Category Archives: Worship

The Church In The Current Culture — Insights From Other Areas

Leave a reply

As regular readers are well aware one of my interests is noting commentaries on the current culture and cultural indicators and “overlaying” that on the church to see what that means for our ecclesiology.

A couple of weeks ago I attended the Theology After Google conference at the Claremont School of Theology.  This conference, organized by Philip Clayton and Tripp Fuller, has drawn a bit of controversy for its emphasis on “progressive” and “emergent” theology.  Yes, that was clearly there but my interest was on the technology and the concept of “returning theological discussion to the people,” which in my view is “platform independent” and need not be automatically associated with a theological viewpoint.  Anyway, more on that another time.

But in the spirit of this concept of taking culture and holding it up against the Church I heard some fascinating bits on the radio program “This American Life” last Saturday (3/27). The program was about NUMMI (New United Motor Manufacturing Incorporated), a joint Toyota/GM venture in Fremont, California, which began in 1984.  GM pulled out of the venture in 2009 when it filed for bankruptcy and now Toyota is ending its part of the project with the last vehicle, a Corolla, rolling off the assembly line today (Today’s NPR story).  And there is a Presbyterian connection to this story:  The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and pastor of Mission Bay Community Church in San Francisco was the religious representative on a California state commission that issued a report regarding the shut down and traveled to Japan to call attention to the closure and meet with Toyota officials.

The piece is interesting and tells the story with the voices of those at the center of the rise of the plant and the attempts to reproduce it elsewhere.  Here are some quotes from the story.  As you read them instead of thinking about a commercial enterprize or a manufacturing plant, substitute the mainline church in there:

“Why hasn’t GM got it yet?  It’s not like this reliability problem snuck up on them — It’s been fifty years since it started losing market share.  Fifty years since it began the slide from holding over half the U.S. car market in the 1960’s to just 22% today.”  (Ira Glass, program host)

“I think there was pride (pause) and defensiveness. ‘I’m proud because I’m the biggest auto maker in the world. I’ve been the best, I’ve dominated the market.  You can’t teach me anything you little Japanese company.’ ” (Jeffrey Liker, author of The Toyota Way, talking about why GM senior management was not completely accepting of the fact that Toyota was building better quality cars in the early 80’s.)

“The key to the Toyota production system was a principle so basic it sounds like an empty management slogan — ‘Team work.’  Back home in Fremont GM supervisors ordered around large groups of workers.  At the [Japanese] plant people were divided into teams of just four or five, switched jobs every few hours to relieve the monotony.  And a team leader would step in to help whenever anything went wrong.” (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“There were too many people convinced that they didn’t need to have to change. (reporter asks why?) It’s not logical. They just didn’t.” (Larry Spiegel, GM mid-level management who tried to help implement the NUMMI model at another GM plant.)

“This was one of the biggest differences between Fremont and Van Nuys — Van Nuys hadn’t been shut down.  It turns out it’s a lot easier to get workers to change if they’ve lost their jobs and then you offer them back.  Without that many union members just saw the Toyota system as a threat.”  (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“At Van Nuys it wasn’t just union members that resisted the Japanese system. Managers didn’t like it either — they had their own privileges to protect…. Their bonuses depended on the number of cars that rolled off [the assembly line], never mind how many defects they had.” (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“Workers could only build cars as good as the parts they were given.  At NUMMI many of the parts came from Japan and were really good.  At Van Nuys it was totally different.” (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“You had asked the question earlier ‘what’s different when you walk into the NUMMI plant?’ Well you can see a lot of things different, but the one thing you don’t see is the system that supports the NUMMI plant.” (Ernie Schaefer, Van Nuys plant manager)

“[Toyota] never prohibited us from walking through the plant, understanding, even asking questions of some of the key people.  I’ve often puzzled over that, why they did that.  And I think they recognized is that we were asking all the wrong questions.  We didn’t understand the bigger picture thing.  All of our questions were focused on the floor of the assembly plant, what’s happening on the line.  That’s not the real issue.  The real issue is ‘How do you support that system with all the other functions that take place in the organization?’ ” (Ernie Schaefer, Van Nuys plant manager)

“One reason car execs were in denial was Detroit’s insular culture… [E]veryone had settled into comfortable roles in this dysfunctional system and learned to live with it.  And in the late 1980’s, with their market share in free fall, Jeffrey Liker says they were more apt to blame others than themselves.”  (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“Jeffrey Liker says the cultural gap between NUMMI and the rest of GM was so vast that even with clear marching orders to change some of the people running the company didn’t know where to begin.”  (Frank Langfitt, reporter)

“We had some tough goes in some of our facilities where we spent more time trying to convince the plant leadership versus going on and actually doing the implementation.  I was actually asked in one plant to leave because they were not interested in what I had to sell.” (Goeff Weller, GM manager in charge of converting plants to the Japanese system)

This is not to advocate for change for changes sake, or to say that implicitly “new is better.”  It is interesting to consider how we do things, how the organization – be it the congregation, presbytery, synod, or national level – can change and support other changes that are happening.  How do we work together – top down or bottom up?  Is our measure of success quality or quantity?  Do we view ourselves as “too big to fail?”  I love the quote about it being easier to get people to agree to change if the institution has been shut down and their are trying to begin again differently.

There is a lot to think about in there.  And this piece did get the attention of another Presbyterian commentator – Jan Edmiston at A Church for Starving Artists.

Let me finish with a much shorter piece that aired one week earlier (3/20) on NPR’s Weekend Edition about military recruiting and how the Millennial Generation differs from earlier ones.  This was an interview with Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, the commander in charge of basic training, and is titled “New Basic Training Hardens ‘Softer Generation’.”  He says this about today’s recruit:

We also have really found a new generation of soldiers, what some may call the millennial generation, who are advanced in terms of their use of technology, and maybe not as advanced in their physical capabilities or ability to go into a fight.

and

I think we are seeing a decline, across the board, in America. And in fact, it concerns many of us in the military, and we’re watching it very closely. This isn’t a decline in our recruits; this is a decline in our American society in terms of their physical capacity. It’s just a softer generation. But we can’t afford to accept that.

and

They’re different. They have a technology edge. I think they’re smarter than any generation we’ve ever had before.

They certainly ask a lot more difficult questions. They team differently. They have loyalty and – but I think the most important thing about this generation, this generation of millennials, as I said we call it, is the fact that they want to change the world. They want to contribute to something that’s bigger than themselves.

It sounds a lot like other assessments and descriptions of the millennial generation that we are hearing and experiencing in the church.  Now how do we adapt the church, like the military is working on adapting, without compromising our mission or message?

What Is Distinctive About Our Worship?

1 Reply

On my commute home from work today there was an interesting story on NPR about one faith tradition revitalizing the church and renewing their worship for the next generation.  Some of you probably heard it too.  What really caught my attention was the part towards the end of the piece where they were talking about the changes made to the worship service:

On a recent Sunday morning, 1,200 [worshipers] fill the cavernous ballroom at the Manhattan Center in New York City. They leap to their feet and wave their arms as a rock band plays a mix of Fleetwood Mac and worship music with a thumping beat. They fall silent as the lights dim, and burst into applause when, theatrically, a single light comes up to reveal a woman behind a podium.

…

She speaks without notes for 40 minutes, weaving personal anecdotes with references to the Bible, Aristotle and Christian leaders. She is the 44-year-old daughter of [the founding pastor], and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. When her father appointed her to head the U.S. church 18 months ago, she focused on one simple goal: to win back young people.

…

[She] replaced the old holy songs with rock ‘n’ roll, and florescent lighting with concert lighting and a giant video screen.

…

She… faced a problem that plagues even established churches: How do you transmit the passion of a convert to a child who merely inherits the faith?

…

So [she] did what the evangelicals do: She used music and technology to spark spiritual experiences. She says it is working.

“Some have called it ‘electricity running through my body, feeling of warmth — just feeling as if they’re engulfed in love,'” she says. “For those kids who come and have that conversion experience, then their belief system becomes theirs.”

Since [she] took over, weekly attendance has nearly doubled.

Yes, this is one of my set-ups.  For those that heard this piece you know that it is not about some generic evangelical church, but rather the Unification Church and “the leader” is In Jin Moon, daughter of the founder and church messiah, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Check it out.  I eliminated a bunch of identifying information and talk about the church establishment’s response to her leadership and change in worship style.  But I think I give you all the relevant quotes regarding the worship service.

Obviously what struck me was that beyond the identifying information about the church this discussion could have been describing a great number of contemporary Christian worship services.  In style, at least as described, there are no obvious differences.

In fact, what information the story gives about the substance of worship could easily be contemporary Christian worship:  Preaching using “personal anecdotes with references to the Bible, Aristotle and Christian leaders.”  Music with rock replacing “holy songs.” (OK, so I would hope not to hear Fleetwood Mac songs in worship, but I know that Beetles music has been used in contemporary Christian worship.)

And what are they looking for?  The experience — “electricity running through my body, feeling of warmth — just feeling as if they’re engulfed in love.”

But it gets results — if you count the doubling of attendance as a measure of success.

It does bother me when the description of contemporary Unificationist worship is practically indistinguishable from contemporary Christian worship.  I will admit that we don’t have the words of the songs and the text of the message, but the substance and focus of the worship should make them distinctive from one another.  Yes, Ms. Moon admits to borrowing from evangelical services, but when a style is so generic that it is “platform independent” I do have to wonder what we are doing.

I will admit that I am painting with a broad brush here.  And I know that I don’t have all the details about the content of the worship music and message.  But in a way, that is the point.  What is catching the media attention and what is drawing people in sure is presented as the style and not the substance.

Yes, I am a broken record about this, but without apology I say again that the marks of the substance of our worship should be:

[F]irst, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; [Scots Confession, 1560]

The Lectionary – Border, Bastion, Or Barrier?

4 Replies

Happy New Year – kind-a, sort of, maybe…

Yes, a week ago last Sunday was the first Sunday of the Advent Season and the churches that follow the liturgical calendar moved from Year B to Year C of the lectionary.

Now, I will simply recognize that liturgical calendars and seasons, particularly Advent and Christmas, are not unanimously accepted by those of us in the Reformed and Presbyterian stream.  In fact, the Directory for the Publick Worship of God adopted by the Kirk and Parliament of Scotland in 1645 says in the Appendix “Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.” (For more you can check out an interesting article on Christmas , a detailed piece on Holy days in American Presbyterianism, a current series of pieces at Building Old School Churches, or the Wikipedia entry for Christmas. There is also a current piece by Mark Horne making the case that there is Reformed support for celebrating Christmas.)

On a personal note, I appreciate the application of the regulative principle and the fact that there are non-Christian influences and origins of the celebrations of Advent, Christmas and Easter that argue against the celebration of specific Holy days.  However, I also find spiritual focus in the seasons and feasts of the old covenant as applied to the Christian liturgical year and the celebration of special days.  Back to this in a moment.

As I mentioned at the beginning, we have begun a new year in the lectionary which provides weekly scripture passages for worship on the Lord’s Day.  I was reflecting on this because there does seem to be an association between the use of the lectionary and the “DNA” of a particular Presbyterian branch.  But as I reflected on it more and how it impacts our worship it seemed to me that the lectionary has certain benefits, but also certain limitations, in its use.  It seems important to understand each of these and how they impact our community life.  And it should go without saying that it impacts the “true preaching of the word of God.”

In most mainline congregations it seems that the Revised Common Lectionary is the default position.  In a couple of respects this is the “bastion” or “safe” approach.  In one respect it is safe because it guides a congregation through the three-year cycle of scripture readings providing broad, though hardly complete, coverage of the Bible appropriate to the liturgical season. (My friend David Gambrell over at Linen Ephod has a nice summary of each lectionary year.)  It also provides a ready defense for a preacher when a congregant did not like text for that day — all you have to say is “that is the lectionary text for today.”   

The lectionary also provides a “paring” of scripture passages from the three sections and these selections are supposed to relate to each other.  (Sometimes it is tough to see the relationship, other times you can probably think of a better pairing.) Some preachers will include two or more readings and then expound on all of them in the sermon, some will only chose one to preach on.  In the lectionary there is also the annual rhythm in the reading that takes us through the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and “tells us the story” repeated every year.  And I am told that by having congregations use a common lectionary it gives pastors something to talk about when they get together.

But one of the biggest practical benefits of the lectionary is that it keeps a preacher from falling into the pattern or habit of preaching on what they want to preach on.  In this way the lectionary acts as a “border,” “fence,” or “hedge” around the preaching.  It works as a tool to keep from always hearing a message based on the pastor’s favorite scripture passage or selecting texts that simply provide another avenue for the pastor to once again advocate their favorite theme or message.  In fact, by using the lectionary a conscientious preacher can work the three weekly readings (Old Testament, New Testament and Gospel) into nine years of distinctly different sermons.  (Twelve years worth if you include the weekly Psalm as a unique sermon, but from what I have seen most pastors use the Psalm as a supporting text to the primary text that they preach on.)

Now, to be clear, I don’t have a fundamental objection to a well planned and executed sermon series that is outside the lectionary.  My own church has done a couple of very effective ones including the series last year of preaching through the Lord’s Prayer one phrase at a time.  When properly done this style does have the elements of the “true preaching of the word of God” in my understanding.

Where the “free-form” approach is dangerous is when it is not implemented with any long-term plan or accountability – especially when a pastor just spends the week deciding what to preach on and choosing relevant passages to base it on as they go.  That is, they let the sermon drive the texts that will be used.  One of the best sermons I have ever heard preached at a General Assembly was delivered by the Rev. James Costen titled “The problem of deferred maintenance” and addressed the Great End of the Church of The Maintenance of Divine Worship.  In that sermon he spoke of a variety of sermon that he called “Saturday Night Specials” that he said could be just as deadly as the street firearm variety.  An interim pastor I once had took this to the extreme when we would regularly find him in his office Sunday morning writing out the sermon.  Again, I know of cases where the Holy Spirit has led preachers to completely rewrite their messages at the last moment and I have no problem with that.  But to regularly write the sermon like that I believe does a disservice to the preaching of the word.

So on the one hand the lectionary provides a framework to help pastors preach through scripture in an organized and systematic manner while letting scripture have its way with us rather than the other way around.  But there are limitations on the other side as well.  If you and you preacher have both been there over nine years you might begin hearing the same things again.  Or if the pastor is not systematic you could hear them again in three.  And even with good planning, there will come a point where the cycle begins repeating itself.  You young’uns may not have been through too many cycles but I’ll admit to being old enough to have been through over 15 lectionary cycles (although the Revised Common Lectionary is not as old as I am having a first version in 1983 and the Revised version in 1992).

So the lectionary will still lead to repetition given enough time.  Some may argue that the repetition is good, that it reinforces important passages of scripture.  But instead
of repeating, what if you were to cover passages of scripture that have not been preached on yet – passages that are not included in the lectionary?

I have not found detailed statistics for the Revised Common Lectionary, but there is a great page that gives the statistics for the Roman Lectionary, which the RCL is based upon, concerning how much of the Bible is covered.  It turns out that of the Roman Lectionary covers only 3.7% of the Old Testament of the Catholic Bible and 40.8% of the New Testament.  If you consider the Scripture to Lectionary cross-index for the RCL is quickly becomes apparent that of the 66 books in the Protestant Bible, several (17 by my count) are used only once or twice and 8 are never used — there will be no lectionary reading from I or II Chronicles, Ezra, Nahum, Obadiah, II or III John or Jude.

Now, I’m sure some of you are saying “of course not everything can be covered on Sunday morning, that is what personal Scripture reading is for.”  I do not dispute the importance of regular Bible reading for personal study and I recommend that every Christian have a plan to read or hear the complete Bible in a one or two year cycle.  But my focus is “the true preaching of the word of God.”  Is it a problem that some of the word is never preached if you use the lectionary?  Has the lectionary become a “barrier” to hearing some sections of scripture preached?

It is here that I am beginning to have a appreciation for congregations that instead of using the lectionary make it their practice to systematically preach through individual books of the Bible.  The congregation hears large sections, at least chapter length, read through in sequence from week to week.  And while every single verse is not necessarily touched on in the preaching, a regular, sequential set of sermons allow for the development of the word in the order recorded.

I don’t know how many preachers would consider the lack of coverage of the RCL a problem and that a solution is necessary.  But if you do, here are a couple of different approaches to this.

One is of course multiple services per week.  If the word is preached three times a week (Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday evening) a preacher, or preaching team, could cover three times as much territory.

Another approach is to make the lectionary cycle longer and include everything.  For the 1189 chapters in the Bible that could be covered in 22.8 years if one chapter is covered every Sunday morning.  Preaching multiple chapters per week – either multiple services, larger pieces (two chapters say), or pairing OT and NT passages in a sermon would shorten the cycle.

But here is my modest proposal for an “extended lectionary.”  This would not necessarily be tied to a liturgical year and therefore precise order would not be important.  However, since the Gospels are the heart of the Bible for Christians, I would suggest that one is Gospel is preached in its entirety each calendar year.  That would set up a four year cycle with between 16 and 28 weeks each year in a contiguous block being taken up for the Gospel reading and direct preaching.  Considering the Psalms the worship book of the Bible, I would suggest they be included each week as a second scripture passage that is read or sung by the congregation.  That leaves 941 chapters of Scripture that when preached at one chapter per week, and working around the regular reading and preaching of the Gospels, would take about 34 years to cover.  That is about one generation to cover the preaching of the whole Bible, and then a congregation would start over again.

Well, its an idea anyway.  Do you have a better one to systematically cover the whole Bible?  (And yes, systematic preaching 3 times per week would pull that down to less than a decade to complete the cycle.)

But getting back to the central idea of this commentary, as we start a new lectionary year I simply wanted to review the benefits and the draw-backs of the use of the lectionary.  There is a tension between the order and fence provided by the use of the lectionary that helps to keep us from having our way with the holy word.  On the other hand, this border is narrow and only covers a small part of the Scriptures possibly presenting a barrier to preaching more of God’s word. It raises the question “if we only cover 12.6% of the volume of Scripture in three years cycles and then start over again, is that the ‘true preaching of the word of God’?”

A Little Liturgical Levity

Leave a reply

A quick post to bring you two recent sighting of Liturgical Levity…

The first is from my friend David Gambrell on his blog Linen Ephod.  David posts a lot of his own liturgical writing and musings on the blog, but under the tag Kitsch he has recently posted pictures of five liturgical objects made of plastic stacking building bricks.  You’ll see what I mean.  These are for Saint Oleg’s Church.  I am expecting to see the completed church on the blog at some time in the future.  So here is the Door, Font, Pulpit, Table, and Windows.

And now for something completely different…

With a hat tip to Cyberbrethren, I have been introduced to the blog Bad Vestments.  Yes, the name is all you need to know about the blog.  Now, I can appreciate “high church.”  But this is a collection of liturgical garments that just make you sit back and wonder.  Remember, liturgical garb was intended to keep from drawing attention to the leader so worshipers could focus on God.  You have to admit that some of these certainly do draw attention to the wearer.  It does not surprise me that one particular leader appears more than any other on this blog.  I thought I commented on this miter when I first saw it a while back but can’t find it now.

Have fun, and now back to pondering GA actions.

The Day Of Resurrection

Leave a reply

Happy Resurrection Sunday for those readers who observe it.  And for those for who do not follow a liturgical calendar but celebrate Christ’s resurrection every Lord’s Day, I hope yesterday was as meaningful as always.

I am liturgical.  I do find spiritual meaning in the annual rhythm of the church calendar.  (If it was good enough for St. Augustine it’s good enough for me. )  My family sometimes jokes that we are C&E (Christmas and Easter) Christians — while we are active in the church and attend worship weekly the Holy Days are a big deal for us with more activities and multiple services per day.  In case you wonder where my blogging has been, I sometimes wonder  what I’m doing at six worship services in the last four days when I’m not clergy.

The penultimate service was our church’s sunrise service early yesterday.  We have to warn the neighbors that there will be a brass quartet outside on the back lawn.  For one day a year they are very understanding.  And for me there is something very deep and meaningful about worshiping the risen Christ as the sun rises on Resurrection Sunday.  Some years when I could not find a sunrise service that fit my theological leanings I have simply had my personal devotions out in the desert (wilderness?) as the sun came up.  And while I make it a point on Easter morning to be in worship at the sunrise, I am a morning person and I very frequently have my devotions  around the time of sunrise anyway.

Another meaningful part of worship yesterday was having both the sunrise service and the regular worship service close with the hymn “The Day of Resurrection.”  Outside of the metrical Psalms this is one of the oldest texts in our hymnal written by John of Damascus in the eighth century.  I appreciate and find symbolism in the link across the history of the Church.  What comes down to Protestant churches is usually John M. Neale’s 1860’s translation and versification

The day of resurrection,
Earth, tell it out abroad,
The Passover of gladness.
The Passover of God.
From death to life eternal,
From this world to the sky,
Our Christ hath brought us over
With hymns of victory.

It is also used within the Eastern Church and is known as the opening verses of John of Damascus’s Paschal Canon

The day of Resurrection, let us be radiant, O peoples! Pascha, the Lord’s Pascha; for Christ God has brought us over from death to life, and from earth to heaven, as we sing the triumphal song.
[Translation copyright to Archimandrite Ephrem ©]

[It is interesting to note that in Islam there is an eschatological concept of “The Day of Resurrection” similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of the “Day of the Lord” or final judgment, not a “first fruits” resurrection.  St. John of Damascus also wrote a Critique of Islam. I have to wonder if his Paschal Canon, with some of this wording, may be a related apologetic work to some small degree.]

So Easter Sunday has come and gone.  Is anything different today?  This C&E Christian is going back to his regular routine.  This coming Sunday will be just another Lord’s Day.  I do sometimes wonder if my Reformed brethren that celebrate the resurrection not just once a year but every Sunday may have a better perspective when this coming Sunday rolls around.  I will try to maintain that perspective myself.

What is “Contemporary” Worship Music?

Leave a reply

What is “Contemporary” worship music?  As I participated in worship yesterday morning that was a question running through my mind.  As I talked with my wife and daughter following the service it turns out that was the question running through their thoughts as well.

What helped focus our minds on this topic was our annual ritual of celebrating Christmas with the extended family.  This year the tally for the Fourth Sunday in Advent and Christmas Eve, December 23 and 24, was five worship services at three churches in two days.  Throw in yesterday’s service and we have had a well rounded week of worship variety.

At one of those churches worship was “high church” or at least “high church music.”  This was not by anyone’s measure contemporary and the church justifiably prides itself on its sophisticated worship music.  As I joked with my family on the way home, “At least this year the words were all in English.”  No Latin or Medieval French this year.  But this church is no stranger to “contemporary worship,” having started a contemporary service over 30 years ago but again with “sophisticated” music appropriate to the church’s tradition.  They used material like Avery and Marsh and some of the contemporary music now found in the current Presbyterian Hymnal.  If you excuse the oxymoron, it is what I have come to think of as “traditional contemporary.”  Maybe “institutional contemporary” is more accurate.

On the other end was my daughter’s “seeker sensitive” church.  Instrumentation was “modern rock band” and selection was mostly from current Christian artists, although there was a high-energy version of “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing” with the recognizable melody.

In between was the “Contemporary” service at a main-line (non-Presbyterian) church.  This service uses the traditional praise band, bank of vocalists, and words projected on the overhead screens.  In terms of the overall tone of worship, the usual elements of worship are present and the sermon is delivered in a traditional manner, no drama or video clips.  But what struck me about the service music, especially from Sunday December 24, was that the list and order of songs was probably the same as it was last year.  In fact, it was probably about the same as when we were there ten years ago.  In worship yesterday the songs were more varied with some that I sang twenty years ago and some are of recent vintage, according to my daughter.  It is services like these, with old and well worn music and a low key praise band, that strike me as being “just contemporary enough” that traditionalists are not too uncomfortable but the congregation can point to it as “contemporary.”

So there are three worship styles, all self-identified as contemporary, but all VERY different in their style and approach.  As my family was discussing, “contemporary” is not a clear term but can mean many different things.

In thinking about it, contemporary now seems to be not so much about what it is, but about what it is not.  “Contemporary” is not traditional.  “Traditional” is music in fixed metre and verses, played on an organ, piano or maybe traditional instruments, sung by a congregation standing in the pews using denominational hymnals.  That is what contemporary is not.

Now I suspect that there is an accepted vocabulary out there to describe these different flavors of contemporary.  But the ultimate question that I have been pondering for a while is when does a “contemporary” liturgy and style become so well established, like the main-line service that has seemed the same for the last ten years, that it is no longer truly contemporary?