Tradition? "Tradition"?

Impossible? Or simply ironic? Ironic in that trying on someone else's tradition is a good solid post-modern strategy.>

What makes a "tradition"? I grew up in a Southern Baptist church in the 1950's. The idea of singing anything not found in the Broadman Hymnal was heresay. Anyone clapping or shouting out in church would have had his hands chopped off and his tongue ripped out by the Board of Deacons. The only musical instruments were the ones God created in the Garden: a grand piano and a pipe organ . . . that and a Baroque ensemble that accompanied Handel's "Messiah" every Christmas.

So where has my "traditonal" Baptist church gone? Where do I go for worship? In the larger scheme of things, this is trivial. But it is no less important for what it says of the effects of popular culture on what is considered to be the difference between the sacred and the profane.>

Taking up a tradition might be a consumer choice to begin with, but once a person locks into it and raises a family on the lines laid down by that tradition, literally labouring for it, it's not a choice. Once it becomes a life, a tradition ceases to be a life-style.>

"What's the alternative?" is a killer argument as far as I'm concerned. You win, although I do think there may be a few other ways of finding your path in a po-mo, shopping-is-all universe.

If you're born into this kind of world, after all, mightn't the shopping-is-all thing seem natural? Mightn't it be your "real" culture?

Not that this is, from a Large Perspective, a generally good thing. We might wish modern conditions were different. But practically speaking, it's what the fact of the matter is for many people these days. Some people may, as a consequence, yearn for traditional experiences (family, home, trad religion, rootedness, etc). But some may feel that such roots as they have are in the shopping-is-all world. Who knows? Maybe they get spiritual sustenance from video games and careers.>

If it is not possible "to lay claim to a tradition that one wasn't born into" what is next? An outright caste system? At least with regard to religion, the issue is not, to my mind, "tradition." It is one of truth or meaning. One generally doesn't leave Islam for Christianity (assuming one gets out with his life) for the sake of tradition but rather because of the comepeting truth claims of each faith. One or the other might be true but both can not be true; they are mutaully exlcusive. Likewise, one generally doesn't leave the Episcopal church and migtrate to another Christian tradition, be it Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Presbyterian, for the sake of appropriating a particulr tradition to oneself. Rather, one generally does it in search of truth or an expression of truth more meaningful. For example, the Episcopal Church as an institution has largely abandoned Christian truth so Christians leave. Who remains? Either those wedded to cultural traditions or those holding on to hope of reform.>

It seems to me that Ostrea's point is key. If you adopt a tradition because you come to believe that it's true, your new-found "tradition" has a foundation more solid than mere choice. Not so, however, if you adopt a tradition simply because you happen to want one and it's the best thing that's come along (so to speak).>

Isn't the idea that we can pick and choose tradition a uniquely American concept of self invention. And, isn't that a tradition in and of itself regardless of the "tradition" one adopts.>

Long comment ahead...

Let me preface this by saying, Rod, that if your posts were more frequently thoughtful responses to substantive critiques, many of the complaints I've had would disappear overnight.

Many, but not most. I'm quite dubious about the claim, "We are all walking around like survivors of a carpet-bombing, bumbling around in the ruins trying to find a place to take a stand and start the recovery, the rebuilding."

We are? All of us? Really?

To the degree that we in the Western world do seem like the walking dead, Crunchy Cons has its appeals. (Heck, as alternatives to the mainstream, so does Fight Club and militant Islam.)

I think you overstate the symptoms, but they're there; more troubling, I think you misdiagnose the cause. The problem isn't "Late modernity." IT'S RELATIVISM. It is the denial of the existence of universal truth, in all its dimensions, including the theological and the moral dimensions.

People in your camp love to decry choice, as if individualism is the problem. True enough, radical individualists intend to redefine bedrock institutions to suit their own desires, but at the heart of that intention is relativism, found in the perception that these institutions are mere social constructs. I can say the problem is relativism because you see the same attitude in the polar opposite of the individulist: the authoritarian has, in the last couple centuries, shown an incredible contempt for history, viewing it as a propaganda tool to be controlled, not as a record of true events of the past.

If the problem was modernity, a crunchy rejection of all things modern would be appropriate. But the problem is relativism; the solution to that is a good, healthy dose of the truth and the acceptance that such a thing exists as an objective fact outside our own whims.


It is my firm belief that the truth to be pursued is the man who claimed to be the way and the truth, that the solution to being lost in the shifting sands of pop culture is being grounded in the chief cornerstone who is Christ. A really, really big problem I have with crunchy conservatism is that the relationship with Christ seems incidental to the supposed authenticity of ancient traditions.

Giving tradition the benefit of the doubt on whether it should be preserved is conservative. Attempting to restore what has already been lost is reactionary. And going even further to almost idolize tradition is a regression from Christianity to the Old Testament emphasis on ritual. Consider what the theologically, um, unorthodox Caleb Stegall wrote with Dan Knauss in the farewell statement at the New Pantagruel, on the subject of "the discipline of place."

"As we have written previously, we believe that to suffer one s place and one s people in the particularity of its and their needs is the only true basis for finding love, friendship, and an authentic, meaningful life. This is nothing less than the key to the pursuit of Christian holiness, which is the whole of the Christian adventure: to live in love with the frailty and limits of one s existence, suffering the places, customs, rites, joys, and sorrows of the people who are in close relation to you by family, friendship, and community--all in service of the truth, goodness, and beauty that is best experienced directly." [emphasis mine]

Stegall asserts the ridiculous, that this "discipline of place," which is inimical both to the Great Commission and to the example set by Paul in his missionary work, is "nothing less than the key to the pursuit of Christian holiness." "The key." Not even "a key," which would make room for such minor considerations like prayer and Bible study as part of a relationship with Christ. That's idolatry, and in the long run, Caleb Stegall's family farm will no more fill the God-shaped hole that is in each of us than would a life that conforms to GQ.


As I say, tradition should be given the benefit of the doubt. If it doesn't promote virtue -- and I grow more and more convinced that it really doesn't; else, the Sermon on the Mount would have been unnecessary for its original, very traditional audience -- it at least lessens the effect of vice. Or it does in many circumstances. But circumstances have changed; technology has irrevocably changed the environment. A parka keeps you alive in a tundra, but it might cause heat stroke in the desert. We should look, then, not necessarily to restore traditions, but to accomplish what good they accomplished in ways that are suitable to a world of industrialization and instant global communication.

But that's ultimately not the answer to the question, what's the alternative? What's the alternative to the shellshocked weariness you experience and see others experiencing? Ecclesiastes echoes the malaise:

"All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing."

The Messiah gave the answer:

"I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

"I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture."

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live."

Christ Himself is these things, not any rites or rituals that we His church have built up in worshipping Him, and not in any traditions created by the Western civilization that has been so clearly influenced by the church.

Trying to live as the Waltons may well be more noble than being taken away by the currents of the culture, but it isn't the reason we exist. And the idea that it is more noble simply means that it's a greater temptation from the true goal before us.>

I have to wonder what it means to adhere to tradition in a country as young as the United States. Scratch the surface a few generations (with the exception of Native Americans of course), and we all come from people who discarded tradition and foreign identities to come to the U.S. and start something new.
"Tradition" is almost too abstract a term to be useful. I think Rod's book is at its most persuasive when it gets down to the nitty gritty, i.e. "Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract," and "Beauty is more important than efficiency." Are those values *necessarily* traditional? They can be, but they don't have to be, it seems to me.>

Ostrea got to the heart of the matter with a lot fewer words than I used. Good job.

And, a rare thing, I must disagree with SiliconValleySteve, who wrote that "the core of protestantism is the schism." While that may be true for some Protestants, for others -- starting, I would argue, with Martin Luther -- it is sola scriptura.

It's not rebellion for its own sake but is, rather, the only option for those who believe the Catholic church has strayed from the clear teachings of Scripture.

The question of which is the core of the entire "-ism" is a harder one to answer.>

Mark, one could also word it, "at the core of protestantism is the Bible," and note that Protestants are willing to defend what they believe the Bible says even if that results in schism.

Perhaps the difference is semantics.


I noticed that I wasn't the only one to use a clothing metaphor. I talked about parkas, and Adonais wrote this:

"We're not trying to become our ancestors; we're trying on some of their clothes and discovering that they're a lot more comfortable (and a good deal more tasteful) that the rags we pick up under the blue light at K-Mart."

First, does anyone want truly to argue that older clothes are more comfortable? Tasteful, I'll buy, but not comfortable.

Along with the "rags" comment, it may illustrate the overreach of crunchy conservatives, just as it does to call industrially produced food "toxic poison" in the face of rising life expectancies.

But let's go with the metaphor: isn't a 19-year-old in a fedora a fairly goofy sight? It certainly comes across as an affectation.

It's kinda cute to see a boy dress up like his grandfather, but a mark of maturity is realizing that his grandfather's hat, moustache, and pipe are not the most important things about him. What matters is his character, whether he's a decent, honest, dependable man.

If one's grandfather is/was a good man for his time, the best honor one can pay him is to be a good man in your time.

And let us be honest, the clothes do not make the man. I'll agree that Clark Gable's attire was more tasteful than Brad Pitt's is now, but let's not pretend that the five-time-married Rhett Butler was more virtuous, and even if our ancestors were more moral, let's certainly not indulge the ridiculous notion that externalities like clothing and food were the reasons why.>

Maggis is spot-on. You can't manufacture roots.>

Jeff, I'm going to run the risk of the typical rancor between Catholics and Baptists, but I honestly don't see how what you call for leads "inexorably" to Catholicism.... unless you want to argue that confirmation, etc., are unique as traditions "which Truth has both generated and accomodated over the centuries, rooted in time and people and place, that make life in a fallen world tolerable and serve to remind us why we are here."

I have known Baptists who are far more aware of God's purpose for them than Catholics who immerse themselves in the rites and traditions of their faith. I've also known the inverse, of course, but I think this underscores that the route to Rome isn't as inevitable as one might want it to be.>

Bubba, have you ever met a relativist older than 13? I might have met a relativist older than that in college once, but he was drunk so I'm not going to quote him on it. The enemy of objective truth more commonly encountered is subjectivism which recognizes objective facts within our own whims. If you can tease subjectivism (or relativism) away from its modernist roots, then more power to you. Protestants, being the ultimate defenders of subjective objectivity, obviously have a lot to lose if modernity is the problem. But someone concerned with objective truth shouldn't let that stop them.>

Maggie writes:

one can both avoid nostalgia for an imagined past, and perhaps do a better job of meeting the needs modernity intensifies.

There is only one scientific issue here: does your "tradition" translate to breeding for multiple generations. And modernity fails this test. Hence, Maggie is simply spouting her failed cultural line.

If your way of life leads to sustained breeding, then you have tradition, period. To paraphrase Chesterton, Darwin declares it from his awful throne.

Anything else is just personal baloney. Might make one feel good (e.g. Maggie) but it is just a flash in the pan and not worth discussing, no matter how "crunchy" or "authentic".>

Loudon is a Fool, in hindsight, I may have meant subjectivism rather than relativism. Regardlessless, I believe that the denial of objective truth is the problem, not modernity per se.

I do not believe either are rooted in modernity either. As an -ism, modernism may certainly be *a* source of this rejection of objective truth (though the mechanism would need to be explained), but I doubt it's the one and only source.

The question posed in John 18:38 suggests that the denial of objective truth has a long history indeed, and it seems to me that that specific denial at least (and who knows how many others) was rooted, not in a worship of progress, but in mere convenience.


And, it seems to me your spoiling for a fight, writing that Protestants are "the ultimate defenders of subjective objectivity." For the sake of civility, I wish you would either explain such comments or refrain from making them.>

Kathleen:

The emphasis on the past need not be arbitrary. It can and should be evaluated against what is objectively good, true, and beautiful, and what is objectively the heritage of one's place and people (whether chosen or inherited).

I think the conservative approach is to retain as much of the present as possible, for the sake of continuity, and to revive earlier traditions where the present situation is clearly deficient (and that's rapidly moving towards *everywhere*). This is not a rationalistic task for individuals or intellectuals, but is rather the work of historic Christian communities capable of passing on that which is still within living memory.>

No problemo, then.>

Jeff, let me butt in on your comment to Kathleen, but do so as quickly as I can.

We should seek what is true regardless of the age of a tradition or custom. If we've strayed from the truth, we should go back to what happens to be old because it is true, not because it is old.

It seems to me that some grossly overemphasize what is old over what is true: since old things are tainted by sin -- nothing new being under the sun, according to Scripture -- that overemphasis results in a hodgepodge of personal preferences that is arbitrary.>

Franklin, I believe Chesterton wrote (in The Everlasting Man, maybe) that the ancient pantheons of gods were themselves amalgams: each city-state would worship its own god, and as, say, the Greek sphere of influence expanded, the Greeks incorporated the local god into its Olympus, giving the god a specific role.

You can see this sort of pattern in modern comic books: Superman and Batman were created by different people, and there was nothing at first to suggest they inhabited the same world, but now there's the DC Universe: Superman is its Zeus, Batman is its Hades, Wonder Woman is Hera, Aquaman is Poseidon, and Flash is Hermes.>

(And I don't think "modernity" is in the same category as paganism and Christianity. Modernism, maybe; materialism, absolutely; but not mere modernity, not the mere fact that we have running water and locomotives.)>

Franklin, lol. what's the point of being pagan if you have all the same internicine territorial squabbles that the boring old established religions have? i thought you guys just danced around trees and enjoyed the birdsong (which doesn't sound half bad much of the time)>

...but not mere modernity, not the mere fact that we have running water and locomotives

I don't think this is how "modernity" is generally used. Otherwise, the term means nothing really (running water and locomotives are none too modern, maybe genetic engineering and the internet).>

If the sina qua non of traditional is that one is constrained and that one s children will be constrained as well, then the emergence of any traditional culture or sub-culture in this country is almost unthinkable. Our judicial construction of "inalienable rights" prevents our submission to such constraint. As Maggie was early to point out ( The End of Marriage was the title, as I recall), we can t even constrain ourselves to honor our marriage vows where no-fault divorce is the law.
Thus, by the constraint criterion, even the Amish in America are not traditional because young Amish can legally walk away. So yeah: choice is inevitable, deep tradition impossible. It s part of the zeitgeist and part of our law.
But my embrace of Eastern Orthodoxy and affinity for crunchiness are not really grasping at tradition per se. They are, respectively, the embrace of truth and an affinity for what is conducive to human thriving outside the walls of church.>

Using Chesterton to discuss--or condemn--contemporary Paganism is like proposing steam engines as a solution for today's energy crisis.

In other words, Chesterton, while an interesting writer, is a century out of date.

There was a self-described literary 'paganism' that was in vogue in his day, but the varieties of contemporary Paganism have grown, changed, expanded, and, dare I say, matured since that time.>

Culture (including even religions with great continuity, such as Orthodoxy) is never transmitted without change, and borrowing. For that matter, genes are not, either.

Tradition in never a fly in amber, but a living thing. Otherwise our art would still be cave painting andd our tools flint scrapers. Or perhaps we would be painting ourselves blue or killing animals to get closer to God.

We can say there is more likely truth in things transmitted organically than in the ruminations of economics and calculators and such. We can also recognize in our own past (and even in the pasts of ancient peoples) efforts at revival of traditions, whether classical or an imagined primitive Christianity. These are always revived partly wrongly (white marble statues in buildings instead of gaudily painted ones, for example).

To fetishize the valuable idea of tradition and organically transmitted culture and institutions is itself a form of idolatry, and would make us prisoners of a kind of Law, which is dead.

We must sew some kind of garment out of the shreds and patches of culture we have been left. There is no alternative. We can value more what has been transmitted organically than what is packaged from the brains of intellectuals and the factories of mass culture, but that is probably the best we can do.>

I liked what Bubba had to say in his original post. For Christians, if you immerse yourself in Christ, you will find the light of life. I don't mean in the afterlife. I mean that you'll find it now.

It seems to me that all of this other stuff that we surround ourselves with is just a distraction. Including, debates of truth.

A lifestyle that helps to eliminate distractions will bring a healthy spiritual life as long as the time saved goes into things that build a connection to Spirit(prayer/meditation, giving to others, caring for others, etc).

Maggie is correct. You are creating a personal world. What's wrong with that? Your children may/may not continue your traditions. What's wrong with that? Your personal world might not be their personal world. Doesn't mean that God's present in one world and absent in the other.

So some traditions are more authentic than others? I think that some people might be better at imitating the rituals of the past a little better, but for a Christian, the most authentic experience is that of the Holy Spirit within.

It's subjective.

Ultimate truth exists. Man's view of it is limited. As Paul said, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
(1 Corinthians 13:12-13)>

The former Campus Crusaders who formed the Evangelical Orthodox Church sought to reproduce the undivided Orthodox Church. But most of them came to realize that one must come into the fold by Door, and were chrismated into the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in due time.
I too was Protestant and took this path. But it is not a simple journey, and integrating all that one is into the new you of the Tradition is a longterm project. But despite all one's flaws and sins one is a baptized and chrismated member of the Undivided Church, partaking of the one Bread and one Cup. (I realize Roman Catholics claim this too, but that's another blog.) And this Tradition is a living one; its not a frozen cultural form. One day, Lord willing, there will be an American Orthodox Church, American in flavor, but with the unique American idols, I pray, purged. I believe in One God ...>

Thank you, Bubba. Your post spoke to me.>

Lutheran Reader's question is an ecclesiological one. The Orthodox position is that we do not judge (i.e., condemn) those outside the (Orthodox) Church. I count that Protestants and Roman Catholics are both Christian, but working without the fullness of the apostolic Church, due to heresy or schism.

LR says, "My understanding from my reading of Orthodox writers is that the most real sense of tradition is that it is participation in the life of the Trinity - - and that is something, as I said yesterday, that any baptized believer has." This is difficult to answer without know what is meant by "participation".

In fact, LR's original post highlights the difficulty of words. When the Orthodox (and most Roman Catholics) speak of Tradition, we're not talking about ethnic dancing, beer, lutefisk, or Aggie Bonfire. Rather, we're talking about the deposit of the Faith, the paradosis ("handing down" as in entrusting to someone else, just as Christ was "paradidomied" to the Roman soldiers) given to the Apostles and kept in the Church. This paradosis is the standard by which any interpretation of Scripture is to be evaluated. This understanding of Tradition isn't what I see in LR's writing.

LR also asks, "Any baptized Christian, Protestant or High Church Anglican or Lutheran or Orthodox or Roman Catholic, who prays, studies the sacred Scriptures, and struggles against the world, his sinful flesh, and the devil, confessing Jesus as Lord and confessing his sins - - surely such a one is part of the great, central Christian tradition. Again: does anyone care to deny that?" I can only reply "For he that is not against us is on our part." (Mark 9:40) I don't deny Christian piety outside the Church, but perhaps the best image if that of the Samaritans, who believed in God but carried out their faith in an aberrant way.

Finally, LR asks, "Does anyone seriously maintain that someone who has been baptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and who believes in Jesus as Lord and prays to the Triune God, may yet be decisively out of contact with the Tradition of the Church? But then where is such a one?" I don't know what this means. I wouldn't deny that a baptized person receives the benefits of baptism, while simultaneously wondering whether baptism into a church that asserts that baptism is only a symbol of inner repentance (and repeatable) or that asserts that Christ is not present physically in the Eucharist is a blessing. That would be, after all, a baptism into something decidedly un-Traditional.>

Though she never says as much, I think that Ms. Gallagher is only calling some attempts to choose a tradition for oneself "phony."

For example, I doubt she'd have a problem with Sam Brownback's decision to embrace standard-issue Latin-Rite Catholicism as expressed in the United States. But if he had embraced, say, Coptic Orthodoxy (much better liturgies!), she might well find that phony.

The reason is probably obvious. When a protestant embraces regular-Joe Catholicism, he is more often than not doing so for the Truth, and not for the cultural accretions that come along with it. And even if he is motivated in part by such accretions (as someone who converts into a Tridentine Mass parish might be), he is still at bottom returning to his distant roots, when all the West grudgingly obeyed Rome and adopted her liturgy.

But the protestant who adopts Coptic Orthodoxy as his own is not just moving beyond his own immediate background into something new; he is also moving beyond his immediate cultural background (which is Greco-Roman) and his ancestral background (which, whether Italian or Irish or German or Swedish, is historically Catholic). That's a big leap, and that's what seems phony.>

Aethelred:

When you say "B) deliberately draw conclusions that we don't really believe to be true but wish were true for convenience's sake", is there any significance to the last three/seven words? i.e., do you think is it possible to "deliberately draw a conclusion that we don't really believe to be true" for some other reason than because because we wish it were true? If so, could you give an example? Similarly, do you see a meaningful distinction _in this context_ between wishing something were true "for convenience's sake" and wishing it were true some other reason than convenience's sake? Again, if so I'd love to see an example, and why you think that alternate case is morally different.

Universalism would be the prime example. There are surely people who interpret away the Bible's clear teachings on sexual morality for convenience's sake, but there are also people who interpret away the Bible's clear teaching that not everyone will be saved -- and they do so, not out of convenience, but rather out of compassion for other people. I think universalism entails a serious attack on human free will, and if one believes the Bible to be authoritative, I don't see how one can honestly ignore or diminish what Christ said about the wheat and the tares, about the sheep and the goats, and about the narrow path and the broad path.

But I could see God judging a person with some leniency for ignoring the Bible's clear teaching to embrace universalism out of a misapplied compassion, at least compared to those those who ignore the Bible's clear teaching to embrace sexual hedonism. At least in the former, the man's heresy was committed out of a concern for other people.

Of course, one could embrace even universalism out of convenience: evangelism is hard work, and universalism diminishes the moral imperative of the Great Commission.>

Rod, From my own experience (and I was born into the tradition of an Orthodox church with a strong ethnic flavor), there are two levels of tradition. There are the ethnic traditions which add color and personal identity of a social sort and the local customs of a local parish. One can't really claim to adopt that in its fullness without being born into it or having been enculturated into it. It is the Tradition, with the big 'T', that anyone can be born into through Baptism without regard to race, color, nationality, gender, or status in life. What has kept me in the Orthodox Church is the Tradition, big "T" Tradition, which is a non-ethnic, timeless, cross-cultural and both very personally and God-focused (at the same time) Tradition of faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ. I can walk into any Orthodox Church and I know I have an immediate kinship with the people there, no matter what traditional flavor it has. I know that my salvation is worked out together with this family of people who may be complete strangers to me, but hold one thing in common with me: a common and shared faith in Jesus Christ that is empressed through Traditional [liturgically, theologically, in spirituality, the common prayers, in Holy Scripture understood according to The Way of faith..not just by my own understanding which may err inspite of my faith and reaching out to the Holy Spirit for guidance..too much of me is in the picture to give a correct understanding alone.. yes, Traditionally understood Holy Scripture and the Traditional aids gifted to us by Jesus Christ through the Church, commonly called Sacraments]. It is a big, not-so- simple Tradition intended to lead us into the life of Christ, into His ways, His understandings of life and His love and mercy. For those that chose to follow this way, the results are never disappointing. It is not an easy way to live or worship, requiring discipline, obedience, and humility. But the peace and joy that comes with spiritual growth as directed through the Orthodox Church's Tradition has yet to disappoint me, and I really don't expect that ever to happen.

Rod, you have embarked on the most exciting, demanding and rewarding journey of your life..the journey into Christ's life. May God bless you with His mercy and love. Welcome to the family! Yvonne, a sister through Orthodox Tradition>

IN a way, I want to agree with Joe about the source of phoniness, but we must be careful in this... There are lots of people who belong to traditions outside of Christianity, and it would not be phony for them to convert... I think the problem is that we all know that the head of the Western Church is the Pope. When Protestants try to skip over and be embraced by the Eastern Church, there is usually something going on... I say this as someone who spent some time in the EO church before coming home to Rome. For me, I'm going to slug it out in RCism until Christ returns... My good brothers need the help! (Perhaps if the reformers hadn't bailed on the Church at the Reformation, she would be stronger now... And but for the Great Schism, we would all be in a better place... )>

Rod,

In this tradition-rooting thing you've been doing double duty: pottering the clay of crunchy-conism and falling into Orthodoxy (odd how the wording is usually Orthodoxy and not the Orthodox Church?).

It must be exhausting.

But, it seems, there's a balling of several thread strands here. How does (or will) it all stay wound up tight and nice?

The more Orthodox you become will you drop this Crunchy-Con ball?>

It is nice that you're trying to organize your world. You'd make a good machinest if you weren't a writer.

What I'd like to offer to your conversation is a critical observation.

It failed. Your version of traditionalism failed. We know it failed because it was abandoned.

Succeeding generations abandoned it because it not longer worked as good as it once did. And it once didn't as well as it could have, except in retrospect of course.

You can build your little world based upon whatever theology you want and your children and grandchildren will abandon it too.

The reason it will fail is the same reason they all have failed. They're designed for control.

I happen to be almost twice your age. What you're wanting for your children I'm wanting for my grandchildren. My mission is a little tougher than yours because I have to perform the magic through the hands of my children.

A long time ago I abandoned theology. I didn't stop believing, they're two different things. I'm still very much a believer. I abandoned theology because I felt all of them were created by man for control of man.

As I've gotten older I've modified my reasons for abandoning theology. Where I once viewed theology as all about attempts to control I've now decided it's about attempts at problem solving.

The problem is how to manipulate people to do what's right and best for themselves and those around them.

Theology is the easiest answer when you assume either that man is inherently bad and or stupid. We know that isn't true. And because man isn't inherently stupid and or bad they resent being treated like they are. That's why theology fails and is abandoned by succeeding generations.

Your journey is typical of theological journeys. You've entered into a belief system that you felt had all the answers or at least a methodology for finding the answers. Then as questions arose that couldn't be answered to your satisfaction you've lost faith in that system and have searched for a better definition of the faith you feel.

That one will fail you too. It will fail because theology is designed for control instead of empowerment.

I like that word, "empowerment". I couldn't find it in the dictionary and that's okay. I still like it and I will continue to use it.

So, if theology fails everytime, if there was one success we'd know, the whole world would know, and the obvious reason it fails is because it's design for control. Then we need to consider an alternative because we'd like our children and grandchildren happiness and success.

Maybe the key to success and happiness is empowering them with knowledge. Knowledge will give them their sense of place and responsibility.>