Every denomination or religious tradition has its doctrinal peculiarities. Not only may these be unique to the religious tradition in question, but they are often thought of as strange to outsiders. Usually these doctrinal peculiarities are based on some Biblical text, but they either distort that text, fail to read it in light of other texts, or overemphasize it to the point that it becomes a distortion. And yet, people who were raised in that tradition not only accept it as true, but will work up all the intellectual muster they can in defense of it. While they manage to convince themselves with their reasons, they often fail to convince most others.
We need to be on guard that we do not become so intent on protecting all the teachings/traditions of our own particular religious tradition, that we will come up with, and actually settle for subpar arguments in their favor. Are there things we believe and argue for simply because they are part of our religious tradition – things we would not believe if we were raised in a different tradition, and would not be persuaded of if presented with the same evidence that we use to justify the teaching/tradition?
Sometimes I ask myself of certain teachings/traditions, “If I was not raised as a Oneness Pentecostal, and was freshly converted to Christianity, would I think this teaching/tradition was clearly taught in Scripture? Would I be persuaded by the evidence that I am offering others in defense of this teaching/tradition?” Sometimes the answer is yes, and sometimes the answer is no. While it is painful to come to the conclusion that your religious tradition is mistaken on some point or points, intellectual honesty and true Christianity requires that be more interested in the truth than in justifying our religious heritage.
Truth is a leader, not a follower. We ought to accept where it leads us, rather than protest when it brings us down an unexpected path – and God forbid that we ignore it. Truth is more valuable than tradition; truth is more valuable than fellowship; truth is more valuable than approval; truth is more valuable than ego; truth is more valuable than reputation; truth is more valuable than winning arguments; truth is more valuable than being right. Truth is valuable simply because it is true. Let us be seekers of the truth.
Thinking to Believe 
September 18, 2009 at 10:37 am
It’s tight, but it’s right! 🙂 Well said!
LikeLike
September 18, 2009 at 12:42 pm
James said,
For those unfamiliar with Pentecostal services, this statement is sometimes spoken when the speaker perceives resistance to a truthful yet uncomfortable statement.
I wasn’t going to reply to Brother Jason’s post because, technically, there is nothing to quibble about. Jason doesn’t specify which traditions he believes are unbiblical nor does he explicitly demand that all “unbiblical” traditions be abandoned. For example, if your church’s tradition is to have an anniversary service on July 4th, should you abandon that tradition because there’s nothing in the Bible about it?
One can write a very large book on this topic. There are many reasons why certain “unbiblical” local traditions should be maintained (at least temporarily), and there are many underlying principles upon which this topic is built. However, it is pointless to enunciate them at this juncture because that may not be what Jason it getting at.
Since Jason stated his views in a very general way, there is little to disagree with and, hence, no reply — until now.
No, James, it’s not tight at all.
LikeLike
September 18, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Sorry, but I can’t resist these types of discussions. I suppose the pendulum has swung the other way and became lodged on one side for too long. Allow me to briefly challenge some of the logic that has been presented (in the context of the Apostolic movement).
1. “Because businesses have high standards, therefore, the Church should.”
Absolutely the Church should have standards, however, not on this basis. We must first recognize that this is often said in the context of the local assembly. Individually, we all form our own standards, so, which ones should we keep and which ones should we discard when stacked up against the corporate offerings? The answer is not always an easy one. This statement is simply an inappropriate comparison, and superficial at best. It is ambiguous as well. What businesses are we referencing here? Not all have noble objectives. Shouldn’t we consider what the objective is before assigning standards of practice? From a rational standpoint, this states that A should adopt X because B has adopted X. Or, in other words, McDonald’s claiming that you should eat their Big Macs daily because Burger King serves Whoppers daily. Logically, this statement lacks foundation, and is actually suspended over nothingness.
2. “How will the world know us if we aren’t different?”
This is possibly the most often used appeal when attempting to prove some arbitrary preference to an audience. The appropriate application of this logic rests on its premise. We should not assume that anything that differentiates a community from another is sufficient grounds for adopting it. Differences can be explicitly expressed, but it must first be based on some principle truth. This is so that communities can maintain the standard faithfully in spite of differences in cultural norms, personal beliefs, or other influential factors. What was the differentiating mark for the Christian faith? I believe it was simply love towards one another.
3. “Because leadership has a right to set the standard.”
This actually depends on the nature of the community. If it is an organization maintaining standards to hold their constituents accountable, then in most cases, yes. If it is the body of Christ, perhaps we should reevaluate the scriptures to see if the standards have already been established. We must remember that the structure of the early church was vastly different than the American model we are familiar with. Therefore, choosing to be part of a fellowship or organization is a choice, not a necessity. Without going over certain scriptures that are repeatedly manipulated to ensure this seat of arbitrary authority, I will approach this from a purely rational perspective. The body of Christ is primarily constrained by two things: Christ’s love, and our reciprocation and obedience to that love. The issue that compromises this essential fabric is clearly stated in scripture, sin. Outside of these parameters, any tradition that leadership places on par with real moral judgment, results in effectively creating an unnecessary situation in which one’s faith could actually be jeopardized by disobedience to that tradition. In my opinion, leaders will be held accountable for explicitly defining these standards of righteousness on the basis of their accuracy, and their real relevance to Biblical truth, not just noble intentions. In addition, if one decides to follow another individual, that leader should be held accountable to the same moral code as well. In the context of Christianity, many people learn under a minister within some local assembly, but both parties should keep in mind that they are ultimately accountable to the truths of God’s word, not each other’s formulations or subjective interpretations of it. So should one submit to extra-biblical traditions within an assembly of believers? If one wants to participate in the community, yes. But I will go on record for saying that not all traditions are healthy, and it is up to the participant to determine their consequences. There should be a mutual understanding between the leader and followers that the reasons for such traditions are for the benefit of the community, and are subject to amendment if their consequences prove otherwise.
4. “Because this standard is based on scripture and truth.”
This is the most potent reason for compliance of standards in my opinion. If one can convince another that this is most certainly the case, then the tradition will be embraced religiously to the extent that it may be very near impossible to reverse the belief. Before making a moral judgment, one must understand the basics of what makes it valid. According to the standard theory, (derived from Kantian ethics, utilitarian ethics, and Judeo-Christian ethics), moral judgment must require three elements to be considered valid and logically defensible (as discussed by Shaw and Barry in “Moral Issues in Business”).
1. It must be based on logic.
2. It must be based on fact.
3. It must be based on accepted moral principles.
Many of the truths in the Bible hold these basic rules as we understand them. In fact, it is from the writings of the Bible that we understand the framework of these principles. Proving assertions that traditions or standards are based on truth under these maxims requires critical thought. That is why, in my opinion, many people simply go along with the weak logic that is conditioned into their mind, in spite of its inconsistency with their real-world experiences. Morality need not be confined to a religious setting. As a rule, moral standards always take precedence over other standards.
In conclusion, I have only scratched the surface of what makes this topic so inexhaustible. These are my thoughts on the matter, and are drawn from my educational background and personal struggles with various religious experiences. I hope someone finds them useful.
LikeLike
September 19, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I think one of the best remedies to tradition is to spend some time with people outside of your tradition, but who base their traditions on the same premise you do (the Bible). This has truly helped me in my life.
LikeLike
September 21, 2009 at 6:24 am
I’m hoping to get some traditions (harmless ones) thrown out when our minister moves to pastures new!
As a new church, we sang happy birthday to children and decade aged people (40, 50 etc) only for it to progress to any birthday.
Enough to suffice that with 100+ members, we do it every week!! Not good!!
As well as that, repeating the same phrase every week is horrid! It loses meaning and waters it down (We say ‘the grace’ every week to each other!) Horrid!
I personally do not like non-biblical traditions unless they are not that common (so the 4th July party would be fine) 🙂
LikeLike
September 21, 2009 at 6:27 am
If the tradition is theologically inaccurate, it is the duty imo of the minister and leaders of the church (who are better equipped to know) to remove it from the church. After all, they are the ‘shepherds of the flock’ are they not? And if you abide by traditions that are doctrinally iffy, then that would count as leading people astray (albeit minor).
LikeLike
September 21, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Scalia,
you said: “Since Jason stated his views in a very general way, there is little to disagree with and, hence, no reply — until now.”
You also mentioned you weren’t initially going to respond because there was nothing to “quibble” about. Is your motivation to respond heavily contingent on the opportunity to disagree? I am just curious!
Jason – wonderful post that I AGREE (lol) with.
On a more personal note, I have felt that pain (and even pride) concerning following an error of a particular tradition(s). But thankfully I changed my view from error to truth when challenged (and after thorough investigation), and the reward from attaining truth was much greater than the temporary pain of being in temporary error.
Thank you Lord!
LikeLike
September 22, 2009 at 7:38 am
Hello, Michael! You write,
Well, no. I have offered several posts which affirm my agreement with Jason. Most recently, I’ve stated my agreement with him under his “Oneness Pentecostal Style” thread.
Since we are both Oneness Pentecostals and political conservatives, we see the vast majority of issues the same way. I just don’t see the point of typing myriad posts affirming what he already knows.
I take very slight exception to your use of the word opportunity. I’m not looking nor hoping for disagreement. My time is extremely limited, so I check into various blogs (like Jason’s) for information. By hosting a blog, Jason is inviting discussion of the topics he raises. I assume he expects there will be disagreement with what he writes and I oblige him every now and then. ;-).
As to this thread, James Wilder assumes the lack of response was due to our being exposed like Pharisees for our unbiblical traditions. As my reply indicates, that is untrue.
LikeLike
September 24, 2009 at 12:10 am
Imho, it is fine to follow traditions, even in church. However, it should be clear to people which traditions are biblical, which ones aren’t.
The issue I feel the most strongly is that some traditions are being enforced as biblical, even though they are not. This adds a lot of burdens to people who are outside of the traditions, but are forced to follow them.
Also, tradition is a very sensitive thing. That is why we all wrote “in general way”. 🙂
LikeLike
September 24, 2009 at 12:23 am
I’m noticing that many of you are speaking of “traditions” in the sense of non-biblical practices. That is one sense of the word, but not the only–and it is not what I meant by “religious tradition.” I was speaking of systems of interpretation such as Calvinism, Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. Each of these is considered a religious tradition (and would still be considered such even if every belief and practice was wholly Biblical).
Of course, I did refer to “teachings/traditions” a couple of times, which does refer to non-biblical practices. So I’m not saying that my post did not refer to the concept. I just want to make clear the difference.
Jason
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 8:11 am
Speaking of which Jason, this is why, having been raised Apostolic (Oneness Pentecostal) with its legalistic aspects and strong Arminian tendencies, I decided to take a fresh look at the Word of God and I now hold to the principles of Reformed theology. The area of study I’ve been putting off is eschatology, but I think at this point I can say that I don’t hold to a pre-trib rapture point of view anymore. And I accept the theory of evolution, within a theistic framework of course. All of this is enough to get me run out of not just a Oneness Pentecostal church, but just about ANY Pentecostal or evangelical church, if I were to make my beliefs known!
LikeLike
October 1, 2009 at 10:55 am
Scalia, thanks for the clarification 🙂
Jason – I see what you mean about the difference between biblical and non-biblical traditions, including systems. Initially I had biblical traditions within the pentecostal system in mind — or not so biblical — basically, doctrine of sorts.
But anyhow, I understand your differentiation. It is all important and should be held accountable to truth.
LikeLike
October 2, 2009 at 10:32 am
Krazeeboi,
You went Reformed? I am sympathetic to Calvinism, but ultimately think it flounders.
As for eschatology, I’m not pre-trib either. I am post-trib.
As for evolution, what you mean by the term becomes very important. Certain definitions are compatible with Christian theology while others are not. I’ve spent a lot of time examining the science of evolution, and I have come to the conclusion that there are no good scientific reasons to think that macro-evolution is true, and thus no reason for me to say God created that way. That’s not to say that God created everything in 6 24-hour days either, or to say anthing about the age of the universe. Those are separate, although related issues–issues beyond my ability to address in this post, but feel free to email me about it if you like: jasondulle@yahoo.com
Jason
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 11:55 am
Yeah, I’ve pretty much embraced the whole TULIP thing. I remember when I was first introduced to Reformed doctrine and how I fought it simply due to what I had been taught without having taken an honest look at it. After some time, it was almost like a light came on and now it just makes sense. As a theological system, I find it much, much more God-glorifying than Arminianism.
I understand what you mean about the context or exact definition of evolution. I was taught in my graduate studies that it simply means “change in the allele frequencies in a population of organisms over time.” Have you ever read Francis Collins’s book, “The Language of God”? I’d suggest it if you haven’t.
LikeLike
October 6, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Krazeeboi,
There is much to be said of many areas of Calvinistic thought, but ultimately its conclusion flounders on the Biblical data. There are too many passages that give real warnings about apostasy (and even some examples) for me to think the conclusion that one cannot be lost is true. Furthermore, the Bible contradicts the idea that one is born again prior to exercising faith.
On that definition, I would say I am an evolutionist as well. But that is not what Darwin meant, and not what most people mean. Darwinian evolution entails two basic concepts: (1) the amount of variation in a species is unlimited, so that small changes can accumulate into big changes, transforming one species into another over time (macroevolution); (2) this process is a fully natural process, which does not require the aid of an outside intelligence. While I think it is possible to be a Christians and agree with Darwin on the first point (although I would disagree on the basis of the scientific data), one cannot agree with the latter point and be a Bible believing Christian.
I would highly recommend that you read my article on this, found here: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/theisticevolution.htm
I have not read Collins’ book, but I have read reviews of it, as well as reviews of his overall view, and I don’t find him persuasive. I think he cedes too much to Darwinists, not recognizing just how much of their “evidence” is supported by the a priori philosophical/methodological naturalism that they bring to the evidence, rather than the evidence itself.
Jason
LikeLike
October 21, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Is religious truth antipodal to “false”? Is such truth true in the sense of logic? If so, is God limited by logic? I argue in my posts that religious truth is sui generis (i.e., unique).
LikeLike
October 22, 2009 at 10:22 am
Truth is truth. Truth is obtained when there is a correspondence relation between reality, and our beliefs about reality. If there is a spiritual reality, then there are true propositions about that reality, and false propositions. If we justifiably believe the true propositions about that reality, then we have truth about that reality. It’s not any different at all.
One might claim that the way we come to know spiritual truths is different than the way we come to know other truths, but this would only be a difference in epistemology, not ontology (not that I’m convinced even this is true).
Jason
LikeLike