http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-is-holy-tradition.html

http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/01/ideologies-opposed-to-holy-tradition.html

Grafting is also important – in the terms of this discussion, grafting symbolize the importance of ecumenical diaologue (and even, dare I suggest, intercultural and even interfaith dialogue). Sectarianism lurks behind the staunchest defenders of orthodoxy – a way beyond sectarianism is to taste the fruits of others and to offer them a bite of our own.

Bad – when errected as an idol (from “the organ is the only appropriate instrument for church” to “only men are qualified by their nature to be ministers” to “T.U.L.I.P. is the most sublime expression of theological doctrine – to deviate from it is sheer sign of apostasy”). In other words, when traditional is errected as the ceiling or bookend of theological discussion, it is clearly bad.

Good – when tradition is viewed dynamically, like an unfolding story. Tradition is the roots (the plural is intentional) from which new fruits are grown. We are nourished by the roots and the fruits, and we plant new traditions with the seeds of the fruit. The job of the church and the theologian is to tend the orchard.

I suspect that what Carson has in mind in his defense of tradition is orthodoxy. To be blunt, “The Don” is a bit of a heretic-hunter. Anything that deviates from historical, biblical (whatever those terms mean) Christianity is heresy. Talk about a static notion of tradition!

I think a more nuanced view of tradition in the church – in terms of church practices (worship, sacraments, etc) and in terms of theological orthodoxy is required. Paul Ricoeur gets a this in his conception of tradition as a dialectic of innovation and sedimentation. Tradition is a living, breathing thing – to hold onto it too tightly is to errect it as an idol (and, as we all know, idols are non-living things – and, as Carson should know, we become what we worship). On the other hand, change for the sake of change is also dangerous because it completely ignores the foundation from which one is working (all humans are “traditioned” – there is no such thing as an un-traditioned person).

These are merely “thinking out loud” pieces as I try to think logically through the issues, and also am exploring the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity.

Also, Luther stood against the “traditions of men,” not what he considered Apostolic (what the Orthodox view as Tradition). Any real look at tradition should also consider the Eastern view, not just the RCC.

The real question, it seems, is not “do we accept tradition?” but “which tradition do we accept?”

I did a more extensive look at tradition on my blog a month or so ago.