Kudos to you for your patience! I was ramming my head into a rusty screw reading through those tired (made from ignorance) arguments. Your cordiality and honesty are a great apologetic! Thank you!
Excellent points made. When it comes to worship style I must admit I find myself struggling. As a volunteer youth director at a former church I pushed for the "contemporary" worship service. Perhaps it was the intrique I'm not sure I just remember one of my reasons at the time being (as one raised LCMS) that knowing the liturgy so well it felt like you don't get as much out of it. Now 7 years or so later having been to some "truly" contemporary services I find myself getting more out of the traditional liturgy.
Having said that I must admit I would think there should be a middle ground when it comes to traditional vs. contemporary. Is it not possible to have a contemporary service that includes all parts of the liturgy and songs that pass liturgical muster?
Just some thoughts and insight would be appreciated.
In our parish we do something like that. Our first Sunday service is called traditional, and the second contemporary. However, the contemporary is also liturgical, just with "contemporary" music and a "praise" band rather than hymns and an organist.
When our elders (I'm PAST elder, remember!) moved the contemporary service from its own time slot opposite Sunday School (!) to the second service, I suggested not using the terms traditional and contemporary, since the latter so often connotes non-liturgical, whereas all our services are traditional in the sense of liturgical, one with traditional music and the other with contemporary, so maybe we just list service times and use the terms to describe the music, not the service per se.
Flew like a rock.
Personally, I'd like to see all services move to something like what is called "blended" but without the term. By that I mean, using theologically sound music from all ages and types, within the liturgy. That way, we don't carry on as if church music stopped with the last great hymn writer or as if it started with CCM.
Since the change, I've come to have another problem with the "contemporary" thing. It isn't contemporary! There's a lot else being done in church music besides what can be performed by a folk or rock group but you don't hear any of it at the "contemporary" service!
Kudos to you for your patience! I was ramming my head into a rusty screw reading through those tired (made from ignorance) arguments. Your cordiality and honesty are a great apologetic! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteI liked the part about how it IS your (Baptist etc) grandfather's synod!
ReplyDeleteExcellent point!
Does anyone remember that the last "product" that attempted a make-over to boost "sales" using that slogan was Oldsmobile?
They ain't making Oldsmobiles any more -- your grandfather's or anyone else's!
I'm starting to think we need synod called the LC-GS: Lutheran Church-Grandfathers Synod.
(My own grandfathers were, RC and RC-turned early 1900s Methodist-turned RC again.)
I LOVE the LC-GS idea, PE!!
ReplyDelete(Not MY grandparents, mind you....don't even ask what they were doing....)
FIGHT THE MAUVE! FIGHT THE MAUVE!!
Excellent points made. When it comes to worship style I must admit I find myself struggling. As a volunteer youth director at a former church I pushed for the "contemporary" worship service. Perhaps it was the intrique I'm not sure I just remember one of my reasons at the time being (as one raised LCMS) that knowing the liturgy so well it felt like you don't get as much out of it. Now 7 years or so later having been to some "truly" contemporary services I find myself getting more out of the traditional liturgy.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that I must admit I would think there should be a middle ground when it comes to traditional vs. contemporary. Is it not possible to have a contemporary service that includes all parts of the liturgy and songs that pass liturgical muster?
Just some thoughts and insight would be appreciated.
In our parish we do something like that. Our first Sunday service is called traditional, and the second contemporary. However, the contemporary is also liturgical, just with "contemporary" music and a "praise" band rather than hymns and an organist.
ReplyDeleteWhen our elders (I'm PAST elder, remember!) moved the contemporary service from its own time slot opposite Sunday School (!) to the second service, I suggested not using the terms traditional and contemporary, since the latter so often connotes non-liturgical, whereas all our services are traditional in the sense of liturgical, one with traditional music and the other with contemporary, so maybe we just list service times and use the terms to describe the music, not the service per se.
Flew like a rock.
Personally, I'd like to see all services move to something like what is called "blended" but without the term. By that I mean, using theologically sound music from all ages and types, within the liturgy. That way, we don't carry on as if church music stopped with the last great hymn writer or as if it started with CCM.
Since the change, I've come to have another problem with the "contemporary" thing. It isn't contemporary! There's a lot else being done in church music besides what can be performed by a folk or rock group but you don't hear any of it at the "contemporary" service!
Pastor Weedon, I've just looked at the comments that were added to that post.
ReplyDeleteYours were thoughtful, gracious and soundly Lutheran, as I knew they would be.
You've no doubt educated many people who visit Rod's site.