On the tradition of having a religious tradition
To a Friend,
I think that when we use Tradition these days it can have dramatically different meanings depending upon to whom we are speaking. When a Roman Catholic for example uses tradition, they could be speaking of scripture, the historically fluctuating teachings of their church, the current teaching of the Pope, etc. It is almost so broad that it becomes meaningless. With that, if Tradition just means everything that came before, then Tradition is not a helpful category because we mean by it, the past. We already have a word for that.
When Protestants like myself think in terms of their Tradition they usually mean those distinctives of thought peculiar to Protestant faith and practice. Thus if by tradition someone means an infallible source of guidance, our tradition would be the contents of Scripture alone, but really, since we don’t use the language that way because it is not our tradition to do so, it is our tradition to use Scripture alone as the sole infallible rule in all matters of faith and practice.
That does not mean that it is the sole rule, nor even the sole authority, but we do take the Scriptures themselves as the sole infallible rule and the sole infallible authority. That is our tradition and it is very circular. I admit that much. Why do you believe Sola Scriptura? I think the Bible teaches that. So you think that the Bible teaches that the Bible is the sole infallible rule? Infallibly so, yes. My sole infallible rule teaches that it is the sole infallible rule. But it is not really as circular as it seems because I don’t believe that it is true simply because it says it is. I believe that it’s true for other reasons and once I believe it is true then if I think that it teaches that it is the sole infallible rule I guess I’m stuck with that one.
I know that is a little confusing but it helps to distinguish between Tradition in and of itself and “our” tradition or way of doing things. Still, having a tradition is not a reason for having a tradition. “We have a tradition because we have a tradition of having a tradition.” That doesn’t work. Traditions don’t justify themselves. Something being old is not an evidence for it being good. Something being new is not an evidence for it being bad. As Protestants we require reasons for the adoption of a tradition. It is the same thing with our use of Christian tradition, like the historical teaching of our respected dead. We accept it all, good and bad as our tradition, but it can’t all be right so it can’t all be a part of our tradition. It is our tradition to make these kinds of distinctions.
Like… Augustine. Oh, mighty Augustine, sublime theologian and philosophical slayer of the Roman Empire. He makes me giddy. He is a traditional source of Protestant theology. We look upon him as a wise counselor, a distinguished Pastor, a sincere Christian, an older brother, a profound thinker, a model citizen of the city of God, and occasionally, a bit of a kook. But he’s one of our kooks. He is our tradition and as such we look upon him with the most careful respect right up until we disagree. This is the way of tradition. It errs. It always errs. It is merely human interpretation and human practice according to human interpretation.
We love tradition, tradition is a guide, and historically informed practice is a very real Authority, but still fallible and needful of correction. I don’t care how many modernistic Christians say that it was not part of the Christian tradition to think the world was flat. It was. And it was the center of the universe too. Not so much these days. But those both come more from Aristotle’s part in our tradition than from Scripture, and Aristotle was as clear a pagan as any pagan in the ancient east.
It is our Protestant tradition to be both in love with and wary of tradition.
Christopher Neiswonger
