Ancient and (Post) Modern

Are we stuck in a stand-off of "traditional" vs. "contemporary?"

After the leave-taking of the old Seabury chapel and campus (see last post), we drove to the new site and blessed its spaces, including the chapel.  From a funeral to a baptism, so to speak; death, burial, and resurrection.

The new chapel is, as yet, without Altar and Lectern (and  a stand for the Font -- the bowl was used for the blessing).  I had a chance to chat with the artist who is making them, David Orth. I asked him about the widely noted attraction of traditional worship for younger people, often to the curiosity, if not confusion, of middle age and older folks who feel much of their life has been an exodus from the way things were when they were young.  Some of this may be normal generational differentiation, but maybe not all of it, and maybe not the heart of it.

David reminded me that what we usually take as "traditional" is really not all that traditional and is often Victorian.  Perhaps "traditional" is really as modern as "contemporary," one's yin to the other's yang.  The draw of the young to things traditional may be in good part a turning toward the only alternative they see to a faith and practice that seems too light and thin for life today.

Is "traditional" the best that is available for a desire to find solid foundations or deep roots?  Is the longing actually for what is authentically ancient, yet expressed in our ways, in our time?  That is what David is attempting with the furnishings for the new Seabury chapel.  I think it is Peter Rollins who says something to the effect that what we should seek is not the Early Church but the Event which brought the Early Church into being.