Challenging Tradition May Cost You Your Life
I have nothing against tradition. I’m all for it. It gives us a link to the past. To what worked and has kept working as the years have gone by.
I’m pro-tradition … Except when I’m not.
I’m against tradition when it gets in the way of innovation. When it keeps us from moving forward. When it stops us in our tracks because we’re too fearful to let go of the past and embrace the future.
That’s when traditions become deadly.
Stephen felt the same way. Here was a man who was living a Spirit-filled life and loving it. He followed Jesus. He also challenged the established religious traditions and it made those in power very, very angry.
In Acts, Luke records a scene where Stephen is falsely accused of blasphemy.
We have heard Stephen say that Jesus, this Nazarene, is going to ‘destroy this Place and alter the traditions that Moses handed down to us.’
This, of course, ultimately leads to Stephen’s execution. The religious leaders were petrified of Jesus and his followers. Why? Because they changed things. Jesus challenged institutions and traditions where there was no longer life-giving value. The religious leaders could not imagine a world in which their way, their values, their traditions were no longer upheld.
They didn’t want their institution to change.
They didn’t want their traditions to change.
They didn’t want change, period.
So they killed in order to maintain the status quo.
The same will be true of you, should you choose to challenge. You will be mocked and ignored; ostracized and demonized. We Christians, ironically enough, are usually the ones most tied to our institutions (church buildings) and traditions (“this is how we’ve always done it!”).
Choose to challenge. It’s the only way we move forward, partnering with God’s Spirit. Stay true to the content of the Gospel message, not the form.
tradition is the destroyer of creativity and innovation. Good thoughts! I don't mind tradition, but sometimes it slays me.
I feel I face this everyday. I was brought on as a new hire at my church a little over a year ago, to bring new things to a dying church. And yet every attempt I make to bring innovation and new ideas to our congregation, is met with resistance and obstinacy. Even the pastor has told me that challenging the system is not a good idea saying, “Jesus challenged the system, and they crucified him for it.”
I agree with your points and I thank you for this post, for I made the same conclusion you have when I first heard my pastor say that. I'd rather be “crucified” attempting to innovate a dying system of things that have become meaningless than assimilate into the dying.
+1
Good read — worthwhile perspective: http://www.bedeviant.com/challenging-tradition-…
Hi Justin,
I stumbled across your blog and this post triggered some questions in my mind, so I thought I would put them forward in a spirit of humility as a fellow believer.
A couple questions:
What is your criteria for something “working” or “not working” as you mention in the opening of your post? You speak about being against tradition when it inhibits “moving forward,” but again, how do you determine if you're moving forward or backward?
With respect to Stephen, he did challenge the religious establishment in Acts, but if you look at his speech in chapter 7, it is NOTHING BUT a rehearsal of Israel's rich religious tradition intended to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of this tradition! The problem was the council's resisting the Holy Spirit (7:51-53); refusing the true tradition and clinging to the false tradition was a symptom of the deeper problem of resisting the Spirit.
Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (II Thess 2:15),” and uses “traditioning” language throughout his letters (See especially I Cor 15), as he writes about what he “received” and had been “passed down” to him as he “delivers” it to the Corinthians (Gk verb for “traditioning”). Paul clearly didn't have any problems with tradition per se.
Also, you end by distinguishing between the “content” of the gospel and the “form,” but many have shown that these notions mutally inform and restrict each other, and that some forms cannot properly communicate particular content. See, for example, the work of Neil Postman (“Amusing Ourselves to Death” and “Technopoly”), where he shows this to be the case. Postman likes to talk about the medium of TV as insufficient to communicate meaningful political discourse and argument, since TV is geared toward images, novelty, and soundbites.
Just a few things to think on, and I'd love to hear your response. Even though this comment is somewhat critical, I hope you think it is constructive and helpful (and maybe even you completely disagree!).
Here's a post I recently wrote on the Emergent church; if you have time to read, i'd love to hear your thoughts. thanks!
http://ww.examiner.com/x-8626-Des-Moines-Christ…
Hi Justin,
I stumbled across your blog and this post triggered some questions in my mind, so I thought I would put them forward in a spirit of humility as a fellow believer.
A couple questions:
What is your criteria for something “working” or “not working” as you mention in the opening of your post? You speak about being against tradition when it inhibits “moving forward,” but again, how do you determine if you're moving forward or backward?
With respect to Stephen, he did challenge the religious establishment in Acts, but if you look at his speech in chapter 7, it is NOTHING BUT a rehearsal of Israel's rich religious tradition intended to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of this tradition! The problem was the council's resisting the Holy Spirit (7:51-53); refusing the true tradition and clinging to the false tradition was a symptom of the deeper problem of resisting the Spirit.
Paul tells the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (II Thess 2:15),” and uses “traditioning” language throughout his letters (See especially I Cor 15), as he writes about what he “received” and had been “passed down” to him as he “delivers” it to the Corinthians (Gk verb for “traditioning”). Paul clearly didn't have any problems with tradition per se.
Also, you end by distinguishing between the “content” of the gospel and the “form,” but many have shown that these notions mutally inform and restrict each other, and that some forms cannot properly communicate particular content. See, for example, the work of Neil Postman (“Amusing Ourselves to Death” and “Technopoly”), where he shows this to be the case. Postman likes to talk about the medium of TV as insufficient to communicate meaningful political discourse and argument, since TV is geared toward images, novelty, and soundbites.
Just a few things to think on, and I'd love to hear your response. Even though this comment is somewhat critical, I hope you think it is constructive and helpful (and maybe even you completely disagree!).
Here's a post I recently wrote on the Emergent church; if you have time to read, i'd love to hear your thoughts. thanks!
http://ww.examiner.com/x-8626-Des-Moines-Christ…