What Role Should Tradition Play In Christianity?

[Lisa0315]

This seems to be one area that Conservative Christians do not always agree on.

What role do you think Tradition should play in Christianity?

I think that Tradition is a beautiful part of Christianity, but I think that all tradition should be tested by Scripture.

Now, let's keep it nice. Remember we are brothers and sisters. Let's talk about this with love in our hearts. We can always agree to disagree. Okay?

Lisa

[CyberPaladin]

My belief on tradition varies greatly I see no reason not to keep with it if it's either correctly found in scripture or something that's nuetral like whether you went with more of a contempary style or traditional hymns. But also see reason with have to be held by it either without proper scriptual basis even then only if the change is on the scriptualy releavant part.

[Iosias]

First define "Tradition" :)

[Lisa0315]

I was mostly speaking Catholic Tradition...

Lisa

[Iosias]

I was mostly speaking Catholic Tradition...

Lisa

Which defined means what?

[PaladinGirl]

If the tradition in question is found in scripture then it can be used. If not, I'd not use it.

[Albion]

If the tradition in question is found in scripture then it can be used. If not, I'd not use it.

We know that you wouldn't use it because you identified your view as Progressive.

However, tradition is not "in scripture," it is a matter of how scripture has been understood by the Christian church and the people of God throughout the ages.

If there is some leading article of faith that has been widely agreed upon, it has the presumption of being correct because we do believe, from scripture, that the Holy Ghost--as Jesus promised--will lead the church into all truth, keeping the gates of hell from prevailing against it, and that Jesus himself promised that he would not forsake his followers. If almost every one of those disciples for two millennia was completely offcourse about something doctrinally important, it would amount to those promises being unfulfilled. Since we do not believe that Jesus would promise his church such guidance and have it not come to pass, we have to weigh tradition highly.

Let us also note that we are not speaking of human customs such as which kind of hymns or music we like during worship or where the pulpit goes or what the minister wears. We are also not concerned, when speaking of tradition, with ideas or practices just because they are "old." If whatever it is does not have the consensus of Christians throughout history on its side, and this can be shown to be the case from historical data, it does not have the weight of tradition, even if people casually call it traditional.

[Izdaari]

I don't know that I really care to debate this, but I would like to state that I'm in favor of tradition. It isn't always right, but it deserves a presumption of being right for the reasons Albion gave.

[Iosias]

However, tradition is not "in scripture," it is a matter of how scripture has been understood by the Christian church and the people of God throughout the ages.

What then is "Tradition" and could you provide some examples? :)

[Albion]

What then is "Tradition" and could you provide some examples? :)

First, I would answer by sorting out several different meanings of the word.

A. Traditions. Customs. Often people say that we should not be constrained by what the church used to do, meaning aspects of the worship service, the preferred music, techniques used to reach the unchurched, etc. We can also add to this category minor doctrinal matters such as belief in guardian angels or whether or not children should be communed. I usually ask people not to mix these kinds of "traditions" in with the discussion of tradition as it relates to what CC is all about.

B. At the other end of things, we have "Sacred Tradition" or "Holy Tradition" that is so important to Catholics and EO people. This is to say that the customary beliefs of the Church generally, even if gradually developed, such as the RC idea of a corporal, carnal presence of Christ in the Holy Communion elements establishes doctrine the same as scripture. They argue that it is based upon scripture and/or that this Tradition incorporates the Bible. No one, as I saw it, intended this use of the word to be what was meant when "traditional" became part of the CC Wiki, although Catholic members are not precluded by the statement from their own beliefs in this matter.

C. That which has generally been accepted across the denominational spectrum and through time and is of a significance to faith and practice. For example, that homosexual relations are sinful. We could say that the Bible speaks to this, but the pro-gay lobby has reinterpreted all those verses to their liking and makes the point that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality specifically. There are churches formed now to cater to the homosexual community, but they are of recent origin. So, does tradition define the CC? Yes, the issue is of significance as a moral and even marital concern, and No, we cannot absolutely nail it down by reference to scripture. Abortion is another example. Or incest. The Bible is not so unambiguous on these matters such that, with a quick Bible citation, the issue is settled.

But we have a consensus of Christians and churches throughout the length and breadth of Christian history to tell us--traditional belief and practice. We have what Christ's church has always attested to with very few exceptions. This is the use of the word that was intended, as I understand it, when we were putting a statement together. This is the basic (but not 100% agreed-upon in every last example) acceptance of traditional belief and practice that conservative Christians value as a guide. And I would emphasize the idea of "value" here, to the exclusion of the concern some have expressed that this might mean saying that we are committed to changing nothing at all, ever, etc.

[Lisa0315]

Albion,
What an excellent post!!! :clap:

I have always viewed tradition as beautiful but must be tested by Scripture. You have pointed out that some traditions even when tested by Scripture can be skewed by a twisting of the verses. So, we fall back on the ancient traditions to show that our interpretation is correct. Homosexuality is an excellent example of this. I never thought of it that way.

Lisa

[Colabomb]

I see Tradition as a help in understanding Scripture.

Tradition is fallible. However it can never hurt to understand how those close to the time of the Writers understand Scripture. There is a deep insight we can gain by looking back at what our fathers have had to say.

I believe in the Lutheran concept of Adiaphora. That which is commanded in Scripture is mandatory, that which is condemned in Scripture is Forbidden, and that which is not mentioned is morally neutral, and up to the individual.

[Iosias]

First, I would answer by sorting out several different meanings of the word.

A. Traditions. Customs. Often people say that we should not be constrained by what the church used to do, meaning aspects of the worship service, the preferred music, techniques used to reach the unchurched, etc. We can also add to this category minor doctrinal matters such as belief in guardian angels or whether or not children should be communed. I usually ask people not to mix these kinds of "traditions" in with the discussion of tradition as it relates to what CC is all about.

B. At the other end of things, we have "Sacred Tradition" or "Holy Tradition" that is so important to Catholics and EO people. This is to say that the customary beliefs of the Church generally, even if gradually developed, such as the RC idea of a corporal, carnal presence of Christ in the Holy Communion elements establishes doctrine the same as scripture. They argue that it is based upon scripture and/or that this Tradition incorporates the Bible. No one, as I saw it, intended this use of the word to be what was meant when "traditional" became part of the CC Wiki, although Catholic members are not precluded by the statement from their own beliefs in this matter.

C. That which has generally been accepted across the denominational spectrum and through time and is of a significance to faith and practice. For example, that homosexual relations are sinful. We could say that the Bible speaks to this, but the pro-gay lobby has reinterpreted all those verses to their liking and makes the point that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality specifically. There are churches formed now to cater to the homosexual community, but they are of recent origin. So, does tradition define the CC? Yes, the issue is of significance as a moral and even marital concern, and No, we cannot absolutely nail it down by reference to scripture. Abortion is another example. Or incest. The Bible is not so unambiguous on these matters such that, with a quick Bible citation, the issue is settled.

But we have a consensus of Christians and churches throughout the length and breadth of Christian history to tell us--traditional belief and practice. We have what Christ's church has always attested to with very few exceptions. This is the use of the word that was intended, as I understand it, when we were putting a statement together. This is the basic (but not 100% agreed-upon in every last example) acceptance of traditional belief and practice that conservative Christians value as a guide. And I would emphasize the idea of "value" here, to the exclusion of the concern some have expressed that this might mean saying that we are committed to changing nothing at all, ever, etc.

In that case I agree with you but I would be suprised if everyone here saw "Tradition" as meaning that :)

[Iosias]

I see Tradition as a help in understanding Scripture.

Tradition is fallible. However it can never hurt to understand how those close to the time of the Writers understand Scripture. There is a deep insight we can gain by looking back at what our fathers have had to say.

:thumbsup:

I believe in the Lutheran concept of Adiaphora. That which is commanded in Scripture is mandatory, that which is condemned in Scripture is Forbidden, and that which is not mentioned is morally neutral, and up to the individual.

In worship the Regulative Principle holds - That which is not commanded is forbidden. :)

[LivingLifeHisWay]

If it's not in the Bible we shouldn't be involved in it. I think Catholic tradition is extremely idolatry and Christ has siezed to be head of the church. I think a lot of Catholics pray more to Mary then to Christ. I used to be one and that was my experience.

[Lisa0315]

If it's not in the Bible we shouldn't be involved in it. I think Catholic tradition is extremely idolatry and Christ has siezed to be head of the church. I think a lot of Catholics pray more to Mary then to Christ. I used to be one and that was my experience.

Oh, boy!

Well, your experience appears to be an unusual one, but certainly feeds the fires of those who believe the Catholic Church is less than Christian.

However, I have spent a great deal of time here on CF talking with many Catholics whose Christianity shines like a beacon in this dark place. I have seen in them grace under fire, patience, slow to anger, and a complete love for the Lord.

Lisa

[MrJim]

Then there are some of us that didn't know we had a tradition and are just discovering it.

In a sense I feel ripped off by my anabaptist/baptist/evangelical brothers for dismissing this huge area of Christianity as "unnecessary dross and heavy fetters" when there is so much there to flesh out those scriptures. Am I wiser than Chrysostom, smarter than Augustine, more humble than Francis, more enlightened than Athanasius? We think because we live in the modern digital age we know so much and we are indeed blind and naked.

[Lisa0315]

Then there are some of us that didn't know we had a tradition and are just discovering it.

In a sense I feel ripped off by my anabaptist/baptist/evangelical brothers for dismissing this huge area of Christianity as "unnecessary dross and heavy fetters" when there is so much there to flesh out those scriptures. Am I wiser than Chrysostom, smarter than Augustine, more humble than Francis, more enlightened than Athanasius? We think because we live in the modern digital age we know so much and we are indeed blind and naked.

Amen!!!! That is exactly how I felt when I read the err...Catholics help me out here...it is something or another to do with the Apostles, and for the life of me, I cannot remember what it is called. Not the Apostles Creed, but something else.

Lisa

[Albion]

Look at it this way. "Tradition" to the Catholic churches means setting DOCTRINE by what has allegedly always been believed, in the assumption that God would not permit his church to go wrong. But "tradition" to other traditionalist churches, including the Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. does mean doctrine-setting merely because of agreement among the people. We don't consider any church organization to be endowed with infallibility or the right to supplement the Bible that way. STILL, we agree--as was mentioned by Jim--that we ought to take into account how the church through the centuries understood the Bible before we, at this late date, decide that the church was always off track.

An example would be women in ministry. There are verses that seem to say that all of us are the same in God's eyes, but there are also reasons from the Bible for thinking God intended a male clergy and wants different roles for men and women. I'm not taking sides for purposes of this post, but the opposition to woman clergy in those churches which lately have permitted them in the pulpit comes largely from thinking that the Christians of twenty centuries had the same Bible verses to read, so their agreement against women clergy for the first 95% of the time we have had churches must not be dismissed as mere ignorance or bias.

[Debi1967]

Does anyone in this thread KNOW the difference between Tradition and tradition? Please note th capitalization of one and the non-capitalization of the other?

[Albion]

Does anyone in this thread KNOW the difference between Tradition and tradition? Please note th capitalization of one and the non-capitalization of the other?

Usually, "Tradition" refers to what is otherwise called "Sacred Tradition" or "Holy Tradition." It operates to establish doctrine in the catholic churches. If something is not explicit in the Bible, but there's a hint of a possible idea in something found therein, Tradition can make it a dogma, a must-believe doctrine, if the church decides that it always was thought to mean whatever it is. It also can happen, in the judgment of the church, that a doctrine that was vestigial in earlier times was developed later under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to become defined at the appropriate time.

But there are other Christians who--as with my church--hold that nothing that is not in scripture can be reguired of the faithful as a must-believe dogma. But we hold tradition or traditions to be important.

So what does this (minus the capitalization) tell us and convince us to do? Roughtly speaking, we are respectful of that which has always been believed because it shows us (doesn't define for us) what the earliest Christians and those afterwards, the consensus of belief, understood by various Bible passages. It helps us know what the Bible says. It doesn't substitute for scripture or add to it (as I'd say the above kind of Tradition does), but like a precedent in law that the Supreme Court considers when rendering a judgment, we give some consideration to how millennia of Christians understood things. And I do mean important things, major doctrines and teachings on morality, etc., not where the candles go or even how the church views music used during worship or whether we should operate Vacation Bible Schools, etc. Then we might do because it is customary, or we might say traditional, but not in the sense of ascertaining correct doctrine.

Then we have those churches which place no stock in the tradition or traditions of the Christian past and are guided soley by their understanding of Scripture, regardless of any other Christians' different understanding, not even if those "others" are the first century churches and most of those who came after them. If Bible scholars or a study or church leadership says that there is a meaning to X verse and that the churches have been totally wrong for 2000 years, those members of the church will say, "then that IS the Bible's meaning and we stand by the Bible." Period.

We weigh tradition and reasoning when approaching Scripture, but Scripture is our ultimate guide.

Everyone knows that there are different meanings that good Christians of different churches take from the same verse, all the while both sides say that they are just believing exactly as it was written. Knowing what billions of other Christians, including those closest to Christ in time, understood about them. It is important to keep in mind that not 100% of everything that happened is tradition for these purposes and that there has to be a consensus, not just sayingt "Aquinas said X and he's knowledgable," etc.

Let me know if I'm still not clear.

[Debi1967]

Albion read here and I warn you it is lengthy

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

[Albion]

Albion read here and I warn you it is lengthy

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

You've referred me to a Roman Catholic dictionary that offers readers the Roman Catholic view of things. I have no intention of slanting any answer I might give about Tradition and traditions towards any one perspective or towards the Catholic view instead of the Protestant view, or towards the Protestant view against the Roman Catholic one. My intention was just to explain the different uses of the word--as have shown up on our forum--when they do come up and someone asks about the meanings. This uncertainty goes back to the first days of this forum and has produced many inquiries, not just the latest one here.

[Debi1967]

You've referred me to a Roman Catholic dictionary that offers readers the Roman Catholic view of things. I have no intention of slanting any answer I might give about Tradition and traditions towards any one perspective or towards the Catholic view instead of the Protestant view, or towards the Protestant view against the Roman Catholic one. My intention was just to explain the different uses of the word--as have shown up on our forum--when they do come up and someone asks about the meanings. This uncertainty goes back to the first days of this forum and has produced many inquiries, not just the latest one here.
Knowing both sides helps you know and it called becoming informed.

I do not see what the problem is with going to this site to become informed as to how we see it at all. I was not saying that it should slant you in anyway. It should give you a better perspective. Nothing more.

If someone is not open to at least hearing the other side then they are arguing polemically.

[Albion]

Knowing both sides helps you know and it called becoming informed.

My mistake then. It seemed as though you were posting to me personally rather than to anyone needing to know more about the Roman Catholic view.

As concerns another reader who would like to learn more, then your link will probably be a good additional to any reading list, I agree.

[JoeWill]

This seems to be one area that Conservative Christians do not always agree on.

What role do you think Tradition should play in Christianity?

I think that Tradition is a beautiful part of Christianity, but I think that all tradition should be tested by Scripture.

Now, let's keep it nice. Remember we are brothers and sisters. Let's talk about this with love in our hearts. We can always agree to disagree. Okay?

Lisa


I think that tradition is useful for representing scriptural truths causing us to reflect on them, and for passing these truths down to younger generations. I suppose the Communion rooted in Jesus' instructions to the disciples is the most obvious example.


Tradition can become a problem when a church that has a spirit of control, appeals to tradition to resist change and guidance from the Holy Spirit to move on, adapt or adjust itself.


I remember when I was a Sunday school teacher, one year we did a contemporary version of the Christmas nativity play, with mailmen, paperboys and people delivering bread acting out the part of the shepherds. The idea was that the shepherds in Luke's Gospel show that Jesus came for people of low social status as well as those of higher social standing. We decided to update that idea. We also had an Italian chef to represent the wise men. Why? Because the wise men in Matthew's nativity story were not Jewish - showing that Jesus came for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The play was superb, with actors saying that they weren't worthy to meet Jesus and being told they could come anyway. And so on.


Then one of the Sunday school helpers didn't show up for several weeks and I thought she was taking a rest. It turned out that three separate persons had hammered on her door and told her how awful the nativity play had been. Those people had expected to see children dressed up as shepherds with tea towels on their head etc as had been done for years.


What a church that was! But I have called in to their meal centre a few times recently and it seems to have gotten better.

[Lisa0315]

JoeWill,
What an excellent post and an excellent example!

We had a similar thing happen in our church. A pre-teen girl was getting baptised at our church and she asked for some friends to perform a song. That song was very non-traditional and there were many complaints. However, if it made the young girl's baptism special, who are we to complain?

Tradition has a wonderful place in our faith. I am a traditionalist (not little t) and I find many of the Traditions to be very beautiful. Yet, I think the proper used of Tradition or tradition is assisting in the discernment of God's will. It should not be used to chain faith. We have liberty in Christ and that is PRECIOUS!

Lisa

[Simon_Templar]

:thumbsup:



In worship the Regulative Principle holds - That which is not commanded is forbidden. :)
can you show me this in scripture?

[Simon_Templar]

I think that tradition is useful for representing scriptural truths causing us to reflect on them, and for passing these truths down to younger generations. I suppose the Communion rooted in Jesus' instructions to the disciples is the most obvious example.


Tradition can become a problem when a church that has a spirit of control, appeals to tradition to resist change and guidance from the Holy Spirit to move on, adapt or adjust itself.


I remember when I was a Sunday school teacher, one year we did a contemporary version of the Christmas nativity play, with mailmen, paperboys and people delivering bread acting out the part of the shepherds. The idea was that the shepherds in Luke's Gospel show that Jesus came for people of low social status as well as those of higher social standing. We decided to update that idea. We also had an Italian chef to represent the wise men. Why? Because the wise men in Matthew's nativity story were not Jewish - showing that Jesus came for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The play was superb, with actors saying that they weren't worthy to meet Jesus and being told they could come anyway. And so on.


Then one of the Sunday school helpers didn't show up for several weeks and I thought she was taking a rest. It turned out that three separate persons had hammered on her door and told her how awful the nativity play had been. Those people had expected to see children dressed up as shepherds with tea towels on their head etc as had been done for years.


What a church that was! But I have called in to their meal centre a few times recently and it seems to have gotten better.
Its one thing to angry and condemnatory about something like this, but I would have to say, I would be disappointed as well :)

I generally don't like it when people take classics and try to re-do them in their own distinctive style etc. Classics are classics for a reason.
I really hate it when people sing the national anythem and they can't just sing it, they have to re-invent it and re-style it etc. 99% of they time they just ruin it.

No need to get nasty over that though.


On tradition. People forget that the scripture itself is Tradition. It is teaching that has been handed down to us. Our faith is one of tradition because it has been delivered to us, handed down generation after generation.

Jude opened his letter by saying that he would like to write about the warm fuzzies of their salvatione etc, but he found rather he had to write about the faith which was delivered to them, because people were losing track of it and false teachers were distorting it.

The bible itself teaches that our faith is handed down. It is tradition.

GK Chesterton make comments to the effect that denying tradition is the tyranny of the living over the dead, and that by holding tradition, we are giving the dead a vote.

The idea is that denying tradition is essentially saying that we are the only people who have ever known the truth.

Further, the common arguments against traditional doctrines are USUALLY predicated upon simply misunderstanding the traditions.
On top of that, the argument that tradition is anti-scriptural is usually based on a redefinition of scripture. When properly understood, most tradition meshes very well with scripture, or at least can find some basis in scripture.

Rejecting tradition outright is also tantamount to ignoring the context of scripture and rejecting the thoughts of those closest to the apostles in favor of our own.

Finally, rejection of tradition requires the person to believe that the church immediately fell away from the truth after the apostles, and did not begin returning to the truth until the 16th century and that the truth has become more and more clarified since then.
Scripturally, this is tantamount to believing that the Holy Spirit failed in his mission for 1500 years before he was finally able to have some success in the reformation.

Thus, I find the out of hand rejection of tradition to be unscriptural, and unreasonable.
Further, I believe it, more than anything else, has impoverished the modern church and encouraged our sense of detachment and division.

[JoeWill]

Its one thing to angry and condemnatory about something like this, but I would have to say, I would be disappointed as well :)

I generally don't like it when people take classics and try to re-do them in their own distinctive style etc. Classics are classics for a reason.
I really hate it when people sing the national anythem and they can't just sing it, they have to re-invent it and re-style it etc. 99% of they time they just ruin it.

No need to get nasty over that though.


On tradition. People forget that the scripture itself is Tradition. It is teaching that has been handed down to us. Our faith is one of tradition because it has been delivered to us, handed down generation after generation.

Jude opened his letter by saying that he would like to write about the warm fuzzies of their salvatione etc, but he found rather he had to write about the faith which was delivered to them, because people were losing track of it and false teachers were distorting it.

The bible itself teaches that our faith is handed down. It is tradition.

GK Chesterton make comments to the effect that denying tradition is the tyranny of the living over the dead, and that by holding tradition, we are giving the dead a vote.

The idea is that denying tradition is essentially saying that we are the only people who have ever known the truth.

Further, the common arguments against traditional doctrines are USUALLY predicated upon simply misunderstanding the traditions.
On top of that, the argument that tradition is anti-scriptural is usually based on a redefinition of scripture. When properly understood, most tradition meshes very well with scripture, or at least can find some basis in scripture.

Rejecting tradition outright is also tantamount to ignoring the context of scripture and rejecting the thoughts of those closest to the apostles in favor of our own.

Finally, rejection of tradition requires the person to believe that the church immediately fell away from the truth after the apostles, and did not begin returning to the truth until the 16th century and that the truth has become more and more clarified since then.
Scripturally, this is tantamount to believing that the Holy Spirit failed in his mission for 1500 years before he was finally able to have some success in the reformation.

Thus, I find the out of hand rejection of tradition to be unscriptural, and unreasonable.
Further, I believe it, more than anything else, has impoverished the modern church and encouraged our sense of detachment and division.

Some good points. :)


There's an interesting dichotomy isn't there?


The scriptures demonstrate that tradition can be a valuable conservative force, helping to sustain long-established truths.


The scriptures also show us that it can be legitimate for tradition to change, in order to reflect further revelation or to express truths in a way that people can understand. Jesus redid the Jewish Passover meal in his own distinctive style - it became a meal by which we were to remember his sacrifice for us.


I suppose it's a case of getting a happy balance between tradition as something that preserves, and tradition as something that accompanies and supports valid change.

[Albion]

Don't confuse minor items that do not affect the faith and are merely something done customarily--such as music or the format of things, school plays, how people dress, etc.--with church traditions.

Some us here are discussing items that are merely the usual way of doing non-essential things while others are discussing how to approach the truths of the Bible (tradition).