The problem with a traditionless tradition

I'm a member of a Plymouth Brethren church. I've been a member all my life, and although I've moved on in many regards, both theologically and ecclesially, I still consider myself Brethren. My Brethrenism is kind of geographically compartmentalised. In two ways: When I originally moved to Scotland and my theological class mates were asking around to see which denomination we belonged to, no one believed me, with my long hair, beard and band T-shirts, that I was Brethren. There is a disconnect between the Faroese Brethren and the British. Not so much theologically: Faroese Brethren are still dispensationalist, premillenial, whatever. But ecclesially, how church is done, it's different. It's much less conservative and exclusive. This is probably due to sociological factors. An added pressure, as one of the very few alternatives to the Lutheran state church, to cater to a wide variety of people has forced it to diversify (something that it has been surprisingly well endowed to do - more on this later). So first there the fact that my particular Brethrenism is Faroese in character. Second there is the fact that I only attend a Brethren church when home in the Faroes. In Aberdeen, I attend a Church of Scotland church.

So, if any non-Faroese Brethren reads this and doesn't recognise his denomination in it, it is probably because we do things differently in the Faroe Islands.

What I want to address is a peculiar struggle I had for many years now as a youth leader and introducer of new ideas in the Brethren church. From the outset, the Brethren church was antiauthoritarian. It rejected the human hierarchy of the Anglican church and with it the written down tradition, holding to a strict Sola Scriptura principle: The old creeds was not recited or new ones developed, the theological "learning of men" was treated with suspicion and there were no official church documents pertaining to church order. The Brethren tradition is, essentially, traditionless.

Which means two things.

First, it's pretty easy to come up with new things. While most of the Brethren I know subscribe to some sort of doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, even they must admit that the Bible doesn't say much about how church services should be conducted. So when you suggest crazy things that could be done, no one can point to a verse and say, "Nono!" And because there's no official tradition of how things are done, any resistance to an idea is reducible to personal preference, which, despite strong emotions involved, is hard to make a case for in a rational debate. This extends, too, to doctrine, although not to the same degree as practical matters. If you can make a good case for your ideas, you'll be accepted to some degree. This is the diversification endowment I mentioned earlier.

On the other hand, the lack of a definite tradition means that it's very, very hard to argue against what you see as wrongs. The case for structural discrimination of women, for example, is very hard to make. The fact is that I don't remember the last time a woman preached in my church or any other Brethren church I've attended. It happens, but very, very rarely. Women are allowed to sing, teach Sunday school and fix coffee, but that's about it. But I can't say that. No one is stopping them. There's no official Brethren document forbidding female preaching. And, so the argument goes, if they want to preach, the pulpit is open for anyone that the Spirit leads. No one is stopping them. Because there's no tradition. But the fact remain, however elusive, that there is a deep discrimination going on, perpetrated by both men on the pulpit and women in the kitchen. But, again, there's no piece of paper with bullet points to present as evidence.

This makes it immensely difficult to convince people who don't see eye to eye with you. It often feels like you're fighting shadows. You can see the problem, but you can't pin point the cause and thus, you can't really solve it nor convince anyone who might be of a different opinion than your own that it needs solving. There's no root to uproot. Someone can always say, "That's not true! No one has ever said that!" And they will be right. In a way and partly. The things is that someone doesn't have to say it for it to be true.

The problem with a traditionless tradition is much deeper and elusive than, I imagine, the problems with other, more conventional, traditions. At least they can say "Document, page, paragraph, whatever" and fight what's there. We Brethren, we have to contend with the shadows.