Worship and Tradition
By Dwaine E. Dunning
[Page 85] |
The Restoration Movement, that new look at spiritual matters which began in the early 1800's, and continues at somewhat reduced speed and effectiveness today, has made several distinctive contributions to contemporary Christendom. One of these has been a concern for the use of Bible words in their original connotations. In accordance with this principle, the Brush Run congregation took a new and hard look at the word baptism, and revised its practices in accordance with the new knowledge thus acquired. This is one of many areas of study which have since then been investigated with great profit by this simple and admirable tool of understanding.
However, the Restoration Movement has not always taken its own excellent medicine. There are several areas, marked by disputes among Christians, in which it would be extremely advantageous to find out once again what the Bible really says, in order that it may be possible to do what it commands--and thus to reduce or eliminate discord. One of these neglected areas is that of the meaning of worship.
Unfortunately, the King James translation of the New Testament Scriptures lumps several Greek words together and renders them all "worship." This could easily be done in the religious context of Seventeenth Century Anglicanism, when so much of Christian responsibility was the performance of ritual. Thus the words proskuneo, latreuo, and sebazomai could all be translated by the English term "worship" which was unspecific enough to handle at least some portion of all three.
However, those who honor the Restoration ideal of accurate definition have erred seriously in allowing this vagueness to stand. It conflicts seriously with our historic ideal of accurate definition and is thus an inconsistency between theory and practice. More important, however, is the fact that inaccurate or imperfect understanding of the English word "worship" and the Greek terms which it translates has contributed greatly to those divisions which at the present time are seriously hampering the good work the Restoration Movement once did, and which it could do again.
A regrettably large number of church members believe that worship is exactly equivalent to "worship service." Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of ministers, assist this misconception by putting "Enter to worship; Depart to serve," on church bulletins or over the door of the church house, and thus make the people believe that worship is definitely, if not irrevocably, associated with the place where Christians assemble. This despite our Lord's assurance to the Samaritan woman that, whereas worship was formerly associated with definite places, the time had arrived when it was to be found in spirit and in truth!
More thoughtful Christians may perhaps realize, dimly, that worship is larger than the worship service, and increasingly a valuable distinction is being made between worship in the personal or emotional sense and "public" or "corporate"
[Page 86] |
The inadequacy of the term "worship" to render the Greek words is evident in one of the commonest of the several which are lumped together by the translators in the English term. Proskuneo means literally "to kiss the hand toward." About the only time anything like this is done in our society is when a small child "blows a kiss" to a departing loved one. It is obvious that the usual understanding of worship is very inadequate in rendering this word. Blowing kisses toward God has never been done in any worship service in which this writer has participated, or of which he has ever heard. A bit of thought indicates clearly that a personal, emotional, highly subjective meaning is involved in proskuneo, which is completely neglected in "the worship" as commonly known among us.
It is entirely possible that a rather general coldness among Churches of Christ and Christian Churches (as compared with other religious groups) may be due to our misunderstanding of this important term. If by it God means to suggest an extremely warm, intimate relationship, such as that which is shown by the child blowing the kiss, then here is something we are not doing very well at the present time, perhaps not at all.
It is evident that far too many of us think of worship as something to do, rather than what we feel toward God--our emotional responses to God. This, it seems to this writer after much study, is the real force of proskuneo.
Emotional power under restraint can be dangerous. Therefore, worship as man's emotion of love, respect, awe, reverence, and homage to God (to attempt to define the indefinable) needs outlets of expression. Hence the Greek latreuo, which may be translated "to give service," and sebazomai, which means "to give honor or respect," joined with proskuneo in the minds of the early translators as indicating the idea behind the English worship. Love, awe and homage to God are the motivation. Service and the paying of proper respect are the results of the motivation!
For many years some have made use of a definition of worship which takes it completely out of the realm of emotion and makes it a very objective rule, or even law, subject to pattern. Much is said of "proper worship." Sermons may be preached on "authority in worship." Various standards of public or corporate worship are solemnly advanced. Many of these plans, patterns or laws, have the transparent purpose of making those who do not agree with them outlaws.
Let us imagine a young boy who is beginning to have romantic thoughts about a certain young lady. He may express this feeling by peddling his bicycle furiously past her house ten or twelve times per day, without so much as a glance in her direction. Another young boy, more bold, may advance directly with a box of candy in hand. The young lady in question, if she is perceptive, may see that the bicycling is really just as valid an expression of emotion as the candy. However, human nature being what it is, she may draw invidious comparisons between the two expressions of emotion. The plans, patterns and laws of worship unfortunately in vogue in so many quarters would insist that the bicycle riding was "false worship" or "will worship." It left too much to the discretion of the worshipper! Rather, acceptable worship would require the boy to purchase a box of candy! It would be necessary for it to be made to certain rigid standards, of certain prescribed ingredients, and to be labelled with a certain official imprimatur. Then, and only then, would it be considered acceptable worship, and confidently identified as "worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23).
It is this writer's conviction that Christians ought to take their hands completely off the matter of worship where the term refers to the emotional response of a Christian to God. It is unthinkable to dictate to people in love how they will express that love. As long as the traditional use of worship persists it will be
[Page 87] |
In Acts 18 is an excellent sermon on this subject, preached by a pagan Roman, the proconsul, Gallio. The Jews had brought Paul before Gallio's praetorium in Corinth, charging him with "persuading men to worship God contrary to the law." The word they used was sebazomai, which has the idea of giving respect to some great one. Paul was all set with a sermon of rebuttal, but he did not get to give it. Gallio made a short and pungent speech. He used a sarcastic pun on the Greek word logos, perhaps to sharpen the needle he was using; and when the Greeks, disgusted by the religious uproar, gave a beating to Sosthenes, Gallio did nothing. (Sosthenes as the new ruler of the synagogue, replacing Crispus who had become a Christian, may confidently be identified as a ringleader of the orthodox Jewish faction at Corinth).
The conduct of Gallio indicates contempt and disdain for the Jewish concern for niceties of worship. Inasmuch as the conduct of the Jews is exactly analogous to that of those who would dictate how others are to worship God in our day, it might be of real value to all of us to think just a little about the pagan Roman. God did not record this incident merely for its historical value.
Where are the scriptures which determine the "plan" or "pattern" or "law" of worship? They are brought together from a variety of contexts, with the same regard for truth and accuracy as the argument which requires every Christian immediately to commit suicide: "Judas went out and hanged himself. Go thou and do likewise. What thou doest, do quickly!" Gallio was right. Making laws in this area is too ridiculous to argue! Most of us are painfully aware of various fractures in the Restoration Movement of today. The simplest way to explain them all is to point out that everyone of them is based on differing ideas of worship--especially the latreuo and sebazomai kinds. Some of us exclude instrumental music, or individual communion cups, or sermons by "ordained pastors" from our "pattern" or "plan" or "law" of worship, overlooking the glaringly obvious fact that God never relates worship to these things as we do! Others object to various measures their brethren take for the service of God, such as Sunday schools, orphanages, homes for the aged, Bible colleges, and uninspired literature.
Can we really try to get these important terms re-defined so we will understand our responsibilities to God and our relationship to one another? Gallio was absolutely right! Differing ideas of worship and service are not censurable faults. They may not be lumped together with wicked immorality, but are simply the differences which may properly be expected among human beings, and which ought to serve to enlarge the usefulness of the church rather than restricting it!
The obvious fact that God has nowhere made the detailed laws of worship which have served to divide and disrupt Christian fellowship ought to have some slight significance to us! Like it or not, the pagan Roman was right and most of us are wrong. The fact that Gallio was quoted by the inspired writer, without censure, or perhaps, even with approval, indicates that he said something which Christians could heed with profit and appreciation. Let us do so!