# Traditional/Contemporary services



## Me Died Blue (Aug 11, 2004)

While in Naples, Florida, I recently attended my first service at a Reformed church, called Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA). They had a "contemporary" service and a "traditional" service, so I attended both to compare the two. I didn't find much difference, except that in the traditional service, more of the songs were hymns, and the Apostles' Creed was recited.

Do Reformed churches you've been to typically make that distinction between services? Are the differences usually negligible? And even if they are, what do you think about the idea in general of making a contemporary/traditional distinction? Personally, I am inclined against it because I see no warrant for such a thing in Scripture.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Aug 11, 2004)

I agree with you. I don't see a warrant for dividing a church on the basis of musical style. If you no longer gather together in an assembly as one body, are you really maintaining church unity?


----------



## Scot (Aug 11, 2004)

I would expect this from arminian churches trying to bring in more people. It kind of worries me when a reformed church starts doing it. Aren't they basically trying to make the worship more wordly? I've never been to a "comtemporary" service.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 11, 2004)

Chris,

In the instance you cite, since there is so little difference between the two, it is mostly marketing. Some people like to be able to tell themselves and their friends that they go to a "contemporary service" and so the Church obliges them.

At the same time, there are others who require a "traditional service."

Having said all that, I believe it is a big mistake that tends to divide a congregation.


----------



## dkicklig (Aug 11, 2004)

Fred

Whether you split because of worship styles or for space needs I've experienced that dual services are detrimental to the covenant community. You end up with 2 different churches.

It's pretty easy to move to a blended style if you are moving from a traditional model. If you're moving from a liturgical style it is far more difficult. But I would never split the congregation.

If splitting the service for space needs it should be a very temporary situation. I would explore other venues (schools, community centers, etc) as a temporary measure. Then again I am also of the persuasion that if the church gets too big maybe it's time to plant another one.


----------



## LauridsenL (Aug 11, 2004)

[quote:478133cec4]Having said all that, I believe it is a big mistake that tends to divide a congregation.[/quote:478133cec4]

Fred, 

Our pastor and session agree. In fact, our pastor argues that it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the worship service. By intentionally tailoring a service to meet the "felt" needs or preferences of members, a church sends a message that worship is about the worshipers and making them feel good, rather than about God's people worshipping and honoring him.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 11, 2004)

A truly Reformed, Biblical understanding of worship teaches us that the Regulative Principle of Worship does not leave it up to man to invent various kinds of worship. The goal here is not to attract people but to glorify Him. The only worship that is pleasing to God is that which He has commanded and is spelled out in the WCF Chap. XXI -- offered, of course, in spirit and in truth. Anything else is man-centered will-worship.


----------



## Scott (Aug 11, 2004)

Chris:

You will find a tremendous amount of variety in Reformed churches. One one end you will find highly liturgical churches, such as Redeemer Presbyterian in Austin, Texas. Here is a sample of their liturgy:

http://www.redeemerpres.org/divineservice.html

You will see that it is highly structured and follows a high church format.

On the other end of the specturm you will have highly contemporary services, some even with drama, skits, and other things.  

I don't have a sample to refer you to. 

Most churches fall somewhere in between. I think the St. Paul's liturgy posted in an earlier thread would be in the middle, although tending toward the higher end. 

Scott


----------



## Scott (Aug 11, 2004)

Here is an interesting and related study:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=126


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 11, 2004)

Wouldn't dividing the services damage unity, an important aspect of a healthy church?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 12, 2004)

Thanks for the comments and information. It seems that we all agree on the unbiblical mindset that the trad./cont. distinction both reflects and creates.


----------



## Scott (Aug 13, 2004)

I think these issues arise in part b/c of the lack of a central authority. For example, the Anglican Church has an official Book of Common Prayer that churches are supposed to follow. This undercuts alot of the individualism and maverick spirit that tends to manifest itself in our culture. 

The Reformation era Church of Scotland had some pretty extensive requirements on the Scottish church, which was an established state church. I would be curious about the liturgies of other reformed countries.

Anyway, in the PCA there is a huge amount of individualism. The OPC seems more insulated against this, which is probably based on a more widespread and serious commitment to the regulative principle.

Scott


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 13, 2004)

[quote:279a885806="Scott"]I think these issues arise in part b/c of the lack of a central authority. For example, the Anglican Church has an official Book of Common Prayer that churches are supposed to follow. This undercuts alot of the individualism and maverick spirit that tends to manifest itself in our culture. 

The Reformation era Church of Scotland had some pretty extensive requirements on the Scottish church, which was an established state church. I would be curious about the liturgies of other reformed countries.

Anyway, in the PCA there is a huge amount of individualism. The OPC seems more insulated against this, which is probably based on a more widespread and serious commitment to the regulative principle.

Scott[/quote:279a885806]

A direct result of the fact that the Directory for Worship has no Constitutional status - exactly as the high-liturgy, pseudo Anglican crowd and the low-church, Purpose driven crowd in the PCA wanted it.


----------



## Ianterrell (Aug 13, 2004)

Fred,

I would say further that it is the inevitable result of rejecting the Regulative Principle. The guide to worship becomes the preference of the attendees rather than the word of God.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 13, 2004)

[quote:50719ae868="Ianterrell"]Fred,

I would say further that it is the inevitable result of rejecting the Regulative Principle. The guide to worship becomes the preference of the attendees rather than the word of God.[/quote:50719ae868]


----------

