Cornelius Brown, Contributor
"CONTEMPORARY behaviour, contemporary gospel music, contemporary Christians"...popular phrases used today. But what does it mean to be contemporary? The Oxford dictionary describes it as being modern in style or design - keeping with the times. How does this apply to the church today? How much of this modernity should the church adapt if any at all, and will the church still be the church if it does?
Ceiling fans have replaced "hand fans"; air conditioners have replaced ceiling fans. Projectors have replaced hymnals and, without a doubt, pastors and choir members need not gargle with lime and salt with the advent of the public address systems. Contemporary measures have allowed the church to become more organised in accessing biographic data of members. Likewise, contemporary measures have stirred much controversy regarding music and clothing in that the accepted norm of the knee-length skirts have now shrunken above the knee and the Sunday morning hats have become outdated. The male figure's identity has been challenged by the use of earrings and accepted "church music" has been redefined by a cross-culture interfusion of reggae, rhythm & blues, pop and dancehall perceived as "worldly".
What should be the standard of the church? The guiding principles of the church are embedded in righteousness, purity, and defined markers of separation from the world, thus making the measure of accepted modernity questionable if the church is to maintain its identity, relevance and effectiveness.
Why should the church not adopt measures that will enhance cooperate and be profitable to worship and promote organised systems? Why should the church embrace measures that would cause the gospel to be nebulous? Where does one end and the other commences.
The scale of contemporary acceptance is tilted largely by the number of young people within a congregation; hence there is an inevitable clash between tradition and modernity thus posing a great threat to the church. If the church represents one body what will be the limits of contemporary acceptance and if not clearly defined will the church still remain the church?
Indeed, members of churches are becoming more vocal about the changes they desire. For example; attire, music and even length of services. They have even become audible about occurrences; some of which have been long-standing; and it has now reached the point where church leaders are now being called upon to answer for malpractices which have been covered up for several years. Hence, a vivid indication of contemporary acceptance. It is prudent to say that the church could never be static and maintain its relevance; dynamism is fundamental for its survival. Nonetheless, the axiom that is undeniable echoes the fact that the rate of change in some churches will generate continuous and perhaps even fierce discussion for some time to come.
Cornelius Brown attends Faith New Testament Church of God.
