Change Versus Tradition: Must We Choose?
“We’ve never done it that way before.” All of us have heard this expression before. Whether at home, work, or church, this sentiment characterizes many, while irking others. It often functions as a conversation-stopper. After all, if past precedent is the final arbiter of all future decisions, progress ceases.
But because unique situations do arise in the course of life, it is often unclear as to how the past informs the present. Tensions arise that lead some to fill old wineskins. At the same time, a new generation of connoisseurs confidently insists that only new wineskins will do. These competing visions persist until one acquiesces, and the other emerges victorious. However, ultimately no one is happy.
The imagery above is hardly a story that occurred long ago in a foreign land. It is the church’s story—yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The church always stands between the times, trying to navigate cultural change with wisdom and courage. “We’ve never done it that way before” is just one utterance that reflects a fundamental tension lurking beneath the surface: the tension between change and tradition.
“Change” and “Tradition” are often seen as two distinct, orienting stances for how the church should navigate today’s currents and prepare for tomorrow’s. However, I would like to clarify how fundamentally similar these are. Ultimately, I hope to propose a truce between the two in the spirit of love and sound judgment [1].
Tradition Versus Change
Traditionalists see themselves as sustaining something valuable. “The Old Time Religion” may be the Gospel song that best exemplifies them. While their commitment varies between dogmatism and sentimentality, traditionalists believe the church’s artifacts, traditions, and customs are special, honorable, and essential. Any effort to discard, revise, or supplant these is not merely a preferential gesture. It is an attack, regardless of motivation, on the very fabric of the church’s message and members.
Typically older generations are associated with traditionalism. This is because these artifacts, traditions, and customs often began with them. They themselves have meaningfully experienced decades of these practices and have grown to appreciate their identity-forging power. While they may be lulled into a cocoon of complacency gradually, the good intentions informing their traditions are deeply embedded in their memories. In other words, the traditionalists remember the sacrifice, diligence, and good will that have made the church what it is today.
The other orientation in the church can be found in numerous books released over the last several years examining the decline of the American church. Many of them call for the church to reinvent itself in order to be relevant to 21st century culture [2]. These proponents are the progressives, or change-agents [3]. As diverse as they are, their unifying characteristic is their call for change.
Change-agents in the local church are those most likely to be critical. While traditionalists often endorse the status quo of ministry, progressives constantly remind the body of its need for innovation and change. They reason: if the church wants to reach their community, and that community is part of the fabric of a quickly-changing culture, then it is only reasonable that the church embraces change and adapts. Sometimes this entails a new approach to worship. Sometimes this requires new methods of outreach. Often it means a shake-up in the structure of the church’s services and programming. Regardless of the specifics, complacency is not an option.
Tradition & Change: Kissing Cousins
Despite their differences, these two parties have much in common. First, they are both concerned about preservation. Traditionalists want to preserve what they believe are meaningful practices, artifacts, and customs. They believe these somehow pertain to the church’s mission. Likewise, progressives want to preserve the church’s image as a place of meaningful refuge for outsiders. They want to sustain the church’s message from generation to generation. To rethink the packaging of this message is only reasonable.
The second similarity uniting these two is a concern for people. Traditionalists tend to emphasize the body itself. They believe the church is the “fellowship of the saints.” Allowing the surrounding culture to set the agenda for shaping church life would signal compromise. But change-driven persons also have a legitimate concern: outsiders. The church’s mission is to reach the lost. After all, Pentecost was no meaningless event. For the church to resist potentially helpful change would be an implicit denial of neighbor-love. Both groups recognize that people matter to God.
Yet the sins of these two reveal similarities as well. First, both are prone to selfishness. Progressives make their prescriptions for change paramount. Patience with those less-excited about innovation would only mean compromise. Thus, a tailor-made service might provide them adequate breathing-room, for instance (this often betrays a selfish commitment to style). Traditionalists reciprocate with their selfish addiction to the old paths. Whether it is a religious ornament donated by someone’s long-forgotten relative, or a hymn of sentimental value, nothing is too sacred. Both sides’ selfishness manifests itself in their attitudes as well as their preferences. Paradoxically, it is difficult to convince either camp of their selfishness because they see their disposition as passionate commitment to the church’s well-being.
Second, both parties are guilty of worldliness. For example, in their pursuit of relevance, progressives imbibe worldly values in the process. Implicit in so many technologies, styles, and habits are modern values—ones that are often fleeting. John warns in his first epistle that worldliness consists partly of that which quickly passes away (1 Jn. 2:17). Consequently, this raises questions about constantly changing and adopting patterns that are soon outmoded [4].
Traditionalists’ worldliness is more subtle. They often invoke their history as a means of muscling out differing opinions. This demonstrates an ugly power-play that contradicts the Spirit of Christ, who gives gifts to all members in the body. This is ironic since traditionalists would perhaps have greater success in persuading change-oriented generations of their traditions if they could articulate a reason for such practices. Instead, they remain surprised when “my granddad bought that for the church” isn’t persuasive. Sadly, traditionalists begin to strike an eerie resemblance to the Pharisees whom Jesus confronted for allowing their traditions to supersede God’s actual commandments (Mk. 7).
Traditionalists and progressives are unique in their weaknesses, of course. Traditionalism tends toward complacency, a lack of creativity, and a lack of passion. It clings to the past in a way that actually undermines the church’s mission. Progressives sin by not respecting the collective wisdom of the saints. Their commitment to relevance often exceeds their commitment to the actual people to whom they should be demonstrating goodness (Gal. 6:10).
Toward a Truce: A Principled Tradition of Engagement
How can traditionalists come to terms with their blind commitment to tradition, and progressives their fascination with change?
(a) Preservation Is Necessary
First, both camps must acknowledge their core commitment to preservation. Once they admit that they are both trying to save something, then they can carefully examine the content of what they are trying to preserve. They can also determine which forms best accomplish this, and how they relate to the content of their message.
The “traditional” orientation arguably is more biblical for this reason. After all, Christianity is fundamentally a religion based on the passing down of promises, stories, and practices [5]. From Moses’ exhortations in Deuteronomy 6 to the oral traditions of the Gospels before their composition—the faith is something to be preserved and transmitted. A healthy church must be a people committed to such practices.
(b) Change Is Necessary
Second, because sanctification is never complete in this life, some change is always necessary. Because we often enshrine our own desires, the need to evaluate and revise is a reasonable response. Faithfulness to Scripture, to God’s people, and to the lost is an art never perfected in this life. Change can sometimes be the most helpful thing a church can experience because we recognize we haven’t arrived [6]. Also, because contemporary challenges will assume different shapes, meaningful change will be essential. The need to preach intelligently will persist because objections will oscillate from generation regeneration [7]. After all, if the Gospel is not clearly articulated to each generation, mediocrity will be her plight.
(c) Scripture and Charity Are Necessary
Finally, everyone must make their case biblically and charitably. Progressives can rightfully say that change is inevitable, and it is desirable when it serves the common interests of the church and the world. Traditionalists also have a biblical argument. Tradition is crucial because it ushers people into a web of thick practices, habits, and values. While some traditions are more cultural than biblical, some help to sustain and uphold biblical ideals. As in Titus 2:1, they “accord with sound doctrine.” Both of these perspectives can co-exist with charity toward one another.
The church today needs a vibrant faith that is cautiously amenable to new challenges and opportunities. Yet it must be tempered and framed in the categories of Scripture and the larger Christian heritage [8]. If tradition and change are understood as two important ways of thinking about the church’s life, and if we balance them Scripturally, then today’s church will be unique, and yet not unlike tomorrow’s.
_______________________________________
[1] I call my approach a “principled tradition of engagement.”
[2] This sentiment is perhaps best exemplified in Brian D. Maclaren’s The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003).
[3] I use “progressives” interchangeably with notions of change in this essay since “change” doesn’t have a very simple nominal form.
[4] These concerns are articulated fairly well in Os Guinness, John Seel eds., No God But God: Breaking with the Idols of Our Age (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992). See especially the introduction, and chapters 1 and 10.
[5] Both groups can honestly acknowledge that they are all traditionalists of a sort. The word tradition comes from the Latin tradere, which denotes the handing down of something. Both groups want to offer something to those who follow them, although they differ strongly on the content and form. However, if a tradition is basically a precedent of habits and values, then it is inevitable. We do not reinvent ourselves every day. In fact, we humans thrive on routine, structure, even routine. And though we break old habits, and circumstances dictate change, we’re always settling into a schedule. These patterns form us into the kind of people we are. Thus, churches should strive to cultivate a tradition of meaningful activity—which includes various types of change over time.
[6] Charles Cook frames one of his recent posts at fwb21 in the language of “change” positively. I think most would find his proposal amenable. His post can be accessed at http://www.fwb21.com/2011/08/10/should-a-pastor-make-big-changes-the-first-year-at-a-church-yes/.
[7] I would want to also add a word of clarification here, because I believe the challenges to the Gospel actually remain rather similar from generation to generation. Fundamentally, the objections people have and the questions they raise remain the same, but they manifest themselves in different ways (sometimes they are phrased in differently vocabulary as well). This being the case, I think creativity that is subject to scriptural evaluation can be quite helpful.
[8] This, of course, calls to mind for some the oft-quoted dictum of Pelikan: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” See Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition: The 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 65. The latter phrase of the quote is also instructive: “And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.”
February 7, 2012
Jackson, I sincerely appreciated this article. This is something that I’m working through in my own thinking right now. The fact that progressives and traditionalists have so much in common, even past what you mentioned, is astonishing, but so true. I cannot agree more with the conclusions and prescriptions that you have recommended here. Thanks!
February 11, 2012
A well-framed discussion about one of the central issues facing conservative denominations.
It’s a little ironic that I was just today discussing this issue concerning a very conservative educational institution. Isn’t it interesting that some people have arbitrarily designated the 1950s as the perfect equilibrium for church style and function while others dismiss the value of ordinances and practices which have stood for hundreds of years.
Let’s face it. Sometimes we just don’t know what we’re talking about, and you hit the nail on the head: selfishness. There’s only one God to worship, but there is not only one way to worship Him and the sooner we figure that out, the better off we’ll be.
February 20, 2012
Brandon,
I appreciate the comments. It is indeed remarkable how easily we all shift into a mode of argumentation over church polity that amounts to our own ill-informed preferences, regardless of the packaging. I certainly hope intelligent and charitable conversation can be prompted in our churches that results in everyone bringing to the table insight from Scripture and the Great Tradition (2000 years of Christianity). I agree with you in that the last thing we need is a snapshot from the 1950s in our churches, as do I also believe we don’t need to adopt everything that appeals to the eye in 2012 in our worship.
Thanks for reading,
JW