You will need
the following viewers
to view many of the
files on this site.

Click here to
download
Adobe Acrobat Reader

Click here to
download
Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer

University church of Christ

Assembly Times

 Sunday

   Bible Classes (9:30)

   AM Worship (10:20)

   PM Worship (6:00 pm)

 Wednesday

   Bible Classes
(7:00 PM)

Location

449 North Gay Street

Auburn, AL 36830
Click Here for Specific Directions

Iconoclast or Traditionalist: Which is It?

by Bobby Graham

To label one as an iconoclast is to give him a badge of honor or dishonor, depending upon the observer’s attitude toward tradition.   To many it is unthinkable that others would not respect established ways of doing things, but be intent on tearing down traditions, which to many become icons (little different from idols).   An iconoclast, then, is one who breaks not only religious images, but also established ideas, customs, and doctrines. Which approach is appropriate? Should one be a traditionalist or an iconoclast?   Adherence to sound teaching sometimes spills over into opposition to all tradition, because of an unsound attitude.

What Does the Bible Say?

Opposition to established means of operating, frequently called traditions, is often the justification used to oppose the old and to advance the new. Traditions have become acceptable, not because they are the sole means of executing the Lord’s will, but because they provide effective and practical ways of obedience to God. Many have cited “our traditions” as their objection and cause for their destructive work. Let it be stressed that the Bible never sanctions or condemns anything on the basis of its being old or new, especially expediencies (helpful means or methods of doing the Lord’s work).   Matters of faith must be often upheld as being in harmony with the Lord’s will, and other matters must be often condemned because they lack the Lord’s backing (Col. 3:17). Matters of expediency (keeping of vows and circumcision) were practiced by Paul, even after the Law of Moses, which had bound them upon Jews as necessary, had lapsed in the divine administration. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find an instance where the Lord or His apostles ever opposed a harmless human tradition. In replacing the Old Covenant of Moses with His New Covenant, it is significant that Jesus did not alter every aspect of the former covenant. In a number of areas He left some teachings and practices intact. Jesus was no iconoclast (Mt. 5:17-19). Anyone wishing to imbibe His attitude and follow His example must learn to distinguish the things that differ (Phil. 1:11, marginal reading of ASV). There are some traditions of men that can stand with God’s approval, while others must be discarded.   The wholesale iconoclastic approach of destroying all established ways and means of service to God is not the approach of Jesus Christ.  

 In spite of the divine attitude here affirmed toward such, it seems that some are bent upon such opposition; they seem to enjoy the label of “iconoclast,” even to the point of seeking to develop their reputation for such. So much disparaging talk about “our traditions” in recent years has usually been founded on the shaky foundation of misunderstanding/ disbelief of the Scriptures; the talkers don’t usually know enough to even talk about the matter or they don’t care enough about the harm they leave in their wake. Divine traditions are never subject to human change (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thes. 2:15; 3:6), whereas human traditions can and often do change as new situations and circumstances make them obsolete. Those traditions originating with man need to change, when they cause us to set aside the way of the Lord (Mk. 7:9,13). What such novices little understand is that after a week or two they will have established their own traditions, which they must then oppose if they maintain their present attitude. 

The weak and juvenile status of one’s faith is displayed when he contends to break down a tradition such as a formal dress code for worship, use of a church building, or the “pinch-and sip” observance of the Lord’s Supper, because his spiritual imbalance shows in his focus. In the matter of a dress code, no situation known to this writer has such a code, not even an understood one. Some might generally practice more “dressing up” than others, but none enforces such a practice. The use of such justification amounts to subterfuge; it is a cover for something else that the person has in mind.   Some other agenda (some new thing in teaching or practice) is the real driving force behind such efforts.   In the second place, such opponents ought to consider what will most likely happen in the wake of their encouragement of “dressing down.” The tight jeans, cutoff tops, ballgame attire, and generally casual dress that are so much a part of society will soon distract the minds of many from the spiritual activities of worship that should occupy them. We are not urging some kind of formal dress code, but rather teaching people to observe the principles of decency, modesty, and appropriateness for the occasion.  In the other traditions (use of a church building and “pinch-and-sip” of the supper), matters of expediency become matters of faith in the hands of iconoclasts. That they thus view them is seen in their fervent opposition to the traditional and their equally fervent insistence on the novel. The result is the establishing of new, wrong traditions and their destroying of obligatory teachings of Christ in their imbalance.   Though their speech says otherwise, their practice proves the truthfulness of this statement.

An Appeal to My Brethren

I urge all to realize that the Lord nowhere sanctions the iconoclasm that too many are practicing. Spiritual growth is required to understand the difference between harmless and harmful traditions.   Humility is necessary to put the spiritual good of others ahead of selfish ambition (Phil. 2:1-4). It is never right to seek to draw away disciples after yourself (Acts 20:30). Do not oppose the old merely because of its age; there were good reasons for its acceptance and are for its continuance. It is too easy and simplistic to oppose all traditions on the wrong basis (that the Bible teaches against some traditions)!

I likewise urge all to understand that traditionalism (steadfast adherence to all traditions) is wrong. Some traditions, such as infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, and unscriptural use of church funds, need to cease because they conflict with God’s will.   Other traditions are harmless and can stand, if they pose no problem in given situations. A few traditions, harmless in themselves but no longer effective, probably should cease, when Christians are educated concerning their ineffectiveness. Adherence to all traditions is just as wrong as opposition to them. Neither the iconoclast nor the traditionalist has God’s approval in his approach to traditions.

If you truly desire to follow Christ, then grow in understanding of the Scriptures, so that you can know the difference in matters. Grow also in lowliness of mind and your esteem for your brethren. Pursue those things that contribute to peace among God’s people, not a divisive spirit or sowing of discord among brethren. This, too, is soundness! 

Bobby L. Graham
24978 Bubba Trail   
 Athens, AL 35613    
(256)233-3509      
bobbylgraham@pclnet.net

Other Articles by Bobby Graham
Why No Instruments of Music?
A Salvation Issue
Me-Centered Religion

 

 

 Would you like others to read this article?

                    Please share!