Thread: Culture and liturgy connected

Recently in a 'Worship committee' meeting, the question was asked; ''How does culture affect or Worship service?" I am struggling with this question and would appreciate any help one can offer. What was confusing me is what they are connecting the word culture with.

1) Pews vs Chairs
2) Choir Robes
3)Minister dress, Suit vs Casual
4) others......

I always thought the Gospel is what affects the culture, but perhaps I am being too harsh and single minded. I just do not see how the examples that were given have anything to do with culture, and perhaps that is why i am struggling on how to approach this topic. Presenting the Gospel for the worship service is not culturally influenced in any other area other than language IMO. Presenting the Gospel in your community is where culture plays a role.

Any thoughts?

What are they defining as "culture?" It sounds as if they are talking about the cultural ministry of culture and not culture proper.

The NT is not specific about chairs or pews, whether we sit in a circle or sit in pews all facing forward, or what the first apostles and evangelists wore.

There is not a "Gospel Answer" to all the issues of architecture and all the circumstances of worship.

The danger is that we may export Western cultural forms and mistakenly mix Gospel and Culture, leading new believers in Non-Western settings to think that they must become more Western in order to become more Christian.

There is a big place for cultural preference to influence worship.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

The NT is not specific about chairs or pews, whether we sit in a circle or sit in pews all facing forward, or what the first apostles and evangelists wore.

There is not a "Gospel Answer" to all the issues of architecture and all the circumstances of worship.

The danger is that we may export Western cultural forms and mistakenly mix Gospel and Culture, leading new believers in Non-Western settings to think that they must become more Western in order to become more Christian.

There is a big place for cultural preference to influence worship.

Pergy, can you give some examples please? I need help in understanding this. How would culture affect the liturgy?

-----Added 10/30/2009 at 02:18:09 EST-----

Originally Posted by SemperEruditio

What are they defining as "culture?" It sounds as if they are talking about the cultural ministry of culture and not culture proper.

Sounds like a riddle..lol You just confused me more SE

Here's a book that might be helpful:

Amazon.com: The Lord's Service: The Grace of Covenant Renewal Worship (9781591280088): Jeffrey J. Meyers: Books

Note that I don't always agree -- it seems that Mr. Myers will say that the scriptures don't specify, but then he recommends a "high church" as the best approach many times. But he does give thoughtful consideration, and I knew both his church and one of his primary mentors and can attest to their devotion and desire to honor God.

On a more general note, it has been my experience that when folks start raising these questions, the lowest common denominator often follows. Well, the apostles didn't wear suits, so folks start showing up in clothes more fitting for a barbecue. A basic honoring, respect, and even awe seems to go away.

Perg, I know that being a modern day missionary you have to get your anti-Western digs in, but it is too quickly forgotten/ignored that what made the West distinct from other cultures in many way was the fact that it was Christian.

There was a day when it as seen as a greater reflection of Christian values to wear a suit to church, because unlike the "savages" of the day Christians understood that in light of the fall it was more modest to come to worship fully covered than in a loin cloth.

There is also a theology behind the placement of seating. It displays a greater respect for, and understanding of, the role of the preached word in worship to have the body of Christ seated before the pulpit in an orderly manner. Sitting in a circle is more suited to informal bible study chats (which certainly have their place) than it is for hearing a proclamation of the Gospel.



Edited to add: You may have read it before, but in case you have not Hughes Oliphant Old has written a work entitled Worship: Reformed According to the Scriptures in which he gives not only historical reasons for Protestant worship, but more importantly theological reasons for why we have done what we have (and why we should return to those practices as well). It is a very informative and edifying read.

I am not anti-Western. And I support modesty.

I just think that theological arguments for the case of pews versus chairs versus sitting on the floor are mostly having to do with taste and preference. Church shouldn't look the same in Missouri as opposed to Vietnam or Indonesia.

In places in SE Asia, a pastor is expected to be humble and peaceful and a servant. The services meet in homes, and everything plays local instruments as they sing hymns to their local rythms. The pastor then preaches sitting down amongst this group. His articulates clealry but his tone is very gentle. Then a meal is shared among them. They pray with out-stretched hands and palms up.

A man in a suit in tie, with an assembled congregtion all sitting in pews which all face forward need not be normative for all. In fact, thumping the bible, waving it overhead and getting heated in voice during a sermon, would bestray many cultures' assumptions about what it means to be a godly person, because "Why does the preacher look so mad and aggressive"


We do want Christian morals to permeate a culture. We do not, however, want to mistake our culture with the Gospel - which smacks of cultural arrogance.

There are set principles of worship, and then there are circumstances of worship which may vary greatly culture to culture.


p.s. I am unconvinced that sitting in a circle is any less "orderly" than in a pew all facing forward. In fact, since worship is communal and we are all part of the body, a circle would greater show our unity in the Spirit as we assemble together.

No doubt the gospel can lift a culture (can we say Bach)? But a lot of what we considered "civilized" developed during the Victorian era which promoted a good-for-the-sake-of-good perspective that was not necessarily based in scripture. Making people adhere to such a way did a lot of harm in some cases.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

-----Added 10/30/2009 at 02:18:09 EST-----

Originally Posted by SemperEruditio

What are they defining as "culture?" It sounds as if they are talking about the cultural ministry of culture and not culture proper.

Sounds like a riddle..lol You just confused me more SE

That should have read ...actually I don't know what I was thinking. What I meant to say was the culture of the church. Some churches prefer one over the other. The churches I've been to in the South they prefer their preachers wear robes. In Maryland it seems that comfortable attire is what is worn. As far as chairs or pews that is all about the local congregations culture more than it is the culture of the people of the congregation. What that means is that Latinos or African-Americans do not have a preference as a culture but a Latino brought up in a certain church setting will.

To me it's a bit of postmodernism or perhaps it is more traditions we were brought up in and how they affect our worship. The more I read into the RPW from the CPJ the more I am convicted that worship should be more about God and what He says and less about how we feel we should worship God.

As far as dress for service I am all for wearing your Sunday best....but I don't follow that too often. Now that we are worshipping in the morning the attire has changed and we've laughed about it. Seems every guy is now wearing at least a tie or something more formal than what they once wore.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I am not anti-Western. And I support modesty.

I just think that theological arguments for the case of pews versus chairs versus sitting on the floor are mostly having to do with taste and preference. Church shouldn't look the same in Missouri as opposed to Vietnam or Indonesia.

In places in SE Asia, a pastor is expected to be humble and peaceful and a servant. The services meet in homes, and everything plays local instruments as they sing hymns to their local rythms. The pastor then preaches sitting down amongst this group. His articulates clealry but his tone is very gentle. Then a meal is shared among them. They pray with out-stretched hands and palms up.

A man in a suit in tie, with an assembled congregtion all sitting in pews which all face forward need not be normative for all. In fact, thumping the bible, waving it overhead and getting heated in voice during a sermon, would bestray many cultures' assumptions about what it means to be a godly person, because "Why does the preacher look so mad and aggressive"


We do want Christian morals to permeate a culture. We do not, however, want to mistake our culture with the Gospel - which smacks of cultural arrogance.

There are set principles of worship, and then there are circumstances of worship which may vary greatly culture to culture.


p.s. I am unconvinced that sitting in a circle is any less "orderly" than in a pew all facing forward. In fact, since worship is communal and we are all part of the body, a circle would greater show our unity in the Spirit as we assemble together.

You have a habit of misrepresenting others statements that gets tiresome. Chairs vs. pews wasn't part of my argument, and frankly I think it serves as a red herring. How many churches have you been a part of, or even heard of, who have actually had that argument? For myself: zero. Although silly scenarios like that are a staple of missology courses.

You also inserted the picture of yelling and bible thumping where it was no part of the discussion regarding pulpit centered preaching. That is misrepresentation, and again, something that you have a bad habit of doing. You altogether avoided the original point, which was regarding a theology of word centered proclamation. It is not about order, since either pews or circled chairs may be used in an orderly manner, but more about overcoming a Quaker/Anabaptist view of worship. Would you mind explaining how sitting in a circle gives us any more unity in the Holy Spirit, as sitting in a group centered upon the preaching of the Word?

For all that modern missiology has done to attack "cultural arrogance" I sometimes feel like if it has done anything, it has sought to spread modern American populism and democratic notions among the laity than it has anything else. If we wanted to be really radical and anti-western we would have evening services, have sermons which lasted longer than our 15 second attention spans, and hold to a high view of the Lord's Day worship, and preaching in particular. I don't really see those as being widespread western ideas, but those always seem to be the kinds of things that you pick out as being forms of cultural imposition.

-----Added 10/30/2009 at 06:27:06 EST-----

Btw, have you read Old, and interacted with his thoughts? He covers all aspects of Lord's Day worship, and in ways which are theological, and therefore trans-cultural. Unless, of course, you also believe that we need to leave behind Western theology, and create radical new theologies for each ethnic group. I know that is a popular idea in many missiological circles. Your take?

Archlute,

While I do agree with you. I sadly, was once part of church (in my non-Reformed days) that split over chairs verus pews.

I am sorry to hear that, Grillsy. It may be that coming from different backgrounds, Pergamum and I have been on the receiving end of different varieties of congregational silliness. If splits over seating furniture are common in those circles, then you have my apologies for accusing you of throwing out a missiological red herring, Perg.

One can be Word based and still account for cultural expression.

BTW, I think many might benefit from reading more of current missiological thought.

Reminder, the OP mentions pews versus chairs, so I also did.

Perg, you make interesting points regarding culture and worship that I largely agree with. Of course culture affects our worship of God. Do we for a minute think that the NT church worshipped in the way we do in the West today? Leaving aside hymns and music I am sure that it was vastly different meeting in the catacombs than it is in meeting in our specifically designed edifices.
The concerns raised in the OP are I believe circumstances and therefore adiaphora. Whilst I may prefer to be seated in rows or my pastor to wear a robe as he officiates in the worship service true worship does not fail to take place if these things are absent.
The liturgy of the church should reflect the culture where it is placed. Of course, it must be biblical and fall within our reformed tradition- don't hear what I am not saying.
But is it always appropriate that we have a highly structured responsive liturgy? Can we sing from a powerpoint screen? Perhaps, we might have the ancient hymns and psalms we love modernized, sing simpler songs (ones that are scriptural!), break the sermon up into two or three parts? And yes in some places formal attire and Bach are more appropriate than Indelible Grace or Sovereign Grace.
All this is to say really that we must seek to remove as many stumbling blocks as possible to people hearing the gospel.

Donnie;

Yes, I think you put it well.

We have abiding principles and then we have variable circumstances. The OP seems to references things that may very freely vary between cultures and, if they did not vary, this lack of cultural variability might be a sign of ill health for an indigenous body.


Example of cultural variability: I went to a more formal church 2 weeks ago. The normal practice in that church is that 10 minutes before the sermon people file in and there is almost complete silence in the sanctuary. This group did this practice for the purpose of meditating on the Lord before service.

Another church 3 months ago had a pastor that encouraged fellowship up until the very moment that the church started. In that church, it was very loud before the service and people only quieted down when the piano begin to play. Their value was - since they each drove 30 minutes on average to church - to maximize their time in fellowship with their brothers and sisters. The pastor even laughed and noted that it was a good thing that Christians had a hard time pulling away from good fellowship.

Even in these two US churches there was a preference-difference and a difference in how they applied good principles. One church looking at the other might call them "dead" and the other church might be called "flippant" or unprepared for worship.

If churches in the States can vary this much in application of values, the application between cultures would be expected to be far greater.



Finally,
I do think that missionaries are more aware of cultural differences. Also, in an effort to not fall into Western biases, we often stress cultural difference. Maybe because of this, or my own poor way of expressing myself, some may think we hold Anti-Western biases. But I love the West, am very American, and want to see all the good that the West exports be retained and all the evil that the West exports be reduced.

-----Added 10/30/2009 at 11:29:38 EST-----

A good summary is from The Directory of Worship for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:

“The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given his church a large measure of liberty in this matter.”

-----Added 10/30/2009 at 11:31:02 EST-----

A good summary is from The Directory of Worship for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:

“The Lord Jesus Christ has prescribed no fixed forms for public worship but, in the interest of life and power in worship, has given his church a large measure of liberty in this matter.”

Guys and Gals:

The examples I used are not the focus of my inquiry. SO can we not digress into that thought? How does culture influence the liturgy. Can anyone just give me some examples.

I just think that theological arguments for the case of pews versus chairs versus sitting on the floor are mostly having to do with taste and preference. Church shouldn't look the same in Missouri as opposed to Vietnam or Indonesia.

Wasn't St Pierre's in Geneva completely without pews when Calvin preached there?

p.s. I am unconvinced that sitting in a circle is any less "orderly" than in a pew all facing forward. In fact, since worship is communal and we are all part of the body, a circle would greater show our unity in the Spirit as we assemble together.

OK, let's not go all emergent here. Next you'll want candles and couches!

I think the liturgy is influenced by culture, but not present culture. I think in a lot of reformed churches, the liturgy was set 500 years ago (to a large extent) and simply has not been changed. However, the culture that influenced it was not pop culture, but a culture of returning to scripture and trying to lay out the service in a way that reminded people of what they are there for, even in its form, in addition to the message transmitted.

Well, let's think about it . . . the word "liturgy" actually means "work of the people", right? If that's the case, then it only follows that a church's liturgy will (and should!), in some way or another, be a reflection of the people of that church.

Primarily, that means that a church's liturgy should be a proper reflection of the people's hearts and affections toward God, but beneath that, it only makes sense that the liturgy (the songs sung, the instruments played, the style of music, the prayers prayed, the sermon preached and heard, etc) would in some sense be shaped by the unique culture of that particular body. This is not a bad thing -- in fact, it's a good thing, so long as the liturgy is primarily shaped by God and his Word.

(It's also important to keep in mind that every church has a liturgy, regardless of whether or not we'd classify that church as "liturgical".)

My wife's family is Missouri-Synod Lutheran, and this article seems to show that they are struggling with these issues, too:

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Liturgy and Culture



Some further thoughts:

-I know of a church that prohibits any instrument used in worship except for the piano. Ironically, this was done for the sake of fixing their worship so that "not just anything goes" (i.e., so that they did not merely follow the culture). I wondered what they would have thought of the pipe organ instead, or harp and lyre mentioned in the psalms, or no instruments at all.




Kevin,

Yes, I do think that form is also important, as well as the message. Form and message do go together. In the US, if Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God were preached by a person wearing a clown suit, then this form would mar the message. In many US Seeker-Sensitive churches, communion and "worship" is done in a way that does not communicate respect by most Western culturally-accepted standards. Clown communion does not communicate respect for God in any culture.



Finally, all expressions of our worship to God will be "cultural" to some effect.

“The gospel always comes to people in cultural robes. There is no such thing as a ‘pure’ gospel, isolated from culture"

(David J. Bosch. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. 1991:297)

Originally Posted by raekwon

Well, let's think about it . . . the word "liturgy" actually means "work of the people", right? If that's the case, then it only follows that a church's liturgy will (and should!), in some way or another, be a reflection of the people of that church.

As an aside for clarification "leitourgeo" and it's cognates has always primarily spoken of the service of an official to the people on behalf of the government or of God. In the Septuagint it refers to the work of the priests leading God's people in worship, in the NT and post apostolic letters it speaks of the ministerial leadership serving and watching over the congregation, and in classical Greek writings it always refers to an official or prominent citizen performing an act of service as a benefit to the public. It never, to my knowledge, is used to reflect the idea of "a work of the people".

Specifically, in historic Christian practice it has referred to the work of the priest (whether RC or Orthodox) in leading the people in worship and the mass.

Liturgies have been seen exactly opposite of the idea that they should be a reflection of culture. They have instead been seen as something transcendent from culture, and a way by which to bring the thoughts of Christians out of the world, and onto things divine. And it is not just Protestant practice that has the liturgy packed with Scripture, you find that in Orthodox services, and RC services as well (historically, anyway).

Since it means "a work of the minister on behalf of God to His people" in the context of Christian worship, we should expect exactly the opposite as was stated above. It should reflect the Word to the people, and not the people's culture to the service. A liturgy should be theologically driven. Theology is Word based, not demographically shaped.

-----Added 10/31/2009 at 01:50:30 EST-----

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Finally, all expressions of our worship to God will be "cultural" to some effect.

“The gospel always comes to people in cultural robes. There is no such thing as a ‘pure’ gospel, isolated from culture"

(David J. Bosch. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. 1991:297)

Again, this is false, and a perfect example of why I have no hope for most missiologists.

It is a patently false statement that there is "no such thing as a 'pure' gospel isolated from culture". The Gospel is a proclamation of theological truth. That can never be affected by culture. It is not, strictly speaking, how we live out the Christian life, or any other such nonsense, it is the proclamation of the death, burial, and resurrection of a perfect savior, and of his imputation to us of his righteousness, our adoption as children of God, and is given along with the command to repent and believe.

How can any of that be culturally tempered? If you change it in the slightest, in order to make a 'cultural fit' for whatever reason, you are distorting the gospel. The gospel is a truth. Truth does not change according to culture.

Edit: I should also add that Bosch was an ecumenical who worked with the RCC as well as Dutch Reformed churches, so the fact that he had a fuzzy understanding of the gospel should not come as a surprise.

The Bible came to us in a culturally-specific language, did it not? Jesus came as a person of a particular ethnic type. There are plenty of nuances in Koine Greek that we lose in the English.

I do not distort the Gospel at all; and this is a serious charge for you to make towards me.


Eternal truth is given through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a way that is not a divine type-writer using some heavenly language. But it was transmitted to men whose personalities are seen in these inspired writings such that we can speak of a "Lukan theology" or a "Markan Theology" even though the Holy Spirit super-intended it all. And these NT writings were done in a specific language in a specific place at a specific time. Ethne-specific idioms are multitudinous in Scripture. Metaphors and figures of speech are semitic or greek. It is inspired, infallible and even transcending culture in one sense, but there is a lot of culture involved in this discussion...

Our job is to take this transendant truth and apply it to peoples of other cultures. This means that we must know the context (the culture in which the Bible was written), the Message, and the target culture to which we desire to transmit this truth. We must also know ourselves and the cultural biases that we possess so that we do not read into Scripture based upon our own cultural upbringing. To "do theology" we cannot be dismissive of culture. Even the titles of Jesus as Christ and Messiah cannot be understood in a cultural vacuum. We must know what Jewish expectations and false hopes were so that Jesus' coming and His interactions with the Jews make more sense.



Again, concerning worship, we have certain basic principles of worship that transcend culture, and then broad freedom in the circumstances of worship in which we should expect to see cultural variability.

Originally Posted by Archlute

Originally Posted by raekwon

Well, let's think about it . . . the word "liturgy" actually means "work of the people", right? If that's the case, then it only follows that a church's liturgy will (and should!), in some way or another, be a reflection of the people of that church.

As an aside for clarification "leitourgeo" and it's cognates has always primarily spoken of the service of an official to the people on behalf of the government or of God. In the Septuagint it refers to the work of the priests leading God's people in worship, in the NT and post apostolic letters it speaks of the ministerial leadership serving and watching over the congregation, and in classical Greek writings it always refers to an official or prominent citizen performing an act of service as a benefit to the public. It never, to my knowledge, is used to reflect the idea of "a work of the people".

Specifically, in historic Christian practice it has referred to the work of the priest (whether RC or Orthodox) in leading the people in worship and the mass.

Liturgies have been seen exactly opposite of the idea that they should be a reflection of culture. They have instead been seen as something transcendent from culture, and a way by which to bring the thoughts of Christians out of the world, and onto things divine. And it is not just Protestant practice that has the liturgy packed with Scripture, you find that in Orthodox services, and RC services as well (historically, anyway).

Since it means "a work of the minister on behalf of God to His people" in the context of Christian worship, we should expect exactly the opposite as was stated above. It should reflect the Word to the people, and not the people's culture to the service. A liturgy should be theologically driven. Theology is Word based, not demographically shaped.

-----Added 10/31/2009 at 01:50:30 EST-----

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Finally, all expressions of our worship to God will be "cultural" to some effect.

“The gospel always comes to people in cultural robes. There is no such thing as a ‘pure’ gospel, isolated from culture"

(David J. Bosch. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. 1991:297)

Again, this is false, and a perfect example of why I have no hope for most missiologists.

It is a patently false statement that there is "no such thing as a 'pure' gospel isolated from culture". The Gospel is a proclamation of theological truth. That can never be affected by culture. It is not, strictly speaking, how we live out the Christian life, or any other such nonsense, it is the proclamation of the death, burial, and resurrection of a perfect savior, and of his imputation to us of his righteousness, our adoption as children of God, and is given along with the command to repent and believe.

How can any of that be culturally tempered? If you change it in the slightest, in order to make a 'cultural fit' for whatever reason, you are distorting the gospel. The gospel is a truth. Truth does not change according to culture.

Edit: I should also add that Bosch was an ecumenical who worked with the RCC as well as Dutch Reformed churches, so the fact that he had a fuzzy understanding of the gospel should not come as a surprise.

Adam, I do not believe anyone in my church who is discussing this is thinking of changing the content of the Gospel. The issue under consideration is does the culture affect the way it is presented? I cannot think of any way the culture affects the worship liturgy other than dress, and instruments, or language. Now I agree 100% that the culture affects how we go into the community and evangelize, but in the worship service, I just do not understand how. If someone wants their pastor and men to wear a suit, this is individual preference, not a culture. Let's face it, we are so diverse now, we are not one culture. I sit next to the starchiest miserable looking Dutchman in an old polyester suit on one side, and the hippie Jesus freak in sandals on the other.

If we assume that Jesus has and is using His church to reform His Earth according to the way He regulates, should we not also assume that the cultures that have had the most theologically sound church operating in them for the longest time have the best church worship practices? If we say yes to the above, then it makes sense to me that the practices of Western Christendom have had the most time to mature under the culture of the Protestant Reformation compared to other cultures and we ought to bring other cultures up to our standard rather than stoop to their cultural norms. At least that was the argument that I made to our music minister this week when he decided to include a Malian worship song in our singing for this Sunday. Am I missing something?

Originally Posted by twogunfighter

If we assume that Jesus has and is using His church to reform His Earth according to the way He regulates, should we not also assume that the cultures that have had the most theologically sound church operating in them for the longest time have the best church worship practices? If we say yes to the above, then it makes sense to me that the practices of Western Christendom have had the most time to mature under the culture of the Protestant Reformation compared to other cultures and we ought to bring other cultures up to our standard rather than stoop to their cultural norms. At least that was the argument that I made to our music minister this week when he decided to include a Malian worship song in our singing for this Sunday. Am I missing something?

Would you care to suppose then that the North African and Syrian churches, and the Indian churches which trace their roots from Thomas then have the best worship practices?

The "Protestant" churches are relatively "new" historically speaking, with 1500 years of the church preceding them.

Please note that I said "the most theologically sound churches." I would assume that you would agree that Syrian et al churches are considerably less theologically sound than the church that has influenced Western culture. Further, because of their failures of doctrine they have been marginalized by Islam and Hinduism to a degree that they have no real impact on their cultures.

Yes Protestant churches are new but they have the best theological roots. They come from the Roman Catholic line rather than the Eastern or African churches. I think that we would agree that although the Romanists are wrong on much at the time of the 95 Theses, they started out much better than they were at the time of Martin Luther. That is why it is called the "reformation." The Reformers were not trying to start something completely new but to reform something good that they thought had gone awry.

Originally Posted by twogunfighter

Please note that I said "the most theologically sound churches." I would assume that you would agree that Syrian et al churches are considerably less theologically sound than the church that has influenced Western culture. Further, because of their failures of doctrine they have been marginalized by Islam and Hinduism to a degree that they have no real impact on their cultures.

Yes Protestant churches are new but they have the best theological roots. They come from the Roman Catholic line rather than the Eastern or African churches. I think that we would agree that although the Romanists are wrong on much at the time of the 95 Theses, they started out much better than they were at the time of Martin Luther. That is why it is called the "reformation." The Reformers were not trying to start something completely new but to reform something good that they thought had gone awry.

Yes, you are right about the theologically sound part.


I still think that much of what was "Western practices" is precisely that, "Western" practices and that a high degree of cultural flexibility must be alllowed for regarding the circumstances of worship.

Pergamum,

I have really been struggling with this issue because our church has seemingly embraced cultural egalitarianism. I have historically beleived in cultural elitism. In other words the Western culture, becaused it was mainly influenced by the reformation, is inherently better than cultures that were influenced by paganism, Islam, Budhism etc. I am trying to check my azimuth and determine if that view is Biblical or not. So I am reading your and Adam's posts with interest. I gotta get my hands on the book that Adam recommended.

Chuck

Western culture is more violent than many cultures in the world and exports many of the most visible sins.

Western culture is also much more individualistic than many Eastern cultures. And I believe that the Eastern cultures are often more biblical than the West in this.

However,

The Reformation did influence Western culture to a large degree. Calvinism and capitalism and education all went hand-in-hand. The rights of individuals became protected in the West like no place else.

Yes, the Reformation affected the culture. And the West is more biblical in many respects due to this.


However, how closely need we mimic the cultural trappings of the Reformers? Should we fix our practices to always try to reflect that period of time in which the Reformation was birthed?

As the Church spreads to all parts of the globe, then there will be less chance of cultural biases prevailing and all parts of the global body of Christ can then contribute and the global church can then self-correct for cultural blindspots as the Body of Christ spreads throughout the Globe and is able to more fully realize how much culture has affected their worship.


One example:

Does "greet each other with a holy kiss" really mean a firm handshake? or do we see it this way due to our culture and its biases?

Also, do we REALLY in the West follow the Bible's teachings on hospitality and giving to the poor (and retirement and time management and use of personal space and sharing), or can we learn from those in India or China how to be more biblically hospitable and care for the poverty-stricken and the destitute within our midsts.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Western culture is more violent than many cultures in the world

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Western culture is more violent than many cultures in the world

Would you want to start a different thread to discuss this topic?


That is...if you can pick Mr Smiley up off the grounf?

To be fair, you only mentioned "the most visible sins". How are private family homicides in Muslim lands any better?

Btw, this thread is pretty much derailed at this point.

Originally Posted by Archlute

To be fair, you only mentioned "the most visible sins". How are private family homicides in Muslim lands any better?

Btw, this thread is pretty much derailed at this point.

Yes, this thread is derailed.


To assert my main point again: There are broad universal principles of worship, but the application of these principle, the circumstances of worship, may and should vary by culture. Dress, postures, architecture, visible shows of greeting/affection, manner and content of dining, and even the physical mannerisms of the preacher may vary widely and we should strive to transmit the Gospel and not Western cultural forms as we plant churches overseas. Our worship must not seem "foreign" but should reflect the very best that the culture has to offer and should be able to be owned and move the indigenous heart of the peoples.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Western culture is more violent than many cultures in the world

Would you want to start a different thread to discuss this topic?


That is...if you can pick Mr Smiley up off the grounf?

Sure. Pick a culture - sub-Saharan, Islamic, East Asian, Native American (First Peoples for our Canadian readers), or some of the 'many' other cultures. Post it in a politically correct free zone, and I'll be happy to join.