Traditions 2

I want to continue on the discussion that we began in previous posts on the subject of traditions. It has recently come to my attention that there are those in the Apostolic Movement who are are preaching and teaching the credenda that if there is anyone among the congregation who does not follow the traditions of that congregation that they should be shunned, ignored... basically, the rest of the congregation should have nothing to do with that individual. The Text that they have used to back this contention is 2 Thessalonians 3:6. So that we are all on the same page, I'm including exact quotations from both the KJV (the translation that is most often being used to back this teaching) and the ESV.

KJV

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

ESV

"Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us."

First, let's look at the biblical definition of the word tradition. Tradition comes from a koine Greek word which is transliterated paradosis. Paradosis has several definitions, but the one that contextually applies in this usage is as follows:

1. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.

• objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
• of the body of precepts, especially the ritual which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written Torah, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence.

By the context of Paul's usage of the word paradosis we can glean that he is referencing a previous teaching that ties directly into this particular letter to the Thessalonian Community. Also—by the context—we can see that Paul used paradosis in its singular voice, referring to a specific tradition or ordinance rather than generally all previously taught traditions. Paul is obviously reminding the Thessalonian Community to remember his previous teachings in regards to individuals who are not willing to work and provide for their families and the Community. In reading the remainder of chapter 3 you'll see that contextually Paul is specifically dealing with laziness.

Paul was not giving the instruction that individuals who do not follow any of his other teachings should be avoided. He was writing to a group of people who lived as a community, providing for the needs of their individual families, and those of the collective; an action in which Paul himself participated during his stay in Thessaloniki. He was specifically dealing with the issue of people not pulling their weight in the collective, then spreading discord through their verbiage.

People who are too lazy to get involved are normally wonderful arm-chair quarterbacks.

For anyone to cherry-pick verse 6 of this Text and establish a teaching or instruction that if an individual does not follow the traditions established in a local congregation they should be shunned or excluded in any way from the Community is adding to the Text, not to mention a huge stretch hermeneutically.

I would like to again reiterate the fact that the Paul instructed the 1st Century Community to not abolish the traditions taught to them simply because they were traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15). However, a practice to which Paul continually adhered was to identify traditions as just that, traditions, and not as doctrine. The danger is not in traditions but in deifying our traditions as doctrine.

Another stretch that is often made is to assume that the traditions established in a local congregation apply collectively to the entire Body. Who are we to assume that our opinions and ideals are that close to God's doctrine? As we've discussed previously in other posts, Jesus condensed everything given by God to Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament to two commandments: the Shema (Deut. 6:4) and the fact that we should love this one God with everything in us, and that we should love our neighbor in the same manner and with the same veracity in which we love ourselves (Matthew 22:40). Is it possible that now is the time to teach this rather than our own private interpretations of the Text? By the way, is the Text open to any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)?

The time has come to collectively examine our traditions to honestly see if they are bringing individuals closer to God or blocking their path to God. This is not rebellion nor lack of submission to the God's delegated authorities. Peter admonished pastors to shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock, (1 Peter 5:2-3, ESV).

Traditions

There is a lot of controversy in the Apostolic Movement concerning traditions. The primary controversy is whether or not they should be taught, followed or otherwise. There are some who contend that because they've been taught they should be followed with no questions asked, while there are others who posit the theory that because they are traditions of men and only loosely based on the Text that they should not be adhered to, and in fact, done away with.

Over the past week I've been in multiple discussions with people from both sides of this discussion, and while I have my own view of the subject, I have learned a bit from both sides. The primary lesson that I've gleaned is the fact that both sides have both right and wrong in their positions.

Let me first spell out my position, because I'm sure that there are those of you who have already begun to be concerned for the direction I'm going, simply because I'm willing to openly discuss this issue.

I—personally—have no issue with the teaching and establishing of traditions. In fact, there are traditions that I have taught in my own family that were passed down from my parents and generations past. Biblically there is nothing wrong with the teaching of traditions. However, when the teaching of these traditions is that they are doctrine simply because they've been taught by a man of God, this is where I depart from the status quo. Paul taught traditions through his letters to the 1st Century Community, but he was always careful to let them know that they were his thoughts or traditions and not directly from God. Paul also never used God's allowance of his traditions as a license to spiritually abuse the Community because he understood completely that the people were God's not his.

The Text specifically states that we shouldn't simply do away with the traditions established by our fathers, but it also specifically instructs that each one of us—individually—must seek out our own salvation with reverence and in awe of the task. This is not a contradiction in the Text. It is possible to seek out our salvation individually without tossing all the traditions out with the bath water. This can only happen through open and honest discussion of the traditions.

Too many in the Apostolic Movement posit the theory that their traditions must be followed simply because they came across the pulpit. This is not a biblical position. While rebellion is never sanctioned nor accepted in the Text, God never intended His Community to simply be blind followers of the doctrines of man. His missional cry from Eden to the Apocalypse is for man to commune with Him, personally, intimately. In addition, God never gave pastoral license to establish doctrine, He reserved that right for Himself.

Look at what happened during the 400 years between Malachi and Matthew. The Hebrews, because they were no longer hearing from God, began to expand the Torah far beyond anything God had ever intended. When Jesus came on the scene He reduced all of their expanded traditions to simply two commandments: love your God with everything you are and love your neighbor as yourself. He even clarified this further. He said that everything in the Torah (the Law) and the Nevi'im (the Prophets) hung on these two commandments. Basically, if you miss everything else, this is all it takes.

I was recently told that my understanding of the Text was incorrect because I was ignoring the fact that all Scripture is given for doctrine, instruction, reproof, for correction, for instruction... My response was simply this: this is correct, but preaching was only given for the saving of the lost, not the maintaining of the saints. It is my humble yet wholehearted belief that God never intended for doctrine to be preached from a pulpit. I believe that His intent was that doctrine would be taught, then caught one individual at a time. I find this evidenced over and over when individuals discover doctrine personally. They simply don't want to walk away from it. Conversely, how many people are leaving en masse from traditionalist congregations?

Rejecting all traditions, simply because they are traditions is also not what God intended. There has to be a middle ground.

I believe there is.

The time has come to allow people to ask questions about what is taught and preached. Questions do not equate with rebellion nor lack of submission. Questions are what bring us understanding. For far too long the Body of Christ has been content with people simply being preached at or taught to but the instruction never takes root. We've been content for people to simply go through the motions acting as though they understand. This is a gargantuan mistake on our part. Our job as disciple makers is to teach each individual what Jesus taught, to walk beside them on their journey to salvation, always being careful not to stand in their way and block the path to their God.

God never put the onus of salvation on the shoulders of the pastors or the preachers; He placed it squarely on the shoulders of the individuals.

If you want to teach a tradition, fine, but be strong enough spiritually to explain where the tradition comes from, and that it might not be a Heaven or hell issue. Don't reject traditions without first finding out why they are there. And most of all, find God for yourself. Be intimate with Him, personally. Allow Him to penetrate your existence with His Essence and impregnate your soul with desire and unction that draws you ever closer to Him... Not to religion, not to an organization, not to a fellowship, not to a church... but to Him.

Correction

In an earlier post I referred to my father as "Curtis." This was an oversight and completely and totally unintentional. I had intended to type "Curtis Young, my father" but my brain moved faster than my fingers. It is important to me that you know that I hold both my parents in extremely high regard and would never intentionally do anything to disrespect them or bring them shame.

Someone showed a blog post to my father and he saw the mis-type and was hurt. So—as I made the mistake publicly—I wanted to make the correction publicly as well.

While I'm on the subject, the individual who showed the blog post to my father expressed some concern about "the direction" that he thinks I'm going. He had a problem with my abhorrence of all things religious; assuming that he knew to what I was referring. This individual told my parents that he speaks with me often. Yet, in all of these conversations he has never once asked what I meant. Go figure.

I live my life by the principles of being clear and transparent with God, myself, my family and the world at large. There is nothing hidden nor in riddle in my life; what you see is what you get. I also encourage questions. Questions do not offend me in anyway. My life is an open book that is to be read by all men. If there is ever anything posted here, on Facebook, tweeted on Twitter or published in a literary foray that you don't understand, feel free to contact me directly to discover my intention.

Living clear is my sole purpose in life and I refuse to hide behind structures raised by men rather than God. Religion is one of these structures. I am not a card-carrying member of any organization, and Lord willing, never will be. But, I am not attacking anyone who is. My belief system and worldview is not established nor maintained by my parents, my pastor nor any other oversight save Jesus Christ. I adhere to no other yoke (doctrine for those of you just joining us) than His, as it is the only saving doctrine there is.

There are stands in my life that are different than stands that my father took long ago, but this in no way means that his stands were incorrect. The stands that I have taken were born out of a Spirit-walk that took me to the very bottom of my being, flushed me out like the bitter waters of Marah and left me new in Him. Not in a religious structure, in Him. Not in an organizational abyss, in Him. I am devoutly 1st Century in my thinking, but I go back even further; I'm learning to think Hebrew. There are stands that I've taken that are far more stringent than any ever taught by my father, and these stands are for me personally and my family. I will never saddle anyone else with my personal dedications.

My journey is spelled out in detail with no room for conjecture in my book Clear. Please read it, you'll understand more about where I'm coming from. You can purchase a copy by going to http://clearimitation.com. Once you've read the book, if you still have questions, come to me directly. I welcome the discussion.