Tag Archives: Worship

Digging in: John 9 (1000)

[This is public blogpost #1000.  In this post, I'm going to attempt to merge concisely some very significant areas--exegesis, religious challenge and reform, and worship.  And then I'm going to take somewhat of a break.  This is a longish blog, but I hope you'll take the time, because there won't be any more blogs coming from me anytime soon!]

Digging In:   John 9

One of the Marvelous Happenings in the Life of Jesus

Exegetical Interpretation, Focusing on Christian Challenge/Reform and Worship
With a Timely, Eulogistic Postscript

John 9 has long been a favorite chapter, and it’s not because I memorized it as a child or because it was read at a family funeral.  This chapter is of deep impact on me because the story highlights Jesus in a way that simply won’t let me go.

While it would have been nice, I suppose, to have a true essay worked out, I would need more time for that, “living with” the text for a period of weeks or even months.  I trust that it will be beneficial to see the process of asking questions of the text, not only the reaching of conclusions.

Method  Ideally, I would start with two or more readings of the entire gospel, in different versions — perhaps one with more of a sentence-for-sentence orientation, and another, more of an expansive paraphrase.   Initially, my method was simple:  to read/refresh myself on the whole of chapter 9, and jotting questions I had while reading.  The “first pass” through chapter 9 resulted in the need for a second pass.  Within about an hour and a half total, I had approximately two pages of notes/questions.  (An irresistible 3rd pass is yielding almost as many additional questions and brought tears to my eyes, but the new material will have to wait.)  For sake of brevity — ha! — I am selecting only a portion of these questions to blogshare (to coin a term).

Book-level questions

Bypassing for the moment the typical, academic, background questions that are important but are more stock-in-trade (author, date and place of writing, audience, etc.), I ask such things as these, from a perspective that is mostly “zoomed out” on the entire gospel of John:

    • What special features can be found in John’s vocabulary and literary style?
    • Within the whole gospel, does chapter 9 constitute a bona fide pericope?  Does John use pericopes as, say, Matthew does?
    • What is the relationship of blindness and sin for John?
    • How does God the Father relate to Jesus in the narrative?  Is Jesus called “Son of Man” earlier? later? throughout? often?
    • How does John’s stated purpose (20:30-31) relate, or not, to key aspects found in this passage, such as spiritual blindness, sin, coming to faith, and worship?  How might belief in 9:35-36 be tied to the overall, stated purpose?

Smaller-context questions

Now zooming in more to the immediate context:

    • Where are we in the progression of John’s narrative when we reach the events of chapter 9?  What occurs immediately before, and immediately after?  (The answer to these questions may be singularly significant.)
    • Check 9:1-2 for chiastic structure.  (Note the three mentions of blindness.)
    • Note the various portrayals in this chapter:  disciples, Jews, neighbors, Pharisees, and the man.  (Larger question:  how is each group painted in John overall, as compared to Mark?)
    • What is the relationship of blindness and sin for each of the above people/groups?
    • Could there be a larger inclusio from 9:1-34 (“the Jews’” idea of sin as bookends)?
    • Note the relationship between eyesight and light and works, as in verse 4.
    • Is “Siloam” Aramaic?  Translation relationship to Greek “apostle”?  Any significance to be found in Jewish background there — either with the Siloam pool or with the use of the word in OT texts?  What is John saying by inserting the definition of the word?
    • Chiasm in 9:13-16 vicinity (Pharisees, had been blind, Jesus, mud ==> Sabbath, Pharisees <== mud, Jesus, see, Pharisees/Sabbath). Yes? Investigate.
    • Examine the use of “disciples” in 9:27-28 vs. its use in John overall.
    • How does the Father God figure in to this story?
      • What do “the Jews” and the Pharisees think of Him?  How do they “use” Him? (vv. 16, 24, 29)
      • What does the blind man think of Him?  (9:31, 33)
      • What could be made out of the fact that Jesus mentions God early in the story but not later?
    • Hermeneutically speaking, are questions (such as the above group) significant from both John’s and the first readers’ points of view?  Does John show any bias or agenda that his first-century readers would naturally share, or naturally be resistant to?  How is God potentially working through John to say what needs to be said?  And how do these answers affect my own point of view?
    • What is the significance of the label “Son of Man” in this particular text?  (It seems significant for John in the ultimate responsiveness of the [formerly] blind man.)  (9:35)
    • There appears to be a mirroring mini-chiasm in 9:39:  blind ==> see; see <== blind?  Do “judgment” and “guilt” complete this mini-structure?
    • Note some striking, possibly unusual, recurring, or significant vocabulary words and phrases in NASB:  blind, works of God, displayed, Light of the world, spit, seeing, eyes opened/opened my eyes (vv. 10, 13, 17, 30, 32), mud, miraculous signs, prophet, put out of the synagogue, “give glory to God,” disciples.

Musings  Some musings and commentary stem from these types of questions!

I.  In terms of challenge to the status quo and religious power structures … it seems to me that there are battles presented in this chapter — a battle of people and cliques, a battle of systems, and ultimately, a battle of and for the Kingdom.  Clearly, the Jews and the Pharisees are the “conservatives” here, resisting challenge and change — while the simple facts of the blind man’s story necessitate, on the other hand, that traditional viewpoints are challenged.

Although the connection of blindness and sin might be an easy target for preachers of sermons, one should not dive into a topical sermon that uses a snippet of John 9 without first knowing a good deal about the context(s) here.  We could not, in other words, legitimately draw any conclusions about the equation of spiritual blindness and sin without knowing more of how John the inspired writer uses and develops those ideas (or doesn’t) within the literary context.  Just as significant would be some cultural insights — related, for example, to blindness, begging, synagogue norms, Pharisees, and more.  This area, like so many others, requires more investigation.

It has long seemed to me that the parents in this story are presented as weak and sniveling.  (Textual clues gained in further investigation could bolster or counter this impression.)  Out of fear, they deflect attention and responsibility.  On the other hand, the “Pharisees” and “Jews” groups are not “weak,” but they are in some sense blind and foolish.  Note, for example, that they pronounce a cloudy half-truth regarding Jesus and the Sabbath in v. 16, and they resort to name-calling in v. 34.  The Jews in power are more interested in protecting their system than in avowing the obvious wonder that has just occurred at the hands of Jesus.  From their standpoint, 1) Jesus is a threat, and 2) the now-seeing man — although formerly negligible — may now be a threat, too.

Something that struck me 25 years ago, and still strikes me today (and here, I hope I’m not just coddling my earlier reading) is this:  the Pharisees could not even see, much less accept, the God-glorifying miracle that had obviously occurred because they were too invested in protecting their empire.  John presents unadorned facts in v. 7 (that the man “returned seeing”) and in v. 9 (that he kept saying “I am the one”).  Waxing prophetic, I would assert that the implications of the Pharisees’ stubbornness here are momentous for institutional Christendom, and for various cliques and sects.  Could the Pharisees legitimately be seen to represent some of the entrenched “clergy” of later eras?  The implicit warning echoes through the centuries:  Watch out that you’re not building your own structures, and pay attention to the work of God, or else you may be found blindly rejecting Him.

In contrast to the Pharisees and the parents stands the blind man.  I would imagine that a Jewish person reading or hearing John’s gospel would find intense irony here:  the blind man appears as largely a positive example, although he would previously have been a worthless drain on society — a mere opportunity to be seen giving alms!  Initially, the man is trusting and obedient.  He also makes an ostensibly false assumption:  that “God does not hear sinners.”  No, he doesn’t quite “get” everything about Jesus yet (no one could), but he is open, and he is coming to faith.  (Who wouldn’t be experiencing new things after having been given sight?!)  Not only can he see the ground in front of him for the first time in his life, but he is beginning to see who and what Jesus is.  An encouraging message surfaces:  that one can travel the road of discipleship, progressively coming to see more truth.

II. In terms of worship … the response seems so beautifully unfeigned and unaffected — the man simply worships, when confronted with the truths that Jesus is 1) from God and 2) able to work miracles.  (Let alone, for now, the question of the meaning of “Son of Man.”)  The antecedent worship word here is proskuneo, which

  • is not inherently a “religious” thing to do
  • means “kissing toward” as an act of homage, and implies bowing down
  • has nothing directly to do with so-called whole-life worship
  • is rather the simple act of response — by one who recognizes greatness far beyond oneself

Letting alone the so-called worship wars of our times, and jettisoning any historical connections related to liturgy/”services,” or checking off items on a list on Sunday mornings, or any other corruptions of biblical worship ideals, we see worship, pure and simple, in this text.  We see that an unconstrained person, when he observes the reality of Jesus, worships.

And that is a beautiful precedent that both instructs and compels.  Lord, may we.

~ ~ ~

Postscript

It worked out to honor my grandfather, Andy T. Ritchie Jr., by publishing my blogpost #1000 on this, the 104th anniversary of his birth.  (I even set the posting time as 19:09 CDT, the year of his birth, but this part is useless trivia.) 

Andy Thomas Ritchie, Jr., son of Andy T., Sr. and Fannie Mae Cobb Ritchie, was born and raised in the Nashville, Tenn., area.  He married Kathryn Delma Cullum in 1933; the pair had four children — Andy T. III, Edward, Bettye, and Joan.  I am #7 of 10 grandchildren, and there are 29 great-grandchildren.

Granddaddy taught music at David Lipscomb College and Bible and music at Harding College.  (Both later become universities.)  He was a concert singer who recorded an album in addition to his performing on stage and on radio.  He influenced thousands through his

  • personal conversations and correspondence
  • leadership of personal evangelism meetings and “lily pool” hymn sings on the Harding campus
  • direction of the Harding Chorus for several years
  • much-remembered classroom teaching (see here for an external mention)
  • inimitable, compelling leadership of worship  in song, and preaching — in his own congregation, and in other states
  • manner of living life

I think Granddaddy would have appreciated a good deal of what I’ve written on this blog to date, although certainly not all.  He himself wasn’t known for his writing as much as for his leadership in other veins, but he did publish articles in multiple periodicals and wrote a full-length book on worship.  I imagine that, were he alive today, he would also have expressed being inspired by John 9, and would have appreciated my exegetical efforts, along with the highlighting of the challenge of the (Jewish) status quo.  (Therein, certain goals of the Restoration Movement which influenced both of us are also highlighted.)  Granddaddy probably would have appreciated most the emphasis on the worship of God the Son, as seen in this compelling story.

Believe it or not, one of the more memorable aspects of Andy T. Ritchie, Jr., almost eluded mention until the fourth draft of this postscript.  He was severely sight-impaired for the last 20 years of his adult life, having suffered detached retinas related to diabetes, and later became legally blind.  This mention of his blindness, written after the main portion of this post, leads me to include, here, a prayer song I wrote for a family reunion some years ago.  Please take a moment to read at least the words of Lord, I Want To See.  (A sound file may be downloaded by clicking this link.)

Granddaddy entered the land of the eternally living and seeing in 1983.

Worship: spiritual, timeless, chosen

[The following is excerpted, adapted, and expanded from my reply to a reader's comment on this prior post.]

Generally, under the New Covenant, I see the trends as having moved away from the physical, toward the spiritual.  (For more, please see this post on the Old and new.)  I tend to support and resonate with emphases on the spiritual over the physical.

In the realm of worship, I did go through a phase, some years ago, in which worship needed to be more physical, but I’m not altogether sure my “need” was of the Lord.  These days, I’m more interested in what’s going on beyond the physical.  Physical manifestations of worship may not be entirely immaterial, but the seen should at least be subservient to the unseen.

Under the Old Covenant, God prescribed certain physical acts of sacrifice and priestly temple service.  Although prescribed details — or legislated specifications, if you will — are certainly present in any lucid consideration of the relationship between the divine and the human, I take some exception to an analysis based outright on prescription (either under the Old or New).  As one considers Joseph, Enoch, Abraham, David, Elijah, and others with hindsight, there seems to have been more than legislation at work as they related to God.

Based on the examples of worship in, e.g., Psalms, John, Revelation, I take stronger exception to any suggestion that all worship, as an act of the spirit and/or body, was somehow eradicated with the coming of Jesus.  The worship of believers in Jesus Christ, like immersion and basic meals and the assembly of Christians, seems to me to have been something they simply, naturally did (a lot), without the need for the apostles et al to write about it at every turn.

awesomegod

Adoring, worshipful response is natural — and, I would say, anticipated and desired and right. (Personally, I’d stop short of saying worship is “commanded” or “demanded”; I hear those words as needlessly negatively charged in this age.)  I do think God continues to seek worship of the proskuneo sort.  Note Ps 69:32, Ps 70:4, and 2 Chron 16:9.  While the “seeking” of the last verse may be understood variously, as seen in various translations, attributing to God the notion of “seeking” doesn’t for me render Him heavy-handed.  I don’t think we paint God as some sort of tyrant or egomaniacal being when we understand Him as desiring worshipful response.

Until He moves me on, I’m content with exploring the ways and means of proskuneo — because it seems good for me, and because I’m convinced it pleases God.  Worship may ultimately be pleasing to Him specifically because it is something I choose, whether I want to think of Him as asking for it or not.

Probably not merely incidentally, I take Revelation (after chapters 2 & 3) as primarily presenting a timeless picture of the eternal kingdom, and I hang some of my worship “hats” on the hooks shown in chapters 4, 5, and 19:6ff. I presume that the active proskuneo occurring there indicates that worship is a timeless assumption for the believing community.

In the meantime, I’m not at all content with my efforts or with the corporate worship I experience most often (yesterday’s prayers seemed either presentational or flaccid, and the songs rather lethargic and uncommitted) . . . but I keep trying to worship, as I believe I will eternally.

Worship: affirmation or action?

Living, glorifying, worshipping        Vertical/horizontal redux

After reading the above recent posts on worship, John, a reader from Texas, wrote, in part:

Jesus himself identifies the worship which God desires from us.  And in identifying it he contrasts it with the worship which the woman had in mind when she asked him to tell her the proper place to perform it.  . . .

Jesus . . .  stated that the time was coming, and now was, when true worship would not be performed in either of those locations but would be done in spirit and in truth.  In spirit and in truth is in contrast with the worship the woman inquired about.  The truth part rested in the nature of the sacrifice contrasted with the shadow of the truth that was represented in the woman’s worship, and also in that performed in Jerusalem.  Various animals were sacrificed. . . .  Jesus himself was the truth that those animals only represented.  The worship the woman asked about was performed by humans’ physical acts of slaying the animals and then performing the required work on them.  The worship God desired and still desires, is not physical but is spiritual.  It was done for us, by Jesus, and all we can do is accept it as being full recompense for our own sins.  The worship God desires has nothing to do with our actions.  It is not in some mysterious way related to the way we treat others or how we live daily.  It is spiritually accepting Jesus’ redeeming work as being imputed to us in place of our own soiled righteouness.

In response, I would again state up-front that a general misconception of worship has done inestimable damage to the theologies and belief systems of countless believers.  This misconception has worship a) consisting in a sequenced event/”service” and b) existing solely within the confines of a church edifice.  Worship is primarily a verb, not a noun that we go to, or sit through, waiting for others do it for us.  It is quite possible to go/attend “services” for decades without ever truly worshipping.

Certainly, I track with John (quoted above) on the radical difference Jesus was ushering in.  Yes, the location-bound model was to be eradicated:  ”in spirit” stands in contrast to “in a specific location,” i.e., Jerusalem.  But why would the “truth” aspect be encapsulated in a faith-acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice when that acceptance doesn’t involve proskuneo?  I think it is more logical to assume that “in truth” = “truly.”  In other words, worship “in truth” is not something else done or felt “in truth,” but it is still worship, with one new emphasis on genuineness or  actuality.  Truly worshipping, then, would be the same as actually worshipping.  Put yet another way:  in John 4, Jesus did not say, “No longer will the Father want worship” or “Instead of worship, the Father will now want _____.”  Rather, He said, “The Father desires worship in new/renewed ways.”

So what is this worship?  The antecedent word is “proskuneo,” and proskuneo connotes action, or at least action of the spirit (the latter may be more preferable to some, for reasons of personality preference, or for reasons of distinction from Jewish practice) in relation to God.  Bringing the theologically charged word “work” into this discussion by calling attention to “work performed” on the animals seems tenuous, but it is appropriate to draw some distinctions been New-Covenant worship and that of the Old.  Under both major covenants, though, worship is an active-verb thing that appears more closely related to adoration and homage than to mentally/spiritually affirming the Ultimate Sacrifice.

By no means do I intend here to minimize the value of the inner faith-response to our Messiah’s Sacrifice — far from it.  It could very well be that one who is spiritually affirming Jesus’ death as the finished, atoning work of God is, in fact, engaging in proskuneo of the spirit.  In other words, the vibrant human spirit in tune with God’s grace is probably energetically worshipping spiritually whether she thinks she is or not.

Here’s an additional, larger-context thought — something I learned from a deeply committed disciple who also happens to have a doctorate in missiology.  (If I had read more of John’s gospel in large chunks, i.e., more contextually, I could have picked up on this myself, because it’s not embedded very deep.  The above-quoted friend John has also alluded to it.)  Simply put, it is that, in John’s gospel, Jesus is truth.  So, worship “in truth” (John 4:24) might be, to some extent, worship “in the truth that is personified in Jesus.”  This would still seem to speak of an action, not merely a mental or spiritual acknowledgement of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Our worship — our proskuneo — could be said to be made more full, more intimate, more relationally meaningful because of the grace and truth expressed in Jesus and the New Covenant.

========
Addendum:  If I might go out on a limb here … I don’t think the worship “baby” should be thrown out with the time-clock-punching, “accuracy”-driven “worship service” bathwater of the CofC (or of any similar group).  Some of us, myself included, may be inclined toward framing worship in terms of a response to information – which would seem Campbellite (rational) in orientation.  But just because certain church groups have been incorrectly handling aspects (when they thought they had “right” worship down pat) doesn’t mean that anyone, as s/he is evolving, should shed the essence of worship.  It just means we keep trying to enact the core idea, without all the shadowy stuff from the intervening decades/centuries.

Living, glorifying, worshipping

In reference to this post on the distinction between “vertical” and “horizontal,” a longtime friend and reader wrote,

Perhaps the concept that we “go to worship” is a part of the problem.  Our life is to be “worship.”  “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” I Cor. 10:31.  Those who leave “worship” in the building and go about as though God is not their Father … well, yes, as some people say, “That is between God and me.”  That’s really The Problem — not willing to surrender to God, but lay out the guidelines according to what they want.  God will have something final to say about that.

My friend’s emphasis here — that our lives should be lived for God – is right on.  And I would agree that the conception of worship as A) a sequenced event/”service” B) in a church edifice has done inestimable damage to the theologies and belief systems of countless believers.  Worship is primarily a verb, not a noun that we go to, or sit through, as others do it for us.  We can go to the assembly for a lifetime of Sundays — and I do believe heartily in assemblies of Christians — but, sadly, it is quite possible to go/attend for decades without ever truly worshipping.

Being a disciple of Jesus — and living seven days a week for the purposes of God’s Kingdom — now that’s what it’s about.  I generally reserve the term “worship” for vertical communication with God, wherever it occurs.   But being an ambassador for God and seeking to live each hour as His child, bringing attention and glory to Him — that deserves just as much attention as vertical adoration and reverence (“worship” proper).

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

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.

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

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.

Truly

“Worship in spirit and truth.”

It’s a phrase well known, and oft-quoted.

In my particular, historical circles — and they are particular ones, despite a) the circles’ objections and b) my own developing, greater interest in being a simple, unaffiliated-but-connected, Bible-based, nondenominational, local-but-at-large Christian — the phrase has sometimes been used as a spiritual club.  I don’t think that was a good thing.  (Duh.)

What does the expression mean, though?  And what doesn’t it mean?  Examining the immediate context of the words, we might notice emphasis on location, on the relationship of physical and spiritual in general, on water and food, on Jewishness and Samaritanness, on sin, on honesty, and yes, on worship.  It seems to me that the greater point Jesus makes here is not that we must worship in spirit and truth, but that we must worship in spirit and truth. In other words, the emphasis is possibly more on the how than on the what.

But again we return to the phrase.  What does it mean?

I once laid out seven versions of John 4:24 side by side in order to show how slight variations in translation could affect how the Redeemer’s enjoinder is understood.  That helped me a little (although it’s shocking how much sameness is experienced across many versions).  A few days ago, a new version surfaced for me.  I lost the identifier, so I can’t tell you the name of the version, but try this:

God is Spirit. Those who worship him must do so in spirit and in a true way.’  (John 4 :23)

I don’t think I’ll say much about the Spirit/spirit part except to remind readers of the lack of capital letters in the original text.  It’s therefore difficult to tell whether “Spirit” or “spirit” was intended.  My suspicion is the latter, because of the contextual emphasis on physical location.

I’ll say just a little more about the “truth” part.  The “club” mentioned above is the notion that our way is the true way, and therefore, if you don’t do worship our way, you are not doing it “in truth.”  This tack is something between unjustifiably judgmental and damnable, it seems to me.  The honesty factor Jesus was dealing with in the woman he met — or maybe it’s better put in terms of genuineness, authenticity, and being “real” — leads me to think that “in truth” is better translated as above, in the mystery version.  In other words, it’s more about truly worshipping, or worshipping truly or actually, than about worshipping according to some set pattern or codified set of supposed truths.

Now, after losing any thoughts of knowing exactly how to worship, it’ll be better if you and I quit thinking about it and just do it.  Tonight, I look forward to worship.  And have actually worshipped a bit just now in writing this.

Sacrifice in God’s history

Several weeks ago, I began to write about the sacrifice in worship and promised myself that I’d continue.  This post concludes the series.  First, a few (and there are many to be found!) Bible instances of sacrifice.

Prior to the Egyptian captivity, Jacob/Israel exemplified it:

Then Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain, and called his kinsmen to the meal; and they ate the meal and spent the night on the mountain.  (Gen. 31:54)

Prior to the great exodus, the Hebrews made a request of the Egyptians that referred to their desire to sacrifice:

Then they said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please, let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God, otherwise He will fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword. (Ex. 5:3)

Something about sacrifice seems to have been calling the Hebrews spiritually. What role did sacrifice play in the Hebrew religion, and how is it, or is it not, significant for us today?

A description in Exodus 24 of a sort of high-priest-originated, ceremonial worship–which I take in contradistinction to worship of the New Covenant–has Moses sprinkling sacrificial blood on an altar and over the people.

Later in Exodus, sacrifice is dealt with in chapters 8, 10, 12, 13, 20, 23, 30, and 34.  And Leviticus and Numbers are filled with references to sacrifice.  (No surprise there.)

As the period of the judges drew to a close, could it be that sacrifice was so uncommon (only mentioned once in the book of Judges) that Elkanah’s practice was, because it was at this point atypical, worthy of note?

Now this man would go up from his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests to the LORD there.

Here, as in the Genesis account of Jacob, I notice a curiosity:  “sacrifice” apparently wasn’t total, because the humans ate the meat.  (Hannah got a double portion!)  And I wonder about this … was the element of sacrifice, of giving up something, to be more conceptual or spiritual than physical?

In 1 Sam. 15:22, Samuel warns David that it is better to obey than to sacrifice. I have to wonder whether sacrifice had lost some meaning and had become a mere salve for the conscience.  Psalm 51’s reticence (“You do not delight in sacrifice”) also deserves mention here, and in Hosea, God delights in loyalty rather than sacrifice (6:6).

Psalm 50 mentions the “sacrifice of thanksgiving.”  Was something changing in the Hebrew religion?  Or were the non-fleshy sacrifices assumed, alongside the animal ones, from the patriarchal era through the Mosaical one?

Famously, Elijah and the Baal prophets dealt with sacrifice (1 Kings 18).   In this case, if indeed the “offering” is truly to be considered a sacrifice (sarcasm and conflict drip from the parchment-paragraphs of this story!), it was completely burned up.  No humans ate the meat of the bull.

In Zephaniah 1:7, “the LORD has prepared a sacrifice.”  Strange.  Maybe this mention is metaphorical, speaking cryptically of the readiness for something to happen spiritually?  In other words, to a Jewish reader who prepared sacrifices for a spiritual purpose, perhaps ascribing such preparation to God made the mind and heart expect something to happen.

Against the backdrop of the longstanding practice of Hebrew sacrifice appear Romans 12:1 and the whole of the Hebrews letter.  Jesus offered Himself as the once-for-all sacrifice (Heb. 10:12), and there are implications for our lives (Heb. 10:26).  Our “sacrifice,” metaphorically speaking and according to the writer of Hebrews, is the sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15, and cf. Psalm 50, above).  The blood-symbolism is complete in Christ, and the need for repeated physical sacrifices is no more.

Paul personally exemplifies self-denial (e.g., Philippians 2:17; 3:7-8; 2 Timothy 4:6), and this seems related to personal sacrifice.  After extensive treatment in the Romans letter of the Old way, which masterfully concludes with more discussion of the relationship between Jew and non-Jew, Paul doxologizes God and follows with this passage, which does not speak of worship per se, but which does speak articulately about the wholly devoted, sacrificial Christian life.

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is, logically/rationally speaking and by extension, your way to serve God.

A song I learned at camp asked this of ourselves:  “Would you be poured out like wine upon the altar for me?  Would you be broken like bread to feed the hungry?”  Immature, we sang these words, and some of us even thought about them for a few moments, maybe … but never really changing.  As much as we might “understand” sacrificed life, it strikes me squarely that no one I’ve ever known really lives it out.

It seems that the primary New Covenant sacrifice is just this–the devoted life, “offered” acceptably to God.  This type of sacrifice, of course, creates much less mess than knifing lambs and bulls and putting them on the fire … but the wholly sacrificed life is much more likely to go unattended to.  We may live three-quarters of a century of a Christian life without ever really being poured out … offered … laid down on the altar, as it were.

I make no claim to having given sufficient treatment to Old Covenant sacrifice.  I merely suggest that there were a lot of sacrifices back then, and that sacrifice also plays an important role in the New Covenant, although it is now sans specially designated priests and blood and physical altars and such.  Now, it appears to me that I am “called” by Jesus’ transcending sacrifice to do two things in response:

  1. “sacrifice” my spirit in worship and praise, vertically “loving God,” as it were
  2. consider my whole self to be “sacrificed” in life, serving others — and, by extension, serving God

In other words, 1. love the Lord my God, and 2. love my neighbor.

Whole-life worship–an unhelpful concept (2)

Beyond the practical considerations discussed yesterday, there are also exegetical and doctrinal reasons to steer at least one lane away from “whole life worship” ideas.

I discovered this helpful passage from a somewhat unlikely source–a southern CofC bulletin that quoted the Gospel Advocate:

… much discussion has taken place about something called whole-life worship.  Perhaps you have heard some describe the daily walk of a Christian as worship.  What follows this description is an emphasis, which is correct in and of itself, on the spiritual sacrifice of living a godly life.  Nothing could be closer to God’s will for man than to live our lives in such a way that everything we do in word or in deed is in the name of the Lord.  We should live our lives in such a way that Christ — not ourselves — is seen in us (Galatians 2:20).  Worship, either private or corporate, is not something that encompasses one’s whole life but is a specific spiritual event, an event with specific instructions to govern its observance and uniquely identified from all other activities and events of Christian life.

The misunderstanding comes with the mistranslation of some key scriptures in this discussion.  The New International Version, for instance, translates the Greek word latreuo as “worship” in Romans 12:1.  By this rendering, it would appear that the day-to-day service to God is, in fact, worship.  Nothing could be further from the true meaning of this text. . . .

Christian life includes worship and service, and it’s not as though the two are unrelated, but the concepts are distinct.  If we begin to think of our service as our worship, we forget what worship is.  The converse is also true:  if we begin to think of our worship as the sum of our Christian existence, we may effectively ignore the essence of living.

Personally, I need to attain to higher levels of devoted living and service to others.  Shoot—here in my own home, I can be a louse sometimes.  But even when I am at my husbandly and fatherly and householderly best, giving my words and actions to Jesus and being sacrificial and such, I may not be worshipping, nor need I be.  Worship is something else, and it is something not discussed directly in Romans 12.  No, this passage deals with living—with the sacrificed living that becomes, in an utterly significant sense, worship-with-quote-marks.  And in order to begin to grasp what the sacrificed Christian life is, I need to understand more of the history of sacrifice in the predecessing Jewish religion.

This historical antecedent is precisely what I’ve been procrastinating about, because the territory is so unfamiliar to me.  Whenever I work up the courage, a few Old Covenant passages will merit mention!

Whole-life worship–an unhelpful concept (1)

Introduced by a well-meaning young believer to some of David Crowder’s thoughts, I was recently reminded of how common the “whole-life worship” idea is.  It has been assumed and/or advanced by countless Christian songwriters and authors, and is pervasive—not only in pop Christian culture, but also in some more reputable, and perhaps dated, Christian writers.  A 1990 work of J.I. Packer, and his reference to Puritan interpretation, is referred to in this clearly well-intended, although overstated and often misstated, sermon transcript that I found in a quick search.

Another example:  Mike Root’s Spilt Grape Juice, a 1993 look at the assembly, is one I believed to have traveled the no-worship, all-horizontal path.  I never read it, but here, a reviewer differs with Root “on the subject of Godward, vertical praise being abrogated in the New Testament.”  The reviewer acknowledges that “Worship in all of life” is Root’s mantra and demurs, as I would.

It’s not as though whole-life worship is a bad idea, in essence, but two aspects cause me to take exception to its ramifications.  First, speaking from a pragmatic, realistic point of view, the notion of giving oneself wholly to God at every moment is, at best, captivating but unattainable.  I’m reminded of a most respected brother who, in a Christian musical enterprise in which we shared, was reluctant to arrange the Avalon song “Testify To Love” that used over-the-top expressions such as “with every breath I take I will testify to love.”  (Later, he politely gave in to filial pressure and did arrange it, but that’s beside the point.)  These kinds of thoughts call us higher; on the other hand, they can depress us even as they expound on lofty, unattainable ideals.

For every women’s conference that encourages sisters to look at all the dishes and consider that each one washed is an act of worship … for every Promise Keepers “totally sold out” and “go all out for God (and your wife and kids)” event … for every youth function that has featured speakers encouraging youth to do every single thing for the glory of God, we could find 99 believers who’ve been inspired and then have nearly expired trying to live up to all that.  Again, it’s a great idea, and one to which God seems to want us to aspire (but not to attain fully)—or else Rom. 12:1-2 and Col. 3:17 and 1 Cor. 10:31, etc., wouldn’t have been scribed.  Essentially the “everything for God’s glory” as a raison d’etre is a high, worthy calling, but it is ultimately frustrating for us sinners, and it does not quite touch the actual idea of worship.

While I believe that (vertical) worship must not be confined to the assembly but, rather, should surface regularly—i.e., on all days of the week in the heart and voice of the Christian—considering every deed to be Christian worship is neither logically warranted nor helpful.  This idea has the potential to leave many in its idealistic wake, and it also obscures the meaning of certain passages such as Romans 12:1.  For more, please check yesterday’s post and the one before that, and …

Please continue with me tomorrow.

Logikan latreian as worship (Romans 12)

Moving ahead from here, let’s think next about the translation of a key phrase in Romans 12:1.  Whatever the living sacrifice is or does, Paul says it becomes something.

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God [because of all that God has done for you], that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.” (NKJV)

The NKJV translation chosen by Cottrill in his post renders the Greek logikan latreian as “reasonable service.”  Now, words are just words—concepts are more important—but words are still worth pursuing, and I question “reasonable.”  The way I read it, “reasonable” is a downgrade of “logical.”  In other words, “logical,” a more literal translation, would have constituted a more firm rendering.  However, either “reasonable service” or “logical service” clearly improves on the more commonly heard “spiritual worship”:  the term “spiritual” is as vague today as it is ubiquitous, and to use it in this passage is at best wispy, and at worst misleading.

By “wispy” I mean to imply that the idea that everything is worship unhelpfully ethereal (ethereally unhelpful?); in the use of “misleading,” I’m suggesting that this idea may lead us away from Paul’s inspired intent.  The idea that the presentation of the Christian’s body is the sum total of “spiritual worship” weakens both the philosophy and the reality of Christian worship.

Here are a few varying translations of the expression at the end of Romans 12:1, with my commentary on the right.

NET, KJV, NKJV:  … which is your reasonable service “Reasonable” is close enough to “logical” to be a reasonable approximation!
ESV:  … which is your spiritual worship To the 21C mind, “spiritual” can suggest something Eastern and transcendental.  Worse, the New Covenant word-concept “spiritual” is absent from this text.
NIV:  This is your spiritual act of worship The rendering “spiritual act” compels me, I’ll admit, but see above comment on the word “spiritual.”  The NIV does better than the NASB with this phrase, implying the very sort of morphing from physical to spiritual that I infer from Paul.  I think he was suggesting that the Christian’s life-service (sacrifice) becomes, in a way, “worship.”  Also see comment on the BBE version below.
NLT:  This is truly the way to worship him The NLT translators often play fast and loose with texts in order to make things sound contemporary.  This is no exception.  This translation is no translation at all; in my opinion, it’s an ill-begotten, ill-fated, dynamic non-equivalent!
BBE:  … which is the worship it is right for you to give him The Bible in Basic English is a translation I’m not familiar with, so I looked up a few passages.  it seems to do a pretty good job, in general, but this rendering, not unlike that of the NLT, is too loose for a Bible that purports to be a translation.  It’s more of a commentating paraphrase.  I don’t disagree with the import here, although I would add quotes around the word “worship,” but it’s nowhere near translation status:  “it is right for you to give him” doesn’t appear in the text at all.
NASB:  … which is your spiritual service of worship Although I’m typically a champion of the NASB in terms of its literal renderings and careful translations, I think the Lockman Foundation missed the mark on two and one-half fronts here.  Again, “spiritual” is not in this text at all.  “Service” is, but “service of worship” would at a glance imply the presence of two words, and the single word is latreian. While “service” is a reasonable single-word translation of the Greek, it is not altogether sufficient to convey the concept, which may be why the NASB translators felt the need to take a further step in English.  Unfortunately, they chose an institutionalized church-ese expression ne’er found or implied in the NC scriptures:  “service of worship.”  Brethren and cistern, there is no such Biblical animal as a “service of worship.”  Translating to match the institutional status quo makes the NASB guys no better than ol’ King James’s men.

Next:  back to the beginning—looking at the idea of whole-life worship and sacrifice

Sacrifice in worship (Romans 12)

Several weeks ago, I began to write about the sacrifice in worship and promised (myself more than you) that I’d continue from where I’d left off.

The notion of religious sacrifice is many-faceted and possesses a long history.  I don’t claim any real handle on it, not adhering to the predecessing Jewish religion that makes a practice of bloody sacrifices, not having ever offered a single such sacrifice, and not having pursued the matter with any sort of scholarly bent.  (Cults, spiritist religions of the third-world, and satanic religion also sometimes include sacrifice, but that’s more than a little afield.)  Considering the idea of sacrificed in worship seems worthwhile because of its frequent appearance in scripture, if for no other reason.

A blogger on hymns and Christian songs, writing about “Trust and Obey,” recently wrote about giving one’s entire life as a “sacrifice”:

The Christian life involves daily faith and obedience, exercised in many different situations. But there is an underlying commitment that provides a foundation for this. The Apostle Paul talks about it in Romans 12:1.

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God [because of all that God has done for you], that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.”

The Greek verb tense for “present” indicates it’s to be a once-for-all action. We are to yield ourselves to God as “living sacrifices,” forever and for all. That is what [the author] is referring to in [st. 4] of our hymn, when he says, “We never can prove the delights of His love / Until all on the altar we lay.” Then, hundreds of daily acts of faith and obedience grow out of that, as described in [st. 5].

– Robert Cottrill, http://wordwisehymns.com/2011/03/28/trust-and-obey/

In attempting to be circumspect about the Christian life, it’s helpful to apprehend Cottrill’s words on the Greek tense of the word “present”:  a welcome freedom comes from not having to devise some way that every keystroke, every dish rinsed, every word, every mile driven, every test graded, every tooth brushed, and every bit of garbage carried to the curb is “worship.”  Not to denigrate any of those actions!  They are part and parcel of life, and the Christian believer’s life is no more lofty than anyone else’s.  We need to have our heads in heaven but our feet on the earth, as someone has said.[1]

Yet some days, it’s easier to think of more of my actions as sacrifice and as “worship” than others; whether you resonate with me on this or not, this very idea of sacrifice—whether it’s to be thought of as once-for-all or as continuous and all-pervading—is something to be contended with . . . in due time.

Next, somewhat out of order, I’ll peer into what the sacrifice becomes, in God’s eyes.

[1] The saying is attributed to Benedict and/or Augustine (whom I respectfully refuse to call “saint,” because that would imply a special status for them) and reappropriated by many over the years.

Is there sacrifice in worship?

“Lord of all, to Thee we raise this, our sacrifice of praise.”

So proclaims the “refrain” to an otherwise hymnic[1] song familiar to many in various evangelical traditions:  “For the Beauty of the Earth.”  I probably sang it a hundred times in my growing-up years and with the dawning of adulthood began to wonder what “sacrifice” implied.  I still sing the song sometimes and am planning to sing it again on Saturday, so I thought it was high time I probed its meaning a little more than I have previously.

“We bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord.”

That’s half of the text of a more contemporary song—probably 30 years old now—composed by Kirk Dearman in the not-so-grand tradition of “24/7” songs that have about 24 words repeated 7 times.  The music didn’t strike me as particularly sacrificial or meditative when I first heard it, and it still doesn’t.  It’s one of those opening songs that takes little effort and can be used to “sing ‘em in” (until you can get ‘em all quieted down for those ever-important announcements . . . you know).

I’ve never really explored thoroughly the notion of the sacrifice involved in praise, but I think it deserves a little thought—not because songs sometimes use the phrase or deal with the idea, but because sacrifice in worship or praise seems to be a concept found in scripture.

First, there’s the entire Old-Covenant sacrificial system.  I don’t know about you, but when I hear the word “sacrifice,” I don’t think immediately of the loss caused to a household, or of the messy blood of a goat or a lamb.  Through the centuries, the notion of “sacrifice” has been sanitized, but back when the practice was begun, it was no church ceremony.

The inspired writer of the letter to the Hebrews exhorts,

Through Him, then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God—that is, the fruit of our lips—acknowledging his name. And do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for God is pleased with such sacrifices.

In these two short “verses” (13:15-16), we have received two reasons—and in the NEW Covenant, no less!—to relate praise (Gk. αινεσεως / aineseos, sometimes translated “thank-offering) and sacrifice (here, Gk. θυσια / thysia). Sacrifice, I have just learned, may also be translated “victim.”  The lamb or other animal-offering of the Old Covenant, then, was the victim/sacrifice; these instructions to a group of Jewish Christians of the first century seem to carry forward, in some respect, the idea of sacrifice . . . transmuting the old notion into something more appropriate under the New Covenant.

And so I would ask myself and all of us Christian believers this question:  what is it that we are sacrificing when we praise?  What is our “victim”?

Soon:  Romans 12 sacrifice, and more

[1] By definition, the presence of a refrain or chorus musically categorizes a song as other than “hymn.”

Worship–ritual v. relationship

“Relationship.”  An overused word in our time, perhaps.  Yet it can scuff at the root of what life — both temporal and eternal — is about.  When considered in juxtaposition with ritual in the context of worship, relationship may be even more crucial.

Brad Carman, a preacher in Delaware, wrote this for his bulletin recently, springing out of Heb. 9:1-5:

In these opening passages, the author briefly takes his readers into the highly ritualized worship of the Jewish Tabernacle. . . .

. . . Almost everyone still has some rituals in his/her life and worship. (We sit in the same pew, order the same foods, sing the same songs, etc.) But more importantly, these rituals of Tabernacle worship serve a valuable purpose as summary of the first covenant God made with His people. They describe a system in which a Holy God is inaccessible to His people except through a series of sacrifices made by High Priest for himself and the people he represents. Sin has separated us from God and the idea of an intimate relationship with a Holy God is unthinkable under such a system.

That all changed when Christ came and ushered in a new and better covenant with God. This new covenant still involved a blood sacrifice but this offering was the blood of the Son of God, delivered to the eternal dwelling place of God. As our High Priest, he continually dwells in God’s presence providing us an opportunity for an intimate relationship.

In a recent interchange with Alan Knox on his blog, I found a thoughtful person with more time and careful insights than I:  he appropriately, kindly challenged several of my hastily penned comments.  Yet I continue to believe his understanding of the relationship of  worship and service is a trifle flawed.  (I know, I know — whose understanding isn’t flawed?  But this topic is important to me beyond most other things of the Lord, and most of the Christian world has gotten it so wrong.)

Brad’s comments above show something I concur with, believing it is significant:  a fundamental difference between Jewish and Christian worship lies in the difference between the “series of sacrifices” to which Brad refers above on the one hand, and the spiritual attitude of reverence, adoration, and homage on the other.

Under the New System, worship may must not be confined to ritual acts.  Rather, our worship of God is based on a more intimate (can anyone say “Incarnation” and not think there’s a different approach to God now?!) relationship.  Latreuo is the Greek word that appears to refer, more often than not, to the former, Jewish rituals (≈things done) and is found in Romans 12:2; proskuneo is the word that renders the attitude of obeisance, homage, reverential adoration (John 4, Revelation 4-5).  Hebrews 13:15-16 nicely sets these two word-concepts together, simultaneously differentiating and relating the two.

The above paragraph is an oversimplification, but I present it for thought and comment nonetheless.

[Coming soon ... I've been thinking a lot about worship recently, spurred by Alan's blog and various other stimuli.  I'm preparing a post on the notion of sacrifice in worship, and if you have any thoughts to contribute in advance, I'd love to see them.]

MM: Father of Mercies

I sit down this morning to write a Monday Music installment, a series I’ve happily been writing for half a year.  I’m wondering which song I should choose of the two that arose in my heart within the last couple of days.

I heard the first on a CD as we were driving, and I was struck anew with the worship-depth of the words.  The other was in sung in real-life worship with a house church we visited on Sunday.  The first was more of a left-brain experience, and the latter created more of an emotional response within.  On principle, I’ll share a few thoughts about the first one first.

There was far too little worship content in the hymnals I grew up associated with.  The one my church used had more worship and praise music than the hymnals I would see when visiting churches in rural southern congregations, but even our hymnal was impoverished, in my opinion.  These days, the few printed hymnals and song book supplements tend to have more worship content—due in part to the leading of the contemporary worship movement.  There simply is more God-focused music than there used to be, and that’s a good thing.  Gone are the days of filling an entire Sunday with evangelistic fervor material from camp meetings of the 1800s and early 1900s.  Some churches still feed on too many (sometimes misdirected) songs about heaven.

In thinking about all this, I’ve decided to revisit the “Song Book Surveys” I worked on and published in Principally Proskuneo some years ago.  But for now, I’ll take the middle way between analysis and heartfelt emotion, sharing a song that is a true hymn . . . a song that isn’t sung as much as it should be . . . a song that was on a special list my parents shared before they were married . . . a song that adores and worships the God that provides every good thing.[1]

Father of mercies, day by day my love to Thee grows more and more;
Thy gifts are strewn upon my way like sands upon the great seashore
(like sands upon the great seashore).

Father of mercies, God of love, Whose gentle gifts all creatures share,
The rolling seasons, as they move, proclaim to all Thy constant care
(proclaim to all Thy constant care).

Father of mercies, may our hearts ne’er overlook Thy bounteous care;
But what our Father’s hand imparts still own in grateful praise and prayer
(still own in grateful praise and prayer).

What joyful adoration.  What prayerful worship of the God Who provides.   My spirit is captivated by the awe-filled recognition of God’s works.  He is the One.  He is always the One.  May our hearts … strike that … may my heart never overlook Your constant care.

[1] It might be noted that another song by this same title exists—one whose first stanza uses the same words that my song’s second stanza uses.

Ekklesia values 10 (community)

An old friend wrote about community and relationship, as they relate to worship:

This is the very essence of what Jesus was trying to teach his disciples and all of us during his time on this earth.

It’s about relationship and community. He lived in community with 12 and taught them what community was all about. Our worship to our God and Savior is made perfect when living in community and when experienced in community.

The evil one continues to wage war as he has convinced us that “bigger is better” and we’ve moved towards the megachurch model, and as we purchase real-estate and tie up his funds in things that don’t meet community needs. Heaven on earth is experienced and accomplished in community–which at its core is all about deep, unconditionally loving, forgiving, serving, joy filled, God-praising relationships. – Dirk Smith (adapted)

This could really stand on its own … but, being by nature a verbal individual, I am impelled to comment a bit. :-) First on real estate: I do not stand aghast at churches that own real estate. But I do seriously question the ubiquity of property mortgages. It should not be an assumption that a stable, normal church must own land and a building. It just isn’t necessary. I have been offended by the nature of some buildings (mostly in the South, where we used to be “on the other side of the tracks but where we now have something to prove), and by church office remodelings, and fancy this and extravagant that.

It’s not that owning property is patently wrong, but it does seem to me that spending 80+% of a church’s available funds on property and staff salaries — a “normal” percentage in my experience — is sad. I think it’s quite possible, even in the western world, to have a church without much expense. Put more definitively: it’s possible to have a church without owning property. Renting or borrowing spaces for meetings may not be the easiest option when you’re a full-blown institution with habits and patterns that demand specific types of spaces, but if the church is small and/or doesn’t demand classroom space and a kitchen, there are lots of places that aren’t used on Sundays that could be available. Rent a movie theater or a corporate conference room . . . or even a school that would allow use of a few classrooms! It’s a win-win (well, except for the tax base of your county). The school in your community gets more money, you spend less, and existing facilities are used. Now, on to what should eclipse capital expenditures. . . .

In terms of relationships in church, I feel impoverished and have felt so for most of my life. I speak both of the vertical and the horizontal. Oh, there have been hints of riches. Glimpses of glory. Peeks into perfection. Isolated experiences have caused me to know when I am experiencing worship in community. But these have been only isolated experiences. Never for a sustained time have I been in a church in which I was regularly caught up in worship of the Almighty (or lost in edification of the saints, for that matter). We’re not talking about the checklist mentality that says we’ve “done” the “five acts” of worship; therefore, we’re good for this week. No, we’re talking about genuine, spirit-to-spirit corporate worship.

Some would say my standards are too high, or I’m unrealistic, or something. Others would say I’m too critical. In a sense, they’re all right. But I want more than churches have ever helped to provide for me, to date. I crave more.

It is my convicted testimony–based more on intuition and isolated experiences than on logical proposition–that never does a more edified state exist than when Christians worship together. Put another way: horizontal fulfillments arise best and most compellingly out of vertically connected spirits.

Above all other values, God helping me, “my church” will be a worshipping church, and the worshipping will occur in relational community.

~ ~ ~

P.S. Part of me would have preferred to end this series on church values on a Sunday. Perhaps, poetic purpose would have been better served. But church must not only be considered to exist on Sundays. And, second, maybe those of you who read this on Saturday will yearn more on Sunday . . . and will be more integral in creating more of an atmosphere of worship where you are.

Ekklesia values 8a (worship and the assembly)

I’ve said so much about these things over the years that I’m almost afraid to say much of anything here, for fear that I’ll not make any sense to someone who reads my thoughts for the first time.  I think I’ll just let these particular church values stand uncommented-on, for the most part.  In terms of worship and the Christian assembly, my church will be found

==> Valuing proskuneo (worship) and one-another care over ceremony

It will, therefore, be relationally vertical and horizontal–in that order–and it will not emphasize liturgical patterns.

Since music has for so long been a part of believers’ worship, and since it is integral in most Christian churches’ assemblies, music warrants a special comment.  My church’s music will

  • be pure and simple . . . various types and styles
  • have music subservient to lyrics
  • be either acappella or acoustically accompanied, without many “trappings” of larger-scale sonic offerings

I don’t wish to suggest that this is the only way church music can be acceptable to God, nor are these absolutes.  Variety provides spice.  For me and my family, though, the above items represent the modes of choice.

MM: I Behold You

[The "MM" initials are not intended to betray my fondness for the little chocolates with the candy coating. They stand for "Monday Music"; I've been endeavoring to post on Mondays on the lyrics of hymns and other worthwhile Christian songs.]

First today, a couple of presumptions:

  1. That because a certain someone — who typically doesn’t appreciate much of what I am and do — found inspiration worthy of deep compliment in this hymn of mine, it might actually be good
  2. That anything I’ve written might stand alongside some of the great hymns I’ve included in this Monday series, to date

Since my teen years, I have wanted to write hymns and songs of worship. I have written quite a few, but most are not all that good. I may like them, but I have to admit that there’s limited use for most of what I’ve written. In a few cases, there’s a sort of mismatch between intense content and musical style. In others, there’s mediocre poetry or overwrought music. I was once fairly prolific, but never all that good a songwriter. All this is to set up the offering of this hymn, which is easily among my 10 best, and probably in my top 3:

I behold You, my Lord and my King.
In You, Jesus, I find ev’rything
And now truly my worship I bring
To You and unto You sing.

For in You, Lord, the Father is shown.
Thru You, marvelous grace is made known.
You stand radiant at His wondrous throne;
I bow and call You my own.

In beholding the glorious Son,
My eyes see the Magnificent One,
And His splendor, as bright as the Sun,
Reveals me: I am undone.

So now humbly I see Him anew.
I’m drawn near by the soul-stirring view
Of God. Father, my spirit renew.
In wonder I worship You.

Recently I’ve been reminded of an unpleasant reality: that I am simply not experiencing enough quality times of worship. For multiple reasons, not the least of which is my schedule in the last couple of months, whether in private or in the assembly of various Christian groups, I find myself drained more than brimming with inspired adoration. I wrote “I Behold You” more than 10 years ago, and I can’t remember whether it arose out of being lost in personal worship (as I’d wish) or not. I think rather that it came out of a heart’s desire to write a good hymn, and then out of a certain craft that led me to one of the mountaintop worship texts in all of scripture (Isaiah 6). Whatever the specific origin, I’m pleased to have honored the Son and the Father in these words, and also pleased that it was recorded by the Harding A Cappella Chorus Alumni Reunion a few years ago.

And it is still my heart’s desire that I would see Him anew, be drawn by the view of God the Father that Jesus the Christ provides, and worship in wonder. Amen.