Contemporary vs. Traditional Doesn't Make Sense

I would like to say a word about “contemporary” worship.

To use the word “contemporary” in juxtaposition with “traditional” to describe a religious service has no meaning, as these words actually describe two separate axes of worship, style and form, respectively. Thus, all worship must be both contemporary and traditional.

Traditional worship consists of prayer, the reading of scripture, proclamation, praise through song, and Eucharistic celebration—all of these are aspects of worship that are rooted in some way or another to Christianity's Jewish heritage. Any worship employing any of these acts is traditional.

The definition of “contemporary” is that which describes something that is occupying time with something else. Worship always exists in a contemporary setting, as it exists in the same time with the rest of the world. Worship that is not contemporary is that which neglects to bring the deep traditions of the Church into dialog with the current state of the world and the people who live in it.

Therefore, “traditional” refers to the order or form of worship, whereas “contemporary” refers to the stylistic expression of an order or form, which is unique to a people who are living in a specific place and time. I prefer to use the word “indigenous” over “contemporary” to refer to the stylistic expression of worship, as “contemporary” has been co-opted by many to mean a less structured worship order or form which employs a praise band or worship music team. “Indigenous” is a more flexible descriptor as it refers to the most familiar, comfortable, and meaningful expression of worship for a particular worshiping community.