Faithful and contemporary

(See Kelly's comments below for the people behind this picture)

On Saturday, our children went to a Youth Conference. On the way to pick them up, Sarah and I visited Dyrham Park, a National Trust stately home. A contingent of the Sealed Knot Society, a Civil War reenactment group were performing in the grounds. All were dressed in 17th century garb. They marched back and forth, fired their muskets and wielded their pikes. It was a very enjoyable demonstration. But I wonder if our churches sometimes give the impression that we are the religious arm of the Sealed Knot Society. We put on a good display and speak in impeccable olde English, but are we little better than historical curiosities?

The task of the church is to perform the drama of God's redeeming grace before the contemporary world. In order to do this we must be faithful to the drama's biblical script and speak appropriately to the present day setting. The church cannot afford to alter the drama of redemption to suit the tastes of the moment. Then we would be heralding another gospel that is not another. But we must avoid giving the impression that the Christian faith belongs in some kind of cultural or historical backwater. The gospel is transcultural. Its message speaks to people of every age. Protestants of all people should realise this. Our forefathers translated the Scriptures into the language of the people so that their contemporaries could access the riches of God's Word for themselves. Tyndale's translation was faithful to the text of Scripture and up-to-date in its style. It is important to use version of the Bible that is as accurate as possible in modern English. People today often dismiss the Christian faith as out of date. They do not believe that the gospel has anything meaningful to say in the 21st century. Using a 17th century Bible translation may only serve to reinforce that impression.

A similar point could be made with regard to the use of modern hymns in worship services. The Church is an historic institution in a fast-changing age. Singing the great old hymns of Watts and Wesley reminds of our continuity with the past. But we should not shy away from singing modern compositions as a recognition of what the Lord is doing in the church today.

Matters get worse when praying in olde English, using the Authorised Version of the Bible and not singing contemporary hymns almost become a test of fellowship. Stuart Olyott, a well known preacher in the UK recently revealed that a church invited him to preach on the condition that he prayed in "thees" and "thous". When he refused to do so, the invitation was withdrawn. I was once quizzed about which Bible translation I use before being asked to preach to a certain church. I said that I usually use the New King James version, but would happily read and quote from the AV if that is what they preferred. However, that was not good enough as the church only accepts the ministry of "AV only men". Now, many who on principle use only the AV are not this narrow minded. But it is nothing short of tragic that we are dividing over such issues.

Belief in “Scripture alone” should liberate us from the dead weight of traditionalism. We must continue to reform our practices in the light of Scripture. Tradition can be helpful. But we must not become so “traditional” that we lose touch with the modern or postmodern world. We have been called to the kingdom for such a time as this! We do not belong to the 16th or 17th Centuries, we serve the Lord Christ in the 21st Century. We should not be so enamoured by the Reformers and Puritans that we begin to speak like them. They spoke in the language of their day – and so must we! To be fair I must also say that many who read from the AV in church preach in clear, contemporary English. Lloyd-Jones used the AV in his day, but listen to what he said,

"There is a grave and real danger for many of us to become traditionalists and legalists. There are some people who seem to take delight in using archaic phrases; and if you do not use them they doubt whether you are really preaching the Gospel at all. I have observed that certain young men who have developed a new interest, for instance, in the Puritans, start speaking and writing as if they lived in the seventeenth century. This is quite ludicrous. Let me sum it up in modern terms by asserting that it is always our business to be contemporary; our object is to deal with the living people in front of us who are listening to us".

Encounters with Tradition

Ben Myres of Faith & Theology is hosting a number of guest posts on Encounters with Tradition. Theology bloggers discuss why they switched from one Church tradition to another. In my contribution, no. 3 in the series, I tell the story of of how I became a Reformed Baptist, here.

The use and abuse of traditon

Robert W. Oliver

Earlier today I attended a Minister's Fraternal at the Old Baptist Chapel, Bradford on Avon. Robert Oliver spoke to us about The use and abuse of tradition.

He began by reminding us that the Bible itself contains traditions. The Old Testament prophets based their teaching on the traditions of Moses as found in the Pentateuch. A man whose teaching did not match the Mosaic traditions was to be regarded as a false prophet. The apostle Paul urged the Church at Thessalonica to keep the traditions that they had received from him (2 Thess 3:6). The message that Paul preached to the Corinthians was the gospel tradition that they had received from the apostle (1 Cor 15:1ff).

Tradition in this sense is good and Biblical. We must hand down the teaching of the Bible from generation to generation. But there are also unscriptural traditions. Jesus attacked the scribesand Pharisees because they made the word of God of no effect through their traditions (Mk 7:6-13). Paul warned the Clossians to beware of the traditions of men (Col 2:8).

Tradition is abused when traditions contradict or undermine Biblical teaching. The Roman Catholic Church abuses tradition when she makes ancient oral tradition, the teaching of the Fathers and the decrees of the Pope equal to Scripture. Roman doctrines like transubstantiation, the immaculate conception and the infallibility of the Pope are traditional rather than Biblical. Such are "the traditions of men". They are without divine authority.

Does this mean that Evangelicals have no use for tradition? Certainly not. We hold to the inscripturated traditions of the Bible and we recognise that we have a lot to learn from the history of the Church. We are not the first generation of believers to read the Bible. We benefit from learning from the great teachers of the past.

The early Church gave special attention to the question, "Who is Jesus Christ?" After much deliberation and discussion the Nicene creed and definition of Chalcedon were drawn up to set forth the Church's understanding of the Person of Christ. The creeds embody healthy traditions of theological teaching. They set forth an accurate exposition of the Bible's teaching. We do not need to reinvent the Christological wheel in every generation of Church history. As part of the communion of the saints, we may learn from the wisdom of the past.

In the middle ages, theologians like Anselm faced the question, "How does Christ save us?" He developed the view the Christ died to satisfy God's offended honour and justice. More work needed to be done on the atonement, but Anselm can point us in the right direction.

The Reformation gave particular attention to the matter of "How can we be right with God?" The doctrine of justification by faith alone was rediscovered. The Reformers were not right on everything. But we can benefit from their insights into the Biblical doctrine of justification.

Creeds and confessions are helpful because they save us from being individualistic and theologically naive. They must not be placed alongside Scripture, but they are a good guide to accurate Bible teaching. We must not succumb to chronological snobbery that assumes that Evangelicals today do not need to learn from the great teachers of the past. It takes all the saints, including those of the past to enable us to grasp something of the multi-dimensioned love of Christ. In theo-dramatic terms, tradition helps the Church to understand the Biblical script with greater depth and accuracy. It is only as we grasp the script that we can perform it authentically in our day.

The address was followed by a time of discussion where we considered how we may best give our people a right sense of history and tradition. This was a fruitful exchange of views that led to some practical suggestions. We thought about the pros and cons of using Church history to illustrate sermons. Robert Oliver said that he had done some potted church history talks during Sunday evening services. We considered the vale of older commentaries and the writings of past theologians. No one said, "I remember Lloyd-Jones going on about...". But, one frat member confessed that he had come across my blog earlier in the week. Must have done some good.

Robert Oliver was the pastor at The Old Baptist Church. He currently lectures in Church History at the London Theological Seminary and the John Owen Centre. His book on the History of the English Calvinistic Baptists was recently published by the Banner of Truth Trust (review).

The theodramatic bit was my Vanhoozerism, RWO didn't actually say that.