In Revelation there is a scene in heaven involving "myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands." They said in a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing" (Rev 5:12). Now, "worthy" isn't a complex word. In fact, it practically defines itself. It refers to something ... of worth. The original Old English word for "worship" meant "the condition of being worthy." Originally, "worship" meant "to acknowledge someone's worth."
It makes sense. God is of ultimate worth. I mean ... there is no one and nothing of higher worth. He is all in all, over all. From Him, through Him, and to Him are all things (Rom 11:36). "To Him be the glory forever." So ... worship -- the recognition of His worth-ship -- is rational ... even mandatory. So ... how did "worship" come to be defined as "singing"? The original Hebrew term was literally to "bow down." "Come, let us worship and bow down" (Psa 95:6) simply says "bow down" twice for emphasis. That is, Old Testament "worship" began with "on my face before God." And music was often employed, as the existence of the Psalms shows. But worship wasn't defined as "music." Rather, music had to be defined as worship when it drew attention to ... God's worth-ship. And we are commanded to speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16), so songs as worship aren't wrong ... they just don't define worship.
My point here isn't music. My point here is worship as a function of "worthy." Jesus said, "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt 6:21). That which we treasure will be the place that we love to be. Therefore, if God is our ultimate treasure, there is nowhere else our hearts would want to be. That would obviously not be limited to Sunday mornings (or whatever tradition you're used to). It would be all the time. It would not be limited to singing. It would be in any and every form that glorifies God. It would not be a simple, emotional response. It would be a life llved "on our faces," so to speak, constantly aware of His magnificence and our need for Him. Our failure to worship like that isn't a symptom of a bad definition. It's a symptom of our inadequate love for Him ... our inadequate treasuring of the God who made us.
17 comments:
I wrote about the bowing down/body posture aspect of this a couple of weeks ago because I think it's a neglected aspect of worship. I do agree that anything that focuses on the high intrinsic worth of YHWH is worship and that we've devalued the term over the years.
While I have significant theological differences with the RCC, I'll note that the architecture and atmosphere of many RCC churches can point us to YHWH's worth and help us worship. Unlike the black boxes with lights and lasers that are more and more common.
It is at times disheartening to me when I think about my need to worship Him always, and how little I actually do it. Sure, I do it more than I used to, but so much of every day goes by without an active thought about Him. I long for heaven where I will be free of this limitation and worship Him always as He should be worshiped.
The original Old English word for "worship" meant "the condition of being worthy." Originally, "worship" meant "to acknowledge someone's worth." It must be the case that a deeper nuance to this definition has been added over time. Many people or things are worthy or have worth but don’t properly inspire worship of them/it (i.e. one’s spouse or one’s life goals, etc.), but as you go on to clarify, it would be the One of “ultimate worth” that commands our true worship.
In any event, I am always glad to see you clarify the definition of “worship” as it relates to our attitude and behavior towards God and how that differs from one’s musical expression of it. Many people--especially those who design “worship services” for various assemblies of the saints--need to learn this very basic distinction and return the focus to true worship of God in spirit and in truth (with singing/music being in support of it, rather than in place of it).
An excellent resource for learning and understanding the true meaning of “worship” (as you regularly use it in your posts) is John MacArthur’s book, Worship: The Ultimate Priority (and its companion study guide). Through this in-depth book study, I learned the difference between acceptable and deviant or self-styled worship (according to Scripture), how God’s attributes inspire true worship, what continuous worship looks like in the life of the believer, the biblical guidelines that should shape corporate “worship services,” and even an explanation of how “worship” has come to be defined as singing/music. (As I have flipped through my book while writing this comment, I am struck that it is probably the most marked-up book on my bookshelf, with asterisks, underlining, highlighting, and notations on every page--the content is that rich!)
Thank you for this reminder that God commands our true worship--in the fullness of the principle and practice.
Craig, I thought of John 4:4:23-24 upon reading your comment: The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth [emphasis added]. In light of Jesus’ description in those verses of true worship, I am very curious about which aspects of “the architecture and atmosphere of many RCC churches” you might see helping true believers glorify and worship the Father. I am at a complete loss (even being quite familiar with such places from my youth). Instead, all I can focus on are those “significant theological differences with the RCC” you mention, which, apparently, we hold in common.
Never having entered a Catholic cathedral I can't say from experience, but R.C. Sproul used to mention that there was a palpable sense of reverence when entering one. In essence, you feel as though you're standing on hallowed ground in the older cathedrals. Unlike today's churches which are indistinguishable from weed shops sometimes (I've seen videos challenging you to determine "church or weed shop" based on the looks and names of buildings).
I appreciate your comment, David. Knowing how firmly R.C. Sproul taught Protestant Reformed Theology, I am guessing that he shared that observation in the context of then clarifying how and why such an impression is not a reliable indication of biblical vs. unbiblical worship. Instead, that assessment would more properly be based on the doctrine and practices promoted within such “hallowed” buildings (whether they be Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, LDS, Shinto, Hindu, Muslim, etc.)--most of which would fail the test. (And on the other hand, I am mindful that the less reverentially designed churches such as you mention might promote true worship, or they might not; again, I see it based on adherence to Scripture practiced therein, rather than the appearance of their meeting places--i.e. that “architecture and atmosphere” Craig mentioned.) (However, I would definitely insist on the absence of weed :).
I will reiterate that according to Jesus, worship that pleases and honors the Lord is no longer tied to a particular location or setting and will be in spirit and truth (John 4:20-24). I believe that those are the elements that matter over all other factors one can mention. Thankfully, God has provided both His Spirit and His Truth to all true worshipers (John 16:13), and so by exercising discernment, we can indeed distinguish between acceptable and self-styled worship, in any form or place.
Please note that in my comment above addressed to Craig, I meant to type John 4:23-24 (rather than John 4:4:23-24).
His point was that we can use our environment to aid us in placing ourselves in a mind of worship, and the classic cathedrals did that. Not that they were the end all, be all, but that modern churches have lost that sense of the holy.
To my mind, for true worshipers, the best “environment to aid us in placing ourselves in a mind of worship,” as you say, is any setting where one can read (or hear), study, and/or meditate upon God’s Word with a Spirit-led response that shapes one’s attitudes and actions. This is the heart of the submissive believer’s life and Christian walk. Since worship should be continuous for the believer, no particular building, location, or atmosphere is required (and we don’t need to go to a church building to “encounter God,” since He does not live in buildings but His Spirit indwells each believer). When the saints assemble for edification, fellowship, and corporate worship, the actual place used for gathering is not as important as the activities in which they participate therein. Spirit-indwelled believers are the church, not the physical buildings or spaces they use for meetings. They can (and do) use traditional church buildings but also schools, gymnasiums, homes, and various other spaces. Outside of these gatherings, hopefully they are worshiping God in their homes, work places, and neighborhoods.
As you can gather, I personally ascribe no special spiritual value to manmade structures--no matter how “reverential,” “holy,” or “hallowed” they might be deemed (since they are actually not so). If I were to enter such a building, I can’t imagine how its design, décor, or furnishings would ever give me one iota of understanding of what God is like (no manmade entity or graven image can, of course). Buildings don’t proclaim God’s holiness; His Word does. And since I know that very few of these “classic cathedrals” (if any) are currently used for true worship of God (certainly Catholic churches--Craig’s original mention--are not), they are simply beautiful buildings in my eyes.
In summary, I cannot concur with Dr. Sproul that any such buildings would necessarily facilitate true worship any more than any other place would.
It comes across as a complete denunciation of anything Catholic, no matter what. There can be things made by man that turn our hearts and minds toward God. We can make beautiful things that are meant to glorify God. If it were wrong to do so, God would never had made His temple so beautiful under Solomon. It seems like you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. And no, I don't agree that we can put our heads and hearts in the right mode for worship any where, any time. I agree location isn't as important as the activities, but they are still important. We will be limited by our environment. I'm not saying it is right for us to be limited (since we should be glorifying God always and everywhere), but that it is true. You say that you "can't imagine how its design, decor, or furnishings would ever give me one iota of understanding of what God is like". But that simply sounds false just on the face of it. A beautiful building with Christian iconography is certainly going to put us in a better frame of mind for worship, than say a dirty sewer. But then, maybe you're just on a whole different level of holiness from me. You've successfully separated your holy mind from your body.
First, I will confirm that, yes, I hold Protestant persuasions--as much as that movement returned Christian thought and practice to its New Testament roots. (And I will certainly firmly denounce all other Gospels.) I also strive to properly understand the themes of the Old and New Covenants, the differences in the ways God has interacted with His chosen people at various times (i.e. the distinction between Israel and the Church), and the implications for believers living under grace rather than the law. One of the wondrous realities of the current Church era is that through the indwelling Holy Spirit, Christians can commune with God at any time and in any place--they can pray and worship God 24/7, whether alone or in fellowship with other believers. There is no longer a need for human intermediaries, special apparel, particular settings, or specific rites or rituals. Christ is building His Church across the globe, within a multitude of environments and settings and from many people groups--not all of whom will have access to fancy buildings, “Sunday clothes,” or other Western “churchy” things. The Spirit and the Truth transcend physical limitations to connect our hearts with God, who is Spirit. This was the glorious message of Jesus to the woman at the well (John 4:19-24)--and to me today.
In any event, my original comment to Craig was about his mention of the “architecture and atmosphere of many RC churches.” I asked because I surmised that he might not have been familiar with the typical elements one sees upon entering a RC church, such as a basin of “holy water” at the entrance for finger-dipping; statuary of Mary and Catholic saints with nearby votive candle stands; a “confessional” booth; padded kneelers in the pews; a prominent crucifix; and the large front altar from which many unbiblical prayers, chants, homilies, and the idolatrous “mass” are offered. (This is even before considering the actual extra-biblical behavior of those in the pews, such as “crossing” themselves, genuflecting, “adoration of the Eucharist,” etc.) As I indicated, I would have been curious to learn how Craig thought these elements might facilitate true worship for him personally.
Of course, each of us will have unique Christian journeys. From my upbringing in a ritualistic, legalistic, extra-biblical belief system, God has essentially torn down my religion and has been steadily building a biblical faith in me instead; He had returned me to “square one,” so to speak. I have not arrived, but I am enjoying great freedom and rest in the Gospel of Grace (and I truly wish that too for anyone who might read my comments). My motivation in speaking up at this weblog is to hopefully speak the truth in love--from as pure a biblical perspective as I can manage to do. It is not my desire to argue, “bash” Catholics, or to come across as “holier than thou” (even if holiness is indeed my goal in life). If my gleanings are helpful to anyone, all glory to God.
P.S. David, Much of this discussion about the intrinsic value of physical buildings--which wasn’t really the emphasis of my original comment to Craig--resembles the comment thread at Stan’s post of 12/26/23 (“Catechism”), which you might wish to re-read. This is really a whole other discussion, I believe, as it relates to the move to simplify worship elements as an outcome of the Protestant Reformation movement (and is quite a bit off-topic to this post).
Based on the Old Testament, how do you come to the conclusion that the Jews could only commune with God in one place? Yes, the rites that God commanded were done in one place, but could they not pray and worship and glorify God anywhere else or at any time else?
Second, why do you dislike when these comments start to drift from the original topic? It seems like we have been following an easily traced path. It's not like Craig started talking about Catholic Church, and we randomly started talking about football. This is a conversation, and conversations tend to drift. As long as we're not become mean or rude to each other, it doesn't seem to bother Stan. And ultimately, every theological discussion is going to be able to touch on many different aspects that effect each other. When you say, "This isn't related to the original post", when it is related to the string of comments, it feels like you're saying you no longer wish to discuss this topic without saying it directly.
On your first point: I wrote, “There is no longer a need for human intermediaries, special apparel, particular settings, or specific rites or rituals,” which I don’t believe translates exactly as you stated. I was focusing on John 4:20-21 in the context of the Christian’s possession of the Holy Spirit, enabling 24/7 access to God the Father through prayer and spiritual communion.
On your second point: When I comment in response to Stan’s posts, I try to focus on his main point. I usually don’t just comment “off the top of my head” but think about what I write; this takes time, effort, concentration, and often a bit of light research on my part. When subsequent comments addressed to me take a different path from the original point, I might need to devote more time and effort in order to properly address the new point(s). When the new points raised have drifted away from Stan’s main point and also my response to it, I feel it would be my prerogative whether to follow that drift or not. (Surely you can understand that it would be difficult to reply to points that don’t build upon my own.) After an extended comment exchange--especially where I see reiterations of previous points stated and already addressed in response--I might also conclude that nothing I am saying is having any impact, so I will be led to end my participation. In summary, as I imagine that Stan would say to commenters at his posts, I am always happy to have a conversation about the points I made; perhaps less so about ones I didn’t.
I do need to mention a possible misstep on my part. Looking back just now, I occurred to me that I cannot know for sure if your first comment under my comment to Craig (dated 9/03/2025 10:06 PM and beginning with “Never having entered…”) was meant for me or for Craig. If meant for Craig, I should not have responded as I did but let him answer you. I assumed it was addressed to me, when perhaps it was not at all. If meant for Craig, it followed in his train of thought; if meant for me, it went in a different direction from my comment to Craig (prompting the subsequent comments I submitted). To avoid wrongly making such an assumption in the future, I might need to ask you to clarify the addressee in cases where you do not use my name to make it clear. And should I reply to you in error, please inform me, so I can delete my errant comment. Thank you.
David, a few more thoughts. I am curious how you know that I “dislike when these comments start to drift from the original topic.” In my recent comment above, I referred you to a previous post of Stan’s where we discussed the very points to which you had “drifted” in this thread. I didn’t wish to repeat my comments at this post, so I suggested you re-read them there. I have wrapped up a comment exchange or two with you in the past when the back-and-forth seemed to have run its course, but even in those threads, I provided a good number of replies to you before doing so. (And in the case of the “how to dress for church” discussions, you must admit that you have essentially made the same points over and over again. I do grow weary of that, honestly.)
Are you thinking I am obligated to follow every “drift”--even the repeat discussions? Please clarify.
By the way, I have often seen remarks at other blog comment sections admonishing against off-topic comments; I even recall Stan noting that to commenters (way back, when he used to engage with almost every commenter). In an intellectual debate, I believe it is best if comments stay on point and that points be pertinent; otherwise, conversations can go all over the place and are impossible to follow or to respond to (as I have actually remarked to you in the past). You say “it doesn’t seem to bother Stan” if comments “drift.” You would know better about that than me, of course, but I surmise it might. Perhaps he will clarify his position on that. I wish for my contributions here to be positive, not a nuisance.
My mistake. I thought my comments were in the vein of your comments, Lorna. Admittedly, I don't get to have long conversations very often, so maybe I'm confused on chains of thought. And I get the feeling you don't like when comments drift because you keep ending threads by announcing that they've drifted from the main topic.
I appreciate your comment, David. I don’t recall ending that many threads the way you say (and not this one, as I clarified for you), but in any case, I am sorry if I seemed to have cut you off in the past. I find that our back-and-forth usually contains little or no consensus (which does perturb me, to be honest), so the exchange begins to get argumentative and unproductive, in my view, so I feel led to stop. If I feel I made my point well enough at the beginning, I wouldn’t wish to go on and on about it (partly in consideration of Stan’s time). For example (just to help you understand): In this particular case, my point from the start was that “the architecture and atmosphere of many RCC [sic] churches” (Craig’s wording) would most definitely NOT inspire true worship, and then all your comments argued that they could/would/should (essentially concurring with Craig). In three full comments, I replied otherwise. In all that I said, you should have been able to see me stand firmly in my original position and let it go. It’s not that I can’t tolerate anyone disagreeing with me or holding alternate views, but the reiteration seems unnecessary.
Alas, I hoped to return Craig to Stan’s good point, but ironically, he never even came back!
P.S. Regarding the “long conversations” you mentioned--I have many of those but mostly with myself! They do go all over the place, and even I can’t follow all the chains of thought that surface therein! :-D (My husband will be retiring in four months and will then be around full-time to try to keep up with me! Should be interesting.)
David, I thought of one recent occasion when I did end my comments abruptly in the manner you described: “God’s Plan B” (dated 6/30/25). The insight I shared, to which you responded, was an “aside” to Stan’s main point and addressed a very specific scenario within God’s plan to which He had brought my focus; therefore, I was not able to envision the entirely contrary scenario you introduced (although I took a stab at it). I am afraid that I interpreted your phrases, “when people make claims” and “these types of claims,” as dismissive and derogatory towards my line of thinking, so I responded in a terse manner. Perhaps I misconstrued your comments, in which case, I apologize.
If there were other (regrettable) occasions, perhaps a similar explanation applies.
Post a Comment