Worship and Theology

Sean du Toit :: Alphacrucis :: 2013

There is a necessary relationship to the theology that we have and the worship to God that we give.  Theology shapes and informs our worship of God.  All authentic worship assumes a theology.  I wish to go further and suggest that theology itself is a form of worship.  Listen to what Jesus says in John’s gospel: 

 

John 4:23-24   But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. ²⁴ God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.”

 

Every time we declare truth about God, it is an act of worship.  In the verbal and, ethical, individual and communal proclamation of the truth about who God is and what God has done for humanity, we are engaged in acts of worship.  John’s gospel is itself a theological reflection on the truth about the identity of God revealed in Jesus through the revelatory agency of the Spirit to the community gathered to worship and encounter God.  John’s gospel is thus a declaration of worship, enticing those who hear to enter into communion with God.  The vivid metaphors employed throughout are possibly strongest in the Eucharistic sections of John 6 where hearers are instructed to feast on the very body of Jesus, a feast of intimacy with God.  However, that intimacy is developed and maintained through theological reflection on the Christ event revealed throughout John’s gospel and Jesus’ teaching.  There is therefore a dynamic interplay between theology and worship throughout the gospel that invites those with ears to hear to come and taste and see that the Lord is good.  As N. T. Wright has perceptively noted that,

When you begin to glimpse the reality of God, the natural reaction is to worship him.  Not to have that reaction is a fairly sure sign that you haven’t yet really understood who he is or what he’s done.^[1]

 

John’s explicit purpose in this gospel is to evoke a continued relationship of trust in Jesus. 

 

John 20:31      This is written so that you may [] trust that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through trusting you may have life in his name.

 

The subjunctive πιστεύ[σ]ητε may either suggest “come to trust” or “continue to trust” that Jesus is who this gospel declares he is.  We need not quibble over the options as it is probably both.  But that means that an explicit purpose of this gospel is to feed the faithfulness, memory and imagination of God’s people with the truth about God so that they may continue to trust him and rely on him for life through him.  Worship sustains the community of God by facilitating an encounter with God and declaring truth about God.  Furthermore, lyrical theology, i.e., the words of the songs we sing, should give voice to the theology that shapes the life and practices of the church.  It is for this reason that Karl Barth declares that,

Theology is a particularly beautiful discipline.  Indeed, we can confidently say that it is the most beautiful of all disciplines.  To find academic study distasteful is the mark of the philistine.  The theologian who labours without joy is not a theologian at all.  Sulky faces, morose thoughts and boring ways of speaking are intolerable in this field.[2]

 

Joy and exciting thoughts must accompany the theologian for it is upon reflection of God given in Scripture that the theologian must wrestle with theology and construct imaginative portraits of this encountering God that remain in sync and faithful to the revelation of God throughout Scripture.  Vanhoozer aptly notes that “To witness to the love of God is the Christian theologian’s supreme privilege and supreme responsibility.”^[3] 

 

Declaring truths about God which are faithful and in sync with the Scriptural revelation, are themselves an act of worship to the One who is worthy of our attention, affection and allegiance.  The very act of theology must be an act of worship because God is no object to be studied but rather as humble subjects we contemplate the supreme excellency of the divine nature (to echo Jonathan Edwards).  This God who came for us, and revealed Himself to us in many and varied ways of love and salvation, healing and compassion is worthy of our worship.  Stating that God is loving, saving, healing and compassionate is in sync with the truth of the Scriptural revelation, and thus reaffirms the character of God which is thus an act of worship itself. 

 

If we return to John 4:23-24 we notice the central role of the Spirit.  In John’s gospel, it is the role of the Spirit to reveal to us the identity of God and ourselves, but it is also the role of the Spirit to connect us to God (John 20:22).  The Spirit facilitates an encounter with God as the revealing God.  And truth about God is a medium through which God speaks and encounters his people.  The Spirit thus reveals truth, declares truth and inspires truth. 

 

There is therefore a dynamic interplay between theology and worship.  Theology not only inspires worship, but is itself an act of worship.  This worship causes us to further reflect on the God who is worthy of our worship, and thus inspires further theological reflection. 

---

[1] N. T. Wright, Simply Christian, (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 123.

[2] Barth, Church Dogmatics II/1, 656.

[3] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Love of God: Its Place, Meaning and Function in Systematic Theology” in First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Illinois: IVP, 2002), 95.

Romans 1 and Same-Sex Marriage for Christians

I was recently asked to participate in a panel discussion on same-sex marriage from a Christian perspective.  More specifically, I was asked to comment on this issue from Romans 1.  Given the popular nature of the discussion, I had to be very careful with the way I phrased things, and so I ended up with the following notes which guided what I said.  I'd appreciate any thoughts or responses. 

----------------------------------------

The Letter of Romans: Two Stories

Paul’s letter to the Romans tells two stories. The first one begins right at the beginning, in 1:1-16. The first thing to realise, is that first story is the story of good news and it is God’s good news. It is the story of God, who has had a vision for humanity all along. And God made promises to certain individuals and nations, which were told through his messengers in the holy Scriptures. And God’s climactic plan, is ultimately and fully realised in the coming of God’s own Son. This Son was an heir to the people of God through King David. But his true identity as God’s son, was boldly indicated and validated through the resurrection of Jesus by God’s Spirit. And this news is for the whole world, because God’s promises relate to the whole world. And thus everyone is invited to participate in God’s restorative vision for the whole cosmos, and especially humanity - that group that is called to represent Him to others and creation. The story also tells of Paul, who is a slave (a metaphor of pure allegiance and devotion) to God’s purposes and also the Roman churches, who have embraced this fantastic news about who God is, and what God is doing.

BUT - to fully realise the extent of God’s covenant faithfulness to humanity, one has to tell the darker side of this story. The story of how humanity lost its way. And that is the topic of 1:18-32. This is the story of how things are NOT meant to be. It is a tragic story of exchanging truth for lies, of exchanging hope for despair, and of the distortion of God’s creative efforts and design for humanity.

God’s response to humanities disregard for his design and intention is not to enforce his wil. Rather God’s response is to allow us the freedom to make our own decisions, even though God himself is calling and inviting humanity into another way of life. God warns that there are consequences for disregarding his pattern and design, and that is why Paul gives a list of 22 or more, different activities that show that humanity has departed from God’s way. Doing evil, covetousness, malice; being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, gossiping, slanderers, God-haters, insolence, haughtiness, boastfulness, inventors of evil, rebellion toward parents, foolishness, faithlessness, heartless, ruthless.

Yes, Paul does mention same-sex activity a few verses earlier (he had no clue what an “orientation” was, he was interested in practices that distort God’s design). However, Paul is not focussing on one group of individuals, but rather telling the story of the many and varied activities that humans do that are contrary to God’s design. By including all these vices, Paul reminds us that, “we all have sinned, and done what is wrong in his sight,” and we all have to make changes to our lives. AND there is NO-ONE that is morally superior to anyone else. We are all broken human beings, being called by God back together, so that together we can become a mosaic of God’s gracious intervention, so that we rebuild, and re-imagine ourselves as God’s image bearers walking in the trajectory of Christ.

And that is what the book of Romans sets out to do. So that sets the context in which to analyse Paul’s statements regarding same-sex activity.

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.

The most important element of this discussion is what Paul means by “natural” and “unnatural.” He is not referring to genetics but rather to God’s design for humanity and creation. God’s natural design is for one man and one women to be brought together into a covenantal relationship of mutual benefit and edification. Unnatural activity is thus anything that goes against this design.

I want to read you two quotes. The first is from Dan O. Via, a New Testament scholar.

Perhaps most importantly he regards same-sex relations as contrary to nature (1:26-27), contrary to the order of the world as created by God.

The second quote is from Luke Timothy Johnson, a New Testament scholar.

There is no need to belabour the obvious point that the classification of same-sex intercourse among vices is characteristic of Paul (Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). The issue in regard to such texts and the present-day struggle of communities with homosexuality is not so much an exegetical as a hermeneutical one.

I am not quoting these two scholars just because they agree with what I've said above.  I am quoting them because both Johnson and Via argue for acceptability of same-sex relationships. They do so not on the basis of any ambiguity in Scripture. They both concur that scripture is clear in its injunction against same-sex activity. They do so on the basis that they do not deem these passages relevant to contemporary Christian ethics.

Whereas I would argue, that the Genesis stories set the trajectory for human relationships, confirmed and validated by Jesus in his discussions of marriage, and negatively illustrated by the variety of New Testament authors which note where and how humanity has departed from God’s design. And we cannot just pick and choose which parts of God’s vision we want to embrace.

So what does this have to do with a conversation on same-sex marriage? Well, if Scripture prohibits a key activity that would consummate a marriage between two people, then it follows that for Christians who accept the authority of Scripture, it is not possible to be in same-sex marriage.

House Churches in the 2nd Century

Ben Witherington, in his response to Frank Viola's book: Reimagining Church notes the following:

we have clear archaeological evidence now in regard to houses being altered into church buildings already in the second century in the house of Peter in Capernaum (indeed, this may have transpired beginning in the first century), and we have further evidence of church structures in Jordan, and in Rome, some in the catacombs from before the third century A.D.

Is this accurate? I sure it is, but I've never heard of this before. If so, does anyone know where we may find out more about this?

Leadership in the Churches of Paul

I'm knee deep in Andrew Chester's contribution to A Vision for the Church. He begins with a stunning summary of Paul's ideal:

Paul’s vision for the communities that he wrote to can be summed up quite succinctly. He sees them as being a new creation in Christ, filled with the Spirit, possessing gifts of the Spirit and overflowing with the fruit of the Spirit, controlled above all by love; they are communities that should be pure and holy, mutually supportive and interdependent, completely united, transcending the oppositions and tensions between different groups within the community, and with every kind of barrier that would divide them in normal society broken down.[1]

The discussion that follows this is an excellent, until we get to the rather brief discussion about leadership. Brief, as in, here is the entire section on leadership:

2.3 Leadership and Hierarchy Paul’s vision may seem blurred on this issue as far as the Christian community is concerned. It is not surprising that the issue of leadership and hierarchy should arise, as very often happens in the case of new religious movements with strong expectations of a final decisive event. Compared with what can be observed elsewhere in the NT, and the rapid developments otherwise in early Christianity, Paul appears not to have a particularly developed or precise view. A few indications are given in Rom 12 and 1 Cor 12. Again, however, the larger questions arise of whether Paul would want effectively to give preference to some kinds of individuals, and whether is in danger of asserting or imposing his own authority; and in both cases, how compatible this is with his overall vision. Within the Pauline tradition, especially the Pastorals (e.g., 1 Tim 2-6; Titus 1:5-16), there are clear developments that compromise the ideal of Paul’s vision and move decisively in the direction of giving superior position to particular kinds of individuals. Hence it needs to be asked whether this represents a perversion of Paul’s vision, or a natural and inevitable development.[2]

To embrace this kind of perspective, one needs to neglect key Pauline evidence, namely 1 Thess 5:12-27. Incidental details like 1 Cor 16:15-16 and Phil 1:1 should also be discarded. One then needs to neglect the witness of Acts 14:23 and 20:17. Furthermore, one has to utterly neglect Paul’s Jewish background, which scholars suggest was highly influential (See Burtchaell’s From Synagogue to Church).

[1] Andrew Chester, “The Pauline Communities” A Vision of the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology eds. Markus Bockmuehl and M. B. Thompson (T & T Clark, 1997), pg. 105.

[2] Chester, “The Pauline Communities”, pg. 115.

New Testament Ecclesiology - Updated

Chris Tilling requests some books on New Testament ecclesiology, here are some of the ones that I have found informative and helpful.

M. Bockmuehl and M. B. Thompson, A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology (T & T Clark, 1997)

J. T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

R. W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 2004)

L. T. Johnson “Paul’s Ecclesiology” in The Cambridge Companion to Paul ed. J. D. G. Dunn (Cambridge, 2003)

R. Longenecker ed., Community Formation in the Early Church and in the Church Today (Hendrickson, 2002)

L. W. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship (Paternoster Press, 1999)

L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003)

R. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community (Hendrickson, 1994)

P. F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (SPCK, 2002)

J. L. Houlden, The Public Face of the Gospel: New Testament Ideas of the Church (SCM, 1997)

R. P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church (Eerdmans, 1975)

R. P. Martin, The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Eerdmans, 1984)

R. P. Martin, “Patterns of Worship in New Testament Churches,” JSNT 37 (1989) 59–85

K. E. Brower and A. Johnson eds. Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (Eerdmans, 2007)

M. Hengel, “The Song About Christ in Earliest Worship” in Studies in Early Christology (T & T Clark, 1995)

M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige eds. Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church, (Sheffield Academic Press, 1992)

C. F. D. Moule, Worship in the New Testament (John Knox Press, 1961)

A. Cabaniss, Pattern in Early Christian Worship (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989)

G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God (IVP, 2004)

P. Bolt and M. Thompson eds. The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (Apollos, 200)

M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Hodder and Stoughton, 1973)

D. J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Orbis, 1991)

Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Eerdmans Publishing, 2000)

R. H. Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers of the Word: Leadership in the Early Church (Hendrickson, 2006)

J. D. G. Dunn's The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998) also contains a useful chapter.

Obviously we would here need to decide if our quest is to understand the historical structures and features of "church" in the New Testament, or whether we are looking for a conceptual and theological understanding of the Church.

According to Mike Bird, Markus Bockmuehl has an interesting chapter in the recently released Scripture's Doctrine and Theology's Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics eds. Markus Bockmuehl & Alan J. Torrance (Baker, 2008).

These are good entry points into the discussion of NT ecclesiology.

1 Cor 14:26 - Then & Now

Thanks to those who emailed me the articles, they were of great help.

I'm busy working on New Testament models of "worship gatherings" with a view to practical implementation. Personally, I'm glad that the NT doesn't give us an order of service. I like the variety of various churches. In fact, I would argue that variety is definitely needed.

I think what we need is to study the Scriptures and our context and negotiate what we deem the most essential elements and values of a Christian community, and then ask ourselves how we're going to put them together in a sustainable network of relationships that allows these elements and values to shape our praxis. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here, I want to analyse one verse that has been put forward as an "Order of Service".

1 Cor 14:26 What follows, then, my dear friends? Suppose that when you assemble together each contributes a hymn, an item of teaching, something disclosed, or speaks in a tongue, or puts the tongues language into words, the point remains: “let everything serve the building up of the community.” [Thiselton]

It is strange that the reading of scripture, prayer, the Eucharist, the offering, baptisms, church discipline, and various other elements should not be mentioned. This should quickly alert us to the fact that Paul is here more focussed on the communal work of the Spirit and Spirit activities, especially on the use and abuse of “tongues in the assembly”, whereas at other times he will encourage other elements, such as the public reading of scripture (1 Tim 4:13).[1]

Paul’s overarching principle in all these matters has consistently been the well-being and benefit of the community. Everything is to be done for the building up of the community (14:3, 5, 12 and 26). Paul is more concerned about strengthening the body, and correcting various over-emphases than he is on describing an orderly pattern of gathering for worship. We would do well to remember this thought as we navigate through this pericope.

Some have suggested that this verse (14:26) amounts to an “order of service” or “the description of a typical gathering for worship.”[2] Others then take this further and declare that this is a call to participatory, open, and interactive meetings. “Everyone”, it is suggested, must have the opportunity to share, and “everyone” must bring “a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation” (NKJV). But this seems highly unlikely for several reasons, the simplest being 1 Cor 12. Here Paul has clearly articulated that each member of the body is different, has a different gift, and thus will contribute differently to the gathered community. Thus, those without the gifts of knowledge or wisdom, cannot contribute a teaching. Those without the gift of tongues, cannot contribute a tongue. Those without the gift of discernment or interpretation, cannot discern or interpret a tongue. In fact, Paul makes this even more emphatic when he notes in 1 Cor 12:27-30:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

The clear answer to the final verses here are, “NO!” So, the point of the verse? We’re all different, so expect different people, with different gifts, to do different things. Those without the gift of teaching, should not bring an “item of instruction”, since that could be disastrous for a community concerned with truth and accurate doctrine.

In fact, it seems rather pastorally insensitive of Paul to suggest that people move in gifts they don’t have. And in fact, placing to much emphasis getting people to share creates an unhealthy environment. Gifts emerge within appropriate contexts. In a theological conversation or setting, my gift emerges. In a business meeting with lots of administration, I have little or nothing to say. And when I have tried to contribute, people look at me like I’m an alien – because I’m moving beyond my gifting. This is clearly not what Paul has in mind.

The first thing to note is that Paul does not expect “everyone” to participate. The logistics of having 40 or more people sharing and participating would be impossible for the early Church. A few reasons for this would include: a) Christians had to work, and since they met on Sundays, which was a working day, most of these gatherings took place before or after work, i.e., before sunrise or after sunset. The length of time it would take for each person to participate would make it unlikely b) The word “everyone” should better be translated “each one”, and by that, given the context and content of 1 Cor 12, Paul means “each one” with a gift in a specific area. Thus, teachers (those recognised as having a teaching gift) should share. Prophets, (those with a recognised prophetic gift) should share, if they feel prompted to do so.

So verse 26 is definitely a call for participation, but it is a call to the participation of those with a gift in a particular or specified area. And this list is definitely not exhaustive, because look at how many vital elements are missing. It also means that those with gifts in other areas, won't share in the Christian gathering. Thus, those with the gift of mercy will probably use their gift most of the time outside the community. Those with the gift of administration will be busy before or after the gathering, but probably not during. Again, 1 Cor 12 notes that these gifts are still to be honoured, even though they’re not seen in “corporate” times of worship.

Now, this should also be set within the context that Paul encourages prophecy as a gift available to one and all. And thus, everyone with a word of prophecy should be given an opportunity to share. And if someone with another gift feels they want to share, this should be submitted to the leadership that it may be assessed and encouraged (1 Thess 5:12-22).

[1] Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, pg. 285

[2] Dunn, The Theology of Paul, pg. 583

Church in Early Christianity

As a pastor and New Testament student these two worlds often collide. Nowhere is this more evident at the moment than with many who are now engaged in what is quickly being labelled “A churchless faith”. Frank Viola and George Barna’s Pagan Christianity has advanced this view into a more popular arena. Ben Witherington has offered thoughts on the matter, even adding Howard Snyder’s review of Pagan Christianity to his blog.

Witherington recommends James Burtchaell's important monograph From Synagogue to Church. Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge U. Press, 1992), which I’ve now ordered and will devour soon. I’m sure Robert Banks’ book Paul’s Idea of Community would be helpful, and so I’ve added that to the list. Does anyone know of any other books on this topic? I’m specifically looking for the impossible, you know, books on characteristics of early Christian gatherings, the various ingredients that made up their gatherings. I’m also not wishing to confine this research to the New Testament documents alone, so I’m very interested in the Didache and other literature of early Christianity that may shed light on this topic. Can anyone recommend any helpful commentaries on The Didache? I’m caught between Kurt Niederwimmer and Aaron Milavec. Milavec looks to be exhaustive, having 1000pgs of comments and discussion. But the Niederwimmer is in a respected series. Anyone have any thoughts on either of these?

Theology for ALL

How disastrously the Church must misunderstand itself if it can imagine that theology is the business of a few theoreticians who are specially appointed for the purpose, to whom the rest, as hearty practical men, may sometimes listen with half an ear, though for their own part they boast of living “quite untheologically” for the demands of the day (“love”). As though these practical men were not continually preaching and speaking and writing, and were not genuinely questioned as to the rightness of their activity in this regard! As though there were anything more practical than giving this question its head, which means doing the work of theology and dogmatics! Again, how disastrously the Church must misunderstand itself if it can imagine that theological reflection is a matter for quiet situations and periods that suit and invite contemplation, a kind of peace-time luxury for which we are not only permitted but even commanded to find no time should things become really serious and exciting! As though there could be any more urgent task for a Church under assault from without than that of consolidating itself within, which means doing theological work! As though the venture of proclamation did not mean that the Church permanently finds itself in an emergency! As though theology could be done properly without reference to this constant emergency! Let there be no mistake. Because of these distorted ideas about theology, and dogmatics in particular, there arises and persists in the life of the Church a lasting and growing deficit for which we cannot expect those particularly active in this function to supply the needed balance. The whole Church must seriously want a serious theology if it is to have a serious theology.

—Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 76-77.

[HT: David]