One of the recommendations from Dr. Hunter in our consultation is that we no longer refer to our services as “contemporary” and “traditional.” In the history of our own church, as well as many churches, those two words have been at the center of what some call “the worship wars.” It is as if some would want to say that contemporary is relevant, where traditional is no longer relevant in our fast changing culture.
Paul and I have been looking at other churches who have two different styles of worship for ideas on what one would call the services if you don’t use these terms. Suffice it to say that a quick perusal of web pages shows that most churches use these terms to identify their services. But does traditional and contemporary really reflect the nature of the services? Or are they terms that are descriptive of the music styles? Or something else?
For instance… we use the video screens, graphics and video clips at all three of our services. Doesn’t that make them “contemporary?” When we sing a hymn at one of our early services, does that mean we are being “traditional?” The guitar and drums are more ancient instruments than the organ ever will be. Does that mean an organ is “contemporary?” The new hymnal was printed in 2007. Isn’t that contemporary? Do you see where I’m going with this? In thinking about this, we tend to use these terms as ways of talking about what speaks to us, and what does not speak to us, in worship. Perhaps these terms really have been misused and need a fresh looking at. Truthfully, I’m throwing this out there to see if it generates any discussion. I have found some churches that have come up with “names” for their services, and they go on in their literature to describe the instrumentation of their service which is what some people look for in a service. I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts on this, as well as some creative ideas for service names. What do you think?
