Tradition vs. Traditionalism: What’s the Difference?
When we think of “tradition,” what comes to mind? For some, it is archaic hymns that are drudgery to sing, while for others it may be preaching that is solemn and boring. It is the routine worship service that lulls everyone to sleep. It is dull, unappealing, and leaves the soul unmoved.
For many, tradition means older Christians clinging to a forgotten past that no one wants, (except them perhaps). They talk about how people have forgotten the “old ways.” They voice concerns about how new Christian music is too worldly. They never want to do anything different because it seems like they are more concerned about conserving their generation’s cultural preferences than saving souls. Tradition is just doing the same ol’ thing that excludes young evangelicals and fails to reach a generation of postmodern, unregenerate millennials.
Sometimes when questions concerning “tradition” are mentioned, these are the images conjured in peoples’ minds. But is this the only possible depiction of tradition? If not, is there an alternative? While other Forum contributors have previously discussed this subject, we will review some of these important themes, especially as we prepare for our upcoming emphasis month in which we explore Christianity and literature.
Understanding Tradition and Its Function
Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan defines tradition as the “living faith of the dead” [1]. Tradition, therefore, is not something that is merely relegated to the past. Since it is “living faith,” it also informs and shapes the present. In fact, tradition is prophetic by nature. When studied with great care, it provides us with valuable perspectives for the future since it provides a window into beliefs and practice beyond our own cultural moment. To engage with the Christian tradition is to enter into dialogue with the Church, both past and present.
The Judeo-Christian ethos embraces the idea of tradition. The psalmist Asaph illustrates the importance of being informed by one’s spiritual heritage. He uses Israel’s history as an instructive tool in Psalm 78:4-7. Israel was to “establish a testimony in Jacob . . . which he commanded our father to teach their children, that the next generation might know them.” Asaph simultaneously uses Israel’s tradition to instruct their current situation and tells them to instill it within the next generation. This was so that they might set their hope in God and not forget His works. The Christian tradition then becomes a means by which God’s trains disciples, present and future.
Hebrews’ author follows a similar pattern. Matthew Bracey has noted that this writer uses the past to instruct his congregation in their present sufferings. In order to encourage them to hold faithfully to Christ, he invokes a heritage of faithful saints to speak to their present circumstances. He writes, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (12:1).
For our present circumstances, tradition forthrightly rebukes the individualistic mindset that has captured many Christians today. When we take the Christian heritage seriously, we wage spiritual warfare against the individualism that has rooted itself in our culture, as well as our own depravity. Embracing tradition means rejecting our culture’s proclivities that says “we got right what they got wrong.” The past, then, is no longer the tutor, but rather the pupil which takes its cues from the present. As Chris Talbot has rightly stated, we have succumbed to the “narcissism of now” and have surpassed the Church’s wisdom. However, engaging the Christian tradition grounds us in a broader spiritual perspective, which releases us from the present’s bondage.
Confusing Tradition With Traditionalism
That said, many Christians laud the idea of tradition (and rightly so). But before we applaud it, we must consider what it looks like to embrace tradition. How does it affect our church practices? How does it change our thinking?
In asking these questions, what we may realize is that embracing tradition does not mean what we thought. Instead, some may not have embraced tradition, but traditionalism. This mistake sometimes happens because traditionalism is sometimes masked by the concept of tradition, which is why it appeals to so many people. Pelikan says:
Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name. The reformers of every age, whether political or religious or literary, have protested against the tyranny of the dead, and in doing so have called for innovation and insight in place of tradition [2].
What some Christians mean by tradition is their generational standard of what they believe to be proper. They think about singing Bill Gaither’s “Because He Lives,” or the gospel song “I’ll Fly Away.” Yet a hymn like Martin Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress” sounds archaic and out of place. In fact, even though it is old and “traditional” they are disinterested. What actually comes to mind when they refer to “traditional” is their particular version of what they like or are accustomed to, and not necessarily the broader or larger Christian tradition [3]. Depending upon a person’s background, this could be a number of different things.
For instance, some may come from a church wherein the worship service is only concerned with spontaneity, singing, and “hell, fire, and brimstone” preaching. However, when a pastor, wanting to align the church more with the Christian tradition, decides to place greater emphasis on the ordinances while incorporating more Scripture readings and studied prayer, the congregation reacts negatively. In such cases, the pastor is actually bringing his congregation into more conformity with the Christian tradition than they originally were, though it is not perceived that way. Why? They have exchanged the tradition for traditionalism.
Ironically, when young evangelicals react against what they consider to be “traditional,” they react against a perceived cultural expression deemed “traditional” by a previous generation. So what they react against is just another cultural form of traditionalism, not the Christian tradition itself. Because they are not acquainted with church history, they will inevitably fall prey to their own traditionalism as well; it cannot be avoided.
Though it may seem counterintuitive to some, embracing the Christian tradition is actually foundational for spawning innovation, creativity, and true diversity. Otherwise, we will always be limited to our own cultural expression. Pelikan states, “For during much of our history, and down to our own time, tradition has provided the perennial themes and the key metaphors by which creative expression has been preserved from the banality and the trivialization to which a total immersion in the here and now could have subjected it” [4].
This does not mean that we embrace tradition for tradition-sake. Instead, when we give a voice to tradition, the quality of conversation deepens [5]. Our thoughts will not be imprisoned by the dead, as often assumed, but instead will be liberated from the confines of the now. This will enable us to think beyond our cultural moment while providing for a fuller expression of it by informing and complementing it.
Practicing Tradition
Still, there is something to be said about practicing tradition. How do we help Christians move from traditionalism and embrace a positive vision of tradition?
We must begin by rediscovering our church’s particular ecclesial identity within the broader context of Christendom. As this happens, we will begin to wrestle with, and perhaps even embrace the positive characteristics of our particular tradition. Baptists will want to reclaim the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, while other movements will have particular doctrines or practices they reclaim as well. Tradition, therefore, will cease to be a stumbling block in our spiritual growth, but will rather be formative in shaping it.
Another byproduct is that the centrality of Scripture in the Church’s life will be rediscovered. Our traditions will force us to wrestle with what Scripture teaches about their difficult doctrines. This will lead us to ask: “Why are we Baptist, Arminian, and Protestant?” Asking such questions will inform our ecclesial practices. Discussions regarding worship practices will cease being merely concerned with personal preference, and will attempt to be rooted in a biblical ecclesiology. Entertainment-focused methods will lose their attraction and church ministries will be concerned more with Gospel proclamation. In effect, the Gospel will return to the forefront, while keeping the moment’s cultural fads at bay (regardless of the generation or era).
In the end, the Christian tradition provides a practical way for Christians to minister in a postmodern culture. It provides us with stability in an ever-changing landscape. It provides an identity to those who are so desperately lost. Finally, it gives us a message that boldly speaks into our culture, a message concerning the wonderful hope that comes only through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
_______________________________________
[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 65.
[2] Ibid., 65.
[3] This is also analogous to the current generation insisting that Chris Tomlin and David Crowder songs be sung thirty years from now.
[4] Pelikan, 73.
[5] Ibid., 81.
Recent Comments