Through Tradition or Innovation
Simply put, traditional methods are not bad — as long as they are contextually applied and biblically critiqued in a traditional community. And, for that matter, contemporary methods are not required or even preferred if a community is not contemporary.
Contextualization means that we present the gospel and live life together in a missionally appropriate manner. Code-breaking churches are serious about reaching the lost, through innovation or tradition.
~Breaking the Missional Code, David Putman and Ed Stetzer
In the Spring of 2017, I got the phone call that every United Methodist pastor dreads getting that time of year. There’s nothing like seeing your District Superintendent’s name come up on your caller ID. I answered and received the news that was unexpected until I saw his name on my phone. I was getting moved.
For those that don’t know, United Methodists are itinerant preachers. What that means is we are assigned on an annual basis, technically speaking. We don’t get moved every year because (1) that’s a logistical nightmare, and (2) it’s a poor strategy because consistency is important in the local church, at least to a certain extent.
However, every few years, we get the phone call, and we get reassigned to a new context. In 2017, I got the phone call that we would be moving once again. It was an unexpected call because I just had a conversation with my District Superintendent a couple weeks before letting him know that I wasn’t really interested in moving. I think all I really did was put my name on his radar. Maybe. I don’t know what happens around the table. It’s just speculation.
A couple days later, my wife and I left the kids with some family, and made the 2 hour drive for dinner and a meeting with the new church’s administrative team. At one point during the meeting, one gentleman took me on a tour of the building. As we walked into the sanctuary, I was amazed at how beautiful it was. And immediately, one thing was very clear: this was going to be a traditional music style church.
Why did I think that? Because the front of the sanctuary, right above the altar and choir loft, is dominated by pipes for the organ. You can’t have a set up like that and only have a praise band playing.
Now, I was coming from a context where we actually did stop using the organ. In fact, it was a portable organ that at one point we actually moved to the basement because it was taking up too much space and not getting moved. We played a good mix of contemporary and traditional music. And, sometimes, we even played traditional music in a contemporary way. I really enjoyed this style of worship (though, not everybody did). But from the moment I stepped into this new sanctuary, I knew that we were going to have a more traditional service. And, here’s the kicker: I had no problem with that.
The only thing the “worship wars” at the turn of the century proved was that people are incredibly selfish about the type of music that they like in church. In many places, there were fights and splits about the style of music that was played in the worship service. It’s the kind of stuff that would have made Jesus really proud. <insert eyeroll here>
I knew from the beginning that this was going to be a traditional context, and given the fact that we live in one of the oldest towns in the state, a very traditional place, and this is a 200+ year old congregation, we had to do what’s right for the context. And this is the mistake that many make.
They assume that everybody wants the contemporary worship band, the fog machines and the light show. But none of that is essential. Change for the sake of change is never a good thing. Start something new? Sure. Go for it. If you have the personnel and the interest. Try something different. Be bold. But don’t discount traditional as old and outdated. Do what’s right for where you are.
