T,
I like the idea you have here that it is not so much Tradition as precedent to be followed but rather tradition in community. It is the communion of saints, past, present, and future. And this has to be spread broadly. It is not a narrow thread to follow, but a broad stream of thought, sometimes right on target and sometimes wandering off on tangents.
I have learned to focus broadly on tradition, which was a revelation as it helped me get a handle on the issues that are core and those that are more peripheral and debatable (on which many different positions have been taken).

The famous line from GK Chesterton is: “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”
Luther; CS Lewis; Jim Elliott; Hymn writers from the ancients, through Fanny Crosby and Lina Sandell and Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz, up to Keith Green, Larry Norman and Rich Mullins; DL Moody; Dr. King; my maternal grandparents and my wife’s paternal grandparents… these are a few of the voices that still inform me.

Some great thoughts on tradition here!
For me, Richard Foster’s ‘Streams of Living Water,’ along with living life with people from other Christian faith traditions than my own, helped to shape my appreciation for denominational tradition and its significance within the Body of Christ.

The dark side of the myth of “progress” is the arrogant belief that current theological formulations and practices are the *best*. I remember reading about pastoral concerns and ministry of the Early Church Fathers. I was pleasantly shocked. I immediately put them in the same category of, let’s say, Eugene H Peterson. Tradition, the community of the saints, keeps us tethered to the truth that humanity through the ages wrestles with the same issues and seeks the same God and Lord and offers counsel and theology from the common (inspired) source. Don’t misunderstand me. I am not opposed to creativity and innovations in theology and practice, but I am opposed to the sense of superiority that stinks up the newness.

I probably should have mentioned directly that I think of Tradition as a host of wise counselors, some of whom I’ve had for so long, it’s hard to tell their voice from my own sometimes. But as RJS mentioned, Tradition isn’t for me, to use a legal analogy, ‘controlling precedent’, rather it is persuasive precedent. But even that comes off too cold for the reality set up by God. We are part of the same family by blood and by Spirit. “Whoever does the will of my Father is my mother, my brother and my sister.” I think Jesus’ teaching that God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, because all are alive to Him is also important here. Tradition isn’t made up of people who are merely in the past of God’s Story and ours. Their participation in our past and our future makes their continued relevance to the present nearly unavoidable.

This is a great post and a good topic. I first heard about the quadrilateral from one of the books that was reviewed on this web site, and the whole idea of drawing from tradition/community, experience and reason in addition to scripture has been illuminating for me and has helped me negotiate through numerous changes over the past 10 years. I am still re-interpreting scripture based on my experience ? hopefully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and I frequently go to the larger tradition to check my changing theology against the church fathers and the saints. Drawing from tradition/community has opened up a whole theological world for me after growing up in a low church holiness tradition and spending 25 years in ministry with non-denom charismatics.
I wanted to add to Rick?s list, Lonnie Frisbee (who helped start Calvary Chapel, Vineyard and spent some time in my own discipleship movement) and Henri Nouwen, whose daily meditations are part of my daily spiritual nutrition. Both men struggled with their own inner wounds ? but were used of God.
I agree with Scot about the importance of community is shaping world view and values. That is currently a bit of a struggle for me ? I participate in several different communities ? including some that are emphatically not Christian. I wonder if that makes me a bit theologically schizophrenic?

I am leery of “tradition” being equated to “community”. Vincent’s Canon “always, everywhere and by all” gives precedence to the earlier voices over the later. And it seems to give precedence to the apostolic voices and scripture first and to the understanding and interpretation of the church second. Christ is the head of the church, the apostles the foundation and thus scripture as the inspired record of the apostolic teaching is foundational.
Tom Oden and D.H. Williams have been helpful in reconnecting evangelicals to the early church, and Oden finds evangelical beliefs like sola gratia in the early fathers (see “The Justification Reader”). I think that illustrates that the Reformers were not opposed to tradition, but rather felt that the medieval church had in fact departed from both tradition and scripture in key areas. The reformers quoted Augustine and Athanasius alongside Paul and John, thought they agreed with Augustine that the fathers were fallible whereas scripture was not.
The point being “always” includes what was believed from the beginning, meaning contemporary trends in theology that contradict the earlier consensus are looked at with suspicion. “Everywhere” of course means we should not be provincial and “by all” means we should not be isolationist. But I fear contemporary theology in both the scientific and the postmodern eras values the new cultural trends, the local community, the latest research to a degree that quashes the work of the Spirit in both the inspiration of the biblical text and the shaping of the essential doctrines of the faith in the first five centuries.

Jaroslav Pelikan has helped me to think well about “tradition” and the way that it relates to living faithful lives. He makes a distinction between “tradition” and “traditionalism.” He writes that tradition is the living faith of the dead (community of all the saints) and traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.
In living out the faith, Pelikan points out that tradition has been a guide to hold in tension continuity and change. The truth of Christian living is that we navigate between continuity with the faith handed down to us and the change called for by new experiences and realities.

Dan,
I’m with you almost the whole way on this one. (Take note.) I, too, like Oden’s stuff.
My own way of framing this as a Protestant is to read the Bible “with” Tradition, in full respect, rather than “through” Tradition.
That first five centuries (through Ephesus?), though, has some limits for me, and I”m wondering what you think? One reasonably clear thing on which folks agreed was the real presence. What do you do with that? And the “one, holy, apostolic and catholic” Church — I agree but know that what I think that is clearly is not what the councils meant by it.

it seems to me that different streams of christianity need certain parts of the quadrilateral more…and in inverse proportion to their deficiency.
i.e. evangelicalism needs to appropriate a robust appreciation of Tradition as a corrective to it’s deficient catholicity and the weakness of its particularized ecclesiology.
Just a thought…
Also, I really appreciate these posts. In grad school our work in theological ethics was guided by a professor who used the quadrilateral as entry points into various ethical discussions/issues.
very helpful.
captcha: the aptness

“T”
Could you give me a break down of the difference between the quadrilateral and the anglican “three legged stool”?

Dan,
Thanks. But I think you’re making the point I’m making, unless I’m missing you. Who we identify as “our people” (consciously or not) shapes us and our thinking about God and everything else. You are right that many today, as John Frye (4) points out, assume that newer equals better. The very fact that the enlightenment has the name it has (along with the so-called ‘dark ages’) reflects this tendency to favor the new. And newer in our western American context can often mean humanistic, naturalistic, materialistic, gnostic, anti-emotional, or a host of other things that are often among the “proud and lofty” ideas that are opposed to Christ and his work in one way or another. All the more reason, in my mind, to talk about what ‘traditions/communities’ we belong to by birth, by culture, by profession, etc. and consider how these communities shape us and our thinking, and how others, perhaps much older ones, or ones from across an ocean, or a thousand years, or a set of railroad tracks, would form us differently, and maybe in a better way.
For instance, I’m a lawyer. Being a member of the legal community is a huge blessing in so many ways. Law school alone changes the way one thinks, mostly for the better. But my ongoing participation in that community and the many traditions of action and thought of that community exposes me to a host of ideas that aren’t especially helpful to my real life in Christ. Just as, in a larger way, our “citizenship” in the world generally and the US specifically is both a blessing, but also something we must hold at arm’s length in some ways. We must embrace, at some level, an alien-ness with regard to these communities and their traditions of thought, action and purpose. But neither can we live in isolation. We must have a “people” who embody and live out a different set of traditions of thought and action and purpose. I believe that “people” is the Church Universal, and I make myself at home with them via Tradition and local participation.

The Presbyterian Church, USA, has three books. First and foremost is Scripture. Then there is the Book of Confessions, which contains eleven confessions (we are in the process of considering whether the Belhar Confession should be included.) Finally, the Book of Order, which lays out the theology for what the church is and how we will function. The last two are considered our constitution but the three books rank in order of authority as presented.
Presbyterians are not expected to adhere or subscribe to each point the confessions make. Rather they are seen as important statements made within the Reformed tradition at particular instances that should be our conversation partners as we discern. And this is also not to say that their aren’t other valuable traditions that should be listened to as well, just that these are confessions that have had special meaning for us. We can critique whether Presbyterians actually operate this way but I like the framing.
“It is not, to me, so much a matter of ‘Tradition’ as it is community with all the saints.”
I think this is true for me as well. The church triumphant will include believers from all ages. Confessions are one way have access to the saints who have preceded us. And as we wrestle with issue of our day I think we also have to cognizant of how we handle what has been given us to following generations.
One of the things that drew me to PCUSA was the role of confessions and tradition in the life of the church. Tradition does not hold the level of authority Scripture holds or the authority it holds in the Roman Catholic church but it is an important conversation partner I see absent from much of Evangelicalism.

T #12
“Law school alone changes the way one thinks, mostly for the better.”
Your honor, I want to offer a rebuttal.

Tradition is a hard one for me. I was raised in non-denominational churches where “Tradition” = Catholicism and that was a bad thing. Now that I’m older and am wanting to dig into theology and figure out solid ways to think about the Bible and Christianity, I’m a bit envious of those who have hundreds of years of church tradition to go to. On one hand I’d love to have a “tradition” so that I can just read so-and-so and not have to think so hard. That, I think, is the bad side of tradition. On the other hand, when I read that some guy who lived over a thousand years ago had the same head-scratching thoughts I do and struggled with the same Bible passages I do, it kinda makes me feel OK about my doubts and issues.
I think John W Frye is right about the chronological snobbery. There’s the old phrase “standing on the shoulders of giants” in regard to the progress of knowledge, but most of the time it feels more like “staring up at the knees of giants”.
Here’s a Tradition question I’m thinking about lately, maybe you all can help. It seems like there is both a broadening and a narrowing aspect to Tradition. It broadens our view of Christendom to see the vast history of Christian thought and action. It seems to reinforce the core of Christianity and humble the rest to a place of charitable disagreement and dialog. I guess this would be the ecumenical aspect of Tradition? But then Tradition can also narrow down our particular theology into a comprehensible system of thought, i.e. Calvinism or Wesleyanism, etc. so that one can go deeper in community with a subset of Christian thought. I guess I might call this the doctrinal sifting aspect of Tradition. Is this distinction between ecumenism and doctrinal sifting within Tradition useful do you think? Does it help us find a balance in dealing with Tradition as a part of the quadrilateral?

Gary,
Nope! But I’m sure someone else here could, and I hope they do! I will say, as you likely already know, that Wesley was an Anglican minister, so therefore, his thinking is grounded there. But Wesley was also very practical and believed that how our theology was lived out in Experience to be critical to it’s real value and accuracy. So, in a nutshell, “Experience” was important to Wesley in a way that was probably more earthy and energized than other Anglican’s of his time or even today. His additional attention to experience gave much of the energy for the innovations in practice that he developed in early “Method-ism.” Experience gave fuel, with Reason, to look again at Traditional practices and theologies and consider ways to be more faithful to Christ and his mission.
Again, someone with more familiarity is welcome to correct and/or add depth here.

I’m trying to make “my people” include believers who are as different from me as possible. I suspect that I don’t need more reinforcement for my own opinions so much as challenges to them. Critical thinking and growth don’t come as rapidly from singing in unison.
Tozer, Watchman Nee, CS Lewis, Bonhoeffer, and Barth are some of my current favorites from the modern era, but I want to spend more time much farther back. Filtered works through and ideas for new authors from all of you here and from others at a few other sites on OT, NT, and Christianity from different corners of the fold — including those against whom I harbor deeper prejudices.

Scot #9. I think Vincent’s canon addresses those concerns to some degree. It suggests that the early church (after the apostles) can indeed be wrong. It suggests the fathers were not infallible, that some in antiquity could in fact be in error.
Also, Oden sees tradition as the “history of exegesis”, meaning scripture is always over and above. I don’t think this discounts the role of interpretation, but puts interpretation in the realm of what you would probably call “critical realism”. The text has objective value, interpretation is an ongoing attempt to understand the text.
As for specifics you raised, “real presence” was held, but not in the way it has been understood since Radbertus in the 9th century articulated transubstantiation. Augustine’s words “believe, and you have eaten” suggest a distinction between the symbol and the thing signified, one picked up by the Reformation confessions, such as the Anglican Articles which held that equating the elements with the actual blood and body of Christ “overthoweth the nature of a sacrament”.
As for “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church”, my own belief is that apostolic succession and unity in the early church were more an evidence of orthodoxy than a means to it. Tertullian spoke of the right of the people to set aside heretical bishops and elect new ones and asked rhetorically “do we prove the faith by the man or do we prove the man by the faith?”.
I tend to think if evangelicals would be more familiar with the history of the early church, while it would lead to a higher view of the sacramental it would not lead to Rome or Istanbul, but would move us back toward the earlier Reformation views of Luther, Calvin and Cranmer.

Michael (14), Ha! I figured someone would call me on that . . .
I will say that law school certainly didn’t help me be a better husband! (“But you didn’t say ___________, you said _____ . . .”) I thank God that I was also a member of other communities besides my law school community that valued marriages more than winning arguments!
And Scot and JHM each raised really great topics. Scot both hears (and disagrees with) some very, very old Tradition, implying that older doesn’t necessarily mean better either, just as newer does not, at least in Scot’s view.
JHM mentioned the twin abilities of Tradition to both help us see the big picture and become more ecumenical as well as to dig into the depths on specific areas where there is less consensus. In my view, Tradition is inevitably with us in both of these endeavors, and can be helpful to both. My concern is with folks who do the latter alone or within one branch of Tradition alone. For instance, I was among those who were told–repeatedly–that Catholics believed that people earned acceptance with God. Whatever some individual Catholics may hold, I now think such a statement is ignorant of and/or unfair towards actual Catholic teaching, having now seen some of it first hand. Similarly, I was raised in a cessationist ‘tradition.’ Those arguments are somewhat suspicious sounding even within ranks, but they’re downright weak once steps outside of that particular tradition even a little.
Part of our Tradition that moves me to value the ‘ecumenical’ work of Tradition over the more “narrow” work is the violence that has taken place between camps believers over disputable matters. Everything from the Inquisition, to Calvin’s dealings with some of his opponents, to Luther’s hostilities, to how the Anabaptists were treated, and on and on. What’s more, if we view Tradition (or Scripture or Reason) as chiefly a place to find the right answers, rather than chiefly a way join with God and his people, then I think we miss the greater opportunity and are in danger of becoming users and abusers of other Christians rather than family.

Dan,
You say this: “I tend to think if evangelicals would be more familiar with the history of the early church, while it would lead to a higher view of the sacramental it would not lead to Rome or Istanbul, but would move us back toward the earlier Reformation views of Luther, Calvin and Cranmer.”
I tend to agree that taking in more Tradition won’t, in most cases, cause folks to uproot and plant themselves in our oldest branches of the Faith. But do you think the fear of that happening is what drives some of the aversion in lower church circles toward (broad and old) Church history and tradition? Do we have a bit of a fear-ignorance feedback loop at work?

@ Dan #18:
I tend to think if evangelicals would be more familiar with the history of the early church, while it would lead to a higher view of the sacramental it would not lead to Rome or Istanbul…
Let’s pray for such a leading…and for mostly toward Cranmer…for all it’s current challenges of polity, the Anglican paradigm of Cranmer and Hooker represent what could really be the best of Rome/Istanbul and the Reformation together.
IMHO, that’s the only kind of “reformed” theology that makes sense since it balances that reformational character of its theology without unmooring itself from history and catholicity.

T #20. Yes, aversion to the Early Church does stem from aversion to a particular understanding of “tradition”. Jesus roundly condemned the “traditions of men”, meaning those additions to belief that are not built firmly on revealed truth, but built on mere human speculations.
I think of tradition along Oden’s lines, the passing down of the apostolic faith, the history of exegesis, where we are seeking faithfulness to the original apostolic teaching, a consensus of what was there from the beginning.
I looked long and hard at both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and in the end concluded that there is much in those “traditions” that in my mind “goes beyond what is written”. I was pleasantly surprised to find a very high view of scripture in Augustine, Cyril and Athanasius and a lot of emphasis on grace and faith apart from works in Chrysostom.

Scott #9 and others. Regarding early church traditions – We often assume that the 1st century church was the beginning of our faith tradition. How would the apostle Paul view his faith tradition in his era? Did he operate out of this quadrilateral? What about gentile church fathers?
It seems to me they very quickly abandoned a lot of Jewish tradition and by default based many aspects of their faith on Greek tradition. Real Presence is probably one of those things. Others, the unconditional immortality of the soul, the symbolical interpretations of OT stories, prophecy as telling the future, etc. We are not obligated to follow tradition, but we are obligated to listen.
I think early church fathers made many errors because they on some issues for lack of their own earlier church fathers to listen to. They may have seen Jewish tradition as hostile to faith in Christ.

Dan #22-
Totally agree. Well said.

correction:
I think early church fathers made many errors on some issues for lack of their own earlier church fathers to listen to.

Hello T,
Speaking of Tradition, have you done any reading from an Eastern Orthodox perspective? Fascinating stuff and I would add a very important voice in our formulation of theology. I have recently read an outstanding book called Light From the Christian East: An introduction to Eastern Orthodoxy. Very informative and inspiring read.
Drew

Dan,
You mentioned a “particular understanding of ‘tradition’.” If you are referring there to a collection of “officially recognized” traditions and interpretations that function more like legally binding precendents than as part of our common history of interpretation and embodiment, then, yes; the fact that I’ve not become Catholic or Orthodox shows my unwillingness to view Tradition as something I am duty bound to swallow, lock, stock & barrel.
I do hope, though, that more churches of my own stripe can enjoy more of the “pleasant surprise” you experienced, specifically that several key figures at the heart of the Catholic and Orthodox branches of faith (both yesterday and today), not to mention countless in the rank and file, are indeed quite strong Christians from whom we can draw a great deal of strength, encouragement and wisdom. On this point, Christ’s disdain for the traditions of the Jews is an important caveat. But his prayer that his own followers would be one (people) needs at least as much attention and concern as that caveat. The protestant ‘tradition’ of grace is great. The protestant ‘tradition’ (of men) of disunity, not so much. Getting outside of our little tradition helps us see the weaknesses and strengths of our ‘traditions’ as well as others’.

Drew,
I confess, I’m largely, though not entirely ignorant of Eastern Orthodoxy. The bits that I have encountered, though, are very encouraging. That branch seems to have escaped much of the over-rationalization of the Faith that has shaped so much of the Western traditions. A few folks who interact here regularly (Dana Ames is one, I believe) are part of the Orthodox camp. I hope they give us their two cents (or 25, or whatever they’re up for).

I like a lot of this conversation, and must say I am deeply ambivalent in multiple dimensions on this subject. I don?t consider this cynicism, by the way. I am simply sharing my experience. I love tradition, and I love to hate tradition.
In one dimension, tradition grounds but it is also used to stagnate. Great care needs to be taken.
On another dimension tradition is typically taught as orthodoxy, not fodder for thought and thus it eliminates thought. Again, care is in order.
Another is that tradition is mainly taught, not discussed (or better yet debated), again, care for loss here.
Another is tradition as idolatry when in could just be good as comfort food.
Another is tradition as opiate for the masses instead of stimulant.
Humans tend to use tradition in ways that enhance power over people and I have frequently seen that. It is the sit down and shut up part of knowing one?s place.
I believe these are real dangers, not imagined. I think tradition is a wonderful thing to have available, studied and from which to learn. I have seen it used more frequently as a way to control, eliminate contradiction and subordinate people in some contexts and that makes me take pause.
So I absolutely love tradition from family, churches, communities, but I have also seen the dark side of that equation.

Another great post, T. And helpful, stimulating thread, as well.
I was glad to see an Evangelical Manifesto, written in 2008. It acknowledges the Great Tradition, its place in it, and attempts to be true to what it thinks is the spirit and intent of historical Evangelicalism for the present day. With the emphasis on the gospel which is the hallmark of Evangelicalism (and I think the document says the same).
I think there is a tendency among many these days from the Evangelical heritage (as Michael Kruse suggests) to lack rootedness, which a healthy, and I believe biblically based respect for Tradition would help to remedy. I think a commitment to one tradition within the Great Tradition, should acknowledge the heritage and debt it owes to its forebears across the centuries.
It seems like there is a tendency in this day when denominational labels are often shunned, to simply throw Tradition out the window. And not recognize its importance.
Grateful for so much of what is being said here.

Sorry about the italics. My mistake.

Understanding that the idea of this thing we call tradition is broad in its sweep, which it should be, the question to be considered is whether Albert Mohler, his name in light of the number of discussions and generally due to the apparent disagreement with his views, is considered part of tradition? If he is too contemporary, go back to Scofield, Torrey and the Princeton School. If Mohler and the tradition he presumably seeks to rest upon are excluded in terms of community, is not the understanding of tradition, being presented here, likewise too broad and there are some subtle forms of sifting going on? If so, shouldn’t those be identified when trying to grasp what we mean by tradition?