Worship

About 25 years ago, I went to look at what biblical "worship" is, doing my best to avoid the "popular" definitions and look strictly at what scripture says. I've returned often to that.

More precisely, I initially looked at what just the New Testament said what our 'corporate' worship was, understanding that Jesus death, burial and resurrection was the fulfillment of the old covenant and the introduction of the new (read Galatians and Hebrews for a full explanation of that).

Interestingly, the New Testament says nothing about corporate worship short of what is in Revelation (!). Worship is rarely used in the letters of the apostles, appearing most often in the gospels and in its appearances in Acts, only in the context of an apostle or two being mistaken for a living god.

[note - some will reply no doubt with examples trying to counter this claim. Most will be from translations done through the bias of modern understanding = paraphrased translations and such. Others are legit - but use words often translated in different contexts into different words - words that mean "serving" in other context]

In the New Testament outside of book of Revelation, the mention of gathering never specifically mentions worship as a reason for the gathering. The closest exception occurs in Acts 2 - among the many activities mentioned is "praising God" - but look closer there. That was mentioned in the context of the disciples, in modern terminology, "living life together" - they were together daily. And it was the second to the last activity the writer mentions. First up was devoting to the apostles teaching and activities of life together, including eating together.

Paul writes instructions in the Corinthian letters about gatherings, and there it is about "encouraging and exhorting one another", not worship. The oft cited Hebrews 10:25 about not neglecting gathering together - look at 10:24. The context is clear that we don't neglect gathering together as it gives an environment for us to "spur one another on toward love and good deeds". In Ephesians 4, the roles of pastors (along with apostles, evangelists, prophets and teachers) is clearly to equip the saints for works for service (v12), not to conduct or lead worship services.

And what does worship entail in the age we live? Only one passage seems to address that for the new covenant age we live in - Romans 12. Sadly, modern translations cut that off with the added "headers" so we are mislead to break Paul's thought:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

In short, our worship is - transform your mind, to use our gifting and give room to others to use their gifting, to love and abhor evil, to honor others, rejoice, practice patience, pray, help others, practice hospitality, bless others and not curse others, empathize with others, live in harmony, practice humility, practice kindness to your enemies.

In short, Jesus introduced worship as a lifestyle, not a meeting. The writers of the New Testament never referred to the gatherings of the disciples as "worship service", nor ever even implied that the gatherings were anything other than to encourage and exhort one another to works of service. The "roles" defined within the church were there to aid the equipping of the disciples for works of service, not facilitate "worship" in the modern sense - though if we accept worship as a lifestyle, we could say in that sense they facilitated worship by equipping the saints for works of service.

Leadership

Alan Hirsch had some interesting thoughts this week in his blog (see here)

In the swirling world of living systems thinking there are comparison of two types of leadership: between what is called operational and adaptive leadership. Essentially, operational leadership is suited for organizations that are in relatively stable environments where maintenance and development of current programming is the core tasks of leadership. This form of leadership is built on the assumptions of social engineering and is thus built squarely on a more 'mechanistic' view of the world. And it does work, and is entirely appropriate for some organizations. Adaptive leadership on the other hand, is the type of leader who develops learning organizations and manages to help the organization transition into different forms or expression where agility, responsiveness, innovation and entrepreneurship are needed. Adaptive leaders are needed in times of significant threat or considerable new opportunity, or both. This has direct relevance to our situation at the dawn of the 21st century.

I'm going to disagree a bit on that last statement - I think the church should have always had adaptive leadership - but we settled for operational leadership. I will agree, however, that it is more crucial than ever to have bold new leadership that is adaptive. We need leadership that is equipping, the primary characteristic of adaptive leadership I believe, rather than commanding and authoritative. We need leadership that shows the way, rather than leadership that maintains and preserves.

Jesus said he who tries to save his life will lose it. I think that is true today of the church, that the church leaders who try to save the church as they know it will lose the church altogether ...

A whole gospel

What we focus on defines what we ignore? -- Brian M.

In the rush to summarize, in the rush to "keep is simple", we focus and lose something. The opposite often happens too - in "criticizing" someone's overemphasis on a point and following ignorance of another, we also force the loss of something.

It is hard, isn't it? No matter what we try we end up losing something, often without realizing it.

So, here I go, risking missing something in summarizing a "whole" gospel.

One could do this "doctrinely", and the closest I've ever seen referred to the gospel as being about:
1) relationship
2) forgiveness
3) healing
4) calling

In short, relationship is relationship with God, Jesus and others, forgiveness - forgiveness of sins, healing - most neglected, but about the healing of the brokenheart, and calling about finding a place in the world and the kingdom (often neglected, or twisted into 'filling in a role at church').

But there is a problem with such doctrinal approaches. They still fixate on items, and if a doctrinal approach was biblical, why isn't such a presentation in the bible itself? No, the bible presents it as story. Story is the language of the heart, not some dry doctrine. What sort of story are we in?

In the story of the gospel, we see the hearts of people of central - Jesus was concerned with the emotions and feelings of the hearts of people. He said he came to heal the brokenhearted - literally translated, this is "shattered in the heart" - in their very core. This story, you see, is a romance. Read the bible cover to cover again, and see it as such. The language is that of pursuing the heart, of a romantic adventure.

And there is an enemy in this story - so many presentations of the gospel neglect this part, or ignore what Paul wrote (I Cor 15:20-25) about the battle still ongoing, ignore the instructions to believers to resist the devil, on and on it goes.

Our approaches, our teaching, our methods, etc, betray this.

I write this to set the stage - I wanted to do a series of posts, probably one a week early in the week (I might do other posts mid-weeks on other topics), on how our methods betray this. Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost have written how our methods are the message - they recognize that our actions speak louder than our doctrinal words. We need to live it. So our methods speak differently. We'll look at that.
4)

What does it all mean?

Sorry for the lapse. Not sure when I will regularly post.

I saw this on Alan Hirsch's site, with the question "What does it all mean?". My thought - it means that the movement of Christ cannot possibly move forward in this kind of culture without getting grassroots in nature.

There is no way a set of institutions can keep up. We need to get grassroots in our methodologies - which means letting go. Apple's iPods didn't reach 50 million in sales so quickly through traditional methods - I for one bought mine not when i heard what it was, but after seeing one in the hands of friends. And our churches most resemble with their forms old school structures that have virtually no influence in today's culture.

We need to focus on equipping. We need to focus on discipling, plain and simple, and let God lead the rest.

I've pointed it out before, and you know I'll say it again. Jesus said he would build HIS church. His instructions to us was to teach. We need to let go of building churches, planting churches, organizing churches, etc and do what we were originally instructed to do - teach. Not one guy teaching hundreds, as is typically in modern churches. But all of us. And the focus needs to be on teaching to follow Jesus. To hear his voice, to follow close. He will form his churches. He said he would.

Freedom

This was a great thing I saw online:

.. the speaker mentions some things essential to any healthy relationship be it spouse, friend, church, etc. Three of those things are freedom to think, freedom to speak, and freedom to feel.

Does your church give you that freedom? And how is your relationship with your church?

The Image of God

We are in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 states so, and while some heretics will claims that the fall removed that quality of us, but Genesis 3:22 states that after Adam and Eve took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

implying that man and woman became even more like God with the knowledge of good and evil. The banishment from the garden was to keep them from eating of the tree of life. If that wasn't enough to show we are still in the image of God, see that Genesis 9:6 speaks of murder being wrong on the basis of us being in the image of God.

But that's not my point today. Rather, think of the ramifications that we are made in the image of God. First of all, there is nothing in the scriptures to make a claim that this is true only for those who are in Christ. This is true for all. How should such knowledge impact evangelism and discipleship? Does the knowledge that something of what God is is written on everyone, from the honored to the lowest of us all, impact how we treat one another? Does it impact how we "do church"?

If we come with the mindset that the image of God is on everyone, shouldn't an emphasis then be on seeing that image revealed? Doesn't it increase the honor we give one another, the respect?

Integrity on Christmas

I've debated for a couple of weeks even doing this post, but the issue of integrity among followers of Christ is a growing concern. Particularly, the integrity of intellect.

It's a post for another time all the anti-intellectualism and anti-science sentiments among many Christians. But if, as many claim, Christianity is reasonable, let us act with integrity on many common practices and beliefs.

First of all, the assumption is that all Christians celebrate Christmas. Not so. I grew up in a Christian faith system that did not set aside special holidays (for as Paul writes in Galatians 4: "how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years!" ESV). The Puritans, who were an influential part of English and American history, thought Christmas as too pagan. There may be many others I'm not aware of, denominations that don't celebrate.

Second is the perception that Christmas is fundamentally a religious occasion and has been since the day of the apostles. Yet:
>In 245, the theologian Origen of Alexandria stated that, "only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod)" celebrated their birthdays. ("Natal Day", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911.)
>In 303, Christian writer Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods, which suggests that Christmas was not yet a feast at this time. ("Christmas", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913.)
> More recently, Christmas celebration was banned in England from 1647-1660, and was banned in much of the New England colonies in the 17th century, including Boston from 1659-1681

Christmas was "out of favor" in the early years of the U.S. where after the American Revolution it was seen as an English custom, not a religious obligation. Congress actually convened on Christmas day in 1789. The first state to make Christmas a holiday for its workers was Alabama in 1836 -- it wasn't a federal holiday for DC workers until 1870 and didn't become a holiday for all federal workers in 1885. And it wasn't until 1893 that all U.S. states and territories had made it a holiday for all its workers.

So what led to the "return" of Christmas in the 19th century? Some big religious revival? Nope. Christmas literature become popular in the U.S. and England in the 1820s and 30s. This was the time of much of our Christmas themed stories and poems, most famously Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol (1834) and Clement Clarke Moore's A Visit From Saint Nick (1822). Most of this literature had no or only passing mention of religious motivation for Christmas. Even then, Christmas was largely a non-event for most Americans until the 1860s (Daniel Boorstin, The Americans). And some actually credit department stores like Macy's of New York for that popularization of Christmas. So the tradition of retail stores "creating" reasons to buy gifts is tied to Christmas (consider that the next time you complain about the commercialization of Christmas).

There are other aspects of Christmas celebrations that we need to watch - the date itself is fairly random.

The Roman Catholic writer Mario Righetti candidly admits that, "to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated on the same day in honor of the 'Invincible Sun' Mithras, the conqueror of darkness" (Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67).

And De Pascha Computus, a calendar of feasts produced in 243, gives March 28 as the date of the nativity.

You know the fable for the three wise men -- check the bible, the true story is they arrived months later (the shepherds weren't still there like many of our nativity scenes), scripture mentions that the wise men arrived at a house (not a barn, in other words, Joseph and Mary went home w/Jesus), and there were three types of gifts. No mention that there was three wise men -- the number is actually unknown.

The need for integrity is great. Many churches use Christmas as a time for evangelism and revival. If the integrity on the facts are poor, what does that say of our witness? If we are sloppy about the history and practice of Christmas, if we are to practice it at all, what's that say when we teach about why Jesus came? We need integrity about it all.