Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

[Wgw]

I have to confess, I am growing weary of threads criticizing the doctrines, praxis and liturgical rites of the traditional and in some cases ancient churches: the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Assyrians, and traditional Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and so on.

These arguments tend to take the form of an attack on some practice which is incorrectly regarded as being of Pagan origin. In many cases, they take the form of an argument against Roman Catholicism, predicated on the fallacious oremise that Catholics believe X, therefore X is Pagan/wrong/evil, traditional Protestants believe also believe X, therefore traditional Protestants are either Pagan/wrong/evil or lukewarm.

That structure od the argument is particularly annoying in light of the existence of the Eastern chuches: EO, OO and Assyrian, which were never Roman Catholic, and which provides what amounts to an independent validation of the legitimacy of Catholic and traditional Protestant faith, practice and worship.

Such arguments are also contrary to ecumenical reconciliation, which, contrary to popular belief, is not a diabolical conspiracy to create a one world religion of the anti-Christ, although I would be the first to criticize the Ecumenical Movement in general, and the WCC in particular for occasional excesses, self-defeating acts and outright silliness, for example, the risible Re-Imagining Conference in the early 1990s.

Attacks on the traditional faith also come from the liberal, postmodern, modernist and progressive approaches to theology, which tend to want to bash the traditional Christian faith as being Patriarchal, legalistic, misogynistic, sexually oppressive, and so on, to an extent that is either untrue or reflects a confusion about Christian morality. To some extent, the reactionary sort of chaps who attack traditional Christianity on the basis of extreme hostility to Roman Catholics play into this, by creating a caricature of traditional Christianity which people outside of the Body of Christ confuse with the "real thing." A particularly extreme and unpleasant example of this would be the notorious Westboro Baptist Church.

In closing, I propose that this criticism is wrong, as it is based on false premises, a false dichotomy, and a spirit which lacks proper respect for other Christians, particularly those Christians from centuries past who defended the faith against all odds.

 

[Optimax]

On the other hand much of it is right, based on the unscriptural teachings that Unbiblical beliefs generate.

 

[Wgw]

On the other hand much of it is right, based on the unscriptural teachings that Unbiblical beliefs generate.

I disagree that one can find any beliefs shared across all of the denominations I mentioned that are either unscriptural or unbiblical. One could criticize specific beliefs of certain indovidual members of the group, I shall not say which, as unbiblical, but as a whole, one cannot. In addition, one could also point out by way of glass houses and minerals, that the Word of Faith movement has received quite a lot of criticism from diverse quarters regarding the apparent lack of scriptural justification for some of its tenets.

 

[Albion]

I disagree that one can find any beliefs shared across all of the denominations I mentioned that are either unscriptural or unbiblical.

Exactly what I was thinking before I got to your reply. We would have to affirm the most unorthodox and unhistoric interpretations of Scripture in order to agree with the POV expressed by Optimax in that post.

 

[Wgw]

Exactly what I was thinking before I got to your reply. We would have to affirm the most unorthodox and unhistoric interpretations of Scripture in order to agree with the POV expressed by Optimax in that post.

Indeed so. Now fortunately, in GT we don't have to deal with non-Trinitarianism and other unpleasant errors, however, I think it is topically relevant to say that the misguided persons you and I have soent much time debating with (very successfully, I might add, owing to our not inconsiderable erudition) often resort to this sort of ridiculous argument along the lines of Roman Catholics believe in a doctrine, therefore it must be unBiblical, Anglicans and Orthodox also believe in it, and therefore we teach false, unscriptural doctrines.

It is a fallacy compounded by a fallacy. It is essentially an ad hominem coupled with guilt by association. And it is not greatly charitable.

The point of this thread is basically to show our honourable Nicene friends why as Nicene Christians they should not ina sense weaken the integrity of the Nicene faith by using this sort of argument.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Great thread!

 

[Wgw]

Great thread!

Indeed, from our conversations elsewhere I gathered you were even more tored of this sort of thing than I am. I have to confess I actually enjoy debating these issues, because, to my discredit, I enjoy proving people wrong (I cannot boast an extreme piety or humility in this respect, by any means) but for most traditionalist Christians, who unlike myself are actually very humble, pious, well mannered people, the sort of intellectual abuse these rubbish arguments cause amounts to bullying.

It is my view that it is a form of abuse when someone uses demonstrably false or logically fallacious arguments to negatively proselytize against members of a given faith. So whereas this does not bother me for the reasons described above, I know that it hurts the pious. So rather than picking theological fights for the pure "heck" of it, which seems a morally and ethically dubious prospect, I prefer to engage in creative destruction of these sorts of arguments, as a sort of protectove flank for the people who would be troubled in their faith by them, but who lack the desire or ability to respond.

It feels to me like traditional Christians are being attacked from both sides: on the one side, by various forces of theological modernism, postmodernism, and moral relativism, and on the other, by ill-informed, uneducated reactionaries who have no respect for the ancient practice of the Christian religion, and who are driven largely by an extreme and unwarranted loathing for anything remotely reminiscent of Roman Catholicism. This in turn gives rise to a third destabilizing element for traditional Christians, a more internal problem, that being schismatic hardline reactionaries (the SSPX, the non-canonical Eastern Orthodox Old Calendarists like the GOC, et cetera). I have a great deal more understanding for these chaps than I do for the others, but the problem with them, is if they are all that remains, then the ideal of ecumenical reconciliation becomes rather more distant. What is more, it would be much harder for useful exchanges of wisdom to occur; for example, the excellent Anglican historical scholarship, Lutheran scriptural apologetics, or Eastern Palamist theology, would remain isolated in (likely shrinking) denominational silos.

Thus, I feel inclined to challenge the hurtful argument that our traditional churches are somehow the corrupted, creaking relics of an ancient Pagan conspiracy to subvert the Christian faith, by showing that our views are broadly Scriptural, entirely aligned with the Nicene Creed, and entirely contrary to the Oagan-influenced heresies that tried and failed to undermine the early Church (Gnosticism, Arianism, et cetera).

 

[Soyeong]

I have to confess, I am growing weary of threads criticizing the doctrines, praxis and liturgical rites of the traditional and in some cases ancient churches: the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Assyrians, and traditional Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and so on.

These arguments tend to take the form of an attack on some practice which is incorrectly regarded as being of Pagan origin. In many cases, they take the form of an argument against Roman Catholicism, predicated on the fallacious oremise that Catholics believe X, therefore X is Pagan/wrong/evil, traditional Protestants believe also believe X, therefore traditional Protestants are either Pagan/wrong/evil or lukewarm.

That structure od the argument is particularly annoying in light of the existence of the Eastern chuches: EO, OO and Assyrian, which were never Roman Catholic, and which provides what amounts to an independent validation of the legitimacy of Catholic and traditional Protestant faith, practice and worship.

Such arguments are also contrary to ecumenical reconciliation, which, contrary to popular belief, is not a diabolical conspiracy to create a one world religion of the anti-Christ, although I would be the first to criticize the Ecumenical Movement in general, and the WCC in particular for occasional excesses, self-defeating acts and outright silliness, for example, the risible Re-Imagining Conference in the early 1990s.

Attacks on the traditional faith also come from the liberal, postmodern, modernist and progressive approaches to theology, which tend to want to bash the traditional Christian faith as being Patriarchal, legalistic, misogynistic, sexually oppressive, and so on, to an extent that is either untrue or reflects a confusion about Christian morality. To some extent, the reactionary sort of chaps who attack traditional Christianity on the basis of extreme hostility to Roman Catholics play into this, by creating a caricature of traditional Christianity which people outside of the Body of Christ confuse with the "real thing." A particularly extreme and unpleasant example of this would be the notorious Westboro Baptist Church.

In closing, I propose that this criticism is wrong, as it is based on false premises, a false dichotomy, and a spirit which lacks proper respect for other Christians, particularly those Christians from centuries past who defended the faith against all odds.

I can't speak to your experience, but this is the first time that I've heard of anyone making the claim that Catholics believe something, therefore it is pagan. I have heard people make the argument that certain practices of Catholics have been influenced by paganism, but if you were to point out that Eastern churches do the same thing, then they would just consider Eastern churches to be equally wrong.

 

[Wgw]

I can't speak to your experience, but this is the first time that I've heard of anyone making the claim that Catholics believe something, therefore it is pagan. I have heard people make the argument that certain practices of Catholics have been influenced by paganism, but if you were to point out that Eastern churches do the same thing, then they would just consider Eastern churches to be equally wrong.

However, their arguments are Roman-centric and ignore the very existence of the Eastern churches; several are framed around the idea that RCism is wrong by virtue of the historical fact of the Reformation, which is an example of the false dichotomy at its fullest. We can validate Catholic and traditional Protestant praxis by its continuity with the East. Whereas on the other hand there is no historical continuity for much of non-traditional Christianity; where such continuity does exist, it is often in alignment with theological postions the early Christians rejected as erroneous or even heretical.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I can't speak to your experience, but this is the first time that I've heard of anyone making the claim that Catholics believe something, therefore it is pagan. I have heard people make the argument that certain practices of Catholics have been influenced by paganism, but if you were to point out that Eastern churches do the same thing, then they would just consider Eastern churches to be equally wrong.

I think that you missed the point; it was a criticism of that argument (one that is frequently employed against many, many beliefs and practices of traditional Churches, Catholic and protestant alike).

 

[Wgw]

I think that you missed the point; it was a criticism of that argument (one that is frequently employed against many, many beliefs and practices of traditional Churches, Catholic and protestant alike).

Hey, you left out the Orthodox! How dare you! I must deploy three virtual thurifers so as to conceal your transgression in an opaque cloud of fragrant virtual smoke:

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hey, you left out the Orthodox! How dare you! I must deploy three virtual thurifers so as to conceal your transgression in an opaque cloud of fragrant virtual smoke:

I have been chastised.

 

[Soyeong]

However, their arguments are Roman-centric and ignore the very existence of the Eastern churches; several are framed around the idea that RCism is wrong by virtue of the historical fact of the Reformation, which is an example of the false dichotomy at its fullest. We can validate Catholic and traditional Protestant praxis by its continuity with the East. Whereas on the other hand there is no historical continuity for much of non-traditional Christianity; where such continuity does exist, it is often in alignment with theological postions the early Christians rejected as erroneous or even heretical.

My view of the Reformation is that some things were changed that needed changing, some things were not changed that needed changing, some things were changed that didn't need changing, and some things weren't changed that didn't need changing. If there is any merit to anything that needed changing during the Reformation, then that implies that RCism got some things wrong, but I agree it would be incorrect to say that the Reformation showed that RCism is wrong about everything. However, if something needed changing in RCism that Eastern churches had in common, then the Eastern churches also needed changing in that regard. I happen to believe that much of the Church got off track about some things after Emperor Claudius' expulsion of the Jews from Rome, which is early enough that it would show up in both RCism and Eastern churches.

 

[Wgw]

My view of the Reformation is that some things were changed that needed changing, some things were not changed that needed changing, some things were changed that didn't need changing, and some things weren't changed that didn't need changing. If there is any merit to anything that needed changing during the Reformation, then that implies that RCism got some things wrong, but I agree it would be incorrect to say that the Reformation showed that RCism is wrong about everything. However, if something needed changing in RCism that Eastern churches had in common, then the Eastern churches also needed changing in that regard. I happen to believe that much of the Church got off track about some things after Emperor Claudius' expulsion of the Jews from Rome, which is early enough that it would show up in both RCism and Eastern churches.

However, no one in the Eastern churches felt they "needed changing" which is why there was never an Eastern equivalent to the Reformation. Indeed, the Nikonian Schism in Russia and the Old Calendarist schism are precisely the opposite, the rejection of very minor changes in liturgical praxis.

 

[Soyeong]

However, no one in the Eastern churches felt they "needed changing" which is why there was never an Eastern equivalent to the Reformation. Indeed, the Nikonian Schism in Russia and the Old Calendarist schism are precisely the opposite, the rejection of very minor changes in liturgical praxis.

I think the fact that there wasn't a change equivalent to the Reformation in Eastern churches doesn't necessarily imply that no felt that they needed one or that they didn't need one. Anything in RCism that needed changing during the Reformation that Eastern churches had in common also needed changing in Eastern churches regardless of whether anyone felt that they did.

 

[Wgw]

I think the fact that there wasn't a change equivalent to the Reformation in Eastern churches doesn't necessarily imply that no felt that they needed one or that they didn't need one. Anything in RCism that needed changing during the Reformation that Eastern churches had in common also needed changing in Eastern churches regardless of whether anyone felt that they did.

That's a misguided perspective on so many levels. It presupposes a precise equivalence between comparable RC and Orthodox praxis, and I would argue also implies either sloth, cowardice or incompetence on the part of the Orthodox faithful. I find it an uncharitable view, typical of the kind of rubbish directed against all traditional churches, that this thread exists to challenge.

 

[Soyeong]

That's a misguided perspective on so many levels. It presupposes a precise equivalence between comparable RC and Orthodox praxis, and I would argue also implies either sloth, cowardice or incompetence on the part of the Orthodox faithful. I find it an uncharitable view, typical of the kind of rubbish directed against all traditional churches, that this thread exists to challenge.

When you say that no one felt that the Eastern churches needed much changing, I see two possibilities: either nothing needed much changing or something needed changing that went unchallenged. You want to say that validates the legitimacy of Catholic and traditional Protestant faith, but I think that ignores the second possibility. I said IF something needed changing in RCism that Eastern churches had in common, then the Eastern churches also needed changing in that regard, which would imply the second possibility that it went unchallenged. We can now consider whether there is any merit to anything needing changing during the Reformation that Eastern churches had in common, but if you can't assume that Eastern churches didn't also need changing in order to establish that RCism didn't need changing.

 

[Optimax]

That's a misguided perspective on so many levels. It presupposes a precise equivalence between comparable RC and Orthodox praxis, and I would argue also implies either sloth, cowardice or incompetence on the part of the Orthodox faithful. I find it an uncharitable view, typical of the kind of rubbish directed against all traditional churches, that this thread exists to challenge.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you listed some of the teachings/doctrines and traditions you are referring to that you have so "enjoyed proving people wrong".

 

[Wgw]

Perhaps it would be helpful if you listed some of the teachings/doctrines and traditions you are referring to that you have so "enjoyed proving people wrong".

Well, I derived much enjoyment from collaborating with a Baptist member, @Der Alter , to show that non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural. I have also enjoyed refuting attempts to legitimize Gnostic scriptures, KJV Onlyism, non-KJV Onlyism (the erroneous belief that the KJV and other older translations are inherently defective and worthless), iconoclasm, historical errors made by Landmark baptists and Ellen G. White, and so on.

However, I am most specifically interested in defending the historic churches: Orthodox, Catholic, Assyrian, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist and so on, from unwarranted criticism from people who adhere to unusual modern theologies. It is important work, and I enjoy doing it. Perhaps I enjoy it too much, but since I do enjoy it, and since I seem to be ablt eot do ot successfully on this forum, I intend to continue doing it, for the benefit of the members of these churches.

 

[Wgw]

When you say that no one felt that the Eastern churches needed much changing, I see two possibilities: either nothing needed much changing or something needed changing that went unchallenged. You want to say that validates the legitimacy of Catholic and traditional Protestant faith, but I think that ignores the second possibility. I said IF something needed changing in RCism that Eastern churches had in common, then the Eastern churches also needed changing in that regard, which would imply the second possibility that it went unchallenged. We can now consider whether there is any merit to anything needing changing during the Reformation that Eastern churches had in common, but if you can't assume that Eastern churches didn't also need changing in order to establish that RCism didn't need changing.

The problem is that your assumption that Eastern Christians would not challenge positions that "needed changing" comes across as an Occidentalist smear, in my view.