Tradition can be a wonderful thing, for it gives you a sense of where you belong and what is expected of you. One of the reasons the Marine Corp is such an effective fighting force is its strong traditions that bind them with the bands of comradery.

However, tradition can have its negative side as well. Too often more and more is added on to a simple tradition until it becomes so cumbersome that it takes a prolong script to follow it, and people wish to dispense with it entirely. This is the case with the Air Force’s Dining In. What started as a simple dinner among officers to build comradery turned into something so elaborate that it is done only once a year that few really want to participate but do so out obligation instead of fellowship. Another negative aspect to tradition can come when it is held in such high regard that it becomes the end all and be all, such that tradition is more important than mission.

Both of these problems can be seen in the Roman Catholic Church. Some traditions were originally meant to bring God’s awesomeness to the parishioners’ minds and souls. But over time they have become so elaborate that the flock has no idea what is being done or why. They have made the additional mistake of placing tradition to be equal if not superior to scripture. I understand that at the Diet of Worms, Martin Luther was reprimanded for not following tradition instead of his understanding of scripture. Later in the 1800s Barton W. Stone was denied ordainment by Presbyterian Church of America because he said he would follow the Westminster Confession of Faith only as far as it agreed with scripture.

Worse than placing tradition above scripture is to twist and misuse scripture to support tradition. Protestants like to point to the Catholic’s claiming that Matthew 16:18 makes Peter the first Pope. Even if you accept their interpretation that Peter is the “Rock” upon which Christ builds his church it does not specifically ordain Peter as the Bishop of Rome and the head of Christ’s church.

Protestants are guilty of this too. There are those in the Protestant movement who object to the concept of baptism because they see it as opposing the concept of being saved by grace. As such they twist John 3:5 as saying that being “born of water” is talking about the water breaking during childbirth. But they ignore that next chapter goes into great detail about Jesus’s disciples being baptized, or that all the Apostolic Fathers (that first generation taught by the Apostles) and generation following said this verse was talking about baptism.

Even my own brotherhood, which honors and submits themselves to scripture more than any other group I know, is not above twisting scripture to support their traditions. In the past we’ve pointed to Ephesians 5:19 to claim that only acapella singing is permissible in worship because it says to “sing” not sing and play “from your heart.” We’ve completely ignored the previous verse that was extorting them not to get drunk. Obviously, Paul was telling them, and us, that the joy that causes one to break into song should come from the Holy Spirit and not form alcohol.

Tradition, particularly religious tradition, can be a wonderful anchor in a world of constant change. It should be honored and held precious, but it should never be worshiped or placed higher than God’s commandments given to us through inspired scripture. Worse still, we should never twist scripture to fit our traditions. Is it not better to just admit something is a tradition rather than trying to assert it from the misapplication of scripture taken out of context?

#Tradition, #Scripture