|
How many times, at how many SA corps, do we have to tackle the age-old dilema of "traditional" vs. "contemporary"? As we suffer through an officer transition at our corps, the main thought that is running through my head is, "here we go again..."
OK, everybody has their own ideas about what works, and what doesn't. Some want us to be more sensitive to the older, more traditionally-minded members of the congregation, while others insist that we must be current, relevant, and therefore, contemporary. Do we cater to the older folk who have built, established, and supported the corps for many years? Or do we try to target the younger ones who will be the future of the corps?
Let's face it. There is no way, in heaven or on earth, that we can possibly please everybody.
I really feel caught in the middle on this one. As a member and co-leader of the worship team, yes, I am in favour of contemporary music and approaches. However, having grown up at an extremely traditional corps, and loving the traditional approaches to banding, songsters, camps, even timbrels, I most certainly do appreciate the traditions of the Salvation Army. My opinion has always been, and shall forever be, that the best approach is a balanced one: mix the traditional with the contemporary, and help everyone to appreciate the other generations.
You see, as one who appreciates history, antiques, and wisdom, I am of the firm opinion that, just because something is old, doesn't mean you throw it out. There's an awful lot of good stuff in those old hymns, and the Army band and uniform are extremely recogniseable. Only a couple of weeks ago, I had a complete stranger approach me at a restaurant and hand me $20, because she recognised the uniform I was wearing, and wanted to thank The Salvation Army "for all the good work you do". We have also had new people come into our corps, because our band went on a march around the neighborhood, and they followed the "parade" back to the building. It still works!
However, I do acknowledge that there are many who do not identify with the traditional Army Barmy. And that's fine! That's why we've expanded to include a more contemporary style of worship, with new music, new approaches, new community programs, and a more casual "everyday" uniform (ie. the t-shirts/golf shirts, etc.). That works, too! But, we must keep in mind: just because it's "contemporary", doesn't necessarily mean it's "relevant" to all!
Unfortunately, we're running into a situation at our corps, where a new officer is trying to bring a little more current material into a very traditional set-up. As a result, the "traditionalists" are getting their backs up, and are fighting to retain the traditional feel of the corps. Yes, the congregation is predominantly over-50. (Hmm, maybe there's a reason for that?.....) But where should our focus be? On the past, or on the future? As I stated before, we must acknowledge, appreciate, and show our respect to those who have gone before. However, we MUST NOT sacrifice the future of the church! To be extremely blunt, if you focus on keeping the older folks happy, you won't have a congregation in about 10 years, because they will all have gone on to their reward. Who would be left?....
I'm not out to ruffle feathers. (although I'm sure I have done so!) I'm just trying to say that if we hope to survive, we MUST stop fighting amongst ourselves. To win the fight, we have to come together and present a united front, or we will be doomed to failure. You-know-who is loving the in-fighting and the bickering over what kind of music to use!
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER! It's called "balance". A bit of this, a bit of that, and while we can never please everybody at all times, we can still reach those who need reaching, on the level where they will respond.
Am I making sense?
OK, everybody has their own ideas about what works, and what doesn't. Some want us to be more sensitive to the older, more traditionally-minded members of the congregation, while others insist that we must be current, relevant, and therefore, contemporary. Do we cater to the older folk who have built, established, and supported the corps for many years? Or do we try to target the younger ones who will be the future of the corps?
Let's face it. There is no way, in heaven or on earth, that we can possibly please everybody.
I really feel caught in the middle on this one. As a member and co-leader of the worship team, yes, I am in favour of contemporary music and approaches. However, having grown up at an extremely traditional corps, and loving the traditional approaches to banding, songsters, camps, even timbrels, I most certainly do appreciate the traditions of the Salvation Army. My opinion has always been, and shall forever be, that the best approach is a balanced one: mix the traditional with the contemporary, and help everyone to appreciate the other generations.
You see, as one who appreciates history, antiques, and wisdom, I am of the firm opinion that, just because something is old, doesn't mean you throw it out. There's an awful lot of good stuff in those old hymns, and the Army band and uniform are extremely recogniseable. Only a couple of weeks ago, I had a complete stranger approach me at a restaurant and hand me $20, because she recognised the uniform I was wearing, and wanted to thank The Salvation Army "for all the good work you do". We have also had new people come into our corps, because our band went on a march around the neighborhood, and they followed the "parade" back to the building. It still works!
However, I do acknowledge that there are many who do not identify with the traditional Army Barmy. And that's fine! That's why we've expanded to include a more contemporary style of worship, with new music, new approaches, new community programs, and a more casual "everyday" uniform (ie. the t-shirts/golf shirts, etc.). That works, too! But, we must keep in mind: just because it's "contemporary", doesn't necessarily mean it's "relevant" to all!
Unfortunately, we're running into a situation at our corps, where a new officer is trying to bring a little more current material into a very traditional set-up. As a result, the "traditionalists" are getting their backs up, and are fighting to retain the traditional feel of the corps. Yes, the congregation is predominantly over-50. (Hmm, maybe there's a reason for that?.....) But where should our focus be? On the past, or on the future? As I stated before, we must acknowledge, appreciate, and show our respect to those who have gone before. However, we MUST NOT sacrifice the future of the church! To be extremely blunt, if you focus on keeping the older folks happy, you won't have a congregation in about 10 years, because they will all have gone on to their reward. Who would be left?....
I'm not out to ruffle feathers. (although I'm sure I have done so!) I'm just trying to say that if we hope to survive, we MUST stop fighting amongst ourselves. To win the fight, we have to come together and present a united front, or we will be doomed to failure. You-know-who is loving the in-fighting and the bickering over what kind of music to use!
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER! It's called "balance". A bit of this, a bit of that, and while we can never please everybody at all times, we can still reach those who need reaching, on the level where they will respond.
Am I making sense?
Preach it, sister! (er, cousin?!?!)