Jaroslav Pelikan, that great church history scholar who taught for three decades at Yale, once said “Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” Some, of course, think (foolishly) that all tradition is dead and that all things now living are alive. But we can be wiser about this, and it is the fine line between tradition and traditionalism that sometimes creates enormous problems for the church.
That is whyRubel Shelly in his new book, I Knew Jesus Before He Was a Christian… And I Liked Him Better Then makes the statement that “today is the sabbath!” Religion, so he argues, can so easily get in God’s way! What at one time stabilizes can later destabilize. Religion controls; God is beyond control.
What do you think of his idea that the church is the medium of the gospel today? What happens when we see church members as family members and not as fellow volunteers? Is your church more like a restaurant or a family?
Jesus cut into the heart of this debate when he said “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”
But sometimes the traditions are more important than people. He tells the story of the man who was healed at Bethesda (John 5) where, to the surprise of the traditionalists, a man recently healed by Jesus was walking home and folks were irritated because he was carrying his mat on the sabbath. Well, well, it’s obvious isn’t it? The rules were in the way of seeing that God had been at work to heal a man, and instead of rejoicing they were worried about breaking rules.
If God is at work, we should support God’s work.
It is not uncommon for many people to feel they have to choose between Jesus and religion. Scripture’s aim is not itself but Jesus. In this very text Jesus had to make just that point (John 5:39-40). Rubel says the biggest enemy of Jesus is traditionalism. And so he proposes three insights:
Inclusion. Traditionalists want to make outsiders feel unwelcome; Jesus wants outsiders to feel welcome.
Affirmation. Traditionalists always affirm traditions over people; Jesus affirmed people over traditionalism.
Relationship. Traditionalists trusts rules; Jesus offers a relationship. Traditionalists — count on this one — are those who are always worried that love will lead to license and will become a slippery slope to who knows what.
These things are hard to measure, but the most valuable things of life are often hard to measure.
In my opinion, as in many other cases, the Sabbath problem in John 5 (as Yeshua consistently indicates) is a shallow ethic that absolutizes certain principles and ignores others. Good Torah ethics recognizes that life is more important than a single commandment. Good Torah ethics recognize that commandments can be overridden by a greater issue. Thus, it is not required that a person suffering continue suffering until after Sabbath is over. There never was a problem with God’s commandment to Israel not to work on the seventh day and our interpretation ought to avoid criticizing God’s commandments. Yeshua never did, but upheld them every time. I know that last statement is controversial to some, but I don’t want to go in with a long comment defending everything I just said.
Comment by Derek Leman — July 28, 2011 @ 7:46 am
As a result of the series on the book here, I bought it and read it over a couple of days while at a conference last month. The family/restaurant comparison hit too-very close to home. We push towards and are intentional about family; many people visit our ‘church as restaurant’ and it’s sad.
>>Scripture’s aim is not itself but Jesus.
It seems that the connection to the ongoing discussion on Biblicism ought not be missed; our ecclesiology and our daily life as the church are affected in significant (and not necessarily beneficial) ways.
The Inclusion, Affirmation and Relationship bullet points are worth an entire discussion all by themselves. So, how do we find an on-going, effective (if not affective) way to see this relationship Spirit-breathed into our very lives as the church?
Comment by Terry — July 28, 2011 @ 9:17 am
It’s okay for a church to be like a family, but not a dysfunctional one in which ol’ Uncle Harry’s sins are tolerated to the detriment of others. I find that people often prize “keeping the peace” over true peacemaking or reconciliation and “keeping the peace” in my mind is more in line with dead tradition. Since ol’ Uncle Harry is just “like that”, everyone is expected to understand and tolerate him. God forbid that we actually correct one another and call each other to a higher standard so that more people could be included in the family versus alienated.
Comment by Pat Pope — July 28, 2011 @ 9:32 am
I can appreciate that a good relationship with God is what we are after and that reducing that relationship to rules makes for an inadequate relationship. But the “rules” we find in Scripture give us a sort of map to the relationship.
For example, the “Ten Commandments” begins with, “I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” It is not only a statement of deliverance but also of relationship: “I am the LORD your God.” There is also a converse that is implied: “You are my people,” and this is made explicit elsewhere. So it begins with relationship.
Because there is that relationship, then, the first instruction is: “You shall have no other gods before me.” Why? Because they were in relationship with God. And the second, “You shall not make for yourself a carved image.” Why? Because the God with whom they were in relationship can not be reduced to such things — He is a person, not an idol. The other commandments and instructions throughout the Torah teach us important things about this God, about protecting that divine relationship, about enjoying the covenant promises of the God who created a people of His own to enter into covenant relationship with.
When my wife and I married, we each made certain vows, certain promises, certain “rules.” They do not take the place of relationship, nor do they weaken the relationship — they strengthen the relationship, defining and protecting it.
Comment by Jeff Doles — July 28, 2011 @ 9:35 am
So you’re saying that his tradition is to focus on people and relationships in a modern, Western context? Got it.
While some could certainly use the critique of placing peculiar rules before people, I’ve never agreed with pure oppostion against ‘tradition’ or ‘religion’ as a barrier to God.
I understand what they’re *trying* to say, that we should be careful of falling into dead, rote repetition instead of natural, healthy rhythyms that help us focus on what’s really important (not the practice, but God and his people). That focus should be the crux of anyone’s praxis. But everyone finds particular ways of doing things, and there are ways of healthfully saying that, “Our tradition is a discipline to get closer to God, we’d love to help you understand how that is.”
That is, how we handle and style our tradition is incredibly important in reaching people and respecting Christ as a unique center of everything. But the message that ‘tradition’ or ‘religion’ should not be respected is, IMO, unhelpful. As I always like to say, ‘religion’ comes from the same root as ‘rely’. Etymologically, the word is concerning the idea of ‘relying’ or being ‘bound with’ God.
We shouldn’t make the word and its history of traditions and disciplines the enemy.
Comment by Amos Paul — July 28, 2011 @ 9:36 am
@ Amos #5
I think the underlying assumption here is that the dead, rote repetition is far more rampant than people are willing to admit. It doesn’t take more than a few months for something to become habit and tradition, and we all like it when that happens because we don’t have to think about it. It’s easier that way.
The question isn’t “Is tradition the enemy?” but “Have I given in to the enemy?”
The stance isn’t “Let’s be careful to not do that” but “Let’s repent of the sins we commit every day and strive to connect with the people around us”. (instead of connecting to the traditions around us)
Comment by Adam — July 28, 2011 @ 1:32 pm
That opening quotation about tradition is actually borrowed from G. K. Chesterton.
As for the Sabbath example, Gary Anderson at Notre Dame helped me understand why the “traditionalists” were so Sabbath-oriented. They thought they were being relational… they were making up for lost time, for past sins, to let Israel be restored.
The line is not an easy one. Many Pharisees were well intended. I think it is often easy for us to do the same…
A good rule is whether our rules humanize or dehumanize people (love God; love neighbor). Are we devouring widow’s houses because we emphasize the offering plate? Are we burdening families with church attendance when they need a break on a weekend to regroup as a family? The list can go on.
Comment by Dale Fincher — July 29, 2011 @ 1:31 am