Learning From the Dead: Tradition and Traditionalism

*Since 1968, I have dressed for church services and mass.

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.

And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.”

—Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition: The 1983 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities

Years ago, I attended a conference where an internationally renowned speaker, author, and pastor provided an overview of the traditions of various churches and denominations. He succinctly summarized what he believed were their shortcomings by stating, “They ceased to be pertinent.” This was considered a grave offense by this pastor, as he believed that relevance was the highest virtue that all pastors should aspire to for their churches. He continued, “I will not compel individuals to learn a novel language to comprehend my discourse.” In essence, he opposed any Christian language and, consequently, tradition.

In a sense, I do not entirely blame his actions and words. After all, he was the founder and lead pastor of a well-known church that attracted thousands of individuals between the ages of 18 and 34, a demographic that every pastor, church leader, and market sought. In addition to adopting a more relevant language, suits were discontinued, and skinny black jeans, Nike sneakers, and fashionable labels became the new ecclesiastical attire. Most Biblical language and titles, such as “pastor,” “elder,” “sermons,” and “sin,” were also eliminated. The meanings were not replaced; rather, the words were altered to enhance their relevance: “pastor” became “Cultural Architect,” “elder” became “Warrior,” “sermons” became “Talks,” and “sin” became “Darkness.” The concept is clear. We were instructed to utilize relevant words to convey Christian concepts, as most Biblical and Christian words were associated with negative connotations.

For certain churches at the time—and perhaps still today—being relevant is paramount. In 2002, a magazine titled “RELEVANT” was launched by “twenty- and thirty-something Christians seeking God and striving to impact the world around us. We are people who want to live well—outwardly, creatively and intentionally.” underscored the significance of this concept. Every pastor aspired for their church to be relevant. The second most overused word of that era was “community.” As someone who was part of that milieu, I cannot help but cringe when recalling the effort we invested in avoiding “churchy” behavior. I firmly believe that was an error, as by rejecting the heritage of the “church” and its living traditions, we forfeited a substantial amount of intellectual and spiritual fortitude.

Today, I embrace tradition and the willingness to embrace “the democracy of the dead.”

To acquire wisdom, I seek counsel from the departed. Philosophers, rabbis, mystics, imans, and saints all possess valuable teachings. While I cherish tradition, I cannot tolerate traditionalism. Therefore, before rejecting traditions, I urge you to take a thorough and deliberate examination. Is it possible that the current, “relevant” voices you allow to influence your life, guide your thoughts, and shape your perspectives, may not withstand the test of time? Given that we only have one life to live, wouldn’t it be more prudent to trust and listen to the traditions of those who lived exemplary lives before us?

1 - Relevant. relevantmagazine.com/about/

2 - Chesterton, G K. Orthodoxy. 1908, www.pagebypagebooks.com/Gilbert_K_Chesterton/Orthodoxy/The_Ethics_of_Elfland_p2.html.