Why Seek to Advance Tradition?
January 9, 2006
John H. Armstrong
Of all the questions asked about our choice of our new ministry name, ACT 3, the most common has been: “Why advance tradition?” After all, tradition is plainly a negative word in the Bible, it is argued. It is quite clear that the word tradition makes many evangelical Protestants nervous.
You know the type of argument I refer to, don’t you? The word is used negatively in the church by many teachers and popular preachers. Even Jesus used the word tradition negatively in Matthew 15 when he rebuked some Pharisees and teachers of the law who had asked why his disciples “broke the tradition of the elders” (Matthew 15:1-2). Jesus replied by telling them that they “br[o]ke the command of God for the sake of [their] tradition” (Matthew 15:3). He then told them they “nullif[ied] the Word of God for the sake of [their] tradition” (Matthew 15:6). Jesus referred to such traditionalists as “hypocrites” (Matthew 15:7). Not a very impressive picture is it?
In the parallel text in the Gospel of Mark these additional words occur in Jesus’ response to these traditionalists: “‘You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.’ And he continued, ‘You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!’” (Mark 7:8-9).
Besides these references to tradition in the ministry of our Lord I am often asked about Paul’s use of the term in Colossians 2. Paul counsels: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than Christ” (2:8). This actually gets closer to the legitimate concerns some express about the word tradition. Paul plainly equates “human tradition” with “hollow and deceptive philosophy.” If the word tradition has negative connotations so does the word philosophy. The simple problem is the way we commonly use the terms “tradition” and “philosophy” have little or nothing to do with what Paul is judging here as false teaching. Philosophy, in the Hellenic period, often referred to occult speculations, not to rational or life exploring questions that relate to what we mean by philosophy today. These occult speculations, which Paul found in ancient Colosse, appear to have been ideas rooted in “human traditions” which were most likely oral customs and practices handed down as having authority. Paul sees these as opposed to the fullness of Christ. He corrects these powerful “human traditions,” without exactly explaining what they are, by giving the church a very high Christology!
One other negative use of the word tradition occurs in Galatians 1:14 where Paul writes: “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Paul is demonstrating that his zeal for Jewish traditions could not, and did not, save him. Here he seems to be referring to the unwritten religious codes of the Jews. The problem, in short, was not with unwritten codes but with their abject failure to conform to the Law of Moses. They usurped the authority of Moses by adding unnecessary and irrelevant burdens to the people. Paul is seeking to show why these have nothing to do with free grace and God’s salvation in Christ. Isaiah 1:22 refers to this very problem by telling how the elders “mixed wine with water,” which is commonly agreed to be a way of saying they mingled, as the bishop Irenaeus (AD 130-200) put it, “watered tradition with the simple command of God.” In fact, Irenaeus rightly applied this text from Isaiah to the aforementioned Matthew and Mark texts, suggesting that this was precisely what Jesus had in mind.
The patristic writers were clear about this use of the word tradition. Clement of Alexander (AD 150-215) noted that “The Pharisees rebelled from the Law by introducing human teachings.” And Cyrian (d. AD 258), the bishop of Carthage, advised: “Those who reject the commandment of God and who attempt to keep their own tradition-let them be firmly and courageously rejected by you.” He added, “What presumption there is to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance! How can we not see that God is indignant and angry every time a human tradition relaxes the divine commandment and passes them by.” And perhaps Cyprian’s most important comment on this is the simple, and powerful, observation that “custom without truth is simply the antiquity of error.”
The simple facts here are clear. The earliest church writers, both within Scripture and outside of Scripture, saw that human traditions that nullify the Word of God are both dangerous and to be opposed.
But any careful student of the Scripture knows that this is not the only way the Bible speaks of tradition. Consider the commendation Paul gives to the Corinthians when he writes: “I praise you remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). And then there is the counsel of Paul to the Thessalonians: “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings (lit. traditions) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). And later he adds, “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching (lit. traditions) you received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
The idea of tradition here is that of teaching, and in this case it was clearly oral teaching. You may argue that this was apostolic tradition, and of course you would be correct. The question is deeper, however, than that simple response. Paul counsels Timothy with these words: “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people (men) who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2).
I believe that when you begin to listen to the voice of the earliest Christians very carefully you hear a richer fuller witness to the meaning of these kinds of texts. Papias (AD 60-130), the bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor and a disciple of John the apostle and friend of the martyr Polycarp, understood these texts in this way:
If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings. I asked what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples-things which Aristion and presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say, I concluded that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice (cited by Eusebius).
Irenaeus spoke of this tradition, the tradition of Christ and the apostles, as being “manifested throughout the whole world.” He even refers to the apostles understanding the mysteries of the faith and of how “they delivered them especially to those to whom they themselves were also committing the churches.”
Some Protestant readers may fear that this trajectory leads to the Roman Magisterium. I do not share that view, and believe that Reformers like John Calvin were correct in how they understood the proper use of the patristic writers and these traditions. But what is important to note, in this simple overview of the positive role of tradition, is clear-the word tradition has both a negative and positive sense in both Holy Scripture and in the words of the earliest church fathers.
We are right to be nervous about traditionalism. But traditionalism has harmed a myriad of evangelical churches who flatly deny they have anything to do with tradition. Sadly, they are right. They have little to do with Christian tradition for sure but they have created a host of modern practices that have become, in a matter of a few generations, or only a few decades, the modern traditions of men! By ignoring the ancient wisdom of patristic writers and sound Reformers, both East and West, they have substituted their modern novelties for the great traditions of the gospel and the church’s collective wisdom. One ultimately begins to wonder, with tears in their eyes, if the arrogance of this move is only to be exceeded by the foolishness of it. What the church needs today, more than ever, is a recovery of the ancient faith married with a view of the future that is hopeful and Christ-centered.
Next Week: What do I mean by the term “The Great Tradition,” and how am I using this word to define what our ministry hopes to advance in the church?
