Whitecaps pretending to be oak trees

Arguments about “tradition” v. Scripture typically assume that the advocate of tradition actually cares about tradition.  But that is usually not true.  He’s just worried about whatever he was raised to believe was tradition or whatever happened to be in vogue when we was “converted” or whatever.  Nothing makes the defenders of “tradition” angrier than when people have the temerity to actually investigate the real historical traditions that lie behind a “moral community.”

That sort of historical interest is almost always a threat to a “moral community.”  Usually, “the tradition” being advocated is less than a generation old.

9 thoughts on “Whitecaps pretending to be oak trees

  1. Christopher Witmer

    Yeah, and it’s frustrating to have to read from people arguing along such lines — and they never really give a clear definition of what the tradition is, by the way — it’s all very nebulous — that the FV is not Reformed because the starting point was not to view the Bible through the lens of the Reformed tradition [whatever that might be], but rather started [it is alleged] with their own interpretations of the Bible.

    Praise God for people who can respond to that whole red herring with:

    “Our faith involves new wine bursting old wineskins, losing our identity in order to save our identity, considering some traditions rubbish for the sake of what is truly lasting. This isn’t anti-traditional, but a notion of tradition that nonetheless remains open to the new things that God may be doing, recognizing that the dynamic of death and resurrection preserves everything good and true from the past as it is taken up into a renewed present.”

    Reply
  2. Ken Christian

    I thing the whole “tradition” debate has really derailed the discussion on Regno. I hope they return to the specific topics at hand quickly.

    Reply
  3. mark Post author

    I’m fine with people commenting on what they’ve seen on other websites, but for the record I haven’t been to this debate at “Regno.”

    Reply
  4. Christopher Witmer

    How ’bout dat, I assumed the same thing as Ken did, obviously, since I quoted from Regno. I’m very sorry for making your post appear to be directed at that.

    Reply
  5. mark Post author

    No one needs to apologize. I was told about it but following that sort of thing on the web is something I don’t do any more.

    I really could have blogged this for the last couple of years. And I’ve run into a the term “moral community” going back to a thread I won’t link because I’ll just get mad again.

    I just wanted you to know you couldn’t site particulars and assume I had any idea what you are talking about.

    Reply
  6. Darryl Hart

    If FV claims to be Reformed, then is it not also claiming to be part of a tradition? If FV weren’t, then there wouldn’t be a controversy. Look, it’s fine if folks aren’t Reformed. I even have on non-Reformed friend. But simply dismissing questions about standing in relationship to a tradition is not going to help FV make the case that it’s Reformed.

    Reply
  7. mark Post author

    Yes. Did my blog lead you to believe I was denying being part of a tradition? Don’t understand how. Pretty sure I was claiming to belong to the real one.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *