Several years ago a prominent church growth expert from Nashville told me that the Old Testament does not matter anymore to the New Testament Church. What an amazing statement. His low regard for O.T. Scripture is far from an anomaly. It seems that the pragmatic church of relevant application is attracted to the easily apprehended aspects of Scripture more than the demanding "in depth" stuff. Exploring the recesses of shadowy Hebrew texts is untenable compared to the handy "how to" or "do and don't" lists found in the Pauline epistles. If we are looking for "self help" material in the Scriptures, there is good information to be found there. But, the Scriptures contain a depth that few who are content scratching the surface ever find.
I have suggested previously that the commentaries written by the Fathers of the Early Church may serve as a key to correct interpretation of the Scriptures. I further offered that the Tradition of the Church, commended by Paul, is also important in this regard. Allow me to suggest another Early Church method for understanding the sacred texts. St. Augustine claimed that "the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old is fulfilled in the New." In other words, one may best read the Scriptures with both Testaments opened. While on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24), Jesus utilized this very technique in teaching His confused companions. "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." As He shared from the Old Testament, they began to understand the New Testament unfolding all around them...and their hearts "burned within them."
Utilizing this method to unlock the riches of God's plan of salvation history reveals many instances of foreshadowing, prefiguring, or "typology". Theologian and educator Scott Hahn describes a type as, "..a real person, place, thing, or event in the Old Testament that foreshadows something greater in the New Testament."
My next few articles will deal with some of the major typologies found in the the Old Testament that find their fulfillment in the New. What typologies have you found in your studies? Do you find this discipline of Scriptural interpretation valuable in your understanding of God's Word? I am looking forward to your input!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
If It's New Can It Be True?
Orthodoxy has been described as “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by everyone.” This generalization attempts to describe core beliefs as those which have always existed and have received universal acceptance as being authentic. This is a standard I have embraced. Stuart G. Hall suggests in his book, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, that this is not true, but that orthodoxy is ever morphing and developing – coping with changing cultures and ecclesial variables. This understanding of orthodoxy is not unlike the debate over the Constitution of the United States. Constructionists believe the founders knew what they meant and codified it. Progressives believe the Constitution is an adapting, ever-changing document that allows for the evolution of the culture. Christians are taught to build our “house upon the Rock.” If the rock is forever changing and adapting, doesn't that sound a lot like sand?
One of the reasons I am drawn to the Early Church is revealed in the analogy that “the water is always purest near the source.” Those who learned from the Apostles (who learned from Jesus), have the advantage of “hermeneutical proximity.” As Paul indicated in his first letter to the Corinthians, “For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you…” Truth, taught by the Lord, has been handed down from generation to generation. Ostensibly, it should be preserved in a pristine state so as not to pollute its purity. I believe this is vital if our children and their children are to understand the Truth.
Further, the Scriptures teach us that there is “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, it would seem reasonable that His Truth would also be unchanging. And this Truth should be discernible from the beginning. Later developments are valid if they deal with clarification, not new doctrine. Christianities' belief in the Trinity is a good example of this kind of later focus on an early teaching. Conversely, Joseph Smith claims to have received a special dispensation from the Lord. His reception of a new orthodoxy should be highly suspected by those who embrace the concept that orthodoxy has been believed “everywhere, always and by everyone.” If a doctrine can not be found in the teachings of the Scriptures and the early church, it must be called into question.
Can you think of any doctrines that have developed relatively recently? Zwinglian “memorialism” comes to mind. But, there must be others. What are we to do with later developing theological concepts? These are the questions that keep me up late writing articles. What do you think about all of this?
One of the reasons I am drawn to the Early Church is revealed in the analogy that “the water is always purest near the source.” Those who learned from the Apostles (who learned from Jesus), have the advantage of “hermeneutical proximity.” As Paul indicated in his first letter to the Corinthians, “For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you…” Truth, taught by the Lord, has been handed down from generation to generation. Ostensibly, it should be preserved in a pristine state so as not to pollute its purity. I believe this is vital if our children and their children are to understand the Truth.
Further, the Scriptures teach us that there is “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…” If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, it would seem reasonable that His Truth would also be unchanging. And this Truth should be discernible from the beginning. Later developments are valid if they deal with clarification, not new doctrine. Christianities' belief in the Trinity is a good example of this kind of later focus on an early teaching. Conversely, Joseph Smith claims to have received a special dispensation from the Lord. His reception of a new orthodoxy should be highly suspected by those who embrace the concept that orthodoxy has been believed “everywhere, always and by everyone.” If a doctrine can not be found in the teachings of the Scriptures and the early church, it must be called into question.
Can you think of any doctrines that have developed relatively recently? Zwinglian “memorialism” comes to mind. But, there must be others. What are we to do with later developing theological concepts? These are the questions that keep me up late writing articles. What do you think about all of this?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Wanted: Wiser Words for Worship
Bruce Leafblad, prominent author, clinician and professor of worship has made a startling assertion. Meeting with a group of ministers of music at a national seminar, Leafblad said, “Many… definitions of worship come from (recent) tradition rather than serious Bible study, resulting in gatherings of Christians who really don’t know what worship is.” He further suggested, “People don’t know what (worship) is because we leaders don’t know what it is.” This has led to many congregations calling anything and everything “worship”. Our inability to define worship may be from a lack of instruction. But, it may also come from the Scriptures themselves.
Defining worship is a daunting challenge. If ten Christians are asked to give a definition for worship, each respondent is liable to give a different answer. This is understandable for many reasons. A contributing factor may be the complexity of worship as it is presented in the Scriptures. According to author and scholar Richard Leonard, “The Hebrew Scriptures, especially the Psalms employ a rich vocabulary of words denoting acts and features of worship. There is no general term for ‘worship’ in the Old Testament. Instead, many words are used.” Leonard has prepared a listing of words pertaining to worship from the Hebrew texts. They include many general terms, words for assemblies and festivals, words regarding movements and gestures, words for praise and acclamation, words for declaration and meditation, words with musical implications, words for offering and sacrifice, and words indicating times and places for worship. Given that we sum up all of these concepts by using the word “worship”, no wonder it becomes a catch all for so many activities of the Church.
Not many years ago, many Christians believed the sermon was when we really “got down to worshipin’.” For these Churches, worship had devolved into a Bible story that is most effective when "toes are stepped on." The “Praise and Worship” movement has introduced the “worship set”, or an expanded song service and many from its ranks consider the music to be “the worship.” For others, “worship” is a noun. It is the event or meeting attended by Christians each week. At best, this understanding is born from pulpit driven worship in which spectators simply observe the action on the “stage”. At worst it is derived from the sense that worship is a social event. We are now hearing worship described and marketed as an “experience”. (Try an online search for “worship experience” and see what you will find.) For a price any church can order up their worship experience in a box. Or, if you need a little worship booster, try downloading the latest worship mp3 and you can worship in transit. Most Christian bands are producing recordings of “worship” so the experience can be had whenever one is in the mood. Children's "worship" in some churches consists of coloring and play time. Everything from concerts, plays, movie screenings, Bible studies, prayer meetings, seeker services, revival meetings, and discussion groups at coffee klatches have carried the title – “worship”. Indeed, many broad applications of worship exist. But, if we call everything worship, does this not serve to water down the vibrancy of the church gathered to celebrate, remember and participate in the saving acts of God through Jesus Christ?
For many this may not be an issue. But for those who recognize the dumbing down of so much in our culture, even our sacred gatherings, this becomes quite pronounced. Sadly, there does not seem to be a cavalry of clarification riding over the hill to save the day. What are we to do? In order to foster a discussion, may I suggest a couple of possible solutions to this malaise of mistaken mantras concerning worship? First, we might consider recapturing the vast and varied Scriptural lexicon of worship words. Rather than summing them all up in one word, we would do well to embrace the varied components, multiple expressions, and diverse realities using the distinct descriptive words offered in both Testaments. Two good examples are: proskuneo - to worship, to kiss, to prostrate oneself in homage (John 4:23 and Revelation 7:11), and latreuo - to serve, minister, worship. (Philippians 3:3 and Luke 2:37).
What difference would it make to use more precise words for worship? By demonstrating that various elements of worship can be seperated and acted upon independently, the Church will realize the difference between complete worship and component worship. Praise services, prayer services, preaching services, and many other activities common to the church, may legitimately be called worship. But none of them contains the complete concept or picture of worship. This distinction should be reserved for the Sunday gathering of the Church to celebrate, retell, and reenact the Gospel. While all of the elements of worship may not be included every week, the four major components of worship should be present (for a thorough discussion of the four-fold pattern, see an earlier blog submission). Being clear about Scriptural words for worship may help clarify exactly what it is we are doing. Once a full pallet of words for worship is understood and utilized, then a more apt description of the weekly Christian gathering may also be helpful.
Concerning the Sunday assembly of God’s people, Rev. Guy Oury writes, “This kind of holy assembly, evident in all religions of recorded history, was very pronounced in the tradition of the Hebrew people, from whom Christianity developed its earliest liturgical traditions. Assembling also gave to Christianity its word 'church.' It happened in this way: The Hebrews called their assemblies Qahal Yahweh (Sacred Assembly of God)… in the sense of being called together by God.” Oury goes on to say, “Qahal Yahweh was translated into Greek as ekklesia. This term, which translates as ‘church,’ was used by the followers of Jesus to describe their own community assemblies devoted to prayer, instruction, singing of hymns, breaking of bread, and sharing of cup."
What if we reserved the title “Sacred Assembly” for our Sunday morning gatherings? This shift in nomenclature, combined with a reintroduction of the array or words summed up by the one word “worship” might go a long way toward helping our people better understand what is happening when we gather. Rather than expecting pulpit driven entertainment, an evangelistic crusade, a lecture or an “experience”, we might, with authenticity, be able to gather together to express our praises and prayers, hear God’s Word proclaimed, come to the Table and participate in the once and for all sacrifice of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16), and go forth to love and serve God and man. Suddenly the gathering of Christians is free from all of the manmade traditions it has accrued over the centuries. This would also reconnect us with the Early Church and serve as one more example that the road to the future does run through the past. Perhaps the cavalry is coming – not from over the hill, but from two thousand years ago. What do you think?
Defining worship is a daunting challenge. If ten Christians are asked to give a definition for worship, each respondent is liable to give a different answer. This is understandable for many reasons. A contributing factor may be the complexity of worship as it is presented in the Scriptures. According to author and scholar Richard Leonard, “The Hebrew Scriptures, especially the Psalms employ a rich vocabulary of words denoting acts and features of worship. There is no general term for ‘worship’ in the Old Testament. Instead, many words are used.” Leonard has prepared a listing of words pertaining to worship from the Hebrew texts. They include many general terms, words for assemblies and festivals, words regarding movements and gestures, words for praise and acclamation, words for declaration and meditation, words with musical implications, words for offering and sacrifice, and words indicating times and places for worship. Given that we sum up all of these concepts by using the word “worship”, no wonder it becomes a catch all for so many activities of the Church.
Not many years ago, many Christians believed the sermon was when we really “got down to worshipin’.” For these Churches, worship had devolved into a Bible story that is most effective when "toes are stepped on." The “Praise and Worship” movement has introduced the “worship set”, or an expanded song service and many from its ranks consider the music to be “the worship.” For others, “worship” is a noun. It is the event or meeting attended by Christians each week. At best, this understanding is born from pulpit driven worship in which spectators simply observe the action on the “stage”. At worst it is derived from the sense that worship is a social event. We are now hearing worship described and marketed as an “experience”. (Try an online search for “worship experience” and see what you will find.) For a price any church can order up their worship experience in a box. Or, if you need a little worship booster, try downloading the latest worship mp3 and you can worship in transit. Most Christian bands are producing recordings of “worship” so the experience can be had whenever one is in the mood. Children's "worship" in some churches consists of coloring and play time. Everything from concerts, plays, movie screenings, Bible studies, prayer meetings, seeker services, revival meetings, and discussion groups at coffee klatches have carried the title – “worship”. Indeed, many broad applications of worship exist. But, if we call everything worship, does this not serve to water down the vibrancy of the church gathered to celebrate, remember and participate in the saving acts of God through Jesus Christ?
For many this may not be an issue. But for those who recognize the dumbing down of so much in our culture, even our sacred gatherings, this becomes quite pronounced. Sadly, there does not seem to be a cavalry of clarification riding over the hill to save the day. What are we to do? In order to foster a discussion, may I suggest a couple of possible solutions to this malaise of mistaken mantras concerning worship? First, we might consider recapturing the vast and varied Scriptural lexicon of worship words. Rather than summing them all up in one word, we would do well to embrace the varied components, multiple expressions, and diverse realities using the distinct descriptive words offered in both Testaments. Two good examples are: proskuneo - to worship, to kiss, to prostrate oneself in homage (John 4:23 and Revelation 7:11), and latreuo - to serve, minister, worship. (Philippians 3:3 and Luke 2:37).
What difference would it make to use more precise words for worship? By demonstrating that various elements of worship can be seperated and acted upon independently, the Church will realize the difference between complete worship and component worship. Praise services, prayer services, preaching services, and many other activities common to the church, may legitimately be called worship. But none of them contains the complete concept or picture of worship. This distinction should be reserved for the Sunday gathering of the Church to celebrate, retell, and reenact the Gospel. While all of the elements of worship may not be included every week, the four major components of worship should be present (for a thorough discussion of the four-fold pattern, see an earlier blog submission). Being clear about Scriptural words for worship may help clarify exactly what it is we are doing. Once a full pallet of words for worship is understood and utilized, then a more apt description of the weekly Christian gathering may also be helpful.
Concerning the Sunday assembly of God’s people, Rev. Guy Oury writes, “This kind of holy assembly, evident in all religions of recorded history, was very pronounced in the tradition of the Hebrew people, from whom Christianity developed its earliest liturgical traditions. Assembling also gave to Christianity its word 'church.' It happened in this way: The Hebrews called their assemblies Qahal Yahweh (Sacred Assembly of God)… in the sense of being called together by God.” Oury goes on to say, “Qahal Yahweh was translated into Greek as ekklesia. This term, which translates as ‘church,’ was used by the followers of Jesus to describe their own community assemblies devoted to prayer, instruction, singing of hymns, breaking of bread, and sharing of cup."
What if we reserved the title “Sacred Assembly” for our Sunday morning gatherings? This shift in nomenclature, combined with a reintroduction of the array or words summed up by the one word “worship” might go a long way toward helping our people better understand what is happening when we gather. Rather than expecting pulpit driven entertainment, an evangelistic crusade, a lecture or an “experience”, we might, with authenticity, be able to gather together to express our praises and prayers, hear God’s Word proclaimed, come to the Table and participate in the once and for all sacrifice of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16), and go forth to love and serve God and man. Suddenly the gathering of Christians is free from all of the manmade traditions it has accrued over the centuries. This would also reconnect us with the Early Church and serve as one more example that the road to the future does run through the past. Perhaps the cavalry is coming – not from over the hill, but from two thousand years ago. What do you think?
Monday, July 2, 2007
Subject to the Object
Two weeks ago our nine month old could not crawl very well. He did a rather awkward version of an army man belly crawl. This morning he was moving around the room with ease – as if he had taken an intensive crawling 101 course. Crossing one room used to be a major effort. Now his potential has exponentially increased. How amazing that last month's limitations have become this week’s opportunities. These last fourteen days of development have brought great change to his life. What seemed insurmountable is in reach. His eyes reveal the excitement he is feeling. No doubt, the crash course in walking is just around the corner.
As followers of Christ, we should also be growing and developing. Paul alluded to this by saying, “When I was a child, I talked like a child; I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:11-12).
As I reflect on my development as a worshiper and a teacher of worship, it astounds me how much different I am now than fifteen years ago. At that time I was relying on what I had been told. It was easier to crawl - accepting what I was taught - than learn to walk on my own. Rather than pray and probe and ponder the difficult ideas, I defaulted to what had always been handed to me. As time wore on, more and more of the convenient answers were insufficient. This dissatisfaction caused me to examine many important concepts for myself by asking several key questions. What does Scripture teach? What has the Church taught “always and everywhere?” What do trusted scholars say? Over the past decade and a half the writings of Robert Webber have influenced me more than any other – save the Scriptures.
Realizing that learning and growing should never stop, I am once again facing a “teachable moment.” In reading Dr. Webber’s last book, The Divine Embrace, I have encountered a concept challenging my predispositions – and again – I am crawling. Webber claims that Christian worship is dangerously focused on "me-centered" worship. He says, “The real underlying crisis in worship goes back to the fundamental issue of the relationship between God and the world. If God is the object of worship, then worship must proceed from me, the subject, to God, who is the object. God is the being out there who needs to be loved, worshiped, and adored by me. Therefore, the true worship of God is located in me, the subject, to God, who is the object. I worship God to magnify his name, to enthrone God, to exalt him in the heavens. God is then pleased with me because I have done my duty.
If God is understood, however, as the personal God who acts as subject in the world and in worship rather than the remote God who sits in the heavens, then worship is understood not as the acts of adoration God demands of me but as the disclosure of Jesus, who has done for me what I cannot do for myself. In this way worship is the doing of God’s story within me so that I live in the pattern of Jesus’s death and resurrection. My worship then, is the free choosing to do what Paul admonishes us to do: [Romans 12:1-2]”
For most of my ministry I have taught that God is the object of Christian worship. Soren Kierkegaard posited that God is the audience and the worshipers are the actors. This analogy has been central to my understanding. Dr. Webber seems to question this notion. He asserts that if God is objectified in worship then worshipers view Him as being an onlooker from afar. For Webber this is an incomplete portrayal of God’s position. Rather, he claims, the Lord is very active in our worship. Further, he introduces the idea that Jesus must be the subject of our worship. When Jesus is the subject, when we focus on salvation history, when we enter into the Gospel story through proclamation (ministry of the Word), and participation (ministry of the Table), then we are relocated in Jesus. What's more, we realize that the Gospel is not just the “old, old story,” but it is “new every morning.” We are in this unfolding story of God’s saving action on our behalf. Why is this important? The world seeks to reclaim us all week long. We are bombarded with the world's image of success and fulfillment - self promotion and self satisfaction. In worship, the Gospel calls us back to the spiritual pattern of death to self, burial and resurrection in Christ. While objective worship espouses the attributes of God, which is obviously good and called for, without Christ as the subject, we fail to remember the narrative that we are called to live and pass on to the next generation.
A quick analogy may bring clarity to this discussion. Little school children have different subjects each day. Math, for example, is a subject. In math class the students are taught math concepts. But, they go beyond learning math facts, they actually practice them. They don’t just attend math class, they become mathematicians. Conversely, it is possible to attend a seminar where a mathematician shares her findings. We can objectively appreciate the presenters findings, admire her process and technique. And then, we can leave the session and never participate in or practice math at all. Here is the distinction between subjective and objective worship. If Christ is the subject of our worship, and we wholeheartedly enter into the Gospel through celebration (praise), recitation (preaching), and participation (partaking of Communion), then we are living as Christians (little Christs) - much like math students become mathmeticians. But, if we objectify God, we are in danger of knowing about Him, but never becoming subject to Him. We can leave worship having declared and heard great truth about God, but never "knowing" the Truth.
This is a new concept for me and yes, I am crawling a bit - maybe even struggling. Clearly, a proper balance of espousing God’s character and entering into the Gospel narrative are vital for authentic worship to occur. Singing for 45 minutes about God’s greatness is fine. Accompany that with a sermon about reaching our potential or balancing our check books, and we have neglected the central theme of our faith. We must never forget the saving acts of Jesus. This story should animate our worship – call us to participation – and change us to live incarnationally - as Christ would live. I am praying that this challenge to my understanding of worship will become an opportunity for growth. I am willing to change, to develop, to grow if it will help me see through the glass a little more clearly and to know the Lord more completely. After all, being on our knees is not such a bad place to be.
As followers of Christ, we should also be growing and developing. Paul alluded to this by saying, “When I was a child, I talked like a child; I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:11-12).
As I reflect on my development as a worshiper and a teacher of worship, it astounds me how much different I am now than fifteen years ago. At that time I was relying on what I had been told. It was easier to crawl - accepting what I was taught - than learn to walk on my own. Rather than pray and probe and ponder the difficult ideas, I defaulted to what had always been handed to me. As time wore on, more and more of the convenient answers were insufficient. This dissatisfaction caused me to examine many important concepts for myself by asking several key questions. What does Scripture teach? What has the Church taught “always and everywhere?” What do trusted scholars say? Over the past decade and a half the writings of Robert Webber have influenced me more than any other – save the Scriptures.
Realizing that learning and growing should never stop, I am once again facing a “teachable moment.” In reading Dr. Webber’s last book, The Divine Embrace, I have encountered a concept challenging my predispositions – and again – I am crawling. Webber claims that Christian worship is dangerously focused on "me-centered" worship. He says, “The real underlying crisis in worship goes back to the fundamental issue of the relationship between God and the world. If God is the object of worship, then worship must proceed from me, the subject, to God, who is the object. God is the being out there who needs to be loved, worshiped, and adored by me. Therefore, the true worship of God is located in me, the subject, to God, who is the object. I worship God to magnify his name, to enthrone God, to exalt him in the heavens. God is then pleased with me because I have done my duty.
If God is understood, however, as the personal God who acts as subject in the world and in worship rather than the remote God who sits in the heavens, then worship is understood not as the acts of adoration God demands of me but as the disclosure of Jesus, who has done for me what I cannot do for myself. In this way worship is the doing of God’s story within me so that I live in the pattern of Jesus’s death and resurrection. My worship then, is the free choosing to do what Paul admonishes us to do: [Romans 12:1-2]”
For most of my ministry I have taught that God is the object of Christian worship. Soren Kierkegaard posited that God is the audience and the worshipers are the actors. This analogy has been central to my understanding. Dr. Webber seems to question this notion. He asserts that if God is objectified in worship then worshipers view Him as being an onlooker from afar. For Webber this is an incomplete portrayal of God’s position. Rather, he claims, the Lord is very active in our worship. Further, he introduces the idea that Jesus must be the subject of our worship. When Jesus is the subject, when we focus on salvation history, when we enter into the Gospel story through proclamation (ministry of the Word), and participation (ministry of the Table), then we are relocated in Jesus. What's more, we realize that the Gospel is not just the “old, old story,” but it is “new every morning.” We are in this unfolding story of God’s saving action on our behalf. Why is this important? The world seeks to reclaim us all week long. We are bombarded with the world's image of success and fulfillment - self promotion and self satisfaction. In worship, the Gospel calls us back to the spiritual pattern of death to self, burial and resurrection in Christ. While objective worship espouses the attributes of God, which is obviously good and called for, without Christ as the subject, we fail to remember the narrative that we are called to live and pass on to the next generation.
A quick analogy may bring clarity to this discussion. Little school children have different subjects each day. Math, for example, is a subject. In math class the students are taught math concepts. But, they go beyond learning math facts, they actually practice them. They don’t just attend math class, they become mathematicians. Conversely, it is possible to attend a seminar where a mathematician shares her findings. We can objectively appreciate the presenters findings, admire her process and technique. And then, we can leave the session and never participate in or practice math at all. Here is the distinction between subjective and objective worship. If Christ is the subject of our worship, and we wholeheartedly enter into the Gospel through celebration (praise), recitation (preaching), and participation (partaking of Communion), then we are living as Christians (little Christs) - much like math students become mathmeticians. But, if we objectify God, we are in danger of knowing about Him, but never becoming subject to Him. We can leave worship having declared and heard great truth about God, but never "knowing" the Truth.
This is a new concept for me and yes, I am crawling a bit - maybe even struggling. Clearly, a proper balance of espousing God’s character and entering into the Gospel narrative are vital for authentic worship to occur. Singing for 45 minutes about God’s greatness is fine. Accompany that with a sermon about reaching our potential or balancing our check books, and we have neglected the central theme of our faith. We must never forget the saving acts of Jesus. This story should animate our worship – call us to participation – and change us to live incarnationally - as Christ would live. I am praying that this challenge to my understanding of worship will become an opportunity for growth. I am willing to change, to develop, to grow if it will help me see through the glass a little more clearly and to know the Lord more completely. After all, being on our knees is not such a bad place to be.
Monday, May 14, 2007
We Seek the Grail
For centuries Christians have sought the Holy Grail. This relic captivates the imagination. To have the grail is to hold in your hands the very cup that Jesus shared with His disciples…to touch salvation history. How glorious would that be? Just as these types of relics hold a particular fascination for many, there are also theological concepts that have gained great prominence. In fact, there are many “grails” we hold with religious fervor. My hope is to begin a reasoned discussion about these dearly held beliefs. Ultimately, the objective is to foster positive dialogue that may help bridge gaps rather than create new ones. With this in mind, here is the first “grail”.
Let's talk about Sola Scriptura. Protestants hold unwavering to this concept of Scripture alone as our spiritual authority. Without question this high view of Scripture along with Sola Fide (faith alone) are the “holy grails” of the Reformation. In Sola Scriptura, the Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth - the authority. That seems apparent, right? Oops, we have a Biblical dilemma. The Scriptures state that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). What are we to make of that?
Consider that the Church existed before the New Testament Scriptures. Was Sola Scriptura in effect before the books of the New Testament were in existence? How can that be? Did Sola Scriptura take effect after the Scriptures were canonized at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397? When did it apply and how did the Church survive without it? Where is Scripture alone as the Authority taught in the Scriptures? Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." This reference to the Old Testament does not claim authoritative exclusivity. (Stay with me...please read on.)
Clearly, the Church after Pentecost forged her way into the future with dedication to Truth, but what Truth? Without the New Testament Scriptures in place, what was their source of authority in spiritual matters? May I suggest it was the Tradition that was handed down by Jesus to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the bishops, and so on down the time line? The Apostle Paul said, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings (Tradition) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” As Christians, according to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we are to hold on to the Tradition – by word of mouth or by letter. Note that Paul does not see the oral Tradition (kerygma) to be in contrast with his written documents. In his book, "Evangelicals and Tradition," D. H. Williams notes, "Paul does not set these traditions and his letter in opposition to each other. Rather, he sees them as complementary..." Acts 2 holds another clue. The early Church, "dedicated themselves to the Apostles teaching..." These students of Jesus taught to their students what Jesus had taught them. Obviously orthodoxy was established by the Lord and as Paul said, "What I received from the Lord I also passed on to you..." (1 Corinthians 11:23). The Tradition was handed down by and within the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth."
This raises several questions about the Church today. Do we really see the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth? Which one is still faithfully passing on the Tradition? Or, regardless of what the church says, does my personal interpretation of Scripture and what I believe trump everything else? Looking at the results of the Reformation teaching of Sola Scriptura can it be said that this view has led to a “subjectifying” of the Scriptures? Truly, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all Truth, but what happens when sincere believers are led to different interpretations or understandings of the Sciptures? Is there more than one Truth? Who settles the debate?
I want to affirm the Scriptures as our source of authority in spiritual matters. They certainly are. My questions concerning Sola Scriptura are born of sincere inquiry into God’s Word concerning authority in the Church. I am amazed that with the Bible alone as the authority, the Body of Christ has not become unified but rather it has fractured into many denominations. Compare the reality of ecclesial diffusion and division to what the Scriptures teach - that, "There is one Body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called, one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." (Ephesians 4:4-5).
What solution can there be to this conundrum? If the Scriptures are to be our authority in spiritual matters - and I believe they should - we must have a rule or standard by which to interpret what the Bible is teaching. At this point the early Church becomes vital to us. The Traditon that was passed to them can be the measuring stick for interpreting the Scriptures correctly. When this God given Tradition is operating as the corrective to wrong interpretation in the Church - as a sort of check and balance on approaching the Scriptures with integrity, then the Scriptures are accurate in claiming the Church as "The pillar and foundation of truth." Without this dual track of accountability, the Tradition and the Scriptures, we have demonstrated through Church history an amazing capacity to make the Bible say what we want it to say.
D. H. Williams provides clarity on this point by saying, "Though the Word in Scripture comes from God, it is revealed through a process in which the community of faith, appropriating both the Old and the New Testament, is profoundly involved. Indeed, it is fair to say that we will rightly hear God's Word only as we hear it in the corporate and historical voice of the church." He goes on to claim, "The Bible is capable of being understood only in the midst of a disciplined community of believers whose practices embody the biblical story. As part of this embodiment, we are in need of 'spiritual masters,' namely, the venerable voices of the historical church whose journeys empower and enlighten our own pilgrimage toward what is authentically Christian."
What do you think?
Blessings,
Carl Peters
Let's talk about Sola Scriptura. Protestants hold unwavering to this concept of Scripture alone as our spiritual authority. Without question this high view of Scripture along with Sola Fide (faith alone) are the “holy grails” of the Reformation. In Sola Scriptura, the Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth - the authority. That seems apparent, right? Oops, we have a Biblical dilemma. The Scriptures state that the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). What are we to make of that?
Consider that the Church existed before the New Testament Scriptures. Was Sola Scriptura in effect before the books of the New Testament were in existence? How can that be? Did Sola Scriptura take effect after the Scriptures were canonized at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397? When did it apply and how did the Church survive without it? Where is Scripture alone as the Authority taught in the Scriptures? Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." This reference to the Old Testament does not claim authoritative exclusivity. (Stay with me...please read on.)
Clearly, the Church after Pentecost forged her way into the future with dedication to Truth, but what Truth? Without the New Testament Scriptures in place, what was their source of authority in spiritual matters? May I suggest it was the Tradition that was handed down by Jesus to the Apostles and by the Apostles to the bishops, and so on down the time line? The Apostle Paul said, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings (Tradition) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” As Christians, according to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, we are to hold on to the Tradition – by word of mouth or by letter. Note that Paul does not see the oral Tradition (kerygma) to be in contrast with his written documents. In his book, "Evangelicals and Tradition," D. H. Williams notes, "Paul does not set these traditions and his letter in opposition to each other. Rather, he sees them as complementary..." Acts 2 holds another clue. The early Church, "dedicated themselves to the Apostles teaching..." These students of Jesus taught to their students what Jesus had taught them. Obviously orthodoxy was established by the Lord and as Paul said, "What I received from the Lord I also passed on to you..." (1 Corinthians 11:23). The Tradition was handed down by and within the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth."
This raises several questions about the Church today. Do we really see the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth? Which one is still faithfully passing on the Tradition? Or, regardless of what the church says, does my personal interpretation of Scripture and what I believe trump everything else? Looking at the results of the Reformation teaching of Sola Scriptura can it be said that this view has led to a “subjectifying” of the Scriptures? Truly, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all Truth, but what happens when sincere believers are led to different interpretations or understandings of the Sciptures? Is there more than one Truth? Who settles the debate?
I want to affirm the Scriptures as our source of authority in spiritual matters. They certainly are. My questions concerning Sola Scriptura are born of sincere inquiry into God’s Word concerning authority in the Church. I am amazed that with the Bible alone as the authority, the Body of Christ has not become unified but rather it has fractured into many denominations. Compare the reality of ecclesial diffusion and division to what the Scriptures teach - that, "There is one Body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called, one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." (Ephesians 4:4-5).
What solution can there be to this conundrum? If the Scriptures are to be our authority in spiritual matters - and I believe they should - we must have a rule or standard by which to interpret what the Bible is teaching. At this point the early Church becomes vital to us. The Traditon that was passed to them can be the measuring stick for interpreting the Scriptures correctly. When this God given Tradition is operating as the corrective to wrong interpretation in the Church - as a sort of check and balance on approaching the Scriptures with integrity, then the Scriptures are accurate in claiming the Church as "The pillar and foundation of truth." Without this dual track of accountability, the Tradition and the Scriptures, we have demonstrated through Church history an amazing capacity to make the Bible say what we want it to say.
D. H. Williams provides clarity on this point by saying, "Though the Word in Scripture comes from God, it is revealed through a process in which the community of faith, appropriating both the Old and the New Testament, is profoundly involved. Indeed, it is fair to say that we will rightly hear God's Word only as we hear it in the corporate and historical voice of the church." He goes on to claim, "The Bible is capable of being understood only in the midst of a disciplined community of believers whose practices embody the biblical story. As part of this embodiment, we are in need of 'spiritual masters,' namely, the venerable voices of the historical church whose journeys empower and enlighten our own pilgrimage toward what is authentically Christian."
What do you think?
Blessings,
Carl Peters
Monday, April 30, 2007
A Precious Gift from Dr. Robert Webber
On the night He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This bread is a symbol of my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is a symbol of the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." As the son of a pastor, and as a music and worship pastor for almost twenty five years, I have heard the Words of Institution quoted many times just like this as a prelude to receiving the Lord’s Supper. There is only one problem. Jesus did not say what is written above. Wonderful pastors who would warn anyone about adding a “jot or tittle” (Mat. 5:18, Rev. 22:18-19) to Holy Scripture, find it necessary to do just that when quoting Jesus as He shared the Passover meal with His disciples. The word “symbol” is grafted into these verses with a theological agenda. Clearly, the intent is to promote memorialism - the Zwinglian theology of the Lord's Table.
The reality of this addition to Scripture did not faze me at all for many years. And, despite the insistence that there wasn't much happening at the table other than a memory exercise, I distinctly remember longing for those rare services (three or four times a year) when the “offertory” table would be draped in a white cloth, pregnant with the symbolic elements that we were assured were, “only bread and juice.” One of my pastors actually said, “There is nothing special or mystical about what we are going to do…” But somehow, I knew even as a child, that there was more to the Table than conjuring up sad memories to fit the standard funeral-like presentation of the Lord’s Supper. There had to be more.
In the early 90s, Dr. Robert E. Webber spoke at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His message was riveting and inspiring. In those few moments, He offered me a precious gift for which I shall eternally be grateful. Dr. Webber gave me permission to believe that MORE was happening at the Table than my humanistic sign of obedience to God and the dredging up of latent sadness. He told our assembled student body about Christus Victor - that the Lord's Table was a celebration of victory rather than an interment service for the Lord. He had my attention. Dr. Webber then made a statement that skewered my soul. He said that when we needed healing from illness or brokenness, we should, “flee to the Eucharist” where we might truly, “know Him in the breaking of the bread.” Suddenly Luke 24 was bursting with meaning. Much like Cleopas, I wanted to run and tell everyone. Dr. Webber told us of 1 Corinthians 10:16, how the bread and cup are our “participation” in the body and blood of Christ. He insisted that the Word and the Table are the twin peaks of worship. They are at the heart of incarnational spirituality – the Word proclaimed becomes flesh – And we can hear and taste and touch and KNOW the intensified Presence of Christ at His Table. He also shared that the word Jesus would have used for “remembrance” did not mean that we should have a “warm fuzzy” thought about Jesus, but it suggests a reconnection with a past event – the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus. I could not have been more excited about these discoveries. Sadly, when I arrived back at the church I served, the shroud of memorialism still covered the Table. There was only one peak in worship – the Sermon. And I was left with a heart burning to have the meal I saw on the menu week after week.
Despite my contextual constraints, I will never be satisfied again with mere memorialism. Is it not ironic that Paul claims those who do not rightly discern the Body of Christ are weak and sick and some have died? Or, how amazing that those who claim the Lord’s Supper is a mere symbol for Christians who receive it in good standing have no problem with Paul’s admonition that those who eat and drink unworthily invite judgement upon themselves. How can a mere symbol have such serious import to anyone? Do you sense a disconnect here?
I will forever be grateful to Dr. Webber (may his name be praised), for the many gifts he gave me. But for helping me to discover the Eucharist, I am most indebted. When he passed away on April 27th, I wanted to do exactly what he had taught me. It was as if his voiced echoed in my ears, “flee to the Eucharist.” Thank you, Bob for all you have done for so many of us. We will always remember!
The reality of this addition to Scripture did not faze me at all for many years. And, despite the insistence that there wasn't much happening at the table other than a memory exercise, I distinctly remember longing for those rare services (three or four times a year) when the “offertory” table would be draped in a white cloth, pregnant with the symbolic elements that we were assured were, “only bread and juice.” One of my pastors actually said, “There is nothing special or mystical about what we are going to do…” But somehow, I knew even as a child, that there was more to the Table than conjuring up sad memories to fit the standard funeral-like presentation of the Lord’s Supper. There had to be more.
In the early 90s, Dr. Robert E. Webber spoke at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His message was riveting and inspiring. In those few moments, He offered me a precious gift for which I shall eternally be grateful. Dr. Webber gave me permission to believe that MORE was happening at the Table than my humanistic sign of obedience to God and the dredging up of latent sadness. He told our assembled student body about Christus Victor - that the Lord's Table was a celebration of victory rather than an interment service for the Lord. He had my attention. Dr. Webber then made a statement that skewered my soul. He said that when we needed healing from illness or brokenness, we should, “flee to the Eucharist” where we might truly, “know Him in the breaking of the bread.” Suddenly Luke 24 was bursting with meaning. Much like Cleopas, I wanted to run and tell everyone. Dr. Webber told us of 1 Corinthians 10:16, how the bread and cup are our “participation” in the body and blood of Christ. He insisted that the Word and the Table are the twin peaks of worship. They are at the heart of incarnational spirituality – the Word proclaimed becomes flesh – And we can hear and taste and touch and KNOW the intensified Presence of Christ at His Table. He also shared that the word Jesus would have used for “remembrance” did not mean that we should have a “warm fuzzy” thought about Jesus, but it suggests a reconnection with a past event – the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus. I could not have been more excited about these discoveries. Sadly, when I arrived back at the church I served, the shroud of memorialism still covered the Table. There was only one peak in worship – the Sermon. And I was left with a heart burning to have the meal I saw on the menu week after week.
Despite my contextual constraints, I will never be satisfied again with mere memorialism. Is it not ironic that Paul claims those who do not rightly discern the Body of Christ are weak and sick and some have died? Or, how amazing that those who claim the Lord’s Supper is a mere symbol for Christians who receive it in good standing have no problem with Paul’s admonition that those who eat and drink unworthily invite judgement upon themselves. How can a mere symbol have such serious import to anyone? Do you sense a disconnect here?
I will forever be grateful to Dr. Webber (may his name be praised), for the many gifts he gave me. But for helping me to discover the Eucharist, I am most indebted. When he passed away on April 27th, I wanted to do exactly what he had taught me. It was as if his voiced echoed in my ears, “flee to the Eucharist.” Thank you, Bob for all you have done for so many of us. We will always remember!
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
We Are Unapologetically Christocentric
After a recent worship seminar, several questions arose concerning the Christocentric nature of Christian worship. Below are the questions and my attempts to answer them.
First question: Do you see any substantive difference between these two statements?
1. The content of our worship is Jesus.
2. The object of our worship is Jesus.
Answer: Content and object are quite different.
Object, as it relates to worship, would be the one to whom worship is directed. We often say that God is the audience in worship. Worship should be directed toward Him. This is certainly true, but we must be careful here. Viewing God as the object of worship without a fuller understanding can communicate an almost passive God who sits far off observing our acts of fealty. In truth, worship involves interaction with the Lord. Yes, He is the object of our worship, but He is an active audience in a divine dialogue with us. God initiates and we respond. The great Hymn “God Himself is With Us” reflects this understanding well.
The content of Christian worship is the story of Salvation history – that is, God’s initiating a relationship with fallen humanity. Dr. Robert Webber claims, “In worship we remember the stories of Abraham, the patriarchs, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, the covenant at Mt. Sinai, the establishment of Israel under the monarchy, and the call of the prophets to return to the covenant. Christian worship supplements these stories with the accounts of the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, the founding of the church, and the return of Jesus Christ to destroy evil and establish the new heavens and the new earth.” He goes on to say, “For worship to be Biblical and Christian, the story of God’s redemption and salvation must be its content. Otherwise it ceases to be Christian worship. For it is the content of worship – the Gospel – that makes worship uniquely distinctly Christian.” In worship the Gospel is vital. We proclaim it, enact it, celebrate it, and respond to it. This is Christian worship.
Question: How is it we say our worship is Christological when it
is God we worship?
Answer: First, let me say that I may not have communicated this point very well. In no way do I mean that we worship Jesus only, or that we exclude God from our worship. The Triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – ought to be the recipient of our worship. When I say that our worship should be Christocentric, I simply mean that our worship (much like Hebrew worship and the Exodus) is rooted in an event – The Christ event (death, burial and resurrection). This is summed up in the liturgical response spoken for centuries by Christians – “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith. Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again”. In worship we offer praise to our great and powerful God, we remember and give thanks for the atoning work of the Son, and we invite and welcome the Presence of the enlightening and ministering Holy Spirit. Our worship is of the Triune God – but our worship is rooted in the Christ event. This is what makes us distinct from other religions.
WE ARE DISTINCT FROM OTHERS WHO WORSHIP GOD
Muslims and Hebrews claim to worship the God of Abraham. Their worship is not valid in my opinion. Why is this? It is because they do not worship God through Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “No man comes to the Father, but by me.” This is God’s design from the beginning. God’s plan of salvation is revealed through Old Testament typologies – (Abraham and Isaac, The Flood, The Passover and Exodus, etc.), all of which point to Jesus. The fulfillment of the Old Covenant comes in the New Covenant with the atoning sacrifice of Jesus – (for instance, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us…”). Note the O.T. concept fulfilled in Jesus. Webber says, “The epicenter for worship with Israel was the central saving event of the Exodus, and with us, the Church, it is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ – the Lamb of God. In worship we have a divine recapitulation of this saving work with the Lamb as the focus.” We are Christocentric, not to the exclusion of God the Father or the Holy Spirit, but because it is His plan for reconciling us to Himself.
WE MUST FAITHFULLY PASS ON THE FAITH
Commending our faith from one generation to the next is very important in worship. Paul said, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you…” This type of passing on the faith motivated the Hebrews to celebrate the Passover – they identified with the God of their salvation because their remembrance of the Exodus helped them experience coming out of Egypt – as if they were there (Exodus 12:26-27). It shaped the younger generations and passed on their heritage of faith. We, too, should pass on what we have received from the Lord. We too should “keep the feast” (1 Corinthians 5:7). But our Passover is none other than Christ. Our worship communicates the gospel discursively to those coming behind us. This kind of remembrance (Anamnesis) is more than just a fuzzy thought of a past event (an enlightenment concept). The past is actually relived or experienced again (taught by the early Church). Perhaps this is why Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:16 that the bread we break and the cup for which we give thanks are our participation in the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus said we should proclaim His death until He comes. This means being Christocentric. What we have received we should pass on. Should this be done in worship? I will answer with a question. Is the Lord’s Supper an act of worship?
WE REFLECT HEAVENLY WORSHIP IN OUR EARTHLY WORSHIP
Just as the O.T. prefigures Christ, our earthly worship prefigures heavenly worship. We place the saving acts of Jesus at the center of our worship so as to reflect our understanding of heavenly worship – this is what God shows us in His word. Revelation chapters 4-5 reveal heavenly worship to us. In these scenes we see angels, archangels, apostles, martyrs, and the entire communion of saints offering endless praise to God. In chapter four we hear the same worship text as Isaiah 6 – “Holy, Holy, Holy”. This song is clearly directed to God. But look on to chapter 5. This image of heavenly worship has a central focus – the “Lamb – looking as if it had been slain” who stands at the “center of the throne”. All gather around Him in worship and song (Rev. 5:6-9). "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" Notice that the description of Christ is not of a King, but a Lamb. This is clearly referring to the cross of Calvary. It seems that even heavenly worship remembers and gives attention to the atoning work of the Son on behalf of His bride. He is our advocate with the Father, and without Him we could not relate to the Father at all.
WE FOCUS ON JESUS SAVING WORK IN BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER
These two rites of worship clearly enact the Gospel within the worshiping community. Baptists call these the ordinances of Jesus because they were instituted by Him. The Gospel is enacted and proclaimed in both. They are most assuredly Christocentric. The Anaphora (related to the berakah Hebrew table prayers), or historical prayer of thanks before Communion follows a Trinitarian form. God is praised for creation, Jesus is thanked for His atonement, and the Spirit is invited to bless the elements for the Spiritual benefit of the participants. Christocentric does not mean exclusive of God the Father or the Spirit as evidenced here.
SABBATH SATURDAY TO EASTER SUNDAY
The fact that we worship on Sunday also indicates the centrality of the Christ-event. The Old Testament is quite clear that Saturday is the day of worship and rest. For Christians, Easter Sunday is celebrated each week as we gather to worship. Note that during the season of Lent (a season of sorrow and fasting), that Sundays are not included. They remain feast days rather than fast days due to their association with Easter Sunday. (Acts 20:7, Rev. 1:10)
WHEN WE HONOR JESUS WE HONOR GOD
John 5:23 sates, “..that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.” I believe that God the Father is delighted that we honor His Son by enacting, proclaiming and celebrating the Gospel narrative. Again, this is not to say that we should exclude God or the Spirit. But Jesus is the One whose name we carry, in whose name we pray, and is the one we are commended to “lift up.” He is at the center of God’s plan, the center of history, the center of the Scriptures, the center of heavenly worship, the center of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, the center of Sunday as a consecrated day, and should be at the center of our worship…all to the glory of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
First question: Do you see any substantive difference between these two statements?
1. The content of our worship is Jesus.
2. The object of our worship is Jesus.
Answer: Content and object are quite different.
Object, as it relates to worship, would be the one to whom worship is directed. We often say that God is the audience in worship. Worship should be directed toward Him. This is certainly true, but we must be careful here. Viewing God as the object of worship without a fuller understanding can communicate an almost passive God who sits far off observing our acts of fealty. In truth, worship involves interaction with the Lord. Yes, He is the object of our worship, but He is an active audience in a divine dialogue with us. God initiates and we respond. The great Hymn “God Himself is With Us” reflects this understanding well.
The content of Christian worship is the story of Salvation history – that is, God’s initiating a relationship with fallen humanity. Dr. Robert Webber claims, “In worship we remember the stories of Abraham, the patriarchs, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, the covenant at Mt. Sinai, the establishment of Israel under the monarchy, and the call of the prophets to return to the covenant. Christian worship supplements these stories with the accounts of the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, the founding of the church, and the return of Jesus Christ to destroy evil and establish the new heavens and the new earth.” He goes on to say, “For worship to be Biblical and Christian, the story of God’s redemption and salvation must be its content. Otherwise it ceases to be Christian worship. For it is the content of worship – the Gospel – that makes worship uniquely distinctly Christian.” In worship the Gospel is vital. We proclaim it, enact it, celebrate it, and respond to it. This is Christian worship.
Question: How is it we say our worship is Christological when it
is God we worship?
Answer: First, let me say that I may not have communicated this point very well. In no way do I mean that we worship Jesus only, or that we exclude God from our worship. The Triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – ought to be the recipient of our worship. When I say that our worship should be Christocentric, I simply mean that our worship (much like Hebrew worship and the Exodus) is rooted in an event – The Christ event (death, burial and resurrection). This is summed up in the liturgical response spoken for centuries by Christians – “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith. Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again”. In worship we offer praise to our great and powerful God, we remember and give thanks for the atoning work of the Son, and we invite and welcome the Presence of the enlightening and ministering Holy Spirit. Our worship is of the Triune God – but our worship is rooted in the Christ event. This is what makes us distinct from other religions.
WE ARE DISTINCT FROM OTHERS WHO WORSHIP GOD
Muslims and Hebrews claim to worship the God of Abraham. Their worship is not valid in my opinion. Why is this? It is because they do not worship God through Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “No man comes to the Father, but by me.” This is God’s design from the beginning. God’s plan of salvation is revealed through Old Testament typologies – (Abraham and Isaac, The Flood, The Passover and Exodus, etc.), all of which point to Jesus. The fulfillment of the Old Covenant comes in the New Covenant with the atoning sacrifice of Jesus – (for instance, “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us…”). Note the O.T. concept fulfilled in Jesus. Webber says, “The epicenter for worship with Israel was the central saving event of the Exodus, and with us, the Church, it is the life, death, and resurrection of Christ – the Lamb of God. In worship we have a divine recapitulation of this saving work with the Lamb as the focus.” We are Christocentric, not to the exclusion of God the Father or the Holy Spirit, but because it is His plan for reconciling us to Himself.
WE MUST FAITHFULLY PASS ON THE FAITH
Commending our faith from one generation to the next is very important in worship. Paul said, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you…” This type of passing on the faith motivated the Hebrews to celebrate the Passover – they identified with the God of their salvation because their remembrance of the Exodus helped them experience coming out of Egypt – as if they were there (Exodus 12:26-27). It shaped the younger generations and passed on their heritage of faith. We, too, should pass on what we have received from the Lord. We too should “keep the feast” (1 Corinthians 5:7). But our Passover is none other than Christ. Our worship communicates the gospel discursively to those coming behind us. This kind of remembrance (Anamnesis) is more than just a fuzzy thought of a past event (an enlightenment concept). The past is actually relived or experienced again (taught by the early Church). Perhaps this is why Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:16 that the bread we break and the cup for which we give thanks are our participation in the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus said we should proclaim His death until He comes. This means being Christocentric. What we have received we should pass on. Should this be done in worship? I will answer with a question. Is the Lord’s Supper an act of worship?
WE REFLECT HEAVENLY WORSHIP IN OUR EARTHLY WORSHIP
Just as the O.T. prefigures Christ, our earthly worship prefigures heavenly worship. We place the saving acts of Jesus at the center of our worship so as to reflect our understanding of heavenly worship – this is what God shows us in His word. Revelation chapters 4-5 reveal heavenly worship to us. In these scenes we see angels, archangels, apostles, martyrs, and the entire communion of saints offering endless praise to God. In chapter four we hear the same worship text as Isaiah 6 – “Holy, Holy, Holy”. This song is clearly directed to God. But look on to chapter 5. This image of heavenly worship has a central focus – the “Lamb – looking as if it had been slain” who stands at the “center of the throne”. All gather around Him in worship and song (Rev. 5:6-9). "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" Notice that the description of Christ is not of a King, but a Lamb. This is clearly referring to the cross of Calvary. It seems that even heavenly worship remembers and gives attention to the atoning work of the Son on behalf of His bride. He is our advocate with the Father, and without Him we could not relate to the Father at all.
WE FOCUS ON JESUS SAVING WORK IN BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER
These two rites of worship clearly enact the Gospel within the worshiping community. Baptists call these the ordinances of Jesus because they were instituted by Him. The Gospel is enacted and proclaimed in both. They are most assuredly Christocentric. The Anaphora (related to the berakah Hebrew table prayers), or historical prayer of thanks before Communion follows a Trinitarian form. God is praised for creation, Jesus is thanked for His atonement, and the Spirit is invited to bless the elements for the Spiritual benefit of the participants. Christocentric does not mean exclusive of God the Father or the Spirit as evidenced here.
SABBATH SATURDAY TO EASTER SUNDAY
The fact that we worship on Sunday also indicates the centrality of the Christ-event. The Old Testament is quite clear that Saturday is the day of worship and rest. For Christians, Easter Sunday is celebrated each week as we gather to worship. Note that during the season of Lent (a season of sorrow and fasting), that Sundays are not included. They remain feast days rather than fast days due to their association with Easter Sunday. (Acts 20:7, Rev. 1:10)
WHEN WE HONOR JESUS WE HONOR GOD
John 5:23 sates, “..that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.” I believe that God the Father is delighted that we honor His Son by enacting, proclaiming and celebrating the Gospel narrative. Again, this is not to say that we should exclude God or the Spirit. But Jesus is the One whose name we carry, in whose name we pray, and is the one we are commended to “lift up.” He is at the center of God’s plan, the center of history, the center of the Scriptures, the center of heavenly worship, the center of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, the center of Sunday as a consecrated day, and should be at the center of our worship…all to the glory of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Sacred Space Speaks - A Study in Architecture for Christian Worship
- Jesus’ death on the cross marked an epic shift in accessibility to God. As the temple veil was “rent (torn) from top to bottom,” (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38) so too was the sacerdotal system that for centuries had limited proximity to the Father. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy place of God’s dwelling before this momentous alteration. With the ushering in of the New Covenant, Jesus assumes the role of the High Priest, and in Him, we have direct access to the Father. As followers of Christ, we are now a kingdom of priests. John records, “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen (Revelation 1:6)." We have an invitation to come directly into God’s throne room. The writer of Hebrews states it rather succinctly. “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God...” (Hebrews 10:19-21).
I do not believe it is a mistake that we have access to the Holy Place by the blood of Jesus through the curtain which is His body. It is no stretch at all to view body and blood as Eucharistic in nature. Paul states unambiguously in 1 Corinthians 10:16 that we “participate” in the body and blood of Jesus in the bread we break and the cup for which we give thanks. It is no wonder the early Church believed that at the Table they were experiencing a convergence of heaven and earth. In the Eucharist they, “lift(ed) up (their) hearts to the Lord (Sursum corda).” They also sang the heavenly song, “Holy, Holy, Holy,” with the angels, archangels and the saints of all the ages. At the Table they believed they were transported into the very Presence of the Lord where they gathered around His throne. So it should be with us. We no longer fear to enter the prescribed copy of the Holy Place found in the Temple. Now we are able to experience the original throne room through the body and blood of Jesus. There is incredible consistency here if one is open to perceive it.
Temple worship was clearly God’s desired medium before the fulfilled mission of the Messiah. After the New Covenant was established, paradigm shifts were plenteous. God was no longer located in a particular place (the Holy Place of the Temple). Now, God was placed within His people. Paul said, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God (1 Corinthians 6:19)?” Corresponding to the sacred assembly of the Old Testament, the followers of Christ were instructed to meet together. Paul declares, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing…(Hebrews 10:25)” With the emergence of the Church of Jesus, all of the worshipers contributed as a “kingdom of priests.” Paul went on to describe the intricate and connected relationship of the church as a body with many members. Romans 12:5 states, “So in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” Further, the gathering of Jesus disciples also comes with a promise. Matthew records in chapter 18, verse 20, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them." At the institution of the New Covenant four shifts may be noted, among others:
1. God’s Proximity – from a particular place to His “peculiar” people
2. God’s People – from plebian participants to purposeful priests
3. God’s Purpose – from the chosen nation to a connected body
4. God’s Presence – from a prescribed room to a promised relationship
The dramatic changes outlined above necessitate corresponding changes in requirements for worship space. James Empereur suggests, “Good theology and good worship go hand in hand. You can’t ever have one without the other.” Does this also apply to the place we worship? I believe that architectural design and order for the sacred space of Christian worship should reflect our theology. Educator and author Robert Webber asserts that, “Space speaks. Because space speaks, it is important to know what kind of Biblical assumptions regarding the church and its worship should inform the Christian approach to worship space.” Historian, educator and author Marchita Mauck claims, “There is no more legitimate source for the shape of the worship place than the shape of what happens there. (Sacred) actions should shape the worship place so that it, in turn can shape and support and enhance those actions.” Webber goes a step further in saying that, “The architectural space in which worship takes place is a matter of primary importance. The space of worship ultimately shapes the beliefs, sensibilities and understandings of those who worship in its confines.” Winston Churchill understood the power of architecture to speak. He said, “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” In summary:
1. Christian Worship and space for worship should be shaped by our theology.
2. Christian Worship space should be designed to facilitate and enhance the sacred actions of
the service.
3. Christian Worship space is formative - space speaks, teaches and reveals our values.
If we follow the formula below to determine the general elements of Christian worship, we may also begin to see the basic needs to be addressed in ordering worship space. Consider the following:
First consideration – The Elements of Christian Worship
1. Content of Worship = Gospel of Jesus Christ
2. Structure of Worship = Scriptural four-fold pattern
- Gathering
- Word
-Table
-Sending Forth
3. Style of Worship = Contextual
Webber offers the conclusion that, “(Space for worship) needs to reflect the work of salvation, which we celebrate. Therefore, adequate space for gathering, for the hearing of the Word, for the celebration of the Eucharist and for music and the arts that accompany these acts is a priority.”
Second consideration – Placement and prominence reveal our values. Enter the homes of most people and you will see almost immediately what they value most. In many dwellings, generations of family members are pictorially displayed. Antiques, still in use, communicate a legacy of love and an embraced heritage. What the resident holds most dear is revealed to any inquiring guest. Sacred space speaks in a similar way. What then do we value as Christians that might be displayed, and in so doing serve the liturgy, enhance our environment for worship, and communicate what we hold most dear? Consider these possibilities:
1. The Word of God = prominently placed pulpit (a twin peak with the Table)
2. The Table of the Lord = prominently placed Table (perhaps centrally located for easy access by everyone – should be free of non-symbolic trifles like flowers and miscellaneous gobbledygook – how we treat the Table speaks of our theology of the Table – it is not a coffee table)
3. The Baptismal Pool = prominently placed – preferably at the entrance of the nave so as to agree with the symbolism that baptism is the initiation into the Body of Christ. (The baptismal pool should never be hidden with a curtain. Allow the waters to speak even when not directly utilized)
4. The Pews or Chairs = set at a comfortable distance to allow for movement = encouraging participation and a sense of unity (or does it create a sense of attending the theatre as a spectator?)
5. Acoustics = good ambient sound encourages singing and participation (poor acoustics discourage both)
6. Other symbols = the cross, the Bible, candles – all speak silently to our values and our theology
7. Other Arts – as is deemed appropriate by the congregation (stained glass, paintings, banners, etc.) = these may also speak truths we hold dear and wish to communicate
In conclusion, worship can happen at a camp site, or a cathedral. Wherever we worship, space is being utilized. Whether we are in a house church, hut, or a basilica, we worship the Lord in space and time. What should our questions be as we consider creating sacred (set apart) space in our context? Our concerns should include, “Does our use of space agree with our theology, aid in carrying out the service, take into consideration the formative influence of architecture and intentionally appointed worship space, and finally, does it help or hinder our worship?” These questions are worthy of attention so that our sacred space may loudly speak.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Are You Positive That Tradition is Negative?
Several months ago I observed the tearing down of an 89 year old church building to make way for a fast food restaurant. For generations, white columns distinctively supported the gabled entrance of the stately red brick edifice. It had withstood World War I, World War II, most of the tumultuous twentieth century, and the emergence of the postmodern era out of the ashes of the modern. What was the reason for her demise? This sacred space appears to have fallen prey to the pursuit of profit. "‘It's a sad thing for me,’ said one longtime member… ‘I was married there and I was baptized there, and my two kids were baptized there and both of them were married there. It's just been a big part of my life.’”[1] Hamburgers and fries will now be dispensed where faith was once formed.
This scenario has become quite normative for us. We live amongst a people who tend to value expediency and efficiency more than transcendence and timelessness. In fact, traditions are held in contempt by many who believe progress depends on jettisoning the past. Even the Church, in many instances, has turned her back on a rich heritage in favor of timely trends and progressive programs designed to reach the masses. Unfortunately, in attempting to super-size the church, some have given in to the same marketing strategies that have rendered almost everything dispensable. Christian symbols have been removed from "worship space" in favor of non-threatening theatre-like environments. Even the Christian message of dying to self and finding life in Christ have given way to the more comfortable message of self-fulfillment. In the mean time, our sense of historical perspective has been compromised. One minister of music was recently asked if her church sang any of the old songs. She said, “Yes, of course. We even sing a couple of songs that are two or three years old.” Despite the shift in values, there are stalwarts who still ascribe to the well worn paths. Churches espousing tradition, however, are often viewed as unbending, ancient, and out of touch.
Should we be so positive that tradition is a negative? In a day when meals in a sack are ordered by number, songs are considered oldies after a few months and most things are designed to be disposable, including church buildings, what traditions could possibly be relevant?
Christian author and clergyman David Bercot claims that, “Scripture speaks of two types of tradition: human tradition and apostolic tradition. On the one hand, Christians are warned not to be deceived by the ‘tradition of men.’ On the other hand, Christians are commanded to ‘keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you’ (1 Cor. 11:2).[2] Acts 2:42 records that the Church dedicated itself to “the Apostles’ teaching.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul says, “Therefore, brothers, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” Before the New Testament existed, this Tradition or standard of faith was being disseminated throughout the Churches.
What was this God given tradition taught by the Apostles through their spoken word and writings? Professor and author D.H. Williams claims that 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 is, “Paul’s outlined version of the tradition.” It is concise and stunningly simple: “that Christ died, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day.”[3] Where did the tradition come from if not the Scriptures? The tradition stated here was standard fare in the early Church before an authoritative canon of Scripture was established. Out of the life of the Church and her worship came the kerygma (the Word proclaimed). These teachings were based on the eye witness accounts of the Apostles. Christian author and scholar Robert Webber sees the Tradition expressed in the kerygma as containing these basic elements:
1. The prophecies of a coming Messiah were fulfilled in Christ’s incarnation
2. Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead
3. He has ascended into heaven and will return to earth to judge all evil
4. Repent, be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit
5. The Church is the new “people of God”[4]
So then, the tradition that has been handed down to us is the Gospel narrative – from prophecy to incarnation, passion, resurrection, ascension, culmination and Kingdom. Christian churches must espouse these truths, or cease to be authentic. This is the tradition we must hold on to without compromise. Cultural characteristics come and go as do buildings. Sadly, the church building that was torn down reveals our ease at dismissing the past. But, if the real Church is to remain faithful to the Lord, we must live out the Gospel narrative (dying to ourselves and being raised in Christ), and then pass to the generations coming behind us the transforming truth about God’s love expressed in Jesus. We must erect our lives and Churches on God’s transcendent tradition, that is, on the solid Rock, the Cornerstone. And then commit ourselves to “being built into a Spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5), that will never be torn down. If we are so inclined, we will truly be “the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). The wrecking ball of cultural paradigm shifts, nor the gates of Hell will ever prevail against it!
[1] Lexington Herald Leader, September 7, 2006.
[2] David Bercot, “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998), 646.
[3] D. H. Williams, “Evangelicals and Tradition” (Baker Academic Publishing Co., 2005), 58-59.
[4] Robert Webber, “Renew Your Worship” (Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 55.
Monday, January 8, 2007
The Scripturally Prescribed Structure of Christian Worship
After a recent meeting in which the Biblically prescribed structure for worship was discussed (four-fold pattern) , one of those participating e-mailed me several insightful questions. The following is one of the questions posed and my response. Robert Webber's classic "Worship Old and New" was consulted in preparing the answers.
Question: If “worship” encompasses all we do on Sunday mornings (We gather, we hear the Word, we share the meal [quarterly…that’s another story], we go forth to live and tell), where or how does the other more fundamental pattern of Biblical worship fit in? The pattern that is found in the worship of Abel (Gen 4.4), Abraham (Gen 22.5), Job (Job 1.20-21), David (Ps 96.7-9), Isaiah (Is 6), Paul’s instructions to the churches (1 Cor 13.25-26), and John’s depiction of the throne room of heaven (Rev 4).
Response: There is a difference between individual worship such as the offerings of Cain and Abel or Abraham and Isaac, and corporate worship – that is the Assembly of God’s people (qahal Yahweh). Robert Webber Claims that the Old Testament image that best reveals this concept is the gathering of Israel at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:1-8). Note the elements of the four-fold pattern of worship here. 1. God convened the meeting with the Israelites. The people gathered and fulfilled specific responsibilities – but all of them were participants in the event. 2. God’s Word was proclaimed to them. 3. The people responded to the Word of God by accepting the conditions of the covenant – and this is ratified by a dramatic symbol which served to seal the agreement – the sprinkling of blood. 4. God’s covenant with Israel is established and they become His people. In this and other Old Testament passages we observe God’s requirement that a blood sacrifice be offered – this is a foreshadowing of Jesus’ sacrificial death and our participation in that death at the Lord’s Table and in Baptism (1 Corinthians 10:16, Romans 6:1-5). Nehemiah 8 also contains the pattern – the people gather in the town square, the Law is brought out and read by Ezra, the people have a feast and then go out to live the renewed covenant.
In Christian worship we follow the same pattern. We gather, hear God’s Word, accept God’s terms by responding at the invitation or by taking the cup which ratifies the New Covenant in His blood, and then, ostensibly, we go forth to live as God’s People. This connection is thrilling to me. Worship that is ordered like this is following God’s prescription from the very beginning.
Quick aside: Did you see the Nativity movie that was recently released? There was a key moment in the movie that applies to our discussion. Joseph seeks Mary to be His bride. He, therefore, asks Mary’s father for her hand in marriage. There is a very important gathering of Joseph, Mary and her parents. The terms or words of the covenant are proclaimed to her. The all important moment comes when she is offered the cup. If she drinks it, the covenant is agreed to. If she does not, the arrangement falls apart. She does drink the cup and they go out of the meeting to live within the ratified covenant. What an amazing parallel to Christian worship and the four-fold pattern - and most vividly, Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper. In this act He is proposing to His bride. Note His words, “This is the New Covenant in my blood…” – a covenant is a legally binding relationship. Note also in John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise Him up at the last day.” The Lord’s Supper may be seen as our participation in the covenant to be the Bride of Christ. INCREDIBLE!! And what does the Lord’s Supper pre-figure? It is nothing other than the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. GOOSEBUMPS!!! I love the depth of these theological consistencies in God’s design.
Other passages worth considering are Acts 2:41-44, and Luke 24:13-35. Also note the evidence of this four-fold pattern in the very early church. About 155 A.D., Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology, chapter 67, “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
Note the pattern in these New Testament passages and early Church document:
Gathering: (Acts 2 - Christians gathered), (Luke 24 - Disciples and Jesus gather), (First Apology 67 - Christians gathered)
Word: (Acts 2 - Apostles Teaching), (Luke 24 - He opened the Scriptures), (First Apology 67 - Read memoirs of Apostles)
Table: (Acts 2 - Breaking of Bread), (Luke 24 - Broke the Bread), (First Apology 67 - Bread and wine are brought)
Sending Forth: (Acts 2 - Living in One Accord), (Luke 24 - Ran to tell others), (First Apology 67 - Went out to serve others)
Why is this pattern more significant in the shaping of our worship than Isaiah’s vision in chapter 6:1-8? Because that passage reveals Isaiah’s experience and it is not repeated anywhere else in the Scriptures. By definition a one time experience is not a pattern. It is not the qahal Yahweh - the assembly of God’s People. What we do see there is a glimpse of heavenly worship in which the “Holy, Holy, Holy” is being sung. The early Church sang this heavenly text during Communion every week. They believed that at the Lord’s Supper a convergence of heaven and earth took place. At the Table they were spiritually whisked to heaven where they joined the angels, archangels and saints of all the ages around the throne. The Sursum Corda is used to this day in many churches as a preface to Communion. It can be dated to 215 and Hippolytus writing, The Apostolic Tradition. The responsive reading narrates what the church believed was happening to them as they were transported into heavenly worship.
Presider: The Lord be with you.
People: And with your spirit (or And also with you).
Presider: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them to the Lord (or We have them with the Lord).
Clearly, heavenly glimpses from Isaiah and Revelation have impacted earthly worship. This contribution notwithstanding, it is the four-fold pattern's unparalleled repetition that supports its use as the blueprint for structuring Christian worship.
This pattern for worship has been evident throughout the Old Testament, the New Testament, Church history and is practiced around the world today. I believe it is God’s prescribed pattern for our worship and any other pattern seems far less obvious in the Scriptures.
Webber summarizes it this way, “One can study the history of worship from the early Church to the present and discover, without exception, that Sunday worship has always been characterized by these four acts.” I disagree with Dr. Webber here only slightly. Some of today’s contemporary churches have jettisoned any semblance of Biblical or historical pattern.
Note the shifts and turns through the years. Webber points out that the early Church had underdeveloped gathering and sending forth liturgies, the medieval period nearly lost the ministry of the Word, the Reformation nearly dismissed the Table (Zwingli), in the age of reason, the enlightenment, worship moved from experiential to cognitive, from pageant to lecture, and sanctuaries became auditoriums so people could sit and listen. The great awakening and revival movements replaced the Table with the invitation, and today, many churches reinvent the wheel every Sunday for the sake of being creative. There is little or no connection to a Scriptural pattern. There is also no appreciation for heritage or history. I believe that we should reclaim the Scriptural integrity of the Biblical four-fold pattern.
Question: If “worship” encompasses all we do on Sunday mornings (We gather, we hear the Word, we share the meal [quarterly…that’s another story], we go forth to live and tell), where or how does the other more fundamental pattern of Biblical worship fit in? The pattern that is found in the worship of Abel (Gen 4.4), Abraham (Gen 22.5), Job (Job 1.20-21), David (Ps 96.7-9), Isaiah (Is 6), Paul’s instructions to the churches (1 Cor 13.25-26), and John’s depiction of the throne room of heaven (Rev 4).
Response: There is a difference between individual worship such as the offerings of Cain and Abel or Abraham and Isaac, and corporate worship – that is the Assembly of God’s people (qahal Yahweh). Robert Webber Claims that the Old Testament image that best reveals this concept is the gathering of Israel at Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:1-8). Note the elements of the four-fold pattern of worship here. 1. God convened the meeting with the Israelites. The people gathered and fulfilled specific responsibilities – but all of them were participants in the event. 2. God’s Word was proclaimed to them. 3. The people responded to the Word of God by accepting the conditions of the covenant – and this is ratified by a dramatic symbol which served to seal the agreement – the sprinkling of blood. 4. God’s covenant with Israel is established and they become His people. In this and other Old Testament passages we observe God’s requirement that a blood sacrifice be offered – this is a foreshadowing of Jesus’ sacrificial death and our participation in that death at the Lord’s Table and in Baptism (1 Corinthians 10:16, Romans 6:1-5). Nehemiah 8 also contains the pattern – the people gather in the town square, the Law is brought out and read by Ezra, the people have a feast and then go out to live the renewed covenant.
In Christian worship we follow the same pattern. We gather, hear God’s Word, accept God’s terms by responding at the invitation or by taking the cup which ratifies the New Covenant in His blood, and then, ostensibly, we go forth to live as God’s People. This connection is thrilling to me. Worship that is ordered like this is following God’s prescription from the very beginning.
Quick aside: Did you see the Nativity movie that was recently released? There was a key moment in the movie that applies to our discussion. Joseph seeks Mary to be His bride. He, therefore, asks Mary’s father for her hand in marriage. There is a very important gathering of Joseph, Mary and her parents. The terms or words of the covenant are proclaimed to her. The all important moment comes when she is offered the cup. If she drinks it, the covenant is agreed to. If she does not, the arrangement falls apart. She does drink the cup and they go out of the meeting to live within the ratified covenant. What an amazing parallel to Christian worship and the four-fold pattern - and most vividly, Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper. In this act He is proposing to His bride. Note His words, “This is the New Covenant in my blood…” – a covenant is a legally binding relationship. Note also in John 6, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whosoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise Him up at the last day.” The Lord’s Supper may be seen as our participation in the covenant to be the Bride of Christ. INCREDIBLE!! And what does the Lord’s Supper pre-figure? It is nothing other than the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. GOOSEBUMPS!!! I love the depth of these theological consistencies in God’s design.
Other passages worth considering are Acts 2:41-44, and Luke 24:13-35. Also note the evidence of this four-fold pattern in the very early church. About 155 A.D., Justin Martyr wrote in his First Apology, chapter 67, “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.
Note the pattern in these New Testament passages and early Church document:
Gathering: (Acts 2 - Christians gathered), (Luke 24 - Disciples and Jesus gather), (First Apology 67 - Christians gathered)
Word: (Acts 2 - Apostles Teaching), (Luke 24 - He opened the Scriptures), (First Apology 67 - Read memoirs of Apostles)
Table: (Acts 2 - Breaking of Bread), (Luke 24 - Broke the Bread), (First Apology 67 - Bread and wine are brought)
Sending Forth: (Acts 2 - Living in One Accord), (Luke 24 - Ran to tell others), (First Apology 67 - Went out to serve others)
Why is this pattern more significant in the shaping of our worship than Isaiah’s vision in chapter 6:1-8? Because that passage reveals Isaiah’s experience and it is not repeated anywhere else in the Scriptures. By definition a one time experience is not a pattern. It is not the qahal Yahweh - the assembly of God’s People. What we do see there is a glimpse of heavenly worship in which the “Holy, Holy, Holy” is being sung. The early Church sang this heavenly text during Communion every week. They believed that at the Lord’s Supper a convergence of heaven and earth took place. At the Table they were spiritually whisked to heaven where they joined the angels, archangels and saints of all the ages around the throne. The Sursum Corda is used to this day in many churches as a preface to Communion. It can be dated to 215 and Hippolytus writing, The Apostolic Tradition. The responsive reading narrates what the church believed was happening to them as they were transported into heavenly worship.
Presider: The Lord be with you.
People: And with your spirit (or And also with you).
Presider: Lift up your hearts.
People: We lift them to the Lord (or We have them with the Lord).
Clearly, heavenly glimpses from Isaiah and Revelation have impacted earthly worship. This contribution notwithstanding, it is the four-fold pattern's unparalleled repetition that supports its use as the blueprint for structuring Christian worship.
This pattern for worship has been evident throughout the Old Testament, the New Testament, Church history and is practiced around the world today. I believe it is God’s prescribed pattern for our worship and any other pattern seems far less obvious in the Scriptures.
Webber summarizes it this way, “One can study the history of worship from the early Church to the present and discover, without exception, that Sunday worship has always been characterized by these four acts.” I disagree with Dr. Webber here only slightly. Some of today’s contemporary churches have jettisoned any semblance of Biblical or historical pattern.
Note the shifts and turns through the years. Webber points out that the early Church had underdeveloped gathering and sending forth liturgies, the medieval period nearly lost the ministry of the Word, the Reformation nearly dismissed the Table (Zwingli), in the age of reason, the enlightenment, worship moved from experiential to cognitive, from pageant to lecture, and sanctuaries became auditoriums so people could sit and listen. The great awakening and revival movements replaced the Table with the invitation, and today, many churches reinvent the wheel every Sunday for the sake of being creative. There is little or no connection to a Scriptural pattern. There is also no appreciation for heritage or history. I believe that we should reclaim the Scriptural integrity of the Biblical four-fold pattern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)