Tradition
vs Scripture
How does one properly distinguish between God’s commandments and
human tradition? How do these terms affect how we preach and what
we practice?
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.”
1. “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).
2. The term “tradition” renders a Greek word that signifies “instruction
that has been handed down.” (Danker, 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.
1. 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. 35:29ff).
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.
2. 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, 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.
1. 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, 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).
2. In another volume, Hook argues that the exclusive use of male
worship leaders is merely one of “our traditions” (Free As Sons, 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, 295).
These assertions are fallacious. The apostle’s censure of woman’s
usurpation of authority resulted from his own apostolic commission
(1 Cor. 14:38), 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 (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,
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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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,
232).
4. 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 “extention.” 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”?
5. 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?
6. 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.
7. 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?
1. 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., 114-116, 122).
2. 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.”
3. We must inform ourselves of the issues and movements within the
church. Prevention is the greatest remedy for disease – physical or
spiritual.
4. 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
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).
