Traditions Ain't What They Used To Be
After all, Jesus wasn't really born on December 25th, right? And the tricksy way that we calculate the date for Easter has only a little to do with the Passover date on which it originally happened. The institution of the Christian church has done a nice job of messing around with the details, and modern North American traditions have only continued this trend of muddifying the fuzzification.
Taken further, we can look at the entire Catholic calendar and question the origins of each of these holidays. We can do the same with the liturgical year, as described here. We have a wide selection of Christian, semi-Christian and supposedly Christian events to look forward to in any given year.
I'm not writing this in order to dismiss these celebrations. In fact, I'm a big fan of Christmas and Easter performances at my church, which is obvious since I'm in them every year. I just acknowledge the fact that they serve a purpose for the us besides mere religious ritual.
Let me get to the twist, though. If we opt out of the two biggest Christian holidays of the year, and we do so because of the history and meaning of these events, why do we so avidly defend so many other traditions in our churches?
Why do we think that a church building is necessary, or even Biblical? Why do we insist on having pastors, or a group of official elders, or sermons, or services on Sundays? As my dad wrote on his blog, these concepts do not have any better basis in Old or New Testament scripture than December 25th does.
I'm not advocating that we get rid of them all. I know that there was no such thing as Sunday School back in the day but I still found it educational and fun when I was growing up. Instead, I am suggesting that these things are merely different tools that we are using. And if the tools don't work as well as they should, we should be open to questions and alternatives.
To hold onto certain traditions while at the same time dismissing others for almost identical reasons, that ain't right. If we are going to hold onto some holidays, or hold onto certain aspects of church life, we should do it for clear reasons. Look at how beneficial these things are and at the joy they provide. And if there is a better solution out there, let us seriously consider those options as well. Clear up the haze and get focused on why we're doing this in the first place.
Can I get an Amen!?!
9 comments:
AMEN!
Preach it brotha!
Asking for consistency in interpreting the scriptures is one of the main reasons the Pharissees hated Jesus so much. They didn't like being revealed as hypocrites. Mankind has not changed in 2,000 years. I think what you are asking for is a revolution and institutions are not designed to accomodate such ideas.
You mention that appointing pastors and an official group of elders has no basis in scripture, yet in Acts 14, it says that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in each church. In 1 Timothy 5, it says that "The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching." and then further comments on the OT scripture that a worker deserves his wages. To me, that says clearly that there was an importance to at least some degree of hierarchy in the church (and that is on a per-church basis), that preaching and teaching was a responsibility of at least some of the appointed elders, and further that the roles of an elder, or even those preaching and teaching, may have also been a paid position.
I would agree that a church building may not be explicitly mentioned, but definitely the concept of appointed elders and at least some degree of hierarchy is. In 1 Timothy 3, there's even a full description of the requirements for overseers and deacons, which each differ from elders. And all of these are on a per church basis, but you're right that there isn't specifically a designated church building. Though if I were living in those times, where Christians were persecuted for their faith, I wouldn't build a building either. It might as well be a giant bull's eye, and then every Christian would have been martyred and no one would have been left to "go into all the world".
Granted (no pun intended), I do agree with the concept of what you're referring to, that we've become so caught up in the rituals and the structure that we're often missing the general point of what we're there to do in the first place. I think that's kind of in line with what you said about your Christmas/Easter opinion (that you still actively enjoy being part of those celebrations). Personally though, I know that I tend to do inverse pendulum swings once something sinks into my head as a "personal truth". One thing that I always have to be careful of, is saying that because it isn't exactly rooted in scripture, that it's also necessarily wrong. There are plenty of things that are extra-biblical without being anti-biblical. I also think that there can be a healthy balance between tradition and progression. Isaiah 43:19a says "See, I am doing a new thing!"... I think God is all for implementing new things and new ideas, to "keep with the times" as long as the governing principles don't contradict his word. But it's hard to make a mental attitude to change or grow while still retaining a healthy appreciation for tradition.
Good point about the elders, Steve. I should have chosen a more easily accessible example there. Chalk that up to allowing my dad's ideas to infiltrate my writing without sufficient explanation. Heh.
Although on a more expanded level, maybe eldership is a good example. Some churches have formal votes with 2 - 4 year terms for elders. Other churches have lifetime eldership. Some churches combine elders and board members, other churchers maintain two separate groups. Some churches see eldership as an office in the church, other churches see it simply as recognition of someone that already acts as a senior and wise Christian.
Again, that's not to say those things are wrong. As you aptly said, extra-Biblical does not have to mean anti-Biblical.
Steve,
I agree that there must be caution between what is prescriptive and what is descriptive in the Bible. An equal challenge is reading the Bible with 20th century glasses. Words then and words now are not necessarily the same.
If I acknowlege a person to be an elder is that because I have appointed them or because they are functioning as a mature person already? I would say the latter is what is being referred to in Acts 14. These days some have made elder a positional role rather than a functional one. Or even worse they have the number of people that could be elders because the system of government that has been created cannot handle too many.
Traditions tend to foul up the process in that they sometimes exist for themselves. When that happens it is called idolatry. Jesus' words come to mind regarding the Sabbath. Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man. Mark 2:27
If there is a degree of hierarchy it is meant to be temporary like fathers and sons. Eventually the son is to grow up and run his own home submitting to the Lordship of Jesus in doing so.
The leadership models that exist today are more lingering. They don't always follow the pattern of I must decrease in order that Jesus might increase. Even Jesus declared that it was for the good of the disciples that he leave. John 16
There are not many leadership models today that work that way. If pastors are seen as having influence like a father shouldn't the children rise up to be equal to and not under a pastor. The typical system today has no idea what to do with this type of language. Funny thing is pastors sometimes get frustrated because people do not rise up to their potential maturity and take their position at the plate. But when somebody is already standing on it, it is sometimes difficult.
The weakly Sunday service model is fine as long as it is seen as one of many methods of growing in God. When it is THE method that must be maintained for the entire life of a believer something is out of whack.
I understand that many believers demand such a service. If they are demanding such a service they need to understand the crucifixion in a whole new way. A mother eagle must push their eaglets out of the nest. Then they can rise up as eagles.
I've never heard an argument for not celebrating Easter or Christmas (at least, never heard one that referred to the historic roots as a reason for not celebrating). Care to expound?
Here is some reading about the Sunday as the Lord's day controversy.
http://www.yashanet.com/library/reformf.htm
Easter was to always to be on a Sunday, Council of Nicea 325, in order to honor the Lord's day which was a post biblical development.
Therefore Easter itself is proof that Roman Catholicism has the right to make their traditions equal to scripture.
Not really controversial, it just means we are more catholic than we thought.
It is interesting that some protestants will say they can find scriptural proof of Sunday being the official day of worship, when even Roman Catholics say they cannot.
As one example, Joel, Open Door Christian Fellowship does celebrate either Christmas or Easter. That applies to church stuff, so they don't do special services for those holidays. It also applies to most people in their own homes, so no gift giving at Christmas. At most, family and friends get together for a meal or something.
The main reason for that is that neither holiday is rooted in the Bible in any way. "Easter" comes from the pagan name "Ishtar," December 25th is a somewhat random date, etc.
That being said, my family also did not celebrate Christmas this year. That decision was partially driven by the history of it, partially by the fact that we didn't want to spend a lot of money. Heh.
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment