WORSHIP and CULTURE
The message we proclaim is “a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks” (1 Cor 1:23). Hence, what we worship will always be something of a mystery to the unconverted who come among us until God, through the gospel, “opens their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins” (Acts 26:18).
But, though the true meaning behind our words and worship will remain hidden, the words themselves we use should be understandable, even to “an unbeliever or uninformed person who comes in” to our assembly (1 Cor 14:24).
While it is only the Spirit, through the gospel, who opens the unbeliever’s eyes, it is only as the gospel is communicated in intelligible words (v 19) that the unbeliever will be “convinced by all, convicted by all; and thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you” (vv 24-25).
To adapt our words like this is part of “becoming all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel’s sake.” (1 Cor 9:22-23)
Some, however, would take this a step further and argue that, not only must we use intelligible words, but the whole of worship must be adapted to, and intelligible to, our culture.
This will never be. The focus of our worship is God; and therefore large parts of our worship of God will always be unintelligible to those who do not know God.
To think otherwise is to have ourselves on – or, we don’t really know the God we ourselves profess to worship.
In any case, it is our genuine love and care for others, the effect of God’s grace in us, and not the form worship takes, that attracts unbelievers to come and keep hearing the gospel.
Eg. Kara Powell’s research, in her book “Growing Young”, emphasised that: “Instead of focusing on cool worship and programs, aim for warm peer and intergenerational friendships if you want to keep young people in church.”
But, the biggest problem in aiming at culture shaping our worship is this: What culture are we talking about?
It is all very well to argue for the use of any and every means to make worship “culturally relevant” – but relevant to which culture?
We live in a multicultural society. Which of the hundreds of cultures and sub-cultures that are represented in Australia are you talking about?
Maybe if you live on a remote island in the Pacific, or where we served as missionaries in a single tribal area in rural western Kenya, you can imagine you live among a monoculture.
But here, in Australia?
But I still hear those who argue vehemently for “this type of music” because “that is what our culture listens to”; or some “particular practice” in worship because “that’s what everyone is doing nowadays.”
But, in the end, really all they are pushing is something that appeals to their own myopic sub-culture.
This is not about whether to use old hymns or new – there are good and bad in both.
But, where worship becomes defined by a culture, it is the cultural elements that will stand out and make that church distinctive – not the God who is being worshipped or the message that is being preached.
“O Relevance, what crimes are committed in your name.” (apologies to Mme. Roland)
A Multicultural Church
From the beginning, the great wonder of the New Testament Church was that it was multicultural.
The Day of Pentecost bore witness to the reversal of Babel as Jews from all different cultures and tongues heard and responded to the gospel.
Even greater: Christ “has broken down the middle wall of separation [between Jews and Gentiles]… to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross” (Eph 2:14).
This is the “great mystery” that sent Paul into raptures (3:3-7).
And, not only Paul, but the angels in heaven as well – for, in this “mystery”, they beheld “the manifold wisdom of God made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places” (3:10).
The distinctiveness of the church is not to be found along cultural lines.
Rather, Christ “has redeemed us to God by [His] blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).
The church is “where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all” (Col 3:11).
The distinctiveness of the church is that, in the gospel, there are no cultural distinctions: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
At a human level this presented a challenge to the early church.
Culturally, “Jews request a sign”, while “Greeks seek after wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22).
How would the church handle this? One church for Jews? Another for Greeks?
What about all the subcultures Paul refers to: “slave, free, male, female, circumcised, uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian”? Or permutations and combinations of these? Eg. a church for female Jewish slaves?
(Combinations of just those categories listed above yield more than 30 subcultures – and that’s just the beginning! We haven’t even touched on the most common divide in churches today – the many multigenerational divisions: see here.)
The early church rose to this challenge.
In fact, the only General Council recorded in the New Testament addressed this very question: the religious implications for the clash between the two major cultures, Jew and Gentile.
The solution was found in an appreciation of the profound “mystery” referred to before: i.e. “how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name; with this the words of the prophets agree…” (Acts 15:14-15).
There was no thought in the apostles’ minds of setting up separate worship services for each culture; that would have been a gross violation of what the gospel is all about.
Instead, they simply laid out a few practical guidelines that would enable Jew and Gentile to continue together in the same multicultural church, thereby bearing witness to God’s reconciling grace.
The Homogeneous Unit Principle
Despite the wisdom given to the early church, throughout history Christians have continued to ignore what the gospel is all about, and revert to defining worship along cultural lines.
In the second half of the last century, this approach was given academic credibility, especially through the works of Donald McGavran (the father of the “Church Growth” movement) and his associates in the Institute of Church Growth at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Working from principles of sociology to develop missionary strategy, McGavran came up with the “Homogeneous Unit Principle” (HUP). According to him churches grow fastest when the gospel is propagated along existing social lines and networks and when people do not have to cross ethnic, cultural, or class barriers to become Christians.
As a consequence, “people are grouped together into churches demarcated by ethno-linguistic distinctions, tribal or caste distinctions, social and economic status, education level, profession, and even common affinity groups…” (Aubrey Sequeira)
René Padilla summed it up well:
“It is quite evident that the use of the homogenous unit principle for church growth has no biblical foundation. Its advocates have taken as their starting point a sociological observation and developed a missionary strategy; only then, ‘a posteriori’, having made attempts to find biblical support. As a result the Bible has not been allowed to speak.”
But the spirit behind HUP has been at work since the church began.
Not long after the Council of Jerusalem, Peter found himself in hot water in Antioch (the prototype of multicultural churches).
Not wanting to offend the Jews, and no doubt justifying his behaviour by claiming to “become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some, and this I do for the gospel’s sake”, he withdrew into a homogeneous unit of Jews only.
But, as is often the case, what we justify “for the gospel’s sake” turns out to be a denial of the gospel (Gal 2:14).
James, writing to converted Jews outside of Palestine, faced an HUP of a different kind.
In those churches cultural distinctions were being made on the basis of wealth. James rebukes them for “showing partiality and becoming judges of evil thoughts” (Jas 2:4).
James rejects all such cultural distinctions having any place in the church: “Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (2:5)
In the very last days of the 18th C., William Carey rejoiced to see the first convert, Krishna Pal, baptised; then they sat down together for the Lord’s Supper.
From here on, Carey introduced the radical concept that all would partake of the same cup in the Supper; there would be no distinctions based on caste.
The Anglican Church in Southern India had retained caste, with separate cups at Communion, and in some cases separate churches for low-born and high, as a concession to the culture.
The Anglicans saw more rapid advance initially; but Carey saw more permanent results in the end.
Later, in America in the 19th C. and well into the 20th C., some blacks, but especially many whites, kept to their own churches because culturally “it’s easier to do evangelism with people who are like you.” (At least, that was the excuse given by some.)
HUP Today
Few today would practise HUP in any of the aforementioned ways.
Most of us are Gentiles, so we would hardly refuse to eat with another Gentile.
We all at least profess not to show partiality to the rich.
We repudiate caste and other forms of apartheid.
But we forget that what seems abhorrent to us today, did not seem so abhorrent to many well-meaning Christians back then.
Often enough they, like we, excused their blind spots in the name of evangelism:
“But, by this means we can reach more for Christ. Didn’t Paul ‘become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some’?”
HUP is still alive and well today.
Here are some of those ways:
Many churches that claim to be “culturally relevant” nonetheless, consciously or unconsciously, target only one subculture – often youth, or the young-upwardly-mobile.
Though, not all target youth and YUMs.
Rick Warren, founder and senior pastor of the mega Saddleback Church, is adamant we must target our audience geographically, demographically, culturally, and spiritually. This will enable us to evangelize people on their terms, making it “as easy and attractive as possible” for them to become Christians. “The people your church is most likely to reach are those who match the existing culture of your church.”
His church’s cultural target is “Saddleback Sam”.
(See here for a useful critique.)
Worship, in particular, is often aimed at one narrow subculture. In a recent post I referred to Brett McCracken’s comments in his book “Uncomfortable”:
“Just as ‘worship’ has been narrowed to basically mean ‘singing,’ singing in church has also been narrowed (at least in white evangelicalism) to a very specific, Hillsong-esque form. But why does ‘worship music’ have to feature multiple electric guitars and multiple singers? When and why did this form become the norm?”
Or consider the following statement from a church’s website under: “What we believe”
- “Every church is different.” (True, but not in what distinguishes it as a church.)
- “Every church has a different expression and personality, which allows each church to reach different people.” (Since when did “expression and personality” become the main factors in evangelism?)
- “Here are a few things that describe what we believe the church can and should be: Gospel Centred, Biblically Based, Community Focused, Missionally Driven.” (How are these peculiar distinctives of a particular church’s “expression and personality”? Aren’t these what any real church is about?)
- Then there is a list of beliefs that pretty much sum up what every church should believe. (Again, how are these peculiar distinctives of a particular church’s “expression and personality”?)
Wherever a church seeks to distinguish itself by its particular culture (or “expression and personality”) something is wrong.
I cringe when I read a church’s website that promotes itself in terms of what they think the surrounding culture will like, eg. “Our church is all about Jesus but when you visit us you might be forgiven for wondering if cake comes a close second!”
I get discouraged when I read of pastors whose main claim to fame seems to be how much they love “specialty coffee”, or “a beer down the pub” – and where these things loom larger, or even as large as, their love for the gospel.
Why are we so much at pains to promote an identity that resonates with a portion of one of many subcultures? Why do these things overshadow where our true identity – as a church, and as individuals – is really found?
David Jackman comments on 1 Cor 1:22-24:
“There is so much on offer that seems so much more impressive than the cross, that Christians are constantly tempted to adapt the message to the demands of the culture. But the Church is never in greater danger than when her leaders are demand-led… We begin to imagine that the only way to make an impact upon our culture is to mimic it, to meet its demands, follow its patterns, and package Christianity in a thoroughly culture friendly, non-confrontational way…
“In every generation, the church is always much more influenced and infected by its cultural environment than we care to admit, and we take on the world’s norms and colouring without even being aware of it.”
When Peter spoke of Jesus’ identity it was not (as His enemies portrayed Him) as “a glutton and a winebibber” (which, no doubt, would have resonated with some in one of the many sub-cultures of the day).
But rather, Peter identified Him as the One whom “God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good.” (Acts 10:38)
Especially the “good” He did when He was “killed by hanging on a tree,” but “whom God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly.” And now, “through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins”; but who is coming “to be Judge of the living and the dead.” (vv 39-42)
O that we might also be known as those who “go about doing good” (cf Matt 5:16, Acts 9:36, 2 Cor 9:8, Eph 2:10, Col 1:10, 1 Tim 2:10, 5:25, 6:18, 2 Tim 2:21, 3:17, Tit 2:7,14, 3:1,8,14, Heb 10:24, 13:21, 1 Pet 2:12).
O that the distinctiveness of our worship might be a focus on the One “whom they killed by hanging on a tree; whom God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly; in whom we believe and have received forgiveness of sins; and who will come to judge of the living and the dead.”
O that our identity as a church might be found, not in cultural distinctives, but in our distinctive worship of the true God, through Jesus Christ our Saviour.