Ship of Fools: The use of 'traditional' to describe church or personal beliefs

Thread: The use of 'traditional' to describe church or personal beliefs Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027397

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I know my own church, so I think I know what they mean when they say that we are 'traditional'. But I am also aware that the meaning can be quite ambiguous. Does it just mean 'old fashioned', 'like old style services', 'like hymns rather than worship songs', 'don't like women or gays', 'don't want the pews pulled out', 'like robed choirs', 'think we still live in 1662', or something else entirely?

I suspect some of it depends on context (e.g. see link in my sig.), whether the word is used to describe attitudes, practice or theology. And whether the word 'traditional' stands alone, or whether it is linked to the word 'traditionalist' which probably means something completely different.

What do you think?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Traditional tend to mean "Nothing must change since we were younger".

Yes, it is a very flexible term. It is usually used as a way of countering change. As such, I tend to treat it negatively (which, I accept, is not always fair).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

To me, "traditional" implies music centred on an organ and a robed choir. I would not expect to find guitars or modern "worship music". It would also imply fixed pews, rather than moveable chairs in a multifunction space, and I'd expect to find the altar party robed - no stole over jeans and a snazzy shirt.

I would expect many parishioners to dress in their "Sunday best" for church, although precisely what "Sunday best" is depends on local custom.

I would not infer any particular opinion on any of the dead horses, but I would expect a certain orthodoxy of belief - Bishop Spong, for example, would not be invited to preach.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

We (Presbyterian Kirk Session - i.e. group of about 40 elders) discussed this when advertising our own vacancy (now filled [Yipee]

) and avoided the word "traditional" because we felt it might be interpreted as "anti-gay."

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The more raving liberal I become the more traditional I want my liturgy.

I have a late forties friend I met at Triangle, vulnerably housed, permanently unemployed, ill, red-brick Bradford working class, under-educated, gay, anarchic-left. He kept coming to our agenda charged Char-Evo church. He liked the previous old school vicar.

Today he texted me from Holy Cross RCC on New Walk, Leicester. Not for the first time. I've been in with him. He asked if he could light a candle for me. I was delighted.

He talks to Jesus as does his 20 something son. It's all terribly sweet. They need more agenda-less tradition.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I guess it's bound to imply "no change" in some sense. That's what the word means - that which is handed down. Your job is to determine which bit of what is handed down is being referred to.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Of course what's horribly innovative and untraditional in one generation will be traditional two generations later.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The more raving liberal I become the more traditional I want my liturgy.

I've always found this an interesting combination, and I still don't understood what the connection is between these two things.

Anyway, in Methodist terms, 'traditional' doesn't depend on robed choirs, particular attitudes towards sexuality, or even any definite theological position as such. It refers to the hymn sandwich, hymns chosen primarily from the official book, the use of an organ, or a piano if there's no organ(ist), retiring collections, the use of the official liturgies, sermons preached in the usual Methodist style without too much innovation - unless it's all age worship, in which case trying out something rather different would be more acceptable. I suppose 'traditional' might refer to aspects of church life beyond the Sunday service as well.

A 'traditional' Methodist church might deviate in certain ways sometimes, especially since Methodist pulpits have to tolerate the slight idiosyncrasies of a host of different preachers, but there's always a familiar atmosphere that bespeaks 'traditional'.

Ironically, were Methodist churches to try to recapture the revivalism of some of the early public meetings this would hardly be seen as a 'traditional' Methodist thing to do.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Tradition is simply that which has been handed down. That applies to the faith as a whole: the scriptures, the liturgy, the councils etc. Traditionalism is something that raises its head once tradition has already been lost, or at least that's the conclusion I came to back when I was still an RC traditionalist (in fact that's what finally convinced me I was no longer an RC).

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In the Anglican church in the US it definitely means 'anti-gay'. Neither the rack nor the thumbscrew will get anyone to admit it, but the meaning is plain.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

IME, more inclusive Anglo-Catholic churches tend to self-describe as being 'in the catholic tradition' rather than 'traditional', sometimes 'liberal and catholic tradition'. As the late great Ken put it, 'traditional' isn't actually very traditional at all for the CoE.

Posted by GCabot (# 18074) on :

It all really depends on the context. For example, when used in the description, "We seek a priest who is experienced, of a traditional, vibrant faith rooted in the Scriptures," it suggests to me a desire for someone skewing towards orthodox interpretation. A "traditional service" heavily implies hymns and organ, as opposed to guitars and praise music. I would expect the liturgical and sartorial formality to be more conservative accordingly.

Its meaning when used in different denominational contexts can also vary greatly. For example, as previously stated, it is often a keyword used in the U.S. Anglican community to describe churches opposed to the ordination of homosexuals.

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the Anglican church in the US it definitely means 'anti-gay'. Neither the rack nor the thumbscrew will get anyone to admit it, but the meaning is plain.

I doubt anyone is trying to hide their theological stance. It is just like how liberal parishes use keywords like "welcoming," "inclusive," and "affirming."

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Which "tradition" might that be? There's loads.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

'Tradition' often means 'conservative'. I think that is a misuse of the term.

Tradition is dynamic - as the title of a book by Donald Allchin points out.

Christian tradition is full of riches and it is up to us to apply or discard whatever speaks afresh to the people of today.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the Anglican church in the US it definitely means 'anti-gay'. Neither the rack nor the thumbscrew will get anyone to admit it, but the meaning is plain.

Interestingly I (who also live in the U.S.) wouldn't conclude that at all. I am aware that some people use it that way, but I wouldn't assume that a speaker meant that for sure. I think an old church with an organ and a relatively formal liturgy including hymns not worship songs would be my primary expectation. I suspect that how we use such words depends very much on context. I am sure there are many contexts in which the word tradition would mean exactly what you say.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
We (Presbyterian Kirk Session - i.e. group of about 40 elders) discussed this when advertising our own vacancy (now filled ) and avoided the word "traditional" because we felt it might be interpreted as "anti-gay."

Don't let the Kirk Session here know that - next time they advertise they'll want to include it for sure. [Waterworks]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Better not tell them what Kenneth Williams meant when he used euphemistically to refer to 'traditional matters' in his diaries, then. (Bet you can guess.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

As I understand it, the church means traditional liturgy rather than anti-gay. Although, like in many churches, you could probably find a few of those lurking in the pews if you looked hard enough. I guess as long as it is clear what the terminology means, to priests considering applying, it probably doesn't matter too much, but for more general information, the terminology would need clarifying.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In the Anglican church in the US it definitely means 'anti-gay'. Neither the rack nor the thumbscrew will get anyone to admit it, but the meaning is plain.
Interestingly I (who also live in the U.S.) wouldn't conclude that at all. I am aware that some people use it that way, but I wouldn't assume that a speaker meant that for sure. I think an old church with an organ and a relatively formal liturgy including hymns not worship songs would be my primary expectation. I suspect that how we use such words depends very much on context. I am sure there are many contexts in which the word tradition would mean exactly what you say.

I would tend to agree with Gwai-- however, my experience with TEC is almost entirely based on travel and observation in Florida and New York and New England, so that's only a partial picture. In terms of The Issue, I would assume that "traditional" means that we'd rather not talk about it. Certainly in the traditional parishes I've visited, I've noticed out-of-closet gay worshippers (i.e., in same-sex couples, or rainbow stickers on cars, etc) at more places than not.

However, looking at parish websites and having heard rather too much of the discussion in recent years, I think I can see how Brenda Clough arrives at their conclusion. Certainly, I've seen the term "traditional" used in a way which I wonder might be signalling what Brenda suggested.

Perhaps it's one of these words which, if I cite the Red Queen correctly, means exactly what she says it means.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Traditional christians are those who think I'm nuts.

Liberal christians are those who don't care that I'm nuts.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

It's use depends on whether, broadly speaking, view tradition as a good or a bad thing.

If you are more at the negative end, then tradition is doing something because that's the way it's always been done. There may be alternative reasons given, but that's what it boils down to. This leads to very ecclesiastically conservative churches, where one gets a lot of pomp and ceremony.

If you view the idea of tradition more positively, then you may appeal to it more, often where one's views are more socially conservative, where there is an attempt to justify them by appealing to the past. To give a recent example, I had a discussion with an anglican who was "against" a Dead Horse issue where he tried to portray his view as being one that has long been held in the form that he currently expressed it.

For me, I see all too often the word tradition misused, where some use it to mean learning from the past. For that, I would use the phrase, 'learning from the past'. That is all well and good and absolutely to be encouraged. Just because we don't always agree with Aquinas doesn't mean we jettison him altogether.

I would tend to use 'tradition' when, instead of learning from the past, one is tethered to it. For an example of this, see Justification: Five Views in which some Calvinists and Catholics try to discuss the theme of justification almost wholly with reference to their respective traditions and paying scant all attention to the texts both those ideas were founded on.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I wonder, Augustine, whether it is one of those words that is a signal to Those Who Know. A similar term (in the US) would be 'urban' or, better yet, 'inner city.' The dictionary, and most usages, has those words meaning something about a large population center with a heavily-built-up core. But Those Who Know know that it means black people. If you can't use the N word you can always use inner city...

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course what's horribly innovative and untraditional in one generation will be traditional two generations later.

Yes. "Traditional" usually means "How I imagine it was when my grandparents were my age." In the US, at least, where most people know next to nothing about history, it amounts to little more than a sentimental fantasy.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wonder, Augustine, whether it is one of those words that is a signal to Those Who Know. A similar term (in the US) would be 'urban' or, better yet, 'inner city.' The dictionary, and most usages, has those words meaning something about a large population center with a heavily-built-up core. But Those Who Know know that it means black people. If you can't use the N word you can always use inner city...

Perhaps, but it's not a very clear signal. 'Urban,' of course, might carry the melaninin warning signal, or it might be intended to mean cosmopolitan. One might have someone intending to assist at worship satisfied that they will be among the like-minded, only to be faced with a bevy of same-sex couples enjoying Merbecke or Tallis and the dignified swish of the thurible in the hands of a dieselish acolyte.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I wonder, Augustine, whether it is one of those words that is a signal to Those Who Know. A similar term (in the US) would be 'urban' or, better yet, 'inner city.' The dictionary, and most usages, has those words meaning something about a large population center with a heavily-built-up core. But Those Who Know know that it means black people. If you can't use the N word you can always use inner city...

In the UK 'urban' and 'inner city' might just as well mean refer to Muslims or to people from the Indian Subcontinent - or any kind of multicultural mixture, depending on the city or area in question. In terms of churches it's likely to indicate a high number of black worshippers, but not exclusively so.

Interestingly, I feel that inner city Protestant mainstream churches here are often rather more 'traditional' in worship style than mainstream churches in more suburban areas. CofE charismatic churches, for example, tend to be quite white and middle class, which means they're further away from urban centres, whereas Black worshippers in CofE and Methodist churches are likely to be worshipping in 'traditional' urban churches. The nearest alternatives for them are often the black-led Pentecostal churches, which are almost all in urban areas. (It should be said that the American concept of the 'black church' is rather different from what we have in the UK.)

I think this picture is complicated, especially in Greater London, by churches in areas that were once considered fairly monocultural and suburban but are now becoming more multicultural in character. And younger, newer immigrants seem less likely to make do with traditional mainstream worship than previous immigrants were.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Our parish profile gives more detail, saying that 'our worship is in the modern catholic tradition with vestments', which clarifies things a little.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

"A traditional, vibrant faith rooted in the scriptures" could be Evangelical, which I do not usually equate with tradition as it is msnifested in the Anglican church.

As you can see from my subscript, I live in a town with four Anglican churches. Over the past couple of years I have been attending the one which is considered to be the most traditional of the four. Their churchmanship is what could probably be described as "middle to high church". That is, they have a priest in vestments, a robed choir, candles and the tendency to bow before the altar and at the Name of Jesus. There is no incense or bells. The Communion service follows Common Worship for the appropriate season and the Confession is said in the middle of the service, rather than at the beginning of the service as higher churches do. They used to have occasional BCP Evensong but that ended when the previous incumbent retired (but may be revived, we hope). The music consists of hymns accompanied by an organ and variations of the same when musical accompaniment is required, such as during communion.

As for the attitude of these chuchgoers, it is indeed "welcoming," "inclusive," and "affirming" (thanks GCabot). It has a reputation as a friendly and welcoming church, which can be verified by me and several others, who have not had the same response from other churches we have attended. The attitude to gay people is accepting - there are openly gay but celibate people who regularly worship, but I know that people there also accept gay people with partners. During the recent interregnum they invited a priest who is gay to officiate at Communion. When I go to that church, I genuinely feel that it is the "real deal" and that we don't have to pretend we're something other than what we are, warts and all, to be accepted.

This church recently got a new incumbent, after only five months without one and just a few weeks after advertising, when they thought they might be without one for a year or more. I wish your church similar speed and the right person, Chorister.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I used to say "traditional" but then found that it took on a rather nasty meaning in some contexts.

I used to say "orthodox" but, well, ditto.

At one point I think I said "old-fashioned" but that could mean anything.

Unfortunately, just about any word meaning, I don't know, believing in the Creeds, or in specific doctrines, or various notions of the sacraments, seems to be co-opted by... ah... a certain type of angry politico-religious conservative here in the US.

At the moment, my pet way of describing myself is "Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian, but in the sacramental sense rather than stylistically, and with a dash of Shinto," with possibly some reference to C.S. Lewis. Of course here in the US only people in liturgical churches will have any idea what Anglo-Catholic even means, for the most part.

It also frustrates and saddens me that I have to throw in caveats about being a Christian, so I'm not lumped in with some fairly nasty sorts here in the US. [Frown]

Posted by Huts (# 13017) on :

What do people think of the term 'classic' to describe a service or a parish. i.e. The 9:00am service is a classic BCP service while the 10am is a contemporary service with children's work.

To me classic seems to have less attached to it than 'traditional' does. To me traditional says dull and boring.

A classic car is better that a traditional one but both are just as old-fashioned but one is good old-fashioned and one is bad old-fashioned.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huts:
What do people think of the term 'classic' to describe a service or a parish. i.e. The 9:00am service is a classic BCP service while the 10am is a contemporary service with children's work.

To me classic seems to have less attached to it than 'traditional' does. To me traditional says dull and boring.

A classic car is better that a traditional one but both are just as old-fashioned but one is good old-fashioned and one is bad old-fashioned.

For me, the problem with 'classic' is that it suggests a certain amount of quality. I think you would need to be very sure of yourself before you could start calling your services 'classic'.

'Traditional' by itself is a meaningless descriptor. But then any shorthand descriptor is going to be nigh on meaningless. Take - for example - 'open evangelical'. In some places I have come across, this means 'evangelical-ish but open to other styles and traditions' (ie not terribly tribal). In other places, this means 'definitely evangelical but open to charismatic things.'

(Would it be possible for some nice sociologist somewhere to create a series of codes to designate types of churches more clearly? A1 = Conservative Evangelical; B3 = Liberal with an Anglo-Catholic tinge; D5 = Anglo-Catholic against women priests, but gay friendly and with a commitment to the environment. That sort of thing. Perhaps Shipmates could try and do this???)

[ 16. June 2014, 16:56: Message edited by: Oscar the Grouch ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

On another site, I've been involved in a discussion where use of the words 'ritual' and 'ceremony' have also been taken to mean different things. It must be very difficult to describe one's church in language that everyone instantly understands. I guess you can get a clearer picture by visiting a church and immersing yourself in the practice of that particular place, in order to experience what they mean. But it can be rather time consuming.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

(Would it be possible for some nice sociologist somewhere to create a series of codes to designate types of churches more clearly? A1 = Conservative Evangelical; B3 = Liberal with an Anglo-Catholic tinge; D5 = Anglo-Catholic against women priests, but gay friendly and with a commitment to the environment. That sort of thing. Perhaps Shipmates could try and do this???)

Within the UK the categories you've listed here are mainly applicable within the Anglican churches, of course. Other denominations would have a more or less different range of 'evangelicalisms'.

The English Church Censuses of 1989, 1998 and 2005 might give some indication of the types of evangelicalism that have been popular over the past decade, but I think only three types were available for church leaders to choose from, and they weren't allowed to choose multiple identities (e.g. Anglo-Catholic + Evangelical). People were allowed to self-identify, but from what I've seen of the '89 and '98 censuses* people haven't really gone for multiple identities, and 'Traditional' hasn't been a popular label.

(*Peter Brierley, 'The Tide is Running Out'. His book 'Pulling Out of the Nosedive' is more up-to-date. Has anyone read it, and is it any good on labels and churchmanship?)

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Within the CofE, the term 'traditional' is regularly used to refer to most types of church. The actual meaning of the word is usually that the speaker hasn't ventured outside enough, or done enough reading, to realise that other styles of worship have claims on tradition that are at least as good as their own.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Within the UK the categories you've listed here are mainly applicable within the Anglican churches, of course. Other denominations would have a more or less different range of 'evangelicalisms'.

Absolutely!

The geeky part of me would love to see a Dewey Decimal type system of classification for ALL churches.

A.3.441.2 - An evangelical Methodist Church infiltrated by Seventh Day Adventist fundamentalists who hold liberal views on homosexuality.

Bugger Andrew Walker with his R1 and R2!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Oscar

Firstly, I know you're (mostly) joking. But looking at it seriously, I doubt that most churchgoers themselves are so self-aware or so theologically adept as to be able to define themselves in quite so much detail. And whether the clergy would see much benefit in analysing their congregations in this way is debatable.
How on earth would a sociologist devise a questionnaire that would generate all this information without requiring a vast amount of time from church leaders? It would end up in the bin.

This kind of in-depth analysis is only possible for researchers working with individual congregations, and there's already a tradition of conducting such research. I don't know to what extent questions about sexuality are routinely explored, but that's probably something that researchers will look at more closely from now on.

I'm amused by your hypothetical British 'evangelical Methodist Church infiltrated by Seventh Day Adventist fundamentalists who hold liberal views on homosexuality'!

[ 17. June 2014, 01:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm amused by your hypothetical British 'evangelical Methodist Church infiltrated by Seventh Day Adventist fundamentalists who hold liberal views on homosexuality'!

Especially as it doesn't even begin to touch on such vital issues as acceptable versions of the Bible, styles of music, or whether sherry or coffee is served in the church hall afterwards!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, there won't be any sherry, I can tell you that!

British Methodist evangelicalism doesn't seem to rely a great deal on evangelical currents and trends from elsewhere (though I'm sure there are some influences). It's a moderate denomination (with a growing percentage of 'Liberal' churches), and this is also true of its evangelicalism. SDAs who move into Methodism are likely to be doing so in order to move away from the strictness of Adventism, not because they want to bring that strictness with them. Public disagreement about homosexuality (or anything else) isn't the Methodist way, although I think the topic is getting more of an airing now that it's of topical interest.

Methodist evangelical worship probably fails to be as distinctive as (some of) the CofE varieties since the circuit system and use of large numbers of lay preachers means that congregations are limited in determining the structure and content of services.

Getting back on topic, it's interesting that in the Methodist Church Life Profile of 2001 Methodists worshippers were shown to be more likely to appreciate 'Traditional hymns' than members of other churches. Methodists were also likely to place a high value on 'Traditional Worship'. This is partly due to the age factor; we haven't yet mentioned on this thread that what's perceived as 'traditional' may have a lot to do with how old particular churchgoers or congregations are.

Posted by Starbug (# 15917) on :

There is resentment among a number of Methodists about the new hymn book, Singing the Faith (STF - or STFU, as I like to call it).

Many hymns have been modernised or made more PC, depending on your point of view. However, some other hymns haven't been touched because any attempt to modernise them would change them out of all recognition. So now we have this weird mixture of 'hymns ancient and bowdlerised', which many of the older members in our congregation don't like.

As one of the 'younger' people (I'm 48!), I don't like it either.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
we haven't yet mentioned on this thread that what's perceived as 'traditional' may have a lot to do with how old particular churchgoers or congregations are.

Also, where there are several churches in a town, the church which is perceived as being 'traditional' is often chosen by certain quieter younger people and families who prefer that type of service to the louder, more vibrant worship up the road. That is, they choose by personality trait rather than age group band.

Another curious thing I've noticed - using one of our local churches as an example - churches which think that they are not at all traditional in the worship sense, for example, valuing the latest (or at least 1970s) worship songs, powerpoint presentations, lots of young people's groups, etc., who therefore view themselves as quite 'radical' and to the forefront of church progress, and yet still have only men presiding at Communion and still regard homosexuality as a sin. They look at churches which still use an old hymn book, use vestments, and adhere closely to authorised service forms, and call them traditional, old-fashioned, even 'backward'. Even though these churches have had women priests since the 1990s!

I find it most odd, and can only assume that there is a surface form of traditionality or radicality, whereas underneath, at a deeper level, the opposite can often be found.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I find both these tendencies fascinating: the marriage of liberal theologies and 'traditional' worship styles on the one hand, and of more conservative theologies and modern/innovative worship styles on the other. Of course, these things don't always correlate, but they certainly do in many cases, and I've never understood why. I have a vague feeling that the Calvinism v. Arminianism issue has something to do with it, but I haven't worked through that idea yet.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Within the UK the categories you've listed here are mainly applicable within the Anglican churches, of course. Other denominations would have a more or less different range of 'evangelicalisms'.
Absolutely!

The geeky part of me would love to see a Dewey Decimal type system of classification for ALL churches.

A.3.441.2 - An evangelical Methodist Church infiltrated by Seventh Day Adventist fundamentalists who hold liberal views on homosexuality.

Bugger Andrew Walker with his R1 and R2!

quote:
Another curious thing I've noticed - using one of our local churches as an example - churches which think that they are not at all traditional in the worship sense, for example, valuing the latest (or at least 1970s) worship songs, powerpoint presentations, lots of young people's groups, etc., who therefore view themselves as quite 'radical' and to the forefront of church progress, and yet still have only men presiding at Communion and still regard homosexuality as a sin. They look at churches which still use an old hymn book, use vestments, and adhere closely to authorised service forms, and call them traditional, old-fashioned, even 'backward'. Even though these churches have had women priests since the 1990s!

I think it was Mark Driscoll who talked about doctrinaly conservetive and culturaly liberal and vice versa

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
... If you can't use the N word you can always use inner city...

Really? I live pretty close to the centre of a city and I'm undeniably white.

As for the word "tradition", for an Anglican church I'd probably interpret it as following the language and liturgy of the Prayer Book, with hymns and anthems accompanied by an organ rather than choruses accompanied by a guitar.

For the Church of Scotland, I'd expect it to be a hymn/metrical psalm/lessons/sermon sandwich, (again accompanied on an organ) with an anthem if there was a choir.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

Another curious thing I've noticed - using one of our local churches as an example - churches which think that they are not at all traditional in the worship sense, for example, valuing the latest (or at least 1970s) worship songs, powerpoint presentations, lots of young people's groups, etc., who therefore view themselves as quite 'radical' and to the forefront of church progress, and yet still have only men presiding at Communion and still regard homosexuality as a sin. They look at churches which still use an old hymn book, use vestments, and adhere closely to authorised service forms, and call them traditional, old-fashioned, even 'backward'. Even though these churches have had women priests since the 1990s!

I find it most odd, and can only assume that there is a surface form of traditionality or radicality, whereas underneath, at a deeper level, the opposite can often be found.

My instant response is to say that the more crash-bang amplification flashing lights powerpoint and groups to keep people busy for as much of their time as possible, the less time people have - perhaps deliberately- to ask questions and think things through. But no doubt this is just my (liturgically conservative, doctrinally liberal) preconceptions speaking.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0