The Power of Parents in the Worship of Children

Everyone knows that parents have tremendous power and influence in the lives of children, particularly in their younger years. And everyone knows that children have tremendous power and influence in the lives of parents.

The first is what God intended. The second is moving toward the effects of the fall in the reversal of creation-based roles.

The irony of the title, “The Power of Parents in the Worship of Children” is that we parents have often become almost powerless because we worship children. They run our lives by commanding our responses that flow out of a heart unchecked by the worship of God.

It should be the other way around. That our power in the lives of our children is driven by our worship of God, and our children’s worship is instructed by our worship of God rather than our worship of children.

As Israel departed Egypt in the exodus, the Passover was instituted by God as a reminder of his powerful deliverance, a deliverance that their children and grandchildren would never see. Yet in the initial instruction concerning the Passover, God envisions a day when the children will ask “What does this ceremony mean to you?” (Exod 12:26). “Why are you doing this?” they will say.

Embedded in this anticipated question are several important things.

First, there is the assumption that the parents are continuing in the commanded worship of God through the observance of the Passover. They have not let the immediate, internal complacency, or the passing of time shove aside their commanded worship and remembrance.

Seccond, there is the assumption that parents are participating in the observance in a way that makes clear that there is a meaning to it beyond the mere passing observance of a religious ritual. There is the assumption that the meaning of the Passover has been internalized by the parent.

Third, there is the assumption that the children are involved in the observance, that this worship is not just for adults. It is a family observance.

Fourth, there is the assumption that parents are able to answer the questions of their children because of their own spiritual knowledge of the history and the meaning of God’s work among them. In fact, there is the assumption that the parents will give God’s answer, "that our God delivered us from Egypt’ (Exod 12:27).

Thus, when children see it and ask, parents can answer in way that instructs their children and brings about the worship of children, that is, children who worship because of the mighty acts of God that they never saw but have only heard about from their parents.

In an age where parents worship children, we are often tempted to avoid the hard things. It is often easier to put our children to bed than it is read the Bible with them and pray with them before bedtime. It is often easier to let the sports schedule dictate the church schedule rather than fight the fight of missing games rather than church. It is often easier to address sin issues with non-biblical or quasi-biblical instructions rather than address the matters of the heart.

Parents who have no internalized the worship of God will usually take the easy road. We just want them to be quiet, to stop fighting, to get their homework done, to get to bed, to win games, to clean their rooms. And we will say or do whatever it is necessary in that moment to satisfy our children enough to get them to do what we want.

And in that, we often miss a teaching opportunity, however brief it might be. It’s the opportunity to teach them that at that very moment, they are worshipping something. They are professing allegiance to something—their selfish desires that bring fighting, their sinful desire for the immediate gratification of laziness rather than the harder task of completing homework, their arrogance that convinces them they know more than the referee or the teacher.

What we should want is for them to see how all these things are connected to the worship of God and the  filling of their God-ordained roles at this stage in their lives. What we should strive for is to root all these responses to life in the mighty acts of God in creation, deliverance, and community.

Sure it’s hard. And if we worship children, we will do everything we can to make them happy and to appease them.

But if we will worship God, we will approach parenting with the goal of teaching and reminding our children constantly that we all—ourselves included—have someone greater to answer to and to worship—namely, the Creator and Deliverer, God himself.

And so when our children ask, “Why do you do that?” let us make sure that the “that” they are asking about is our counter-cultural and other-worldly worship of God and the radical approach to life that stems from it. And let us make sure that, when our children ask, we have an answer that can lift them above the pressing needs of this hour and direct them to the eternal values of God.

Quotable

James Edwards commenting on the story of James and John requesting places at the right hand and left hand of Jesus who remains in the middle, the central place:

The brothers hope to honor Jesus while honoring themselves. How easily worship and discipleship are blended with self-interest; or worse, self-interest is masked as worship and discipleship.*

We would do well to consider our own selves.

Selfish ambition, pride, and self-righteousness is so deceptive. We can easily think that we are worshipping Jesus when we are in fact blending in our self-interest, or masking our self-interest as worship and discipleship.

______________________

*James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, The Pillar New Testament commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002). 322.

Coral Ridge Ending Age-Segmented Worship

So proclaims Out of Ur, citing an unlinked article in The Christian Post.

What are they actually doing? They are actually ending their practice of having a traditional and a contemporary service, something that dates back to the days of D. James Kennedy. Now, Kennedy’s successor Tullian Tchividjian says it’s time to do away with that.

Here’s a quote of interest:

The megachurch pastor also said he doesn't view separate worship services by style or age as any different from racial segregation, except that it's more subtle.

Allowing for the fact that Tchividjian may not have actually said this (there is no link and it’s not a direct quote), this is an interesting ploy that, to me, smacks of silliness.

It seems these days, that whenever someone wants to make a really strong statement on something, they often connected it to race because almost everyone cares about race and virtually no one wants to come down on the wrong side of that.

But how, in the name of anything rational, is having multiple services of different styles similar to racial segregation?

Simple answer: It’s not.

People choose which church they want to attend, and which service they want to attend. They are welcome to sit where they like (unless they get there late and the back seats are already filled). No one looks at their appearance and then funnels them into certain places. I was at Coral Ridge one Sunday, as a relatively young man, and went to the traditional service. No one tried to get me to go somewhere else. It was completely voluntary.

Racial segregation was not. It was enforced, both legally and culturally.

In other words, this argument by Tchividjian is, quite frankly, just a dumb argument. It sounds pious, but it makes no sense. It does injustice to real racial problems, and it doesn’t solve anything.

I am all for having one type of service, and one service rather than multiple services. I think young people should be in at least part of the service with older people because “One generation shall praise your works to another,” which is hard to do when the generations are separate (Psalm 145:4).

But whatever a church does with its services, let’s see through cheap ploys to appeal to people’s sensibilities by playing the race card.

We have enough race problems and worship problems in our churches without confusing the two.

Quick Hits From the Mail

From a flyer advertising a worship seminar:

The average person in our society laughs 7 times per day. The average person attending this seminar will laugh than 30 times.

I suppose that is one reason to attend a worship conference.

Perhaps that says more than it intends. Maybe the reason people take worship so lightly is because it is a laughing matter to them.

On another note, the recent Baptist Bible Tribune has its regular article by Charles Lyons, pastor of Armitage Baptist Church in Chicago. In it, he talks about how we have taken baptism—the public confession of Christ—and turned it into a private affair. He says,

We know baptism is to be the public declaration of Jesus’ lordship and attachment to His local body, but in reality we’ve taken the route of convenience. We schedule baptism in hidden, walled, sequestered pools, often in front of the smallest audience of the week.

So what did they do? They took their baptisms to a local park named the Humboldt Park Lagoon and they do it publicly—not like in front of the church public, but open air public. And baptismal candidates take the mic  and give their testimony of faith before being baptized. One lady recently baptized was, in her words “right over there, hiding behind that tree” at the previous year’s baptism. This particular year, because of that, she was the one publicly confessing her faith in Christ.

I like it. I am not sure how practical it is for some, including us. But it is worth giving some thought to, in my opinion.

As a related side note, this past January, on my trip to India I was sitting in the Mumbai airport during an overnight layover. My my friend Ken and I were chatting with an older couple who we had seen having a gospel conversation with another person. Turns out the gentleman was a retired British pastor who was a Sovereign Grace Baptist in England.

During that conversation I noticed a young lady sitting just to my right on the row that backed up to ours. She was clearly eavesdropping. So I started talking to her. Turns out she is a member of Armitage Baptist Church where Charles Lyons (the author of this article) pastors. She was in India for a wedding. I told her that her pastor’s regular article in the Baptist Bible Tribune was the only article I read in in the Tribune. We later boarded the same plane for our common destination.

Small world.

Carson on Worship Leaders

The notion of a "worship leader" who leads the "worship" part of the service before the sermon (which, then, is no part of worship!) is so bizarre, from a New Testament perspective, as to be embarrassing. ... I know that "worship leader" is merely a matter of semantics, a currently popular tag, but it is a popular tag that unwittingly skews people's expectations as to what worship is. At very least, it is misleadingly restrictive.

He then follows this up with a footnote:

Perhaps this is the place to reflect on the fact that many contemporary "worship leaders" have training in music but none in Bible, theology, history, or the like. When pressed as to the criteria by which they choose their music, many of these leaders finally admit that their criteria oscillate between personal preference and keeping the congregation reasonably happy--scarcely the most profound criteria in the world. They give little or no thought to covering the great themes of Scripture, or the great events of Scripture, or the range of personal response to God found in the Psalms (as opposed to covering the narrow themes of being upbeat and in the midst of "worship"), or the nature of biblical locutions (in one chorus the congregation manages to sing "holy" thirty-six times, while three are enough for Isaiah and John of the Apocalypse), or the central historical traditions of the church, or anything else of weight. If such leaders operate on their own with little guidance or training or input from senior pastors, the situation commonly degenerates from the painful to the pitiful (From Worship by the Book, p. 47).

I wonder if the seemingly typical service where all the "preliminaries" are led by the "music guy" and the pastor sits stoically in his throne-like seat on the platform until it is his time to preach contributes to the notion that the he is disconnected from and disinterested in the musical worship, or maybe that singing is simply preliminary and the pastor is saving himself for the important stuff. Perhaps there is a better way.

I think there are some good reasons to have the pastor involved in the musical part of the worship, if nothing else through the introduction of songs to explain the theological basis or the role of a particular song at a particular point in the sequence, or the leading of the congregation in reading related passages of Scripture, etc.

Perhaps some variety is in order. There are times when I love to sit back and sing and worship without the burden of leading others. But I do not think I would want to be totally uninvolved.

Over the past few years, I have given this increasing attention, and have formulated some of my own ideas and practices to teach people singing is not just preliminary, and preaching is not something that happens after we worship.

We must better communicate that the music is more than a way to pass time until the important stuff. And we must communicate that the preaching is just as much worship as the singing is.

In the Diner

“Pastor, you know I smoke. You gotta pray for me.”

This was said to me by someone heading out the door, with a cigarette in hand. (By the way, if you are around me after I have been in the diner, be reminded that the smell of cigarette smoke emanating from me is the price I pay [along with $4 for “the usual"—three eggs over easy with white toast, strawberry jam, coffee, and tip] to get these insights from the diner. It is not my habit.)

First, I think, why would that even be brought up? No one say, “Pastor you know I wear red shirts. You gotta pray for me,” or “Pastor you know I drink cold water when it’s hot outside. You gotta pray for me.”

But this is different. There is something that tells us that something is wrong that prayer is needed for. 

Secondly, my thoughts are drawn to Ed Welch’s excellent book, Addictions: Banquet in a Grave. This is the most significant, clear, and theological treatment I am familiar with on the topic of addictions. It is a must have book.

Welch argues that addictions are worship disorders.

So how do we pray for addicts? And how do addicts pray for themselves?

Praying for freedom from addiction is too small a prayer.

We need to be praying for a new kind of worship, a worship that will have only one Master—Jesus; a worship that will bow to no other.

Yes, addictions are real. They are sometimes physiological (in the body) and sometimes psychological (in the mind), or sometimes both. And sometimes we cannot be sure which it is.

Yes, addictions are hard habits to break. That’s why people don’t break them.

The truth is that addictions can be broken a number of ways, all involving a transition of worship, but not all involving the Creator God and Savior of the universe.

Remember, we are all worshippers by nature. Romans 1:23 teaches us that people who don’t worship God haven’t stopped worshipping. They have actually exchanged the worship of God for the worship of something else—they have exchanged the Creator for a created thing.

When a person worships their family more than their use of alcohol which is destroying their family, they will find a way to stop drinking … until the time that they being to worship alcohol  more than their family.

When a person worships sobriety more than drunkenness, they will find a way to stay sober.

When a person worships saving money more than spending it, they will find a way to quit spending $7.50 a pack for cigarettes.

They are not sick. They are doing what worshippers do.

And that’s why I think the sickness model of addictions is inherently hopeless. It wrongly diagnoses the problem and puts the hope for fixing it in the wrong place.

Only a worship model can bring true hope.

Worshunk??

In this except from a new book, a Christian band member speaks of their music being “worshunk,” a “mixture of worship and pop punk.”

Excellent. Creative. Transcendent. Glorious. Relevant.

Whatever.

“Worshunk” strikes me as the end (or perhaps only the middle) of the idea that attaching some spiritual terminology to anything sanctifies it for Christian worship.

And vulnerability is key. I know Paul left it out of the fruit of the Spirit, but that was probably an oversight on his part. He surely meant to include it, since it is the key to spiritual growth and effective ministry.

Now I don’t doubt the usefulness of vulnerability. I find it helpful, particularly to gain some points from others when I am looking for emotional support in my quest for character, or at least acceptance. If people see me as vulnerable, they will surely respect me more, and be willing to open up and hear my story. You know, of course, that the words of Scripture are to no avail if we are not vulnerable.

Now, perhaps this band member is simply a product of the author’s imagination. Perhaps … but it is believable, and that may be the biggest irony, since I am not sure the author is setting out to show the silliness of much of contemporary worship.

The truth is that this chapter is a good demonstration of the silliness of a lot of what goes on in Christian music, and Christianity in general. People have come up with the idea that if we are serious about junk, it really isn’t junk.

And that, my friends, is an insight you should take to your next dining out adventure. Don’t worry about propriety, cleanliness, and quality. In fact, don’t even worry if what is on your plate is the same thing you ordered. Just ask if your server is well-meaning.

Don’t ask if your mechanic is qualified, whether he (or she, because the field of mechanicdom is certainly egalitarian) knows the difference between an alternator and an oil-pan. Just ask if he is sincere.

Truth be told, I found this chapter is a bit humorous, not in a LOL kind of way, but rather in a silly-grin, roll-your-eyes kind of way. And I would actually like to read the book, though I am not particularly interested in buying it since it doesn’t look like a “keeper.”

Yes, I am cheap. I only like to buy books that I think will have ongoing benefit in some way or another. And this looks like a one-time read for fun just before bed.

Carson on Worship Leaders

The notion of a "worship leader" who leads the "worship" part of the service before the sermon (which, then, is no part of worship!) is so bizarre, from a New Testament perspective, as to be embarrassing. ... I know that "worship leader" is merely a matter of semantics, a currently popular tag, but it is a popular tag that unwittingly skews people's expectations as to what worship is. At very least, it is misleadingly restrictive.

He then follows this up with a footnote:

Perhaps this is the place to reflect on the fact that many contemporary "worship leaders" have training in music but none in Bible, theology, history, or the like. When pressed as to the criteria by which they choose their music, many of these leaders finally admit that their criteria oscillate between personal preference and keeping the congregation reasonably happy--scarcely the most profound criteria in the world. They give little or no thought to covering the great themes of Scripture, or the great events of Scripture, or the range of personal response to God found in the Psalms (as opposed to covering the narrow themes of being upbeat and in the midst of "worship"), or the nature of biblical locutions (in one chorus the congregation manages to sing "holy" thirty-six times, while three are enough for Isaiah and John of the Apocalypse), or the central historical traditions of the church, or anything else of weight. If such leaders operate on their own with little guidance or training or input from senior pastors, the situation commonly degenerates from the painful to the pitiful (From Worship by the Book, p. 47).

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.