The Development of Worship within Christianity

INTRODUCTION
Worship has always been a part of the people of God. After the fall, we are told that “people began to invoke the name of the Lord”, cf. Genesis 4:26. This, as Evelyn Underhill has commented, may be the “acknowledgment of Transcendence” . We can see that from the beginning of human kind, there has been a need to acknowledge that that is beyond us. But the definition of worship is not as straight forward as what’s being said. Underhill tells us that worship “is the response of the creature to the Eternal. Geoffrey Wainwright takes a similar view, calling worship a “faithful human response to the revelation of God’s being, character, beneficence and will. The two previous authors have focused on the response of the worshipper, from a Catholic perspective, Patrick Bishop says that worship “consists in a response of veneration in the face of the recognized presence of God”, bringing God into the act of worship along with the worshipper.

Historical Aspects of Worship
As it has been mentioned before, as described by Scripture, worship has been an integral part of humanity’s response to God’s actions around us. Christian worship in particular, borrowed from the worship liturgy found in Second Temple Judaism. Prayer was included in worship as well as the reading and exposition of a biblical passage. The two main innovations introduced by the Christians were that the main day of worship was no longer on the Sabbath, but on Sunday, and that Jesus became the focus of worship. Justin Martyr (100-165) tells us that the Gospels and the writings of the prophets were read aloud during the Christian service, cf. First Apology 67. Worship became a very integral issue in the development of Christology, since Christians saw the worship of Jesus as an integral part of their worship. If Jesus were only a creature, Christians would easily be called idolaters. The church went through great pains in order to formalise her teachings about who the person of Jesus was, and the councils of Nicea and Constantinople served to settle the dispute and affirm that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were equally deserving of our worship, since the three are equally God. It was around this period, that the worship of the Church changed greatly, since there was no need to hide from fear of persecution, and Christianity, being the official religion of the empire, took over the pagan temples. As the early type of worship had been simple in its form, it was during this time and afterwards, that ceremony took central stage in the worship practice of the church. The two stages of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Upper Room, gave way to more elaborate forms of worship. This gradually grew to such an extent that the priest was the only one doing something in the worship service, while the attendants were mere spectators. It must be mentioned that it was during this period, that the Eastern and Western parts of the church took different approaches to worship, the former taking a more mystical approach, while the later, a more rational.

By the time of the Reformation, the Reformers had a reaction to the lack of input from the congregation to the worship service. The response to the manner of worship was threefold, representing the three major trends of the time. The Roman Catholics retained the usage of musicians but with minimal congregational input; the Calvinists, abolished music all together and opted for congregational singing; and the Lutherans, was a combination of the two. For most of the Protestants, the exposition of the word became the highest reason of corporate worship. These developments from the Reformation period are more or less still present in the congregations of both Roman Catholic and Protestant persuasions, with some variations.

The Usefulness of Worship
Worship has an impact on the worshipper that goes beyond the liturgical service. As Patrick Bishop tells us, worship “imposes an ethic upon us”. Romans 12:1-2, tells us to offer ourselves in a spiritual worship, and also not to be conformed to this world. Roman Catholics see worship as the “glorification of God and the sanctification of humanity”. This aspect of worship should be paramount to those who take part of it. Too often people come our churches, take part of the worship experience, yet don’t feel compel to transform their lives to the ideals they have just sang or recited. As Underhill points out, worship “sets the awful Perfection of God over against the creature’s imperfection, it becomes the most effective cause of “conviction of sin”, and hence, of the soul’s penitence and purification”. In this I brake with some of my contemporaries that see worship as a solely spiritual exercise in which God is magnified, to no effect on us apart from feeling gratitude. This sort of worship becomes more mechanical than organic, and has no impact in us or those surrounding us.

Conclusion
Worship may take the form of an individual or corporate expression. However, as with the ethical dimension of worship, I would say that the communal act of worship should take precedent over the individualistic one. The usage of water, table, bread, and other visual aids should be welcomed and accepted as legitimate aids to our worship experience. Too many churches have come to reject such age proven aids, and have rather opted for a projector as the sole instrument to stimulate their senses to worship. Yes, the worship of Christians must always be Theo centric, but as in the case of Jesus, who lived the perfect life of worship, it must also serve to enable the worshippers to help their neighbour. Our worship does not end at the steps of the church, but goes beyond it.

Bibliography

Bishop, Patrick ‘Worship’ in The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship. Peter & Fink, Eds. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990.

Manson, P. D. ‘Worship’ in The New Dictionary of Theology, Sinclair R. Ferguson, David F. Wright, Eds. Leicester: IVP, 1988.

Rayburn, R. G. “Worship in the Church” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Walter A. Elwell Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Underhill, Evelyn Worship Nisbet & Co. LTD; London, 1936.

Wainwright, Geoffrey ‘Theology of Worship’, in The New Dictionary of Liturgy & Worship Paul Bradshaw Ed. London: SCM Press, 2002.

White, James F. Introduction to Christian Worship (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980.

When did churches start using instrumental music? http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/nov30.html, Christianhistory.net accessed on the 26/05/09.

Luis A. Jovel

Newsweek -- The End of Christian America

Albert Mohler has written an article on the subject of the gradual demise of Christianity in the USA. Now Newsweek, has picked up on the issue, and has written an article and put the issue as its front page news. I invite you to read Mohler's article and Newsweek's.
*******************************

"To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population."

Thus writes Newsweek editor Jon Meacham in this week's cover story, "The End of Christian America." The image on the front cover says it all, declaring "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" in type set to form a cross.

The cover story is a serious consideration of the issue Newsweek set as its priority for the week of Easter, and the seriousness of the magazine's approach is evident in the fact that its editor, Mr. Meacham, wrote the cover story himself. The essay, elegant in form and serious in tone, demands attention.

I read Jon Meacham's essay with no small amount of personal interest, for Mr. Meacham had talked to me as he was writing the article. Here is how his essay begins:

It was a small detail, a point of comparison buried in the fifth paragraph on the 17th page of a 24-page summary of the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey. But as R. Albert Mohler Jr.—president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest on earth—read over the document after its release in March, he was struck by a single sentence. For a believer like Mohler—a starched, unflinchingly conservative Christian, steeped in the theology of his particular province of the faith, devoted to producing ministers who will preach the inerrancy of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only means to eternal life—the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. Then came the point he could not get out of his mind: while the unaffiliated have historically been concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, the report said, "this pattern has now changed, and the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified." As Mohler saw it, the historic foundation of America's religious culture was cracking.

I do remember that moment quite well, and I expressed my thoughts in an article posted March 27, "The Eclipse of Christian Memory." The increasingly secular character of New England, now surpassing even the Pacific Northwest, is a portrait of Christianity in retreat. The course of this retreat has been long. Indeed some historians would trace the secular trend in New England to the period of the Revolution itself. In the minds of at least some New Englanders, King George was not the only authority dethroned in that generation.

Still, the region remained under the influence of Christian memory and, for most of the intervening decades, under the influence of the Christian worldview. Now, New England is the most secular region of the nation, representing a model of what I believe is rightly designated post-Christian America.

Mr. Meacham picked up on this description of the pattern, and Newsweek launched a cover story. A good portion of the essay deals with my argument and a consideration of its accuracy and significance. Without doubt, Newsweek considers the pattern to be of great significance -- thus the cover story. Mr. Meacham looked at the same data that had caught my attention, the American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] and the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study. His summary response to the post-Christian designation: "There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory."

Here is the essence of Jon Meacham's analysis:

While we remain a nation decisively shaped by religious faith, our politics and our culture are, in the main, less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago. I think this is a good thing—good for our political culture, which, as the American Founders saw, is complex and charged enough without attempting to compel or coerce religious belief or observance. It is good for Christianity, too, in that many Christians are rediscovering the virtues of a separation of church and state that protects what Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island as a haven for religious dissenters, called "the garden of the church" from "the wilderness of the world." As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience. At our best, we single religion out for neither particular help nor particular harm; we have historically treated faith-based arguments as one element among many in the republican sphere of debate and decision. The decline and fall of the modern religious right's notion of a Christian America creates a calmer political environment and, for many believers, may help open the way for a more theologically serious religious life.

This is a fair and insightful rendering of the pattern. What does become clear in this paragraph is that what Newsweek sees as the essence of the issue is political influence. While this is hardly a non-issue, my greater concern is not with political influence and what secularization means for the political sphere, but with what secularization means for the souls of men and women who are now considerably more distant from Christianity -- and perhaps even with any contact with Christianity -- than ever before. My main concern is evangelism, not cultural influence.

One key aspect of Mr. Meacham's argument is his suggestion that what binds America together is not "a specific faith" but instead "a commitment to freedom" and, in particular, freedom of conscience. There is something to this argument, of course. The founding generation did not establish the young republic on any religious creed or theological doctrine. Still, there is something missing from this argument, and that is the recognition that freedom, and freedom of conscience in particular, requires some prior understanding of human dignity and the origins of conscience itself. Though the founders included those who rejected the Christian Gospel and Christianity itself, Christianity had provided the necessary underpinnings for the founders' claims.

Mr. Meacham also suggests that this new situation is perhaps healthy for the church. To this extent I agree -- the church gains a necessary knowledge any time the distinction between the church and the world is made more evident. Our first concern is and must be the Gospel. It is good that non-Christians know that they are not Christians and that Christians be reminded of that fact that what sinners need is the Gospel of Christ, not merely the lingering morality of the Christian memory.

I am haunted a bit by this section of the Newsweek article:

Mohler posted a despairing online column on the eve of Holy Week lamenting the decline—and, by implication, the imminent fall—of an America shaped and suffused by Christianity. "A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us," Mohler wrote. "The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture." When Mohler and I spoke in the days after he wrote this, he had grown even gloomier. "Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society," he said from his office on campus in Louisville, Ky.

I appreciate the care, respect, and insight that mark this essay by Jon Meacham. I also appreciated our conversation about an issue that concerns us both. Still, I hope I did not reflect too much gloom in my analysis. This much I know -- Jesus Christ is Lord, and His kingdom is forever. Our proper Christian response to this new challenge is not gloom, but concern. And our first concern must be to see that the Gospel is preached as Good News to the perishing -- including all those in post-Christian America.

Barbie turns 50. Time to look at life at this point

Albert Mohler, from whom I get many posts from, has written about the event two weeks ago, that Barbie turn 50 yrs old this month.

Why would this be of interest to the rest of us?

Barbie's origins were not as clear cut and innocent as the little girls it hopes to project her self. For example, Barbie was modelled after a sex toy from Germany. No wonder the body dimensions of the doll can be only achieved through surgery, and never naturally.

Both parents and feminist criticise this aspect of Barbie. Barbie projects herself as the ideal girl, with the ideal lifestyle. No girl of the age of 6 can have a car as flashy as Barbie's, or have a boyfriend as good looking as Barbie's. Of course, this is only child play, however, just as I long for a BMW due to my cars as a kid, many young women grow up and long to have the life style Barbie has. The difference is that they are flesh and bones, not as Barbie is, mainly plastic.

Barbie's ideals are not the ones that christian people hold. Starting by the fact, that outside beauty is not the pinnacle of a woman's existence. This is how the Bible defines a beautiful woman who does have wisdom:
Proverbs 11:22
Like a gold ring in a pig's snout
is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.

I have two daughters, and those of you who have daughters, we would do well to teach our daughters to aspire, not to be like Barbie, but to be the best with the gifts God has given them.

For those interested in readig the article, you can find it at: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3365

Luis Alberto Jovel

Australia Day, for whom?

Today, here in Australia, we are celebrating "Australian Day".

This is the day when we honour those that have given to the community a lot, as well as those who have achieved, against all odds, great deeds.

However, it would seem that not all people are happy about it. Aboriginals are demanding to change Australia Day, January 26, to another date. This, they say, it's because they call today "Invasion Day", due to the fact that the first fleet arrived on that day.

Last year, the Prime minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, offered an apology for the treatment of aboriginees in the past. Previous prime ministers refused to this, since they thought, rightly, that that would open a floodgates of monetary demands from those who saw themselves as abused, looked down upon, etc. Leaders from the aboriginal peoples denied that, but now we see many demands of compensantion. I assumed that we, as fallen human being, would never be satisfied, even as in this case, an apology was given. It was said by many people, including some lectures of mine, that the apology last year would help for reconciliation between anglo Australia and aboriginal Australia. I am not part of either, by the way. This has not taken place, as we see the new demands from the Australian of the Year, Michael Dobson, an Aboriginal, to have Australia day moved to another date, even though the rest of the country is happy to keep it as it is.

I don't think reconociliation can ever take place, because we are fallen human beings. What we need to do, is to put the past in the past, and forge a good future for our nation together. Too much time has being wasted on the issue of reconciliation. That time would have been better spent preparing ourselves for the future, for such things not to happen again. The Apology last year failed, because we always think that we as human beings are good, but the Bible tells us otherwise, that we all have strayed, and no good is in us, cf. Romans 3:9-18.

Therefore, all reconciliation, that does not take God, and what He did through Jesus, to reconcile us to God, into account, is doomed to fail, cf. II Corinthians 5:11-6:2.

But going back to Australia. As you have seen in the videos I have posted, Australia is a beautiful place. I am happy the way my country is, and although I recognise that there were some before me here, I also embrace the democracy that Australia believes in. If the rest of us are happy with Australia Day, please respect the wishes of the majority, and enjoy living in this Southern Land.

Luis A. Jovel

The "American Experience" and the Death of Evangelism

Every culture and civilization embraces a certain set of assumptions about life, truth, significance, and what it means to be human. Without these shared assumptions, common life would be impossible. Individuals within these societies may not give much active thought to these common assumptions, but their decisions, expectations, and general dispositions reflect the presence of these assumptions as what some philosophers call background ideas.

Out of these assumptions an entire way of life emerges. Background ideas move into the foreground as morals, manners, and the culture at large begins to reflect the decisive influence if these ideas. In America, an identifiable "American way of life" rules as an operational worldview for many persons -- perhaps even replacing more fundamental convictions.

"The American way" involves, among other things, patriotism, a sense of fair play, equality, personal autonomy, and limitless opportunity. We expect each other to respect these assumptions and ideals.

But, is God accountable to the American way?

Responding to a recent report from the Barna Research Group indicating that Americans Christians are increasingly unwilling to believe that their non-Christian neighbors are going to hell, Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe explained:

"It's just part of a 200-year working out of ideas about personal autonomy and equality that are sort of built into the American experience. The notion that someone is going to burn in hell because they have their own beliefs is just not resonant within our larger political ideals."

Wolfe, who directs the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, suggests that Americans are confusing the American experience with the ways of God. Without doubt, assumptions about autonomy and equality "are sort of built into the American experience." These ideas are now just taken for granted. Americans generally assume themselves and their fellow citizens to be unconditionally autonomous, free to make and remake themselves in protean fashion, and thus the unfettered captains of their own souls.

Americans are not sure what to do with ideals of equality and fairness, but we are generally certain that equality and fairness are the right categories to employ, regardless of the idea or context.

People who think themselves autonomous will claim the right to define all meaning for themselves. Any truth claim they reject or resist is simply ruled out of bounds. We will make our own world of meaning and dare anyone to violate our autonomy.

The same research report indicates that a majority of American Christians pick and choose doctrines, more or less on the basis of those they like as opposed to those they dislike.

This certainly explains a great deal about the current shape of Christianity in American today. Specifically, it points to at least one fundamental reason that so many Christians -- including a significant number who claim to be evangelical -- no longer believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

That reason: Eternal punishment in hell is not consistent with "the American experience" or "the American way." The God of the Bible, in other words, does not act in ways consistent with what many people consider to be American ideals. Sending people to hell is just not fair.

The Bible never claims that God acts fairly, of course. Fairness is the best we mortals can often hope to achieve. We want our children to learn to play fairly and each child learns all too quickly to cry out, "No fair!"

But God does not claim to be fair. The God of the Bible is infinitely greater than we are. He is faithful, just, holy, merciful, gracious, and righteous. A morally perfect being does not operate at the level of mere and faulty human fairness, but at the level of his own omnipotent righteousness. We hope to make things fair. God makes things right.

I think Alan Wolfe is on to something really important here, and Christians should think carefully about what he is saying. The Holy One of Israel, the ruler of all and the sovereign of universe, is now to be judged by his own sinful creatures by the standard of fairness. Doctrines ruled to be "unfair" are cast aside and overridden by our cherished cultural assumptions. Evangelism will die the thousand deaths of cultural awkwardness.

As much as Christians in this blessed nation should respect and cherish our democratic ideals and system of government, we must keep ever in mind that the Kingdom of God is ruled by a higher and infinitely more perfect law and system of governance.

Be warned: God is not running for office, and heaven is not a democracy.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3106

Sydney Tower Restaurant

Here we are at the Tower's Restaurant. Some English and Spanish as always.

Some videos from our trip to Sydney's Blue Mountains

N. T. Wright answers his critics, again!

For the beggining of the year, I am looking forward to read Wright's new book:

Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision

I. Howard Marshall makes a description of the book on Amazon.co.uk
This book is a magisterial response to the recent spate of criticism directed at Tom Wright for his theology of justification. He introduces readers to the debate and outlines his position without engaging in polemic against his opponents. 'This sprightly and gracious, yet robust, work is Tom Wright's carefully argued and scripturally based response to those who think that he has deeply misunderstood Paul's doctrine of justification… This is definitely one of the most exciting and significant books that I have read this year… Strongly commended!' Professor I. Howard Marshall, University of Aberdeen

Something to look forward in your new year reading list.

Luis A. Jovel.

An Index on Promiscuity

Sex and the citizen

Dec 15th 2008
From Economist.com

Where people are most, and least, promiscuous

HOW much do sexual habits vary between countries? A great deal, according to a study of 14,000 people in 48 countries. The survey asked respondents to consider seven questions related to sex. Some questions were factual: how many sexual partners have you had in the past year and how many one-night stands have you had? Other questions were about attitudes to sex: is sex without love acceptable, or sex with casual partners? From the answers, the researchers compiled an index of promiscuity for respondents from each country. The result appears to show that Finns and other Europeans are the most promiscuous, whereas respondents from more conservative countries, such as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, are less promiscuous. Around the world men and women vary in their attitudes to casual sex. Men are more likely to seek it out in their late twenties. Women wait until their thirties when the chances of a casual encounter resulting in pregnancy are less.

Celebrating Christmas at Altona Baptist Church