 43 In Vindication of Tradition, Pelikan argues that there is a false dichotomy between “tradition” and “insight” (65). On the one hand, insight and novelty is “an ineradicable element” of Tradition in the context of the changes and developments of history (73). Spiritual insight is what brings freshness and relevance to Tradition, to which Scripture itself attests (71). On the other hand, Tradition does not “inhibit creativity” (79). Rather, Tradition creates guiding “boundaries” which bring “liberation” to the creator, preventing insights from straying into “arbitrary subjectivity” and confusion (80). For any new idea to be communicated, the speaker must work within the frame of reference, or “tradition,” of the receiver, otherwise the communication will be meaningless. 38 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 40 demonstrate that change aids, and is indeed necessary to, the primary function of Tradition: to safeguard the revelation of Christ, the content of Tradition. As evidenced in Basil’s defence of the divinity of the Spirit, there is expansive literature showing the growth of Tradition to respond to the ever-changing external attacks on Christianity and the internal heresies that arose in the church. Basil could develop the doctrine of the divinity of the Spirit based on the implications he discovered from the liturgical tradition. Many patristic apologists and theologians expanded on Tradition in the face of frequent conflicts, defending Tradition even as they developed it. One such defendant was Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254 CE), who wrote his eightvolume Against Celsus in response to the critiques the Greek intellectual Celsus levelled against Christianity in his book, True Doctrine. Origen drew on the Jewish and Christian traditions to describe the transcendence of God, developing an “original,” applicable defence of the Christian faith.44 Celsus argued that “Christianity was a revolt against practices that had served the peoples of the Mediterranean world for centuries.” It was a new religion lacking antiquity that he believed “abandoned” the “accumulated wisdom and experience of centuries.”45 In response, Origen develops a novel argument by pointing to the antiquity of the Christian faith; he emphasizes the continuity of Christianity with Judaism.46 This Jewish heritage points back to creation itself, to their worship of “the Supreme God above all other nations.” 47 Origen contends that the Jews and 44 Robert L. Wilken, Remembering the Christian Past (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 32. 45 Wilken, Remembering the Christian Past, 28-29. For Celsus’s argument, see Origen, Cels. 3.5, 4.2, 7.18 (ANF 4:466-67, 497-98, 617-18). 46 Wilken, Remembering the Christian Past, 32-34. Origen explains that God “established Judaism first, and Christianity afterwards” (Origen, Cels. 3.14 [ANF 4:470]), and later expands this, saying the Jewish way “needed to be changed, so as to adapt it to men of all countries,” and that God gave the nations the “religion of Jesus” (Cels. 4.32 [ANF 4:511]). 47 Origen, Cels. 5.42 (ANF 4:562). THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 41 Christians worship the one true God only because he “makes himself known to those who … confess that they need help from Him.”48 He reveals the existence of an ongoing tradition of God’s self-revelation to those who have faith in him. Further, Origen denies Celsus’ Platonic philosophy that humankind can find God and “represent Him … through the medium of other objects.” He states that anyone who “had found God … would not have associated with this great God objects which can have nothing in common with Him,” nor would they have worshiped him by any other name.49 Without God’s help, “human nature is in no way able to seek after God, or to attain a clear knowledge of Him.”50 To Origen, the church community itself – which is made up of those who live changed lives and worship the one God – is evidence of God’s self-revelation to humanity through Christ.51 Only by this revelation could there exist an ongoing, transformative Tradition. Origen intentionally uses new concepts “readily intelligible to the cultural world [he] inhabited” in order to clarify and defend Christian doctrines and practices. By expanding on Tradition, yet clearly being guided by it, Origen can make the transcendence of the one true God understandable to his audience.52 New language was also needed to clarify the church’s beliefs when it was challenged internally by heresies.53 In Against Praxeas, Tertullian refutes the Monarchian heresy. “To maintain the unity of God,” Monarchians such as Praxeas argued for the singular monarchy of God, meaning that the Son was simply a mode of God, and held that the Father himself had suffered 48 Origen, Cels. 7.42 (ANF 4:628). Origen, Cels. 7.42 (ANF 4: 628). 50 Origen, Cels. 7.42 (ANF 4:628). 51 Origen, Cels. 1.31 (ANF 4:409-10). See Wilken, Remembering the Christian Past, 39. 52 Wilken, Remembering the Christian Past, 37-38. Origen’s use of concepts available within the culture echoes Paul’s use of Roman polytheism and Greek philosophy in his debate against the philosophers in Athens in Acts 17:16-32. 53 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 28. 49 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 42 on the cross.54 Combatting Praxeas, who “crucified the Father,” Tertullian drew on Tradition by citing the rule of faith, then coined the term “Trinity,” which was soon adopted into Tradition.55 He guarded the One-ness of God, yet clarified the distinction in the Three: The mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.56 The term “Trinity” draws on Tradition in an innovative way to respond to the present challenge in the church. This innovation gives expression to her faith. Tertullian is a key figure in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is seen more fully in the ecumenical councils and the resultant creeds of Christianity. Another key area of growth in Tradition was the development of Christology through the ecumenical creeds and councils.57 In order to safeguard the faith from heresies, councils were called to define the faith.58 The creeds were written to address possible misinterpretations of Scripture and to define boundaries in what can and cannot be said about God. These developments in doctrine primarily concerned Christology. The council of Chalcedon (451 CE) addressed the question of how the humanity and divinity co-exist in the person of Jesus. While the Nestorians maintained “sharp … distinction” between two separate natures of Christ, the Monophysites 54 Chas S. Clifton, Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1992), 97. Tertullian, Prax. 1-2 (ANF 3:597-98). Wilken notes that Trinitarian language is evident since the beginning of the church. However, this specific term is not seen until Tertullian (Remembering the Christian Past 81-82). See also Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 66-67. 56 Tertullian, Prax. 2 (ANF 3:598). 57 See Pelikan, Credo, 9-18. 58 It should be noted that heresies did generally not begin as “heresies” – no heretic would have labelled themselves as such. Heretical ideas were typically genuine attempts at understanding the nature of God and the complexities of Christian doctrine. 55 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 43 emphasized the “unity” of the two natures, “blurr[ing] the abiding distinction.”59 The resulting Definition of Chalcedon attempted a middle ground, stating that Jesus is “one and the same Christ, … acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation ….”60 By working within the tension of the two natures of Christ, the council clarified language to show both the distinction yet inseparability of his humanity and divinity. The council was able to safeguard Tradition through the development of Christology. This example from Chalcedon shows that innovation in Tradition – in this case the language concerning the two natures of Christ – safeguards the way the church can speak about Christ. Thus, growth in the content of Tradition enables it to accomplish its function, which is the continual preservation of Tradition for the present and future generations of the church. C. Living Tradition Returning to the need for innovation and creativity in Tradition as times change, Congar beautifully states that in its “living” and continual “transmission,” Tradition “flows afresh” in the present even as it draws from “the original and unique source, which we know to be Jesus Christ and his saving Gospel.”61 Already, the elements considered above suggest that Tradition is living and dynamic. The rule of faith was flexible in edifying church practice and responding to challenges from heretics. The rule of worship was Tradition lived out in the church. Any element of growth in the church’s interpretation of Scripture and practice of Christianity implies the living nature of Tradition. If the church is to avoid getting stuck in a dead traditionalism, as Pelikan has said, it cannot simply “embalm[ ]” the past traditions; it needs to live in fresh ways in the present 59 Pelikan, Credo, 202. Pelikan, “The Fourth Ecumenical Council: The Council of Chalcedon, 451, The Definition of Faith,” CCF 1:181. 61 Congar, The Meaning of Tradition, 121. 60 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 44 by drawing life from all those who have gone before them, who connect them to Christ.62 This is “the living faith of the dead.”63 It is the living church and the Holy Spirit, through Tradition, that keep the gospel message alive and active in the present. This is why Williams, Florovsky, and Congar argue that it is only the church that can faithfully interpret Scripture because it has the Tradition, which has been handed down through it and to it. Williams points to Tertullian’s argument that the “prior point of order (praescriptio) must be proved before one can claim biblical authority.” Tradition, the “foundational teachings which resided in the apostolic churches,” is where the authority of true Scriptural interpretation lies.64 Summarizing this argument, Williams says that the interpretation of Scripture has always been connected to the living Tradition: “there was no question in believers’ minds that Scripture could or should function in the life of the believer apart from the church’s Tradition.”65 Going hand in hand with the rule of worship, Florovsky shows that “the Word was kept alive in the Church.” To Florovsky, the “Word” is Christ. The ongoing “life and structure” of the church, Tradition, kept the historical event of Christ’s resurrection alive and relevant in the present generation. 66 Congar further describes the church’s mission to continue to faithfully witness to the “redemptive work of Christ.”67 This keeps the Tradition alive and growing in the world. The church has upheld the 62 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 73. Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 65. 64 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 91-92. Tertullian says, “the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: ‘With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?’ For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions” (Prescription Against Heretics 19 [ANF 3:251-52]). 65 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 98. 66 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 84. 67 Congar, Meaning of Tradition, 49. 63 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 45 Tradition handed down by the apostles, and the NT was part of the outworking of the church preserving Tradition. Williams draws another powerful example from Irenaeus, who asks his opponents what the church would do “if the apostles themselves had not left us writings?”68 It would be able to confidently “follow the course of the tradition which [the apostles] handed down to those” they entrusted with leadership of the church.69 Rather than being lost, the Christian faith could continue because the church possessed the Tradition, which was the product of the person and work of Christ, and was passed down to the church through the witness of the apostles and safeguarded through apostolic succession even before the scriptures were written. For Irenaeus, “authority” on the Christian faith rested on the foundation of “Scripture, Tradition and the church” working together, which “secure[s] the place of Christian truth.”70 Because of these, if any Christian were to hear heresy, Irenaeus says that “they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible.” 71 They knew their faith through the church’s teaching of the Tradition that came from the apostles. It is not the church alone that keeps Tradition alive: the Holy Spirit empowers the church to preserve and embody Tradition. Congar says that during the process of transmission of Tradition, “the Holy Spirit is ever active … to actualize the Word of God in the Church” and is ever “filled with the active presence of what God has accomplished once and for all” through Christ.72 The Holy Spirit is the one who “bear[s] witness” to the work of Christ both as a guarantor of Christ “within” the believer and as the one who enables the church to proclaim the faith to the 68 Irenaeus, Haer. 3.4.1 (ANF 1:417). See Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 88-89. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.4.1 (ANF 1:417). 70 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 90. 71 Irenaeus, Haer. 3.4.2 (ANF 1:417). 72 Congar, Meaning of Tradition, 48. 69 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 46 world.73 Further, the Holy Spirit is the one who unites the body of Christ under one common “identity,” to “preserve” the church through time and bring “fellowship.”74 The church frequently attributed the great theologians’ deep understanding of Scripture and “the decisions of the Councils” to the active work of the Holy Spirit.75 Irenaeus explains that in the church, the Holy Spirit is “the [means of] communion with Christ …, the earnest of incorruption, the means of confirming our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God,” and that “where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace.”76 Living Tradition is the “continuity of the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church”; the Holy Spirit guided the Prophets and apostles, and continues to guide the church.77 This “continuity” of Tradition forms the Christian identity.78 Williams argues that this “identity is based upon that which the church has received, preserved, and transmitted to each generation of believers,” but has been forgotten by evangelicals.79 He goes on to show that the Tradition maintains orthodoxy by both “continuity” of the Christian past and “change” in the sense of “renewal” and “course correction” when the church strays.80 Too far off course, the church will become stuck in a dead traditionalism or detached from Tradition. Balanced properly, Tradition can bring new life and a stable identity to each generation of the church as it seeks to faithfully uphold its witness to Christ. 73 Congar, Meaning of Tradition, 51-52. Congar, Meaning of Tradition, 55. 75 Congar, Meaning of Tradition, 56. 76 Irenaeus, Haer. 3.24.1 (ANF 1:458). 77 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 106. 78 Humphrey would add that for any group “to be a community means to have received and to retain a complex tradition that gives a common mind and a coherent life” (Scripture and Tradition, 4). 79 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 9. 80 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 38. 74 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE III. 47 Scripture: A ‘Monument’ of Tradition Although the place of Scripture in the patristic church has been briefly considered, four key observations can be drawn from the above discussion on the role of Scripture and its relation to Tradition in the patristic church. These observations serve as anchors for the later contention that evangelicalism has deviated from these central views of the patristic church. First, Scripture can be seen as a part of Tradition, even as it is distinguished from it. 81 Scripture is a central part of the Tradition the apostles passed on to the church. The rules of faith and worship and the creeds are all inherently connected to Scripture as they draw upon and interpret it.82 At the same time, as Tertullian has argued, Scripture only has meaning as it is embodied in the church through these elements of Tradition. It is through Tradition that authoritative interpretation of Scripture can be reached. Hence Irenaeus’ trifold distinction of Tradition, Scripture, and the church. A.N.S. Lane speaks of this relationship as a “coincidence view” (or Williams’ “coinherence”): “the teaching of the church, Scripture, and tradition coincide.”83 Tradition also preceded Scripture in that the apostles were planting churches and spreading the revelation of Christ prior to writing any texts. Scripture became a part of Tradition as the message of Christ and instruction to the church was spread through writing. As Irenaeus noted, however, the church would not be debilitated without Scripture, since Tradition is Similarly, Humphrey states that ““Scripture is enveloped by Tradition and Tradition is enshrined in Scripture” (Scripture and Tradition, 160). 82 Pelikan explains that ““the norm of Scripture was not its specific language, but its ‘standard of teaching’” (“Spiritual Sense” 340). 83 A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey,” Vox Evangelica 9 (1975): 39. Lane explains, “apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition.” Similarly, Williams describes the “symbiotic relationship between Scripture and the Tradition as they existed within the church”: “one cannot use the Scriptures and refuse to submit to the teaching of the Tradition. Likewise, one cannot claim the Tradition in support of a teaching that is denied or not supported in Scripture” (Retrieving the Tradition, 95). 81 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 48 safeguarded in many ways. It is for this reason that Congar places Scripture alongside the “monuments” of Tradition, under the “objective rule … of the Church’s life.”84 Further, it is within the life of the church that the NT canon took shape, as the scriptures maintained orthodoxy, edified the church, and brought insight and new life in each generation. Tradition and Scripture are intertwined such that one cannot exist one without the other.85 Second, both Scripture and Tradition must be seen to commonly grow from Jesus Christ, the self-revelation of God. Expressions of the rule of faith and the creedal statements begin with and concern God the Father as he revealed himself in Christ. Jesus Christ is thus the source and content of Tradition and the reason for the writing of Scripture. As Oden states, “revelation remains the precondition of all four basic sources of the study of God. Revelation is that from which the whole subject matter proceeds.”86 While Oden argues that “Scripture funds Tradition, reason, and experience,” his language can be reasonably expanded to state that “Christ funds Tradition and Scripture.”87 As the living source of Tradition and Scripture, Christ must be considered as prior to and the subject of these pillars of the church. Third, the role of the Holy Spirit, who was “traditioned” to the church (John 19:30), is vital to this discussion. According to Tradition itself, it was the Holy Spirit who inspired the written 84 Congar, Tradition and traditions, 425-426. In the loci theologici Congar outlines, he states that the monuments, which are “the teaching of the magisterium,” “liturgy,” “Fathers and doctors,” “sacred canons,” and “theologians,” all “help with our understanding of the content and meaning of” the “apostolic heritage,” which includes Scripture, and together, these constitute “Tradition.” While he does not call Scripture a monument itself, he does explain that the “established monuments of earlier tradition serve as a witness, source and reference” for Tradition. 85 Williams states that “the Bible alone has never functioned as the sole means by which Christians are informed about their faith.” It always functioned alongside Scripture within the church (Retrieving the Tradition, 29). 86 Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, in Systematic Theology 1 (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), 337. Oden further observes that “there could be no Christian study of God without God’s own initiative to become reliably known.” 87 Oden, The Living God, 337. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 49 scriptures, guided the church in the preservation and development of Tradition, and brought about the transformation in individual believers and in the life of the church. The activity and inspiration of the Spirit at the ecumenical councils is constantly referenced by the Fathers.88 It is the Holy Spirit who actively transforms the individual and the church and who provides spiritual gifts. The Holy Spirit is the one who “preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth.”89 Without the Holy Spirit, Tradition could not complete its function, which is to preserve and transmit its content, Christ, through space and time. The Holy Spirit is the active witness to the revelation of Christ and has been active in the church since her beginning at Pentecost. Fourth, a discussion on Scripture in the early church must note that a stated doctrine of Scripture was not needed. The primary concern of the creeds was the doctrine of the Trinity. The church’s creedal statements’ focus was on the source of her faith. Since Scripture is funded by Christ, it is subordinated to the authority of Christ. The use and interpretation of Scripture is therefore limited by its source. In this perspective, a doctrine of Scripture is unnecessary, since it already has its guide, or rule. This rule is established in the very revelation of Christ. Again, the revelation of Christ is found in the content of Tradition, which encompasses all the elements considered above: the rule of faith, the rule of worship, the apostolic tradition and apostolic succession, Scripture, the ecumenical creeds and councils, the church as it embodies these elements and passes them on, and the Holy Spirit, who is the living witness of Christ to the individual and the one who empowers the church through each generation. 88 Congar states that “the texts that speak of the ‘inspiration’ of the councils are without number.” In his list, Congar includes Cyril of Alexandria and Isidore of Pelusium stating the “‘inspired’ character” of the Council of Nicaea, and John Damascene calling the “Fathers of Chalcedon … θεοπνευστοι” (Tradition and traditions, 127). Congar also references the record of the work of the Holy Spirit in the church in Matt. 18:19-20 and Acts 15:28. 89 Lane, “Scripture, Tradition, and Church,” 40. See Irenaeus, Haer. 3.24.1 (ANF 1:458); Tertullian, Praesc. 28 (ANF 3:256). THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE IV. 50 Conclusion Like a tree, Tradition has been described as stable, growing, and living, with Christ as the trunk that sustains it. It is stabilized through Scripture, the rule of faith, and the liturgy of the church. It has grown through the writings of the Fathers and the development of the creeds. These elements have also revealed that Tradition is flexible even while it is stable, as it can convey the revelation of Christ in each new generation and culture. Finally, Tradition is living, because it is embodied in the life of the church, which is the body of Christ. Tradition’s preservation, development, and life is drawn from the Holy Spirit, the active witness to the source who “guides [the church] into all truth” (John 16:13). This chapter has further identified four views of the patristic church on Tradition and Scripture: Scripture is both distinct from, yet a part of, Tradition; Jesus Christ funds Tradition and Scripture; the Holy Spirit is a living witness to the revelation of Christ and an essential part of the preservation, transmission, and reception of Tradition and Scripture; and a doctrine of Scripture did not exist, nor was it needed. These four observations on Scripture and its coinherence with Tradition functions as the launching point for the argument in Chapter Four, that evangelicalism has deviated from the patristic view of Scripture and Tradition. The following chapter contends that one of the influences on this deviation was the WCF. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 51 CHAPTER 3: THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION AND CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICALISM We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts (WCF 1.5).1 I. Introduction One of the distinctive traits of evangelicalism is its high view of Scripture, which is often attributed to the Reformation phrase, sola scriptura.2 However, the appeal to the “Bible alone” may be better traced to seventeenth-century England. A century after the start of the Reformation, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), a confessional document produced in England, solidified Reformation developments in the doctrine of Scripture. Although England had already accomplished its own reformation through the establishment of the Church of England, many Protestants felt that too many Roman Catholic traditions remained in the church. This is evidenced in the first chapter of the WCF, where the Westminster Divines claimed that Citations from the WCF are drawn from Jaroslav Pelikan’s CCF 2:604-647, excluding the 1903 additions of Chapters 34-35 and the appended Declaratory Statement. 2 A.N.S. Lane notes that this “slogan post-dates the Reformation” but “its purpose was to encapsulate the teaching of the Reformers” (“Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, eds. P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1994], 298, 327). Alister E. McGrath says that for the Reformers, the “sola scriptura principle” meant “that the authority of popes, councils, and theologians is subordinate to that of Scripture,” so that “such authority is derived from Scripture, and is thus subordinate to Scripture.” Further, “the reformers grounded the authority of bishops (or their Protestant equivalent) in their faithfulness to the Word of God,” meaning Scripture (Reformation Thought: An Introduction, Fourth Edition [Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012], 99). 1 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 52 the witness of the church to the authority of Scripture was not where the authority of Scripture lay; rather, it was in the witness of the Holy Spirit, and in God, “the author thereof” (1.4). The writing of The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) is considered a watershed in the history of Protestantism.3 In the midst of the civil war in the British Isles, the English Parliament called together the Westminster Assembly in 1643 to bring “conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for worship and catechising” to England, Scotland, and Ireland.4 The Assembly was composed of English Protestant ministers and theologians – called “Divines” – laypeople from Parliament, and a delegation of Scottish Presbyterians, all with commitments varying from high church Anglicanism, puritanism, presbyterianism, and congregationalism.5 Amongst other documents requested by Parliament, the Assembly produced the Westminster Standards, which includes the WCF and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Chad Van Dixhoorn notes that for ensuing generations in “the English-speaking world,” these texts “were without peer in their impact on the piety and theology of every branch of Protestantism—Baptists, Methodists, Wesleyans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, excluding only the Church of England itself.”6 They defined the “doctrinal Richard Muller states that “Westminster is undoubtedly the greatest confessional document written during the age of Protestant scholasticism” (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume Two: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003], 87); Chad Van Dixhoorn states that the Westminster Assembly has also “long been recognized as a watershed in the codification of post-Reformation theology” (“Preface,” in vol. 1 of The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn [Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2012], xiv). 4 “The Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and Defense of Religion, the Honor and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland,” in CC 1:690. This document was the agreement the English Parliament signed to gain the support of the Scottish military against King Charles I. In turn, the Scots were permitted to send a delegation of theologians to take part in the Assembly. 5 Van Dixhoorn uses the term “congregational” in place of the common term “Independent,” which was considered derogatory in its time. This paper will follow Van Dixhoorn’s terminology (“Preface,” xvi). Further, Van Dixhoorn does not capitalize many of these denominational commitments, because “each of these groups was, in the mid-seventeenth century, both diverse and amorphous, and [he] want[s] to avoid anachronistic hints of later denominational or historiographical stability and solidarity.” 6 Van Dixhoorn, “Preface,” xiv. 3 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 53 standards” of Protestantism for the centuries to come.7 The WCF is the most expansive confessional document from the era of Protestant confessionalism; it represents the height of Reformed and puritan theology and solidifies the priority the Reformation gave to Scripture. In the early church, the doctrine of God was the foundation from which all theology grew, including the approach to Scripture. A.T.B. McGowan offers a strong case that prior to the Reformation, the theological “locus of Scripture” was “within the doctrine of God,” rather than in a category of its own.8 By the late Reformation period, Protestant confessions began to place the doctrine of Scripture prior to other doctrines.9 From a rational viewpoint, it made sense to give “a strong statement on the authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity of Scripture” and base all other doctrines on “the Scripture principle.”10 McGowan roots this shift on the influence of scholasticism.11 Logically speaking, it appears that “the authority of the Scriptures” must first be determined before making claims about the God they proclaim; however, McGowan stresses that “to put God’s Word prior to God himself in our theological system has often led to serious errors.”12 I propose that the shift toward emphasizing the authority of Scripture, which appears prominently in the Westminster Confession Faith, has directly contributed to the evangelical loss 7 Van Dixhoorn, xiv. A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007), 12. Pelikan discusses the difference in the locus of authority between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Both Lutherans and Calvinists were moving away from the locus of authority resting in the church. Thus, their “continued and intensified concentration on the question of authority led to the expansion of the Protestant doctrine of Scripture into a major chapter (often the first chapter) of their new statements of faith and of their dogmatics” (CT 4:343). 9 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 26-27. See the Genevan Confession (1536), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), and the Irish Articles (1615). Muller states that “the confessions effectively established the doctrine of Scripture as a distinct locus over against the prolegomena to theological system” (Holy Scripture, 81). He traces this shift through the confessions up to the WCF and the Formula Consensus Helvetica of 1675 (80-94). 10 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 27. 11 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 28. He makes the case that Protestants need to make the doctrine of Scripture “an aspect of God’s self-revelation,” specifically “an aspect of the work of the Holy Spirit” (29). 12 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 29. 8 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 54 of connection to Tradition. By placing authority in the written Scriptures alone, evangelicalism has lost an essential part of its heritage, identity, and depth of faith. This loss is explored in two parts: this chapter examines the WCF, the context of its creation, and its influence on evangelicalism; Chapter Four returns to the four observations made concerning the patristic view of Scripture and Tradition, and demonstrates the deviation from that position in evangelicalism. This chapter first lays out the socio-political and religious context for the development of the WCF in England and the composition and role of the Westminster Assembly. This is followed by a summary of Chapter One of the WCF, “Of the Holy Scripture,” which is informed by the surrounding writings on the doctrine of Scripture from the Westminster Divines and their predecessors. How the doctrine of Scripture in the WCF has influenced evangelicalism will be taken up in three places: in the late nineteenth-century Princetonian conflict between Presbyterian theologians B.B. Warfield and Charles A. Briggs (1841-1913) over inspiration and biblical inerrancy; in the twentieth-century American evangelical polemic leading to “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (CSBI); and in contemporary statements of faith in parachurch organizations. While the connection of the WCF to these moments in history is not novel,13 the purpose of this comparative work is to offer new contributions to the discussion on the loss of Tradition in evangelicalism, which are considered further in the next chapter. II. Socio-political and Religious Context of the Confession A brief survey of the religious and political landscape of England and the purpose of the Westminster Assembly establishes the context for the writing of the WCF. Elements of the broader 13 See Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979), 200-369; Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession: A Problem of Historical Interpretation for American Presbyterianism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1967); John D. Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 102-140; and McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 12. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 55 context in view include the abundance of confessions being written in this era, the ongoing Roman Catholic-Protestant conflict underpinning the thoughts of the Assembly, the political and religious conflict in England leading up to the formation of the Assembly, and the diverse Protestant commitments of the Westminster Divines. A. Era of confessionalism The Reformation had many significant moments and figures in the sixteenth century across the European continent and on the British Isles. A more apt term may be Lindberg’s “reformations,” because this era was one “of plural reform movements.”14 Reformed groups can be broadly categorized under “Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and dissident movements,”15 as well as the Anglican movement; each movement sought to clarify their identities and distinguish themselves from one another and Roman Catholicism in the face of controversy or theological development.16 Confessions of faith were written as a part of the identity formation of these diverse reformed groups. Reformers developed increasingly complex and nuanced confessions of faith in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.17 The late Reformation period has been identified as “the high-water mark for Protestant confessionalism” because of the “length and depth” and “theological range” of these confessions.18 Out of this confessional environment came the lengthy 14 Carter Lindberg, European Reformations (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), xii. Lindberg, European Reformations, 9. Lindberg also notes that “the Reformers believed they were faithfully representing the Catholic church,” so these distinguishing labels may not have been what the original Reformers desired. Rather than reforming or changing Christianity, they wanted to return to a more faithful set of doctrines and practices than they believed the contemporary Catholicism possessed (12). 16 For example, Muller explains “the development of a formal Protestant doctrine of Scripture” as the result of influence “by internal, positive forces of confessional and doctrinal development as well as external, negative forces of polemic, principally with Roman Catholicism” (Holy Scripture, 94ff.). 17 Muller, Holy Scripture, 80. 18 Fairbairn and Reeves, Creeds and Confessions, 325. These confessions include the Scots Confession (1560), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Lutheran Book of Concord (1580), the Lambeth Articles (1595), and the Canons of Dort (1619). Fairbairn and Reeves add that many of the confessions from this era “were adopted as 15 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 56 thirty-three-chapter WCF, which contains clear influence from these prior documents.19 While the development of confessions is a central part of the formation of Protestant identity and prior confessions influenced the nature of the WCF, the writing of this confession was firmly situated within the context of Roman Catholic-Protestant conflict and the seventeenth-century political upheaval on the British Isles. B. Ongoing Roman Catholic-Protestant conflict The general history of violence and animosity between Roman Catholics and Protestants on the continent and the British Isles form a major background to the writing of the Confession. Briefly summarized, these conflicts and wars include the Roman Catholic slaughter of Zwingli’s Protestant army (1529), “the Marian persecution of Protestants in England [1553-58], … the Spanish Inquisition (1480-1834),” the “failed Spanish invasion [1588], … the Gunpowder Plot” (1606), “the St Bartholomew’s Day massacre” of the French Huguenots (1572), and the Thirty Years War between the Protestant Union and the Catholic League on the continent (1618-1648).20 These conflicts between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism would be in the “collective memory” of the members of the Protestant Westminster Assembly.21 the expressions of faith not only of churches but even of nations” (326). The Scots Confession was a national confession of Scotland, and the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) was a national document for England. 19 Pelikan and Hotchkiss list the direct influence of the Irish Articles (1615), The Scots Confession, and The Lambeth Articles, and the indirect influence of The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) and The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) (CCF 2:601-02). Fesko cites the influence of surrounding theological conversations found in writings such as Calvin’s Institutes (1536), Edward Leigh’s Systeme or Body of Divinity (1654), the Irish Articles, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Thirty-Nine Articles (Westminster Standards, 58-62). 20 J.V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2014), 33-46. To illustrate the underlying antagonism toward Roman Catholicism, Fesko emphasizes the numerous implicit and explicit refutations of Roman Catholic beliefs throughout the WCF. For example, the WCF’s claim that the Word existed prior to the church (73-74), that the authority of Scripture relies on God rather than the church (77), and its doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture (83) are implicit refutations of Roman Catholic doctrines. 21 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 45. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 57 A more pressing concern in the Roman Catholic-Protestant conflict was the ever-changing religious commitment of the monarchy. While King Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547) formed the Church of England to accomplish his own political goals, and under Edward VI (r. 1547-1553) England “was officially Reformed,” Queen Mary I (r. 1553-1558) sought to restore Roman Catholicism, persecuting Protestants.22 Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1558-1603) sought a “middle way,” seeking to bring peace to England and allowing the return of Protestant exiles. Among these returned exiles, a Reformed puritan faction rose, which “objected to what they regarded as lingering elements of Popish superstition in the Elizabethan Church and Prayer Book.”23 This faction was opposed by King James I (r. 1603-1625), who caused a religious and political divide in England between a “Royalist Episcopal party … and a Parliamentary and Puritan party.”24 King Charles I (r. 1625-1649) revealed strong “Roman Catholic sympathies.”25 He married a French Catholic and promoted William Laud to archbishop of Canterbury (1633-1645). Laud adopted high Anglican traditions in the Church of England, excluded preachers “of Reformed conviction” from preaching,26 and “carried on a running persecution of the Puritans.”27 The ongoing efforts against this “dissident godly only strengthened their conviction that church reform Fesko, Westminster Standards, 35-36. Van Dixhoorn explains that “King Edward VI’s reformation was in the midst of its attempt to remove the most poisonous remnants of popery when its spiritual physicians were removed from the theatre of operations by Mary Tudor” (Minutes and Papers 1:3). 23 James S. McEwen, “How the Confession came to be Written,” in The Westminster Confession in the Church Today: Papers Prepared for the Church of Scotland Panel on Doctrine, ed. Alasdair I.C. Heron (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1982), 11. Some of these puritans “went so far as to reject episcopacy and to advocate the substitution of a Presbyterian polity.” Van Dixhoorn observes that the church was seen as “but ‘halfly reformed’ since the days of Edward VI” (Minutes and Papers 1:82). Fairbairn and Reeves state that the puritans “faulted the church for failing to complete the Reformation” (Creeds and Confessions, 351). 24 McEwen, “How the Confession,” 12. 25 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 49. 26 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 49. Among these Anglican traditions, Laud “required ministers to wear vestments, bow at the utterance of the name of Christ, and strictly follow the Book of Common Prayer, which involved kneeling at the Lord’s Supper, a practice that looked very similar to the Roman Catholic veneration of the host.” 27 McEwen, “How the Confession,” 12. Fairbairn and Reeves explain that Charles I was more extreme than his predecessors, and sought to crush the reform-seeking puritans” (Creeds and Confessions, 353). 22 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 58 was desperately needed.”28 When Parliament critiqued Charles I’s policies, the king completed the division between the two parties “by suspending Parliament for a decade.”29 C. Developing civil war The immediate context of the writing of the WCF was the English civil war of the mid-seventeenth century, which was caused by Charles I. When he tried “to impose Anglican worship practices upon Presbyterian Scotland” (1637) – which the Scots described in the “National Covenant” (1638) as a “corruption of doctrine” and “Papistry” – war broke out between England and Scotland.30 The English Protestants were “reluctant” to oppose these religious allies when Charles I called on them to fight Scotland. Adding to this a lack of Parliament funding, Charles I’s royalists were quickly “defeated” by Scottish forces.31 In 1640, Charles I was forced into a treaty that made him call the strongly presbyterian Parliament – which Charles had previously dissolved.32 This Parliament, called “the Long Parliament” because it lasted from 1640 to 1660, sought to limit the king’s power, particularly over the church.33 An agreement was never reached. Instead, the Irish Catholics attacked the English Protestants in 1641, breaking up any peace that Charles I and Parliament were seeking. The king fled to Ireland with the MPs loyal to him, leaving a puritan Parliament in control of England, and the civil war began in 1642.34 In 1643, Parliament called the Westminster Assembly to “consult 28 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers 1:3. Van Dixhoorn notes that the puritans were dissidents because the reigns of Mary I, “Elizabeth I and James VI … had revealed the extent to which a relapse to the Roman Catholic Church was still possible, or at least plausible.” See also Fesko, Westminster Standards, 34-38. 29 McEwen, “How the Confession,” 12. 30 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 50. 31 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 52. 32 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 52. The “Treaty of Ripon” with Scotland “required him to pay £850 per day until a permanent agreement could be reached. The biggest problem, however, was that there was now no English army between Scotland and London, and so Charles had to call Parliament once again.” 33 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 52. 34 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers 1:6. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 59 and advise” them on religious reform in England.35 John Morrill describes this as “a pregnant moment in the history of Protestantism. In the midst of an English civil war that was part of a wider war of the three kingdoms ruled by Charles I (three wars within and between England, Scotland, and Ireland), the Long Parliament … set out to reform the Reformation.”36 Soon after the start of these meetings, Parliament called on the Scottish military to aide them against Charles I, because their army was failing. For their aide, Scotland bound Parliament to the “Solemn League and Covenant” (1643) to ensure “the reformation and defense of religion” in “Scotland, England and Ireland.”37 Following the agreement, Scotland joined the war, and a delegation of Scottish theologians was sent to join in the proceedings of the Assembly. III. The Westminster Assembly The Assembly was made up of 121 English ministers and theologians – the “Westminster Divines” – 30 lay representatives from Parliament, and 6 Scottish commissioners to act as advisors.38 The Divines were made up largely of “Presbyterian Puritans,” though there was a “small number of Congregationalists and Episcopalians.”39 Originally, Parliament wanted the Westminster Assembly to revise The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.40 However, this was an unsuccessful endeavour. By the influence of the Solemn League and Covenant, the Assembly was “An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament for the calling of an Assemblie of Learned and Godlie divines to be consulted with by the Parliament, for the setling of the Government and Litturgie of the Church of England and for vindicating and clearing the doctrine of the said church from false Aspersions and Interpretations,” in Minutes and Papers 1:166. 36 John Morrill, “Preface,” in Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers 1:x. 37 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 53. 38 McEwan, “How the Confession,” 13. Van Dixhoorn notes that the Assembly was “embarrassed” that there were lay people attending its proceedings; they were more inclined to mention the involvement of Scotland than to admit to the oversight of Parliament when recording the minutes or communicating with the public and fellow Reformers on the continent (Minutes and Papers 1:83-84). 39 McEwen, “How the Confession,” 13. 40 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers 1:20-22, 27. 35 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 60 then asked to write a new confession of faith and other documents to bring unity to Protestant Britain. A. Diverse Goals for the Assembly For Parliament, which was made up of the House of Lords and House of Commons and was generally of puritan commitment, the purpose for the Assembly is seen in the summons given to its members: Whereas amongst the infinite blessings of Allmighty God upon this Nation none is or can be more deare unto us then the puritie of our Religion, and … as yet many things remaine in the Liturgie, discipline, and Government of the Church which doe necessarily require a further and more perfecte Reformation then as yet hath beene attained, And whereas it hath beene declared and resolved by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, That the present Church Government by ArchBishopps and Bishopps their Channcellors Comissaries deanes, deanes and Chapters Archdeacons & other Ecclesiasticall officers depending upon the hyerarchy is evill and justly offensive and Burthensome to the kingdome a great impediment to Reformation and growth of Religion and Government of this kingdome and that therefore they are resolved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a government shalbe setled in the Church as may be most agreeable to Gods holie word and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church att home and neerer agreement with the Church of Scotland and other reformed churches abroade and for the better effecting here of and for the vindicating and cleereing of the doctrine of the church of England from all false calumnies and Aspersions.41 Parliament called the Assembly to reform the church government, which was declared “evill,” settle its liturgy, and to show that the doctrine of the Church of England was aligned with the Church of Scotland and other Reformed churches.42 While Parliament wanted the Assembly to work on these changes, the Assembly was only allowed to “give their advice and counsell” to “An Ordinance,” in Minutes and Papers 1:165-66. Van Dixhoorn notes that there was a great shift in the socio-political climate in England from 1640 to 1643: previously, “even [Charles’] most unhappy subjects would have been content with a change in church leadership without substantial change in church governance. By 1643, the ground had shifted, for parliament had heeded the almost constant calls from its most ardent supporters for a more radical reform” (Minutes and Papers 1:8). 42 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers 1:8. Van Dixhoorn suggests that for the last point, which implies the revision of doctrine, elsewhere “there is no indication that assembly members were supposed to revise the church’s doctrine.” However, this “ambiguous declaration about an alteration of doctrine” was used to the Assembly’s favour in the writing of the WCF (8-9). 41 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 61 Parliament.43 Parliament also controlled all of the Assembly’s “organizational” matters and publications, and set its “agenda.”44 The effects of the tensions between these two bodies is illustrated below. In contrast, the Divines sought to reform the church, but to varying degrees. Against the backdrop of English “religious pluralism that included but was not limited to Arminians, Anabaptists, antinomians, enthusiasts, Erastians, Familists, Brownists, Papists, Quakers, Socinians, and the like,” the Divines sought to bring “theological uniformity in doctrine and practice.”45 Thus, at certain points, the WCF “is brilliantly ambiguous or vague, … allowing various theologians to assent to the document.”46 At the same time, the political and religious pressure from the ongoing Roman Catholic-Protestant war resulted in clear anti-Roman Catholic statements in the WCF. The “Solemn League and Covenant” presents a different goal for the Assembly from the Scottish representatives. This document first seeks “the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland” and second “the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed Churches.”47 The Scottish intention was to bring Presbyterianism to England and its church governance, which would increase the power and influence of Scotland “Ordinance,” in Minutes and Papers 1:166. Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers 1:9. Van Dixhoorn observes that Parliament wanted this level of control “to keep the nation safe from clericalism,” and because it saw “the gathering’s potential ability to cause political division” (7). The relationship between Parliament and the Assembly was tense. As Parliament forcefully guided discussions, edited and judged the worthiness of its works, and watched for any sign “of clerical tyranny,” the Assembly was wary of backlash from a potential return of the monarchy and embarrassed by the constant supervision (10-12). 45 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 54-55. 46 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 28. 47 “The Solemn League and Covenant,” in CC 1:690. 43 44 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 62 in the British Isles.48 While the representatives could not vote in the Assembly, they had substantial influence on the proceedings.49 One of the outcomes of this influence was a stronger Reformed theology in the Westminster Standards. B. The Westminster Standards and the conclusion of the civil war The Assembly met from 1643-1653,50 producing the Westminster Standards – the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms – and other documents, including the “Form of Church Government” and the “Directory for Public Worship.” While the Assembly could recommend these documents, Parliament retained the ultimate authority to adopt them in England. The WCF, presented to Parliament in 1646, was returned with the instructions to append scriptural proofs to its statements. Though it was returned in 1647 with over fifteen hundred citations,51 the Assembly resented this addition because of problems that arise with reducing doctrines to a series of proof-texts.52 In 1648, the WCF was “printed … ‘with authority’” by Parliament.53 However, the place of the WCF in England did not last. The Standards fell out of use in England after the puritan control of England collapsed and Charles II was crowned king in Scotland and England (1660).54 Presbyterian Scotland adopted the Fesko, Westminster Standards, 53; McEwen. “How the Confession,” 14-15. Scottish commissioner Robert Baillie (1602-1662) famously states that “the English were for a civill Leage, we for a religious covenant” (“Letter to Mr. W. Spang, 26 July 1643,” in Fesko, 53). 49 A.T.B. McGowan, “Evangelicalism in Scotland from Knox to Cunningham,” in The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007), 69. McGowan explains that “the Assembly owed a disproportionate amount to the Scottish commissioners, even though they were so few in number and had no voting rights.” Van Dixhoorn explains that “the Scottish theologians … became integrally involved in the assembly’s major projects.” They “could introduce motions” and “used their membership in the committee to negotiate with parliament or attempt to steer events in the assembly” (Minutes and Papers 1:2324). Further, commissioner Samuel “Rutherford still makes the top-ten list of frequent speakers in the synod’s surviving minutes” (23). 50 Van Dixhoorn makes the case that the Assembly met until 1653 rather than the frequently stated 1652, despite the lack of minutes taken (Minutes and Papers 1:1n4, 38). 51 Pelikan, CCF 2:602. 52 Sinclair B. Ferguson, “The Teaching of the Confession,” in Westminster Confession in the Church, 28. 53 Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers 1:35. 54 Pelikan, CCF 2:602. 48 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 63 WCF as its standard of faith (1690) – replacing the Scots Confession – the English Puritans brought the Westminster Standards with them to the American colonies, and the “General Synod of the Presbyterian Church” in America adopted the WCF (1729).55 The WCF is regarded as “by far the most influential doctrinal symbol in American Protestant history,” and the Standards as the “finest and most enduring statements of early modern Reformed theology.”56 IV. The Doctrine of Scripture in the WCF The WCF is considered a high point in Reformed thought and the era of confessionalism.57 The first chapter, “Of the Holy Scripture,” has received great praise for its “theological brilliance,” its “chaste, precise language,” and its ongoing relevance.58 The following summary of Chapter One of the WCF, “Of the Holy Scripture,” is not comprehensive. Rather, it considers key elements from the chapter that have had ongoing influence on the doctrine of Scripture and the priority given to this doctrine in Presbyterianism and evangelicalism. These are considered alongside some of the Divines and their sources. First, though not new in Reformed theology, is the phrase that the books of the Bible “are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life” (WCF 1.2). This is stated to the 55 Pelikan, CCF 2:602. Van Dixhoorn, Minutes and Papers 1:86-87. 57 Van Dixhoorn describes the Divines as “creative in their restatement of Reformed doctrines, and while echoes of other texts can be heard, each text represents a substantive theological contribution and was better received than any previous assembly production” (Minutes and Papers 1:34); Fesko states that the Standards “represent the very best of the doctrine, government, and worship of the Reformed churches” (Westminster Standards, 64); Fairbairn and Reeves mark the WCF as the “last of the great Reformation-era confessions” and the “closest to a consensus expression of Reformed theology in England” (Creeds and Confessions, 6, 355). 58 John Leith, Assembly at Westminster: Reformed Theology in the Making (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973), 75. B.B. Warfield says “there is certainly in the whole mass of confessional literature no more nobly conceived or ably wrought-out statement of doctrine than the chapter ‘Of the Holy Scripture,’ which the Westminster Divines placed at the head of their Confession and laid at the foundation of their system of doctrine” (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Volume VI: The Westminster Assembly and its Work [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991], 155); Philip Schaff states that “no other Protestant symbol has such a clear, judicious, concise, and exhaustive statement of this fundamental article of Protestantism” (“Evangelical Reformed Creeds,” CC 1:767). 56 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 64 exclusion of the Apocrypha, indicating a direct opposition to texts deemed authoritative by Roman Catholicism (1.3).59 While scholars have debated what is meant by “inspiration” and have developed theories of the divine inspiration of Scripture,60 some have noted that there was no single view among the Divines on this doctrine, and that the WCF is intentionally vague.61 Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), a Scottish commissioner who had a substantial role in the writing of the WCF,62 describes the “immediate inspiration” by the Holy Spirit of the writers of Scripture, with God “leading their hand at the pen.”63 In contrast, Divine Thomas Gataker (1574-1654) allows for a human element in Scripture:64 of “some” of the Psalms, Gataker states that it was “the Holy Ghosts pleasure … that the penmen thereof, should take more paines than usuall, and more Art than ordinarie should be shewed” in writing, and that some of these Psalms offer “more excellence” for “teaching,” though each writer was led by the Holy Spirit.65 What seems more important to the Divines concerning inspiration is that it marks Scripture apart as the Word of God, separating it from other texts and “traditions of men” (1.6).66 59 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 76. See Kenneth J. Stewart, “The Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture, 1650-1850: A Re-examination of David Bebbington’s Theory,” in Advent, 394-413. Stewart traces the development of views on inspiration from 1650-1850. 61 Muller states that the WCF is “entirely devoid of unnecessary or tendentious argument,” thus there is “no attempt to formulate a particular theory of inspiration” (Holy Scripture, 90). Jack B. Rogers notes that the WCF “gives no definition of inspiration but simply points to its result” (Scripture in the Westminster Confession: A Problem of Historical Interpretation for American Presbyterianism [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1967], 298). George Hendry states that for the Divines, “the inspiration of the Bible is not a matter of theory; it is a matter of faith” (The Westminster Confession for Today: A Contemporary Interpretation [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1960], 32). 62 McGowan, “Evangelicalism in Scotland,” 69. 63 Rutherford, The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peaceable dispute for the perfection of the holy Scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the servicebook is justified … to which is added, a brief tractate of scandal; with an answer to the new doctrine of the doctors of Aberdeen, touching scandal (London: John Field, 1646), 66. 64 Rogers, Scripture, 299. 65 Thomas Gataker, Dauids instructer A sermon preached at the visitation of the Free-Schole at Tunbridge in Kent, by the wardens of the Worshipfull Companie of Skinners, (London: Edward Griffin, 1620; Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 2023), 2, http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A01530.0001.001. See also Rogers, Scripture, 300. 66 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 76; Rogers, Scripture, 301. 60 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 65 A second significant element of the WCF is its discussion on the authority of Scripture. The Bible is authoritative “because it is the word of God” (1.4). 67 The only testimony to its “infallible truth” that is needed for salvation is “the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts” (1.5).68 Again, the WCF counters Roman Catholicism, which claims authority above that of Scripture.69 William Whitaker (1547-1595), cited by the Divines, expands the discussion on authority: “the authority of scripture may be proved from the author himself, since the authority of God himself shines forth in it,” but this authority “depends upon, and is made clear by, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.”70 Further, for the WCF, the infallibility and authority of Scripture is dependent on the testimony of the Holy Spirit.71 Two final statements must be noted: “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves” (1.7), and the original Hebrew and Greek of Scripture are “immediately inspired by God” and must be “appeal[ed]” to in “all controversies of religion” (1.8).72 For the former, the WCF expands on the clarity of Scripture, saying that the “infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” (1.9). This rule of interpretation means that “Scripture is the guide to its own interpretation” and “the ultimate norm of doctrine.”73 Despite its unclear passages, Scripture is “sufficient” for In Schaff’s edition of the WCF, “Word” is capitalized (CC 1:601-605). Muller observes that “the authority of Scripture is not grounded by Westminster on the concept of inspiration but rather on its nature as Word” (Holy Scripture, 89). 68 Muller suggests that by resting the “saving understanding” of Scripture on the Spirit, “the doctrine of Scripture is safeguarded from a wooden rationalism” and “preserved from a rigoristic biblicism” (Holy Scripture, 89). 69 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 76; Rogers, Scripture, 307. 70 Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849), 289-90. See Fesko, 77. 71 It should be noted that the term “infallible” is often equated with the modern concept of “inerrant.” However, modern debates on inerrancy would not have been in the theological framework or discussion of the Divines. For example, while Rutherford may have held that there were no errors in Scripture, he emphasized the purpose of Scripture: it “is our Rule … in fundamentals of salvation … in all morals … in all institutions … [and] worship,” not in “things of Art and Science” (Rutherford, Church-Government, 99). 72 Muller notes that the discussion of “original languages” is “greater [in detail] than that of previous confessions” (Holy Scripture, 90). However, this is not the same as an appeal to the autographa (see fn 114 for more detail). 73 Muller, Holy Scripture, 90. 67 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 66 everyone to gain an understanding of salvation (1.7);74 therefore, it should be translated into “the vulgar language of every nation” (1.8). This reflects the Protestant ideal that everyone should be able to read and interpret Scripture for themselves. Again, it opposes the Roman Catholic limitation of interpretation given to the clergy, as well as its use of the Latin Vulgate to the exclusion of translations.75 Divine Edward Leigh (1602-1671) gives examples of what should be clear and accessible to every reader of Scripture: the “Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the like.”76 The WCF also allows that the “learned” should delve into deeper matters of Scripture (1.7). Where there is unclear or conflicting interpretation, the Confession suggests an appeal to the original texts of Scripture, which are deemed “authentical” (1.8). Richard Muller contends that this statement does not concern contemporary discussions on autographa, rather, it simply refers to “the original-language texts currently known to the church.”77 V. The WCF in Presbyterianism As noted above, the Westminster Standards, particularly the WCF, spread far beyond England. The WCF was taken to the American colonies by the English Puritans in the late seventeenth century.78 The congregationalist Savoy Declaration (1658), the Baptist Second London Confession This statement on sufficiency is “stated and qualified with more precision and clarity than can be found in any earlier Reformed confession” (Muller, Holy Scripture, 89). 75 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 90. 76 Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity: Consisting of Ten Books, wherein the Fundamentals and the main grounds of Religion are Opened, the Contrary Errours Refuted, Most of the Controversies between Us, the Papists, Arminians and Socinians discussed and handled, several Scriptures explained and vindicated from corrupt glosses, a work seasonable for these times, wherein so many Articles of our Faith are questioned, and so many gross Errours daily published 1:8 (London: A.M., 1654), 100, https://books.google.ca/books?id=hpVkAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP37&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage& q=decalogue&f=false. See Fesko, Westminster Standards, 84. 77 Muller, Holy Scripture, 90. 78 Fairbairn and Reeves, Creeds and Confessions, 357. 74 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 67 (1689), and the Baptist Philadelphia Confession (1742) were largely based on the WCF.79 The Church of Scotland and Presbyterianism in America adopted the WCF as their “principle subordinate standard” to Scripture.80 Through these networks, the WCF was carried into twentiethcentury American evangelicalism. The direct influence of the WCF is evident in both the CSBI and contemporary evangelical statements of faith. A link between these two eras is made through the discussion of the WCF at Princeton Seminary in late-nineteenth-century America. There were two streams of Presbyterianism in America: the “Old School” Presbyterians with a “Scottish and Scotch Irish heritage,” which strongly upheld the Westminster Standards and wanted “mandatory loyalty” to the Confession; and the “New School” Presbyterians “from the New England and English Puritan traditions,” who held that the WCF “should be interpreted with more latitude.”81 Old School Presbyterianism was the dominant tradition at Princeton Seminary, where Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and Warfield resided. A significant moment in American Presbyterianism was the controversy at Princeton at the end of the nineteenth century. At this time, biblical criticism was boldly introduced to America through Presbyterian theologian Charles A. Briggs. His volume, Whither? A Theological Question for the Times (1889) and his inaugural address at Union Theological Seminary, titled “The Authority of Holy Scripture” (1891), claimed that the Bible was not error-free and that some of its histories were not true.82 Briggs was apparently “alarmed” by the implications of the teaching of 79 Fesko, Westminster Standards, 13; Pelikan, CCF 2:602. Alexander Cheyne, “The Place of the Confession Through the Centuries,” in The Westminster Confession in the Church Today, 27. See also George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1980), 109. Marsden notes that “in 1729 … the Presbyterian Church in America adopted the Confession as its official creed.” 81 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 109-110. Marsden elaborates that the Old School Presbyterians “insisted that the Westminster standards represented as closely as was humanly possible the system of doctrine contained in Scripture” (110). 82 Barry Waugh, “A Manuscript by B.B. Warfield Concerning the Trial of Charles A. Briggs.” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 406. Mark Noll explains that Briggs attacked “six ‘barriers’ which stood between 80 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 68 A.A. Hodge and Warfield that errors in Scripture undermine all the claims of Scripture and its inspiration; therefore, he sought to “introduce[e] what he considered a safe, Christian historical criticism to the United States.”83 This created great controversy at Union and Princeton Seminaries and in the Presbyterian Church of America. As a result of his publications and perceived theologically liberal teachings, the New York Presbytery brought Briggs to trial for heresy in 1891, charging him “with teaching that conflicted with the Westminster Standards and Scripture.” 84 He was eventually convicted in a third trial in 1893. This controversy sparked extensive research and debates over the Westminster Confession, the doctrine of Scripture, and the role of biblical criticism in the church. Warfield, Princeton theologian and former colleague of Briggs, wrote a brief manuscript to the General Assembly at Briggs’ trial, intended to reveal the inconsistencies of Briggs’ claims and their contradictions with the Westminster Standards.85 An example from Warfield’s manuscript shows the contrasting use of the WCF for Warfield and Briggs.86 Briggs contends that the “ordination statement” for Presbyterian ministers “binds [them] to the infallibility of Holy Scripture in all matters of faith and practice,” not to “any statement of Holy Scripture that is outside the range of faith and practice.”87 Similarly, the WCF states that Scripture is “to be the rule of faith Scripture and its usefulness to the church,” including “verbal inspiration, inerrancy, and the traditional opinions on literary matters that were firmly fixed among the conservatives” (Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986], 28-29). 83 Bradley Gundlach, “Competing Evangelical Views of History: Warfield and Briggs,” Fides et Historia 51, no. 2 (2019): 35. See A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield, “Inspiration,” Presbyterian Review 2, no. 6 (1881), 225260, https://archive.org/details/presbyterianrevi2618unse/page/225/mode/1up?view=theater. 84 Waugh, “Manuscript,” 401-02. Noll observes that Briggs was “far too liberal for conservatives,” which led to the trial, yet “far too traditional for the new critics” (Between Faith and Criticism, 203). 85 Waugh, “Manuscript,” 402-410. He later produced The Westminster Assembly and its Work (1901), a commentary that offers a careful historical study of the Assembly and the Westminster Standards, and his works on inspiration and inerrancy are collected in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (1948). 86 Although using Warfield’s text alone will introduce his biases to the debate, the main idea being conveyed is that both scholars drew from the WCF for their arguments. 87 Briggs, The Bible, the Church, and Reason, 92, in “Manuscript,” 406. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 69 and life” (1.2). Briggs further argues that “it is sheer assumption to claim that the original documents were inerrant.”88 In contrast, Warfield draws on the Confession’s statements on “the infallible truth” (1.5) of Scripture and its being “immediately inspired by God” (1.8) to ascribe an inerrant position to the Westminster Divines.89 The use of the WCF by both Warfield and Briggs to defend their doctrine of Scripture reveals the ongoing relevance of this document in both the Presbyterian church and the academic institutions in America. At this time, “the Princeton view of inerrancy was considered to be implied in the Westminster Confession.”90 In the end, both Warfield and Briggs “tried to claim the Westminster Confession for his own position,” but they were “attempting to force the Confession to answer questions the Confession never faced.”91 Since the Divines did not face concerns modern biblical criticism brought to Scripture, attempts to extrapolate their response using their statements on infallibility and inspiration is anachronistic.92 This debate continued into the twentieth century. VI. The WCF and Contemporary Evangelicalism The Princeton debate connects the WCF and contemporary evangelicalism in two ways. On a broader scope, the development of evangelical theology in America was significantly shaped by Briggs, Whither? 68, in “Manuscript,” 406. Warfield, “Manuscript,” 407. Note that this view is anachronistic, since Warfield is making the Divines respond to challenges of biblical criticism which were not in view. 90 Rogers, Scripture, 28. 91 Leith, 77. Leith does note, however, that Briggs’ challenge of the apparent inerrant view of the WCF resulted in “a remarkable accumulation of literature” and “scholarly studies” on the Westminster Assembly. 92 John Delivuk attempts to show through a study of definitions and the writings of the Divines that the term “infallible” in the seventeenth century would have been the equivalent of the modern term “inerrant.” He concludes that “the authors of the confession believed that the Bible is reliable and true in all matters which it addresses, that it is completely free from all errors, falsehoods, or deceits, and that this truthfulness extends to all matters religious and secular.” However, this does not adequately address the problem of anachronism – even with the same definitions of key terms, the Westminster Divines did not face the challenges presented by biblical criticism for their interpretation of Scripture (“Inerrancy, Infallibility, and Scripture in the Westminster Confession of Faith,” The Westminster Theological Journal 54, no. 2 [Fall 1992]: 349-55). 88 89 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 70 Princeton theologians, including Warfield and the Hodges.93 These theological giants located themselves firmly within their Westminster heritage.94 On a more specific level, the recurring polemic over the doctrine of Scripture causes scholars to return to examples from the past. Both the Princetonians and the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) – which produced the CSBI – refer to the WCF to justify their claims. Further, evangelical statements of faith reflect the views of Scripture developed in these periods. What follows is a review of the context of the ICBI and a comparative analysis of the WCF with the CSBI,95 which illustrates the substantial influence of the WCF. A. “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” Debates over the accuracy of Scripture have been central to the recurring polemic on the doctrine of Scripture, as seen with Warfield and Briggs.96 The mid-twentieth century marks another such controversy. The early decades of the century had witnessed the division of the university, with its “critical conclusions,” from “conservative evangelical scholarship.”97 Further, there was a rise of fundamentalism outside of the university, which had “little concern for learned study of the Bible.”98 From the 1930s to 1970s, a “new evangelicalism” emerged from fundamentalism, one which entered “the academic mainstream” and sought to “rejuvenate evangelical study of the Influential texts include Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology, A.A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology, and Warfield’s Revelation and Inspiration. 94 Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 110. Warfield warmly states that “it is our special felicity, that as Reformed Christians, and heirs of the richest and fullest formulation of Reformed thought, we possess in that precious heritage, the Westminster Confession, the most complete, the most admirable, the most perfect statement of the essential Christian doctrine of Holy Scripture which has ever been formed by man” (Revelation and Inspiration, in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield 1 [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2003], 57). 95 Citations from “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” will be drawn from the reprint in Evangelical Review of Theology 4, no. 1 (April 1980): 3–11. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiREM201231000919&site=edslive&scope=site. 96 Norman L. Geisler and William C. Roach, “Prologue,” in Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, ed. Norman Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 12. 97 Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 47. 98 Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 57. 93 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 71 Scriptures.”99 A renewed debate began over Scripture in the 1960s, when Fuller Seminary decided to remove “inerrancy from its doctrinal statement.”100 The debate between new sola scripturists, such as Rogers and McKim, and classic sola scripturists, such as Woodbridge, led to the formation of the ICBI in 1978.101 The ICBI held a three-day conference in Chicago to respond to critique levelled against the classic sola scripturist view, which upheld scriptural inerrancy. At this conference were 284 scholars and pastors from across denominations broadly classified as “evangelical.” 102 The purpose of the conference was “to define, defend, and apply the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as an essential element of the authority of Scripture and a necessary ingredient for the health of the church of Christ in an attempt to win the church back to this historic position.”103 The council believed that concerns about the inerrancy of Scripture that came from biblical criticism could be resolved.104 At the end of the conference, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” was signed by the participants and presented to the public, and it “became the norm for the vast majority of evangelicalism” for the next several decades.105 The preface of the Chicago Statement opens with the sentence, “the authority of Scripture is a key issue of the Christian Church in this and every age.”106 This parallels the Confession’s concern with “the authority of the holy Scripture” (1.4). For the WCF, Scripture’s authority is to be “received, because it is the Word of God” (1.4), and the CSBI offers a nearly identical 99 Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, 97-99. Geisler and Roach, “Prologue,” in Defending Inerrancy, 12. 101 McGowan, Divine Authenticity, 103. 102 These denominations included “Anglican, Baptist, Free Church, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and others.” Norman L. Geisler, “Preface,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), ix. 103 Geisler, “Preface,” ix. 104 Packer, “Foreword,” 10. 105 Geisler and Roach, “Prologue,” 12. 106 “Preface,” CSBI, 4. 100 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 72 statement.107 Both texts similarly affirm the “divine inspiration” of Scripture;108 but where the authoritative status of Scripture in the WCF “is grounded … on its nature as Word” and not its “concept of inspiration,109 the CSBI lingers over the concept of inspiration.110 Following the preface, the CSBI is divided into three sections: a summary statement, articles of affirmation and denial, and an exposition of the articles. The summary states that it is “the Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, [who] both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.”111 This directly correlates with the WCF’s statement that one can be assured of the authority of Scripture as the Word of God by “the inward work of the Holy Spirit,” who “bear[s] witness by and with the Word in our hearts” (1.5). The next statements go beyond what is stated in the Confession: “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching,” including “what it states about God’s acts in creation and all events of world history.” It goes on to claim that “the authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited.”112 This section appears to contradict the intention of the WCF. The truth of the Christian faith seems to hang on whether or not the entire Bible is completely without error, rather than on the witness of the Holy Spirit to salvation (WCF 1.6). Further noteworthy similarities and differences to the WCF are seen in the CSBI’s articles of affirmation and denial. Article One denies that Scripture “receive[s] [its] authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.”113 Similarly, the WCF denies that the authority of It says, “the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God” (Article 1:5). CSBI Article 6:6; WCF 1.2. 109 Muller, Holy Scripture, 89. 110 See Articles 6-11:6. 111 Statement 3:5. 112 Statements 4-5:5. 113 Article 1:5. 107 108 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 73 Scripture is given by “the testimony of the Church” (1.5) and nothing can be added to the revelation given in Scripture, by “new revelations … or traditions of men” (1.6). Articles six and ten correlate to the Confession’s appeal to the original languages (WCF 1.8): it is “the very words of the original” that “were given by divine inspiration,” and “inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture.”114 Beyond this, both the WCF and the CSBI affirm the use of “copies and translations of Scripture.”115 The added nuance in the CSBI is that it denies that “any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs.”116 In its exposition, the Chicago Statement claims to be aligned with Westminster; because of how well the Hebrew and Greek texts are “preserved” according to the findings of “textual criticism,” it is “amply justified in affirming with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God … and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”117 As with Warfield, the CSBI sees its views as faithful to the WCF. Both the Confession and the CSBI further affirm that translations of Scripture into the modern languages are necessary to make its readers “wise for salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15, NIV),118 though the CSBI notes that they are “an additional step away from the autographa.”119 114 Articles 6, 10:6. The discussion on the autographa goes beyond the Confession. Muller states that the WCF’s appeal refers simply to “the original language texts currently known to the church.” It does not enter “the realm of dogmatic system [since] there is no elaboration of discussion distinguishing between ‘Words’ (verba) and ‘substance’ (res) such as appears in the systems of the day and no discussion of the autographa” (Holy Scripture, 90). Cf. Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979), 180-81, 212-13. 115 Article 10:5; WCF 1.8. 116 Article 10:5. 117 “Exposition: Transmission and Translation,” 10, emph. added. 118 Both the WCF and the Chicago Statement reference 2 Tim. 3:15. The WCF says that what is “necessary to be known … for salvation” is clear for everyone to understand in Scripture, with the proof-text appended (1.7); this is followed with a discussion on the necessity of translations so that everyone can understand this message (1.8). 119 “Exposition: Transmission and Translation,” 10-11. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 74 A shift away from the WCF is the CSBI’s claim that “infallibility and inerrancy” are not “limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the field of history and science.”120 The Chicago Statement is combatting some of the challenges science and biblical criticism have levelled against the authority of Scripture. However, this argument shifts the focus away from the main point of Scripture according to the WCF – that which is “necessary … for salvation (1.7).121 A final comparative point is the CSBI’s affirmation of the analogy of Scripture – that “Scripture is to interpret Scripture.122 While the WCF halts at this rule of interpretation, the Chicago Statement expands interpretation to “grammatico-historical exegesis,” with “literary forms and devices” and the analogy of Scripture under this heading. Given the Divines’ push toward the scholarly study of the original languages, the CSBI appears to go in a direction that aligns with their thought. The end of the Chicago Statement appears to inadvertently expose the dangers of the elevation of the Bible alone, even as it defends inerrancy. It explains that if “the total truth of the Bible” is not maintained, it begins to “lose its authority,” spiralling down into the authority of “independent reason” as the Bible is subjectively pulled apart.123 This is a very precarious position for a church challenged with biblical criticism. By hinging the authority of Scripture on inerrancy, it appears that the discovery of one genuine error would cause the Christian faith to collapse. 124 The CSBI also claims to be in line with “Christ and His apostles” in its “affirmation of the authority 120 Article 12:6. As noted above, the Divines emphasize that “the purpose of Scripture is to bring people into relationship with God, not to communicate interesting information in all branches of learning” (Rogers and McKim, Authority and Interpretation, 206). 122 Article 18:7. 123 “Exposition: Inerrancy and Authority,” 11. 124 Indeed, it seems that many Christians in recent decades have walked away from Christianity when faced with errors or inconsistencies in Scripture that cannot be explained away. 121 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 75 of Scripture.”125 Yet in early Christianity, the authority of Scripture was not upheld to the exclusion of the church and Tradition. In decreasing the authority of the church and Tradition – which the Westminster Divines did in response to specific issues with Roman Catholicism – the church lost interpretive principles that were inherent to her reading of Scripture. In the face of biblical criticism, it seems that evangelicals could have appealed to more than just the claim of inerrancy. They could have appealed to the rich heritage of Tradition, without needing to rush to defend Scripture every time an apparent error was uncovered. B. Contemporary statements of faith The doctrine of Scripture developed in the WCF and CSBI has influenced many contemporary evangelical statements of faith. A select review of these statements, drawn from evangelical parachurch organizations, reveals the impact these documents have made, both in the arrangement of the statements and the doctrine of Scripture.126 Like the WCF, each of these statements places its doctrine of Scripture prior to the doctrine of God; further, these statements contain significant overlap in language with both the WCF and CSBI.127 The National Association of Evangelicals states, “we believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.”128 The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has an identical statement, but appends these proof-texts, similar to the WCF: “1 Thessalonians 2:13; “Exposition: Inerrancy and Authority,” 11. This list of statements of faith is drawn from evangelical parachurch organizations because they are more representative of evangelicalism as a whole, as opposed to specific denominations, which are limited in scope and influence. These organizations were also chosen because they demonstrate similarity to the WCF and CSBI. Christian Smith also observes that “evangelical parachurch organizations … provide a major institutional component of American evangelicalism” (The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture [Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011], 15). See pp. 15-16 for a similar list of parachurch statements of faith. 127 Words and phrases that parallel the WCF are italicized, and for the CSBI they are underlined. 128 “Statement of Faith,” National Association of Evangelicals, nae.org, 2023, https://nae.org/statement-offaith/. 125 126 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 76 2 Timothy 3:15-17; John 3:16.”129 The Evangelical Theological Society emphasizes scriptural inerrancy, echoing the CSBI: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”130 Christianity Today also echoes the CSBI in its first statement: “The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible as originally written were inspired of God, hence free from error. They constitute the only infallible guide in faith and practice.”131 Similar examples are seen in three parachurch organizations directed toward youth and young adults. Awana’s first statement is on the Bible: “We believe that the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is supernaturally inspired, so that it is inerrant in the original manuscripts and preserved by God in its verbal and plenary inspiration, so that it is a divinely authoritative standard for every age and every life. (Matthew 5:18; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:21).”132 Article one of Young Life says, “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, being given by divine inspiration, are the Word of God, the final and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct.”133 Lastly, Youth With a Mission’s preamble to its statement says that it “affirms the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God and the absolute reference point for every aspect of life and ministry.”134 These statements begin to demonstrate that the language and thought from the WCF and CSBI saturate evangelical doctrinal statements on Scripture. Moreover, these statements parallel the theological locus of Scripture in the WCF, so that all doctrine proceeds from Scripture. “Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Statement of Faith,” Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, BGEA, 2023, https://billygraham.org/about/what-we-believe/. 130 “Doctrinal Basis,” The Evangelical Theological Society, etsjets.org, https://www.etsjets.org/about. 131 “Statement of Faith,” Christianity Today, Christianity Today, 2023, https://www.christianitytoday.org/who-we-are/our-ministry/main.html. 132 “What We Believe,” Awana, Awana Clubs International, 2023, https://www.awana.org/our-beliefs/. 133 “Statement of Faith,” Young Life, Young Life, 2023. https://younglife.org/about/statement-of-faith/. 134 “The Statement of Purpose, Core Beliefs and Foundational Values of YWAM,” ywam, ywam.org, 2023, https://ywam.org/about-us/values. 129 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 77 Statements on Scripture’s divine inspiration, authority over faith and practice, status as the Word of God, and inerrancy in the autographa, all reflect the language from the WCF or later developments on Scripture, as seen in the CSBI. VII. Conclusion The Westminster Assembly set out to write a new confession of faith in the midst of a religious and political war. Despite, or perhaps because of, these pressures, their endeavour produced one of the finest confessional documents of the Reformation era. The WCF went on to influence developments in Protestantism, specifically evangelicalism. The doctrine of Scripture laid out in the first chapter of the WCF entered twentieth-century American evangelical doctrines of Scripture through Presbyterianism. It certainly appears that the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” draws substantial material from the WCF, and in turn, the WCF and CSBI have influenced modern evangelical formulations of the doctrine of Scripture. What remains to be seen is how this evangelical view of Scripture is a deviation from the patristic view. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 78 CHAPTER 4: DEVIATION FROM THE PATRISTIC VIEW The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word … (WCF 1.6). I. Introduction In both language and locus, the doctrine of Scripture in the WCF has shaped the doctrine in modern evangelicalism. The purpose of this chapter is to move beyond these observations on the influence of the WCF and demonstrate one of the key arguments of this study: that the priority given to Scripture in evangelicalism is a deviation from the patristic view of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. In what follows, the four points on the patristic view of Scripture and Tradition discussed in Chapter Two are compared to the broad evangelical view on Scripture and Tradition seen in the CSBI, as influenced by the WCF. The comparison demonstrates that the trajectory initiated by the WCF directly influenced the rise of the authority of Scripture and loss of Tradition in evangelicalism.1 Preliminary points on the problems raised by the loss of Tradition are also discussed. 1 While there were influences on the elevation of Scripture prior to the WCF, this document consolidates much of the late Reformation development on Scripture, and it is what many evangelical circles consult in the centuries to come. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE II. 79 On Scripture and Tradition: A Comparison of the WCF and the CSBI In Chapter Two, four observations were made about the patristic view of Scripture and its relationship to Tradition: Scripture coinhered with Tradition; the revelation of Jesus Christ funds Scripture and Tradition; the Holy Spirit was an essential, living part in the development, transmission, and reception of Scripture and Tradition; and a well-defined doctrine of Scripture did not exist, nor was it needed. A shift away from all four of these patristic views is starkly clear in the WCF, and more so in the CSBI. Despite subverting these patristic views, the latter claims to be “consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of church history from the first days until very recently.”2 This shift, which ultimately elevated Scripture to the highest seat of authority in evangelicalism and eliminated the role of Tradition, has threatened the life and wellness of the church. A. Scripture separated from Tradition Scripture and Tradition coinhered in the life of the early church – one could not function without the other. Tradition was a safeguard and interpreter of Scripture even as Scripture defined Tradition. To respond to changing contexts and new challenges in the church, the church Fathers drew on both Tradition and Scripture. While the Reformation itself could arguably be what initiated a separation of Scripture from Tradition, the WCF more expressly effects this change. As seen in the excerpt above, the WCF rejects the addition of “traditions of men” as a source of authority on “man’s salvation, faith, and life.” This is a direct response to the Roman Catholic tendencies in the Church of England and the oppressive measures it had repeatedly taken to enforce them in England and Scotland. The Divines sought to reduce the authority of traditions 2 “Exposition: Inerrancy and Authority,” CSBI, 11. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 80 over church belief and practice and elevate the authority of Scripture. In rejecting traditionalism, authority on doctrine and practice was placed in Scripture alone. The long-term effect of this rejection was that the deeper understanding of Tradition itself was lost. Anything that suggests authority outside of Scripture began to be viewed with suspicion, and sources such as the rules of faith and worship, the church Fathers, and even the creeds, are not consulted in church controversy.3 Again, Tradition is meant to function as an enduring yet flexible source of authority for the interpretation of Scripture which is consulted by the church for its doctrine and practice. The CSBI demonstrates this trajectory initiated by the WCF. Similar to the WCF, it plainly states that Scripture does not gain its “authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source,” but from God.4 It goes further, stating that “the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture” and denying “that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.”5 These essential parts of Tradition, as well as the church, are explicitly subordinated to Scripture. This is a problematic view. If neither the church nor Tradition has the status, who has the authority to interpret Scripture? Even if it was “given by divine inspiration,” the interpretations of Scripture are manifold.6 If Scripture stands alone in its majesty, more problems will arise as individual interpretations are made equivalent with this high status and there is no authority to contest it. This problem was seen in gnosticism. The Christian Gnostics claimed an authoritative In “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” A.N.S. Lane demonstrates that the early Reformers did not hold Scripture as the “sole authority;” they did consult various authorities such as Tradition, reason, experience, or the church. Rather, Scripture was seen as the “final authority.” However, Lane observes that sola Scriptura, for evangelicals, has been “taken … to the point of claiming to reject all other authorities…. Giving birth to a populist hermeneutic of ‘every man his own interpreter’” (in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, eds. P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1994], 322, 327). 4 Article 1:5. 5 Article 2:5. 6 Article 6, 11:6. 3 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 81 interpretation of the Scriptures apart from Tradition and the church. They denied essential parts of the Christian faith even as they used many of the same texts as the church.7 As demonstrated in Irenaeus’ refutation of gnosticism, by having Tradition coinhere with Scripture in the church – giving her the right to interpret Scripture authoritatively – Scripture is held within proper checks and balances, and no power or doctrine becomes extreme. Thus, by denying both Tradition and the church coinherence with Scripture, this balance, which gave life to the church and safeguarded her faith from decay and corruption, is lost. B. Scripture funds the revelation of Jesus Christ By submitting the authority of Scripture and Tradition to God’s revelation through Jesus Christ, the early church could sustain both the mystery of the Christian faith and develop its doctrines without over-rationalizing its faith or threatening its foundations. Theology began with God, and out of his self-revelation through Christ came Tradition and Scripture. This order of theology emphasizes that Jesus Christ funds Tradition and Scripture.8 Contrary to the patristic view, the WCF places the doctrine of Scripture prior to all other doctrines. Instead of the doctrine of God preceding any other doctrinal assertion, the authority of Scripture became the precedent.9 This priority given to Scripture sets the stage for further implications concerning the order of doctrine – that Scripture funds Christ, Tradition, and the church. The CSBI emphasizes this priority: “we affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes 7 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.1.3 (ANF 1:317). Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, in Systematic Theology 1 (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992), 337. 9 A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007), 27-29. 8 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 82 revelation in encounter ….”10 And “Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.”11 There is a risk in calling Scripture revelation and God’s witness – Scripture itself claims that Jesus Christ is God’s revelation, and the Holy Spirit is his witness.12 When Scripture takes the sole role as revelation and witness, Scripture then funds all doctrinal claims. If the veracity of Scripture is called into question in any way, all subsequent assertions are imperiled, which is precisely what the CSBI claims: “the authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any limited or disregarded.”13 Not only are the central tenants of the faith at risk; this prioritization threatens to make every doctrine based on a logical argument from Scripture, rather than an outworking of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.14 Mystery in theology is also lost in the process, as each doctrine is logically deduced from Scripture. Further evidence of the shift in doctrinal priority is seen in the WCF: the “word of God” solely refers to Scripture. While the WCF does initially call it the “word of God written,” at no point is Jesus Christ called the living Word of God (1.2, emph. added). According to the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ is the Word of God, in all the fulness and richness of its meaning, and this Word was “in the beginning” (1:2). To give Scripture the title of “word of God” – even if it is inspired by the Spirit – without first acknowledging Jesus Christ as the living Word and revelation of God is to undermine the mystery and depth of this central belief of the church. The Word, Jesus Christ, is the very reason for her existence. 10 Article 3:5. Statement 1:5. 12 Paul states that “the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received [παρέλαβον] it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12, NRSV); Acts 2. 13 Statement 5:5. 14 McGowan argues that “neither the origin nor the function of the Scriptures can be properly articulated outside the context of the work of God the Holy Spirit [sic]” (Divine Authenticity, 29). 11 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 83 Similarly, the phrase “Word of God” primarily refers to Scripture in the CSBI. It asserts that Scripture is “to be received as the authoritative Word of God.”15 In the discussion on inspiration, the CSBI states that it is through the Holy Spirit and “human writers” that God “gave us His Word.”16 While there is also the qualification that Scripture is the “written Word,”17 and a later statement directly names Jesus “the living Word,”18 the language remains problematic. By claiming that “the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one,” the written word, Scripture, is made equal to the living Word, Jesus.19 Truth claims draw their authority from Scripture rather than its source because Scripture is viewed as the same as the source. C. The role of the Holy Spirit is reduced In the thought of the church Fathers, the Holy Spirit played a vital role in the safeguarding and transmission of Tradition – which includes Scripture. The descent, or “traditioning,” of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples at Pentecost witnessed to the truth of the revelation of Christ. This ongoing witness of the Holy Spirit within the church guards the content of Tradition. The Holy Spirit provided the witness which inspired the writing of Tradition (the Scriptures), and the passing on of Tradition through the oral witness of the apostles to the church. The ongoing development of Tradition is guided by the Holy Spirit. If there is no place for Tradition, this work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church since her beginning becomes negligible. 15 Article 1:5. Article 7:6. 17 Article 3:5, emph. added. 18 “Exposition: Authority: Christ and the Bible,” 9. 19 “Exposition: Authority: Christ and the Bible,” 9. The exposition further states that “by authenticating each other’s authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.” Not only does this limit the scope of the ongoing living Word, it dangerously equates Scripture’s words with Christ’s words. When someone claims an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, this personal view can claim that it is what Christ says. 16 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 84 The Divines have a limited description of the role of the Holy Spirit: “our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority [of Scripture], is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts” (1.5). The Divines further note that the Holy Spirit gives “inward illumination” to the reader of Scripture, for them to receive a “saving understanding” of it (1.6).20 Lastly, the WCF calls the Holy Spirit the “supreme judge” in “all controversies of religion” and “decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits”; the “Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” is the final authority in doctrine and practice (1.10). In summary, the Holy Spirit does three things according to the WCF:21 testifies to the truth and authority of Scripture; opens the readers eyes to salvation through the words of Scripture; and is limited to speaking through Scripture. Rather than acknowledging the living work of the Holy Spirit throughout the development of Tradition through to the present, the Holy Spirit is reduced to speaking in Scripture. The movement of the Spirit at ecumenical councils, in the writings of the Fathers, and the general maintenance of Tradition is seen as subordinate to his work via Scripture to our hearts, and certainly appears to be excluded from the Spirit’s work. The CSBI repeats the first two points from the WCF: “The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.”22 It also connects the Spirit directly to the inspiration of Scripture, stating that This role of the Holy Spirit is also seen in 7.3. Jesus Christ “promis[ed] to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” It is similarly stated in 13.8. 21 While later chapters mention the Spirit, there is no chapter dedicated to a doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The other roles of the Holy Spirit discussed concern his work in the life of Jesus (8), and the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying believers (14, 16) and the assurance of salvation (18). The Holy Spirit’s role in Tradition and the life of the church is not discussed. 22 Statement 3:5. Article 17 elaborates on the witness of the Spirit: “We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God’s written Word. We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture” (7). The exposition also expands on the work of the Spirit in opening minds to salvation. “No serious translation” of Scripture endangers its message because of “the Holy Spirit’s constant witness”; this witness will “make its reader ‘wise for salvation …’ (2 Tim.3:15)” (11). The WCF also references 2 Tim. 3:15 in the parallel discussion. 20 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 85 “inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word.”23 While the CSBI does acknowledge the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the writing of Scripture, there is no discussion of the work of the Spirit throughout the life and growth of the church. Why can the Holy Spirit only have authority in this particular moment of church history? No longer is the Spirit viewed as a living part of Tradition, the constant preserver and interpreter, and the guide to development of the whole faith. D. The doctrine of Scripture becomes paramount No doctrine of Scripture existed in the early church. Any mention of Scripture in the creeds was passing.24 The Fathers were deeply enriched, and dependent upon, the Scriptures. Yet almost the entire development of doctrine in the patristic age centred on Christology and soteriology. While the Scriptures were important, they were not accorded with enough concern to merit a doctrinal definition. Was this because they were unified in their view of Scripture? Or was it the case that no specific debates on the nature of Scripture had come into question? It was because the locus of Scripture was different in the patristic church – it was subsumed under the doctrine of God, with Scripture as an outworking of his revelatory work. Scripture never stood alone. It was used alongside the rule of prayer and rule of faith, and the apostolic witness borne through the apostolic tradition. The WCF, however, reveals that having a doctrine of Scripture had become paramount, and it was of such significance that it came first in order of doctrine. Since the Divines sought to limit the influence of traditions from the Roman Catholic Church in England, and the power the Church of England – which had King Charles I as its head – had over the laypeople, authority over 23 24 Article 7:6. The Nicene Creed (381) states that Jesus “rose up … in accordance with the Scriptures” (CCF 1:163). THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 86 church doctrine and practice was sought outside of the church hierarchy and any form of Tradition. However, this caused a gap in authority. The church still needed some form of authority for its doctrines and practice. To sidestep the contemporary oppressive authority of the church and its traditions, Scripture was elevated on the basis of its authority given by God (1.4). An explicit definition of this view of Scripture was needed to demonstrate that it had the necessary status to surpass the other authorities. Indeed, following its list of the biblical canon, the WCF states that the texts “are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life” (1.2). Scripture is named the “rule of faith.” This supplants the place of the rule of faith within Tradition, which functioned as a standard for interpreting Scripture in the church. The WCF also expresses that everyone who reads the Scriptures can gain a “sufficient understanding of them,” at least “for salvation” (1.7). This is another way to assert the authority of Scripture separate from the church and Tradition, granting the individual the power to interpret Scripture for themselves. No mediation of the church was needed for salvation. The WCF does suggest that the more “learned” must delve into deeper matters; however, the trajectory is set toward individual, private interpretation of Scripture without any checks and balances. The CSBI demonstrates the existence of a continued struggle with defining a doctrine of Scripture within evangelical circles. It boldly asserts in the second statement that Scripture “is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.”25 This statement does not account for differences in 25 Statement 2:5. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 87 interpretation – Scripture is simply to be believed and applied. In defining the term infallible, the CSBI states that “Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.”26 Scripture, in essence, is called the rule of faith, again based on its divine authority. Aside from the translating of Scripture, the “learned” are not mentioned in regard to biblical interpretation; the implication is that personal interpretation is expected. While development in Tradition is necessary and new doctrinal struggles offer opportunity for growth,27 it is problematic to wrestle with a doctrine without a deep understanding of Tradition. Yes, the development of clear, nuanced language regarding Scripture and its authority for the church may have been necessary in the face of new challenges to the authority of Scripture from biblical criticism. The WCF offered a direct, Protestant source out of which a doctrine could be developed. Yet in the patristic era, doctrines were defined within the rich, holistic, multi-layered understanding of the faith, where Tradition, Scripture, and the church were working together to deepen its understanding. Devoid of one or two of these elements, any doctrinal development – particularly in one of these three pillars – will inherently be inadequate. III. Conclusion The WCF was a key turning point for the loss of Tradition in evangelicalism, which is seen in the CSBI. Evangelicals no longer consider Scripture’s coinherence with Tradition, or the Holy Spirit’s role within Tradition. Scripture has become the source of the revelation of Christ, rather than the revelation of Christ being the source for Scripture. Further, the doctrine of Scripture has become a central concern in evangelicalism. By uprooting Tradition from its place within the life of the “Exposition,” 9. D.A. Carson observes that “very frequently in the history of the church the attacks of new philosophical and theological positions have proved to be the occasion for the orthodox to formulate their own positions more carefully” (“Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, eds. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge [Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986], 13-14). 26 27 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 88 church and placing the doctrine of Scripture foremost in its doctrinal statements, granting it sole authority over faith and practice, evangelicalism has cut itself off from its connection to the Christian tree, Tradition. It has lost a sense of its heritage, which is meant to provide the church with its stability and vitality. While evangelical proponents of the CSBI sought to “win the church back to [the] historic position” of biblical inerrancy, they were approaching the “historic position” of the church with the wrong set of questions. The patristic church was not asking whether there were errors in the text, or if the authority of Scripture was derived from a certain type of inspiration. Rather, they were asking how Scripture upheld Tradition, in the way that it faithfully preserved and transmitted the revelation of Christ, and how Scripture, as an outworking of this revelation, was edifying to the faith and life of the church. Two notes must be made on the above observations concerning the trajectory initiated by the WCF. First, the points that show a deviation from the patristic view do not intend to claim that every statement in the two documents concerning Scripture is wrong. Sections of both documents have elegant statements concerning the authority, inspiration, and beauty of Scripture. It is important within the church to acknowledge the sacredness of Scripture and to engage seriously with its content for one’s personal faith and practice and for the church. However, in stating these things to the exclusion of Tradition, misleading and extreme views of Scripture itself and its interpretation have arisen. The key point of the above discussion is that the once deeply ingrained engagement with Tradition in the church has been lost in this development of the doctrine of Scripture. Second, one may question the decision to engage with the Chicago Statement, which is now over forty years old, to discuss contemporary evangelicalism. However, the CSBI explicitly states the influence of the WCF and has continuing relevance in evangelicalism, because the THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 89 problems described above remain in evangelical churches – they are even propagated. Suspicion of Tradition, idolatry of the Scriptures, a rigid doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, and a lack of connection to the Christian heritage remain the case in many evangelical settings. The problem is that if evangelicals remain ignorant or suspicious of Tradition, their faith will be “impoverished, barren, [and] ephemeral,” and they risk being subjected to the “whims” of society and the repetition of past mistakes in their interpretation of Scripture and practice of the Christian faith.28 In the final chapter, these considerations on the loss of Tradition in evangelicalism are brought into the discussion on memory studies. Through the lens of memory studies, formative narratives and frameworks of evangelical identity are seen in the Reformation and the WCF, and these narratives contributed to the displacement of Tradition. Further, memory studies offer helpful considerations on the renewal of Tradition in evangelicalism. 28 Robert L. Wilken, Remembering the Christian Past (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 179. Wilken refers to the Christian Tradition here as “memory,” the connection to the historical church which “locates [Christians] in the corporate and the particular.” THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 90 CHAPTER 5: MEMORY STUDIES: ON IDENTITY, TRADITION, AND ITS RENEWAL I. Introduction The deviation of evangelicalism from the patristic view of Tradition and Scripture has been considered through a theological lens. By returning to memory studies, new frames on memory, the past, and identity can embellish this theological study. As noted in Chapter One, theologians find a connection to sociology via brief references to Edward Shils’ Tradition. The connection is found in Shils’ argument that societies are held together through their traditions, and that the normative power of tradition has been substantially lost as a result of modernity’s desire for progress and new-ness. A more beneficial, yet nuanced, understanding of Tradition and identity formation can be found in memory studies. This chapter applies some insights from a memorybased approach to Tradition, as it relates to evangelical identity, and to the idea of the renewal of Tradition. The study is offered as a modest and preliminary discussion in order to demonstrate the contribution memory studies can make to the theological study of Tradition. II. Applying Memory Studies Memory studies will be applied in three ways. First, a previous application of a memory matrix to the first few centuries of the church is considered in light of its implications for Christian identity and Tradition. A second application of memory studies is made by connecting the nature of texts, as a part of cultural memory, to the role of Scripture as a part of Tradition. A final application is a novel use of the memory matrix on the English Reformation; this era produced some of the formative narratives of evangelical cultural identity. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 91 A. Memory studies and development in the patristic church Jan Assmann’s concept of cultural memory directly correlates with the content and function of Tradition. As the early church developed its identity, the content of Tradition took shape in the oral witness, liturgies, the rule of faith, the written witness of the Scriptures, the writings of the church Fathers, and the ecumenical councils and creeds. This content is similar to the “artefact[s] of cultural memory”: “texts (e.g. books and steles), buildings (e.g. houses, temples, arches), and traditions (e.g. rites, calendars, festivity).”1 Each of these artifacts serves to preserve the meaning of a group’s founding events to the group, in a way that maintains “actual relevance” for its members.2 Further, Tradition and cultural memory function as the vehicle which both preserves and carries this content forward into the following generations of the group.3 Both Tradition and cultural memory are “understood as the canonized cultural frame that provides a mnemonic group with categories, rules, norms, and symbolic figures to actualize and semanticize the past.”4 Sandra Huebenthal’s memory matrix developed from Jan and Aleida Assmann’s work is significant to the discussion on Tradition. She has already applied her framework to the development of memory in the early church using the “‘classical’ considerations of biblical exegesis.”5 The foundational event of the Christian identity – the person and work of Christ – Sandra Huebenthal, “Cultural Memory,” in The Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media, eds. Tom Thatcher, et al. (London; Oxford; New York; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2017), 70. Huebenthal’s description of cultural memory summarizes Jan Assmann’s work. See Jan Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 35-44 and “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” New German Critique 65 (1995), 129. While commemorative buildings may not directly be correlated to this early development of Christian identity, memorial sites in Jerusalem, cathedrals (i.e. the Hagia Sophia), and other Christian monuments certainly enter cultural memory in the centuries that follow – specifically with the rise of status and power of Christianity when it became connected with the Roman empire. 2 Huebenthal, “Cultural Memory,” 70. 3 Huebenthal summarizes this further: the founding events of a group “are turned into symbolic figures that serve as carriers of remembrance” (“Cultural Memory,” 70). 4 Huebenthal, “Cultural Memory,” 70. 5 Huebenthal, Sandra. “Frozen Moments – Early Christianity through the Lens of Social Memory Theory,” in Memory and Memories in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the 1 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 92 occurred approximately in 30 CE. The “authentic letters” of Paul were written in the years immediately following this formative event; Huebenthal calls these texts “functional literature,” which “deal[ ] with concrete issues” of the church. Over the first forty years following the event, the formative event moved from the “emotionally charged” social memory,6 into collective memory, where the event was “consciously recalled and reshaped” into new frameworks. With the generational gap occurring around 70 CE as a result of the “destruction of the temple” and the “death of eyewitnesses” to the event, “new frames for identity construction” were created and “traditions” were being “draft[ed].” This took form in “memory literature,” such as the Gospels and pseudepigraphal writings of the NT, in addition to the “authentic letters” of the early church Fathers. Following this period was the floating gap, which took place around 150 CE, and may have begun partly from the death of the direct heirs to the eyewitnesses of the event. During the following era, “apologetic literature,” “acts of martyrs,” and “ecclesiastical constitutions” were written. These texts functioned as “safeguard[s]” of identity and were viewed as drawing on “authoritative witnesses” to the Christian identity. The writers drew on a “common … story and … identity,” because the event had entered cultural memory. The Christian identity that developed from this founding story now “enters the philosophical market.” I would suggest that this era of development expands beyond 300 CE, into the era of ecumenical councils and creeds, since the creeds also function as “safeguard[s]” of identity. Why should this application of the memory matrix matter to contemporary evangelicalism? This framework demonstrates the essential nature of memory development to the Christian Universities of Geneva and Lousanne (Jun 2–3, 2016), eds. Simon Butticaz and Enrico Norelli (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 10. Except where otherwise noted, the following discussion is drawn from Humphrey’s table “Epoch Model of earliest Christianity II” in “Frozen Moments,” 10. 6 Huebenthal, “Frozen Moments,” 1. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 93 identity. Without this era where the founding event shifted into cultural memory and the church experienced a “concretion of identity,”7 the meaning of the event could not have “live[d] on” through the next two millennia.8 For evangelicals to presume a direct connection to the primitive church is to attempt to enter an era where the founding event of Christianity is still in the church’s collective memory. There remain multiple, contradictory perspectives on the event, doctrine has not been established, and in general the presumed unity and simplicity of the church is nonexistent.9 It is impossible to re-enter this era of memory, since the doctrine of the Trinity and the canon of Scripture were not yet established. How could evangelicalism function within this framework? The intentional “amnesia” evangelicals have toward their heritage from the early church impedes the evangelical ability to fully live out a Christian identity in the present.10 B. Memory studies, monuments, and Scripture A parallel concept concerning monuments and texts is identifiable now that the connection between Tradition and cultural memory has been established. Yves Congar places Scripture alongside the “monuments of Tradition,”11 such that it is one element in the vast wealth of Tradition, which is the content of Christian faith. To Congar, a monument is an “expression[ ]” of Tradition,12 and Scripture, alongside these monuments, is a “witness to the facts and realities by which the Church lives.”13 One of the monuments of Tradition is the liturgy of the church, which Jan Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” 130. Jan Assmann, “Mnemohistory and the Construction of Egypt,” in Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1997), 10, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=282696&site=eds-live&scope=site. 9 Consider the disagreements between Peter and Paul (Gal. 2:11-14), and the controversy in the Corinthian church over who was the most authoritative leader (1 Cor. 1:10-15). 10 D.H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), 9-16. 11 Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: The Biblical, Historical, and Theological Evidence for Catholic Teaching on Tradition (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1966), 426. 12 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 425. 13 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 409. 7 8 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 94 is a stable “ritualized activity” or “sacred action” that transmits the “fidelity and fullness” of Tradition in the present.14 Similarly, a list of elements which “manifest[ ]” cultural memory are “texts, rites, monuments, commemorations, and observances.”15 Monuments are generally defined as buildings and structures that “carr[y] and stimulate[ ] important memories” of events, “people …, accomplishments, relationships, and virtues” within an identity group.16 Some monuments “employed writing” to offer more detail of what they represented.17 Like monuments, a canon of texts established through a group’s “social process” is an “artefact of cultural memory.”18 Through this lens, a canon of texts is only one component of a cultural identity. By placing Scripture in the same category as monuments – artifacts – it becomes apparent that the scope of Christian identity must go beyond texts. It seems that without the full scope of artifacts of cultural memory, or Tradition, Christians cannot experience the fullness of their faith, being deprived of such a vast part of their identity. C. Memory studies and the English Reformation A new application of Huebenthal’s memory matrix to the English Reformation reveals the identityforming narratives that emerged from this event, which in turn influenced evangelical identity.19 The formative event was King Henry VIII’s founding of the Church of England with the “Act of 14 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 428. Huebenthal, “Cultural Memory,” 70. 16 Warren Carter, “Monuments,” in DBAM, 231. Carter further explains that monuments “expressed and secured personal identities and aspirations, the ideologies and accomplishments of rulers and ruled, the social attainments and ambitions of monument-builders, the political identities of communities, and the sacral identities of a cult and/or community.” 17 Carter, “Monuments,” 230. Carter gives the example of emperor Augustus’ Res Gestae, an autobiography of his life inscribed on a large monument. Another example is the Rosetta Stone. 18 Huebenthal, “Cultural Memory,” 70. 19 The following description of the English Reformation is highly condensed. The purpose of the brief review is to show a big picture on how key moments of this history can be located within Huebenthal’s matrix. 15 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 95 Supremacy” (1534).20 In the early years of this development, the Book of Common Prayer (1549) and the Forty-Two Articles (1553) were written. These texts were “functional literature” in the Church of England, giving shape to the “collective memory” of the new Church. Falling roughly within Huebenthal’s timeline, the Marian persecution (1553-1558) can be posited as the event creating a “generational gap” in English Protestantism – which separated what Rosemary O’Day labels “the first Reformation” from the “second Reformation.”21 In this period, Queen Mary I sought to restore Roman Catholicism to England. Many Protestants during this time went into exile on the continent to avoid martyrdom. The rise of the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I (1558) and the return of many Protestants from exile brought a renewed vigor for the Protestant Reformation in England, as Reformation ideas from the continent were carried to England. The Elizabethan Settlement (1559-1563)22 brought further revisions to the Book of Common Prayer (1559) and the Forty-Two Articles, which became the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), both of which are further revised as “frames for identity construction” are developed. John Foxe (1516-1587), a returned exile, published his Acts and Monuments (1563) in England, a highly influential martyrology.23 This text functioned both as While elements of Protestantism already existed in England prior to this date – which is seen in the English Lollards, the Lutheran groups, and figures such as William Tyndale – this is the event which initiated a more extensive “Protestantization” of England (i.e. the removal of monasteries) (Rosemary O’Day, The Debate on the English Reformation, Second edition [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014], 4, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1410041&site=eds-live&scope=site. For more on this background, see O’day, Debate, 9-15. 21 O’Day, Debate, 5. 22 This Settlement “confirmed the changes which had been made by Henry VIII and Edward VI” (O’Day, Debate, 4). 23 John Foxe presents his own framework on the history of the English Reformation, which was held “for at least 120 years … by most English people.” O’Day describes the “two functions” of the text: “it provided a vivid account of events leading up to Elizabeth’s accession, concentrating upon the edifying lives and deaths of the martyrs of the Reformation; and it supplied a history of the Reformation within the context of providential history” (Debate, 19). D.H. Williams describes Foxe’s text as “the first English attempt to establish the continuity of a protoProtestant piety from apostolic times to the Reformation” (Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999], 121). 20 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 96 “memory literature” and a solidification of English Protestant identity.24 Finally, the floating gap can be posited as the political and religious crisis of the English civil war (1642-1651). This event was approximately 110 years after the founding of the Church of England, and 80 years after the Elizabethan Settlement. In this phase, the English Reformation was entering Protestant cultural memory. The civil war is what instigated the formation of the Westminster Assembly by the Protestant Parliament (1643). This action was propelled by a desire to bring unity to Protestantism across England, Scotland and Ireland. With the “common” founding narrative of the English Reformation, the Divines sought to “safeguard” their “common identity” through the Westminster Standards, the “Directory for Public Worship,” and the “Form of Church Government.” These documents are the result of the cultural memory of the English Reformation, and of a desire to streamline the interpretation and meaning of this event. The WCF has already been noted in Chapter Three as a “high water-mark” of the era of confessionalism and Reformation thought. While these documents did not remain in the Church of England, the Westminster Standards were carried on through English Puritanism and Scottish Presbyterianism. The WCF’s influence is seen in the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration (1658), the Second London Baptist Confession (1689), and the Philadelphia Confession (1742). By the time of the Princeton controversy 200 years later, the WCF is established in the cultural memory of Presbyterianism and is authoritatively referenced by both parties in the debate. Princeton theologians such as Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield went on to influence the development of evangelical thought in America. The CSBI, an evangelical document, demonstrates that the WCF has remained a formative element in evangelical cultural memory. Fesko also notes “John Jewel’s … Apology of the Church of England (1564), [and] the Geneva Bible” (1560) as “highly influential” texts which “further inculcated a new generation in the Reformed faith” (Westminster Standards, 37). 24 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 97 Three important observations can be made from this application of the memory matrix. First, the English Reformation represents a significant shift in Christian identity. Old narratives, such as the authority the pope – following a narrative of apostolic succession – and of Tradition have been replaced with new Protestant narratives: this includes the narrative of the corruption of the church since the rise of Christendom; the inclination toward protesting traditions and institutional power and seeking constant renewal; the ability for the lay people to interpret Scripture for themselves; and the doctrine of justification by faith.25 A common Protestant identity is drawn from the Reformation era, Scripture, and the early church, to the exclusion of Roman Catholicism, despite their direct heritage from this church.26 Second, the authority of Scripture entirely replaced the authority of the priests as mediators, the power of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, and the normative power of Tradition.27 This new identity marker in Protestantism was carried through its memory into the rise of evangelicalism. In evangelicalism, there is an inherent suspicion toward anything remotely connected to Roman Catholicism, including Tradition, because of the perceived Reformation attitudes which influenced evangelical frameworks. The fresh language of memory studies may allow a reconsideration of Tradition – as cultural memory – without these inherent negative connotations attached to the concept. However, another question arises from this consideration: is 25 Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, 18-23. As seen in Acts and Monuments, Foxe argued that the English Reformation was in “continuity” with the “primitive church,” over and against “the claims of the Roman Church to an authority handed down directly from God and St. Peter” (O’Day, Debate, 19-20). 27 Congar notes that Protestants disregarded unwritten traditions not directly linked to Scripture and the apostolic era, elevating “Scripture as the purely divine principle governing Christian existence” (Tradition and traditions, 143). Similarly, Georges Florovsky makes a poignant remark about the “sin of the Reformation” which was the “denial of catholicity”: “the liberty of the Church [was] shackled by an abstract biblical standard for the sake of setting free individual consciousness from the spiritual demands enforced by the experience of the Church.” Scripture was subjected to “arbitrary interpretation” and was separated from “its sacred source,” the church (Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View [Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972], 48). 26 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 98 it even possible for evangelicalism to re-evaluate its founding narratives and still identify as evangelical? Third, memory studies offer a new explanation on the emergence of sola scriptura attitudes from the Reformation era. The authoritative role of Scripture is a concept that has entered the cultural memory of the heirs of the English Reformation. While evangelical attitudes toward Scripture may not fully reflect the views of the early Reformers or even the Westminster Divines, they have drawn on the doctrine of Scripture in the WCF, interpreting it as aligned with evangelical views.28 Evangelicals could draw on this founding memory to respond to the various challenges to Scripture that arose, and in turn develop their view of Scripture – while claiming to be aligned with their predecessors. This is seen in the common, authoritative use of the WCF in both the Princeton debate and the CSBI; with the WCF, the sola scripturists could develop or expand on the concepts of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture to apply to their own contexts. Even with this development of concepts, faithfulness to the doctrine of Scripture in the WCF was posited because of the memory frameworks applied to the WCF.29 These applications of memory studies to the discussion on Tradition, Scripture, and evangelical identity represent the beginning of a broader discussion. The intention of these examples is to invite further discussion and research into the connection between memory studies and Tradition. Many concepts in memory studies deserve further consideration: the process of For example, Fesko emphasizes that “the divines were not biblicists who confined their doctrine to a bald reading of the Scriptures,” which differs from the sola scripturist positions (Westminster Standards, 86). 29 The accuracy of the memory of these views toward Scripture is irrelevant. What matters is that what evangelicals perceived as the views of their predecessors shaped evangelical identity. Olick’s comment on whether the group “affect[s] … memories” or the “memories shape the salient group identities” needs further examination; however, what remains is that the memory that evangelicalism holds of past views of Scripture has shaped its identity (Jeffrey K. Olick, “Collective Memory: The Two Cultures,” Sociological Theory 17 [1999], 341, https://www-jstor-org.twu.idm.oclc.org/stable/370189?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents). 28 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 99 textualization and canonization and the formation of the NT canon;30 the role of “keying” narratives in Protestant and evangelical identities;31 and the importance of forgetting in the development of identity in relation to the substantial amnesia seen in evangelical identity.32 III. Renewing Tradition in Evangelicalism Many theologians have advocated for the recovery of Tradition in Protestantism, and pointed out some of the barriers that must be overcome. Before recovering or rejecting Tradition, Pelikan suggests that Christians must first rediscover “the traditions that have shaped” them. 33 They must decide if they are going to engage with “the origins of [their] tradition” and “whether to be conscious participants or unconscious victims” of it.34 They must then choose “between recovery and rejection,” or somewhere in between.35 Two elements that Pelikan suggests need to be recovered in the life of the church are the “rule of prayer” and the “rule of faith.”36 Pelikan also argues that Tradition must be recognized as an “icon” that continually “points beyond itself.”37 Tradition is not an “idol” that points its adherents “to itself” and a dead traditionalism, nor is it a “token” that is “a purely arbitrary representation” of what it claims to represent.38 Rather, Tradition Jan Assmann, Cultural Memory, 78-81. Further, consideration of “canon and archive” memory developed by Aleida Assmann contributes to the discussion of texts (80). 31 Barry Schwartz, “Jesus in First-Century Memory – A Response,” in Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies: no. 52, eds. Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 249-261. 32 Of particular note on this topic is Paul Ricœur in Memory, History, Forgetting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006). 33 Jaroslav Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 19. He argues that “the very antitraditionalism of the Reformation has become a tradition,” and that in William Chillingworth’s “formula … that ‘the Bible only is the religion of Protestants,’ Protestants have … nothing less than a full-blown tradition” (11). These are traditions that must be recognized and considered in the way that they shape identity. 34 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 53. 35 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 53. This informed decision prevents the extremes of “ignorance” and blind “faith.” 36 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 30. 37 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 54. 38 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 55-56. 30 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 100 is an “embodiment” of the “living reality” which it represents and to which it points;39 it is “the way that … its heirs must follow if [they] are to go beyond it … to a universal truth that is available only in a particular embodiment.”40 The living reality to which it points is the revelation of Christ. Florovsky similarly contends that Christians must return to the “uninterrupted tradition” which is rooted in the living Christ.41 This will include retrieving the “integrity of the scriptural mind,”42 embracing the creeds, developing a “sound theology” grounded in the work of the Fathers,43 and preaching the “whole Christ.”44 One of his key insights is that “the mind of the Fathers” needs to be developed and nurtured in the church.45 He further states that “the ‘Age’ of the Fathers” has not ended in the church, because there has been “no decrease of ‘authority,’ and no decrease in the immediacy of spiritual competence and knowledge, in the course of Christian history.”46 Thus, to have a “Patristic mind”47 according to this continuing age, one needs to become this fully embodied, scripturally-minded Christian who is spiritually grounded in the church historic and in the present body of Christ which Florovsky evokes. In addition to a similar call to “read[ ] with the Fathers” and an argument for the recovery of the rule of faith,48 Edith Humphrey offers a stark warning about the “cherry-picking” of 39 Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 55. Pelikan, Vindication of Tradition, 56. Pelikan offers a poignant example of a tradition pointing beyond itself in order to be true to the tradition, drawn from Aristotelian science. While medieval scientists “adopt[ed] the conclusions” that Aristotle drew concerning geocentrism, Pelikan observes that Galileo “was a more faithful Aristotelian” because he used Aristotle’s “methods” to correct his conclusions (16). 41 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 11. 42 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 10. 43 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 15. 44 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 16. 45 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 107. This “mind of the Fathers … in Orthodox theology,” is considered “no less than the work of Holy Scripture, and indeed never separated from it.” 46 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 109. He explains that the title of “‘Church Fathers’ is usually restricted to the teachers of the Ancient Church” because their “authority” presumably “depends upon their ‘antiquity,’ upon their comparative nearness to the ‘Primitive Church,’ to the initial ‘Age’ of the Church.” 47 Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition, 113. 48 Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible Really Says (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 159-166. 40 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 101 Tradition: “the newcomer risks … act[ing] without a full understanding of how the practice that is so alluring might actually contradict his or her own … tradition …. Rather than an edifice with firm foundations, the result might be instead a strange and cobbled-together expression of the faith, devoid of natural growth and fluidity, and more akin to a child's rickety tree house ….”49 She recommends that “dissenting or reforming Christian[s]” seek out understanding of the roots of their own traditions first, and to gradually consider how to holistically reincorporate the living Tradition into their practice.50 Together, these theologians offer an impressive range and depth of suggestions for the renewal of Tradition. Memory studies embellish some of these proposals, particularly the concept of embodiment, and offer new insights into the discussion. It must be made clear that memory studies do not offer judgment on the rightness or accuracy of a given group’s memory of the past.51 Further, to discuss the recovery of identity is to exit the realm of memory studies, since it primarily functions as an approach to the transmission and reception of the past. However, some memory theorists have considered the problems inherent in the recovery of memory even though their work does not accomplish it. One of the key problems is the nature of ongoing development in identities. For events to “live on” in cultural memory, there needs to be a “continuous relevance of these events.”52 Those events considered irrelevant to the group in the present may be rejected or forgotten. Thus, if 49 Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition, 169. Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition, 170. 51 Jan Assmann explains that “unlike history proper, mnemohistory is concerned not with the past as such, but only with the past as it is remembered…. [It] is reception theory applied to history.” Thus, its “aim … is not to ascertain the possible truth of traditions … but to study these traditions as phenomena of cultural memory” (Moses the Egyptian, 8-9). Huebenthal further adds that “cultural memory does not memorialize history as such, but rather a community’s memory construct insofar as it has actual relevance for the members of the group” (“Cultural Memory,” 70). 52 Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, 9-10. 50 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 102 evangelicalism has rejected certain traditions in the formation of its identity, because the events they remembered were deemed irrelevant, it may be difficult to retrieve them. However, in the case of the evangelical rejection of Tradition, which encompasses a far greater scope of identity, substantial parts of Christian identity have been lost. This is a difficult obstacle to overcome. Since cultural memory is the part of the past that “lives on” in a present group, and it is “dead,” how can it be revitalized? A consideration of Schwartz’s view on change may respond to this difficulty. Schwartz holds a more moderate view than presentist or traditionalist memory scholars.53 A presentist could claim that evangelicals have entirely forged their own identity to respond to their present circumstances, and have only a “token” reference to the past.54 A traditionalist could view evangelicals as being in complete continuity with the past, particularly with its apostolic origins, but this is making an “idol” of the primitive church, and is willfully ignorant of historic development in the church. In contrast, Schwartz posits that “understanding social change as a cumulative process, one superimposing new social and symbolic structures on old ones, explains how structural transformation occurs without altering basic values.”55 Schwartz is suggesting that “change and continuity” is possible in a group, in such a way that it can adapt to contemporary situations while maintaining its core identity.56 This approach is neither ignorant of the reality of Schwartz demonstrates the extremes of these views from previous memory scholars: presentists “like Bodnar, Alonzo, and Hobsbawm make this [symbolic code of society] seem more precarious than it actually is. Stressing the continuities of collective memory, [traditionalists] like Durkheim and Shils … underestimate the extent to which the code adapts to society’s changing needs” (Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of American Memory, in The Collective Memory Reader, eds. Jeffrey K. Olick, et al. [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011], 246]). Elsewhere, Schwartz concludes that “presentists can only say so much about the way interests distort historical perception; traditionalists, the way memory endures. Presentist and traditionalist perspectives continue to be elaborated and qualified, but we are reaching the limit of what they can tell us” (“Culture and Collective Memory: Comparative Perspectives,” in Handbook of Cultural Sociology, eds. John R. Hall et al. [New York: Routledge, 2010], 646). 54 Pelikan’s use of the term “token” has in view Enlightenment thought on the meaninglessness of Tradition (Vindication of Tradition, 55-56). Similarly, presentists tend toward a cynical view of memory, one which is purely fabricated to serve political agendas (Schwartz, “Culture and Collective Memory,” 641). 55 Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln, 246. 56 Schwartz, Abraham Lincoln, 246. 53 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 103 the genuine connection that evangelicalism has to its past, nor is it blind to the substantial change that has occurred in the development of evangelical identity. It can also recognize the ways that evangelicalism has strayed from “basic values” found in Tradition. With this in mind, it may not be impossible to reintroduce evangelicalism to the depth of its heritage. Yosef Yerushalmi demonstrates that more than knowledge of the past is needed to recapture a lost identity. In his work demonstrating the modern dichotomy between “Jewish historiography” and “Jewish collective memory,” he contends that the “historian” cannot “be the restorer of Jewish memory.”57 He describes Jewish collective memory as “a function of the shared faith, cohesiveness, and will of the group itself, transmitting and recreating its past through an entire complex of interlocking social and religious institutions that functioned organically to achieve this”; this memory has seen a “decline” in the modern era because of the “unraveling of that common network of belief and praxis through whose mechanisms … the past was once made present.”58 The historian cannot “heal” Jewish memory because history functions differently. The historian “continually recreates an ever more detailed past whose shapes and textures memory does not recognize,” “challenges even those memories that have survived intact,” and attempts to “recover a total past.”59 In contrast, collective memory is “drastically selective” of the past; the historian would “disturb[ ] and reverse[ ]” this memory.60 Beyond giving a group knowledge of the past, Yerushalmi argues that those who have been disconnected “from the past … require evocation as well.”61 Yosef H. Yerushalmi, “Modern Dilemmas: Historiography and its Discontents,” in Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011), 93, https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1052299&site=eds-live&scope=site. 58 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 94. 59 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 94. 60 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 95. 61 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 100. 57 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 104 This idea of evocation, or as the above theologians have called it, embodiment, goes beyond knowledge of an element of the past. In order to evoke the past meaningfully, for the “wholeness” of the group to be “restored or rejuvenated,” Yerushalmi suggests that “the group itself [needs to] find[ ] healing.”62 He also notes that in this process of restoration, careful stock of the formative memories must be taken. Some memories “are life-sustaining and deserve to be reinterpreted for our age. There are some that lead astray and must be redefined. Others are dangerous and must be exposed.”63 In seeking cultural relevance in taking up narratives of the past to form guiding frameworks in the present group, those narratives that become a hindrance in contemporary contexts may need to be contextualized or discarded. One final comparative point must be made. In her discussion on the recovery of the rule of faith, a part of Tradition, Humphrey draws an example from the Gospel of Matthew: We are reminded of the impulse of the evangelist Matthew, who describes a scribe trained for the Kingdom of heaven as ‘a householder who brings out of his storehouse things that are new and old’ (Matt. 13:52EH). This appropriate bringing out of the storehouse depends upon the rule of faith. For all these early theologians, Scriptures … are understood to be the written and concrete core of Holy Tradition, only fully understandable within the context of the Church, which reads them in light of the rule of faith passed down from the apostles. The canon or rule is … the lens by which the Scriptures come into focus and by which the Tradition is authentically transmitted.64 This drawing from Tradition, which includes Scripture, is guided by the rule of faith in the church. By appropriately drawing from Tradition, a rich, embodied faith can be lived out in the present church.65 Jan Assmann similarly describes memory as “not simply the storage of past ‘facts’ but 62 Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 94. Yerushalmi, Zakhor, 100. 64 Humphrey, Scripture and Tradition, 162. 65 Humphrey also describes the risk of inappropriately drawing from the source, as seen in Irenaeus’s Against Heresies. Where the storehouse of Tradition and Scripture, correctly drawn on and arranged, should form a mosaic of a king, other incorrect uses of this storehouse can form different mosaics that stray from Tradition (Scripture and Tradition, 160-62). 63 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 105 the ongoing work of reconstructive imagination.… [T]he past cannot be stored but always has to be ‘processed’ and mediated. This mediation depends on the semantic frames and needs of a given individual or society within a given present.”66 It is not simply the recital of knowledge that forms an identity, but the meaning and form that knowledge takes, and the way that it is actively used and remembered in the present group. Combined with Yerushalmi’s observations, the restoration of the fullness of Tradition, or cultural memory, in evangelicalism would require a conscious decision to embody the Christian identity in a meaningful way in the contemporary world. As Pelikan has also aptly demonstrated, this full embodiment of Tradition will point its recipients beyond itself and back to its source, which is Christ. IV. Conclusion This integration of memory studies into the theological discussion of Tradition, Scripture, and Christian identity has been highly beneficial. Not only does this connection reframe the identityforming nature of the early church and Reformation eras as processes leading toward cultural memory, it also offers a new framework on how embodiment of the past can take shape in the present, which contributes to the repeated call for the renewal of Tradition in evangelicalism. By reframing Tradition as “cultural memory,” the vital nature of Tradition to Christian identity is demonstrated in a fresh way. Without Tradition, which concretized the understanding of the formative events of Christianity, Christian identity could not have been maintained or transmitted across generations. 66 Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, 14. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 106 CONCLUSION Three propositions have been made in this thesis. First, a direct connection between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the contemporary evangelical sola scripturist view was posited. The ongoing use of the doctrine of Scripture in the WCF was seen at Princeton Seminary in the late-nineteenth century and in the development of the CSBI in the twentieth century. The influence of these views continues to be seen in contemporary evangelical statements of faith. Second, this thesis argued that the sola scripturist view, specifically the classic view defined in the CSBI, represents a substantial deviation from the central church position, which upheld a symbiotic relationship between Scripture and Tradition. The evangelical sola scripturists have elevated the authority of Scripture and lost their connection to Tradition, and placed their theological locus of Scripture prior to God, such that Scripture funds Christ. This placement necessitated the development of a doctrine of Scripture, since without Scripture, there is no revelation of Christ. Further, the Holy Spirit has been reduced to speaking through Scripture. Rather than recognizing the ongoing activity of the Spirit in the life of the church throughout her history and the Spirit’s role in maintaining and transmitting Tradition, the Holy Spirit is limited to the past inspiration of Scripture, and to bringing about present understanding of Scripture and salvation to the individual. Lastly, a connection between Tradition and memory studies has been proposed, and preliminary applications have been made demonstrating the advantages of this connection. The concept of cultural memory can reasonably be connected to the theological understanding of THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 107 Tradition, which is the essence of Christian identity evoked through a variety of artifacts, including Scripture, the rule of faith and the rule of worship. Moreover, the identity-forming narratives within Christian identity went through a shift in the Protestant Reformation. The WCF, a product of cultural memory in English Protestantism, concretized this shift in identity, specifically in the branches of Presbyterianism and Puritanism. Through these branches of Christianity, the WCF was carried forward into the development of American evangelicalism. As seen in the ongoing evangelical polemic over the doctrine of Scripture, reference to the WCF is made to add historical weight; this suggests that an ongoing formative narrative is found in the expression the WCF gave to the Reformation. As evangelicals sought to maintain a sola scripturist foundation in their interpretation of Scripture, they invoked the WCF, an artifact of evangelical cultural memory. It is this sola scripturist axiom that severed Tradition from evangelicalism. By speaking of a reconnection to Tradition through the lens of memory studies, the suggestions made by theologians can be enriched. Revitalizing past memory requires more than an abstract knowledge of its existence; the memory needs to be actively embodied, or evoked, to impress its significance upon the present group. Further, in order for this embodiment to live again within the cultural memory, it requires initiative from within the group. The evangelical sola scripturist view, that Scripture alone informs Christian faith and practice, is untenable. In the patristic church, Scripture never functioned apart from Tradition, nor was it placed prior to God and his self-revelation in Christ, who funds Scripture and Tradition. Sola scriptura has left evangelicalism stripped of its heritage and vulnerable to the whims of society, and it is stuck in an unending cycle of disputes over Scripture. Evangelicalism is debilitated without Tradition, which once coinhered with Scripture to faithfully evoke the revelation of Christ in the life of the church, to be passed on through the generations. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allert, Craig D. A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Assmann, Jan. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity.” New German Critique 65 (1995), 125-133. ———. Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. ———. “Mnemohistory and the Construction of Egypt.” In Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1997, 1-22. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=282696&site=edslive&scope=site. Bacote, Vincent, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L. Okholm, eds. Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Balmer, Randall Herbert. Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999. ———. Evangelicalism in America. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2016. Basil, Saint. The Treatise De Spiritu Sancto. In vol. 8 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by Blomfield Jackson. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955. Bebbington, David W. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989. “Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Statement of Faith.” Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. BGEA, 2023. https://billygraham.org/about/what-we-believe/. Buchan, Thomas. “Inerrancy as Inheritance? Competing Genealogies of Biblical Authority.” In Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, 42-54. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2004. Carson, D.A. “Recent Developments in the Doctrine of Scripture.” In Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Edited by D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids, MI: Academie Books, 1986. Clifton, Chas S. Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1992. 108 THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 109 Congar, Yves. The Meaning of Tradition. Translated by A.N. Woodrow. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004. ———. Tradition and Traditions: The Biblical, Historical, and Theological Evidence for Catholic Teaching on Tradition. San Diego: Basilica Press, 1966. Delivuk, John A. “Inerrancy, Infallibility, and Scripture in the Westminster Confession of Faith.” The Westminster Theological Journal 54, no. 2 (Fall 1992): 349-55. “Doctrinal Basis.” The Evangelical Theological Society. etsjets.org, 2023. https://www.etsjets.org/about. Eusebius. The Life of Constantine. In vol. 1 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952. Fairbairn, Donald and Ryan M. Reeves. The Story of Creeds and Confessions: Tracing the Development of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019. Ferguson, Everett. “Paradosis and Traditio: A Word Study.” In Tradition & The Rule of Faith in the Early Church. Edited by Ronnie J. Rombs & Alexander Y. Hwang, 3-29. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2021. Fesko, J.V. The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2014. Florovsky, Georges. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972. Geisler, Norman L. and William C. Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011. Gataker, Thomas. Dauids instructer A sermon preached at the visitation of the Free-Schole at Tunbridge in Kent, by the wardens of the Worshipfull Companie of Skinners. London: Edward Griffin, 1620; Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 2023. http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A01530.0001.001 Geisler, Norman, ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980. Grudem, Wayne and Alexander Grudem. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Second edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022. https://searchebscohostcom.twu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=3050271&site=edslive&scope=site. Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020. Gundlach, Bradley J. “Competing Evangelical Views of History: Warfield and Briggs.” Fides et Historia 51, no. 2 (Summer/Fall 2019): 33-45. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 110 Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory. Edited and translated by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Hendry, George S. The Westminster Confession for Today: A Contemporary Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1960. Heron, Alasdair I.C. The Westminster Confession in the Church Today: Papers Prepared for the Church of Scotland Panel on Doctrine. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1982. Hervieu-Léger, Danièle. Religion as a Chain of Memory. Translated by Simon Lee. London: Polity, 2000. Hodge, A.A. and B.B. Warfield, “Inspiration.” Presbyterian Review 2, no. 6 (1881), 225-260. https://archive.org/details/presbyterianrevi2618unse/page/225/mode/1up?view=theater. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Volume 1. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981. Huebenthal, Sandra. “Frozen Moments – Early Christianity through the Lens of Social Memory Theory.” In Memory and Memories in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Universities of Geneva and Lousanne (Jun 2–3, 2016), 17-43. Edited by Simon Butticaz and Enrico Norelli. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. ———. Reading Mark’s Gospel as a Text from Collective Memory. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020. “The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament, fitting at Westminster, Concerning A Confession of Faith: With the Quotations and Texts of Scripture Annexed.” In The Creeds of Christendom: with a History and Critical Notes, Volume 3. Translated by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983. Humphrey, Edith M. Scripture and Tradition: What the Bible Really Says. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Evangelical Review of Theology 4, no. 1 (April 1980): 3–11. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiREM201231 000919&site=eds-live&scope=site. Irenaeus, Against Heresies. In vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950. Johnson, Maxwell E. Praying and Believing in Early Christianity: The Interplay between Christian Worship and Doctrine. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2013. Kelber, Werner. “The Works of Memory: Christian Origins as MnemoHistory—a Response.” In Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, 221-263. Society of THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 111 Biblical Literature Semeia Studies, 52. Edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Lane, A.N.S. “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey.” Vox Evangelica 9 (1975): 37- 55. ———. “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan.” In A Pathway into the Holy Scripture. Edited by P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1994. Leigh, Edward. A Systeme or Body of Divinity: Consisting of Ten Books, wherein the Fundamentals and the main grounds of Religion are Opened, the Contrary Errours Refuted, Most of the Controversies between Us, the Papists, Arminians and Socinians discussed and handled, several Scriptures explained and vindicated from corrupt glosses, a work seasonable for these times, wherein so many Articles of our Faith are questioned, and so many gross Errours daily published. London: A.M., 1654. https://books.google.ca/books?id=hpVkAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP37&source=gbs_selected_p ages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=decalogue&f=false. Leith, John H. Assembly at Westminster: Reformed Theology in the Making. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973. Lérins, Vincent of. The Commonitory. In vol. 11 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Translated by C.A. Heurtley. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 1972. Lewis, Donald M. Lewis, and Richard V. Pierard, eds. Global Evangelicalism: Theology, History and Culture in Regional Perspective. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014. Lindberg, Carter. The European Reformations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Marcel, Jean-Christophe and Laurent Mucchielli. “Maurice Halbwachs’s mémoire collective.” In Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook. Edited by Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Marsden George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1980. McGowan, A.T.B. The Divine Authenticity of Scripture: Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007. McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, Fourth Edition. Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2012. Michael A.G. Haykin and Kenneth J. Stewart, eds. The Advent of Evangelicalism: Exploring Historical Continuities. Edited by. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2008. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 112 Morrill, John. Stuart Britain: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=211572&site=edslive&scope=site. Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Volume Two: Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Newman, John Henry Cardinal. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989. Noll, Mark A. American Evangelical Christianity: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. ———. Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986. O’Day, Rosemary. The Debate on the English Reformation. Second edition. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1410041&site=edslive&scope=site. Oden, Thomas C. The Living God. In vol. 1 of Systematic Theology. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1992. Olick, Jeffrey K. “Collective Memory: The Two Cultures.” Sociological Theory 17 (1999), 333– 348. https://www-jstororg.twu.idm.oclc.org/stable/370189?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents. ———. “From Collective Memory to the Sociology of Mnemonic Practices and Products.” In Cultural Memory Studies: An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, 151-161. Edited by Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Olick, Jeffrey K. and Joyce Robbins. “Social Memory Studies: From ‘Collective Memory’ to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (January 1, 1998): 105–40. https://search-ebscohostcom.twu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.223476&site=edslive&scope=site. Olick, Jeffrey K., Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy. The Collective Memory Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Origen of Alexandria. Against Celsus. In vol. 4 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine: Volumes 1-5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971-1989. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 113 ———. Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. ———. “The ‘Spiritual Sense’ of Scripture: The Exegetical Basis for St. Basil’s Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.” In Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, 337-60. Edited by Paul Jonathan Fedwick. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981. ———. The Vindication of Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Pelikan, Jaroslav and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds. Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition: Volumes 1-4. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Ramm, Bernard. The Evangelical Heritage. Waco: Word Books, 1973. Rogers, Jack B. and Donald K. McKim. The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979. Rogers, Jack B. Scripture in the Westminster Confession: A Problem of Historical Interpretation for American Presbyterianism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1967. Rutherford, Samuel. The divine right of church-government and excommunication: or a peaceable dispute for the perfection of the holy Scripture in point of ceremonies and church government; in which the removal of the service-book is justified … to which is added, a brief tractate of scandal; with an answer to the new doctrine of the doctors of Aberdeen, touching scandal. London: John Field, 1646. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101038064984&view=1up&seq=23&skin=20 21. Schaff, Philip. “Chapter 7: The Creeds of the Evangelical Reformed Churches.” In vol. 1 of The Creeds of Christendom: with a History and Critical Notes: The History of the Creeds. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983. ———. The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, Volumes 1-2. Christian Classics Ethereal Library: United States, 2002. https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1/creeds1.i.html. Schwartz, Barry. Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of American Memory. In The Collective Memory Reader. Edited by Olick, Jeffrey K., Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———. “Christian Origins: Historical Truth and Social Memory.” In Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, 43-56. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies, 52. Edited by Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. ———. “Culture and Collective Memory: Comparative Perspectives.” In Handbook of Cultural Sociology, 639-647. Edited by John R. Hall, Laura Grindstaff, and Ming-Cheng Lo. New York: Routledge, 2010. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 114 Shils, Edward. Tradition. University of Chicago Press, 1983. Smith, Christian. The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2011. “The Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and Defense of Religion, the Honor and Happiness of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three Kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland.” In vol. 1 of The Creeds of Christendom: with a History and Critical Notes: The History of the Creeds. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990. “Statement of Faith.” Christianity Today, Christianity Today, 2023, https://www.christianitytoday.org/who-we-are/our-ministry/main.html. “Statement of Faith.” National Association of Evangelicals, nae.org, 2023. https://nae.org/statement-of-faith/. “Statement of Faith.” Young Life, Young Life, 2023. https://younglife.org/about/statement-offaith/. “The Statement of Purpose, Core Beliefs and Foundational Values of YWAM,” ywam, ywam.org, 2023, https://ywam.org/about-us/values. Stewart, Kenneth J. “Did evangelicalism predate the eighteenth century? An examination of David Bebbington’s thesis,” in Evangelical Quarterly 77.2 (2005), 135-153. ———. In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat05965a&AN=alc.1380621& site=eds-live&scope=site. Sweeney, Douglas A. The American Evangelical Story: A History of the Movement. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005. Talené, Stu. “Explaining Competing Representations of the Afterlife in Luke-Acts: A Social Memory Approach.” In Social Memory Theory and Conceptions of the Afterlife in Jewish and Christian Antiquity. Edited by Thomas R. Hatina, and Jiří Lukeš, 319-343. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2023. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. In vol. 3 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Dr. Holmes. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950. ———. Prescription Against Heretics. In vol. 3 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Translated by Dr. Holmes. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950. Thatcher, Tom, Chris Keith, Raymond F. Person Jr., Elsie R. Stern, and Judith Odor, eds. The Dictionary of the Bible and Ancient Media. London; Oxford; New York; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2017. THE LOSS OF TRADITION AND RISE OF SCRIPTURE 115 Todd, Jennifer. “Social Transformation, Collective Categories, and Identity Change.” Theory and Society 34, no. 4 (January 1, 2005): 429-63. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsfra&AN=edsfra.17281085& site=eds-live&scope=site. Van Dixhoorn, Chad, ed. The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1652: Volumes 1-5. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2012. Warfield, B.B. Revelation and Inspiration. In vol. 1 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2003. ———. The Westminster Assembly and its Work. In vol. 6 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1991. Waugh, Barry. “A Manuscript by B.B. Warfield Concerning the Trial of Charles A. Briggs.” Westminster Theological Journal 66 (2004): 401-11. “What We Believe,” Awana, Awana Clubs International, 2023, https://www.awana.org/ourbeliefs/. Whitaker, William. A Disputation on Holy Scripture: against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. Edited and translated by William Fitzgerald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849. Wilken, Robert L. Remembering the Christian Past. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995. Williams, D.H. Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999. Woodbridge, John D. Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. Yerushalmi Yosef H. “Modern Dilemmas: Historiography and its Discontents.” In Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2011. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1052299&site=edslive&scope=site. Zerubavel, Eviatar. Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.