Should churches follow tradition or pursue innovation?

[BCRanger10]

In terms of belief, liturgy, and customs, should churches honor and follow tradition or should they be more innovative and progressive?

Tradition

Innovation

[Daniela1982]

Probably half the preachers are in it for the money, like Joel Osteen. They like making big shows. But so is the Catholic Church, all dressed in robes and dumb looking headdresses. It's more like a circus act than truly worshiping God. The churches used to have choirs, but most have gotten away from that with live music. Those who were raised Traditional still like singing the old hymns. Others like the new music. Kind of like Classic County vs. New Country Music. As far as black church music, I don't know what you call it. 🤔

https://www.youtube.com/embed/PZpH9Khn0E0

[Grond21]

Jesus founded the Catholic Church, so even if you don't like it you still have to respect it

[Daniela1982]

@Grond21 No he didn't. Where did you hear that noise? The Catholics do not follow the Bible in many ways. For instance, they believe if they confess their sins to a priest they are forgiven by him. The Bible says that Jesus is the ONLY intercessor between man and God, and that is Jesus, not some flunky priest. Also, praying to Mary. She may be Jesus earthly mother, but she is NOT Jesus, therefore she has no special powers.

[Grond21]

Catholics don't follow the Bible? By your logic, neither did Jesus or the apostles act in accord with it. After all, Jesus gave them the power to forgive sins. According to your understanding, if he is the only intercessor then he couldn't do that. But he did.

[BCRanger10]

What does it mean to follow the Bible then? And in what ways do Catholics fail to do so?

[Daniela1982]

@Grond21 He gave it to his disciples. As the Son of God He was able to give that ability to anyone he so choose to. They are the ones who established the church, and they wrote a lot of the New Testament. They were also the first ones to receive the Holy Spirit to guide them in their teaching of the Gospel after Jesus had been crucified.

[Grond21]

Okay great, so we are on the same page. Jesus is the only one who has power to forgive sins unless he gives that Authority to men, just like he did the apostles. He didn't give us a bible, he gave us the church and the church gave us the Bible. They were Guided by the Holy Spirit both in the writings of the Bible and in their Ministry. So clearly priests forgiving sins is in no way against the scriptures

[Touchstone1987]

@Grond21 Well since the pope said the ten commandments don't matter anymore. It's proven everything. Catholicism is a false religion. The goats and the sheep. Catholicism is one of those goats.

[Grond21]

@Touchstone1987 the pope didn't say that, and your argument is flawed

[Touchstone1987]

@Grond21 yes he did. You are a false Christian

[Grond21]

If you're already descending into ad hominem attacks that means you lost the argument

[sage2021]

It's a LIVING BIBLE so it's the same as it was yesterday, today and tomorrow! Forever!!

[sage2021]

Thank you for the MHO 🙂🧁🌷

[jshm2]

The boat has long sailed for any of that, sunny.

Jesus never setup or attended any Church. Hell, even the bible didn't exist when he was around!

So innovating, lies and half truths are the staple of the Church at this point and it's just a dying faith.

[Grond21]

This is waaaaay too vague to give a reasonable answer. Whole books can be written about small portions of this

[BCRanger10]

Easy for men like you and me to say, since we're both Latin Mass guys and the Church is in a liturgical disaster area right now (well, we have been for a while, but it's so much worse now).

[Grond21]

I like the Latin mass, but in the novus ordo form. But how does this make it easier to say churches in general should be traditional or innovative? It depends on the religion, the topic, and the era

[Touchstone1987]

First of all, Catholicism is a false Christian religion. It has many teachings and practices that direction go against the Word. So anything Catholicism does is instantly null and void if talking about Christianity. I think tradition and new are both wrong. There should only be one thing in churches. Following the exact letter of the Word of God. Hear is the novel concept I love by. I... me not someone else, reads the Bible. I then do not make interpretations or try and draw some *this is what is meant by" thing from the Bible. I take it all at face value as an accurate and complete history of the earth specific to mankind's history and even more specific of God's people. That's it. Nothing else required. Do what it says. If it says, sodomites go to hell, then don't perform sodomy and if you have repent. If it says repentance is a three step process. Believing in your heart that what you did was wrong a truly a sin. Begging God for forgiveness. Finally go into the repentance with the actual intent of never commiting that sin again. I follow the Bible.

[Grond21]

Why is this your rule of faith if the Bible doesn't tell you to live this way?

[Touchstone1987]

@Grond21 what are you on about. The Bible does tell us how to live our lives and that is our rule of faith. You make no sense.

[Touchstone1987]

@Grond21 Yes it does. In the Ten commandments. You should learn to read and then actually read the Bible. Again you are wrong.

[Touchstone1987]

@Grond21 wrong it says the word and the word alone. Again. You prove you are a devil worshiper and false teachers.

[Joshydavid25]

In 1 Corinthians 9:23 Paul said that " I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."... So that's leaning more towards "innovation" I suppose.. To adapt enough to win souls..

[Touchstone1987]

Wrong. The Bible has strict and set rules for getting into heaven. Changing those rules to get more worshipers does not get more souls into heaven. The Bible does say at the end there will be goats and there will be sheep. The goats or those led astray by false Christianity will not get into the Kingdom. The sheep who follow the Bible and only the Bible will.

[Joshydavid25]

@Touchstone1987 The only rule to get into heaven is to Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.. My point was that Paul didn't follow traditions, he adapted to whatever culture and customs to win souls, but he never compromised his faith.. Even Jesus adapted by telling stories, and didn't exactly follow what the Jews thought was "traditional".. Telling parables to get messages across was probably seen as "innovative"..

[Touchstone1987]

Wrong. You have to repent. You need to read the Bible cover to cover. You are being mislead and will not get into heaven.

[Joshydavid25]

@Touchstone1987 You follow the rules because you love Jesus.. Works can't get us into heaven.. The most important thing is that you accept Jesus is the Lord and Savior, and everything after that is just you living the most holy life you can.. But there's no set of rules to get into heaven..

[Touchstone1987]

Wrong. Read the Bible. You are conflating being saved with salvation. The Bible even has scripture for this. The goats and the sheep. Matthew 3:2. Acts 2:38 Luke 15:11-32. Getting saved means at that moment you are now clean and in Christ. This is your repentance for all past... again read "past" sins. In order to be forgiven for new ones you need to repent of them. You can not live in sin, murder, grape, indulge, fornicate, and then during the resurrection meet Jesus and be like, I believed so let me in. The thief on the cross "repented". Stop listening to preachers and priests and read the dern Bible.

Also, I never said anything about works. So not sure why you said something that is commonly known. You can not get into heaven by works alone... read that again "by works alone". That doesn't mean works do not matter. Maybe you should work on reading comprehension before trying to understand the Bible and how to get into heaven. It even says that the path is hard and the gate is narrow. Is it hard to believe in Jesus? No that's easy. You are being misled and will not get salvation. I pray you take my words to heart and change your sinful ways. Repent and believe. Live in Christ.

[Joshydavid25]

@Touchstone1987 "Wrong. Read the Bible. You are conflating being saved with salvation."

You're just arguing argue my guy.. We're not saying things that are that different.. Salvation is being saved, and that's all that matters, because you've surrendered to Christ, and everything after that will follow if you really made him your Lord and Savior.. It means you want to stop sinning.. You've repented as soon as you made him your Lord and Savior..

[Joshydavid25]

@Touchstone1987 Arguing to argue..**

[Touchstone1987]

Wrong you are just a devil in disguise. Enjoy hell.

[Touchstone1987]

You are saying stupid stuff. And wrong. Anyone reading this false teachings please ignore him for your soul. You can not believe in Jesus and be a grapists and get into heaven. That's illogical beyond all belief of you give it any real logical thought. It literally means any evil sick sadistic person can be in heaven for believing alone. This person is a devil worshiper.

[Joshydavid25]

@Touchstone1987 What are you saying? I never said anything about being a rapist and believing in Jesus.. I said giving yourself over to him.. You won't wanna sin if you give yourself over to Jesus.. That's where it starts.. That's all you need to get into heaven.. Because that means your heart and soul are dedicated to Jesus after that.. Even if it's a process.

[slatyb]

The only thing that would get me into a church would be for them to stop with all the Jesus nonsense.

[BCRanger10]

What are they supposed to talk about then?

[slatyb]

People, like the UUs do.

[slatyb]

I keep seeing recommendations for how churches can do Jesus better to get more people in the pews. None of them will work because mostly people leave when they realize Christianity is simply unbelievable.

[BCRanger10]

"People, like the UUs do."

What's the point of church then?

[BCRanger10]

"I keep seeing recommendations for how churches can do Jesus better to get more people in the pews. None of them will work because mostly people leave when they realize Christianity is simply unbelievable."

What makes it "simply unbelievable"?

[slatyb]

Same as any church, but without the make-believe. It's a community of the like-minded coming together to do more than they could do alone.

[BCRanger10]

If that's all it is, then why bother? Why call it a church to begin with? And then that also comes back to my second question. What makes it "simply unbelievable"?

[slatyb]

There is no evidence, it's obviously a story concocted by people.

[slatyb]

Same as any community -- mutual support and collective effort. The UUs have traditionally been prime movers for social justice starting with the abolition of slavery in both Britain and the US.

[BCRanger10]

How is it obvious, especially when there are still... what, 2 billion Christians in the world today?

[slatyb]

Being popular doesn't make something true. There's no more evidence for God than there is for the unicorn in my closet.

[BCRanger10]

My point wasn't about popularity. It was more about your claim that Christianity is obviously and simply unbelievable.

[Joshydavid25]

"Being popular doesn't make something true. There's no more evidence for God than there is for the unicorn in my closet."

There's plenty of evidence, you just don't choose to believe it..

[slatyb]

@Joshydavid25 Give me one bit of physical evidence. I've heard all the circular arguments. And don't quote the Bible. The Bible is not evidence of it's own truth.

[BCRanger10]

Is "there's no evidence" your argument?

[Joshydavid25]

-Historians Universally agree that Jesus was a real person.

-There was a tab in some rubble in Israel that references "King David"..

- People like Josephus, and Tacitus who weren't Christians, talk about the events of the Bible..
-The stories of a great flood across many many cultures..

-Much of the Bible is regarded as historical text.

[Touchstone1987]

There is tons of evidence. The big bang theory has been disproven. So it is literally the only actual working concept of the creation of the universe. They have officially found Noah's ark. Biblical prophecy has predicted things that happened hundreds and sometimes thousands of years after they were written down. It even says that like labor pains, meaning more frequently and more violently; in the end of times we will have more wars and conflicts, more natural disasters, more diseases and famine. Tell me that's not an accurate description of the last two hundred years. Progressively getting worse all of a sudden. It also says that the world will be like as in the days of Noah. The world has become exactly like that in a short time. With originally only a few cultures being so corrupt now the entire modern world is. Evolution has even been disproven to a point. The fact that species change over time being correct. But never into another species all together. Not once in our entire recorded history. Even carbon dating has been second guessed lately. With the concept of just because the math says it works this way, doesn't necessarily mean it does because it is still a "theory". By definition anything labed a is theory is not fact.

[slatyb]

@Touchstone1987 Noah's Ark was never found except in the imagination of Biblical literalists. The Exodus never happened, nor did the Noachian flood. The Big Bang theory hasn't been disproven. And no, a scientific theory is not an opinion, it's a model that is consistent with observation. Evolution is as solid a theory as the theory of gravitation or of quantum electrodynamics.

[Touchstone1987]

Wrong but you can never convince a lost soul.

[Touchstone1987]

Also here is the definition for your uneducated use.
A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.

[Anonymous]

Churches should follow the Bible and God's will, not traditions.

[strateguy632]

I agree!

[Touchstone1987]

100% agree

[BCRanger10]

Even though the Bible says we should hold to our traditions?

[Opinion Owner]

It also says we should pursue positive innovation. It also gives context to when and why to do each one. Have you read it recently?

[BCRanger10]

So if it approves of tradition (which logically precedes the Bible), what's the problem?

[Opinion Owner]

The problem is when you follow tradition instead of the Bible. You can still have traditions, but not as the more important thing. That would be an idol.

[BCRanger10]

Which came first?

[Opinion Owner]

Which is more important?

[BCRanger10]

Here's the really important question. Where does the Bible come from and where does it get its authority?

And there logically cannot be a problem with following traditions if the Bible itself says to do so. You yourself even said, and I'm quoting, "It also gives context to when and why to do each one." Therefore tradition cannot be "an idol".

[Opinion Owner]

The Bible comes from the authority of God, it is His authority. It doesn't get authority from some other place that's a ridiculous question! You're making me think you never read it with how you're trying to twist its message.

[Opinion Owner]

It doesn't say to only and always follow tradition. Jesus himself broke the tradition and law of the sabbath to help a man. Just because of one sentence doesn't mean you can ignore the context surrounding it—that's not how you read any book much less the Bible!

[BCRanger10]

I never said that we should follow tradition and "only and always" tradition. The fact that the Bible says we should hold to tradition though ought to demonstrate that tradition and the Bible support, guide, and approve of one another.

And I think it's interesting that you say that one sentence doesn't prove anything. By that same logic, the "where is that in the Bible" or "the Bible says x, but Catholics do y" arguments against the Catholic Church lose any credibility. Am I wrong?

Where the Bible comes from and where it gets it's authority is actually a supremely important question.

Have you head of a man named Scott Hahn?

[Opinion Owner]

The fact that the Bible approves of tradition in some contexts does not mean that it supports every tradition or the idea that tradition is always good and important unless explicitly said otherwise. And the Bible does NOT need the support or approval of tradition. You seem to be holding tradition of humanity as an idol on equal footing with the Holy Word of God.

Yes, the argument "where is that in the Bible" is usually bad-faith buzzword and not a real argument. An issue doesn't have to be explicitly mentioned by name in the Bible for the Bible to have something to say about the context, type of thing, or principles underlying it. Different denominations have different interpretations of the Bible, this is because humans are flawed, not because the Bible's message is. The Bible even gives examples of people misusing God's commands by their interpretation of it several times, showing that just because something is said in the Bible that doesn't mean you can ignore everything else said in the Bible to interpret it however you want. Catholics doing something doesn't make it God's will. The Bible—and the whole Bible—commanding and/or commending something makes it God's will.

[BCRanger10]

"And the Bible does NOT need the support or approval of tradition." Why not? What's more significant: the thing that happened or the document that says "the thing happened"? See, the first thing that comes to my mind when I read your comment is "the Bible contradicts itself", a claim atheists often make. You and I would likely agree that it does not, right? But who are they going to believe? I, for one, would point to the Early Church Fathers, Saint Jerome, the early councils of the Church, and (among others) those who were not believers in their youth, but later not only became Christians, but also very impressive biblical scholars, like Scott Hahn (again, are you familiar?).

For the record, Scott Hahn was once "militantly opposed" to the Catholic Church as an evangelical minister, yet through prayer and study converted in the 1980s and now teaches biblical theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio.

[Opinion Owner]

Why would it? It is the Bible it is God's Word. If tradition did not support it, would that make it any less true? Because traditions change. They could be different. God never changes. How can you rely on tradition to tell you whether or not to believe God? You do not sound at all like a Christian to me.

[BCRanger10]

Do you even know what a tradition is? By definition, a tradition is the passing down of a belief or custom from one generation to the next. Tradition is indispensable from Christian life, so the question of the Bible being supported or not by tradition is irrelevant. Without tradition, then the Bible truly is just the storybook that its detractors make it out to be. And no, that's not "making an idol" of tradition, worshipping it, or whatever else you've said. A tradition is a way to live what one believes and adds to the drama and excitement of the life of the soul.

Yes, traditions can be changed, modified, or abandoned. That does not always or necessarily mean that what the tradition communicates or hands on has changed.

[Opinion Owner]

The Bible isn't just true because people of past generations believed it is true. That's a ridiculous thing to believe the Bible would somehow be false if past generations thought it was. I sincerely hope you reevaluate your reasoning because it does not hold up, not just for the Bible for for any true thing. People believing something or not is not what determines whether that thing is true or not.

[BCRanger10]

That's not what I said, and it's also not what I meant. I chose the word "storybook" very specifically. Without ritual, without tradition, without custom, without ways to participate and to interpret and guide, the Christian is flat and empty. I don't know how much clearer I can be about that. You accuse me of making an idol of tradition, but you haven't explained how or why, or which traditions. I could more easily claim that you're making an idol of the Bible. But at any rate, I can only explain and repeat myself so many times.

[Opinion Owner]

Even if nobody every read or followed the Bible's teaching, if there were no tradition or custom or ritual for it—it would still be true. It would still have power. Like a sword, even if no one ever used it it would still be a weapon, it would not become just a toy or decoration just because it was never used for its intended purpose, that doesn't make the purpose go away or become false.

You act like purpose and power is given by humans, that it is our making tradition from the Bible that gives the Bible power. I say no, God gives the Bible power, and if we make traditions from the Bible good—if we do it properly. It is us and our traditions that can have error, not God or His Word. So if the two ever do not line up, it is always tradition that must bend and change to better fit God's purpose.

[NathanDavis]

how many different versions of the bible are out there?

[strateguy632]

Swap out latin for local language mostly add innovation without deleting core

[Grond21]

How do you figure out what the core is though?

[strateguy632]

@Grond21 the core was "defined as the core" in 1 cor. 15. www.biblegateway.com/.../

[Grond21]

What part is defined as the core specifically, where does it say it's the core, and where does it say that is all the core with nothing else?

[Agape93]

Not much they can do without betraying beliefs in order to appeal to more members.

[beefcakebradybatson]

The latter, especially since it may draw intelligent people back to religion rather than the dull normals who comprise most fanatical believers.

[Pudsmucker]

I am more into the traditional type of worship service during church.

[doctorwhofan23]

Traditional is best.