WORSHIP+ Who DECIDES How It's Done? | Style, Substance, Form, Preference, Principle, & Command

This issue has become more complicated than categorizing churches as Contemporary or Traditional. In reality these two terms never really worked because neither of them designated a static definition that could be discussed or compared. There were as many definitions for Traditional as there were people discussing it. The same is true of the term Contemporary. In reality a church worshiping in a Traditional manner is Contemporary since it is doing it now. The terms never really served the church well. Traditional often carried the added baggage of insinuating that the worship service was old and dry. To some the term Traditional meant a worship style that came into being during the 1950s. To others, it meant “Reformed” or “Historic.” The term Contemporary conjured up nothing definitive. It seemed to mean anything that was outside of the confusing realm of Traditional. What is the answer? Is defining these terms really what is needed? How is the church to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Is there a such thing as unacceptable worship?