The history of Christianity is an intertwined history of traditions and reforms. There is always a spirit of upholding the tradition, and there is always a spirit not content with the tradition. Tradition is inevitable since no Christian lives in vacuum; tradition is beneficial since it is the testimony of God’s work in history. On the other hand, tradition is not Scripture, and no tradition has exhausted Scripture, therefore, Christians should always aspire to reform in accordance with Scripture. In history, we have witnessed the breakup of this subtle tension: tradition becomes traditionalism, and reform becomes liberalism. Often the theological ethos is like a pendulum swinging from one to the other.
Sola Scriptura is a simple term to speak and to explain theoretically. But in practice, it must be understood and applied within the delicate tension defined by the system of God’s Word. It is easy to criticize Catholics for confusing tradition with Scripture, for elevating tradition above Scripture (and these are valid criticisms). However, such criticism alone does not mean Protestants are immune to the errors involved. It is not what we say that counts, but what we do; not whether you can articulate beautifully, but whether you can work out faithfully.
Protestantism continued to face the complicated relation between tradition and reform. Not surprisingly, the reforming spirit got an upper hand in general, and new movements and schools sprung up in great variety. Each of them claims to be a genuine representation of Christianity, whatever definition that one may offer. Protestantism started with Lutheranism, Reformed, Anglicanism, Anabaptists, and then new streams came out these major lakes. The fragmentation of Protestantism is evidence of this reforming spirit. As often is the case, it has vitality but also chaos. Truth is not bound, but errors are not restrained either.
As soon as Protestant Reformation survived, unique Protestant traditions emerged in catechism, confessions, church orders, and other theological writings. As often is the case, giant trees cast long shadows. Although early Reformers did not see their reforms as final, nor their theological articulations as flawless, although orthodox theologians urged the principle of Semper Reformanda, Protestantism entrenched into various camps and the settlement almost immediately became permanent, if not sacred. At the same time, against the burgeoning liberalism of every age, it would seem natural to stand behind a strong tradition, just as the early church did. This strategy worked to some extent, as this bulwark of tradition provided ready and effective weapons to battle heresies, and it was a stabilizing factor in the church and in society. But it was not without faults. Protestants now have their own traditionalism, in Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, etc. This traditionalism corrodes Sola Scriptura and Semper Reformanda.
First, some practices are deemed inviolable for no other reasons than that they have been so for a long time. I am not saying that we must change such practices, but they cannot be kept for the sake of tradition alone. Above all, they should not be kept if we have found that they are not compatible with Scripture. Luther, Calvin, and English Reformers had considered some practices as temporary arrangements before opportunities of further reforms were possible. It is ironic to see that some of their followers were not willing to make changes to those practices at all (such as four communions a year, wearing gowns).
Second, standard theological articulations in each camp are deemed above reproach and beyond improvement. Each camp has built a tight-knit theological framework to highlight and justify its distinctions. Although in words, no orthodox Christians would reject Sola Scriptura, but in practice, some theological statements have in effect become as perfect as Scripture. What is perfect? Above reproach and beyond improvement. You will consider someone as infallible until you find him not infallible; you will consider some statements as infallible until you find them not infallible. It is not about whether you say they are infallible, but whether you think there is room to be improved. Some are so suspicious of liberalism that any deviation from or addition to a traditional articulation is considered dangerous if not heretic. Novelty is so identified with heresy that tradition is glorified as truth.
Third, traditionalism breeds pride and self-contentment. It shuts up honest conversations between different theological camps and easily dismisses those not in his own camp. One thinks that what he has is so perfect that there is nothing to learn from others. I am not saying all theological statements are equal, nor all denominations are equal. But it is a plain fact that no one or denomination has monopoly of truth. You as an individual or as a group always have something to be improved, and often it is something significant.
Fourth, traditionalism would not guarantee orthodoxy or church unity. It is often argued that confessions and creeds protect orthodoxy as they clearly define the boundaries of truth and errors. Most of the orthodoxy churches today are confessional. But that is only a survival bias. It is true that the churches remaining orthodoxy have confessions, but it is also true that many churches went for heresies also once had confessions (ask Machen). Actually, they all had confessions at the beginning. If someone determines to deviate from the Scripture, no creeds or confessions could stop him. If God’s Word does not stop him, man’s words surely could not. Subscribing to a standard confession does not mean there is unity either. For one, Christians may differ on things that are not defined in the confession; for the other, Christian may differ on the interpretation and application of the confession. The continuing breakup of orthodoxy denominations is no less staggering.
Holding to a confession is not inherently wrong. Confessions can be beneficial if we understand them correctly and use them wisely. We should bear in mind their profits as well as limitations. Above all, we should see the dynamic tension between tradition and reform under Sola Scriptura. It is complicated, and it cannot be resolved by simply retreating to a tradition, even a great tradition. Every Christian and every generation of Christians must understand and deal with this tension in light of the Scripture.
