I feel like I need to respond to a bit of a blowup I had in the comments section of my previous blog entry (see below.) My only comment here would be that I stress being faithful to your historical liturgical roots. I tend to shy away from ecumenism if ecumenism tends to create one big incongruent blob of christian liturgy, or as I call it Naziturgy. I think in most branches of Christianity, there is an element of uniqueness in worshipping style that should be celebrated. If you are Anglo-catholic, say your high church mass with pride because its who you are. If you are a "warm your heart by the altar" Methodist, sing Rock of Ages to beat the band. If you are a Lutheran, boogie with A Mighty Fortress is Our God. If you are a happy, clappy evangelical, then go for it.
For me, liturgy is the work of the people. If its what people want, then I am cool with it, for the most part (I draw the line at snake handling and "this little light of mine." I guess what this brings up for me is an incident in chapel the other day. We had this service in spanish. The service was well done but I walked away with this idea that the only reason we did it was tokenism. "I guess we're diverse now!" the anglican general said in a Ralph Wiggum voice with a hint of sarcasm.
Personally, I can't stand happy clappy praise music. Hymnody is important because it teaches the faith, and I find most praise music theologically vaccuous. But that's from a branch of Christianity I have never really understood, its not who I am as a Christian. I am not saying that contemporary praise music is bad. I'm sure it ministers to a good many people, and that's great. What I am saying is be true to your roots. Us fogey Anglo-types do a disservice to ourselves (and everyone else) if we try to do soul gospel music. Be proud of your tradition.