The Copernican Revolution
The Christian Church has passed along a lot great things via tradition, but has it passed along enough greatness to be given a complete and unexamined pass on everything it cites as tradition? I would hope not. I believe in a Christian maturity that celebrates the best of the tradition while the worst of the tradition is simultaneously recognized and acknowledged for what it really is – utterly fallible.
Six good reasons to question church tradition: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, left-handed people, vaccinations, and more recently, C. Darrow.
There are more than six good reasons to question church tradition, but the above six are pretty major. If you aren’t familiar with the above names and/or events, then look them up! You will be both amazed and enlightened! Can you think of any others?
Related posts:
[...] You can find his post here [...]
Well, the left-handed people thing wasn’t originally a church thing. The Latin word for left (and left-handed) is sinister. But my question is what do you mean by ‘question tradition’?
@christopher: The Catholic Church demonized left-handed people for some time.
What do I mean by “question tradition?” Simply this: Just because it is old and comes from the church doesn’t mean it is right or immutable, so test it and find out for yourself if it is worthy of imitation.
The RCC demonised lefties, but that was the general atmosphere of antiquities. The Roman government well before the Catholic Church was legalised had demonised lefties. Even the story of Jehud (the left-handed judge) points out that left-handedness was not customary back then either. I’m not disagreeing with the example, just pointing out that it was some other tradition long before the church took it (and I saw all of that as a south paw).
I think I need to push you further in ‘questioning tradition.’ If it is an individual’s action, what’s to stop someone from deciding that all tradition is bad? Where is the communal aspect of tradition? Right now, it sounds like ‘question tradition’ is really a guise to ditch any kind of authority and public theology in preference of a personal/private spirituality…and I’m not sure I’m willing to commit to that. I think we have to live with whatever tradition we have, regardless of any warts or blemishes it may have.
@christopher -I hear you re: left-handedness, and I’d say that if “left-handedness” is causing you to miss the big point of the other examples than toss it. The other five examples are very important and I think a close consideration of them will help you with the questions in your second paragraph.
It’s not a matter of ditching any and all authority. I never said anything close to being that reactionary. It’s about questioning what is labeled as authoritative and/or traditional (which is often a euphemism for authoritative). I think the other five examples I cite in the post are testaments to the importance of questioning what is called tradition.
I wasn’t getting hung up on the left-handed stuff, just being picky. However, it seems that you’ve evaded my question on who gets to decide what to question and what to accept. I agree that the examples you point out show a weakness in an authoritative structure (as does the Children’s Crusade, the rest of the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials [just so that it doesn't sound like just Catholic-bashing], the Christian Identity movement, etc). But, just as I don’t get to pick and choose which parts of my wife I love, I don’t get to pick and choose which parts of my tradition I accept). In other words, I don’t think ‘question authority’ goes far enough because one must be able to affirm even the ressentiment (to bring a Nietzschean spin on it).
Who gets to decide what to question and what to accepts? Individuals get to decide, question and accept. It is not, however, a decision arrived at apart from community. It never has been, really. We all work through issues as individuals who are part of a living community. There is tension within that to be sure, but that is community. A community can’t exist without individuals; individuals can’t exist without community.
Your last sentence is intriguing. I’d love to hear more about it, Christopher. You wrote, “I don’t think ‘question authority’ goes far enough because one must be able to affirm even the ressentiment…”
Are you suggesting that I should go further than merely “questioning” tradition, because it should be questioned? Are you saying that we should affirm even that which we resent within a tradition?
Finally, I would say that the six examples I cite in my post are pretty clear and obvious. Copernicus said the planets revolved around the sun, not the earth. The Church considered that blasphemy because it contradicted the tradition. The Church was wrong. Vaccinations were of the devil because they were “playing God,” and not “allowing God to do his healing work.” That was Church tradition. The church was wrong. That’s what I think it is healthy to question tradition. So, while I’m interested in continuing to converse with you about your points, I think you are making what I’m saying a bit more difficult than it needs to be.
At any rate, please say more about that last sentence of yours. I am intrigued by it.
I’ll take a few quotes from an unpublished article I have on Nietzsche:
In other words, if we only ‘question authority’ without affirming even the worst aspects imaginable, we are still living with ressentiment and within the realm of simple morality. I would argue that the notion of love (especially the general Christian idea of it) asks us to move beyond that ‘good and evil’ (to play on Nietzsche some more) and to affirm everything (or to redeem it in Nietzsche’s sense)…and it is only by doing this that the unsightly and ugly are overcome. (sorry for the long reply!)
I understand. I think I’d be all about redeeming the less celebrated aspects of Church Tradition, but I’m not sure how to “affirm it” yet. More importantly, I’m not sure how such an effort would be communicated to the people who were seriously and negatively affected by Church Tradition. Consider the poor women in 3rd world places who keep having more children because of the Church’s Tradition concerning birth control. How do I “affirm” such a thing? Or, are you suggesting, that “affirmation” means admitting that such detriment exists or could potential exist, or are you suggesting that we actually affirm the existent detriment? Does my question make sense? I think it would be very hard to affirm that which oppresses and requires liberation.
PS: No need to apologize for the lengthy replies, Christopher! They are welcome! I’m interested in this conversation. :)
I’m not sure how to affirm these. It seems that any action (accept, ignore, reject, deny) will upset someone. Possibly, a kind of activism that completely re-frames the problems such that they are no longer problems might work (and I’m copying Zizek’s sentiment and dialectic here). This is supposed to be hard because Nietzsche’s affirmation, at least in the Christian sense if not universal, is love. But, I’m just a theory person…praxis is for people who live in this world (I do try to stop by from time to time).