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

Whichever, revisited

In this recent post, I queried readers about the order of things in the assembly.  The lack of response is just one indicator of the relative unimportance of this topic!

Yet there’s apparently a school of thought that is particularly suggesting one order for the end:  “close with prose,” I’m told they say, meaning a song should not be the last thing done together (and I suppose John Milton or Edgar Allan Poe or the Psalms should not be read, either).

Part of me thinks it’s amusing that anyone thinks one way of ending a Christian assembly is inherently better than the other.  Christian history aside–and remember, the rankest apostasy occurred within the first couple of centuries after Jesus’ ascension–after all, there is no order specified in the scriptures.  Robert Webber disciples and “history of Christian worship” students can study all they want, and I may have some interest in their findings, but when all is said and done in that field of inquiry, there’s no inherent conceptual weight.  Nothing that was done in the 4th and 5th centuries, that was or wasn’t done in the 15th or the 19th, and is or isn’t currently a fad, has any bearing on my thinking and practice in the arena of Christian worship if it cannot be directly tied to scripture and scriptural theology.

So, while some of the “close with prose” type of thinking is amusing, I also readily acknowledged that long-ingrained habits dull the senses, and suggesting that closing with comments from a leader is probably a good idea, because it’s different and can unify the body in a different way.  If you please, though, let these comments not come from the preacher — that just exacerbates the idea that he is in charge of everything — comments should be from a shepherd/elder or other leader, or perhaps spontaneous comments “from the floor.”

Ekklesia values 4 (labels 2)

Building on yesterday’s introduction to labels as they apply to my ideal church, I refer again to a set of descriptors that found its way into my “Ekklesia Values” document:

==> Carefully progressive yet ancient, both modern and postmodern, conservative yet liberal, traditional yet contemporary, primitivist but not off-puttingly so, and emerging

Robert Webber’s book Ancient-Future Faith carries a title (and subtitle) that strangely appeals to me. I like the bi-temporal reference very much, so my ideal church will look backward and forward.

Years ago, Marianne, an art teacher from Texas, she said she was from a “conservative” or “anti” church background … but that “they preferred the term ‘sound,’” as in sound doctrine. Isn’t that revealing? We may use one label in one context, but choose another one in another context, acknowledging that a label has different meanings.

Depends on my surroundings whether I say I’m “conservative” or “liberal.” And it depends even more on the question at hand. In terms of congregational issues, I’m pretty liberal in the minds of some. But in the realm of scriptural authority, I’m a whole lot more conservative than many self-designated conservatives would even understand. What this means to me is that I’m more likely to attempt appeal to the scriptures circumspectly for my rationales, whereas “they” are more likely to appeal to the scriptures shallowly, not realizing how much tradition plays a role in their thinking. Although I may change labels based on my context, I don’t really think I’m chameleonic; it’s more of a decision to probe and cause people to think … more of a recognition of different understandings.

In terms of contemporary vs. traditional mores, I probably currently lean a little more toward the “traditional” than most that I associate with closely … but we’re not that different, really. Some who think they’re “contemporary” probably aren’t as much so as they think. This paragraph is not all about music style, by the by.  Many things about a church can reveal stylistic leanings, from Bible version to method of announcements to decorations.  For me, style takes a back seat to content, anyway.

I like the “progressive” ideal and prefer it to “liberal,” which is just an ugly label in the ears of most Bible-believing Christians. Yet progress shouldn’t be seen as denying appeal to the past. “Progressive” should imply at least some respect for the past. It just means in motion, forward.

Regression, on the other hand, cannot be present in church. In music, we have chord progressions and chord regression or retrogression. The latter category is not often considered, but it does exist in common-practice harmony. I’m not sure what a retrogressive Christian looks like, but I don’t think I want to be one. :-) I should be historically aware, and I should learn from devoted Christians of the past, but that doesn’t preclude me from progressing.

I do like the term “primitivist” and have used it in the past year–mostly after reading a good deal of a book by Richard Hughes. But I would not want to be associated with the primitivists who shun all modern conveniences or who require some ancient form of dress. In my mind, these manifestations of primitivism are needlessly off-putting. For me to hold the ideal of primitivism close to my heart means not a lot more than “going back to the original intent.”

I suppose I should close this fairly long installment with commentary on the labels “emerging” and “emergent.” Nah, maybe not. I still don’t know enough about what those terms imply in the evangelical world(s). I like to think of myself as part of something “on the cusp,” something “happenin’,” but “emerging” seems to be a double-edged sword, so I’m rethinking using that term.

In the final analysis, I should probably concern myself less with labels–although they can be helpful in conversations and considerations. I should concern myself more with worshipping and studying and praying more, and with being more what I should be in my corner of the world.