Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 4
Alastair McGrath is quoted describing tradition as a “filter” that makes us ask, “Why have Christians not believed this before?” How should that question reshape the way we evaluate modern movements, “coffee table revivals,” or novel teachings—especially when the new idea seems to produce immediate zeal or certainty?
Another way to ask: How should the question “Why haven’t Christians believed this before?” change how we judge new movements, “coffee table revivals,” or new teachings? What if the new idea brings quick excitement or strong confidence?

Direct Answer That question should slow us down and force historical and theological accountability: if a teaching is truly Christian, why is it absent from the church’s long memory? Dean’s point is that zeal and certainty are not enough; novelty should raise suspicion and require proof of “credentials,” or it can lead to shipwreck.

Support from Transcript:

  • McGrath: tradition “allows us to identify suspect teachings immediately… ‘we have never believed this before.’”
  • The quote says this doesn’t automatically disprove a teaching, but it demands investigation: “Why have Christians not believed this before?”
  • Dean applies it to “coffee table revivals” where people think “it’s me… I’ve got it figured out somehow.”
  • He says the past acts as “both a resource and a safeguard,” checking “unorthodox doctrinal developments.”
  • He warns he’s “seen many people… get thrown into some new tangent and end up shipwrecked.”
Discussion Follow-ups What are examples of “new tangents” that gained traction mainly through energy or personality? How can a church test novelty without becoming cynical or closed to legitimate reform?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10
Back Questions Next