Just came upon a very academic and philosophical treatment of the "traditional vs. contemporary" argument of church style, reminiscent of what I was attempting to say a few weeks ago. Very thought-provoking and concisely put, particularly this bit:
"Hart’s assumptions regarding musical preference and spiritual maturity are telling, but I’ll leave that aside to ask, Must truths be chained to an unchanging mode of expression in order to abide? The abiding truths of Christianity are both ancient and contemporary, and we should welcome their expression in various forms, whether ancient or contemporary. . . . The arguments against liturgies that employ contemporary cultural forms often rely upon a tacit assumption that the traditional forms are transcultural and universal, over against the contingency and specificity of the new symbols. This conceals the fact that the symbolic values of traditional worship are themselves culturally specific and contingent, having originated in the cultural idioms of particular times and places of the past. No eternal, acultural liturgy has dropped down from heaven! All liturgies are human responses to God in particular cultural forms. There is no escape from cultural specificity, just a choice of which culture and time to privilege."
Click here to read the whole post.
.jpg)
Brandon...I appreciate the way you get me thinking about my own views of the church and where they come from. I don't have the time at the moment to read the whole post I'm very interested in reading it later. Ask me later if I've gone back to do it yet. :-)
ReplyDelete