It is interesting that you think Tradition less important now so many are educated; in a sense it that not just why a proper understanding of Tradition is even more important. If we can all read Scripture and pronounce on it, how can we be sure we are not preaching 'another Gospel'?
After reading your post, I think the only possible way we disagree is in our definition of "tradition".
To use an awful expression, when I think of tradition it is in a more traditional sense
What I mean, is people saying "This is what we've always done, so it must be right, so we must keep doing it." This is what Tradition has become in my eyes; the mindless and unwavering continuation of a belief or act, often beyond its initial intended purpose. This was understandable when people didn't have the education to think for themselves on many matters, or needed enforced habits/traditions to maintain and sustain their faith. But today that is not so necessary, and besides which, many are still holding on to traditions that were set up for past generations, not today's.
A humorous example is this:
A little girl asks her mother, "Mum, why do you always cut the end off of the Sunday roast?" Mother replies, "Because that's what my mother always did."
So the little girl goes to her grandmother and asks, "Grandma, why do you always cut the end off of the Sunday roast?" Grandmother replies, "Well, that's what my mother always did."
So the little girl goes to her great-grandmother and asks, "Great-Grandma, why do you always cut the end off of the Sunday roast?"
And Great-Grandma's reply?
"Tin's too short."
However, I think
your version of Tradition I can thoroughly agree with. If I am reading correctly, it is a set of guideline beliefs and practices, commonly accepted and upheld by the church, for people to look at and compare their personal beliefs against. What I think is important to keep in mind, though, is that people should beware of taking these Traditions as their own before they examine the reason behind them, and the results of them. Raising questions should be encouraged and being able to challenge these Traditions allowed, if they see fit to do so. That is how we learn. Also, should the need arise, Traditions should be open to change (just as the people challenging them should) so that they do not become outdated and worthless. And the only way for that to happen is for people to start asking "Why do we do this?"
It has happened in the past, as far back as in the bible, and I believe it will continue to happen. The only thing that does not change is God, because He is perfect and has no need of change. We are far from perfect, and therefore have great need of constant change, both as individuals and as a whole. But the flesh hates change, fights change, and change rarely happens on its own.
The whole reason He founded a Church was surely to answer your last question; He left us with Apostles and successors who could, indeed, help interpret aright what the Scriptures are and how we should read them; since they originated within the usage of the Church and were declared canonical within it, it is not unreasonable, is it, to suppose the Church and its Tradition might offer some insight greater than our own unaided efforts?
It is not at all unreasonable in the least. Indeed many of my beliefs were guided by what the churches believe. Their insight is frequently greater, and through study of how they came to decisions, we can grow as Christians. But don't forget the other side of the coin; a lot of Tradition and doctrine certain churches have nowadays were set by blokes who left this earth a long time ago.
But my last question, which you refer to, was more to do with the way some people like to have "Ultimate Answers" they can just copy out of the bible and paste over every problem in existence. No consideration given to individual problems, just generalisations. And to then say it is God's Will, absent of any solid evidence that God did command it, as if we can talk for God.
Don't forget it was God's Will that we slaughter the Infidels and conquer the East...
Doctrines are those things the Church has declared in its creeds, opinions are those opinions which may be held but which do not appertain to salvation.
So, for example, it is doctrine that one believes that Christ is fully human and fully divine and that He is of one substance with the Father and with the Holy Ghost; it was never doctrine that slavery was OK.
But it was doctrine, then, that interracial relationships were evil. Not many hold that view any more. Just an example.
Tradition is, after all, a living and developing thing, it need not conflict with thinking for oneself; but in the end if we are asked by what authority we speak, and we say 'by the Spirit within me', we have a terminal problem when someone speaking the opposite says the same; this discussion here is an example of what can happen.
Very true, I cannot fault you, nor would I even want to disagree. The only way out of this problem is for people to stop shouting at each other about the rules as we see them, and to look at the results of our viewpoints. Jesus and others spoke many a time on 'examining the fruits of teachings to distinguish good from bad'. This is what lead me to change my views on homosexuality and to challenge the tradition.
If what we say is with the authority of the Church He founded, then there we have all the sanction anyone can need.
If they are part of the Church. And authority, whilst usually working for the good of people, isn't infallible.
Note also that the Church Jesus founded is a body, with many different parts. Some churches are stronger in certain areas, other churches in other areas (eg worship, or liturgy, or prayer, or fellowship etc). Not all churches agree. No church is perfect. All churches are necessary and usable by God. But is it right to claim one church's authority over another?
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you, Anglian, for an interesting discussion that hasn't fallen to flaming from either of us. It's nice to have those once in a while.
I suppose homosexuality issues and views are too intertwined with marriage to be debated separately. It boils down, once again, to those who are for it seeing scripture one way, those against it seeing scripture another way, and no one being convinced the other is right.
