But seriously, I think discussions like this one are beneficial because they can often teach us to appreciate another person’s perspective… especially when you find out in the end that you really do agree with each other.

I think we’re on the same page. I think I still want to associate “authority” with church tradition for technical reasons (all influences are in some sense or another authoritative), but I think I can still do this and subsume church tradition under the authority of scripture, and even under the authority of individual or corporate reason. This kind of thing happens all the time. Whenever we support a belief we might hold with an historical argument from the history of the church, we are in effect appealing to the authority of tradition. At the same time, because our perception of the Spirit’s guiding presense in church history is fallible, I don’t think that we are bound to follow church tradition wherever it doesn’t conflict with scripture. But this need not reduce church tradition to a mere cultural influence, because, unlike other cultural influences, church tradition is the history of the Spirit’s saving activity in the Church.

Thanks for the helpful clarifications. I take you to be saying that while tradition is part of culture and has an influence on us it has a special status as an influence because of the work of the Spirit in the church. I am in complete argeement, but where I still don’t see a connection is between the Spirit’s work in the church as an influence and the Spirit’s work in the church as an authority. How in your estimation does this authority function? Is it an influence alone or is there a normative standard to this authority whereby I must submit my thought and behavior. I realize you do not think that church tradition is always an authority beneath the authority of Scripture, but do you also think that anywhere tradition does not conflict with Scripture that it must be obeyed? It would seem that this is how tradition would have to function if it is to be more than a cultural influence. If not, then I find using the term “authority” as a reference to tradition’s cultural influence to be rather idiosyncratic.

First, I think that our church traditions are a form of cultural influence for the simple reason that religion is a part of culture. They all form components of our context. As I also said, however, the nature of my church tradition demonstrates that it is ultimately supreme over other, less “Spirited” (a phrase from Vanhoozer) cultural components. Here’s a quote from Vanhoozer that might help: “Tradition, inasmuch as it is a work of the Spirit preserving and prolonging the word, is indee authoritative. Yet its authority is derivative — ministerial, not magisterial. While tradition may be inevitable, it is also corrigible; we cannot presume that there is always a coincidence between the work of the Spirit and what a particular church does” (208). Also: “Church tradition enjoys the authority that attaches to the testimony of many witnesses. In this light, we may view the church fathers and church councils as expert witnesses as to the sense of Scripture in the courtroom drama of doctrine. Neither the Fathers nor the councils sit on the bench; the triune God has the final say. The task of theology is to cross-examine the witnesses in order to offer procimate judgments under the aultimate authority of the presiding judge; the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures” (234).

Secondly, and conversely, I want to maintain that church tradition is a form of cultural influence precisely because we are called to be salt and light within our greater cultural context. My guess is that as long as we are on this planet, we are unavoidably embedded within a culture. Identifying church tradition as a type of cultural influence (albeit, a “Spirited” influence) then gives us a framework for engaging our greater cultural context with the particular “gospel culture” that we identify ourselves with.

The reason I want to draw such a strong parallel between “tradition” and “context” is because I think there is an organic relationship between the concepts. As I said earlier, there is much overlap between the terms, and to the extent that there is overlap, what can be said about one can potentially be said about the other. It may be necessary to highlight the distinctions as you do, but I have to wonder why. I’m not suggesting that they’re synonymous. Moreover, the reason I draw the parallel in the first place is because it helps us rethink the way we conceive of our traditions. After all, isn’t being “unavoidably embedded within a context” just another way of saying that our contexts exercise a type of authority over us? If this is the case, then I have no problem taking the next step and saying that the tradition I am a part of exercises an authority over me. The reason this is important is because it explains how we can sometimes blindly follow our traditions when we’re not careful. Left on our own, we will surely follow the path of least resistance. It is imperative that we be aware of our traditions so that we can critique them and revolt from their authority when led to do so by a greater authority.

Also, I don’t think that this explanation logically entails me to put church tradition on par with other cultural influences. Other influences may exercise a similar authority, but they do this because they are other components of the context in which I live. The nature of the authority itself defines the significance of the particular influence. In this case, I would argue that the nature of my church tradition is such that it becomes more important than other cultural influences.

Let me know if this helps. I, for one, have appreciated the opportunity to formulate these thoughts, if no other benefit comes from this comment…

-Nate

Thanks for your comments. We are glad that you are writing intelligently on these issues as well.

Your word on Scripture “testing” traditions is also helpful. I think this is an aspect of Scripture’s authority and one other point which shows its ultimacy and place of the foundation of the Christian worldview. Thanks for the comment.

-John M

I’ll make one last point. Grenz and Franke claim that we need to listen to the spirit at work in tradition to help us interpret Scripture, but there’s a tacit assumption lurking nearby that tradition does not require interpeting itself. Or at least they do not discuss the method of interpreting tradition. They speak as though tradition is clear and Scripture is vague, thus we need tradition to help us interpet Scripture. I agree that tradition can help here, but we must also acknowledge the fact that tradition can sometimes be as difficult to interpret as Scripture. I recently read F.F. Bruce’s Canon of Scripture and was amazed at how many scholars differ in their in interpretations of the church fathers and the Reformers. Thanks for this helpful discussion.
-John Fraiser

Great discussion… I still find myself wondering, however, how one can somehow escape the mediating authority of tradition by appealing to the ultimate authority of scripture to correct our traditions. Simply rejecting a prior tradition because it doesn’t line up with our understanding of scripture doesn’t free us from the inevitability that we find ourselves in another tradition in its place. Indeed, the very act itself of interpreting scripture that would lead one to reject his tradition is embedded within another, possibly even entirely new, tradition. I guess what I might be trying to say is that I think there is much overlap between “tradition” and “context.” And insofar as we are unavoidably embedded within a context (or tradition), it will inevitably exercise an authority over us (another way of saying that it will influence us) that will preclude complete objectivity, thus preventing us from being able to appeal directly to the authority of scripture without any reference to our tradition. Obviously I don’t think this means that we can know nothing at all with certainty. But as Paul says in 1 Cor. 13:12, we see in a mirror dimly… clearly enough to know that the Christian tradition is the best one, but dimly enough to demand that we be constantly about the business of revising our Christian traditions as the corporate knowledge of the Church develops throughout history.

Also, you may have meant this, but I just wanted to clarify… Luther may not have found continuity with _mainstream_ tradition as it was represented in the early 16th century, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t find continuity with _any_ tradition. It seems as though what Luther actually found was a theological tradition of wrongly-condemned heresy which he ended up redeeming by adopting it as his own personal tradition and propelling it into the growing tradition of the Reformation.

I’m not sure where this takes our discussion… it seems to have wandered a bit off the topic of the sufficiency of scripture to reveal God, although perhaps it does demonstrate both how the sufficiency and the authority of scripture are closely linked, and how doctrines such as these need to be refined by ongoing dialogue with hermeneutical theory.

-Nate

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

Excellent post. I think strawman misrepresentations are used continually by more liberal theologians to bolster their own views. I’m very concerned about our British friend, Steven Harris, who left the charismatic movement. It seems to me that he’s jumped out of the anti-intellectual frying pan and into the fire of post modernist theology. May God grant him the grace to see this.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with tradition as long as we recognize that traditions are to be tested by Holy Scripture. If the tradition happens to be one that is “adiaphora” then we may permit it but if the tradition happens to be “repugnant” by the standard of Holy Scripture, then it is to be rejected. The problem with post modernists is that they wish to make post modernism the source of authority and post modernism is so relativistic and subjective that trying to figure anything at all out is like trying to pin jello to the wall.

I can’t help but thank God that Southern Baptist Seminary is turning out guys like yourself. Your writing is insightful and helpful to those of us looking for intellectual comrades in the battle against misrepresentation of Evangelicalism and the battle for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I was frustrated in both my college and my seminary experience because I could see that Pentecostal and Wesleyan Arminianism was not consistent with the holistic reading of Scripture. God surely has a sense of humor. Converting me to the Calvinist view while I was a student at a staunchly Arminian and Wesleyan seminary? Hah.

God bless,

Charlie

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

Thank you for your gracious comments. It helps us to know what you find positive as well as negative in our posts. Your questions are the right questions and exactly the kind we want to receive on these posts.

Emily hassled me about the length of this post as well. But I'll have you know that it is a whopping 1,100 words shorter than the inerrancy post. Still, as she pointed out, just being short-er does not necessarily make it short.

I like your point that there are not just ultimate authorities but many fallible authorities in life as well. And I think perhaps John and I have pressed the matter of ultimate authority so much that we've not touched on fallible authorities. In the kind of authorities you mention (sense experience, government) we can question them but that doesn't change their authority. Take sense experience for example. If I dip a stick in water and it appears to bend, I can only question this experience on the basis of other experiences which in turn upholds the authority of sense experience. Similarly, we can question the governing authority of the state but we are still expected to follow it whether I think they are wrong or not (barring of course the issue of when the state expects us to disobey God). But I don't see tradition functioning like this. If I think tradition is wrong on the basis of Scripture I can reject it, but in doing so this doesn't mean I'm just following another tradition. I see tradition functioning very well as a guide, but I can't see any place where it can claim a right over me. Perhaps the closest we come to tradition holding authority is when we hold a doctrine or an interpretation of the text that no one in church history has ever held. This should produce in us extreme caution and cause us to ponder deeply why no one else has ever believed this.

I think Luther and Calvin are an appropriate model here. Sometimes I've gotten the impression from people teaching on Luther that he simply said damn tradition it all comes from the infernal Catholic church, I'm standing on the Scriptures! In reality though, when Luther was accused of reading the Bible in a way no one ever had before, he was deeply troubled by this questioned. Was it possible that he alone was right and all others wrong? This forced Luther to look again at the history of the church. He found much support, and interestingly enough, some of it came from the Orthodox church, but he found enough who were condemned throughout the ages of the Catholic church that he realized he was not the first to believe in justification by faith (though he acknowledged that it was the clearest in his own thought). But in this case he found continuity not with the tradition but with the heretics (Huss, Wycliffe, Orthodox church, etc), which was enough to resolve the plaguing question of whether he was the first to hold his view but not enough to function as an authority. Luther felt he only needed to answer the question of whether he was the first to see his interpretation and not whether he was in line with the tradition. Luther's conclusion was that a single uneducated layman with the Scriptures was to be believed above a thousand popes. Calvin's response to Sadoleto is similar. When Sadoleto accuses him of being out of line with the tradition Calvin responds by showing him all the places that he corresponds with the tradition but states that he only needs to agree with the Scriptures and not with the tradition.

Perhaps extreme caution in the face of a new interpretation or doctrine is what you mean when you speak of tradition functioning as an authority of some sort. If so, then I concur. If not, perhaps you can explain further how tradition would function as an authority under the authority of Scripture.

-John Fraiser