We hear this term these days: "Culturally-Relevant Worship." What does it mean? My experience with it goes along these lines: worship is to be in a mode and form that is roughly consistent with the norm of the society (in which that particular church is found).
But if that is the case, then there are some serious problems with "culturally-relevant worship." Consider these conundrums: 1) which "culture" (within the broader one), is to get the ascendancy? (In other words, will your worship cater to white people, black people, or Spanish-speaking people, [to use just one set of examples]?) 2) Just how far does one dare go, with "culturally-relevant worship"? (Surely, the very worst, and most offensive dimensions of the world's practices should be omitted.)
Here is the problem, in a nutshell: The church is NOT to seek to be "culturally-relevant." That is a thoroughly misguided goal. Instead, the church is to be the setter and establisher of culture. The way this is done, is through simplicity, and good sense--all based on the principles of the Holy Scriptures.
Is English the predominant language (of a given society)? Then, use it. But beyond that, be careful about everything else. In church, on Sunday, only *certain* elements are to be employed, including preaching, prayers, sacraments, vows, etc. But nothing else is to be done.
There are other times, and other places for those (other) things to be tried out. (Some of them may even be done in the church building.) But Sunday is special. It is not to prostituted to the whims and desires of anybody (or any culture).
The Forum for Ecclesiocentricity is designed to educate Christians and non-Christians alike to understand the Biblical teaching concerning the Church (the "Puritan" church in particular), with regard to its principal role on the earth. When this is achieved, it is hoped that the Church would then be in a better position to convey Christ's redemptive virtues to the civil government (state), and the family. (You may email me at: markjhenninger@gmail.com)
