⁸Unfortunately, for many people “blended” worship consists of a simple, wooden, fifty-fifty division between contemporary songs and traditional hymns. Simply to sew pieces of two different kinds of liturgical traditions together is often quite jarring and unhelpful. It is more of a political compromise than the result of reflection about your community’s culture and your church’s tradition. A better example of a “Third Way” is Robert E. Webber, Blended Worship: Achieving Substance and Relevance in Worship (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996). In many ways my essay agrees with Webber’s basic thrust, yet even he tends to lump ancient and contemporary elements together artificially rather than interweaving them in a theological unity. I would not use the term “blended worship” as a category because it usually connotes the political compromise mentioned above. On the problems of fifty-fifty music division, see the comments at the end of the paper, under “Music for Corporate Worship, “ page 236.