I Am a Traditionalist (But Not in the Traditional Sense)
I am a traditionalist. I like afternoon baseball games on grass with no designated hitter. I like 4th of July fireworks.

I like traditional doctrine and teaching.

I hate liturgy; creeds, stained glass and brass crosses. I hate ‘thees’ and ‘thous’ ,‘eths’ and ‘essts’. I say ‘blessed’ with only one syllable.

So why is it that a traditionalist like me hates what many religious people refer to as tradition.

There are several reasons.

•The Bible specifically states that the traditions of men can make even the word of God without effect. So an argument could be made that even if I liked tradition (of the religious nature- in the common understanding of the word) we are cautioned against it in Scripture.

•Much of what’s referred to as traditional worship, or known as an element of traditional worship, is nothing of the sort.

Tradition in its good sense captures the unchanging message of Christ. At its best, it anchors us to the unchanging doctrine and principles taught by the writers of the New Testament.

In its normal usage, it is adherence to a set of methods that were at some point new and (hopefully) effective tools to convey the message of Christ to people.

Let’s face it. Traditional worship service elements would, if we were really to apply our Christian Tradition, include such things as –
- Rowing a boat away from shore to address a crowd with a sermon.
- Causing people to think you were drunk while speaking in foreign languages as a method to create church growth.
- Standing in the temple of an unknown god, and identifying the Great I Am as the known revelation of that unknown deity.

Nowhere in the New Testament do we read of religious icons such as brass crosses, stained glass windows, steeples or cathedrals as being either integral or acceptable parts of the Christian worship experience.

Just the opposite is true. Silversmiths opposed Christians in the first century because it was clear to the silversmiths that this new religion would destroy their profitable business creating idols. One might wonder why they didn’t just start to make crosses, candleholders and baptismal fonts.

Tradition, if viewed in truth shows a completely different picture. Throughout the New Testament era, new and exciting (dare I say contemporary) elements replaced older worn out, no longer effective methods of presenting the gospel.

So, in the current use of the term, tradition seems to be conflicted. In truth, tradition, correctly defined as maintaining a steadfast doctrine while choosing whatever method is effective to present the message of Christ, offers no conflict whatsoever.

So- I am a traditionalist. I embrace the tradition (and for it to be truly our tradition it must reach back to our roots) of the first century church to use any method available to present the unchanging truth of the doctrine of Christ.

I embrace the tradition of using contemporary secular music with lyrics changed to honor Christ (as Wesley did with ‘O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing’- sung to the tune of a bar song) to reach people who are more familiar with the secular than with the spiritual.

I embrace nearing heresy (as did Paul when he identified the God of the Bible as the unknown pagan god to whom a temple had been built) if it is effective in reaching a lost and dying generation.

I embrace whatever method is effective at proclaiming the unchanging doctrine of Christ. I embrace the tradition of changing methods to effectively proclaim the unchanging truths of Christianity.

I embrace tradition. It’s just that the definition of tradition has been misrepresented.  ¶ 10:00 PM 0 comments