Which traditions are dangerous?

Thank you Caleb for the kind words.

Initially I want to state that it has never been my intention to be condescending. I am afraid that is the danger of posting in a forum-- it changes personalities. Meaning, I am much more direct and willing to challenge on a forum than I ever am in real life. I am decidedly not a "Type A" personality and go out of my way to avoid conflict and strife and would be known as a "peacemaker" to my family and friends and co-workers.

I am bolder in a forum setting, but at the same time I never want to be condescending so I am glad you mentioned that so I can guard against it.

I confess I have little patience for certain types of posts in the forum- mostly those that seem excessively dogmatic over things that do not demand dogmatism, or where there is legitimate room for true Christian brothers and sisters to not see eye to eye.

You asked: "how do you discern which traditions to adhere to, and which traditions to reject?"

I am a very traditional person when it comes to the faith. There are three main areas where I lean away from tradition, and that is the age of the cosmos, eschatology and the issue of final judgment. But even in those areas I am not dogmatic because I am not 100% certain about those topics. There is such great biblical support for the various views that it is not possible to be 100% certain. Lets be honest- there are very few things about our faith that we can be 100% certain about, which is why its called "faith." And that is also where "hope" comes in. Even the very basics of our faith (resurrection to eternal life, being present with Jesus, etc) cannot be a 100% certainty NOW. For until they happen, they are not an established fact, they are merely a hope based on a promise. That is why faith is required to believe them.

Back to the age of the universe, eschatology and final judgment. These areas are interesting to me, but I actually do not hold strong views on any of them. It seems like I do because I seem to be one of the few persons in the forum that will present differing perspectives. I get frustrated because there are very few people in this forum that are even willing to semi-seriously consider differing viewpoints. Instead, words like "heresy" and "liberal" and "teaching a different gospel" are tossed out there. I can assure you that I am no liberal, in any sense of that word.

I get frustrated because it seems like everyone else is 100% certain about their views on these types of topics, which to me is simply a dogmatic refusal to consider legitimate alternatives. So when I challenge certain ideas, generally my goal is to get people to think. My views in those three areas have shifted after many hours of study and listening. But even so, "shifted" does not mean "settled." What I have learned is that I cannot be certain.

That scares some folks- they feel threatened by uncertainty. I don't understand that at all, because I trust that God will do what is right. In regard to the age of the universe, I really could care less. It does not affect me or my faith whatsoever. It doesn't bother me if the universe if 6000 or 12 billion years old. It doesn't matter to me if "left behind" or full preterism is correct (I strongly doubt the latter) but I trust God to see me through, regardless. And while I hope eternal conscious torment is not the fate of the unsaved, I fully understand that it may be true. But the scriptural case for that view is much weaker than most people realize, if they would take the time to **really** study it out without preconceived ideas (which is exceedingly difficult and takes conscious effort).

Anyways- sorry for the rambling, but I appreciate your willingness to let me try to explain myself.

One thing I meant to say was that I have taught Bible studies in the past and I have never taught anything other than the traditional view of hell. Nor would I ever bring up alternate views in the Bible study I am currently in (but don’t lead).

The same is true for the other controversial areas I noted.

That may lead someone to ask "then why do it here?” Likely I do so in response to posts that are presented in an overly assured dogmatic manner that, like I mentioned earlier, rub me the wrong way.

And there are certain topics that interest me so I chime in.

Caleb- why don’t you come up with a list of non-negotiable traditions of the faith and we can discuss them? Or alternatively, what traditions do you see as potentially dangerous?

It's pretty obvious that all tradition like scripture can be misused, abused and actually run counter to God's word.

We know that traditions can make void the word of God.

I think recognizing that in the best sense, tradition was made in honor to God. Patterns of worship, modes of preaching, doctrinal positions, leadership roles, family and gender roles are all scripture-based and intended for living out in our daily lives.

Tradition sails on every sea of human life, but it runs a-ground when tradition becomes other than a mode of worship and faith.
Tradition shipwrecks when....
action is devoid of faith and love toward God and man.
becomes an excuse to make void the word of God
becomes a substitute for a living relationship with Christ.
sacrifices the love of God for human agenda
becomes more important that obeying the Spirit of God.

These and many other things can be included

Traditions are guides to a right and fruitful relationship with God, tradition will not in itself create right relationship or make one fruitful with God.

Today, the way for any Christian to 'poison the well' is to label anything "tradition", because of the spirit of our culture, to be traditional gives reason for suspicion, that tradition is a source of corruption, error, old-thinking that needs to be rejected.
With this connotation present in our culture, when the Christian drops the "T" bomb, you know that doctrine or practice is now suspect and probably needs careful scrutiny.

A biblically thinking Christian is not fooled by 'labeling' and leaves out the connotations the world has to offer.
Between the word of God and the instruction of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of Godly men, traditions that are errant can be rejected and ones that are sound and necessary will stand as the helpful guide it was intended to be.

American Church tradition

"We have 1 hour for service, what cannot be done in 1 hour cannot be done"

Meanwhile we have a strict service order to be followed, all 60 minute is taken up.

What is the source of that tradition?

I would dare to say, the folks there will get painfully bored after 1 hour and the complaints to the pastor are directly proportional to the amount of time we exceed 60 minutes.

You then must understand a double threat occurs...
What do we fill 60 minutes with?
What do we want to make sure does not enter that 60 minutes?

Over the years, what is left out is body ministry, Holy Spirit ministry, genuine worship.

Who would be guilty of such a thing?

Usually its our brightest and best preachers, the focus is on their sermon...everything else must take a lower priority or be removed.

The power preacher

In short, Churches that are over about 200 folks are too big.

Why? the power preacher gains a large following, and the last thing these folks want is to hear some young guy who cannot sound, preach or dramatize like the power preacher.

so, we shut down the dozen young pastors that could be raises up for 1 power preacher, in the meantime the congregation is passive, the leaders are passive, the gifts cannot flow, the Spirit of God will not speak or move, all that this place has become is a lecture hall.

I realize that Spurgeon and many thousands of others have all had their mega churches, but looking back over the centuries, I don't see that as a plus for the congregation but in the end a crippling of it.

What would it look like instead of a power preacher with 4000 people, a preacher anointed of God to birth 10 Churches of 400? Or 20 of 200? What impact would that have in our communities?

Just a tradition to consider in the light of scripture.

//Today, the way for any Christian to 'poison the well' is to label anything "tradition", because of the spirit of our culture, to be traditional gives reason for suspicion, that tradition is a source of corruption, error, old-thinking that needs to be rejected.
With this connotation present in our culture, when the Christian drops the "T" bomb, you know that doctrine or practice is now suspect and probably needs careful scrutiny. //

I agree with you and the inverse may also be true. My wife and I left a church about a year ago because it was non-traditional to the point of red flags going up on a regular basis.

Your point about power preaching was applicable as well. I really liked the pastor- he did preach the word and didn’t water it down too terribly (but enough). But that combined with worldly marketing methods irked me.

In regard to one hour services, that is required because we can’t make the second service folks wait while the Holy Spirit is falling on the first service folks.

Now, folks want to hear and on fire holy ghost filled man able to slap heads and they fall, cast out demons with just a word, recite scripture text from memory like a recording.

But that is old school.

Those who love old school migrate until they find their power preacher ( this is not to say that's wrong), but when they find him he gets popular, radio, advertising, notoriety with other leaders, the 'superintendent' will visit and honor him.
So, the crowds get bigger, he gets bigger, the bills get bigger, the building must get bigger.

This is the 'tradition of success' for the American preacher, I can count on one hand all the preachers I know that want to take another route.

Does anything become smaller?
Yes, ( in my observation)
The congregation will see less and less of their pastor on a personal, counseling, friendship manner.
He will assume the role of the CEO, the 501C3 has him and his select few on the board...and I can assure you I know of few who will elect anything but YES men. The smallness occurs when what's important to you as part of his flock cannot be important because you are too stupid, too un-initiated, to-uninfluential to consider your opinion. You, are a worker bee, the laymen, the 'initiate' the 'candidate'.
The point is, their rank has now determined their own intrinsic necessity, their importance and their power. The CEO model is necessary to conduct big-church business...whereas you are small church business.

But this power preacher has some following, some really invested folks that want to imitate him.
So, in order to gain entrance into the CEO training, one must submit and humble himself in order to carry the coat of their favorite prophet, or they must do personal errands, be available for leadership gatherings and teachings where you are offered the 'carrot' suspended on the stick. That carrot is the promise that 'you will be acceptable and given title and position in time to come'.

What about humility? Humility is a means to an end. What end? The goal of being somebody, being the power preacher Jr.

How do we stop those renegades who will not submit to our leadership authority or questions our motives and methods?
We tell them, with several OT examples that unless they become an Elisha to their Elijah, they will not receive the mantle. We tell them unauthorized preaching and teaching the gospel is forbidden, we tell them, they will go back to square 1 if they are in the process of CEO building, or if they reject it, we tell them that "un-anointed church of renegades will be more to your liking...goodbye"

But what about growing in my own gifting? What about growing in my own knowledge? What about experience and teaching together? What about practicing my gift and gaining faith in Christ as I learn directly from him?
It might surprise you to know the young preacher is told;
The answer..."This is why you will never be anything, this is what all un-called novices do, they do not submit their lives and ministry to the man of God and let him tell him how to be a good preacher.
The unsaid answer...we want is cookie cutter preachers that sound like us, think like us and most importantly agree with us. We have no need of John the Baptist's today, besides you know what happened to him right?

But surely tradition like this in our protestant power houses would never become a similar form of Pharisaical religion, would they?

This is not an allegory, this has been my personal experience.

What you describe is disgustingly accurate.

But I would like to know more about how someone like Spurgeon ran his church, certainly being a power preacher of his day. If there is a right way to be a power preacher, why do so few follow that way?