In recent years the word “tradition” has fallen on hard times in evangelical circles. Like most trends, this development has been gradual rather than sudden. In the 1980s and 90s the number of churches transitioning from one service to two mushroomed. Eventually church leaders fo und that one way they could ease the apparent tension between age groups was to not only offer two services, but have two different types of services, with one being “contemporary” and another “traditional.” While these services would often be dubbed as worship services, the primary elements described by this new terminology were solely musical in nature. Typically the younger members preferred the contemporary services, and the older members the traditional. Ironically, one doesn’t have to be a pastor very long before someone finds this out and inquires, “What type of worship do you have at your church?”
While the above-mentioned trend is certainly not the sole culprit in this distortion of terms, it certainly has contributed to much ecclesial chaos. As a result of this bifurcation between contemporary and traditional, people came to associate these terms with ideas that historically are rather convoluted. Since the music of the contemporary services tended to be more upbeat, mainstream, and popular in its appeal, this left the traditional services in the amorphous category known as “everything else which is non- popular.”
In recent years tradition has come to be associated with things much more troublesome than simply a style preferred by older folks. Popular emergent authors of various stripes such as Brian Maclaren and Chris Seay have reacted in their books against their ecclesial traditions, dismissing them as legalistic, jaded, and too concerned with ideas unessential to being a Christ-follower. As a result, “tradition” has come to be linked with legalism, age, and other pejorative terms. However, there is a more obvious reason why many evangelical authors and pastors have come to marginalize the role of tradition in the church and in cultural life. This is the modern pursuit of cultural relevance.
The threshold question that one must ask is whether the verdict against tradition is fair. Is the problem here that too many churches are clinging to traditions instead of shedding them in favor of newer, culturally relevant practices? While emphasis on tradition can become stale, harmful, and even idolatrous, the overall witness of the New Testament and church history is that tradition is immensely important in sustaining a legacy of faithfulness.
Toward a Definition of Tradition
Tradition arises from a simple Latinate term that means a “handing over”, or the “imparting of something”. More recently it has come to be known generally among English-speakers as the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, and other practices from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice. We might also say more tersely that it is a continued pattern of cultural beliefs or practices.
If we simply stop here, then it really raises the question as to what is so bad about tradition? Is passing along things such a bad thing?
Jesus on Tradition
On a cursory glance it might seem that Jesus would be the best option to find an authority for the need to cast aside traditions. Multiple times in the Gospels do we find the Lord himself rebuking religious teachers for their unhealthy regard for their own traditions instead of his teachings. The familiar Mark 7 passage may come to mind as we remember Christ declaring, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition.” This is directly following his quotation from Isaiah who spoke of the distant hearts of men despite their lip service to God.
However, upon second glance at these sorts of passages, we find that Jesus’ concern was not repudiating tradition. Rather, his issue with the Pharisees was that they had elevating their traditions to the same level as that of Torah itself. These religious leaders had implemented practices over the centuries that they felt would best enable them to keep the law, though the practices themselves were not prescribed (e.g. the washing of hands in Mark 7). Yet in their misguided zeal for keeping the law, their confidence was not in Yahweh but in their capacity for adhering to their own traditions. They felt their righteousness was evident based on their additions to the law.
Paul on Tradition
Paul’s view of tradition was a bit more expansive than Jesus. I mean this in the sense that Paul was offering a counter-proposal to the Judaizers’ view of tradition. In the same manner as his savior Jesus, the Apostle Paul wanted to borrow the same concept of tradition and help his disciples see the truths and practices he was passing along to them as a tradition to be perpetuated. Typically when Paul uses tradition negatively is when he is referring to Pharisaical practices that didn’t really produce godliness and were additions to the law that the Pharisees had elevated to the level of Scripture itself (Gal. 1:13-15).
Several times Paul uses tradition in a very positive sense, such as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:14-16, 3:6, when he speaks of doctrines attached to those practices that he commanded them to perpetuate. Though thorough exegesis needs to be done to know exactly what Paul meant in these contexts, this is still inspired Scripture with the weight of apostolic authority behind it. Paul recognized that there were certain forms, styles, and silly, irreverent ways that needed to be avoided. These sorts of forms would negate the message (1 Tim. 4:6-7). He warned the Colossians about matters that had problematic cultural associations. In Titus, Paul warns his fellow elders to teach what accords with sound doctrine (2:1). In other words, Paul recognized that some practices and forms better conveyed theological content than others. Certain practices were more consistent with orthodoxy and the Christian worldview.
In conclusion, the focus of the “cultural relevance” discussion is not initially cultural in nature. Nor is it even missiological for that matter. Instead, the main focus must begin with a theological understanding that is not a minimalist approach that simply wants to avoid outright heresy. Instead, faithful church leaders must develop their theology in such a full-orbed way that they are able to discern which forms (with their inseparable philosophical underpinnings) best embody the doctrine to be taught.
However, the connection between tradition and doctrine is even broader. A careful perusal of the Pastoral Epistles shows that Paul sees a connection between the perpetuation of traditions being handed down concerning doctrine to the overall well-being of a culture. The letter to Titus is a good example of this, particularly in 1:10-2:15. It seems that there is a direct correlation between cultural decay, teaching that accords with sound doctrine (and not sound doctrine alone), and a robust intergenerational health. According to the testimony of Scripture, in other words, perhaps if tradition were defined in more “traditional” categories then it would actually contribute to the well-being of a culture, and particularly a local church.
Part 2 of this article is published under the page “Salvaging Relevance.”
