Chariot wheels on ancient dirt roads created deep ruts. As Roman chariots gave way to covered wagons, it was necessary that the distance between the wheels remain constant so they could travel smoothly in these ancient ruts. To change the distance between the wheels would make for a very uncomfortable ride, not to mention shorten the life of the wagon itself. Of course, specifications for building wagons were brought with the settlers to the new world of America and when wagon trails gave way to railroads, the traditional distance between ruts became by default the standard distance between the rails. It's not changed to this day. Why? Because it's always been done that way.
Besides being humorous, this little known fact points out an interesting truth. We humans love to cling to our traditions. There's powerful comfort in holding on to things the way they have always been done. Sometimes the traditions we cling to make sense, sometimes they are just plain silly.
It's not surprising that some traditions that were began in the secular world have, over time, made their way into Christian practice. However, at times the desire to cling to tradition has run contrary to, even usurped, biblical teaching.
Around 155 A.D. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of the Apostle John, went to Rome to deal with various heretics. While there he tried to persuade the bishop of Rome not to switch Passover to Easter Sunday. Irenaeus, a well known church historian of that time, records this:
"'And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points…For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect.'"
(Irenaeus. FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors); American Edition copyright © 1885. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc).
Here were two church leaders at odds with one another. Polycarp, correctly defended the observance of Passover as he had received it from the Apostle John, who in turn received it from the Lord Himself. Anicetus, on the other hand, defended his observance of Easter, citing the tradition of previous church leaders in Rome who had been influenced by pagan worship.
To which one would you give more weight? It's kind of a no brainer right? Well, apparently the appeal of tradition, despite the absence of biblical sanction, was so strong in the church at Rome that it trumped the practice and teaching of the Lord Himself.
Although, Irenaeus, surely pressured by the Roman church leadership to which he answered, tried his best to put a positive spin on the resolution to this discussion, other writings of Polycarp and his successor, Polycrates, reveal that the issue was far from resolved.
Writing some years later to the Roman Bishop Victor concerning the change of Passover to Easter, Polycrates proclaims, "I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ' We ought to obey God rather than man.'"
(Polycrates. Letter to Victor. As quoted by Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 24)
Unfortunately the sentiments of Polycrates were not echoed by the majority in the Christian world. Pagan tradition ultimately won out over biblical teaching. Today, the ruts of pagan tradition in the Church have run deep. Most of Christendom travels mindlessly in the tracks of false tradition, blindly accepting them as God's divine path.
But pagan religious observances weren't all that were adopted as tradition by the Church.
In his book, Lost to the West, Lars Brownworth, illustrating the influence of Roman culture on the practice of the Church writes, "Even the ceremonies of the church and the (Roman) court had begun to mirror each other. Priests and courtiers dressed in luxurious vestments, elaborate processionals and singing choirs heralded the beginning of services, and incense and candles were carried as a sign of honor... There was a comforting sameness to it all, a familiarity that reassured each celebrant of the divine order."
Unfortunately, this new focus on the externals of worship, the dress, the pageantry, while appealing to some who wished to assert the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishop among the Christian churches, only served to alienate many of the more "peasant" churches. These poorer congregations neither had the means nor the desire, for that matter, to compete with the opulence of their Roman brethren.
As we know, Jesus had a great deal of criticism for those who would put tradition on an equal footing with His truth. Of these He said, "...you have made the law of God of no effect by your traditions...in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:6-9)
Of course, compared to the damage done as a result of the adoption of pagan religious traditions into the practice of the church, adopting the pageantry and format of the royal court to the format of services seems rather innocuous. The danger becomes, however, when Christians attempt to attribute to these traditions divine ordination, placing them on par, or even at odds, with biblical teaching.
I recall years ago, sitting in a congregational meeting where the suggestion was made that a relatively minor change be made to our traditional format of worship services. There were many expressions of support for the suggestion, that is, until a prominent member of the congregation stood up and stated their opinion that to change the format of services would be contrary to the order God had inspired previous leadership of the Church to establish. With that, enthusiasm for the change was lost and it was tabled.
In I Thessalonians 5:12 Paul exhorts "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
As Christians, individually and collectively as a church, it's important that we exam whether, in our desire to hold to tradition, we have in any way made void the law of God.
And by way of examination, we should ask ourselves, and answer honestly, some basic questions:
- Have I/we given spiritual weight to a tradition or custom of men that can't be directly justified by scripture? Or, does justification of our tradition require we engage in scriptural gymnastics or make large leaps of logic?
- Do any of our traditions or customs run contrary in their practice to God's law of love? Are they in any way putting stumbling blocks in front of those who God may be calling into our fellowship?
- Do I/we draw more comfort from rigid adherence to religous custom rather than responding to God's instruction to grow in grace and knowledge, despite the uncomfortable places that growth might take me?
When it comes to navigating our walk as Christians, it's far better to hold fast to what is true than to remain stuck in the ruts of our tradition.