Michael Jensen wrote:

[uninformed rant mode]

wouldn’t worry too much about that, MPJ. 95% of what I write falls into that category too, so for better or for worse I tend to assume the same of whomever I happen to be addressing at the time. Mind you I strike real problems when I stumble across the 5%, so I find labels like the one you’ve given very helpful :-)

Rob thanks for what you said too, and it’s more than my job is worth to comment on what category it falls into!

(And Hi Andrew, Ian; not ignoring you, just wrote most of this before I saw your posts)

Mike also wrote:

I am SO over this insistence in Sydney that whatever it is we do in church we don’t worship!

So much so that I always use the word now to describe it. And I use “service” too.

Yes, I think it’s pretty obvious that we do worship in church, and even if we work out that what Enkidu said needs further qualification, I don’t think his core definitions are in dispute.

The question I’m more interested in is whether this is a useful primary category to apply to our meetings. We worship all the time, we serve God all the time, we breathe all the time; we don’t meet together for corporate serving, we don’t meet together for corporate breathing, so I really question whether ‘corporate worship’ is a good label —especially as it rather tends for some to uncorrect the incorrect ideas that the Sydney corrective was designed to correct, if you take my meaning.

And, given that the NT doesn’t apply the ‘worship’ language explicitly as its primary category for our meetings, but it does apply the language in other ways (as I think enkidu has demonstrated), it could be that our continued insistence on using a term like corporate worship is lazy thinking at best.

Thanks for your further thoughts Gordon.

As one who has also espoused the view that the category of “worship” should not be the primary term used to describe our corporate gatherings, I can certainly see a lot of sense in what you are saying.  I think those ideas generally have to a degree been a helpful corrective to some potential misconceptions about the nature of church.

However, quite apart from what the NT says on the topic, the fact is that Christians of all persuasions have adopted the almost universal tradition of describing their gatherings as corporate worship.  I know that that in itself doesn’t necessarily make it right, but it also doesn’t make it wrong if it is not inconsistent with scripture.  Provided we do not fall into the trap of thinking that worship only takes place during church, I do not think it is inconsistent with scripture (even if not explicitly sanctioned by scripture which, as Michael points out, hasn’t deterred us from taking on board other practices and ideas e.g. the Trinity).

I also know that sometimes the use of the term “worship” to describe church gatherings can be accompanied by other notions which are either less than helpful at best, or contrary to scripture at worst (e.g. importing OT temple notions of worship which are now fulfilled in Christ, or the idea that we enter God’s presence in a special way once the musical instruments start playing in a suitably “worshipful” tone).  But we don’t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  There are plenty of churches which use the word “worship” without necessarily employing those other practices. 

In these circumstances, I am starting to think that the push to do away with the label “worship” entirely is a bit of an exercise in pedantry and semantics.

On a slightly different note, can any of you Greek scholars assist in understanding how the use of the word “worship” is used in the following passages from Acts (forgive me if I have missed a reference to these already in one of Enkidu’s posts):

Acts 13:2 - While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Acts 24:11 - You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship.

It seems to me (and I don’t know the Greek word being used in either case) that in both instances the word “worship” is used to describe an activity with temporal and spatial limitations and, moreover, taking place in the context of a corporate gathering with other believers (interestingly, one of the references is to OT style temple worship!).  Any thoughts anyone?

Provided we do not fall into the trap of thinking that worship only takes place during church

... or that as we gather at church the primary reason we do so is to worship (in the praise and worship movement sense).

Of course, I guess that on the other hand our gathering together as God’s people can only really be seen as an act of worship.

[quote author="Chris Little"]Even though sebomai is not used very much, do you see any significance in the relateness of sebomai and eusebia (godliness)? Does this strengthen your position, or does it bring worship & service closer together? Or does it do neither!?

It is true that ευσεβεια eusebeia and σεβομαι sebomai are closely related. I think both terms do seem to bear a vague reference in some contexts to ‘being religious’ (vague because I don’t think it particularly specifies what ‘being religious’ means). The use of σεβομαι sebomai generally seems to put more weight on the “fear of God” notion than does προσκυνεω proskuneo (so ‘god-fearer’ or its use in Matt 15:9 where it quotes from Isa 29:13 where, in turn, it translates the Hebrew ירא ‘fear’).

One problem with these terms may lie in the English gloss, ‘godliness’. In some instances, a better translation of ευσεβεια eusebeia would be ‘pious, religious’. ‘Godliness’ sometimes seems to be used with reference to our entire lives--growing in godliness, etc. Used in such a way it may not accurately reflect the semantic range of ευσεβεια.
[quote author="Michael Jensen"]I am SO over this insistence in Sydney that whatever it is we do in church we don’t worship!

Sacrilege! Actually, I would have thought with the Sydney insistence that just about everything comes under the gamut of ‘worship’ that there would be no problem describing what goes on in church as worship, just that there’d be a desire to emphasise that worship is not confined to that setting!
[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]We worship all the time…

Except, of course, if we adopt my narrow definition of ‘worship’! In that case, it is simply not possible to extend the NT notion of ‘worship’ to everything that we do. OTOH, it seems pretty clear that some of what we do in church is worship according to the strict definition, so I see no need to avoid the term in that context.

Is Rev 4:10 a depiction of “corporate worship”?

[quote author="Andrew Miers"]On a slightly different note, can any of you Greek scholars assist in understanding how the use of the word “worship” is used in the following passages from Acts (forgive me if I have missed a reference to these already in one of Enkidu’s posts):

Acts 13:2 - While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Acts 24:11 - You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship.

[list][*]Acts 13:2: λειτουργεω leitourgeo. See my comments above, but also the NET Bible (not the NET Bible again, I hear you say!) has the following note:[quote author="NET Bible"]This term is frequently used in the LXX of the service performed by priests and Levites in the tabernacle (Exod 28:35, 43; 29:30; 30:20; 35:19; 39:26; Num 1:50; 3:6, 31) and the temple (2 Chr 31:2; 35:3; Joel 1:9, 13; 2:17, and many more examples). According to BDAG 591 s.v. λειτουργεω 1.b it is used “of other expression of religious devotion.” Since the previous verse described the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch, it is probable that the term here describes two of them (Barnabas and Saul) as they were serving in that capacity. Since they were not in Jerusalem where the temple was located, general religious service is referred to here.

[*]Acts 24:11: προσκυνεω proskuneo, the word I argue is correctly translated ‘worship’. It is almost always limited in temporal and spatial extent (at least on Earth), although I don’t know that you can clearly establish that Paul’s worship in this verse is as part of a “corporate gathering of believers” since it was quite appropriate for a Jew to go to Jerusalem to worship.[/list:u]

[quote author="Enkidu Jones"][quote author="Gordon Cheng"]We worship all the time…

Except, of course, if we adopt my narrow definition of ‘worship’! In that case, it is simply not possible to extend the NT notion of ‘worship’ to everything that we do.

Yes, sorry, I slipped back to the broader more encompassing defn of worship at that point. What I should have said was, we may worship anytime, anywhere.

????????? proskuneo, the word I argue is correctly translated ‘worship’. It is almost always limited in temporal and spatial extent (at least on Earth), although I don’t know that you can clearly establish that Paul’s worship in this verse is as part of a “corporate gathering of believers” since it was quite appropriate for a Jew to go to Jerusalem to worship.

Limited in that if we’re worshipping, we have to be doing it somewhere, sometime. But certainly not limited to a church building or group of believers (not that I think you’re saying this, Ekidna).

From memory the LXX (Gk translation) version of Gen 18:2 has Abraham proskune-oing before 3 visitors, fascinating from a number of points of view.  He is bowing before them and worshipping God at one and the same time— an eg of not confining the idea of worship to a ‘religious’ setting.

[quote author="Enkidu Jones"]Thanks Dani. I was taught from Wenham, and the fact that it’s still in use must say something (I must sound like I’m about 80 when I say this stuff!). I’m always interested to find out what’s being used, I’m probably about due to buy a new Greek grammar…

First greek lesson was this morning.

Someone shoot me now.

[quote author="Dani Treweek"]First greek lesson was this morning.

Someone shoot me now.

No chance. You have much suffering and tribulation to go yet ....

Rod

[quote author="Rod Haywood"][quote author="Dani Treweek"]First greek lesson was this morning.

Someone shoot me now.

No chance. You have much suffering and tribulation to go yet ....

Rod

not half!!!

wait till you discover that declining a noun does not mean turning down the option to have it on a vocab list…

[quote author="davidould"]wait till you discover that declining a noun does not mean turning down the option to have it on a vocab list…

;-)

A different language, but the same idea: Mark Twain wrote the following in his The Awful German Language:

I heard a Californian student in Heidelberg say, in one of his calmest moods, that he would rather decline two drinks than one German adjective.

Hang in there Dani; I’m praying for you.

God bless,
Ian.

[quote author="Andrew Miers"]
Provided we do not fall into the trap of thinking that worship only takes place during church, I do not think it is inconsistent with scripture (even if not explicitly sanctioned by scripture which, as Michael points out, hasn’t deterred us from taking on board other practices and ideas e.g. the Trinity).

Hi Andrew

I’m afraid I think the Trinity comparison is pretty bogus (as also the hell, evangelism comparisons Michael gave). As you point out yourself, the worship description of our meetings is not explicitly sanctioned — I would say however that Trinity, hell, and evangelism are firmly grounded in exegesis and therefore explicitly sanctioned, —even if “trinity” is not named, the doctrine is surely there in verses like Mt 28:19 (or Gen 18:2???), fully-fledged if not fully stated.

I also know that sometimes the use of the term “worship” to describe church gatherings can be accompanied by other notions which are either less than helpful at best, or contrary to scripture at worst (e.g. importing OT temple notions of worship which are now fulfilled in Christ, or the idea that we enter God’s presence in a special way once the musical instruments start playing in a suitably “worshipful” tone).

A v strong argument for re-evaluating our vocab, surely. In almost all of the churches I’ve visited or been part of over the years, the confusion engendered by worship language, wrongly applied, is endemic. Something about the language seems to fits nicely with a church-as-club-for-churchy-people mentality that is bred by, and breeds complacency —I don’t care whether we are talking the highest of high Anglo-Catholic churches, or the lowest of low Pente revival centres.

But we don’t need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  There are plenty of churches which use the word “worship” without necessarily employing those other practices.

OK, quickly now, name six ;-)

Seriously though, if the baby you are referring to is the idea that we meet together to meet with Christ, (the Godward aspect of our meetings that Mike Jensen wants to preserve) I’ve just kept the baby in this sentence without having to appeal to any of the bathwater corporate worship vocab.

Whatever the reason in fact for maintaining worship language to describe our meetings, I suspect it has more to do with inertia and the irritation people experience when we attempt to re-align our/their language in a more biblical direction. (MP Jensen’s more noble efforts notwithstanding)

I don’t know if I really want to follow the eg of the feminists of a decade or two ago, who embarked on a temporarily (ISTM) successful, hatchet-faced campaign to de-sex our language. Though they made us think before we spoke, didn’t they? There are bigger fish to fry than the corporate worship vocab. But we ought to make some effort, at least, to pull our language back into line with that used by the really early church, that of the New Testament.

As Broughton Knox used to teach, church has no purpose (worship, evangelism, anything). It is the purpose. Christ has called us to meet together to meet with him. We devalue church if we try to say it is for worship, for evangelism, or whatever. Unless you’re as careful as an Enkidu in the way you use your worship vocab (and even then, you can’t know that your fellow pew-warmers are that careful), the meeting with Christ that church is, is subtly subverted with the mental and physical bric-a-brac of fonts, stained glass windows, electric guitars, albs, chasubles, mumbled tongues into the microphone, people falling over backwards, the word “holy” said in a way no other speaker in the English language could get away with, and so on the list goes.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
and to the assembly [church!] of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (Heb 12:22-24)

That is the meeting we are called to, and the idea that it lacks a Godward dimension is nonsensical. It is a glorious meeting — and we are in it Sunday by Sunday.

Well that’s some helpful clarity Gordo. You are right, my chief complaint here is that the re-alignment of “worship” language in an (allegedly) more biblical direction has led to “meetings” that are prosaic, denuded of any sense of the people of God interacting with God. And I have been to hundreds of these - even led some of them! I think in Sydney (if I may generalise) we are so concerned about not being like the charos or the anglos that we have lost something vital.

I haven’t time to comb through Enkidu’s amazing post: have we talked about the worship in the book of Revelation at all? And what about praising God? Can we do that in church? Or do we sing only to encourage each other?

Michael you asked a very good question.

I haven’t time to comb through Enkidu’s amazing post: have we talked about the worship in the book of Revelation at all? And what about praising God? Can we do that in church? Or do we sing only to encourage each other

I’m not 100% sure though I am open to correction that singing to encourage one another is the biblical reason why we actually are to sing, I thought the whole purpose of singing was to sing to God himself, for us to sing to him praises of adoration, praises of awe, praises of joy, praises of remembering what he has done for us. It seems there are two types of songs sung in church,

1. Songs about God -

Now I’m not sure that in todays setting of greater litteracy amongst our selves that singing songs about God is so important - in Wesley’s day where there was a great deal of illitteracy songs to well know tunes of the day was a way for people to come to learn Scripture and Scriptural principals.

2. Songs to God.

I wonder if God really cares if the songs we sing to him directly have repeating chorous, are pretty simple and not great works of theology - after all they are directed to him are they not.

BTW has any one ever read the books by Merlin Carrouthers on praise?

Such as “The power of praise & Praise works”

craig

[quote author="michael jensen"]Well that’s some helpful clarity Gordo. You are right, my chief complaint here is that the re-alignment of “worship” language in an (allegedly) more biblical direction has led to “meetings” that are prosaic, denuded of any sense of the people of God interacting with God. And I have been to hundreds of these - even led some of them! I think in Sydney (if I may generalise) we are so concerned about not being like the charos or the anglos that we have lost something vital.

If I may generalise as well, I’ve often found “Protestants” very afraid to do anything the “Romans” do—if the Romans do it, it is necessarily wrong and evil and should be eschewed.  [This was taken to an horrific extreme in one Anglican church I attended where the creed was removed from services because it contained the word “catholic” and the leaders were worried people would think we were RC.  *shakes head*]

And it cuts the other way: many “traditionalists” [and I think of certain societies to do with books of prayer] are often so focused on living in the past that anything “new” is treated with disdain.  We had a series of “Ye Olde Prayere Booke” services at St Mark’s a while back: I in no way could (or would want to) return to a BCP service every week.  While I think we’ve lost some of the beautiful language, congregation participation was extremely limited and I felt very stifled compared with the liturgies of AAPB / APBA.

For me at least, I think we need as much variety [within reason] as we can: each “tradition” or “style” has something to bring to our services / meetings and theology and I think we can all help to ensure that a balanced view is maintained at all times.  The great disaster for me of the continual fracturing of the church is that through it each side can often tend towards an unbalanced view.

I’m hope I’m clear...rambling a bit [as per usual] in the morning.  I need caffeine!

God bless,
Ian.

Thanks Ian -

however, I don’t want to return to another discussion of style of church meeting. I think the trad/modern debate obscures the real issue which is: what are we doing in church anyway?

The style question I have noticed in other threads quickly descends to a “You say either/I say i-ther” thing (not that you were doing this) and surely church shouldn’t be about one’s “taste"…

M.

Great post Gordon :)