What Role Should Tradition Play in the Church?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

The question — and the short answer: a tool, not an authority

• The question posed (in the host's frame): in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul wrote: therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. The word 'tradition', as you well know, provokes some interesting reactions. Some denominations and groups see tradition as very important — like, for example, the Roman Catholic Church explicitly states: both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. Now, some Protestants, including our own — we have often argued that we should get rid of man-made traditions. But I've also heard some of our own use tradition as a defense, for holding on to certain beliefs. So my question is: what role should tradition play, in determining our beliefs and our practices in the church? His answer: the short answer is: tradition can be a helpful tool, but it should not be regarded as authority. So you're correct: the Roman Catholic Church, and Eastern Orthodoxy, both say that tradition and Scripture are equal in authority. So that's how, for example, they teach the doctrine of the Trinity; that's how they have a special place for venerating Mary. Because, even though these things are not explicitly taught in the Bible, they believe the Holy Spirit taught it, through ancient theologians, church councils — in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, through the pope himself. Obviously, Protestants reject that. However, in a backhand way, they bring it in again. Because those same Protestants that say the Bible is the only authority: many times they will have authoritative creeds. And if you do not ascribe to those creeds, then you're automatically in false doctrine; you're not orthodox. So they're trying to have it both ways. And of course, they're very inconsistent, because they pick and choose which parts of the creed. So the nyine Creed (as the name is heard), for example — as it's come down to us, teaches the three persons of the Trinity, but it also teaches that baptism is essential to salvation. So those same Protestants say: if you don't accept the Trinity, as stated by the creed, you're in false doctrine. But the creed is wrong, because baptism isn't necessary. So they pick and choose. But let's take a biblical approach.

Scriptures: 2 Thessalonians 2:15

The danger: Matthew 15 — tradition that voids the commandment

• First of all, there's definitely a danger in making tradition an authority. We see that from Jesus Christ himself, going to Matthew chapter 15. So, Jewish leaders were criticizing the disciples of Jesus, because they did not follow all the traditions of ceremonial washings. And so, in verse 3 — and I'm using the New King James, Matthew 15:3: he answered and said to them: why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying: honor your father and your mother; and: he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death. But you say: whoever says to his father or mother, whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God — then he need not honor his father or mother. Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: these people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; and in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. So Jesus came very strongly against tradition, saying: instead of following the word of God, you're substituting human traditions — commandments of men.
• The example he gave may not seem obvious to us, but it comes from the Ten Commandments: honor your father and mother. And one of the implications of that: you should take care of your elderly parents, when they're no longer able to support themselves. You should still honor them; you should take care of them. Well, the Jews of Christ's day came up with a little loophole. And they said: well, I have some money, some extra savings, to support my parents — but I'm going to dedicate this to the Lord. So I will pledge it: that it's to be given to God. So therefore, I can't give it to my parents, because it's already pledged to God. So under the guise of holiness, they continue to hold on to that money — saying: one of these days, I'm going to give it to God, so I can't spend it on my parents. And Jesus said: you're a hypocrite. It's obvious: you should honor your parents. You're claiming to honor God, but you're actually dishonoring your parents. And so that's the example he gave.

Scriptures: Matthew 15:3-9; Isaiah (book-only)

The valid tradition: what Paul preached and wrote

• Now, you quoted from 2 Thessalonians, talking about traditions. But notice, when you look at that carefully — now, here's a valid tradition. Okay, here's the kind of tradition we're supposed to follow. Let me read it again: therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or our epistle. So: the traditions that I preached to you, when I was there — or that I'm writing to you. And of course, we would regard these words as inspired. So when Paul established the gospel, when he established these churches, he preached the gospel to them — and now he's writing inspired Scripture to them. So those are the traditions that we should uphold. Another example is in 1 Corinthians 11:2. It's interesting: it's in the context of teaching on hair, and also teaching on the Lord's Supper — and he regarded those as binding. 1 Corinthians 11:2: now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. So here's the answer: tradition is good, when it's handing down the word of God. So I'm a second-generation Pentecostal. My mother came into the church as a teenager; my father, with his family, as a child. So I was taught, from childhood, the basic apostolic doctrine. So in that sense, it's a tradition. But why should I uphold those traditions? Not just because it's a family tradition; not just because my mother and father taught them to me; but because it's from the word of God. So those traditions are good — and in fact, necessary.

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 11:2

The wrong use: tradition made superior to Scripture

• But traditions that would substitute for the word of God — instead of following God's word, you follow human teachings and commandments — we're not supposed to follow them. So unfortunately, with the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of making tradition equal to Scripture, they are actually negating Scripture. And I would actually say, in practice, they're putting tradition above Scripture. Because there are a lot of things in Scripture they don't follow, or they reinterpret. And I would even say: the Protestants, with their orthodox creeds, end up saying: well, you have to believe it this way, according to our tradition — not according to the way it was originally written. So instead of going back to the first century, and the original text of Scripture, and trying to figure out: what does it mean, what does it say, what does it teach? Well: just follow this 15th- or 16th-century creed, and it tells you what to think; and it tells you what the Scripture says. Or: follow this fourth, or fifth, or sixth, or seventh-century council. Or: follow this 10th-century, or 20th-century, pope — and they'll tell you what it means. Well, in effect, they're not merely making tradition equal: they're making it superior.

The middle: culture, methods — and implementing Scripture

• So the simple articulation is: if you mean, by tradition, perpetuating the doctrines of the Bible, and teaching it to your children, to your grandchildren, to your converts — that's a good thing. You don't start from scratch. But if it means taking what's in the Bible, and substituting it, or reinterpreting it, and depending on traditions developed over the centuries, more than the text itself — then that's a bad thing. Now, in the middle, you might say: there are traditions that are not presented as authoritative. So: the way we conduct service, church buildings, our music — you know, maybe some of the ways that we prefer, that we should express ourselves. As long as those aren't made doctrinal, or mandatory — then of course there's room for what you might call human culture, or Pentecostal culture: ways of doing things. So I'm not saying we have to sing the style of songs in first-century Palestine. We don't really even know exactly how they sang. So in that sense, we might have a 21st-century tradition, or an American tradition, or, you know, another — a Latin American tradition. That's okay, because we're not talking about either of these extremes. We're not saying it's Bible, and we're not trying to replace the Bible. So in that sense: if we look at an international church, and there's a diversity of practices, or methods, or cultural expressions — if we want to call those traditions — one of the tests is that we obviously don't think they're mandatory, because we allow that diversity: among families within a church, among churches within a nation, among nations of the world. As long as we're obviously allowing that diversity, not considering it authoritative, then I would say: really, those are more in the nature of preferences, or methods, or cultural expressions. And I think there is room for that.
• I also think there's room: the Bible gives us certain principles. And especially when it comes to the New Testament church, the Bible doesn't give us a detail of how to structure a local church; it doesn't give us a detail of how to structure an organization, nationally or internationally. But it does give us some very clear principles — and I've done a podcast on church government. It gives us principles that we need to implement, such as ordaining ministers. It doesn't give us the details of what process to follow. So I believe, in those cases, God gives us liberty to implement the Scripture, in our own way, in our own cultural context. And that's why you find, in Matthew 18, Jesus said: what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. That doesn't give us authority to teach new doctrine, or to impose certain restrictions, or to remove — that aren't in the Bible — or to remove certain teachings that are in the Bible. But it does say: as you carry out my business, as you implement what I've told you, I will back you up. When you decide: you know, we're all going to meet together on Sunday at 11:00 a.m., to worship God — I'll back you up; everybody should cooperate in that local church. So in that sense, traditions that become implementations of scriptural teachings: that's also acceptable.

Scriptures: Matthew 18

The test restated [captured text ends mid-sentence]

• But to go back to the main question: if we mean, by tradition, trying to teach subsequent generations of believers what the Bible teaches — that's good. If we mean: replacing the Bible; adding new doctrines that aren't in the Bible; or taking away, and substituting doctrines from the Bible with something else — then that's wrong. And that's why we tend— [the captured text ends here, mid-sentence; the answer's closing words and the podcast outro were not captured — see the coverage flag on the record; nothing has been invented to fill the tail]

Scripture index: 2 Thessalonians 2:15; Matthew 15:3-9; Isaiah (book-only); 1 Corinthians 11:2; Matthew 18.