I have a strange relationship to Christian tradition. I suspect I am not alone. There are parts of it that are rich in deep theology, sacramental-like connections, memories that bond me to others and the Other. But Christian tradition can also be very sentimental, highly selective (Who gets to decide what is our tradition?) and is usually filled with baggage. For instance I find the tradition of Baptism to be very powerful for me, the notion that we would lift up the unconditional love of God for a child as a reminder that God loves us first, no matter what we do or don’t do) and I dig in to the liturgical and historical pieces that make Baptism what it can be. But Baptism is often a sentimental journey, less about grace than about family ritual and cute babies. And when instruction and commitment has been tacked on to the expectations of Baptism there are usually exceptions for well-know and well-loved families. And then there is the matter of all those children who died without being baptized, outside the boundaries of Church cemeteries. That is what I call baggage.
Further, I like the traditions of the Church that move us to discipleship and discernment. The Order of Service that makes the Word the focus and builds its pieces around the approach, investigation and response to that sacred Word. I love the seasons of the Church, keeping us waiting and then celebrating important feasts of Jesus’ ministry. Our culture does not wait for anything, so Advent and Lent bring us a unique outlook on our lives. And I love how we root what we do and who we are in traditions of the past that remind us of witnesses who have shown us the way; the “cloud of witnesses” we have inherited.
But what of our “churchy” words that were invented not by the early church but rather a period far enough away from us we don’t speak that way anymore and not old enough to be connected to Jesus or his mission? I find little to be enthused about knowing something was sung or said or done by people in the 1800’s that arose from a specific context. Moreover those traditions often have more in common with their culture at the time than an overt piece of the Christian way. How or why does the language of the King James Bible speak to me? And why is that important? If your answer is “because it is” I would hope that has moved you to think more deeply on what tradition means to you.
The Church is in danger of becoming a relic, not of the movement Jesus began, but of a certain period in Church history when the Church was in control of many things and many people and certain cultures of the world dominated the globe. I worry that when we claim to be celebrating the triumph of Jesus’ love we are instead focusing on the triumph of English civilization. When Church traditions become another way to take pride in your cultural roots I wonder what message we are sending to those from other cultures who find Jesus an attractive opportunity.
At the same time I have witnessed my own denomination sometimes try to recreate the wheel over and over and over. Our attempt to be relevant has sometimes just made us “faddish”. When I look at Call to Worships and Prayers of Approaches and Benedictions I can usually tell when they were written during my 28 years of ordained ministry. There is a need for roots that run deep and connect us in a fresh way to the Gospel. Our context does matter and using language and custom of our time is not wrong. But with music and words we need to ground our traditions in the one who came to bring new life in a very unique and compelling way. The test for me when it comes to tradition is this, can I imagine Jesus using such language as he loved the prodigal and eldest sibling. Do these words reflect Jesus’ amazing and life-giving stories, yes or no?