When
the report of the Savior’s miracles spread abroad, Pharisees and scribes
from Jerusalem made their way north to Gennesaret to confront Jesus.
They charged that the Lord’s disciples neglected to keep the
“traditions” of the elders, because they did not ceremonially wash their
hands (to purify themselves from Gentile contamination) before they ate.
But Christ focused on them, asking why they “transgressed the
commandment of God” by their “tradition” (Matt. 15:3).
This
narrative highlights a problem that has troubled man for many centuries,
namely, how does one properly judge between “the commandment of God” and
that which is mere “tradition”?
Terms Defined
We
must define the terms “commandment” and “tradition.”
“Commandment,” in the present context, has to do with divine revelation.
It is further designated as “the word of God” (Matt. 15:6; cf. Mark
7:13). Some Greek manuscripts have “law” in Matthew 15:6.
“Commandment” is the equivalent of law (see Luke 23:56). These
terms represent an obligation imposed by God, to which human beings are
amenable. Violation thereof constitutes “sin” (1 John 3:4).
The
term “tradition” renders a Greek word that signifies “instruction that
has been handed down.” (Danker, p. 763). The expression may be used in a
good sense, equivalent to divine commandment (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thes.
2:15; 3:6). In other contexts, it can denote hurtful, human
traditions that are condemned (Matt. 15:3; Col. 2:8).
In
this latter case, common practices, embalmed by time, become accepted as
“the voice of God.” Such “traditions” may become “burdens” (cf. Matt.
23:4), unnecessarily levied upon people, robbing them of legitimate
freedom in serving Christ.
Spiritual Discernment
Let us
reflect upon some of the principles that enable the student to separate
law from tradition.
The
law of God was made known through persons who were credentialed by
miraculous signs. Hebrew law came through Moses (John 1:17; Gal.
3:19), whose reception of the commandment was confirmed by
supernatural phenomena (cf. Ex. 19:16ff; 24:17), and whose
subsequent countenance bore witness to the reality of a heavenly
encounter (Ex. 34:29ff). Christ’s miracles (John 20:30-31),
and those performed by his appointees (cf. Gal. 1:11-12,15-17; 2:2; 2
Cor. 12:1-7), validated the divine origin of New Testament law.
Sacred
law is not amenable to human alteration (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev.
22:18-19). It remains inviolate, upon whom it is required, for as
long as it is designed to last (Matt. 5:17-18; Gal. 3:19; cf. Matt.
28:18-20).
Tradition, on the other hand, evolves. It is established by habit or
custom. It will vary in its character from place to place, and from time
to time. Tradition is not intrinsically evil, since it operates in the
realm of expediency and human judgment. It is condemned, however, when
it is thrust into the role of “law,” and bound as such.
There
are two digressive directions in the “law-tradition” controversy. First,
there is the tendency to reduce law to the status of tradition. Then
there is the disposition that codifies tradition into law. Both
approaches are wrong.
Transforming Law into Tradition
A
driving force behind theological modernism is the ambition to trivialize
the law of God, removing the authority and penalty therefrom, thus
leaving behind a system of multiple-choice spiritual options. To
liberalism, there is no inflexible right and wrong; everything is
subject to culture, personal choice, etc. For example, liberalism
asserts that Paul’s teaching reflected a variety of traditional threads,
e.g., rabbinical Judaism, Cynic and Stoic moralism, etc. (Thompson, p.
944). This ideology allows for a pick-and-choose mode of religion.
The
brotherhood of Christ has not been unaffected by this mentality to a
degree. Increasingly, one hears statements to this effect.
“Traditionally, churches of Christ baptize by immersion.” That leaves a
wrong impression. Baptism, by definition, is immersion. There is no
“baptism,” in the absence of immersion.
Again,
consider this statement: “It is the tradition of churches of Christ to
have a capella [strictly vocal] music in worship.” Our musical format is
dictated by what is authorized (Eph. 5:18-19), not by “common
usage.” Consider some specific examples of this mind-set.
Cecil
Hook, a Texas “maverick,” has written a series of books purporting to
hail our “freedom in Christ.” In one of his books, the brother argues
that in the Far East “rice” would do as well as bread in partaking of
the Lord’s supper, since, in that “culture” rice is their “staple food”
(Free to Speak, p. 60)
I have
a letter written by a young preacher who has argued that “fruit of the
vine” was merely the available beverage at the “last supper,” and that
we have adopted that element solely out of tradition. He went so far as
to suggest that “Pepsi” would serve equally well in our culture. This
attitude dismisses the Lord’s clear command, “This do. . . ” (Luke
22:19).
In
another volume, Hook argues that the exclusive use of male worship
leaders is merely one of “our traditions” (Free As Sons, p. 60).
Similarly, in a recently published book which promotes a “quest” for a
new hermeneutical approach to the Bible, a brother opined that Paul’s
admonitions relative to woman’s “silence” in the church assemblies, was
grounded in “traditional and cultural restrictions” (Hougey, p. 295).
These assertions are fallacious. The apostle’s censure of woman’s
usurpation of authority resulted from his own apostolic commission (1
Cor. 14:37), buttressed by “law” (v. 34; cf. 1 Tim. 2:12-14).
In
another segment of the same book, it was contended that we have no real
biblical case for insisting upon an every-week, Sunday-only communion
(pp. 107ff). It was suggested that our practice was more traditional
than scriptural.
Transforming Tradition into Law
An
equally dangerous digression occurs when men attempt to bestow the
status of law upon that which is only tradition. An ancient example of
this mentality again finds a manifestation in the Pharisees. When
members of this sect observed Christ’s disciples plucking ears of grain
on a sabbath day, they accosted the Lord with this charge. “Your
disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath” (Matt.
12:2). With skillful argument, Christ refuted the allegation. The
Pharisees had erred in turning a traditional interpretation into actual
law.
A more
modern example is found in Catholicism. According to Romanism,
“tradition” must assume its rightful place as a source of religious
authority, along side of, and actually superior to, the Scriptures. A
Catholic scholar says:
“It is
an article of faith from a decree of the Vatican Council that Tradition
is a source of theological teaching distinct from Scripture, and that it
is infallible. It is therefore to be received with the same internal
assent as Scripture, for it is the word of God” (Attwater, p. 41).
We
would not be balanced in our presentation of this matter were we to
ignore the fact that there is a significant body of “tradition” within
congregations of the Lord’s people. And sometimes, even we have
difficulty in separating what is traditional from what is demanded, or
forbidden, by Scripture.
We
must remind ourselves that tradition is not necessarily wrong.
Traditions may be wise, expedient, accommodative, etc. The issue is—what
attitude do we entertain when someone is practicing a tradition that
differs from ours? How do we view brethren when they change something
that is merely custom? Do we criticize them? Are we ready to
disfellowship them? Shall we “write them up” as liberal? This is the
spirit of Pharisaism. Consider some examples.
In the
1800s, many congregations administered the communion (fruit of the vine)
by means of only one container. Then, as more understanding developed
about how disease is communicated, congregations began to migrate to the
position that it might be more expedient to use individual containers.
Initially, David Lipscomb opposed the change. He contended there was no
need to alter the traditional practice (Brewer) He altered his views,
but some brethren were so welded to the “one container” notion that they
separated from those who opted for individual cups.
I once
conducted a gospel meeting for a small congregation in which the
members’ Sunday contributions were deposited in a box at the rear of the
building. The use of collection baskets was a “liberal” trend they
wanted to avoid. There was minor controversy in some places when
brethren began to give their contributions by check, instead of with
cash.
The
structure of our modern worship format is significantly traditional.
Should the Lord’s supper be served before the preaching service or
afterward? Should we use song books, or may the lyrics and notes be
projected upon a screen. This latter practice is finding acceptance in
some places, and a few brethren contend that it is a “liberal” trend.
A
gospel preacher was criticized because, on Sunday evening, he spoke from
down on the floor, instead of from the pulpit. The comment was: “He
didn’t even preach!” What if the preacher did not preach a “sermon,” but
rather led a discussion? Some might find that arrangement upsetting, but
in Troas Paul “discoursed” in the church meeting. The Greek word is the
basis of our English term dialogue, and it means “to engage in speech
interchange, converse, discuss, argue” (Danker, p. 232).
Generally speaking, our congregations meet regularly three times each
week—Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening. What if a
congregation elects to have no Sunday evening service? Instead, in order
to accommodate those who must travel long distances, the church has an
extended Sunday morning service—or a service without the “extension.”
How long must the service be? If a congregation spends an entire hour in
the Lord’s supper portion—studying, discussing, and reflecting, would
they be counted “digressive”?
Some
have been charged with liberalism for not “offering the invitation” at
the conclusion of every presentation. While an “invitation” may be a
wonderful expedient at regular church assemblies, is it a “tradition”?
Or is it biblically mandated? If the latter is the case, why is it not
offered at the end of every Bible class?
Speaking of Bible classes, in the earlier days of the restoration era,
when meeting houses were small, one-room accommodations, the church
generally met in one assembly, with adults and children together. Then,
with the passing of time, as congregations grew in numbers, larger
facilities were built. Bible classes, as an expediency, were arranged to
facilitate different age groups. But some brethren were so “tradition”
bound, they could not tolerate this. Hence, the “no-class” faction was
born.
While
we are on the subject of “buildings,” what if a congregation decided
that it did not wish to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in real
estate? Rather, the brethren would choose to rent a facility for use on
the Lord’s day. Then, at other times, they would meet in groups for
Bible study and additional fellowship? Would their decision be a
violation of divine law? Would they be suspected of being a “cult”?
Conclusion
O how
many heartaches have been caused because well-meaning brethren could not
distinguish between “law” and “tradition.” Is there any way to help
ameliorate this situation?
We
must develop a deeper confidence in the Bible as an inspired revelation
from God. It is the full and final source of spiritual authority for all
that we teach and practice. We must ever be conscientious to measure our
conduct by its standard alone.
We may
respect the pioneers, but they are not authoritative guides. Some of our
liberal brethren today, who openly eschew our “traditionalism,” are
themselves traditionalists, appealing more to Campbell, Stone, and
others, than to the Scriptures. Alexander Campbell’s Lunenburg Letter
has almost acquired “canonical” status among those who desire to merge
with the denominations (Childers, et. al., pp. 114-116,122).
We
must become more dedicated students of the Scriptures. We are at a loss
for direction if we are uninformed as to sound procedures in Bible
interpretation. We must be able to discern the difference between “law”
and “tradition,” the “essential” and the “incidental.”
We
must inform ourselves of the issues and movements within the church.
Prevention is the greatest remedy for disease—physical or spiritual.
Finally, we must cultivate a greater sense of tolerance for brethren
whose practices, in areas of judgment, vary from ours. There may be
opinion procedures one does not prefer, but such must not become
barriers to Christian fellowship. When we become radical, we do nothing
but fuel the flames of liberalism. We must cultivate discernment, and to
work for peace, without doctrinal compromise, in the body Christ.
Sources/Footnotes
Attwater, Donald, Ed., A Catholic Dictionary (New York:
Macmillan, 1961).
Brewer, G.C. “How Churches of Christ Began to Use Individual Communion
Cups,” Gospel Advocate, February 5, 1955.
Childers, Jeff W., Douglas A. Foster, Jack R. Reese. The Crux of the
Matter—Crisis, Tradition, and the Future of Churches of Christ
(Abilene: ACU Press), 2001.
Danker, F.W., et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University
of Chicago, 2000).
Hook,
Cecil. Free As Sons (New Braunfels, TX: Hook, n.d.).
Hook,
Cecil. Free To Speak (New Braunfels, TX: Hook, n.d.).
Hougey,
Hal. The Quest for Understandable Hermeneutics (Concord, CA:
Pacific Publishing, 1997).
Thompson, M.B., “Tradition,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters,
G.F. Hawthrone, R.P. Martin, D.G. Reid, Eds. (Downer’s Grove, IL:
InterVarsity).
Other
Articles by Wayne Jackson
Aid or Addition --
What is the Difference?
The Result of Growing
The Last Will
and Testament of Jesus Christ
