We're in the midst of the Christmas season and heading down the stretch to Christmas day. The time is steeped in tradition. "Tradition" ... there's a word with good and bad connotations. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, has long held that there are three authorities in matters of faith and practice. They go with "Scripture," "Tradition," and "the Magisterium." (Magisterium refers to the authority of the Pope and the bishops responsible for determining Scripture and Tradition.) Precisely because they include "Tradition," Protestants ... protest "tradition." I understand, but ... I think it's a mistake.
First ... the biblical reason. (Always a good place to start.) While Jesus and Paul both warned against human traditions (Mark 7:8-13; Col 2:8), Paul wrote, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15). In fact, he dared to say, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess 3:6). Clearly, then, tradition is not in and of itself evil; it depends on the origin ... the source. There is, then, good and even authoritative traditions ... the ones based on God's Word. And in that sense, we still recognize Scripture as the sole authority, but we also recognize biblical traditions as authoritative, being grounded in Scripture.
Lots of people will try to sound thoughtful and wise by warning us about our "traditions," and not without cause. Human traditions can be dangerous. But traditions based on Scripture honor God and strengthen faith. We may enjoy "Christmas trees" at Christmas as a positive tradition, but it's purely human and without biblical content. Maybe they do have a value (if it's not forgotten, like it is today), but forgetting the roots tends to remove their value. On the other hand, to adhere to the traditional atonement story of Christ's blood sacrifice that pays for our sins isn't the same. It's based on Scripture. It goes from the Old to the New Testament (e.g., Isa 53:6; Col 2:13-15; Rom 5:8; Mark 10:45; Hebrews 9:26; 2 Cor 5:15; John 1:29 (cp Lev 1:4); Rom 3:21-26). It was foreseen in Abraham's offering of Isaac, demonstrated in God's ordained sacrificial laws and fulfilled in the sacrifice of His Son. It is a tradition ... a tradition handed down from Scripture. Not a matter of opinion or mere "tradition," but a biblical perspective that believers must either ignore or recognize. For all traditions, then, we need to ... consider the source. Honor those traditions that come from Scripture and handle carefully the rest.
I like how you point toward when we forget the why of a tradition. It is so very important. I didn't grow up in a highly liturgical faith, so I never celebrated Ash Wednesday. Never knew what it was. Last year, my in-laws attended an Ash Wednesday service for the first time. So I asked, what did it all mean. They couldn't tell me. There were things done and words said, but no explanation during the ceremony as to what any of it meant. You were either to simply know, or obey the tradition. My church, on the other hand, serves Communion every week. And yet, every week, the pastor stands up and gives warnings about misusing Communion and explains what the cup and wafer represent. Too often, tradition becomes like Ash Wednesday, and is given the same level of importance to being a Christian as Communion, without ever explaining why.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I was very surprised that you were not familiar with “Ash Wednesday,” as you say. If you don’t mind a personal query, had you not learned of it from your step-grandfather John (“a devout Catholic,” Stan described him in the obituary he wrote)? I will say that while growing up Catholic, “going for ashes” (and then being encouraged to leave our dirty foreheads visible all day) was a strange tradition and not one explained to us kids at all, as I recall (just as your in-laws experienced), which certainly does make for an empty and meaningless ritual. In contrast, I was glad to learn of your church’s practice regarding Communion, which is a Bible-based practice, of course, and one warranting participation with full understanding.
DeleteWhy would you be surprised? If you grew up Catholic and they never told you, why would you be surprised that David never heard it either. However, David had very little interaction with his step-grandfather, and his step-grandfather never discussed his religious beliefs with anyone.
DeleteDavid said he “never knew what it was.” I knew what it was; we did it every year. I didn’t know the meaning behind it, I said. Anyone who knows Catholics might see them with dirty foreheads at work, etc., once a year. I’ve even seen TV newscasters go on-camera that way. It’s a common practice to start Lent (not just for Catholics, as it happens). From the obituary you had written for John, you seemed to know about his “unwavering faith in God” quite well, so I just assumed David did, too.
DeleteIn any event, sorry to misstep. It was intended as friendly dialog with David. My mistake.
I knew he was Catholic, but I don't even know if he went to Mass. He was a see-you-for-the-holidays relative for the most part. He entered my life in my early teens and want very influential in my life. I mourned his death for my stepmother's sake, not because I had any relationship with him.
DeleteIt is possible I may have heard the term Ash Wednesday, but it was always a Catholic thing if I heard it at all. No church I have ever attended made any recognition of the day. Or if they did, my dutiful father kept me away from such cultic practices.
David, I understand now. I did think (perhaps wrongly) that “Ash Wednesday” was fairly well-known and thus my surprise you hadn’t heard of it. (It’s easy to miss, since it occurs just one day a year.) In any case, I am certainly glad you were able to see it as a mostly insignificant ritual--“a Catholic thing” indeed, as you say.
DeleteI appreciate this reminder of the importance of differentiating between Scriptural mandates and the traditions of men “in matters of faith and practice.” As I see it, Christian liberty allows for the observance of many of the traditions of men (Rom. 14:5-6)--as long as they are not promoted as Scriptural mandates (and therefore cross into legalism). (This separation in my mind has become of such importance that, personally, I am inclined to mark those distinctions fairly severely.)
ReplyDeleteI do have a few points of minor digression in your post:
The first is where you wrote, “Lots of people will try to sound thoughtful and wise by warning us about our ‘traditions,’ and not without cause. Human traditions can be dangerous.” [emphasis added] In my opinion, that might have been better stated as, “Lots of people will thoughtfully and wisely warn us about our ‘traditions’ … “, since you did assert that the warnings they offer are valid (with which I concur). (Your wording sounded contradictory and a tad bit pejorative.)
My second point is where you wrote this: “The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, has long held that there are three authorities in matters of faith and practice. They go with ‘Scripture,’ ‘Tradition,’ and ‘the Magisterium.’ (Magisterium refers to the authority of the Pope and the bishops responsible for determining Scripture and Tradition.) Precisely because they include ‘Tradition,’ Protestants ... protest ‘tradition.’ I understand, but ... I think it's a mistake.” Actually, I believe that Protestants protest Roman Catholic tradition (not all church tradition). This is because the RCC promotes unbiblical and extra-biblical dogma within their tradition and places it on equal standing with Scripture (we discount “the Magisterium” completely, of course). The elevated RC traditions are manmade and therefore properly to be rejected as binding upon believers for faith and practice; this was at the core of the Protestant Reformation, of course, and should be guarded very carefully by those seeking a biblical faith.
My final point builds upon that one: In 2 Thess. 2:15 and 3:6, which you quote, “traditions” there is referring to Scriptural instruction, rather than manmade customs, as I understand it. Therefore, we hold those traditions with esteem, since they are from the apostles and not some later church “magisterium” or similar source.
Back in the 1970s, my father took me to NYC to see the Broadway musical, Fiddler on the Roof, “The story centers on Tevye, a milkman in the village of Anatevka, who attempts to maintain his Jewish traditions as outside influences encroach upon his family's lives.” The wonderful score contains a number called “Tradition,” in which Tevye explains the roles of each social class within their traditional Jewish village. At one point in that scene, Tevye says, “We always keep our heads covered and always wear a little prayer shawl. This shows our constant devotion to God. You may ask, how did this tradition start? I'll tell you--I don't know. But it's a tradition. Because of our traditions, everyone knows who he is and what God expects him to do. Without these rules, our lives would be as shaky as...as...as a fiddler on the roof!” [cue the orchestra :)]
ReplyDeleteHaving been raised a RC (and essentially unfamiliar with the Old Testament’s content at that point) I was baffled by the notion that donning a hat and a shawl signified anything to God and that this man couldn’t even explain the tradition he held so religiously. Later, I learned more about the very similar religious traditions I had been taught to follow … and was subsequently led to renounce. Traditions have their value, but putting too much stock in them--i.e. equating them to doctrine--is dangerous.
I'm sorry, Lorna, if you heard me coming across as anything but friendly and informative. I intended no such thing and was not aware of any "misstep" on your part. I was simply explaining that David's grandfather wasn't communicative on the topic and David had very little interaction with the man. Nothing more.
ReplyDeleteWell, one misstep on my part seems to be posing that “personal query” to David. In mentioning his grandfather John, I was merely thinking of Catholics to whom David had presumably been close and from whom he (again, presumably) learned about Catholicism. (I try not to presume too many things, but that seemed reasonable to me.) I would have understood completely if David had clarified his relationship in the exact way that you did. I regret raising (perhaps) a sore subject.
DeleteIn any case, the apology is appreciated … and accepted.
It seems pretty simple. Traditions instituted by YHWH are intended to point towards larger Truths and back to Himself. Human traditions can be good or bad, some can start out good and end up bad.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem we get into is when we turn our traditions into idols and move them into the place of YHWH.
It's interesting to me, Craig. I know Roman Catholics have no problem accepting tradition as authoritative ... more than it should be ... and I think Protestants often respond with an overactive rejectoin of tradition because of the Roman Catholic error.
DeleteI know my above comment was a bit long, but hopefully you saw where I addressed this point. The “Sacred Traditions” that the RCC promotes on par with Scripture do indeed warrant rejection by Protestants. It is my understanding that the Protestant Reformers examined the formerly held “traditions” carefully and made determinations regarding which to reject and which to hold. I would hope that during the 500 years following that “sorting out of the creed” (so to speak), things have settled down fairly clearly within the various Protestant denominations regarding biblical faith and practice and that an overreactive rejection of good traditions is not occurring.
DeleteThat is a common refrain. Catholics believed "X", so Protestants completely rejected it. And that tradition continues today.
DeleteAt the risk of belaboring my point above, I will offer this elaboration, which is pertinent to this discussion.
DeleteThe “Sacred Traditions” of the RCC--which are held to be as authoritative as Scriptural doctrine--include:
--The Seven Sacraments
--The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
--Papacy Authority and Apostolic Succession
--Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and Bodily Assumption into Heaven
--Purgatory
--Prayers to the Dead
--Infant Baptism
Again, I stress that if most Protestants reject these traditions, it is for very good reason--not simply because they are Catholic traditions but because they are unbiblical and extra-biblical dogma. Semper reformanda!
Of that list, the Reformers certainly rejected them all except for Luther in Transubstantiation, and everyone up to the Anabaptists on infant baptism. The persecution of the Anabaptists is the primary reason infant baptism is less prevalent in the American church, but it certainly is seeing a return.
DeleteIt’s all an interesting and worthwhile study, for sure. I’m just so grateful I live on this side of the Reformation and can freely practice a biblical faith that doesn’t involve any of those traditions.
DeleteStan, I agree with your point. I do think that many/most protestants reflexively push back against RCC traditions without much thought. However that might be more about protestant ignorance of their theological history than anything.
DeleteFrom Lorna's list, I would have theological problems with all of them to some degree or another. Not just because they are RCC.
Yes, Craig, I agree about her list ... about pushing back about RCC traditions, but what I've seen is a pushback against tradition in general because the RCC holds "tradition" as authority. While Paul urges the Thessalonian Christians to follow the traditions he gave them, a lot of Protestants deny the value of traditions at all.
ReplyDeleteStan, I am very curious what forms of “tradition” you have in mind that Protestants have rejected (other than the obvious unbiblical ones the RCC elevate to doctrine). Could you offer some specific examples of practices or doctrines that you feel have been wrongly neglected or shunned due to this “pushback”? I am very interested in your examples because differentiating between biblical doctrine and extraneous, manmade “traditions” is a big part of forming a biblical faith, in my view, and something I feel called to do rigorously--not as a “kneejerk” overreaction but with thoughtful intent as a true believer. Yet I would not wish to do this so meticulously as to be in error.
DeleteIt's largely the use of the word. You, for instance, referenced that you "can freely practice a biblical faith that doesn’t involve any of those traditions." Creeds are a tradition that many find distasteful. You've probably heard, "No creed but Christ." The Disciples of Christ reject Communion and Baptism because they consider them "traditions." Some discard sola scriptura because it's a "tradition." And, of course, at this time of year there are those who despise the "traditions of Christmas" not for their content, but just because they're traditions.
DeleteThanks; that was helpful (I really had no idea of what you had in mind). I do see that it is semantics to a large degree, and I also suspected it was related to how particular Protestant denominations were formed (i.e. their distinctive practices and beliefs--indeed, their traditions). To me, creeds should be a super-condensed systematic theology, so I can’t say I am a full-blown “No creed but Christ” adherent. However, I am inclined to consider any issues that stand apart from clear biblical instruction as matters of Christian liberty (Rom. 14:5-6), which is where I feel your final example (the “traditions of Christmas”) falls.
DeleteP.S. Just to make clear: Where I said “any of those traditions,” I was referring specifically to the list of RCC dogma.