I am tired of hearing about “traditional” and “contemporary” worship. When did the church become such an enterprise which must categorize Christ’s work according to these terms?
When people ask me if I am “traditional” or “contemporary,” I like to respond, “I am a baptized child of God.” Of course, I go on to explain, but the intitial reaction is amusing.
Balaam's Ass 
Well, probably because we like to categorize everything else. We get our pants in a bunch over what is and is not a sacrament as if we are Calvinists or Papists.
Getting our pants in a bunch over these things is what caused us to “Reform” in the first place.
😉
But, really, traditional or contemporary have little meaning appart from true liturgical worship.
Amen! Amen and Amen!
As a person whom I call “friend” once said.
There is not “traditional” or “contemporary” (or anything else for that matter). There is only FAITHFUL or UNFAITHFUL.
Which are you? ANSWER: Read the confessions and it will become pretty self-evident.
CC
Young Kung Fu Master Michael: Yes, those are unfortunate distinctions (maybe false dichotomies). Today, Ludderans have to add ‘confessional’ – we should already be confessional; other qualifiers: UAC, pro-life, love lutefisk. 🙂
So then do you advocate liturgical or non-liturgical worship, Pr. Michael? Is that a better question with less baggage?
Tutal and Lawrence: It’s ‘panties’ not ‘pants’.
The Terrible Swede
(World ‘zine IT guys blocking Blogger!)