A fiddler on the roof. Sounds crazy, no? But here, in our little village of Anatevka, you might say every one of us is a fiddler on the roof trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck. It isn’t easy. You may ask ,”Why do we stay up there if it’s so dangerous?” Well, we stay because Anatevka is our home. And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: tradition!  - Tevye

Years ago, I brought a friend to a Baptist church. I had been talking to this friend for a while about my faith, the best way I knew how as a high school student. Two years older than I, my friend attended a local Jesuit college. He also had a nominal Roman Catholic background.

One distinction I made sure to press during our religious conversations was the emptiness of traditions. I wasn’t slamming empty traditions; I was slamming traditions in general. In my mind traditions were contrived, manufactured, man-made attempts to earn favor with God while true Christianity was a personal faith in Jesus Christ. I thought that everything I believed came from the plain teaching of scripture and nothing else. Even the very practices and methods used in my faith were authentically biblical, not traditional.

My friend told one of his professors he went to a Baptist church for the first time. He told me the conversation went something like this:

“I attended a Baptist church on Sunday”

“Did they say they have no traditions?”

“Yes.”

“Did they ask you, as a visitor, to fill out a card and drop it in the plate?”

“Yes! How did you know?”

Yes, Baptists have traditions. Evangelicals at large have traditions. We all do. To deny such a thing is to deny reality.

I think Dave Hunt represents many modern evangelicals when he told James White he “has no traditions.” D.H. Williams, church historian and Baptist pastor, remarks of a time when he expressed interest in studying the traditions of the early church. A deacon at his first pastorate informed him that such an endeavor “is something Catholics and Episcopalians do, but true Christians need only uphold the complete authority of the Bible and the empowering of the Holy Spirit in a personal way.” (Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism) How often we are confronted with a contemporary Christianity that proclaims, “No creed but Christ,” “Jesus only,” or “Bible only.” Certainly, these are noble expressions if used properly. But to say that the Bible is our ultimate authority or that Christ is the center of all we do and yet traditions cannot be a part of our lives of faith, is to hold to a false dichotomy. Faithfulness to the solas of the Reformation and faithfulness to the traditions of historic Christianity are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the better we understand the importance of tradition, the better Protestants we can be.

Tradition is defined in Vine’s as “a handing down or on.” It really is that simple. We living in the year of our Lord 2012 have been handed down traditions from early times and we should treat those things with reverence. Not all traditions are equal. Not all traditions are authoritative. Not all traditions are worth keeping. Some traditions work better in different contexts. Yet, one thing remains clear: traditions are not inherently wrong.

The contemporary resistance to tradition is often justified with a few passages from the Bible that portray tradition in a negative light:

1. Jesus rebuke of the vain traditions of the Pharisees:

He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
(Matthew 15:3)

So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
(Matthew 15:6-9)

2. The traditions Paul followed (as a Pharisee himself) that led him to persecute the Church:

And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. (Galatians 1:14)

3. Traditions of men that take Christians away from Christ:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Unfortunately, we tend to dichotomize. I’m quickly realizing that many words I write about on this blog are held captive in false dichotomies, from which I am trying to redeem them. Tradition is one such word. No where in the above verses is it suggested that all tradition is bad. The idea that Christianity is either traditional or non-traditional is a false dilemma not manifested anywhere in the scriptures.

What do we learn from these verses about tradition?

Traditions are harmful if they make void the word of God.

Traditions are harmful if they take Christians captive or away from Christ.

Traditions are harmful if they lead people against the Church.

But what else does the scripture say? The Bible also portrays traditions in a positive light:

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26 ESV)

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
(1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ESV)

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 Thessalonians 3:6 ESV)

In the New Testament, heresy abounded much like it does today. To protect the purity of the nascent church, the apostles made sure that the their message, the apostolic faith, was not only kept but verified as the one true faith once for all delivered. That’s why Paul stresses that he has received these things; they are not of his own imagination.

Traditions help connect us to our heritage as Christians. They instill a sense of community with those in our local congregations as well as in the church universal. They provide a link to the historic church and remind us that we did not get here ourselves. As Jaroslav Pelikan said, ‘Tradition is the living faith of those now dead.”

Pelikan also said, however, that “Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” This is the kind of thing we should avoid. An unhealthy allegiance to tradition at the expense of truth could be destructive to genuine faith. Having traditions just for the sake of traditions is an empty pursuit. But while we should shun traditionalism, let us not forget the importance of tradition!

In the book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura,  Keith A. Mathison uses the framework of Reformation scholar Heiko Oberman to present historical paradigms of tradition:

1. Tradition I: Argued by Mathison to be the view of the early church and of the Reformers, Tradition I holds the scriptures as the ultimate authority, but affirms the necessity of interpreting the scriptures within the community of the Church and according to the regula fide (rule of faith). In other words, tradition is necessary, but subject to scripture.

2. Tradition II: Beginning in the fourth century and continuing through the Middle Ages, Tradition II placed church tradition on par with the scriptures, creating a “two-source” theory of authority. Tradition II became dogma at the Council of Trent.

3. Tradition III:  Tradition II gave way to Tradition III in more modern times in the Roman Catholic Church, in which the magisterium is seen as the real source of revelation and authority. Though it may appeal to tradition and to scripture, the magisterium of the church has the final say, and this concept, Mathison argues, is held by most Roman Catholic apologists today.

4. Tradition 0: The paradigm I believe this post addresses is what Mathison calls Tradition 0, which exemplifies the relationship many contemporary evangelicals and fundamentalists have with the concept of tradition. Tradition 0 takes the classical doctrine of sola scriptura and replaces it with “solo” scriptura. In this mindset, tradition is seen as a threat to biblical orthodoxy. Councils, creeds, and traditions are merely footnotes in history, and have no bearing on Christians today. The only thing a Christian adhering to Tradition 0 needs is himself and his Bible.

I have no doubt that Tradition 0 pervades the church today and that it continually feeds our tendencies to be ruggedly individualistic. In an age where so many are resistant to the communion of saints in their own local churches, how could we expect to identify with the fellowship of traditions that have been handed to us from generations gone by?

We need to redeem the traditions. It’s time for evangelicals to wake up and realize that while “no creed but Christ” and “Jesus only” make intriguing slogans, we will continually be sifted and prone to wander from orthodoxy if we do not anchor our faith in the legacy of the church of God. Traditions help tie us to that legacy. So whether it’s meeting on Sundays, celebrating holidays, having liturgies, observing calendars, singing hymns, or any other methodologies of worship and faith that are part of a legacy of tradition, remember to treasure those things that have been handed down to us, and guard them. But don’t take it from me. Take a look at the scripture:

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 Thessalonians 2:15)

]]> http://redeemingwords.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/3-tradition/feed/ 3 Damien IMG-20120123-00195 visitor tevye pass-the-torch1 http://redeemingwords.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/2-church/ http://redeemingwords.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/2-church/#comments Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:07:14 +0000 Damien T Garofalo http://redeemingwords.wordpress.com/?p=36 ]]>

The evangelical world has traveled the trajectory of the ice cube.

Really, we have. In Holy Ground, Chris Castaldo explains:

“Ice cubes have come a long way. A century ago, cubes were delivered in one enormous block. When I was a child, my family used ice-cube trays. Today, however, if you need to fill a beverage cooler before a picnic or ballgame, you needn’t even touch a tray. Many refrigerators produce cubes one at a time. Simply position your cooler below the dispenser, push the button, and watch individual pieces of rice roll out of the door.

“As the ice cube has gone, so has the Evangelical church. This is true at least in Western culture, where one’s identity is no longer defined by the block (the Catholic Church) or the tray (a denomination in which there’s a shared ecclesial structure). Instead, Evangelicals are individuals who roll out the door with little-to-no commitment to church membership.”

Indeed, we have seen this course played out in church history. We’ve come along way from Cyprian’s famous 3rd century maxim:

“Outside the church there is no salvation.” (Epistle to Jabaianus)

Early Christians understood their roles as parts of a whole. We find in the book of Acts a commitment to a strong, tightly united community:

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:42-47 ESV)

What happened since apostolic times?

Basically, as the church grew in structure and political influence, particularly in the West (and I am generalizing here), the emphasis on being united to the institution of church was so great that an almost superstitious ideology swept through the hearts of Christendom. Despite the politics, the simony, the nepotism, the moral decay, and the addition of numerous extra-biblical dogmas, the Church was still seen as the authority to bring one in step with God whether or not that one had a personal, living faith.

Enter the Reformation.

The unspoken sola ecclesia was supplanted by the outspoken sola scriptura. The scriptures, now becoming available in common languages, reintroduced an emphasis on personal faith and an individual relationship with God through Christ. The lowliest of persons was given an opportunity to circumnavigate ecclesiastical authority on route to the throne of God. William Tyndale famously quipped, “I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!”

But did this awakening of the importance of one’s individual accountability to God anticipate the rugged individualism of today? Was this the Reformers’ intent, to foster a generation of Christians so disgruntled with institutions and authority that they would chip themselves off the old block and spill out of the doors on their own?

Anne Rice seems to lean that way. Rice grew up Catholic but rejected the church as a teenager. She then lived a godless life, one steeped in darkness and Gothic themes and became famous for her novel, Interview with the Vampire. Later, however, she claims to have had a religious awakening, considered herself a Christian for some time and even wrote a book about Jesus. In 2010, however, she decided to leave Christianity, posting on her Facebook:

 ”For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being ‘Christian’ or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.”

Rice’s willing split from Christianity is nothing new, but her statement that she can divorce herself from the church and yet be “committed to Christ as always” is a scary trend in modern Christianity.

Frequently, Christian organizations are dropping the “church” label in favor of “ministries” or  ”worship center” (I speak of places that do these things out of a disdain for the word church or a misunderstanding of ecclesiology. Ironically, I attend a church that does not contain the word church in the official name. Yet, we do not downplay the significance of the church nor do we shy away from using the term). Some community groups feel it necessary to say “we’re not a church.”  As highlighted in the post on the term Religion, misconceptions of organized unity have fed the modern notion of individualism that so plagues Christendom today. We’ve overreacted to the abuses of the institution.

But is this trend a natural consequence of the Reformation? I don’t believe so. Consider two giants of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin:

“For it is dangerous and terrible to hear or believe anything against the united testimony, faith and doctrine, of the entire holy Christian Church, as this hath been held now 1,500 years, from the beginning, unanimously in all the world. Whoso now doubted thereon, it is even the same as though he believed in no Christian Church, and he condemneth thus not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but also Christ himself and all the apostles and prophets.” (Martin Luther, 1532 letter to Duke Albert of Prussia)

“As it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels . . . Beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation can be hoped for . . . The paternal favor of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.” (John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV)

The abandonment of the priority of the church is not a direct consequence of the Protestant Reformation, but a mixture of:

1. Our sinful, self-centered nature,

2. The anti-institutional, anti-creedalism of the Second Great Awakening,

3. The individualistic, manufactured piety of revivalism,

4. The anti-authoritative spirit of the Enlightenment, and

5. The inherent over-emphasis on the personal intellect in Western culture

I believe these things contributed to the downplay of the church that is so rampant today. The campaigns of Moody and then Graham, as successful as they may have been, have cultivated a generation of folks who have their tickets stamped for Heaven because they prayed prayers and signed cards and raised hands and went to altars, but who have never stepped foot in church. How far from the block we’ve fallen!

While on one hand I rejoice that a return to a more robust theology has seen an emphasis on the importance, no, necessity of the church, we still observe many supposed followers of Jesus who claim no church at all. What feeds these tendencies? A few suggestions:

1. Our sinful, self-centered nature,

2. Popular Dispensational theology which promotes the church as “plan B” or a “parenthesis” in God’s redemptive plan,

3. Modern conveniences such as television or the Internet that allow professing believers to put their time in at home, and

4. The promotion of the god of individualism in pop culture.

Despite these issues, we should remind ourselves that the chief cornerstone of the church is Jesus Christ, an immovable Rock (Matthew 16:16-18, 1 Peter 2:6). The gates of hell will not prevail against the church. The church is precious to God, for he purchased it with the blood of his own Son (Acts 20:28). Take heart – the church ultimately wins.

And why? Because, unlike many Dispensationalists teach, it is God’s plan for the ages. The mystery of the church is revealed to be the breaking down of the wall separating Jew and Gentile and forming one body (Ephesians 3). Jesus died for the church. The Holy Spirit indwells the church. The church is the body of Christ. The church is his bride. He loves and cares for and nourishes the church day in and day out so that she may presented to him as a spotless bride!

The word church comes from the Greek word ekklesia which means “assembly.” Particularly, it’s a gathering that has been called out. You can see that in the word: “ek” in Greek is where we get the word exit. A church is a called out assembly of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the community to which he calls each and every person who believes on his name.

This assembly is not just a good idea, it is vital to the life of the Christian. Mark Dever gives three main reasons a Christian should be committed to the church: to assure ourselves, to evangelize the world, and to expose false teaching. Let me explain their importance:

1. To assure ourselves.

In the church, we have accountability to leaders and to each other. (Hebrews 13:17, James 5:16)

In the church, we have a community to which we belong and with whom we share our love and burdens. (Acts 2:42-47, Gal 6:2)

In the church, we find our authenticity as disciples of Jesus. (I John 5:13)

2. To evangelize the world.

In the church, we have a team that is equipped to minister to each other and our communities (Ephesians 4:12)

In the church, we find the authority to send missionaries. (Acts 13:1-2)

3. To expose false teaching

In the church, we hold to a common confession (I Corinthians 15:1-5).

In the church, we practice discipline and, at times, separation to keep the faith (Matthew 18:15-20)

As part of the new creation inaugurated by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the church consists of the “people of the future living in the present” (Robert E. Webber). In the church, Heaven meets Earth. The importance of the church cannot be overstated in these times. This is the institution Christ founded. It is the place that breaks down barriers and contains a beautiful, united choir of worshipers from every tribe, tongue, and nation. An un-churched Christian is such an oxymoron considering the New Testament’s emphasis (I realize many go through valleys of searching), that a professing believer without a connection to the church is sharing the status of a lost pilgrim who cannot be guaranteed the destination for which he hopes. He must stop living only for the future and realize the future is here now – in the church of Jesus Christ.

Let me say at the outset, I am primarily satisfied with the message of the video and happy that it has reached so many people and caused us all to think.  I took  special notice of it the day after it went viral, in which many of my friends on Facebook were sharing the video, most favorably. Some other friends commented on the poet’s misuse of the word “religion,” and several discussions ensued.

Here is the video:

Before delving into the issue about the word “religion,” I want to note the things I enjoyed from brother Bethke’s poem.

One of the first things he says is, “Voting Republican really wasn’t his mission. . . ‘Republican’ doesn’t automatically mean ‘Christian.’” At first, this strikes me as off-topic. But it’s obvious who he’s trying to reach, and in doing so he’s spot on. The video, as I see it, was intended to dispel the notion that Christianity is an empty religion with its own set of rituals that makes it on par with every other religion. He’s trying to separate Christianity from all the stereotypes about political involvement, judgmentalism, and rote performance.  Bethke refers to the “mask” of religion as “perfume on a casket” and “behavior modification.” His candid testimony illustrates his desire to sincerely present the gospel (and he does highlight the grace of God in Jesus Christ in the poem) to a world seething in ignorance. One of my favorite lines includes an autobiographical statement about his  ”whole life building a facade of neatness, but now that I know Jesus I boast in my weakness!”

If by “religion,” this brother means “vain tradition,” then this video is a tremendous blessing. If by “religion,” Bethke means “man’s attempt to cover his own sin,” then the adage he includes, “man searching for God vs. God searching for man” actually fits. If the poem meant to convey the idea that “religion” means “self-righteousness,” then I can say “amen” to the line, “Religion says ‘do’ but Jesus says ‘done.’”

I have no reason to doubt that’s precisely with this brother means to say. And I’m thankful for all the ears who have heard the message in this way. However, many have used his words to legitimize their own disdain for true religion.

In the video, Bethke states that “Jesus came to abolish religion,” a statement quite intriguing in light of Matthew 5:17, which states, ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” I wonder how such an oversight could have been made. Bethke calls religion a “man made religion” that “Jesus hated.” These are very strong words and can be taken in a variety of ways.

The Internet audience is diverse. Some may hear the poem and think, “Yes, that’s what I’m looking for! I’m tired of the empty traditions, the self-centered performance, and hypocrisy of organized religion – but I love Jesus!” In these cases, we rejoice. However, how many times has “I don’t believe in organized religion” been said to justify a downplaying of the church? (I realize at one point brother Bethke clarifies himself and says he loves the church, but his anti-religion message is too confusing). What concerned me were comments like this that I saw on social networks:  ”I’m not a Christian I just have a relationship with Jesus.”

See, the problem goes way beyond this video. Had the video not been posted, I would have eventually come to the term “religion” because of how much it takes a beating today. I am convinced that one of the prevailing problems in Christianity today, and particularly in modern, Western evangelicalism, is rugged individualism. Church is unnecessary. All that matters is “me and my Bible” and/or “me and Jesus.” We don’t need religion but a relationship.

I submit to you that religion is one of the primary ways that God has given to us to build our relationship with Him!

And just what is religion anyway? Webster’s says,

Recognition on the part of man of a controlling superhuman power of powers entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; a particular system of faith in and worship of a Supreme Being or a god or gods, an object of conscientious or encompassing devotion.

Biblically, religion is defined similarly to that above. In the Oxford’s Guide to the Bible edited by Bruce Metzger, “religion” is said to mean,

. . . (narrowly), actions, especially cultic or ceremonial, that express reverence for the gods. (Broadly), religion involved a complex of faith and conduct. . . Isaiah 11.2 translates is “fear of the Lord.”

The Apostle James has no problem talking about religion:

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
(James 1:26-27 ESV)

I find it interesting that James also includes things you do as part of “pure religion.” These words coincide nicely with the actions of our Lord and his apostles. After all, Jesus fulfilled the Law. He kept ceremonies and feasts and customs. In fact, he even celebrated Hanukkah (John 10:22-23). While it is true he rebuked the Pharisees for their self-centered, overzealous, hypocritical religion, Jesus did not shy away from religion himself. The fact that the very embodiment of the gospel is religious should teach us the truth that religion and relationship are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, as I said above, the Christian religion is the primary means by which we grow in our relationship with Christ. It cannot be stated strongly enough: God does not call any of his followers to be alone. The idea that we can live the Christian life in isolation is a devastating lie. You need the church. The church needs you. Believers need each other. And if we get together, we’ll need a common confession. And we’ll need some organization, too.

So, that leaves us with an organized group of devoted followers of God in fellowship, helping each other live out a common confession through encouragement, obedience, and practice.  Sounds like religion to me! Pure, biblical, Christian religion. We need the word “religion.” This is our word. Let us redeem this word!

I love Jesus, and I love his religion!

Check out a 2008 article by Voddie Baucham on the “religion” issue - worth your time!