There is a tendency among pastors today to rebel against the “traditional” way of doing things in the ministry. This is often justified by Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees for placing their traditions above the commandments of God (Mark 7:8-9). Contemporary thinking seems to assume that anything that is “traditional” must be automatically wrong, just because it is traditional. On the other hand, Jeremiah 6:16 says that the “good way” is found in the “old paths.” How can today’s pastor reconcile these seemingly contradictory concepts?
Actually, it is not that difficult, if one has a proper perspective of tradition. Tradition is not the final authority for faith and practice—the Bible is! Every tradition should be tested in the light of God’s Word, but I suggest that the rejection of traditions should be scrutinized in the same fashion. That is, it might be wise to ask why a certain practice became traditional in the first place. Perhaps there was an underlying principle that was initially followed, which should still be obeyed today.
For example, many pastors have accepted the pragmatic argument that “door-to-door visitation does not work anymore,” so they have eliminated that ministry. However, the practice of going to every house has a Biblical precedent (Acts 5:42). Similar pragmatic thinking has caused some to no longer preach against sin or uphold standards of decency in dress and behavior, because it simply “doesn’t work.” In effect, “traditionalism” has been replaced by pragmatism! That is a poor substitution.
Because Baptists have “traditionally” held services on Sunday nights and Wednesday nights, some have decided that these practices should be changed. Certainly, the Bible does not mandate our schedule of services, but there were some good reasons for those services to become traditionally observed. Rather than accommodating a “low commitment” mentality on the part of carnal people, today’s pastor should at least have a good reason for changing traditional practices and find some other way to accomplish the same purposes.
It is too easy to say that people don’t like to go to church very often, nor do they like dress standards, nor do they like to do door-to-door visitation, so we will simply offer them what they like and call that “ministry.” The end result is a church schedule that carnal people like, music that they like, Bibles that they like, no standards to worry about, no commitment required, and no “cross” to take up. Much of this pragmatism is defended as an anti-traditional approach to ministry, and that defense makes it somehow sound “spiritual.” Some of these same churches claim to focus more on “discipling,” but they are appealing to a self-indulgent spirit that is the exact opposite of Biblical discipleship (Lk 14:26-33).
Perhaps some traditions should be rejected, but perhaps some should be retained. For those that are rejected, something should be put in place that follows the same principles as the original practices, without lowering the level of commitment that a true disciple of Christ must have. In some cases, the “old paths” are the “good way” after all!