Change vs. Tradition

Posted by Jonathan Brink
July 30, 2008

Does the soul of any movement lie in its traditions or its courage to change? And is the cost of change always tradition?

I was watching the movie, The Queen, with Helen Mirren, a Miramax film about the battle between Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth during aftermath of the Princess Diana tragedy, and it reminded me of the struggle between the church and the movement that is the emerging church.

The opening lines of the movie captured my attention because the two characters have an interesting conversation about tension inherent in change which comes at the loss of tradition.

The Queen: Have you voted yet Mr. Crawford?

Crawford: Yes maam. I was there when they opened.  First in line. Seven o’clock.  I don’t mind telling you…it wasn’t for Mr. Blair.

The Queen: You’re not a modernizer then.

Crawford: Certainly not. We’re in danger of losing too much that is good about this country as it is.

The question is simply that.  Are we in danger of losing too much that is good about the church as it is?

And I began to really think about the emerging church, deconstruction, and the cost of generation change.  We are beginning to see the first generations that have only lived in an accelerated society. My children have never known a world without computers, mass media on an epic scale, the Internet, and change at the speed of light.  They have also never know much of the traditions that I grew up in (slower pace of life, less media, traditional church life, no cell phones) because a lot of those traditions have since passed.

I somewhat lament the loss of the world that I grew up in because it was vastly simpler.  Life was simpler.  It had tradition.  It had things that didn’t change on me, things that could be counted on.  There was a time in my life when I didn’t buy something that was obsolete the moment I bought it.  We fixed our appliances as opposed to buying new ones.  My phone actually had a ring as opposed to a ringtone.  I wore my clothes until the wore out, not until they went out of style.  Disposable was the food you put in the disposal, not the iPod that is abandoned in six months.  Gaming was something we did with a board and fake money on a Monopoly board on Saturday night, not something in front of the television that gave me ADD.  I remember rooting for the Raiders because my Dad loved them, yet now favor individual players on my fantasy football team because they switch teams so much.  I remember going to the church down the street because…well it was the closest one. I remember my dad working for IBM for 30 years because they believed in longevity.

The world my children have inherited is filled with complexity.  We have new technologies that virtually wire us to the world.  Some days life seems like it should resemble the six million dollar man.  But even that would be obsolete.  We’re better, stronger faster.

And yet are we?

Cancer and heart disease affect 1 out of 2 people.  Obesity is now an epidemic.  The economy is in the toilet and our current President has the lowest approval rating…EVER.  Social Security is a sham.  Our government is getting ready to post the largest budget deficit…ever.  We have yet to solve the world water crisis even though we could with one year’s Christmas money.  ADD, ADHD, RAD, and ED have virtually cornered the market on the letter D.  Slavery still exists…in this country.  We’re just now considering the possibility of voting for a black man for President of the United States.  Divorce is still hovering at 50% and is even higher in the church.  Ford just lost 8.7 billion dollars because they refused to make smaller cars.

Has all this change done us good?  Are we better, stronger, faster?  Are we smarter?

You see I am a realist at heart.  I recognize that the change doesn’t always produce what we want it to.  I consider my own journey with the changing of the church.  The cost of my journey within the emerging church could have drastic consequences for some, perhaps even my children.  And the risk I take in participating is change that comes at the loss of valuable tradition, which at best is very destabilizing and at worse could be completely wrong.

I wrestle with the traditions we have inherited that seem stifling and even oppressive to some.  The value of the traditions is also their burden.  Like Queen Elizabeth who was virtually locked in her incapacity to respond to Princess Diana’s death because of protocol, the traditions with the church can and often do incapacitate us to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit.  In one scene Prince Charles ask his mother, the Queen,

Charles: Don’t you think you should be getting a new one of these. (referring to her car)

The Queen: (put off) What for?  This one works perfectly alright.

The scene is a statement in the dynamic tensions between two generations wrestling change in their own way.  One is to call for it.  One is to avoid it because of the perception that the traditions do and will continue to work (if only for those at the top). One seems to be the heart drawing towards change, and one seems to be the head avoiding it at all costs.

Perhaps the most important moment in the movie is when Blair, who seems to love his country, finds the true soul of Britain and defends the Queen against those who simply want to tear her down.  This moment reminded me of those who are struggling to understand the emerging church and wrestling with the emotions that can easily feel like an attack on the church herself.

And I get this struggle.  I too share in it.  But the reality is that my desire to participate in a movement for change is deeply embedded in my love for the church.  I feel the weight of the statements, “Come follow me,” and, “Go and make disciples,” and ask why it looks virtually nothing like what we do now.  And yet this call puts me at odds with the very traditions with which it comes from. So I am left with the question, does the soul of a movement lie in its traditions or its courage to change?  And is the cost of change always tradition?

The quest(ion) for me is then how do we restore the soul of the church so that our traditions reflect that restoration, that we reflect His kingdom that never grows old.

Share and Enjoy:
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
Christianity, Church, Emerging Church, Quotes, movies

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • Jonathan,
    This is a very good and very important post.

    I watch the Anglican Church struggling in the midst of the Lambeth Conference - hoping she will survive but expecting schism. The battle is portrayed as the traditionalists vs the liberals. And at some levels, that is what it is. But it's also a sign of the struggles we face as we attempt to both be faithful to truth of the Scriptures, the good history of the church and to be gospel people who actually live out its truth - rather than just talking about it.

    It's good to be on this journey with you (even if only through blogdom) - thanks for provoking me.
  • Bill, I think one of the things I really like about you is that you have a healthy skepticism. Thanks for your kind words.
  • dave
    When I was a youth pastor I wrestled against the "old timers" who were staunchly embedded in traditions. We - myself and a few staff members - had to fight hard just to get the defunct organ taken off the stage, where it had sat virtually unused for several years. It was risky of us to suggest it was time for a drum set to take it's place. Why? tradition.

    Some traditions, like the old organ at our church, were obsolete for those who were coming in to meet God in a new and refreshing way. But, for those who reminisced about better days, that old organ was deeply symbolic - like tradition is often to be.

    Interestingly, any tradition can be seen as either a blessing or a mundane curse. For example, the family reunions we go to every few years: For some the event has tremendous value as we see those we are separated by time and distance, and therefore, we relish the brevity of getting together, telling stories, and creating new memories. For others it is a drudgery to have to spend time with those we would rather not. It is being tethered to people and memories we would rather cut off. Either way, the tradition, in and of itself, is rather ambiguous. The meaning is really in the individual.

    Church tradition has extreme value. However, tradition is not necessarily truth. Times change. People change. Certainly, generations change and bring on... new traditions!

    Perhaps in a few years the emerging pioneers will become the dinosaurs who will be staunch defenders of candles, couches, dialogues, and social issues. And, there will be some new youth pastor who's begging for the imminent change of dusty old emerging tradition for something new and refreshing.

    My greatest concern, is not changing traditions - that's not necessarily core. And it can be (maybe not so much restorative) refreshing. But, changing truth, the way truth is assimilated, understood, and studied... That's bigger than tradition. That, JB, is core. And THAT, is particularly worth protecting, defending and keeping.
  • Dave, I have always said that truth is not really changeable. It simply is for us to discover. That is why my concern has always been our interpretations, not truth itself.

    It's why I like Tony Jone's assertion that we affirm the Bible. I love that.
  • dave
    It's the "really" that leaves me bothered.

    Scripture is for us to discover? Yes, and no. Jesus made it clear that "no one comes to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6); and, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." (Jn 14:44). I remember reading the Word before I was a Christian: lifeless, gargantuan, scary, full of rules and shrouded in mystery. Then I discovered IT when HE broke through and entered and illumined my life. The discovery came from a full-on love for His perfect and time tested word. Yet, I doubt I would have ever cared to "discover" him or his word without him drawing me first.

    As for interpretations of scripture, it's rather simple. It's right. I'm wrong. And, that's a real statement. I (every man, and everybody) need to change my skewed and screwed up image of a perfect and perfect loving God, and replace my tainted image with the truth found in Scripture. I'm the one who needs to change, not God. I don't need to dissimilate, re-create, or re-evaluate Him or His word to fit my world view. Rather, I need to fit my world view to his. There needs to be less of me, more of him.

    Affirming scripture is noteworthy. I enjoy it when scripture gets the nod of approval from someone I look up to too. I like it better when someone says "I believe it unashamedly and without apology" much like Paul speaks of the gospel in Romans 1:16. I also liked Paul's assertion: "All scripture is God-breathed..." it kinda leaves no room for doubt. Therefore, it leaves nothing less than the expectation that his children would completely affirm it as perfect and true.

    Wouldn't you agree?
  • Dave, breaking ourselves against the truth of Scripture is the journey. It's putting them into action and discovering how remarkably true they are. In fact perfect. But that perfect becomes something we learn, not begin with. Our own brokenness, which draws us away from truth reveals that to be true. We don't act in accordance with its perfection, thus revealing that we don't necessarily believe it is true, or perfect.

    Most people are in fact honest about the fact that they don't believe it is perfect. And accepting that it is perfect often becomes a barrier we create for people in order to get them to believe. I just don't think this works. It takes the mystery out of the journey. The beauty of Scripture is in its discovery, that it we get to discover that it is true.

    I would also suggest that everything that is true is God breathed.

    And regarding Paul's assertion. He' specifically speaking of the OT Torah, not self identifying his own letters as God breathed. Are they? The first council thought so.
  • dave
    I suppose I'm in the minority on this one. Since becoming a Christian I have built upon the foundation that both OT and NT are perfect and true. It's because of this that I learned to know God for who he really is. We've talked about this before. I didn't, nor did so many people I know, come to know God, or His Word, by means of power monger, Bible-thumping, oppressive pastors and teachers. NOPE. I came because of Him drawing me in. From there, He revealed His truth to me through His word.

    So, now I have another question. You've brought the question up; I know it's been around for awhile. I certainly believe the canon of scripture we have is God-breathed. Do you believe it too? Is the New Testament both perfect and God-breathed?

    If it's not, I posit that much of what we've believed from the beginning is a fallacy. If it is, and I believe it is, then it can all be trusted and studied comparatively with the OT - They are, afterall, complements: the old is in the new revealed, the new is in the old concealed. (maybe that's too childish and naive. Or maybe it's concise and true. If that's a true statement is that God-breathed? Give the scholars credit. They got it right; didn't they?

    Your suggestion that everything that is true is God breathed...

    It's true that abortion happens daily, another murder takes place, someone's fornicated or stole or molested or used treachery. It's true that somebody, somewhere is oppressing, torturing, or maligning somebody else (Darfur, Burma, South Sacramento, any gas station). It's all true. NO way is it God Breathed. Come on JB, you didn't mean that, did you?
  • dave
    I like the impact of what you said about "breaking ourselves against the truth of scripture". That is deep. And True.
  • Please understand the distinction between what is true and what happens in a broken world. Abortions aren't true but they do happen. What is true is what is consistent with the way the world was designed to work in the Garden State. Love, as example is true. It's wholly consistent with God's original intent. Lies, or slavery, or torture, per your example aren't true. It's why when we see these things we almost universally recognize that they aren't good. They are humanity breaking themselves. Do they happen? Absolutely.

    Also, you would know that much of what we have been doing in group IS breaking ourselves against Scripture. And to be honest, it's not fun...but it is true.
  • Pops
    I am often accused of trying to destroy the only thing that Jesus said He would build - the church.

    But then I ask, are you sure that your definition of church is the same definition as Jesus has?

    Then I have to ask myself the same question - is my definition of church the same as Jesus' definition?

    I really hope so!

    Then I talk with the members of the church that meets in the pub, and when I hear their stories of what God is doing in their lives - we may be on the right track after all!

    I do not actively talk against the 'church' but of course things come up and people say "But that is not what we were taught." then that starts the tension.

    Or I may get asked "Why do we not do things like they do?" and again the tensions arise.

    People are very reluctant to let go of what they were taught even if they can see it for themselves in scripture. Why is that? "I see what the Bible says, but they told us .... and I must trust God's annointed."

    My heart is so sad sometimes!

    Lots of love Jon!

    Pops
blog comments powered by Disqus