Proskuneo and latreian (4)

This post is the 4th (and probably the last, for a while) in a series about worship and service.  Proskuneo and latreian are two key biblical words (Greek antecedents) that can aid our understanding.

A new friend has recently commented, suggesting that Jesus’ depiction of worship in spirit and truth (John 4) is not exactly a positive highlighting, viewed through New-Covenant lenses.  If I’m reading him correctly, he believes that the inner faith-response to the singular act of Jesus on the cross constitutes the only “worship” indicated under the New Covenant.  I’ve never heard this shading before but have been thinking about it.

It appears to me that Jesus, as reported by John, was calling the woman to something a) not bound by location and b) genuine, true.  Both aspects may stand in contrast to Jewish worship of the time, but especially so in the first case.  Since as a Samaritan she was not exactly in the “in” crowd, perhaps Jesus was suggesting to her, by saying “in spirit,” that she could worship despite her lack of Jewish access to the temple.  This worship would not consist in temple service or in Jerusalem at all.  It would be, said He, homage-communication of the spirit, and it would be true — not feigned or dissociated from reality.

The genuine/authentic/true component of Jesus’ statement could also be conceived of as contrasting with then-current Jewish corruptions.  I’m not saying this is THE way to read it — only one possible way to read it.  Subjunctively stated, then, it would sound something like this:

“Woman, your worship doesn’t have to be like that of the Jews:  it could now exist regardless of Jerusalem, and could be engaged in more authentically than is typical, in the midst of the Jewish stuff these days.”

(Aside:  no matter whether I’m on target here, or how much any reader might disagree with me, we must all categorically reject the idea that the “in truth” part of the phrasing has anything directly to do with the CofC’s [or any other group's] views on “correct” acts in the church assembly.  Not that “correctness” isn’t important, but this text has nothing to do with it.)

There’s really not much about worship in the gospels or the letters.  I take it that the early Christians just worshipped and didn’t find the need to write about it so much, but I acknowledge that it’s logically possible for worship to have been less a priority in, or almost absent from, Christian gatherings.  Possible, but not likely, I’d say.

On the horizontal, “priestly service” side, Hebrews certainly seems to corroborate that Jesus’ sacrifice is the true, central replacement for the latreuo or leitourgeia of the Old Covenant.  (No more animal sacrifices!  Jesus — once and for all!)  But this unique honoring of our Lord’s offering doesn’t negate the offering of ourselves described in Rom. 12.  Hebrews passages — taken separately or conjoined with the entire New Covenant corpus — do also place Jesus at the core, philosophically and theologically.

Connections with 1st-century synagogue practices have been used to justify some elements of Christian worship that I don’t find valid in the New Covenant.  Coincidentally, I’ve just reviewed an issue of Worship Leader magazine in which so many assumptions are made along the lines of the “history of Christian worship” that I couldn’t keep up with my own question marks in the margins.  It’s hard to trust the thinking of public leaders and venues when so few seem to be able to distinguish between biblically implied/suggested/commanded things and historically, traditionally practiced ones.

As an example:  there is no biblical blueprint for a corporate assembly, despite the supposed plan propagated by, e.g., the late guru Robert Webber.  According to him and many others, the “authorized way” is something along these lines:

1 – gathering in (or the call into) the outer courts

2 – hearing the Word in scripture and sermon

3 – responding to the word

4 – going out to bear witness

I find no such pattern stated in scripture; to infer this pattern is to superimpose mankind’s tradition.  In any event, almost paradoxically, the above layout seems to emphasize acts that are not, strictly speaking, worship.  The subject treated seems to be “the service,” as developed by institutional Christianity, ant not worship per se.  The four-point structure deals more with overall conceptions for Christian responses and the living of life.  It’s not wrong to use such a pattern for a corporate so-called “service,” but it smacks of the Old Covenant to legislate said pattern.

To any who think worship is contra-indicated in NC scripture (younger believers, these people do exist, and many of them are quite sincere), I would say this:  I don’t see that vertical worship communication (the proskuneo variety) was snuffed out with the cross.  It further seems that some expressions of, e.g., the Psalms are enduring, not obsolete.  Furthermore, doxologies such as those found in Philippians 2, Ephesians 1, and 1 Timothy 1 strongly suggest that first-century Christians were giving vertical, reverent, adoring attention to the Christ.  In addition, the example of the woman of Luke 7:36 appears as a striking example of a very literal act of spontaneous worship (proskuneo is, roughly, bowing and “kissing toward”) honored by Jesus.  Although shedding tears and wiping one’s feet with long hair should not be viewed a paradigm for all time, it is certainly presented positively in the narrative.  If this example were to be scoffed at, I would think Jesus, or Luke (ca. 40 years later) would have framed the woman’s action negatively.

In sum, at this juncture, I believe proskuneo is both assumed and indicated under the New Covenant.  I believe the same about latreia(n).  One is vertical, involving reverent homage shown to a greater being; the other is horizontal, effectively substituting service acts toward others for Old-Covenant animal sacrifices and various Levitical acts.  While there is certainly a spiritual connection between the two (proskuneo and latreian), the concepts are distinct, and we do a disservice to both the ideas of worship and service by amalgamating them.  This is obviously an oversimplification, but I trust that it helpfully delineates.

Below are links to some previous posts on worship and/or service.  Especially if some of the above is muddy, I would invite you to read past essays on related topics, and comment where you find me off-track (or where you agree).

Synagogue Worship as Model

Priorities (Hebrews 13)

Worship and Service: the Worlds of Awe and Anxiety

A Paramount Worship Text — John 4

Truly

Truly and Spiritually

Worship – Ritual v. Relationship

Proskuneo and latreian (3)

I’m thinking still about worship and its Koine Greek antecedent word-concepts.  From Roy Lanier of yesteryear, fast forward a few years.  [This post continues thoughts from two days ago.]

Max Lucado once exhorted, “Live your liturgy.”¹  In reading that, the high-church liturgists may feel validated, and we all may feel somewhat justified in continuing our patterns when we read Lucado’s words.  After all, pretty much all of us have liturgies.  Yet I think the point was that discipleship through the week is also significant.  If we could be more consistent, things would be better.  Here’s my extrapolation on Lucado’s admonition:

Achtung!

If you’re going to do worship in Q style, live in that style.  Or if you worship in Z style or Y style, live in that style.

You might think there would be more connection between life and the unimportant (in some cases, silly) liturgies pretty much all of us experience on a weekly basis.  From mountain church to sea-level church to rolling-hills church — it doesn’t matter how “high” or “low” your tradition is — our corporate patterns are, way too often, just so much fluff.

And we fiddle while Rome burns.  Our lives are pathetic.  We really don’t live “up to snuff” (that’s redneck for “consistent with standards”) with any of our would-be-transformative Sunday “worship” activities.

Something needs to be re-calibrated.  We could either cease trying to engage in so-called worship activities, or we could try to bring the other 117.5 waking hours a week into harmony.

Essentially, some cognitive consonance in this sphere would be nice — and highly advisable from the eternal perspective.

Now, to move from the inspirational-yet-human to the specifically God-breathed . . .

Romans 12 tends to come up in worship discussions among enlightened Christian-types.  Romans 12, however, does not deal with worship, strictly speaking.  The noun here is not “proskuneo.”  It’s “latreian,” a cognate of “latreuo” which speaks of sacrificial ministry (think animal sacrifice, then transfer that to the NC).  The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (“Little Kittel”) reports these bits:

• latreian is used 9x in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) and “refers generally to cultic worship”
• a connection exists with OT priestly service and douleuein (general service)
• in the ancient Philo’s writings, this word is said to “embrace the ministry of virtue and spiritual service to God” — wonder if the oft-cited Philo is why some English versions translated “logiken” as “spiritual”?

Etymologically related to the above, the root latron means, roughly, “to work for reward” and “to serve.”  This, friends, is an idea quite distinct from the meaning carried in the word proskuneo, which means “kiss toward.”   Proskuneo connotes bowing, obeisance, and reverential homage shown toward another, greater being.

The expression in Rom. 12:1 is logiken latreian; logiken is a relatively uncommon biblical word and could be said to have spawned our word “logical.”  Latreian is also uncommon in this particular form.  Its basic meaning is “service rendered for hire, ministration,” and it further is said to be related to the likes of Levitical priestly service.

Robertson’s Word Pictures  gives this further insight:

Which is your reasonable service (ten logiken humon latreian). “Your rational (spiritual) service (worship).” For latreia, see on Romans 9:4 . Logiko is from logo, reason. The phrase means here “worship rendered by the reason (or soul).”

I think Robertson may be affected by church tradition here in linking “service” with “worship”; I do not not see anything directly vertical, i.e., human-to-God, in Rom. 12:1.  I rather think Paul is suggesting that offering ourselves becomes, rationally (or even figuratively?) speaking, the New equivalent of Old priestly service.  Logiken ≈ logical ≈ rational, and latreian ≈ horizontal service, not vertical worship.  Assuming I’m right, this verse is not about worship per se but is about Christian living more generally.  Worship, after all, was never halted, but animal sacrifices were.

Paul is saying, I am convinced, that when we offer our whole selves to God, the resulting “sacrifice,” so to speak, becomes the equivalent of the priestly service that is no longer a part of how we approach God.

==============

¹ Here, although I highly doubt Lucado had this level of zing in mind when he wrote his phrase, I’ll acknowledge my bias against the high church.  The disconnect between corporate worship and life is exaggerated when the corporate worship is in a dead language.

By the way, the term “high church” is inherently questionable, as though other ways and means exist on a lower, undignified plane.  This reminds me of another inherently questionable term:  ”Reformed.”  Yeah, I know that things needed drastic reforming in the time of Luther and Calvin, but the use of “reformed” today seems to imply a progress, a development, a reformation that no longer reflects the situation.  Today, there is not just one church institution that is reforming, or that needs reforming.  We all need reforming — certainly including the “Reformed” ones — and many other groups at least make efforts at reforming along the way.

Proskuneo (2)

So many ideas on worship, and a few do have biblical foundation. . . .  (This post continues thoughts from a few days ago.)

Eighteen years ago, the Christian Chronicle surveyed a few American Restoration Movement leaders of various, shall we say, bents.  I retained at least one response that surprised me positively, on recent re-discovery:

. . .  Worship rings out of the fountain of the soul and heart–the springing out of adoration, praise and thanksgiving to God. . . .

The internal man must be involved. You can worship internally without doing anything external, but you can’t worship externally without involving the internal.

Worship is intentional. You cannot worship God accidentally. It must be an intended act. [editorial emphasis--bc]

We only worship vertically. It is something we do in communication, adoration and praise toward God. . . .

God is not our buddy. He is deity; we are human.  Let us go back to the fact of how awesome is the majesty, power, grace and love of God. . . .  We must beware turning the worship of God into more of a pep rally than the awe-inspiring worship of the Almighty God.

- Excerpted from  Roy Lanier Jr., “My Hope for the Church’s Worship” in “Worship Today: Six Leaders Express Their Views,” Christian Chronicle, 7/94. Reprinted by permission.

Mr. Lanier, if memory serves (and it well may not!), is someone with whom I would share a fair number of historical underpinnings, but whose ideas around church functionalities and Bible interpretation would often fall to the right of my own.  He does seem to have a good handle on worship, though!  Here, I particularly want to highlight that worship is vertical, i.e., between creature and Creator.  The horizontal “life” stuff is related, and does absolutely need to be harmonized, but is not worship per se.

Moreover, specifically on an expression that leads to much misunderstanding:  Paul did not write “spiritual act of worship” in Romans 12.  He didn’t write English words at all, and the Greek words he wrote aren’t normally, otherwise translated “spiritual” and “worship.”

May we get our ideas on all “God things” from the scriptures.

To be continued . . .

Proskuneo

So many ideas on worship, so little biblical foundation. . . .

Principles of equity, academic fairness, and logic would seem to dictate that I stay out of the fray this time around:  although I had pointed a couple of toes down a worship path a few weeks ago, the toes got stubbed, and here I am again.  Here I am to struggle and wish, but not to worship very much.

Oh, the facts that demand worship remain.  For instance:  God is, God created, and God is all-glorious and majestic.  God divested Himself of deity in some sense to be with Us in the person of Jesus, the Anointed One.  These realities and others call me to worship, but I’m faced with deafness to said call:  I don’t worship as I could, or should.

Acknowledging this stark shortcoming, I’ll still dare to offer some thoughts about worship, although without a lot of current, personal praxis to back it up in this phase of life.  My hope is that this will help in clarifying our understandings and practices.

“What does worship mean to you?”  I’ve asked that in groups before, and will again, but it was more with the idea of getting our inadequate ideas on the table than with the hope of some marvelous amalgamation of stunning truth.  I uncovered a variety of responses to the question “what is worship to you?”:

1. “People have said that even the birds worship God just by flying around and building nests and taking care of their babies.”  Umm, no.
2. “Giving yourself fully over to God, and receiving Him in return.”  Nope.  This is important, but  it is not worship.
3. “Giving more than begging or receiving is worship.  Sharing Knowledge.  Sharing service.  Sharing techniques to art of life.  Sprinkle the dust of joy.”  Not a chance.  This is like saying playing basketball is putting silverware in a drawer, changing a tire, tying your Converse shoelace, shooting a 3-pointer, hitting a home run, sleeping, and going to counseling.  There’s a morsel of truth there, but it’s surrounded by things that are only (barely?) related.
4. Well, of course, “It’s not just the songs.”  Yeah, yeah.  We’ve heard this before, yet most of us continue to live hypocritically in this respect.  We’re still desperate to dovetail the musical endings and beginnings as in radio, eradicating the “dead space.”
5. “Worship is bowing/kneeling before someone, making them the center of your existence and groveling at their feet. Honoring means accepting someone/thing as being up there in status and respecting them, but not drooling all over them and giving them useless tokens.”  Now we’re getting somewhere.  There is some very good material here!

When some people talk about worship experiences, their expressed longings seem, vacuously, to anticipate a divine, dove-like descent — analogous to what John saw at the immersion of Jesus.  Drooling and perfunctory token-giving, begone.  But bow and kneel (sometimes, physically!), and know that the One you are worshipping is by nature above all.  This is a good picture of worship.

But can God glorify Himself through a completely secular activity, as expressed in #1 or #3 above?  Of course.  But will He?  I’ll keep waiting for that to happen in any observable way . . . but without half the elpis (hope) that I have in the second coming or in my own ultimate dwelling place.

Worship, strictly speaking (and I do like to speak strictly, clearly), does not consist in serving others.  Mowing the lawn and washing the dishes and even diapering an infant do not constitute worship.  These things are horizontal; they are service actions that can become, metonymically, worship.  Worship is inherently a vertical attitude and/or action.  It is the demeanor and/or the adoring, reverent expression of a subservient one toward a greater one.

To be continued . . .

(M)W(M): springboard phrases

This is no longer Monday or, even Tuesday, but this is an installment in the Monday Worship Music series.  Find other, related posts through this link.

Ponder/consider/think on/ruminate over/dwell in/trust in/be inspired by one of these phrases with me:

child of promise

because we believe

selected and adopted

by Your Spirit

not under the curse of sin

promise of the Spirit

inestimable blessing

live by faith

clothed with Christ

Why not be biblically based in some of our worship?

The above phrases come ek (out of, by, from) Galatians and are not given here because they relate directly to any existing worship music — thus the weird parens around the Ms in the heading for this post.  While a song may arise out of these words, worship is of course not all about the music, so perhaps you and I could worship God through one or more of those phrases in our hearts.

MWM: loving the opportunity

Following a singularly unusual Sunday in which there was no worship in my heart or experience (owing to travel and sickness), I retreat to a book for inspiration to pass along:

Father in heaven, teach us to love to assemble with our fellow  Christians;
And when we assemble, may we not lose ourselves in the crowd,
But may we lose ourselves in Thee and help others to do so.
Help us, too, O Lord, to feed our souls at Thy spiritual table
More often than we feed our bodies with the daily bread which Thou dost provide.
And O Thou God of power and of passionate concern for all mankind,
Give us fellowship with Thy concerned servants,
And the peace and victory made possible when we join with them in adoration of Thee.

- Andy T. Ritchie, Jr. (my grandfather), Thou Shalt Worship the Lord Thy God (1969), p. 42

MWM: condescension

As time marches on, some words in Christian songs become lost in supposed irrelevance, and other words are simply edited out, as the human race “progresses,” engulfed in the sea of fearful political correctness.  For instance, we no longer call ourselves “worms,” as Isaac Watts did in “Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed,” because, well, that’s just bad for the psyché.

In all my years, I’ve known of only three men, including myself, who’ve led “Come, Christians, Join To Sing,” which includes the word “condescend.”  This word strikes the modern ear as rather jarring, when applied to someone’s relationship to me.  I mean, if someone is said to condescend to be with me or to speak with me, it puts me in an undesirable position of humble circumstance.

Yeah, exactly.

condescend, v.i., from L. com, together and descendere, descend

1.  to be gracious about doing a thing considered beneath one’s dignity

2.  to deal with others patronizingly

The primary above definition of the word is a good reason that the words stand tall in my memory of yesterday morning’s worship time with fellow Christians.  The secondary definition, although representing a more common understanding these days, has not a single thing in common with the Christ or the Father.

Now, here are the words of the second stanza of the poem by Christian Henry Bateman:

He is our Guide and Friend.

To us He’ll condescend.

His love shall never end.

Alleluia, amen!

It is quite clearly a condescension (primary definition) that led God to empty Himself of part of Himself, causing Jesus to be born.  That condescension, together with the resulting, apparent love shown, constitutes one reason for worship.

Other compelling phrases from my yesterday of group worship include these:

a song of praise that flows from those You have redeemed

keep silence before Him

You alone I long to worship

I surrender all

it’s my joy to honor You in all I do

this I know with all my heart:  His wounds have paid my ransom

under the shadow of Thy throne still may we dwell secure

by faith we see the hand of God

we will stand as children of the promise

Question:  what words moved you in worship yesterday (or other recent times)?

* * *

[By the way, the "MWM" initials in the title of this post stand for "Monday Worship Music.”  The series to which this one is the sequel was called “Monday Music,” and archives may be accessed here.]

MWM: a moderate success

[The "MWM" initials stand for "Monday Worship Music.”  The series to which this one is the sequel was called “Monday Music,” and archives may be accessed here.]

* * *

Blessed with a good worship literature diet, I sang this scores of times during my growing-up years:

Lord of all, to Thee we raise 
This, our sacrifice of praise.

And I recall a clear sense of being enthused spiritually, emotionally, and musically by the leaders, including my own father, who would energize that first musical and lyrical line of the refrain, denying the congregation a certain thoughtless, lazy comma-in-fact.  No, when my dad led, the result was a more properly flowing, connected congregational expression, sans breath after the word “raise”:

Lord of all, to Thee we raise This,
Our sacrifice of praise.

Those with another hymnal sang,

Lord of all, to Thee we raise
This our hymn of grateful praise.

(Note the removal, here, of the strange, yet biblically and theologically significant, idea of sacrifice.)

The words are from Folliot S. Pierpoint’s hymn text “For the Beauty of the Earth.”  Other key thoughts include offering praise to God

• “for the beauty of each hour”
• “for the joy of human love — brother, sister, parent, child”
• “for the church that evermore lifteth holy hands above”

All those lines flow easily out of my memory … but today, no thought is more compelling and convicting than the notion of sacrifice in praise.  When I was young, back in the Philadelphia tri-state area, even though I would have been even more immature in my consideration of what “this, our sacrifice of praise” might be, at least I was energized as I emphatically sang “to Thee we raise ==> THIS, our sacrifice of praise.”  Yet, at best, that was a mere beginning — a beginning I’m weakly continuing 30-odd years later.

Sacrifice is related -- surely, if not entirely – to worship because of Jewish covenant, thought, and practice.  The pages of the Torah often speak of the sacrifice of animals; this exceedingly odd, gruesome activity was neither odd nor gruesome in the days of Cain and Abel, Abraham, Esau & Jacob, Moses, and the rest.  Sacrifice was not strange to the Hebrews of old.

I suspect that most of us are far too distant, spiritually speaking, from the idea of sacrifice in worship.  Like many “types” and symbols, the animal sacrifices of Genesis, Leviticus, etc., find their fulfillment in the Messiah, and specifically in the denouement:  the Son’s offering of Himself once for all.  His bleeding — quite literal and gruesome — forever relegated to the past the need for animal sacrifice.

Further, there follows an important connection between Jesus’ self-sacrifice and our own.  But what is this current-era sacrifice to look like?  How do I live out the idea of presenting myself as a living sacrifice?  Romans 12:1-2 comes after 11 chapters’ worth of rational case-making and should be read, first, in the context of that entire letter/epistle, but there is surely an application to be made in my own context, and in yours.  (Note the passive voice there?  Yeah, I did, too.  It just came out.  Before I realized it, I was typing “to be made” instead of “I must apply that to myself.”  The passive voice requires less of me.  Hmm.)

How do I apply “living sacrifice”  Weakly (not at all weekly) and poorly.  But how should I apply it?  One small way, I would meekly propose, is to praise when I don’t feel like praising.  Last night, with thanks to God for His moving through the hearts and voices of others, I did just a little of that less-than-motivated, yet real, worshipping and praising.

Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.  Heb. 13:15

* * *

I gave this blogpost a heading/slug/title that’s probably more strange than the topic of animal sacrifice or heart sacrifice.  I don’t suppose “moderate” and “sacrifice” belong in the same arena.  In reality, I don’t often consider myself successful in the area of worship and praise.  But in the scheme of my failings and foibles and … well, sin … a few of last night’s experiences were moderately “successful” as sacrificial enterprises of the pneuma (spirit) and sarx (body–in this case, specifically the voice).

Loopy

Now from Worship Leader columnist Phil Sillas comes a mention of Loop Community.  (Boy, am I out of it, apparently.)

If you thought it was just a) bad song leaders and b) pianos and organs and c) preachers who say “thanks for those great songs” (as if the worship were all about warming the audience up for him), … just look here to see what else is distracting people from worshipping God these days.

“Everybody’s doing it.”  They’re even including loops on the bi-monthly Song DISCovery releases now.  Apparently we “all need to start somewhere” with using loops in worship.  I have some idea what “loop” means in the world of electronic sound, but it’s not even explained on the site — at least, not in plain sight.  I’m pretty sure it has little to do with roller coasters or Chicago.

I detect an inherent assumption that every church needs to use loops at some point.  Not only is this assumption provincial within the current contemporary-church scene, but it is downright arrogant when one considers Christian gatherings in Kenya, Albania, Appalachia, the 1950s, the 1830s, and the year 48 A.D. Of course there is no overt intent to be all-inclusive, but the language is still very narrow.

Some folks clearly drool over loops, exploring various developing technologies ostensibly for the sake of their Christian communities, but I prefer simplicity.  ”Learn more about enhancing your worship team through loops and song elements”?  No thanks, Worship Leader and other loop proponents.  I’m not really interested.  I crave content over mechanisms, and I’m persuaded that most of us don’t need any more distractions.

MWM: His wounds have paid

[The "MWM" initials stand for "Monday Worship Music.”  The series to which this one is the sequel was called “Monday Music,” and archives may be accessed here.]

Some things are foundational, and others are fluffy.  Some things are essential, and others are mere elaborations.

Sunday evening, we sang, “But this I know with all my heart:  his wounds have paid my ransom.”  This line is the last in the song “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us,” penned by Stuart Townend.  We sang it (twice) and meditated on it some.  While there were many other good lyric lines in our evening, this is the poignant poetry that stood out to me.

I don’t emphasize it here because it is found in a pretty song.

And not because of its author, either.

And not because it’s good poetry, in its genre.

And not even because it manifests the balance of relationship:  our response to God’s action.

I emphasize it here because it articulates a foundational Christian truth.  Long may it be that Christians express this kind of thing when they are together, and when they are apart.

. . .

More than eight years ago, I introduced it to a church in Kansas, and a friend there couldn’t get through it without tears in his eyes.  I remember that response to this day (obviously), and felt joy this summer in renewing that connection.   Also recently, I had opportunity to sing this song with a church for which this song was new.

Some songs are special, touching more than a segment of the Christian world in a specific time period.  Some songs seem to be somewhat universal in their appeal, and they tend to last longer than a fortnight.  Let me start a list of such songs:

• How Deep the Father’s Love for us
• Great Is Thy Faithfulness
• In Christ Alone
• I Love You, Lord
• How Great Thou Art

What other songs do you find to be fairly universal in appeal and worthwhile in terms of content?

Is your life a channel?

Although my own life might be fairly characterized, alternately, as a TV drama with very little suspense, as a boring reality show, or as a sitcom,  none of these characterizations matter here.  This post is not about TV.

The impetus for this post is the proliferating horde — in my unusual, Bubble-protected circle — that seem to be attracted to using this e-mail sign-off:

Blessings, 

John

This “blessings” thing has bothered me ever since I saw it for the first time about 5 years ago (here in what they call “the Bubble”).

I’ve tried to put the bother out of my mind, thinking I’m being too literal (again) in wondering whether those who use this phrasing are trying subconsciously to appear more “Christian” than others.  Might folks be presumptuous or at least glib or thoughtless in using this sign-off?

I don’t know anything about the origins of the sign-off.  I don’t recall seeing it before coming to my present situation, but that could simply amount to lack of recall.

What does it mean to write “Blessings” to someone?  And why haven’t I heard anyone say it out loud?  Sometimes I do hear (and have even said, once in a great while) “God bless you” or “the Lord bless you.”  Compared to those phrases, “Blessings” seems truncated at best, and possibly trivialized.  I don’t think I’ve ever heard it uttered orally.

There is a valid sense in which I imagine the more thoughtful ones who use “Blessings” to be using it.  Could they be consciously praying a specific blessing from God on the recipient of the e-mail as they sign off?  Perhaps they are even more intentional than that, even:  they could be thinking this:  ”I pray that my message to this person has been a blessing incarnate — that I have been in some way a channel for the blessing of God toward this person, and even more, that this little blessing I hope to have been may abound more and more.”  Could the mere “Blessings” have an implied ellipsis ( . . . ) that indicates a consciousness of the Lord’s capability for ongoing blessing as the future moments transpire?

Over-analysis?  Yeah, maybe.  (I can apologize for being overzealous and potentially annoying, but not for analyzing and critiquing.)

On the positive side … an old “gospel song” (which is not in any way, shape or form a “hymn”) asks,

Is your life a channel of blessing?
Is the love of God flowing through you?
Are you telling the lost of the Savior?
Are you ready His service to do?

Is your life a channel of blessing?
Are you burdened for those that are lost?
Have you urged upon those who are straying,
The Savior Who died on the cross?

Is your life a channel of blessing?
Is it a daily telling for Him?
Have you spoken the Word of salvation
To those who are dying in sin?

We cannot be channels of blessing
If our lives are not free from known sin;
We will barriers be and a hindrance
To those we are trying to win.

Finally, the refrain invites prayer:

Make me a channel of blessing today,
Make me a channel of blessing, I pray;
My life possessing, my service blessing,
Make me a channel of blessing today.

Inasmuch as You work through these human vessels, God, yes, make me a vehicle for blessing others. 

MWM: I learned a new song

[The "MWM" initials stand for "Monday Worship Music.”  The series to which this one is the sequel was called “Monday Music,” and archives may be accessed here.]

Learning good, new songs is always a pleasure for me.  While I’m probably not in any sort of majority on this, a couple of my core traits are a) easily lulled into disinterest and mind wandering and b) musical. The former trait leads to a penchant for new things in my diets; combining “easily lulled” with “musical” means that a new song can readily become an oh-so-welcome vehicle for worshipping my God.

At this point in my life, it’s not all that often that a new song strikes me.  These days, few of the “new” songs are actually unique enough to merit much attention, in my “book.”  This lack of originality doesn’t make the songs bad; it does, however, often render them dull for me.  Anyway, when we re-visited a group of vibrantly singing believers two Sundays ago, and an unfamiliar hymn — yes, a true hymn! – was requested by a 22-year-old, I took notice and was inspired on at least two fronts.

The tune used for this hymn, “St. Petersburg,” is generally derivative and is specifically an adaptation of the same composer’s tune “Wells,” which is associated with “Till He Come.”  The music is not particularly striking, but it does make for a fine fit with the words, which are arrestingly worshipful. 

O Power of love, all else transcending, in Jesus present evermore,
I worship thee, in homage bending, thy name to honor and adore.
Yea, let my soul, in deep devotion, bathe in love’s mighty boundless ocean.

Thou art my rest; no earthly treasure can satisfy my yearning heart,
and naught can give to me the pleasure I find in thee, my chosen part.
Thy love, so tender, so possessing, is joy to me, and every blessing.

To thee my heart and life be given; thou art in truth my highest good.
For me thy sacred side was riven, for me was shed thy precious blood.
O thou who art the world’s salvation, be thine my love and adoration.

I was so engaged while singing (an unfortunately rare state for me in this phase of life) that I didn’t even notice the author and composer’s names at the bottom.  Both names are familiar to me.  A quick check on cyberhymnal.org shows no reference to this hymn, so I don’t feel bad that I didn’t know it earlier.  I did find two other sites that have catalogued it.

The author of the text also wrote the more familiar words “God Himself is With Us” — another worthy song which is a centering “call to worship” if there ever was one.

MWM: hymns — definitions, and one good example

[The MWM initials stand for "Monday Worship and Music.”  Once upon a 'blog, for a year, I endeavored to post every Monday on the lyrics of hymns and other worthwhile Christian songs.  The series, then called “Monday Music,” was almost always positive and/or inspirational, and archives may be accessed here.]

Having recently re-subscribed to Worship Leader magazine after a lengthy lapse, and having been paying new attention to a persistent, inner passion for strong worship content in church music, I’m reviving this series, sort of, in a new iteration — now with the moniker MWM.

Before resuscitating the series by sharing thoughts on a standard hymn from my younger days, I’ll begin with a brief, textual definition of “hymn”:

• a song of praise to God (Merriam-Webster)
• a song or ode in praise or honor of God, a deity, a nation, etc. (Dictionary.com)
• something resembling [the above]

Musically, on the contrary, a hymn might be well understood as 1) being somewhat less  harmonically static than a typical “gospel song,” conceived with four harmonic parts, 2) being formally simple, and 3) lacking a chorus, a/k/a “refrain.”

Therefore, in the Christian milieu, songs that are not addressed to God and songs that do include a chorus (e.g., “At the Cross” and “Blessed Assurance”) are not hymns, strictly speaking.  The “harmonic rhythm” of these songs is also relatively slow, i.e., the chords don’t change too often, making them harmonically more static.  Regardless of common parlance that labels anything a “hymn” that seems “well-worn” to a given person, I’ll be continuing to use the word “hymn” a good deal more specifically.  I’m a stickler for word meanings.  Now, on to a meaty morsel or two!

~ ~ ~

A true hymn textually speaking, “Jesus, Thy Name I Love” is a standard to me—in that it appeared in the hymnal I grew up with and was sung several times a year in my congregation as well as in others I would visit from time to time.

I was saddened that this song apparently fell so far out of favor as not to be included in the Paperless Hymnal until Volume 10.  This is no indictment of the prolific, responsive James Tackett, who does dedicated work for the sake of congregational singing; rather, it is an slam on us — on our cheapening taste and weakening literacy — since congregations had apparently not earlier requested that this worthwhile song stay available.

The words of this hymn reach to Jesus adoringly, lovingly — with ardent expressions such as these:

“Jesus, thy name I love, all other names above”

“O Thou art all to me; Nothing to please I see, Nothing apart from Thee”

“. . . then Thine own face I’ll see; then I shall like Thee be”

The hymnologists out there are doubtless aware of cyberhymnal.org, a site that has cataloged more than 10,000 public-domain Christian songs and made the words (and music, in many cases) available.  I would point out that the poetic meter of this song makes it a little unwieldy, tune-wise.  Neither tune referenced on the cyberhymnal.org website is the one I learned as a child, but the second one, “Braun,” seems a better match for the text than either the one I know or the one named “Stobel.”

No matter the tune, the likelihood of singing this song anytime soon in congregational worship is slim.  While this fact does sadden me, since the song diet to which many of us are accustomed is far less nutritive, there is no death knell for the worship easily stimulated by this song:  I can use the song privately!  (And so I did.)

Blogpost no. 900 — ponderings of significance

If triangles had a God, He’d have three sides. 

— Yiddish proverb

I come now to a milestone — my blogpost #900 — but have absolutely no illusions that anyone out there has been counting down to 900 with me.  This is just a small marker in one aspect of my life, and less than insignificant in everyone else’s.  Still, it gives me pause to consider this type of thinking and writing that has been important to me for nearly four years now.  Before I take a break from blogging for a while, I can think of no better way to cross this milestone than to make this post all about God. . . .

~ ~ ~

Job and his friends wandered into the territory of God considerations—and dared to act as though they had Him figured out.

Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said, “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?  Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.”  (Job 38: 1)

[ Then God proceeded to provide a detailed description of his uniquely powerful and non-understandable work in creation. ]

Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.  (Job 42:3b)

I would suggest that we can’t hope to influence others for God . . . nor can we worship God . . . nor can we have a genuine, fulfilling relationship with God . . . if we limit Him by boxing Him in.

J.B. Phillips, in the classic Your God Is Too Small, suggested this:

If people are not strenuously defending an outgrown conception of God, then they are cherishing a [sort of “created”] God who could only exist between (emphasis mine   -bc) the pages of the Bible or inside the four walls of a church.

God is immeasurably “bigger” than our forefathers imagined, and modern scientific discovery only confirms their belief that man has not even begun to comprehend the incredibly complex Being who is behind—no, is—what we call “life.”

It’s a given:  ||: There is no way to describe God in human terms. :||   (Non-musicians and musicians alike, please don’t miss the repeat signs there!)

We do have the “plural” thing in the Genesis 1:26–”let us make man in our image,” or some reasonable facsimile thereof.  (Aside:  this God-expression was recently referred to, in my hearing in a small Christian gathering, in the same breath that related the serpent to “Lucifer.”  Like many other understandings, the common Lucifer concept results from translation and/or interpretation — and is enlarged by early, probably erroneous Christian history that relates Lucifer to Satan and, ultimately, to the Eden serpent.)  That deity is in some sense more than “one” is born out in John 1 and 1st John 1.  But what does this really mean?  That God is precisely two or three?

I, Brian Casey, am a “singular” thing.  But it’s difficult to narrow even me down to a singular thing.  (No, I don’t have MPD, although I do sometimes get moody and change personalities.)  I have many aspects — and some are fairly difficult to understand.  How about God?  Is He singular?  (“The LORD our God is one.”)  Or plural?  (“Let Us make man.”  “Let Us go down and confuse their language.”)  Wouldn’t He be infinitely more difficult to “figure out” in terms of number than a human?  Honestly, I’m more interested in the possible literary connection of 1) the “us” in the creation account to 2) the “us” in the Babel account than I am in figuring out whether God is to be considered a trinity.  After all, “trinity” is a human word-concept, not used in scripture.

It bothers me when we feel that we have God figured out!  It bothers me profoundly — to the point of considering the possibility that it’s blasphemy.

“Could it be that questions tell us more than answers ever do?” queried a favorite songwriter of mine, Michael Card.  I think he was onto something.

While I admit that I tend to forget the neat triumvirate of Matthew 28:19 — immersing “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” I encourage equal thought about the non-trinitarian presentation in 2 Cor. 3:13-18.  Here, the glory of God the Father seems to be connected to the Lord Jesus, and in the final expression, which is difficult to render in English, the Lord Jesus appears to be equated with the Spirit.  The Spirit of God is surely to be attended to as we read scripture and as we attempt to live Christianly now, but could it be that the “Spirit” is more of a vain attempt to describe the eminently non-physical Essence or Nature of God?  Could it be that the question is more valuable than any purported answer?

Our ponderings, however on- or off-target they may turn out to be, can be highly significant as we seek more insight into the nature and being of God.  We do need to take care that we don’t fashion a God that looks like something we came up with—something of our imagination, as in the triangles of Yiddish lore.  God is more significant, more holy, more indescribably other than our thoughts about Him can ever comprehend.  So be it.

Job 42:5-6:  My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.  Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”

=====================

Aside from a couple of posts already written and scheduled for several days hence, I won’t be actively blogging for a while.  I’m going to take a break and will see you in a few weeks.

Getting a sense of “calling”

Another one has bitten the dust. Another one has decided on a new course of action, ostensibly to lead to a different career field.  Another one has claimed “calling” or a “sense of call” or the “results of prayer” in making the decisions.

And I simply have trouble believing it when I hear it.

Basically, I think what is happening is this:

1. A believing student begins to feel uncomfortable in a major academic field
2. The student searches around and finds something s/he feels more comfortable with, at a given moment.
3. The student figures the easiest way to tell believing professors in field X of the impending change is to say “I’ve prayed about it, and I sense the Lord calling me into Y now.”

But when Y doesn’t work out, either, what does that do to our concept of God?  Is He fickle?  Does He push us one way and then pull us another way, just to see what we’ll do?   I suppose there are a few biblical examples of that kind of thing, but those examples don’t mean that moving this way is to be thought of as an M.O. for God throughout the ages.

Aside:  it strikes me today, in completing my reading of the Genesis narrative, that there can be an element of arrogance involved in suggesting that my present situation, for example, is a result of providence, as Joseph’s situation was in Egypt.  God was working an eternal purpose for an entire nation-to-be then, and history was summed up in Jesus the Anointed One.  Why should I brazenly suggest that I am in NY under a similar arrangement with the Almighty?  I know, I know, God loves me and pays attention to me and “sings over me” (thanks, Zephaniah and Dennis Jernigan).  I believe He loves me, but I don’t believe I have the historical, redemptive significance of Isaac or Jacob or Joseph or Ruth or David.  Maybe of Zaccheus?  :-)

Back to our thoughts on the present now.  One college junior has already been through two major curriculum-changes — once during the summer after his freshman year, and again a few months later — all supposedly based on a sense of “calling.”  I was embarrassed for him when he told me all about “God’s call” from the second area into the third, but he didn’t seem sheepish at all.  On the contrary,  he was confident.  I tried to listen empathically and tried to say something supportive, but down deep, I found his rationale, well, not rational and very subjective.

I really don’t intend to be questioning the potential work of God in a human life today, but I don’t see as much evidence of His actually, observably working in this way as some claim to see.

So many students seem to hear a “call” into the arena of worship leading.  When one has some music talent and a pretty good work ethic, one’s peers can easily push one into a state in which more and more sense of self-worth comes from this “worship leading” activity.  Add to this picture the portrait of a cool mentor in the “worship band” and sound field – someone with a good deal of charisma — and you have an even more magnetic pull.  But is this attraction the work of God, or of human thought and emotion?

Now, I would hasten to add that I have for many many years found exceptional value in worship leading.  There is something deep within my soul that exclaims, in response to such senses of call. “Yes, yes!  Do this great thing for the kingdom.  Serve all your brothers and sisters.  Usher them into a consciousness of the presence of God.  And, as you do this, I will live vicariously through you, for my heart has the same longing.  Thank you, thank you for your affirmations of what I have meant to this point in your life … and now I know you are going on to something better.”

But the louder thoughts arise and supplant:  ”I know you think you’re moving into something more important, and true worship is more important, but you will find that all this flurry of churchy activity and flashy sound stuff ultimately fizzles.  Your prayers and your idea of God’s call are sincerely perceived, I am sure, but such sincerity does not necessarily translate into long- or even short-term Kingdom reality.”

ATR, Jr. on worship

It is possible that we admire Him and give Him respect, believing, as we often do, that His love is so much greater than ours, though of the same nature.  But in this assumption we are mistaken.  Obviously, God’s love is infinitely greater than our own, but it is also of a different kind.

Any explanation of why men worship should probably begin with the simple idea that they just do, that they are made to worship.

The acts of adoration and homage in which we engage should awaken within us a consciousness of the presence of God. . . .  Worship should, and true worship does, fan the smoldering embers of belief into a flaming consciousness of his majestic presence.

- Andy T. Ritchie, Jr. (my grandfather), Thou Shalt Worship the Lord Thy God (1969), from chapters 2 and 3

Revised thoughts on “church” gatherings (4 of 4)

These erstwhile opinions come from an 18-year-old letter I wrote to a now-dear friend, describing some of my “church values” at the time.  They were originally penned with a view toward a joint “church venture” that never happened.  In re-reading the letter, I found that most of the thoughts were ones I continue to affirm.  However, there are now a few differences, based on life-roads traveled, differing situations, and presumably greater insight. This final installment will offer three distinct, extracted  paragraphs, with new/revised commentary following each.

Things I would now say differently (first, the original quote; then, the current comments in italics)

I should note that I could become concerned with the lack of reverence if [certain] ideas were taken too far, but like so many other areas, we should deal with what we need now.  What we need is less formality, more personal-ness, more genuine encounter with God.  In my view, we are not generally hurting for a concept of reverence for God.  No one with whom I’ve been well acquainted has ever felt that God is just one of the guys, on our level.  If we ever get to that point, it would then be time to shift, ministering to what we would then need.  We would need more teaching on and experience of God’s otherness, His transcendence.

Now, in 2012, I still become concerned with the lack of reverence in Christian talk and gatherings — and yes, I’m one of the those that are still appalled when professing Christians use names for deity carelessly, thoughtlessly.  Speaking of God carefully and reverently is a mere baseline, but an important one.  The ubiquitous, pop-culture abbreviation “OMG” is telling.

One difference I would note now is that, based on my current experience, I don’t think we need much more informality or any more personal-ness.  Those longings were from a different place, a different time.  Since 1994, most believers I contact do indeed seem to have moved on; some almost do seem to manifest a feeling that God is on our level, or, to re-appropriate a now-popular, apt, denigrating cliché, that “Jesus is my boyfriend.”  These days, we probably need LESS personal-ness, in general; it depends on the particular setting whether one would need less or more formality.  We do still need more of a sense of God’s otherness and transcendence, in my opinion.

~ ~ ~

Spoken acclamations/”God” talk.  I would like to incorporate into regular Christian gatherings some relaxed time for progress reports on individual lives . . . how God is working for you and for me.  These comments would naturally lead into unplanned honorings of the Lord–spoken acclamations of praise which would lead into other forms of worship.

The above paragraph now bothers me on two levels:  

• “God talk” that drew me in 18 years ago now tends to repel me.  The whole “personal testimony” think is just so much foaming at the mouth, most of the time.  I used to cheerily chime in, “Well, whether God did X or Y or not, it surely wouldn’t hurt to give Him the credit!”  These days, I’m probably less inclined to speak out with phrases like “God’s goodness has really been shown in X” or “Praise God for that!”
• (Confession time now)  Although I don’t particularly aspire to being a walking “testimony” as many evangelicals would think of that, I do miss the time that I felt God was more active in my life (whether He really was or not).

~ ~ ~

More than “not having any qualms” about worshipping with instruments, I personally worship unabashedly with them.  I don’t need them, I don’t think, but I seem to tune into worship music that effectively uses instrumental accompaniments.  Such music tends to affect me powerfully and with a newness that I can also find, albeit more rarely, in “a cappella” music.  At this point in time, and in the context we’re discussing, I not only believe that instruments aren’t wrong.  I believe that they are right and should be used.

Any die-hard CofCers among my readers (there are a few of you left!) :-) will be instantly aghast that I wrote that 18 years ago — maybe back when you thought you knew me better.  I was hiding more of my scruples then! .

However — and this is a BIG however — I have since come about 317 degrees around the circle.  I don’t often use instruments in group worship times anymore and frankly don’t care for any loud sounds in worship as much as I once did.   My aversion ranges from the pipe organ, which I’ve pretty much always detested, to over-zealous “worship bands” hopped up on testosterone.  I continue to believe, essentially, that the use of instruments is basically neither here nor there, speaking biblically or theologically.  Practically, however, when there are too many instruments all at once, or when the ones used are too loud, they grate on my nerves, not to mention that — and PLEASE get this — they can easily distract, and they can easily inhibit participation from the congregation.  In many churches, “worship bands” have become masters rather than servants, and I often find myself longing for simpler music in worship — a cappella, or maybe with one or two acoustic instruments at a time.   The thoughtful reader may note that my preferences viz. instruments also have to do with my preferences viz. church size!

As always, thank you for reading.  Please feel free to comment or send feedback on the back-channels, as some of you do regularly.  

I’m within 15 of the milestone of 900 total blogposts.  At that point, I plan to lay down the blogpen for a month or so, taking a summer sabbatical.

On “church” (3 of 4)

[Continued]

These opinions come from an 18-year-old letter, written to a now-dear friend, describing some of my “church values” at the time. Some of this material pertains to the large-group celebrations, i.e., periodic gatherings of multiple cells or small groups, assembled as one large group.  The initial thoughts on worship conceivably would pertain to any Christian gathering.

On worship

I toss around in my mind the models of worship we have briefly discussed on a couple of occasions:

a)    God is beyond; worship leaders must bring Him down to the people.
b)    God is beyond; worship leaders must take the people up to Him.
c)    God is present; worship leaders must facilitate celebration of the Presence.

I think I’ve stated those relatively accurately.  I find some validity in each.  Personally, I would lead with various emphases/philosophies at various times.  If pressed to choose, I suppose I, like you, would choose the third option.  In the first, we could easily become irreverent.  In the second, the worship leader’s bearing too quickly becomes that of a cheerleader, prodding and poking people up through the spiritual “drop ceiling.”

I would work incessantly, if necessary, to completely eradicate the idea of a “worship service.”  As you well know, though the Biblical concepts of worship and service are related, they are distinct.  I worship, and I serve, but only in a very limited sense do I serve God when I worship, and I’d better not be worshipping those humans that I serve.  Service to others is service to God (Matt. 25).   Worshipping, though, is reserved only for God.

On the large-group “celebration”

The larger assembly should occur less frequently, I think, and it should be planned to a greater extent, since spontaneity would not be as effective or as feasible in a large crowd.

No pews, by the way!!  Been there, done that, and I don’t like them.  Such churchy furniture isn’t natural.

The main praise and worship session would be orchestrated by those with a demonstrated heart for corporate worship.  The entire leadership team would need to buy into the idea that large group, celebratory worship is important as both a means and an end in itself.  Worship is not to be thought of as a mere prelude to a speech or to the altar call!

The group would be ushered into a consciousness of the Presence as fully and as often as possible.

Sermons would be rare in my ideal assembly.  Teaching tools would be brief comments by any of the leaders, prepared dramatic sketches, and videotapes of movies, etc., as well as the worship music.  Teaching, though, would not be the primary goal in the celebratory large group worship gathering.  This is a time for joyful identification with the body at large, and it is a time for recognizing the God who has united us all.  What has He done for us?  Sing about it!  Who is He?  Worship Him for being His stupendous self!

I believe that the age-old argument over the supposedly conflicting priorities of vertically- and horizontally-oriented assemblies should never have occurred.  The simple fact is that we should concentrate on loving the Lord first, and then our relationships with fellow man will fall into place.  Further, and most relevant to this nearly completed document, is a truth that I have learned in my years of worshipping:  there is no more edified state than that which emanates from sincere hearts truly worshipping the Lord together.  When we truly worship, we will have meaningful relationships with each other, and we will be built up!

To be continued . . .

Above “Above All”

In his blog (archive now unavailable, but referred to on another blog), Bob Kauflin commented on the popular “Above All,” written by Paul Baloche, giving an example of how he (Bob) responds to people who want him to use it in worship:

“There are a number of things about this song I really like. The melody is enjoyable to sing and easy to remember. It does a great job emphasizing God’s sovereign rule over all, and focusing on the sacrifice of Christ. The poetic images are engaging and the harmonic progression is creative.

But two parts bother me, both near the end of the song. The first is the line “you took the fall.” It seems like an understated way of describing what Jesus did. Not wrong, but not the best.

The other problem is the line, “and thought of me above all.” I have no question that Jesus loved me and gave himself for me (Gal. 2:20). But he didn’t think of me “above all.” Jesus went to the cross to satisfy God’s righteous judgment against a sinful humanity. He thought of his Father’s holiness, justice, and glory above all. It may seem like a theological nuance, but it’s the difference between our faith being man-centered and God-centered. I don’t think that’s what the writers intended, but I think it could cause some confusion in people’s minds. Besides, I think we have other songs that better articulate Jesus died for because he loved us and for his Father’s glory. But, thanks for suggesting it, and please let me know if you have any other thoughts!”

In the grand scheme, there are a lot worse things than singing “you took the fall” to Jesus.  While this expression (like “When the roll is called up yonder” and “there’s an all-seeing eye watching you”) may strike me as chincy, I’d rather have someone somewhat shallowly sing that than not to sing anything that honors Jesus at all.

Songs are more than filler.  Since songs have bona fide thought-content, their messages should be examined.  It’s not that we must comb through every syllable of every song judgmentally, yet care exercised over the thrust of the message could result in better-founded theological understandings among us all.  When I subsist on expressions that call more attention to God than to me, my faith is more healthy.

Happy 103rd, ATR, Jr.

My grandfather, Andy T. Ritchie, Jr., has been in the “land of the eternally living,” to quote Cecil Hook, for 28.5 years.  He would have been 103 today, so I am giving attention to his memory on this blog.

Granddaddy had impact on thousands of souls through the years — including students at Harding University (nee College), on people in churches far and wide when he preached and led worship in song, and on his own extended family.  He also extended his impact by authoring a book about worship:  Thou Shalt Worship the Lord Thy God.  It is from this book that the following words come (and I will probably share more such words in the coming weeks; these are merely representative for today).

Man respects God because he is Love more than for any other reason.  Author Bransnett is both clear and correct when he says, “God alone is worthy of man’s utmost allegiance and most devoted love, because God alone is love absolute and without qualification, love boundless, infinite and free.”  p. 20

The book has a fine conception and structure, with major sections on “The Meaning of Worship,” The Media of Worship,” and “Vitalizing Worship.”  Some of the chapter headings, i.e., on preaching and the offering collection, betray a breadth that upholds the mistaken notion that the assembly (or the “service”) equates to worship, but others are meaningful and even more apropos of the “worship” umbrella:

• “The Object of Worship”
• “The Objectives of Worship”
• “The Inner Chamber and the Assembly of the Saints”
• “The Relationship Between Worship and Life”
• “Some Scriptural Criteria of Worship”

Also included under the heading “Worship Insights, Experiences, and Admonitions” are appendices written by each of the four children (my mother, aunt, and two uncles) and by five others.  Considered overall, the book is dated at this point, but its depth and its devotion to transcendent, well-founded worship is exemplary.  Although it is the only book my grandfather wrote per se, something tells me he would not have held it up as his crowning achievement in this life.  Rather, his legacy was, and is, the souls he ushered closer to the Lord through teaching and devoted personal evangelism, and through actual worship experiences.

Granddaddy closed the chapters in his book with rich, beautifully phrased prayers–one of the hallmarks of his words and of his life.

Eternal God, Creator of the universe,
Giver of my life, and Lover of my soul –
To see thee, even dimly, is to be dissatisfied with the littleness and meanness of myself and my fellow man;
And to see thee more is to desire more of thy holiness for myself,
That I may manifest agape toward my brother sinners;
And to see thee with clarity, for no more than a moment,
Is to know power and glory and victory.
Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Holy One, thou the loving Source,
“I give thee back the life I owe, that in thine ocean depths its flow may richer, fuller be.”
Through Jesus Christ, the living Word.