The Conversation of Worship

I am posting here for interaction excerpts from an article addressing the nature and execution of biblical worship. The entire article can be found here.

______________________________

It is hard to overestimate the damage that the topic of worship has done to the church, particularly in recent times. The fact that this topic is often referred to as “war”—as in “worship wars,” is not entirely hyperbole. Churches have been split, and pastors have found themselves on the unemployment line for daring to tackle the topic of worship. People from both sides of the aisle have launched a seemingly endless volley of names and charges at those who disagree with them. Charges run the gamut from “You do not really love God” to “You are narrow-minded and blind.”

The reason behind this problem cannot be the lack of a clarion call from Scripture to worship. One can hardly read the Bible without sensing on virtually every page this call of God to worship and a pastor cannot pretend to preach the whole counsel of God without addressing the topic of worship. So why is this subject so controversial? It almost certainly stems from confusion about what worship really is coupled with a refusal to submit to the commands of God about biblical worship.

A survey about worship will undoubtedly find people’s idea of worship closely connected with feelings or emotions. A service is considered worshipful when a certain mood has been created, a mood that is often evaluated by the cultural or social baggage that one brings to his religious experience. The buzz, the feeling, the emotional movement—a state of excitement, or reflection, or both, are the bases on which someone evaluates worship service. In pursuit of this, some churches have set out to create the perfect worship atmosphere, perhaps with low lights, great bands, or candles. Others use quiet meditation, organ accompaniment, and robes for the pastor. In some cases, one can walk away from the service feeling like it was a “great worship service” while being unable to recall even basic information about the message brought from Scripture. On the other end, the mood is evaluated by similar standards with a different outcome. These assert that “if my flesh likes it, it cannot be true worship.”

In the midst of this confusion, many have lost sight (if they ever had it) of the fact that true biblical worship has primarily to do with a glad and necessary response of life to the truth about God communicated in his Word through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Let us examine this definition in more detail by examining it in order of priority, and then propose a paradigm for corporate worship.

______________________________

For worship to be biblical, therefore, it must be a glad and necessary response of life to the truth about God communicated in his Word through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Biblical worship is not about how people feel when they leave the building, nor is it about whether or not emotions were stirred, though genuine worship should result in changed feelings and emotions. Biblical worship is first and foremost about the truth of God, in his person and work through Jesus Christ, communicated to the hearer, drawing forth the response of the spirit to that truth. Simply put, biblical worship is a conversation between man and God, where God speaks and man responds.

The Problem with Pragmatism

It works.

Success breeds affection for the means of attaining success. Rarely will people be persuaded to turn away from something that appears to be getting results. So be careful what you try. It might work.

Lessons from an Archaeologist

Dr. Zahi Hawass instructs us all from this article in The New York Times International from Tuesday, April 3, 2007.

"Really, it's a myth," he says of the Exodus. "Sometimes as archaeologists we have to say that never happened because there is no evidence for it."

How is it that we can argue argue a categorical negative based on the lack of evidence? It seems that there are some significant assumptions that go into such an argument.

There is the assumption that every historical event left recognizable evidence that would be preserved for thousands of years. How would we know that that is indeed a fact? Would we not recognize that through the millenia of human history there have been many events which likely left no identifiable evidence, if in fact they left any evidence at all.

There is the second assumption that we have found all the archaeological evidence that there is to find. This assumption is demonstrably wrong, inasmuch as archaeologists are constantly making new finds. If every bit of archaeological evidence was already found and categorized, then archeology would virtually cease to exist.

There is a third assumption that all the archaeological evidence has been properly categorized and dated. This is simply impossible to verify. Archeology is a very technical and detailed field. But it also works from guesses in many areas, and from circular reasoning in others (e.g., We found this potsherd in this layer so it must be from this era because everything else in this layer is from said era.)

The reason this grabs my attention (and this has been sitting on my desk for weeks now while I ruminated on it) is because some people think that archaeology is the secret key to evangelism through apologetics. If we can simply prove that Noah's Ark existed, or that Israel was in Egypt, or that Belshazzar did reign in Babylon, then we can win the world to Jesus very quickly and usher in the kingdom.

Such is not the case. God has not left the confirmation of his truth up to the "lucky" finds of archaeologists. He has instead entrusted the confirmation of his truth to the ministry of the Holy Spirit through the communication of the Word of God. While archaeological finds may provide interesting extra-biblical data, the truth of Scripture does not rest on men digging holes in the desert.

Things I Have Learned

Wearing red shirts is like women preaching.

On Conferences

Every now and then I attend a pastor's conference of some sort. I usually pick ones that are outside of my normal circle of influence because I want to be exposed to something that will make me think and interact with ideas that I may not have come across elsewhere. Of course, I know some think you should only go to "fundamental conferences." And some give you "the look" when they hear where you went. (I got "the look" recently ... at least I think I did.)

I attended such a conference this past week which proved to be interesting. The track I was in was a less than I expected. It was pretty "bottom level" stuff that perhaps would be good for someone who has little exposure to ministry. There were other tracks that I would have rather taken, if I had been given the opportunity. The interaction with other pastors was enlightening however. And enjoyable.

The best presentations were one on small groups and one on evangelism. They both tended towards the "nuts and bolts" end of things, which was helpful. Quite frankly, I am not all that interested in picking up theology at most of these conferences. I am more interested in picking up ideas and more importantly, seeing how other places do things.

Here's the danger of these kinds of conferences: They can lead to franchising the church. I think I have mentioned that elsewhere (though perhaps I meant to and never got around to it). Making hamburgers is the same in every city. Building churches is not.

A "best practices" kind of conference is dangerous because what is a "best practice" in one place or culture might not be in another. Furthermore, best practices are focused too often on pragmatism. "We did it and grew to 56,000 members in just five weeks" is not a good warrant for adopting a technique. For a church planter or pastor to try to wholesale implement somenoe else's vision or technique could be very damaging.

It also may tends towards self-reliance or organizational reliance rather than Spirit dependence. Such an approach may draw a crowd, but it will have a hard time building a church.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the two days was listening to these men defend their view of elder government. Trying to figure out the distinctions drawn between kinds of elders and whether or not they are on the elder board or not was ... well ... confusing. If I will be persuaded to elder rule, it will take a great deal more than was offered in these conversations.