Which tradition?

Many conservative Protestant interpreters, though uncomfortable to find themselves slumbering with Enlightenment and postmodernist bedfellows, will fail to discern or acknowledge the necessity of studying the fathers. The deep-seated Protestant suspicion of tradition and its confidence in the ability of renewed reason alone to understand Scripture will lead many to shy away from investing time and energy in exploring patristic thought, believing it better to focus on the world of the Bible itself. The intervening centuries, some will assert, have largely been characterized by distortion and error, especially in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox worlds. To return to the fathers as a source of interpretation appears to necessitate a return to Rome or Constantinople. For some, radical reformers such as Menno Simons seem much closer to the truth in their call for a return to the pristine world of the early first-century Christian community.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 31

<idle musing>
While that is true, beware of going to the opposite extreme and unthinkingly embracing the traditions of the fathers. And, while we're at it, beware of unthinkingly embracing the faith tradition you are a part of, too, whether it be Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, anabaptist, Brethren, Wesleyan, what have you. They all are now traditions! For that matter, the Enlightenment is a tradition, too. Think about that for a minute.
</idle musing>