I feel a distinction needs to be made between what might be called 'conservative' and 'traditional' churches (ie, congregations). I've been in leadership positions in both conservative and traditional churches, and the occasional progressive church in the past, which gave me some insight into the distinction between traditional, conservative and progressive churches.
Conservative churches, as I have observed them, may have conservative doctrinal views but still be open to at least some new methods and even the occasional innovative doctrinal position if it is found to be firmly Bible based. Whereas traditional churches, as I have observed them, will usually hold strictly to conservative doctrine ('the pillars of the faith', creeds, etc), only use traditional forms of worship (eg, '3 hymnn + sermon sandwich'), espouse various external 'proofs' as evidence of a person's spirituality / religiosity, and see all churches / Christians that don't sound and act like them as 'fallen / in apostacy'.
Based on those distinctions I would probably call the pastor you refer to in your post a 'traditionalist' rather than a 'conservative'.
Interestingly, the SDA church seems to have a have all three: traditional, conservative and progressive. And various shades in between. I suspect there are other denominations that also have a similar mix.
Thanks, James! I've heard the traditional/conservative distinction before and am definitely down with it (and usually use it myself). I think there's a lot to be said for it.
Of course, even here, tradition isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, per se. So long as we're clear on what we're doing. The other irony is that I'd be the types of people in our faith community who are most opposed to "tradition" in other faith communities (e.g., have a real problem with Roman Catholicism's reliance on tradition) are probably the ones who are most married to tradition themselves.
Shawn, I agree with what you wrote.
I feel a distinction needs to be made between what might be called 'conservative' and 'traditional' churches (ie, congregations). I've been in leadership positions in both conservative and traditional churches, and the occasional progressive church in the past, which gave me some insight into the distinction between traditional, conservative and progressive churches.
Conservative churches, as I have observed them, may have conservative doctrinal views but still be open to at least some new methods and even the occasional innovative doctrinal position if it is found to be firmly Bible based. Whereas traditional churches, as I have observed them, will usually hold strictly to conservative doctrine ('the pillars of the faith', creeds, etc), only use traditional forms of worship (eg, '3 hymnn + sermon sandwich'), espouse various external 'proofs' as evidence of a person's spirituality / religiosity, and see all churches / Christians that don't sound and act like them as 'fallen / in apostacy'.
Based on those distinctions I would probably call the pastor you refer to in your post a 'traditionalist' rather than a 'conservative'.
Interestingly, the SDA church seems to have a have all three: traditional, conservative and progressive. And various shades in between. I suspect there are other denominations that also have a similar mix.
I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
Thanks, James! I've heard the traditional/conservative distinction before and am definitely down with it (and usually use it myself). I think there's a lot to be said for it.
Of course, even here, tradition isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, per se. So long as we're clear on what we're doing. The other irony is that I'd be the types of people in our faith community who are most opposed to "tradition" in other faith communities (e.g., have a real problem with Roman Catholicism's reliance on tradition) are probably the ones who are most married to tradition themselves.