PDA

View Full Version : A Pastor Talks About Tradition


ChiRho
13th April 2005, 08:22 AM
Traditions: Cling to Them or Drop Them?

by Pastor Charlie Mallie

Tradition. When it comes to church, most people roll their eyes at that word. For many people the word touches upon some deep disappointment or hurt. As a pastor who grew up as an unbeliever, the word means many different things to me, some of which I have actually grown to appreciate.

My experience with that word comes from growing up in Roman Catholicism—like I said, unbelief. Not that you can’t have a living, active faith in Jesus Christ while in Rome, I just didn’t . . . because of tradition. The tradition of my East Coast Cathedral-esque Roman Catholicism, complete with Monks, Bishops and ruler-wielding Nuns made sure if I had any concept of God at all it was that He was out to get me . . . and that resistance was futile. Mandatory Confession, mandatory Mass attendance, mandatory examination, it was after all, tradition.

If you grew up with an experience like mine, and having spoken to many of you, I know you have, then you can understand the impetus for the Evangelical/Community Fellowship movement.

So is tradition a good thing or a bad thing? Does it harm people or help them? I think there is potential for both. In the Scriptures, the word tradition is used by Saint Paul to refer to the Gospel message of Christ crucified for sins and risen on the third day. He says, “I give unto you, that which was first handed down to me.” The word he uses for “handed down” is the word that ends up being translated as tradition. That’s an important thing to take note of. Tradition is something that doesn’t originate with us, but was given to us.

In that sense, when it comes to the Gospel, taking what was given to Paul (i.e. the message of Salvation through Jesus’ Atonement) and preserving it would be of great importance. In this light, the Scriptures themselves are tradition. They are what was given to the church, by promise of Jesus, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of preserving the message of God’s love and sacrifice for His people for all time, through the written word. Whew!

Having said that, I would offer that all church tradition that is good, has this emphasis, preservation of the Gospel message, throughout. Furthermore, all bad tradition tends to obscure, redact, or even replace what was first handed down with something else.

I’m a pastor of a small Lutheran church. We use the “Old Hymnal,” TLH (The Lutheran Hymnal). Ask someone why, and I’m sure you’ll hear them say, “Its what we’ve always done.” Tradition. Now if you ask me, the reason why we use TLH is four fold. First, the hymns contained in TLH are theologically superior to just about anything out there and any good pastor knows a couple things about hymnody: Good theology is sung into you more so than taught, and, nine times out of ten, it is in the words of the hymnody they learned as a child that Christians die singing the promises of Christ, as they close their eyes for the last time and are carried into glory in the arms of Jesus. Second, it contains a liturgical service that as a format makes sure a few things that need to be said actually get said. Third, the liturgy contained in TLH is old. It’s old like the Scriptures are old. That means its been sung, spoken and chanted by millions of Christians for going on two thousand years. How’s that for consistency? If this doesn’t appeal to you, think of it as real-life quality control. And let me make one more important point about this. The liturgy is derived from the Scriptures. If you don’t recognize what you’re speaking and singing in the liturgy as passages from Scripture, then perhaps you should read your Bible more, or at least realize that by singing the liturgy you will have memorized whole sections of the Scriptures that have to do with the Sacrifice of Christ and your standing before a holy and just God. Fourth, the liturgy used in TLH preserves not only the message of the Scriptures in summary, but also its center. This, very simply, is why we use the liturgy. It guarantees that anyone coming in, whether it be first time visitor or longtime member, will hear the word of God’s Law convicting sin and exposing the personal need for salvation and also, and with more vigor hear the forgiveness of Jesus Christ offered to the poor in spirit, the broken and contrite, and anyone else who happens to show up. In this sense our tradition is worth preserving.

However, I know that tradition can degrade into traditionalism. Traditionalism is what happens when you are no longer taught why you do what you do. Like the example above, “We’ve always done it this way” begs for explanation. Those who do not know the reason why they do something eventually figure out they don’t need to do whatever they have forgotten the why for.

The tradition of the Scriptures has always been to teach the way of Salvation as proclaimed by the Word of God, to preserve this message accurately and to hand it down that the Great Commission be fulfilled in the making of disciples, who are students of the Scriptures. Anything in or related to church that helps facilitate this goal is helpful and should be preserved to help future generations. Anything that obscures the mission of the church or hinders making disciples should be left by the wayside.

In order to avoid continually re-inventing the wheel, the ones who come after us must be taught. This has traditionally been called catechesis. Catechetical instruction began in the Reformation when Luther realized two things about the average man and pastor. The first was that he had no idea what the Gospel was or what the Scriptures said, Second, he had no tool to help him learn this or teach it to others. Thus Luther revived an ancient tradition. Teaching the faith through a catechism. The first such catechism appeared around the early 2nd century and is known as the didache.

The tradition of teaching the catechism as a way to memorize important passages of Scripture and their sense survives in the Lutheran church, though it has fallen into disuse. I personally have had much struggle with parents who never had to learn their catechisms and so don’t see why their children should have to. Though after two years parents are often surprised at how much their children have grown spiritually and in other areas as well. The tradition of memorization has had a surprising effect in the area of academics. Two of my students who were D/F students in school are now A/B students. Their parents attribute this to the way they have been taught to memorize their catechisms in church and at home.

There are other things we do around our church that would fall into what people would call tradition. What may not be obvious to the outsiders is that these don't all have the same level of importance to us. In fact, the ones people see first are the manmade traditions which are retained mostly to serve the others. We light candles, we sometimes have processions, we kneel at communion, we stand for the Gospel, our pastors wear collars and other vestments. Closer to the heart of what we are about, we sing, we pray, we confess our sins, we hear God’s Word, we preach, we evangelize. More careful teaching is needed regarding these vital things. But at the true center, we also gather around the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ through the forgiveness of our sins offered in the Word of Absolution, the preached Word of the Gospel, Holy Baptism for the remission of sins and the Holy Supper for our continued forgiveness as well as a strengthening of our faith. This is the center of what we do as Christians, its what we’re called to do. This is our tradition. It’s ours because Jesus gave it to us. He handed it down to us through the written word spoken by the Prophets and Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit. And in this we remain in what Paul said, “I give unto you that which was first given unto me.”




The Writer

The Reverend Charlie Mallie is a graduate of Concordia University, Irvine, and Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana. He is the pastor of St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Laguna Beach, California.

www.oldsolar.com

DogMom
13th April 2005, 09:23 AM
I agree that we need a "traditional" liturgy, whatever that may mean, in that we need to have some structure from week to week, that does not really change. However, I also believe that the liturgy should be flexible enough to adapt to circumstances and congregations. As soon as it does not, and cannot, it degenerates into "traditionalism".

I think the author is arguing an interesting point, though some of his argument is rather fallacious - or at least, deceptive (though probably unintentionally).
The liturgy from TLH contains elements that have, indeed, been handed down through the ages. They must, because they are based on scripture. The Gloria in Excelsis, the Kyrie, the Nunc Dimittis, the Offertory...all these are directly derived from Scripture. Scripture set to music.
However, to argue that the TLH liturgy in its entirety is millenia old...no. No, it's not. That liturgy may have evolved to its current form, order, text and flow throughout the decades preceding it, but we've no proof that it has been substantially the same "yesterday, today and forever".
To argue that only the TLH service is based in Scripture is fallacious as well. Sadly, that argument must either be based in ignorance or is intentionally deceptive, since the Lutheran Worship Divine Service 1 is substantially no different from the TLH service. All the LW Divine Services are Scripturally-based. All of them. Some remind us that we're still the Church Militant, but that we are also the Church Triumphant - for our Lord has risen. We are not hopeful for salvation, we are confident that we are saved, through His grace.
At least one, DS3, is based on Luther's "Chorale Mass", and is a gorgeous way to introduce very liturgical hymns into the service.
The structure of all the services (LW and TLH) is essentially no different: Hymn; Psalm; Readings, culminating in the Gospel; Sermon and declaration of faith in the Creed; Prayers of the church; Distribution of the Lord's Supper; Benediction.
To argue that one hymnal "does it better" than another is essentially arguing "MY dad can beat up YOUR dad"...or, I suppose, "MY liturgy can beat up YOUR liturgy." It's a zero-win situation.
We have more important things to be concerned with - and my belief is that we should enjoy ALL the liturgies and hymns available to us in ALL our hymnals. No, I'm not advocating everyone run out and get the latest copies of whatever the "gospel praise song du jour" is and drag it to church. I am saying don't throw the good liturgies and hymns available in LW or HS98 out just because they're not in the "right" hymnal. They have many many good hymns as well.
"Thy Strong Word"; "Lift High the Cross"; "The Infant Priest Was Holy Borne" - these are just three of the MANY hymns that would be lost to us, and we'd be much the poorer - if we scorned "everything but TLH". They're theological, they're scripturally based. We must be careful...VERY careful...in our condemnation of things "just because it's not TRADITION!"

<looks down>
Oh my, where DID this soapbox come from?
Sorry, got carried away there.

ChiRho
13th April 2005, 09:43 AM
I agree that we need a "traditional" liturgy, whatever that may mean, in that we need to have some structure from week to week, that does not really change. However, I also believe that the liturgy should be flexible enough to adapt to circumstances and congregations. As soon as it does not, and cannot, it degenerates into "traditionalism".

I think the author is arguing an interesting point, though some of his argument is rather fallacious - or at least, deceptive (though probably unintentionally).
The liturgy from TLH contains elements that have, indeed, been handed down through the ages. They must, because they are based on scripture. The Gloria in Excelsis, the Kyrie, the Nunc Dimittis, the Offertory...all these are directly derived from Scripture. Scripture set to music.
However, to argue that the TLH liturgy in its entirety is millenia old...no. No, it's not. That liturgy may have evolved to its current form, order, text and flow throughout the decades preceding it, but we've no proof that it has been substantially the same "yesterday, today and forever".
To argue that only the TLH service is based in Scripture is fallacious as well. Sadly, that argument must either be based in ignorance or is intentionally deceptive, since the Lutheran Worship Divine Service 1 is substantially no different from the TLH service. All the LW Divine Services are Scripturally-based. All of them. Some remind us that we're still the Church Militant, but that we are also the Church Triumphant - for our Lord has risen. We are not hopeful for salvation, we are confident that we are saved, through His grace.
At least one, DS3, is based on Luther's "Chorale Mass", and is a gorgeous way to introduce very liturgical hymns into the service.
The structure of all the services (LW and TLH) is essentially no different: Hymn; Psalm; Readings, culminating in the Gospel; Sermon and declaration of faith in the Creed; Prayers of the church; Distribution of the Lord's Supper; Benediction.
To argue that one hymnal "does it better" than another is essentially arguing "MY dad can beat up YOUR dad"...or, I suppose, "MY liturgy can beat up YOUR liturgy." It's a zero-win situation.
We have more important things to be concerned with - and my belief is that we should enjoy ALL the liturgies and hymns available to us in ALL our hymnals. No, I'm not advocating everyone run out and get the latest copies of whatever the "gospel praise song du jour" is and drag it to church. I am saying don't throw the good liturgies and hymns available in LW or HS98 out just because they're not in the "right" hymnal. They have many many good hymns as well.
"Thy Strong Word"; "Lift High the Cross"; "The Infant Priest Was Holy Borne" - these are just three of the MANY hymns that would be lost to us, and we'd be much the poorer - if we scorned "everything but TLH". They're theological, they're scripturally based. We must be careful...VERY careful...in our condemnation of things "just because it's not TRADITION!"

<looks down>
Oh my, where DID this soapbox come from?
Sorry, got carried away there.


"The Infant Priest Was Holy Borne"

ChiRho wonders to himself..."Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Bird?" :bow: ;)

DogMom
13th April 2005, 10:36 AM
"The Infant Priest Was Holy Borne"

ChiRho wonders to himself..."Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Bird?" :bow: ;)

*snicker*
Sure, why not? After all, Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Bach...they all were new and CONTEMPORARY hymn writers at one point or another...

('Sides, The Infant Priest... is one of my favorite hymns. Along with The Tree Of Life. Oooo...TWO from HS98 - watch out for the lightning bolts! :D)

ChiRho
13th April 2005, 11:20 AM
I agree that we need a "traditional" liturgy, whatever that may mean, in that we need to have some structure from week to week, that does not really change. However, I also believe that the liturgy should be flexible enough to adapt to circumstances and congregations. As soon as it does not, and cannot, it degenerates into "traditionalism".

What do you mean by "circumstances and congregations?" and what would the motive be for change?

I think the author is arguing an interesting point, though some of his argument is rather fallacious - or at least, deceptive (though probably unintentionally).


Deceptive...unintentionally, maybe careless in a few places...

The liturgy from TLH contains elements that have, indeed, been handed down through the ages. They must, because they are based on scripture. The Gloria in Excelsis, the Kyrie, the Nunc Dimittis, the Offertory...all these are directly derived from Scripture. Scripture set to music.

:thumbsup:

However, to argue that the TLH liturgy in its entirety is millenia old...no. No, it's not. That liturgy may have evolved to its current form, order, text and flow throughout the decades preceding it, but we've no proof that it has been substantially the same "yesterday, today and forever".

To evolve according to the culture of the church catholic, is not bad, but good. To evolve according to secular influence is to grow horns, a spiked tail, and carry a red pitch fork.


To argue that only the TLH service is based in Scripture is fallacious as well. Sadly, that argument must either be based in ignorance or is intentionally deceptive, since the Lutheran Worship Divine Service 1 is substantially no different from the TLH service.

Did Pastor Mallie insist only? At Zion Fort Wayne, we use hymns from TLH, LW, and HS98...but there are some hymns that are found in the last two that would (nor should) never be used. As for TLH, I havent run across any yet.

All the LW Divine Services are Scripturally-based. All of them. Some remind us that we're still the Church Militant, but that we are also the Church Triumphant - for our Lord has risen. We are not hopeful for salvation, we are confident that we are saved, through His grace.
At least one, DS3, is based on Luther's "Chorale Mass", and is a gorgeous way to introduce very liturgical hymns into the service.


The structure of all the services (LW and TLH) is essentially no different: Hymn; Psalm; Readings, culminating in the Gospel; Sermon and declaration of faith in the Creed; Prayers of the church; Distribution of the Lord's Supper; Benediction.

If they are the essentially the same, then why produce a new one?

To argue that one hymnal "does it better" than another is essentially arguing "MY dad can beat up YOUR dad"...or, I suppose, "MY liturgy can beat up YOUR liturgy." It's a zero-win situation.

If they are indeed no different then I agree. But are they?


We have more important things to be concerned with - and my belief is that we should enjoy ALL the liturgies and hymns available to us in ALL our hymnals. No, I'm not advocating everyone run out and get the latest copies of whatever the "gospel praise song du jour" is and drag it to church. I am saying don't throw the good liturgies and hymns available in LW or HS98 out just because they're not in the "right" hymnal. They have many many good hymns as well.

I concur, mostly. Good points!


"Thy Strong Word"; "Lift High the Cross"; "The Infant Priest Was Holy Borne" - these are just three of the MANY hymns that would be lost to us, and we'd be much the poorer - if we scorned "everything but TLH". They're theological, they're scripturally based. We must be careful...VERY careful...in our condemnation of things "just because it's not TRADITION!"

Some of my favorite hymns (check ChiRho's profile)!

ChiRho
13th April 2005, 11:25 AM
*snicker*
Sure, why not? After all, Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Bach...they all were new and CONTEMPORARY hymn writers at one point or another...

('Sides, The Infant Priest... is one of my favorite hymns. Along with The Tree Of Life. Oooo...TWO from HS98 - watch out for the lightning bolts! :D)


Contemporary meaning...?

That they did indeed exist at a particular present in the past and wrote hymns while they were alive...sure.

But were they creative outside of the culture of the catholic church?

I say no.

Were they "contemporary" in the same sense that "Contemporary Christian" music is?

I say no.

What say you?

DogMom
14th April 2005, 11:27 AM
What do you mean by "circumstances and congregations?" and what would the motive be for change?
Updating language, for one thing. Luther changed their services to be said in the German. Ours have changed, first from German to English, and later to update into more "modern" English from the "Thees" and "Thous" into "Yous" and "Yours". I won't argue whether or not that was a good thing, since my opinion on that is that it's a matter of taste, and de gustibus non disputandem.


To evolve according to the culture of the church catholic, is not bad, but good. To evolve according to secular influence is to grow horns, a spiked tail, and carry a red pitch fork.
I would suppose that depends on what the secular influence is. My opinion is that the hymnal was "updated" to use more modern language due to "secular influence".
I think the problem here is that the liturgy itself contains elements of doctrine and elements of style. We can update the style without changing the doctrine or theology, though it must be done carefully so that STYLE does not override theology or doctrine. If the theology stays the same, I think that the style may be changed, though it doesn't need to be changed.
I'm not arguing that we dispense with the current organ-played liturgy in favor of a thrash heavy-metal band playing the Gloria in Excelsis. That's putting "STYLE" over theology. We must be careful that the style doesn't become the focus - and if the style is distracting, then it is the focus and needs to be changed.



Did Pastor Mallie insist only? At Zion Fort Wayne, we use hymns from TLH, LW, and HS98...but there are some hymns that are found in the last two that would (nor should) never be used. As for TLH, I havent run across any yet.
If he didn't he sure implied it. He certainly didn't say anything at ALL about the other hymnals.
Perhaps I'm reading more into what he said that what he meant, but this:
We use the “Old Hymnal,” TLH (The Lutheran Hymnal). Ask someone why, and I’m sure you’ll hear them say, “Its what we’ve always done.” Tradition. Now if you ask me, the reason why we use TLH is four fold. First, the hymns contained in TLH are theologically superior to just about anything out there and any good pastor knows a couple things about hymnody: Good theology is sung into you more so than taught, and, nine times out of ten, it is in the words of the hymnody they learned as a child that Christians die singing the promises of Christ, as they close their eyes for the last time and are carried into glory in the arms of Jesus. Second, it contains a liturgical service that as a format makes sure a few things that need to be said actually get said. Third, the liturgy contained in TLH is old. It’s old like the Scriptures are old. That means its been sung, spoken and chanted by millions of Christians for going on two thousand years. How’s that for consistency? If this doesn’t appeal to you, think of it as real-life quality control. And let me make one more important point about this. The liturgy is derived from the Scriptures. If you don’t recognize what you’re speaking and singing in the liturgy as passages from Scripture, then perhaps you should read your Bible more, or at least realize that by singing the liturgy you will have memorized whole sections of the Scriptures that have to do with the Sacrifice of Christ and your standing before a holy and just God. Fourth, the liturgy used in TLH preserves not only the message of the Scriptures in summary, but also its center. This, very simply, is why we use the liturgy. sure looks to me like "TLH now, forever and always because the rest of them are SO inferior as to be not worthy of mention."

If they are the essentially the same, then why produce a new one?
Ah, but I said the structure was the same, not the content of that structure. Take the Hymn of Praise, for example. In TLH, you have ONE choice: the Gloria in Excelsis, sung the same way no matter what service you choose. LW has three different possibilities, just for the Gloria, plus two different renditions of This is the Feast (which, incidentally, I think is a tremendous and powerful statement of faith for the Church Triumphant.)

Contemporary meaning...?

That they did indeed exist at a particular present in the past and wrote hymns while they were alive...sure.
Contemporary. From dictionary.com:



Belonging to the same period of time.
Of about the same age.
Current; modern.
They were "current" at the time they were writing their hymns. Their hymns were in use in the same period of time they were alive.

But were they creative outside of the culture of the catholic church?

I say no.
To condemn all music by someone just because they write music for use outside the church is just plain silly. Bach didn't write solely for the church, for example. The Brandenburg Concertos were publically performed, as were his suites and partitas.

Were they "contemporary" in the same sense that "Contemporary Christian" music is? If by that you mean in the tone of voice that I'd use if I found a dead rat in my house, no. Bach was an extremely popular composer. So were Mozart, Handel, and Beethoven. However, it didn't prevent them from composing music for worship as well.
The problem is that I don't really know what you mean by this statement, because "Contemporary Christian" music means a lot of things. It isn't any one "type" of music, and it isn't any one "message". Some of it - the vast majority of it - is what I'll call "empty calorie" music. It sounds nice, tastes good, but doesn't really do or say anything. Does it belong in a full on, Sunday morning worship service? Nope, it sure doesn't.
However, some "Contemporary Christian" music is indeed worth having in the service. I attended a service recently at the Ft. Wayne Seminary where the Kantorei did a gorgeous rendition of a song written by none other than Kantor Reich. He's still alive, therefore his music is Contemporary Christian. Done in a "traditional" style, yes, but by definition it is Contemporary.
Some songs by, say, Lost and Found would be wonderful in a service. They have a good message, they're easy to sing, and they wouldn't have to be done with guitars - they could easily be done with an organ accompanying them.

I guess the problem here is that people have allowed the term "contemporary" to be usurped into "feel-good-Christianity, with vapid, 'goosed by the (Holy) Ghost' lyrics." And I've noticed that a LOT of the people that decry "Contemporary Christian music" define it as "that stuff that came out in the seventies"! That is most certainly not contemporary, although I'll agree that it's where the current "Contemporary Christian music" got its real start.

I think it all boils down to style and presentation, and the difference between songs and hymns. And, unfortunately, the "right" style for a worship service is difficult to define, but in the words of a Supreme Court Justice: "I know it when I see it."