 Well let's move on. What would you have to say about, okay, the Middle Ages we could look at as pretty much a time when tradition was highly honored and the past gave a lot of direction to what they were doing at that time. But then the Reformation comes along. If you want to say something about the Middle Ages, fine, but then it seems to me that maybe where the, it'd be interesting to hear from you is where the disruption hits, which is the Reformation. And usually things get pretty messy. You have the apostolic church, kind of the Biblical work we've done with tradition, strong affirmation of it. I think also in the early church, very significant rule that in a lot of ways are inheritance from that tradition is the New Testament. And obviously there's the Old Testament too, that's really instrumental here. But our inheritance from the early church of their tradition is the writings that we have, which is the New Testament. What begins to happen, and I'm painting with broad strokes here, but it seems like maybe in the Middle Ages tradition itself begins to really swell up and take on, it has its own needs, right? And it starts to get pretty large. So tradition, which up till now I've heard you talk about very positively, it does have a danger. Yes. Okay, go ahead. And here's where I think we begin to see some of the dangers of what happens when tradition just starts to take on its own proportions. Just to be specific, a few examples, there's the interpretation of Scripture, which is really tightly bound to tradition in Roman Catholicism, it becomes so tangled and complex that it's kind of reserved for the elite. They have their own language, it's the Magisterium, right? And they're the final authority because Scripture scene is too complex. There's maybe Mariology, the esteem of Mary as maybe the mother of God you'd say, but it seems to take on some really big proportions in Roman piety. There's the seeming like kind of magical qualities of the mass and relics, there's indulgences. These are things that tradition in and of itself kind of starts to swell up, it seems, and takes up space that maybe it wasn't supposed to. So I think you can understand, one way to understand the Reformation is as a response to all of these excesses that have developed in tradition. And when the Reformation comes, I mean the instrument of correction here, instead of the regulation being the tradition, Scripture is now what begins to regulate tradition. So there's something of a reversal that happens here. Just to give some examples, I mean there's the Magisterial Protestants, these would be the Protestants who have a good many things in common with the Roman Catholic Church at this time, and they wanted to see the state and the church continue to work together. The Magisterial Protestants, they're talking about Sula Scriptura, Scripture alone. They could see, I guess you'd say, they'd see Scripture taking a slightly more modest, regulative role. They still see a lot, they have a high esteem for tradition still. So Lutheran, some of the Reformed circles, some of them, some of their heirs as well. They're seeing Scripture being really important, but it's more modest. They still give a lot of space for tradition. And what happens, they're talking about the authority of Scripture, they're whacking off some of what, say they see the excesses of tradition are, but still a lot of room for tradition. And then they make texts available, and say for Luther, when the New Testament becomes, when Scripture becomes available to the people of Europe in languages they can understand, he's actually kind of shocked at what they do with that. He thought if he makes Scripture available, things would maybe just sort of correct themselves, and instead there's the peasant rebellion, and he can't get on board with that. Although the peasants were quoting him. They're quoting him, and they're quoting Scripture. And they're throwing off the shackles of tradition, and they're trying to find their voice, and Luther is confused, he doesn't know what to do, but eventually he sides with tradition, and he has the uprising crushed, or he gives permission for that. So you see, there's a adjustment there, but with the Magisterial Protestants in general, Scripture performs a more modest kind of regulative rule, and tradition is still functionally there. The Anabaptists, they come down more decidedly on the authority of Christ, and on the authority of Scripture. They're seeing in Scripture the sources, and the sources I think that they had of the early church, but also with the resources that they had around them in their culture. There's, you know, Benedictine culture, there's some sources of, say, German spirituality that they're looking at, and they're drawing from all of these resources, and they're kind of working with them, and they see this blueprint, maybe especially in the New Testament, for kinds of communities, and they see a social form that the Gospel is taking, and they begin to live this out in some really, a really exciting way. Through the Holy Spirit, I guess you could say these communities that they're forming, they see themselves as part of God's new creation in the world, they're part of God's people, and here these lively communities are, and they're part of God's new creation, and they have their own goals, I mean they have their own methods, their own ways of doing things that sets them apart from the Magisterials, and they have their own distinctive ways of being in the world. You see here something of a rejection, I think, of at least the medieval Roman Catholic tradition, and there's also some distinction here from the Magisterial Protestants, because of their willingness the Magisterials to use coercive force to align with the state. There's something interesting happening here. Real quick, there's two things I want to ask you about on this. You made a seeming distinction between authority of Christ and authority of Scripture, as you were just talking a bit ago. Did you mean it that way, or did I just hear more than that? You were talking about the Anabaptist, and is there a distinction in your mind? Don't have to go into much detail, and then I have another question about the Anabaptist tradition. It's an important question. I wouldn't make a distinction there. The truth of Scripture is how truthfully it testifies to Christ, and it does so. Consistently, and throughout the entirety of Scripture, I think you'd say, it's pointing to Christ, and it does that uniformly. It does that consistently, and it does that truthfully. You don't want to collapse the tool, and say the New Testament and Jesus are the same thing, but it's always witnessing truthfully to Christ. Witnessing to Christ, yeah, very good. Now you mentioned that these Anabaptists came up with new social forms. I'm going to ask you a question about something that has always intrigued me a lot about the Anabaptists, and indeed the early Christians. The Anabaptists were very insistent that the earth is the Lord's in the fullness thereof, and that became a key economic concept for them. Do you have anything to say on that? There's kind of a shot out of the blue, so if not, that's fine, but I've always been impressed by the Old Testament, what it says about economics, and how the Anabaptists approach economics very differently. They were so different from the average medieval person that they were accused of being communists, which was not true, unless they were Hutterites. If you have something on that, fine, if not, because this would be a way that they were actually plugging into the tradition, but they were also countering that more recent medieval tradition. I think you really made a good point there, that something happened in the Middle Ages. It didn't destroy everything as far as tradition, but it took the train off the track, and it needed to get back on. But anyway, so if you had anything on the economic section, that's okay if not go on. Do you hear this? The earth is the Lord's. It's picked up really frequently by the Anabaptists, and especially see it in court records, which is where it would have been recorded, but they're using this other places as well. When the Anabaptists say that the earth is the Lord's, some of the responses they tend to have to that are, like you say, there's a real economic effect it has on them. It seems like they're motivated. They're seeing how resourceful God is, and they're celebrating how freely God gives himself to the world, and their response to that is just a one of overflow. Well, if this is who God is, then the things that I have, the resources that I have aren't really my own, and I can give my resources without being really all that self-conscious, because that's what the Father does. He takes care of us, and He's the resourceful one. For me, that also helps me to understand how free they are with their lives. If the earth is the Lord's and they're His new creation, what the Father does with them, that's up to Him, and they become really free with themselves. And I mean by that, very self-giving, and very open to being humiliated even in ways that it's hard to read sometimes. Very good. Let's move it forward. What do you have to say about what is passed on, or this greater thing that we have, tradition, whatever you want to call it? What about in the more contemporary world? So let's say anywhere in the last 200 years, what would you like to say about how the Church has looked at and worked with tradition? Well, I think I'll just highlight two possible responses to tradition that seem, and both of these probably negative responses that the Church has tradition. There's a lot of positive response here too. Two negative possibilities, say in the last 200 years, might be this. The one is this heritage of modern scholarship that it tries to so thoroughly minimize tradition that not only does it just want to get back to say the New Testament, it wants to go further back yet. And there is a real suspicion of what we would just consider to be Orthodox Christian teaching. And they're so suspicious of that, so suspicious of the kind of power that it seems to them that early Christian leaders were exercising, they don't even trust that. So they need to get behind the New Testament before there's such a thing as this rule of faith and just kind of see what really happened back there. It's in that suspicion you see things like the Jesus seminar coming out and there's some resurgence and reiterations of that where the goal is to dismantle everything that's just in our way like tradition. And we're just going to see Jesus for who he actually was. It's really quite the claim to make. There's the divincy code and probably a pretty popularized attempt I think to do much the same things like ah there was this conspiracy and you're just kind of being hoodwinked by tradition, but we know the real truth and kind of smacks of Gnosticism in some ways in a new way. A few authors, there's C. E. Hill and what he calls the great gospel conspiracy. There's an author I'm not quite as familiar with, a Bauer historian. He tells us that what we see as orthodox Christian teaching is the real heresy. So orthodoxy is now the heresy and what we actually see in orthodox teaching is just a reflection of who managed to overpower who and that's what we have now. So I don't think he really tries to get beyond the New Testament. He stops there. He just wants to reveal the conspiracy that he sees there. So that's pretty extreme, but that's one possibility we can move toward. It's just to try to dismantle the whole thing and throw it out because tradition is just suspicious. It's just power mongering. A little bit more on the sanctified side of things. I would say that within the church there is a lot of suspicion of what tradition can actually do for us. The same a lot of suspicion about what we could actually learn from history. This is backing up further than say 200 years, but you could see some of this as an inheritance perhaps of a number of groups, but of one group in particular is pick on a little bit would maybe be the Puritans. They've got two problems to overcome. The first is that they really do not appreciate the excesses that they see in Reformation churches, much less the Roman Catholic church, and they're very critical and sensitive to that. So they just go back to kind of a lockstep interpretation of the New Testament, and whatever's not in there is excluded. Only things that are permissible in Scripture are those explicitly stated. It's a very strong way to try to lop off any excesses, which they say a lot of them, and return to what they see as New Testament Christianity. The other difficulty they have is this enormous disconnect, or really it's as though human and divine wills are actually fighting with each other, and that's something they get from Calvin you could say, and they're struggling with how it is that us fallen human beings with our corrupted wills, how strongly they're in bondage to sin and death, they don't know how we could do anything good. And so the only thing we have to go back to is Scripture, and they see that it's kind of a refuge to overcome this disconnect between, in their minds anyway, human and divine wills. So they go back to Scripture, they really don't have any other thing to say. There's a long heritage, I think, especially in the evangelical church of distrust for anything related to tradition, perhaps going back to some of those purists. Are the purists going to just give us a really clear example, I think, of what that looks like? It's a too negative example, if any way. You've talked, now I'm going to ask a question about, you mentioned it just a bit ago, but it was really prominent when you were talking about the early church, the rule of faith. To me that's a very important thing, and one of the things that developed out of it was the creed. And for me, do you have anything to say about creedal proclamations? I won't say what I would, I mean, for me they're very important, but do you have anything to say about the Nicene creed or the Apostles creed, both of which would have their roots in the rule of faith? It seems so important to try to appreciate what the church is trying to accomplish with things like the creed, especially Nicia. For myself, I've come to understand the challenges that the early church was facing, sometimes it seems like the unlikelihood that it was going to survive. Very turbulent times, opposition without, opposition within, and Christ is there in the middle saying, I will build my church, and he's dead serious about that. What I see in the creeds is the church's response to some of these challenges, but the point of it again isn't just to make formulas. It's not to pin God down, it's actually to maintain the space where we can actually celebrate and enjoy God life as some of God's creatures and respond in their kind of repentance and faith that we need. So there is some boundary setting there, sure, and there is some kind of condensing of what we've learned about God through Christ and through His interaction with us, but they're not intended to be a substitute for the rest of things. You have to be careful how you approach them, I think, but when we approach the creeds in the way that I think they were intended, in the function they were intended to have, we should be able to appreciate them for what they are. And you can go off and there's, I'm sure there's an Icya in the 300s, so how far do we want to go? I'm going to stop short of, say, scholasticism or something. I think we pretty much exhausted it by then, but yeah, an appreciation of the creeds feel appropriate. Did you have anything else you want to say about our larger heritage that we've been given? I think one of the points I just need to make is that everybody has a tradition. The people who are trying to dig underneath tradition and get beyond the text or behind the text of the New Testament, that's a tradition. It's one that's self-obsessed, it's one that is ultimately self-defeating, like Chesterton says, just busy undermining its own minds. Where do you stop? The Christian traditions who claim to reject tradition, well that too is a tradition. And this is somewhat critical, but I think what I would say to either kind to any tradition that's trying to reject tradition is what usually tends to happen is that there's just a lot of discussions that are cleared off the table and that's all that's actually happening. There still are all of the assumptions and liabilities and strengths of tradition that are present there. We just can't talk about them anymore. They're kind of submerged or hidden. So my response to anybody, you know, claiming that you're living without tradition, where you are, everybody has a tradition, the most destructive traditions that are there claim not to be traditions. Our job is many times to excavate a little bit behind and say, well, there's actually continuity here. This is a tradition to hear the strengths, hear the liabilities, and especially as Christians to come to our own tradition, not being self-absorbed in it, not elevating it too highly. But then we can actually talk about it and recognize it for what it is and bring it to the word and have him evaluate and judge and work with us where we're at. But it's a much stronger place to be, I think, than to claim that there's no tradition. Well, I will agree with you on that. So thank you, Kyle, for this discussion and thank you for tuning in.