Do Our churches Have Traditions?

The Church
User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Homer » Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:53 am

I have recently been reading T. W. Manson's book, "The Teaching of Jesus". Manson discusses Jesus' scorn for those who held their traditions in high regard and pointed to their claim that their traditions were based on things Moses said but never wrote down, but were passed down through the ages. I immediately thought of the Catholics and their traditions which seem to be based on the same idea, i.e. the apostles commanded or practiced certain things that were unwritten. But then I began to think about us. What teachings or practices do we have today that aren't based on the scriptures?

It would be interesting to compile a list. One of the first things that come to mind in the church we attend is the small matter of distributing the communion which is practiced weekly. Men, and only men, go forward and take the communion trays along the aisles where they are passed from one person to another. I am sure for many there would be a big upset if women were to go forward and distribute the trays, yet women pass the tray down the row in the pews. And after all, distributing the communion is merely a servant's task.

Another thing that takes place in our church as well as others is having a "worship pastor" who is mainly involved with music and singing, as though singing was about all there is to worship. The "preaching pastor" has recently been preaching on worship and believes as I do, that singing is only a small part of worship. So why is half the time spent singing?

It would be interesting to hear your comments on this and any traditions we have today.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by steve » Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:44 pm

Hi Homer,

Good topic. I would say that it is not only an extra biblical tradition to have only men serve the elements of communion, but it is also extra biblical tradition to take communion while sitting in rows, facing forward, with someone passing token fragments of bread and wine down the aisle.

It is clear from Paul's description of the "Lord's Supper," in 1 Corinthians 11, that this occurred at a community meal—where it was possible (though inappropriate) for participants to gorge themselves with too much bread and wine. The bread was, apparently (and significantly), broken from one loaf, suggestive of our being one body (1 Cor.10:16-17). The so called "Agape feast", which was the setting for the communion celebration, is mentioned also in 2 Peter 2:13, in Jude 12, and in a number of the earliest church fathers.

The exact time of the transition is unknown, the whole concept of interrupting a theater-seating meeting with a few token crumbs and drops of liquid, properly spoken over, probably replaced the original practice of the church about the time that "church" became redefined as a religious meeting, rather than a family gathering. That would be my guess.

Our extra biblical, traditional practices run way deep.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Paidion » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:19 pm

I would like to share my understanding of the communion (sharing), also called the eucharist (thanksgiving). I am not going to argue or attempt to defend this understanding—just share it.

The "Lord's Supper," as Steve indicated, was a common meal shared by the whole local church in those early days of the Church. Immediately after this meal, unleavened bread, and wine were taken by the Christians in remembrance of Jesus (as He instructed) the participants figuratively "eating His body and drinking His blood." While outwardly they were merely eating unleavened bread and drinking wine, inwardly they were "feeding on Christ" or receiving Him in a special way.

This paralleled the first communion with Jesus and His disciples. Jesus first ate a Passover meal with His disciples. Then when the meal was over, He took bread and wine, and gave it to His disciples, and when He had given thanks He said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Likewise, after they had eaten, He took the cup and said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:14 am

In the church where we attended almost 2 decades there was a tradition that I do not see in the Bible. That is, the dedication of babies, where the married couple would come to the front and the pastor would pray over the baby. Along with that, there was usually a "sponsoring" couple who would also join in the ceremony and basically become the baby's "god-parents". The god-parents were asked to commit to basically watch over the child should anything happen to the parents. Looking back on this ceremony, I find it almost bizarre, because I see no Biblical precedent for it in the New Testament. My only explanation for the origin of this ceremony seems to be the non-Biblical practice of baptizing babies, which that church did not do.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Paidion » Sat Nov 04, 2017 9:37 am

I see nothing wrong with the practice of dedication of one's baby to God. It is a kind of promise by the parents to raise their child in a way that facilitates the child's likelihood to entrust himself to God. It doesn't matter that there is no scriptural precedent for it. There are many wise things that churches have done that have no scriptural warrant. Some of them couldn't have scriptural backing—for example having a parking lot for automobiles.

I would have a deeper concern about churches having a one-man ministry, a person called "the pastor." In the early church, the apostles appointed elders, or overseers in every church (Acts 14:23). They were also called "pastors" (shepherds). Normally, there were always several of them—a good thing since this provides checks and balances among them. As for ministry, it was a ministry of the whole body of Christ in each local church. Each person was a minister.
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. (1Co 14:26 ESV)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Homer » Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:42 am

It seems to me the biblical precedent for dedicating a child is Elkanah's dedication of Samuel. But today we have no temple and priests to turn a child over to. It seems to me the dedication, or vow, should be on the part of the parent's pledge to raise their child as a Christian.

And I am in agreement with the pastor/elder business.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Singalphile » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:44 pm

As has been mentioned:
  • Having a "worship pastor" who is mainly involved with music and singing.
  • Taking communion while sitting in rows, facing forward, with someone passing token fragments of bread and wine down the aisle.
  • Men, and only men, go forward and take the communion trays along the aisles where they are passed from one person to another.
  • The dedication of babies, where the married couple would come to the front and the pastor would pray over the baby, etc.
  • Churches having a one-man ministry, a person called "the pastor."
That's most of what we do in the modern, Western, Protestant church service, isn't it? I would argue that nearly the whole thing - minus baptisms and Scripture reading - needs to be overhauled in order to be broadly useful and relevant.

I would add the following (though not as important as some of those, I think):

Dividing actual fellowship/study/prayer time among different ages and categories - the "youth group", the "young adults", the "singles", the "married couples", the "seniors", the "new believers" group, the "blended family" group, etc. etc. I don't know why they do that - cultural influence (e.g., the education system), I guess. I have attended nearly all of those groups because I like to hear and learn from all of them. The married couples group was my favorite - a very smart, mature, insightful group - but of course it would be awkward to attend regularly. (I only attended once because my intended group was unexpectedly cancelled.) The main church service is certainly not conducive to real fellowship.

Elders/pastors, please find a way to bring all demographics together for face-to-face fellowship, prayer, sharing, and Bible study, like a real family. There can be times for separating, sure, but could you a imagine a family holiday (e.g., Christmas) where the kids are all dropped off at so-and-so's house, and ages 13-18 gather at another place and time, and college-age meet elsewhere, and singles meet over at Aunt Mary's, and married couples meet over here, and the seniors meet over there? That would be bizarre and silly, right?
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Homer » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:05 am

Steve,

Both you and Paidion appear to base your position on the proper observation of the Lord's supper on precedent rather than any precept. I was raised in a conservative Church of Christ, which has long insisted that we are bound by precedent as well as precept. I know this idea is held among at least some of the Baptists, and Philip Schaff also based his belief that Sunday was the proper day for the assembly of the saints on this idea (see his church history if you have it, Volume II, p. 201-205).

The separation of the agape meal from the Lord's supper, it seems to me, could have arisen for practical reasons such as the number gathered together. Today, how would it be feasible in a large assembly with perhaps hundreds present if they were all to partake of one bread?

Anyway, what are your thoughts on precedent as a rule for practice? I know the Church of Christ, following Alexander Campbell, would insist that it must be practices described in the scriptures that had apostolic approval. They would give no weight to the early church fathers.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Paidion » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:35 pm

Hi Homer,
Earlier in my life when I lived in (as well as near) Winnipeg, my wife and I met with the so-called "Plymouth Brethren." There are several groups of these. The main ones are "the Open Brethren," "the Exclusive Brethren," and "the Tight Brethren. The theology is the same in all. Their difference lies only in the matter of who is qualified to participate in the communion.

I was with an assembly of "Open Brethren." The entire Sunday morning meeting (which they called "The Breaking of Bread Meeting") centered around Jesus and what He did for us by His death on the cross. It culminated with the communion. If an unknown visitor entered during the Sunday morning meeting, a couple of elders met him at the door, and questioned him to see whether he was a true Christian. If they determined that he was, he was invited so sit down with the group and fully participate. If they felt that he was not a Christian, he was invited to sit on a bench at the back as an observer, where the communion was not passed, but neither was the collection plate.

With the "Tight Brethren," one must make application to the elders in order to participate in communion.

It is almost impossible to take communion with the Exclusive Brethren.

Later, when I moved back to the rural area where I was born, I met with a church which is a part of a circle of fellowship that outsiders call "The North Battleford Group."

Both of these groups hold to the following practices (which the early church also practised):

1. The communion (or "eucharist") is held every Sunday. But in the N Battleford Group, open communion is practised. Anyone may take it.
2. There are a plurality of elders (or "overseers").
3. There is no membership role. Everyone who meets with the church and who is a disciple of Christ is a member of the only Church that God recognizes—the Church of Christ.
4. There is a body ministry. Every Christian who meets with the local church is qualified to minister to the group (except that the PBrethren exclude sisters).

However, neither group has a meal (the early Christians called it "the Lord's Supper) in connection with communion.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Homer » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:50 pm

Paidion,

You wrote:
1. The communion (or "eucharist") is held every Sunday. But in the N Battleford Group, open communion is practised. Anyone may take it.
2. There are a plurality of elders (or "overseers").
3. There is no membership role. Everyone who meets with the church and who is a disciple of Christ is a member of the only Church that God recognizes—the Church of Christ.
4. There is a body ministry. Every Christian who meets with the local church is qualified to minister to the group (except that the PBrethren exclude sisters).
That sounds really good. Do you still attend there? As for my opinion I would say the Plymouth brethren are clearly out of line. "Let each one examine himself and so let him eat" Paul says.

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”