Ordinary Banana

I think every religious tradition ends up defining itself around three things: Literature, Liturgy, Leadership

1. Literature. Scripture, important religious texts. 2. Liturgy. Acts & traditions of worship. 3. Leadership. Person in authority.

Each one prioritizes these in slightly different ways. Spitballing, I’d say: 123 — Church of Christ 132 — Baptist 213 — Anglican 231 — Eastern Orthodox 321 — Catholic 312 — Televangelists

An example of how this plays out: Churches of Christ call their public leaders "preachers", while Baptists call them "pastors". The first identifies a liturgical role, while the second identifies an authoritative role. For Churches of Christ, the leaders serve the liturgy.

What’s funny is that I came up with this while trying to figure out what all the traditions I like have in common. And the answer was something I always thought I was deeply against.

Lately I’ve been exploring the idea that methodology (as in science, as in liturgy, as in personal ritual) is incredibly significant. This is kind of perplexing, because I have no theology for this. Actually, my theology is firmly against this.

Why is methodology so important? Some things that come to mind: Make sure we do *something* Keep us moving Distract from attractive nuisances Shut down runaway behaviors Escape local maxima Return to a known state of mind Synchronize a large or distributed community

These are all ways a methodology can be beneficial *even if there is no intrinsic benefit to the methodology itself*.