Previously I demonstrated that both biblical and early church writers used the word tradition in negative and positive ways. In spite of these observations there are many evangelicals who react quite negatively to the word tradition. It just sounds anti-biblical to their minds. Such people think almost entirely, so it seems, that the word represents mere "human traditions," i.e., dead and useless doctrines, or practices, advanced in opposition to Scripture. Others suggest that even if tradition does not necessarily stand against Scripture it just sounds "old," like an emphasis lacking in freshness and life. If anything is "robbed of the Spirit" it is tradition. So, they ask, "Why would you seek to advance tradition?"

It is best to answer this question by going back to the earliest sources of Christian practice and reflection upon the witness of the apostles. This tradition is much more interesting, and much more unified, than most realize. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) said, "The tradition of the apostles was one." And Irenaeus (AD 130-200) wrote that the martyr Polycarp (AD 69-156) would speak of his "familiar relations with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord. . . . Whatever things he heard from them (i.e., the apostles) respecting the Lord (concerning both his miracles and his teaching) he would recount-all in harmony with the Scriptures." Irenaeus further observed, late in the second century, that "the church in Ephesus was founded by Paul. Furthermore, John remained among them permanently until the times of Trajan. That church is a true witness to the tradition of the apostles." The church, in other words, is a witness to the apostles.

Irenaeus spoke of tradition as though it was one with the apostles' teaching. It was, he wrote, "handed down to us." Clement of Alexandria can even write that, "dogmas taught by strange sects will be brought forward. And against these dogmas will be opposed all those things that should be premised in accordance with the profoundest contemplation of the knowledge that will advance to our view, as we proceed to the renowned and venerable canon of tradition." The question I asked for so many years, and ask with deeper conviction now, is this: "What is 'the venerable canon of tradition' and how do we gain wisdom from this canon (rule) for the life of the church?"

The tradition comes from the Latin traditio, which literally means to "hand over." It particularly refers to that part of teaching which is handed over orally. More formally tradition is a whole set of beliefs and customs handed over orally from one generation to another and another. This seems to be the way the early Christian writers used the word.

Evangelical Protestants have a checkered history when it comes to dealing with this concept of tradition. While early Reformers maintained it, and even argued that they were properly preserving it, their heirs have almost entirely seen this as a negative impulse. The facts, in this instance, are quite plain, at least on one important level. Every Christian community has a tradition, even if it is one they made up as they went along. The most anti-tradition churches, like modern seeker churches for instance, have a tradition. Even the casual observer can see this and should admit it.

Whether your view of the written Canon of Scripture is that it alone has authority, or that tradition has something important to say alongside of Scripture (with Scripture having final authority for serious evangelicals), you must grant patristic oral tradition shaped and formed the canon itself. Furthermore, you must also admit, if you spend any time reading and studying the patristic authors (early church writers), that the life of the church community and the interpretations of these voices regarding the teaching of the apostles, led to the development of an outward form of Christian faith in real churches. These are simple historical givens that are often overlooked by modern evangelicalism.

Another incontrovertible fact about this early Christian tradition is the way in which it functioned, and how it influenced the formation of the Canon, is both complex and controversial. Polemicists, whether Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, have had a field day with this subject, trying to prove this point or that in order to establish who is related to the true church and how. Professor John Van Engen, in addressing the issue of canonicity in the early church, has sounded a proper note when he writes: "The essential criterion was that these writings contain authentic apostolic tradition" (emphasis his).

So what is apostolic tradition? It clearly means more than what constitutes the words of the New Testament alone since the words, and the ideas behind them, preceded the Canon. When you read these writers what you find in them is an appeal to an orthodox "rule of faith." This was probably a way of making reference to a short summary of the Christian faith like that as spoken of in early baptismal creeds. It later resulted in documents like The Apostle's Creed and related confessional statements, such as the fuller and more influential Nicean Creed. Again, it is an obvious fact, but is has often been missed-this "rule of faith" was spoken of for decades, if not for nearly a century, before it took any recognizable written form.

The early church faced a number of serious errors that threatened the nascent faith. None was more virulent and dangerous than Gnosticism. The way they faced this threat is most instructive. Between the first and fourth centuries a series of manuals was written, all appealing to the tradition of the apostles, to guide the church away from Gnostic errors. These manuals, which contained what was believed to be the apostles' wisdom on ethics and cultic practices, became what we know as the Didache. By the fourth and fifth centuries the church had a fixed canon and depended less and less on oral tradition. Most scholars agree that tradition was never scrapped but preserved alongside of, or subservient to, Scripture. (This is where the debate about final authority, and how the church understands it, has divided the church in the West since the Protestant Reformation.) There is one thing we can safely conclude, and this was the position the Reformers held on the matter, tradition was never seen as antithetical to Scripture!

I am persuaded that a healthy reflection upon the role and use of tradition leads to the type of observation made in the following statement:

Tradition was understood as the church's enriching and interpretative reflection on the original deposit of faith contained in Scripture. This pertained preeminently to Christological interpretation of the OT. But it included as well the writings of earlier "fathers," considered a product of the Spirit's guidance and used to buttress the true faith; the decisions of bishops met in council under the Spirit's aegis; and various rites that had been central to the practice of the faith. A few fathers (notably Basil) recognized that certain matters were not clearly, or even remotely prescribed in Scripture and ascribed these separately to apostolic tradition; e.g., to pray facing East, to baptize infants, to immerse three times, to fast on certain days, and the like. To count as authentic apostolic tradition, the father (Augustine and Vincent of Lerins in the West, e.g.) required that these be recognized and practiced throughout the whole church (John Van Engen, in The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter Elwell, editor).

The Eastern Orthodox developed this issue in a different way and this development, coupled with a number of other complex issues, eventually led to the parting of ways with the West. This subject is immense and well beyond my point in this article.

The Catholic Church eventually developed a strong role for unwritten tradition that went beyond the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture (e.g., Christ's absolute poverty, Mary's immaculate conception, etc.). The sources appealed to were generally extra-biblical thus appeal was made through the papacy, and the doctrine of the Magisterium, to an important authority that went well beyond the Bible. This was a major part of the revolt of the sixteenth century. The Council of Trent clarified Rome's view and made unwritten tradition into a kind of second, equally authoritative scripture. Vatican Council I completed this process by declaring the church's teaching office to be centered in an infallible papacy. (Again, this is a very simple overview and only touches upon a complex and contentious subject.) Cardinal Newman, in the nineteenth century, preferred to speak of a "living tradition," thus avoiding a two-source idea. Yves Congar, a more modern Catholic voice (and a fine theologian), referred to a single apostolic tradition handed down in the church through written Scripture and tradition forming a unity.

Luther rejected ecclesiastical traditions that distorted the gospel, in his view. He severed the authority of Scripture almost entirely from church tradition. Calvin appealed more directly to the Spirit's role in illuminating believers through the written Word. Catholics believe the same but always insist this process must finally come under the church's authority. The Reformers argued for a perspicuous Word, i.e., one that was clear enough to require no traditions to understand it. I fundamentally agree with this position, but I believe a healthy respect for, and interest in, living tradition keeps the church from private opinions and silly modern heresies and trends that wreak havoc in our own time.

It is worth noting that most Protestants, by the seventeenth century, had formed their own traditions, preparing confessions and standards that became as binding on people's consciences as those they rejected in the sixteenth century.

Today we have a world-wide proliferation of independent and free (non-state) churches, particularly in America. These churches all, in various ways, confess to stand on Scripture alone and to recognize no traditional authorities outside of the Bible. Van Engen has noted that they "are in some sense the least free because they are not even conscious of what traditions have molded their understanding of Scripture." It is precisely against this anti-tradition perspective that our mission statement says what it does:

Our Mission
ACT 3 is a ministry to advance the missional mandate of the Lord Jesus Christ in the third millennium, through the witness of Scripture and the wisdom of the Christian tradition.

What is happening in our time, under a fresh reforming spirit in our schools and churches, is a fresh realization that the Word of God never operates in a vacuum. This is not an isolated text that we come to on our own. Others have also come, in the past, and still others come in our time. Interpreting Scripture faithfully is not a private exercise but a community process. Arrogance and carnal independence must be checked by every good and reasonable means. The Reformers, and their thoughtful heirs, realize that the Scripture comes alive in the gathered church. We must have a real recovery of Word and Spirit and a proper role for tradition leads us to that recovery.

In Protestant tradition preaching has held the highest role in bringing the Word of God to the church. I believe, to provide one really important illustration, that both Scripture and tradition suggest a much higher place for the sacraments in the church. Our evangelical fears about sacramentalism have plainly kept us from a proper understanding and practice of these God-ordained means of grace.

Further, if preaching has held such a big role in our traditions then we need to ask, "How do the sermons we hear, and the things we have been taught by these sermons, relate to the larger and wider church tradition?" Even more particularly, "What has this great tradition to say to our worship (both public and private), spiritual formation (especially our practices of devotion) and mission (domestic and foreign) to the world?" These core concerns form the three commitments of our ministry and thus relate to both Scripture and tradition as we have united them. Here is how we have chosen to put it:

Our Core Commitments

1. To advance worship in culturally accessible forms, through orthodox theology that is deeply rooted in the classical doctrine of the triune God and through humble collaboration and cooperation within the whole Christian Church.
2. To advance spiritual formation that renews and reforms the church by a growing love for God, neighbor and one another in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, so that the world may believe the Father sent the Son to save it.
3. To advance the missions of Christ's kingdom by teaching believers and churches to engage both people and culture with the story of Jesus Christ.

You do not have to grant tradition equal authority with Scripture to see very quickly that the "wisdom of tradition" may well have a great deal to teach us that will enrich worship, spiritual formation and mission. A balanced emphasis might well lead to a new reformation and revival that does more than create another evangelical prairie fire that burns out in a matter of days.