Should We Be Anti-Tradition?

There is a growing dissatisfaction among religious people with church traditions.

The word tradition is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as, "a way of thinking, behaving or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time."

There are certainly times where it's good to be dissatisfied with, and even vehemently opposed to, religious and church traditions. Jesus is very clear about this:

"Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 'Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not w ash their hands when they eat bread?...'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''" (Matthew 15:1-2, 8-9).

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). 

These traditions were condemned by our Lord because they were being taught as commands of God. We certainly cannot bind upon others what God hasn't bound upon us in His word. These traditions ought to be wholly rejected by those who have a sincere desire to serve and worship God. We must not advocate human traditions, but God's truth!

However, there is another sense in which even the teachings of God are called traditions.

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

And certainly, this fits the definition I cited above. The teachings of Scripture do constitute "a way of thinking, behaving or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., for a long time." The biblical definition of tradition (from the Greek word paradosis is, "transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept." None of us should be opposed to these traditions!

Finally, there are traditions that are not specifically taught in Scripture but that are, generally speaking, harmless. Here are a few examples of what I am going to call "expeditions" - expedients that happen to become traditions in many churches:

• Sunday morning worship services. Are we ever commanded in the New Testament to assemble on Sunday mornings? No. But we know that the early church was in the habit of meeting on Sundays (Acts 20:6-7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2), and therefore Sunday morning assemblies are completely authorized. Obviously, a majority of churches meet on Sunday mornings and have done so for hundreds of years. So we might call this a "tradition." But it's a harmless tradition, or "expedition."
• Church buildings. Are churches commanded to own their own buildings? No. Do we ever find an example of a "church building" in the New Testament? No. But we are commanded to assemble for the purposes of worship and edification (Heb. 10:24-25; 1 Cor. 11, 14) - and "church buildings" do facilitate this. Church buildings are just as authorized (generically) as song books or pews. Obviously, most churches, especially in our country, own their own buildings. Therefore, we might call this a "tradition," and we would be right. But it's not a wrong or sinful tradition.
• Calling ourselves "churches of Christ." We see in Romans 16:16 that early churches called themselves "churches of Christ" (Romans 16:16). However, this was more of a description than an official name for the church. In fact, churches more commonly were identified as "churches of God" (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:13). At times, the church was identified based on its location (i.e. the "church of the Thessalonians," 1 Thess. 1:1). It's clear to me then that while the "church of Christ" designation is certainly scriptural, it isn't mandatory. There are other Scriptural designations. And therefore, the fact that congregations of Christ's people all over the world often call themselves "churches of Christ" is a tradition. But is it the kind of tradition that Jesus condemned in Matthew 15? Not at all.

In each of these cases, the tradition is authorized by means of expediency; they help us to reach a Scriptural end. In fact, reasoning this way is absolutely essential and even unavoidable. To fulfill any Scriptural command or example, we must depend upon expedients such as these.

These traditions - again, expeditions - are not inherently wrong, but can become wrong if we elevate them to "command status" and bind them on others. Then we certainly fall under the condemnation of our Lord in Matthew 15, and the result is "vain worship." So if I attend a church that happens to own a building, and we call ourselves a "church of Christ," and we meet on Sunday mornings...and sing out of song books and have a certain order of worship and separate Bible classes and folks dress more formally...I am by no means a tradition-loving Pharisee. But if I condemn other brethren who happen to meet in a home, have only a Sunday afternoon assembly, call themselves simply "the church," dress more casually, and sing from memory...then I am wrong...not my traditions, per se...but me - I am wrong for how I have handled them.

Are there some brethren who wrongly bind these traditions? Absolutely. But many brethren do not! Our objection must not be to the traditions, but to the Pharisaical brethren.

In conclusion, should we be anti-tradition? Hopefully, I've shown that the word "tradition" has a very broad meaning and application in religion. Some traditions are wrong, some are essential, and some are harmless. Let's properly distinguish between these three types of traditions...and let us be honest in making these distinctions.