I am collecting here thoughts on worship taken from my Facebook series "Just a Thought."
Just A Thought #5: The essence of
worship is humility. In order to “lift Him high” we must make ourselves low. There
is no true humility without surrender. And there is no true surrender without obedience.
The heart of worship is obedience, obedience not to abstract concepts but to
the presence of a living God. JDJ
Just A Thought #13: As a Pentecostal pastor, I have little concern
that people will get out of order in worship. The appearance of order is easy
enough to reinstate. My concern is that too few ever get into order.
Spirit-filled worship requires a conscious surrender to the Lordship of the
living Christ and a deep desire to let the Holy Spirit lead in the dance of
exaltation. That is the order for worship before the throne of God. Modern
worshippers seem all too content to hum the tunes and watch from the gallery.
They would rather attend the concert than play in the band. JDJ
Just A Thought #18: Theology can be toxic when your knowledge
about God is greater than your relationship with him. But when the task of
theology (theologizing) is practiced as a sincere expression of worship, a form
of prayer and praise, it nourishes the soul and strengthens faith. Indeed, the
practice of exploring and articulating the truth of God is a primary goal of
authentic Christian living; It is to seek and to proclaim His glory. Thus,
orthodoxy, both in the primal meaning of “correct worship” and the derived
meaning of “correct doctrine,” is the celestial port to which we sail and the
guiding stream that is propelling us there.
JDJ
Just A Thought #19: For
years my welcome to church visitors included the words “please worship in the
manner in which you are comfortable.” One Sunday as those words were rolling
out of my mouth God spoke to me; He said, “I am not nearly as concerned with
their comfort as you seem to be.” In the Scriptures people respond to the
presence of God in many ways: they tremble, they prostrate themselves, they
weep, they rejoice, they dance, etc. I cannot find a reference where they are
described as being comfortable. His invitation is for His children to enter His
throne room with confidence (Hebrews 4:16). However, this confidence should be grounded
in the assurance of forgiveness, the awareness of a sanctifying High Priest and
the certainty of our devotion and reverence. I invite you to worship Him in the
manner you believe He is pleased. JDJ
Just A Thought #23: Whatever the
church does as church must be done with and for children. Children need to
worship with adults and adults need to worship with children. This does not
discount the importance of some age appropriate activities. Neither does it
demand that children be present all of the time. It does declare that children
are important to the life of a congregation. The absence of children when the
church gathers as the Body of Christ impoverishes the congregation and cripples
the development of the children. JDJ
Just a Thought #37: The
Christian life is a journey in which the future permeates the present. Our
final place in God, that place of unencumbered fellowship with Him, should be
fully realized now and yet ever in front of us. Ever satisfied, we ever long
for more. We know Him now, and in knowing Him we hunger to know Him more fully.
In theological terms, orthodoxy, both in the original sense of “correct
glory/correct worship” and in the sense of “sound doctrine” is the purpose for
our existence (ortho = straight, correct and doxa = opinion, praise, glory). The
glory of God is the port toward which Christians sail and the stream in which
we sail. Both our calling and our destiny are to worship Him forever in Spirit
and in Truth. JDJ
Just a Thought #40: A people
without a song is a people without a soul. We have become a culture of
performers and observers, entertainers and audiences, players and fans. We are
a nation that exalts vocal talent but eschews public singing. We have no
anthems or ballads that we sing to and with our children. Our praise and
worship often contains beautiful, oriented choruses, but very few of the songs
can be sung without a praise team of gifted singers and an expensive sound
system. They may have deep and profound meaning, but they are shallow in our
hearts. We have become a people without a song. We are flooded with noise, but
little music springs from our souls. We need a new generation of hymns that
teach of His greatness and proclaim our shared experience of Him, but even more
we need to become again a people who sing our faith with gusto. JDJ
Just a Thought #62: [I share this
thought during every worship service at the time of intercessory prayer.] If
you are alive in Christ, you are so by faith. Have faith in Christ in you. Your
prayer can be the prayer of faith; your touch may be God’s healing touch; your
words may be the words of the Holy Spirit to someone right now. Obey the Lord.
JDJ
Just a Thought: Pentecostal preaching
is Christ centered because it is anointed of the Holy Spirit. Under the
anointing, preaching centers on Christ in its content ("I have determined
to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified"). It is centered on
Christ because it is proclamation of the Word of God: the Word of God
inscripturated and the Word of God incarnated is one person. It is centered on
Christ because under the anointing it is prophecy, that is, the anointed
preacher by the Spirit is speaking the words of Christ. The anointed preacher
is the “vicar of Christ.” JDJ #83
Just a Thought: The contemporary
church seems preoccupied with emotional moderation. There is a façade of
happiness but little room for ecstasy and no room for grief. My friend, Dr.
Bill Leonard, who was my professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
and then became the founding Dean of the divinity school at Wake Forrest
University, has observed that the one religious artifact that is universal
among Appalachian Pentecostals is the tissue box. According to him it is a
powerful visual statement that people are not only allowed to cry in
Pentecostal worship, it is expected that many will shed tears. While emotional
extremes can be annoying and are not always a response to God’s presence, in
the Scriptures they do seem normative for those who encounter the holy, living
God. Our objective must be the formation of Godly affections and we should
avoid superficial manipulation of emotions. But neither should we restrain
emotional responses to the move of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps our fear of
emotional extremes is a fear of the loss of control, the very thing God demands
of us. JDJ #94
Just a Thought: In conjunction with
the contemporary church’s preoccupation with emotional moderation is a
continuing “dumbing down” of the faith. This is evidenced in all aspects of our
worship but is especially seen in our songs and our sermons. As I have noted
earlier, I am truly blessed by our current batch of worship songs, but I am
concerned by their overall shallow theology; they are lacking a bold confession
of our shared faith. They draw us into a relational response to the gospel but they
then set our table with the milk of the Word with little meat for growth. Must
we forever nurse the sincere milk of the Word from the breast of the church and
not grow into our rightful place at the full banquet of the marriage supper of
the Lamb? JDJ #95
Just a Thought: The current reductionist
approach, or over simplification, of our faith is most grievous in the pulpit.
Granted that I am limited in my exposure to the preaching of others, being
constrained to endure my own sermons on Sundays, my impression is that too many
pastors and the televised apostles whom they follow show little concern for
building people up in our most holy faith. Their objectives appear to be more
carnal and superficial, aimed at attaining the “good life.” A few decades ago
in my tradition this took on the current form of what is labeled as “therapeutic
preaching.” While preaching toward wholeness may seem to be grounded in the
example of Christ, in my limited exposure it always seems to be more analgesic
than therapeutic. The underlying motive seems to be to help people feel better
about their lives as Christians. This was not the preaching and teaching of
Christ or His apostles. Their word was a word for conversion, deliverance, and
transformation which lay the foundation for new life and growth. JDJ #96
Just a Thought: When I refer to the
current reductionist approach or over simplification of our faith, I am
thinking primarily of our worship and secondarily of our discipleship programs.
[Please keep in mind that I am referring to the general patterns of North
America and I know my comments do not apply to all.] My concern in part is that
we do not tell the story of our faith (just the highlights) and we do not use
the vocabulary of our faith; we are Biblically illiterate. There is little
recounting of the persons and events of the Scriptures, not to mention church
history. And we avoid like the plague key theological terms contained in the
Bible. In our attempt to make the gospel relevant to the non-believer we have
turned our gatherings into conversations around the “lowest common denominator”
of our shared experiences. The results are that few are challenged to learn
more and to grow deeper. One does not become a master plumber, or electrician,
or automobile mechanic, or lawyer, or doctor without learning a vocabulary and
concepts that are uncommon to the average person on the street. Neither does
one become a mature follower of Jesus Christ without learning the concepts and
vocabulary that define that very relationship. When do we hear the words sin, sinner, redeem, redeemed, justify,
justified, atone, atonement, propitiation, expiation, righteous, righteousness,
blaspheme, blasphemy, judgment, hell, sanctify, sanctified, holiness, elect,
predestination, etc.? If these words are not used and defined among us, we
cannot know and appreciate the fullness of God’s revelation of Himself in His
Son, Christ Jesus. JDJ #97
Just a Thought: Faith in Christ must
be understood not as mere intellectual assent, i.e., what we think we believe,
but as a life of worship for to truly believe is to acknowledge who He is and
to respond accordingly. Correspondingly, the disciplines of Biblical and
theological study, through which we seek to expand and enhance our faith --
more than our understanding, must be approached as events of worship. We must
not study primarily for the sake of gaining knowledge, for that only puffs us
up with pride (I Corinthians 13). We must study for and toward His glory, which
is the heart of worship. His glory is not a detached and impersonal concept.
His glory is a consuming fire and at the same time a connecting power; it is an
impenetrable wall but it is also deep crying out to deep. His glory is that of
an unapproachable God who invites us to come and dine. His glory is the
heaviness of His personal presence, a weight too great to bear so that it must
consume and carry us. Therefore, in the study of His Word we must approach Him
with fear and trembling and yet without an ounce of timidity for it is He who has
wooed us into His chambers that we might know the glory of His love. #105
Just a Thought: If the spiritual disciplines
are to bear fruit in our lives, they must be practiced as acts of worship. This
requires that at the core of all of the disciplines be active meditation on the
presence of God within the practice of the discipline, meditation that is
joined with a conscious desire to honor and glorify Him. Worship also requires
a consciousness of our selves before God. Spirit-filled worship is in its
essence a state of being in which we know ourselves knowing God (“Abba Father”)
and being known by Him. This worship is an experiential re-member-ing of our
union with God in Christ. Through the disciplines as acts of worship we anticipate
and celebrate the strengthening of our union with Christ. In other words, the
disciplines are means of grace but not mediators of grace; they do not cause God’s
favor. They are tools for creating an inner environment for unmediated
communion with God through Christ, an environment conducive for worship,
fellowship, formation, transformation, and the reception of God’s good gifts. JDJ
#143
Just a Thought: Worship is that which we do before God in
recognition of and response to his glory, honor and sovereignty. The root meaning
of the English word worship is simply to recognize and respond to the worth
of something or someone. In the Scriptures the primary Hebrew and Greek words
for worship have as their root meaning to bow down before. Worship
is the posture of all who know God. It is more than an event, or activity of
the church, more than a set of Sunday morning rituals. Worship is above all else
an affection of the heart. It is God-toward affections springing forth in
actions of praise. Thus, it is the essential character of the people who know
God, the defining nature of creation existing in the face of God, the spontaneous
response of the created to the glory of the Creator. Everything the church is
and does must be permeated with the drive to proclaim the worth of God. Anything
less is but filthy rags no matter how advanced the technology, how glittering
the performance, or how sincere the service to others. JDJ #234
Just a Thought: Many years ago Cheryl and I visited a
prominent Evangelical church in Boston. As we entered the historic building we
were confronted by a large sign on a stand. In large letters were the words
“Children’s Church” with an arrow beneath them pointing down a hall way. I paid
little attention until I read the words beneath the arrow, “Children under
twelve should not enter the sanctuary” or something to that effect. My
thoughts, then and now, were that they had written “ichabod” over their door;
the glory of the Lord will not abide where children are not welcome. Did we not
learn anything from Jesus and His teachings on, and relationship with,
children? Our children must know (1) they are loved by the adults of the
church, (2) God loves them – which is dependent on #1, and (3) they belong with
us in the presence of the Lord. JDJ #238
Just a Thought: For the record, I am not opposed to
Children’s Church. I am opposed to children growing up in our churches and not
experiencing God with adults in the sanctuary. I want them know they belong; I
want them to have a voice that worships and speaks of God. In our church they
stay with the adults in the sanctuary until shortly before the sermon. I almost
always have them up front for a “Children’s Sermon” which is more of a time for
me to get them to talk about their life and faith. I try to also use that time
to surreptitiously introduce the “adult” sermon. At New Covenant we spend
considerable time during intercessory prayer as members of the congregation
move around the sanctuary to pray with one another; my heart is often stirred
as I see children lay their hands on adults in prayer. One Sunday a month they
remain in the sanctuary for the sermon. I don’t have all the answers; I just
have a set of deep convictions we must nurture them with us in the presence of
God and we must teach them well. May God so help us. JDJ #239
Just
a Thought: Another myth. One myth that became popular in the later 20th
Century was the idea that a woman needed a male “covering” for her ministry. I
assume this concept is based on faulty understandings of Paul’s discussion of
head coverings found in I Corinthians 11. Some translations state verse 10 as
saying a woman ought to have a “symbol of authority on her head” and connect
that to her husband. Contextually, it is important to note that chapter 11
introduces a section of the letter that deals with public worship: prophesying,
praying, love feasts, spiritual gifts, etc. The issue at hand in the opening
pericope is proper decorum of women and men in worship. It is not about
husbands and wives. Paul insists that women have a head covering in worship and
that men not have such a covering. A woman’s hair should be her covering, but
if it is shorn she should wear a substitute covering. There are three
controversial and interrelated topics at stake here: head, covering, and
authority. In this “thought,” I will address the issue of “headship.” Verse
three is translated by the New Revised Standard Version as “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of
every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the
head of Christ.” However, “husband” and “wife” are translated from words that literally
mean “man” and “woman.” It is clear in many contexts that the intended meaning
is “husband” and “wife,” but it is also common for their meanings to be
literal, “man” and “woman.” Therefore, the New American Standard (NAS)
translates the verse as “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head
of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of
Christ.” In Greek, the word for “head” (kefalh.)) can have several different
meanings. Paul uses it in two different ways in our text. His first use is for
the physical head that sits on the shoulders, hence references to hair. Another
meaning is “up front” as in the person in charge, a meaning closely associated
with the concept of authority. There is a theological problem if Paul is using
“head” this way in verse three for that would teach subordinationism in the
Godhead, i.e., Christ is inferior to God in authority. A third meaning which I
believe Paul clearly uses here is that of “first” in the sense of “source, or
fountain from which something springs.” God is the head of Christ in this
sense, i.e., Christ is the eternally begotten of the Father. Paul’s argument
flows from verse 3 through 4 to 7 into verses 8 & 9 where he describes the
creation of Eve out of Adam’s side. Man is the head of woman in that she came
out of his side. In verses 11 & 12 he then reverses his logic and clearly
implies that woman is the head of man in that every man is out of a woman. As
it relates to headship, the overall thrust of Paul’s argument is that men and
women are distinct in their existence; they were distinct in their creation and
that distinction is evident in nature. That distinction must be maintained in
Christian worship. [To be continued…] JDJ #248
[An
additional note: If verse three is translated as "husband" and
"wife" then the contextual meaning becomes that a married woman cannot
worship (at least pray or prophesy) unless her husband is a Christian present
in the service.]
Just a Thought (the myth of
covering for women in ministry con’t): A second issue that needs clarification
about coverings for women is the question of what is the covering to which Paul
is referring in I Corinthians 11? Some translations and many cultures have
understood this as a woman should have her whole head veiled, with emphasis on
the face, of course. There were cultural norms governing the wearing of face-veils
during the first century, i.e., slaves were not allowed to wear them, but that
is not what is at stake here. First, Paul is not addressing the covering of the
face; he is clearly concerned with the presence of hair or a substitute for
hair as a covering. Second, Paul makes more explicit what he has in mind in
verse 16, “For her hair is given to her for a covering.” In this verse Paul
shifts to a different word for covering, a word that is more comprehensive in
image. In the other verses the word he chooses specifically relates to covering
the head. In this verse he extends the image of the hair to be that which envelopes;
a woman is covered in the sense of clothed by her hair. Her hair is an
adornment given to her by God, one that signifies that although her origin was
out of man and therefore her distinctiveness in hair reflects his glory (v. 7) her
existence as woman is to the glory of God. The underlying issue is that of
reflecting back to God His glory in worship; in the gatherings and events of
worship men must be men and women must be women, just the way God made them,
it’s only “natural” (11:14). JDJ #249
Just a Thought (The myth of
covering for women in ministry con’t): While the word “authority” only appears
in verse ten of this periscope, the central issue being addressed by Paul in
the opening section of I Corinthians 11 is the question of authority in
worship. By what authority does a woman or man pray or prophesy in the
gathering of the church? Verse ten states, “Therefore the woman ought to have a
symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (New American
Standard). The word “authority” (exousia) conveys freedom to act. Its root
meaning is “to act out of one’s being” (ex=out of and ousia=being). The
Scriptures are clear that all authority is derived from God; He alone is the
ground of His own being. He alone is truly free to act without restrictions. You
may have noticed that “a symbol of” is italicized; this is because those words
do not appear in the original. Translators often have to supply extra terms in
order for a sentence to “make sense” in the new language. This becomes a
problem when translators/readers assume “woman” should be translated as “wife.”
The implication becomes that she should have a symbol of her husband’s
authority on her head “on account of the angels.” Some commentators go so far
as to suggest her head covering is like a wedding band signaling to the angels
that this woman “is taken.” But, the sentence makes sense as a simple statement
that, “A woman must have authority on her head.” That is, a woman’s authority
to pray or prophesy rests in her identity as one created by God. Her hair
signals her being as a woman. The angels will assist a woman in communicating
with and for God because she is a woman in Christ just as they will assist a
man; no one in Christ has to pretend to be what they are not in order to speak
to and for God. In deed no one should ever attempt to do so. JDJ #250 [Twitter: A woman’s authority to pray or prophesy rests in her identity as
one created by God and recreated in Christ.]
Just
a Thought: Long ago the places where Christians gather for worship came to be
called “sanctuaries,” a word derived from the Latin for “sacred” or “holy.” Christians
were making a transition from thinking of the church as people who are holy to
places that are holy, places people enter for assurance they are safe in God’s
care. Christian worship came to be understood as entering a special location
where the blessings of Heaven came into the world. Thus, the sanctuary became a
place where people went for physical safety, or protection, as well. Worship had
to be orderly, controlled, and beautiful as is appropriate for Heaven, nothing
like the threats and chaos of daily life. With few exceptions, that was the
religious norm at the turn of the 20th century when Pentecostalism
burst onto the scene. These modern misfits were not concerned with beauty and
order and they certainly were not escapists as Niebuhr proposed with his
deprivation theory of Pentecostalism, i.e., Pentecostals went to church for an
emotional catharsis to escape the misery of their daily lives. No, unlike the
rest of Christendom, Pentecostals brought their misery and chaos to the house
of God. They believed the Scriptural portrait of God as an all-powerful Father
who delivered His children from their miseries. When deliverance came they
celebrated with abandon the mercies of God. Yes, it was ecstatic. One of my
greatest concerns for Pentecostalism is that we no longer have room for the realities
of life in our sanctuaries. Our worship is beautiful, ordered, and
other-worldly, exactly what we imagine heaven will be. Now, like everyone else,
we go to church to escape, to be drawn upward into His presence. But seldom does
He enter our world and break the strongholds of Satan; we are just too good at
hiding our chaos from each other and from Him. JDJ # 263
Just
a Thought: Even as Pentecostals have been joining the ranks of those who view
church as a sanctuary and worship as retreats into heavenly experiences, they
have lost a sense of the holy. There is little reverence for the house of God,
little sense of the truly sacred. We no longer go to church to encounter the
holy God who is redeeming His creation; we go to church to experience the God
who can lift us out of our troubles. When God is revered as holy then the
things we associate with God must also be held as holy for His holiness is
communicated to those things He touches or they die. The place where we worship
must be kept as holy in our hearts not because it is a portal to Heaven, a
place of escape; it must be kept as holy because it is the place where God
manifests His sovereignty over creation. It is holy ground not because it is
other worldly, but because it is the battlefield on which powers and
principalities are being conquered in His name. The view from these places
where we gather should have Golgotha and the empty tomb in the foreground with
streets of gold only visible on the distant horizon. They are places being made
holy by the blood of the lamb. JDJ #264
Just a Thought: In its simplicity,
worship is whatever we do to acknowledge the greatness of God in contrast to
our own smallness. But worship of God must be much more than that. Our Creator
has invited us into His presence to know as we are known, to find ourselves and
each other in His face, in the mirror of His all-knowing gaze. The mode of our
worship must not be that of escaping present realities but rather that of embracing
the eternal. We present our broken and dependent selves before His whole and
self-sufficient Self; that which is passing away encounters the great
“I-Am-That-I-Am.” Worship is thus an act of surrendering to the embrace of
God’s glory and His will, which makes worship at its heart relational. It is
that which we do before God and in behalf of God so that we might better know
God. It is a response to the heavenly calling to be united in the fellowship of
the One Triune God. Not just fellowship with God, but the fellowship of God. This
was the prayer of our Lord, “… that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in
me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may
believe that you have sent me” John
17:21. Love and unity flowing out of worship as a shared encounter with
God is the substance of our Christian witness.
JDJ # 276
Because worship is at its heart
relational, it centers in relational dispositions and interactions rather than
behaviors and performances:
Humility,
Surrender, Obedience
Seeking,
Seeing, Describing
Listening,
Hearing, Proclaiming
Presenting,
Petitioning, Receiving
Thanking,
Praising, Exalting
Just
a Thought: Followers of Jesus Christ are formed and transformed by the Holy
Spirit in the context of the church. Formation takes place in the routine
experiences of life, the normative rituals and practices of the community; it
is the natural unfolding of life in Christ as it is infused with the graces of
belonging. Christian formation is a process of becoming acculturated into the
faith and ethos of the people of God. It can only take place to the extent the
church is itself being formed into the likeness of Christ. Otherwise, the life
of the church is stunted and mal-formed. Because of the deadly effects of sin,
Christian life must also include radical transformations which can only take
place in times of crises. Crisis can be threatening or promising, unexpected or
planned, but they are always events demanding change. In crises we are
deconstructed and reconstructed; we are transformed. Christian worship should
be an ongoing recapitulation of the crises of the cross. (“Crisis” is
etymologically derived from “cross.”) Worship should be a drama in which the
incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus bursts forth in and through
the people of God. In worship we join the battle for the redemption of creation
and we celebrate the coming Kingdom. In the Pentecostal tradition spiritual
formation takes place primarily (but not exclusively) in personal and corporate
worship that routinely retells the story of our salvation and anticipates
transforming encounters with the Spirit of God. (See, Pentecostal Formation:
A Pedagogy Among the Oppressed, by Cheryl Bridges Johns) JDJ # 277
Just
a Thought: The church is the first-fruits of the new order of creation, the New
Heaven and the New Earth. Just as the affections are the integrating center of
the sanctified life, worship is the integrating center of life in the body of
Christ. It is in worship that we lay down all our delusions of self-importance,
all of our brokenness, all that we are and all that we hope to be, and we take
up our cross and follow Him. It is there that we are tamed, reborn, purified,
sanctified, and empowered as those things that hold us in bondage are broken,
destroyed, and removed. It is when worship includes encounters with the
life-giving, sanctifying Holy Spirit that it most clearly makes manifest the
Kingdom of God on earth. In Spirit-directed worship the old passes away and all
things are made new. In this we discover what it means to be one in Christ. In
conclusion, formation takes place in the routinized rituals of Pentecostal worship
and the faith infused practices of the community; transformation takes place in
the Divine/human encounters of Pentecostal worship. Those encounters may happen
during any of the rituals of worship, but they are anticipated most in the
altar service. It is in the altar that we die and it is there
that we are equipped for life in the Kingdom. JDJ # 278
Just
a Thought: Jesus gave a new commandment; we are to love one another. With that
commandment He gave assurance that our love for one another would be the
effectual witness of our discipleship. In our love for each other, His love for
all the world will be made known. The commandment is also a promise fulfilled. His
expectation that we love is matched by His provision of love. Our love for each
other is grounded in our love for Him because it flows from Him. The pattern of
God’s love is systemic and not sequential. Love for Christ and love for each
other are simultaneous expressions of the same love. It is in loving Christ
together that we truly come to love each other. For Pentecostals, our union and
communion in Christ is most fully actualized during those times when in
corporate worship the Spirit arrests us and knits our hearts together with the
heart of Christ. In those times we are being individually and corporately
formed and transformed into the image and likeness of Christ. In the presence of
our triune God we begin to know as we are known and to love as we are loved. JDJ
# 279
Just
a Thought: Pentecostals are not good with silence. It almost has to be forced
upon us. A Catholic friend once stated to a group of Pentecostals that if he
could give Pentecostals anything it would be the gift of silence. I leaned
close and whispered to Cheryl, “If he was ever in a service where the Holy Hush
fell it would knock his socks off. But I think he was onto something. We need
to learn to appreciate silence as a spiritual discipline and a tool for
discernment. In silence we are bombarded with the noise of our lives, external
and internal noise. Silence helps us divide the voices competing for our
attention into those that are important and those that are merely demanding. As
a spiritual discipline, silence teaches us to govern the forces competing for
our attention and to choose to listen more carefully to those voices that are
important. The choice to be silent is a choice to listen and an opportunity to be
discerning. In silence we can better hear ourselves hearing God. JDJ # 280
Just
a Thought: Having extolled the promises of silence, I now offer some cautions about
the use of silence in corporate settings. When a leader calls for or simply
creates silent space in worship or other settings, that leader is not being
passive but is rather actively challenging the audience. Silence is invasive. In
public settings, silence makes us uncomfortable and that lack of comfort carries
an inherent challenge to respond to the void. In the presence of others,
silence increases our self-awareness and triggers our self-defenses. When
forced upon us, silence thus serves as a bugle-call for self-presentation. Sitting
with others in silence heightens our senses; we become acutely aware of the
gaze of others. We are herded inward where we anticipate exposure of our
deepest thoughts and the consequential humiliation and shame of that exposure. Forced
silence can thus be a tool for manipulation and control. On one hand we should
make silence a more normative practice in our private and public worship. But
like all other practices it should be an expression of surrender to the Spirit
and not a tool to provoke an emotional (even if quiet) response. JDJ # 281
Just
a Thought: Pentecostals have generally been negligent in the practice of the
ordinances/sacraments. We were overly influenced by more modernist theologies
that reduced the ordinances to outward symbolic acts that point to inner
spiritual realities. This dichotomy is grounded in a dualism that separates
spiritual realities from material realities. In short, we have lacked the
ontological constructs needed to easily accept the literal presence of Christ
in the sacraments. The literal presence of Christ would require a miracle and
although we believed in miracles we were not willing to accept them as ordinary
or connected with liturgical rituals. However, if we accept that God is always
present in His creation there should be little disconnect with believing He is
especially present in the sacraments. If indeed, Christ is gathering all things
into Himself and we are the first-fruits of the Kingdom, then why should we not
believe He has absorbed consecrated bread, wine, and water into His being with
us. JDJ # 293
Just
a Thought: I believe the ordinances/sacraments should be special events of
Divine/human encounter. They are for me covenant rituals that by and with the
Holy Spirit especially enact the union of Christ with His body. Covenants are
not private contracts; they create a shared social identity. While the covenant
of Christ is personally initialized in the moment of genuine conversion, it is corporately
inaugurated in the baptismal waters much as marriage is inaugurated and sealed
in the wedding ceremony. Baptism brings one’s personal faith in Christ to its
intended state of union and communion with the Body of Christ. From the waters
we rise to live in the realm of Christ’s reign over His creation. Likewise, footwashing
is a privileged participation with Christ in the ongoing sanctification of the
church; in this we actualize with Him His covenant with His people. We are
adorned with robes of righteousness appropriate for the marriage supper of the
Son of God. The Lord’s Table is then participation in the consummation of the
covenant; the present event is one with the coming eschatological feast. The
Groom will not leave His bride standing at the altar of baptism. Neither will
He neglect her in her preparations for eternity, or reject her at the marriage
supper which He has prepared for her. These ordinances then are not events for
dispensing special grace; they are special events of God’s abundant grace. They
are rituals initiated by Christ in which He bids us to come and receive the
fruit of union with Him. JDJ # 294
Just
a Thought: For several decades I have lived with a deep inner struggle about the
ordinances of the church, especially Communion and footwashing. Early in my
ministry I became convinced Pentecostals in North America did not properly
appreciate the rituals and therefore did not celebrate them enough. In my
childhood, we had Communion and footwashing once a quarter “whether we needed
them or not.” However, in accordance with what I had been taught, I retained a
fear that should we practice Communion on a weekly basis we would turn it into
a meaningless ritual; we would take the meal for granted. In my youth, I had
developed a conviction that footwashing was linked by Christ to Communion on
purpose; the two should be practiced in conjunction. I even went through a
phase where I would not serve Communion to someone who did not first practice footwashing.
In practical terms I simply always placed communion at the close of a
footwashing service. I still hold to the conviction that people who refuse to
practice footwashing are in danger of not discerning the body of Christ in
their midst for when we wash one another’s feet, we wash His feet. But I
withdrew from this practice because I decided it resulted in the opposite of my
intent; it devalued the Lord’s Table by reducing it to the privilege of the
few. JDJ # 302
Just
a Thought: One of my first breakthroughs in understanding the ordinances was to
accept them as “means of grace.” Although, I struggle with using that phrase
for fear many will read it as “automatic means of grace” or as “mediated
grace,” i.e., the idea that someone or something is required to distribute
grace to us. But the phrase “means of grace” should convey the sense of expectation
that God will be faithfully present to minister to us as we draw near to Him in
faithful obedience. God has chosen the sacraments as a means of making His
presence known. No matter how we understand the bread to be His body and the
wine to be His blood, we should expect God’s grace to be abundant at the table
where we consume the body and blood of our Savior and at the basin where He
joins us to wash one another’s feet. We should know Christ is present and where
His presence is known, the grace of God abounds. JDJ # 303
Twitter:
God has chosen to make His presence
known in the pool, the table and the basin. Come there expecting abundant
grace.
Just
a Thought: Communion and footwashing are not events in which the church
dispenses special grace; they are special events of God’s abundant grace. They
are events with special promise of the presence of Christ and where the
presence of Christ is known, the grace of God abounds. Grace abounds because we
are gathered in His name, i.e., under His Lordship, doing the things He
instructed us to do. Our personal and corporate faith actualize our shared knowledge
of His presence. Furthermore, by the Holy Spirit, His presence and grace are
communicable; we share in the same grace like inhaling and exhaling the same air.
Our communion is always inward and outward; it is never unidirectional. The
gifts of God never dead-end in a receiver. The one who is the recipient of
grace becomes by their very nature a communicator of grace, salt and light in
the world. JDJ # 304
Just
a Thought: In the 80’s I began a pattern of placing the Lord’s Supper at
different points of the worship service. I was attempting to move away from the
sense that Communion was an addendum to worship. The Eucharist embodies and
announces the gospel which we believe. My conviction was that it is a
foundational expression of all aspects of Christian worship. We both come into
God’s presence through the table and we go out from His presence through the
table (for mission = misseo = mass). In this meal we give thanks (the meaning
of Eucharist), we praise, we proclaim, and we petition. This meal also should
be the fountain of our deepest fellowship, our koinonia. At this table our
union with Christ is consummated and our union with each other is born. To be joined
to Christ is to be joined with each other. I therefore later attempted to
celebrate the Lord’s supper within a Love Feast, or church fellowship meal, the
kind of setting in which He introduced it. However, I concluded that our
cultural context caused those events to lack the necessary sense of reverence.
JDJ # 305
Just
a Thought: In the 90’s I experimented with celebrating the Lord’s Supper in
different contexts: Sunday morning one week, Sunday evening one week, our Love
Feast one week, and small group meetings one week. That system became very
difficult to maintain. Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with the challenge
that His disciples were to eat the bread as His body and drink the wine as His
blood. In Luke’s record and in Paul’s account there are two key terms that signal
the event as being an eschatological community ritual: “covenant” and “remembrance.”
This meal was the feast of Christ’s new covenant. Just like the old covenant,
the new constitutes a people who are defined by their distinctive relationship
with God. In fulfillment of prophecy, the Last Supper inaugurates and
consummates the existence of that holy nation which is the Body of Christ. Like
the Jewish Passover, this meal sets the defining boundaries of who belongs.
Those boundaries are rooted in an historic person and event. The supper must be
open to all who are in Christ lest the ritual created to express our union in
Christ become an instrument for division. It must also be barred from all who
by their words or conduct deny Christ has come in the flesh. JDJ # 306
Just
a Thought: The second term that ties the Eucharist with the eschatological
gathering of God’s people is “remembrance.” Jesus stressed that the Lord’s
Supper was to be eaten in remembrance of Him, until He comes again. His concern
was not that we simply recall the facts of His life and death. He was instead
challenging His followers to “member again” or to cause Him to be present. To
“remember” is to resurrect the past and join it with the present. Paul’s words
“till He comes” further joins the past and present with the future. The
Eucharist is not just a ritual of receiving from Christ; it is a rite in which
we enter into Christ. The early church tied this rite to the Marriage Supper of
the Lamb. When we share in the Lord’s Supper we enter into that which is to
come. When we are united with Christ we are united with each other; we are
united with our destiny for He is the fullness of what we shall become. JDJ #
307
Just
a Thought: As noted earlier, the Lord’s Table identifies the church as the
eschatological gathering of the people of God. In this meal the church is fully
present. Those who eat and drink do so with all the saints throughout the ages,
those past, those present, and those to come. The meal renews and extends the
covenant into the future; it bridges time and unites the entire Body of Christ.
The focus of the table is on Christ as resurrected head of the church and it
embraces both what we receive from Him and what we are in Him. We are the
first-fruits of the new order of creation. We are buried in Christ, He in us
and us in Him. For this cause, the Eucharist must never be a private or closed
ritual. It must be open to all who are alive in Christ. The essential nature of
the sacrament as an expression of the covenant of Christ requires that it be
practiced in a corporate setting that links the contemporary church with the
church universal. We have one Lord, one faith, and one baptism; we therefore
share one meal. JDJ # 308
Just
a Thought: In my youth, Communion was a somber occasion. The moment of eating
and drinking was always accompanied with deep sighs of gratitude, “Thank you,
Jesus.” But the Lord’s Table was to be approached only after careful
self-examination. Those who ate and drank without a pure heart risked severe
judgment, possible sickness and even death (I Corinthians 11: 27-30).
Congregants were always challenged to examine themselves, confess any hidden
sins and repent before participating. The Lord’s Supper centered on the
forgiveness of sin, the enormity of the sacrifice, and it was therefore laden
with reverence and thankfulness. With hindsight, the thing that was missing was
any sense of celebration, one of the things for which we Pentecostals were
noted and criticized, i.e., our exuberance in worship. Should our remembrance
of Him not be marked by both deep reverence and abounding joy? Is that not the
essence of passion? Let us be passionate about knowing Him in the sacraments.
JDJ # 309
Just
a Thought: A careful reading of I Corinthians 11 reveals that Paul was not as
concerned with secret sins being brought into the Eucharistic service as with
the very open sin of not honoring the weaker/poorer members of the Body of
Christ. During their “love feasts,” the wealthy were indulging themselves out
of their abundance while ignoring the poor in their midst who had nothing to
eat. They were failing to recognize the body of Christ during the very occasion
in which they claimed to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ. Failure to
discern and honor Christ in the members of the church made their eating and
drinking of the appointed elements ineffectual. That which was given as a
source of healing became instead a revelation of sin and pronouncement of
judgment. How can we say we know and love God whom we have not seen if we do
not know and love the members of the Body of Christ who suffer before our very
eyes? We cannot cherish Him while holding with contempt His members. JDJ # 310
Just
a Thought: In Christianity of the West there has been a tendency toward an economic
subordinationism within the Trinity. God the Father outranks God the Son who in
turn outranks God the Holy Spirit. Christ is our Redeemer who reconciles us to
the Father. The Spirit is a kind of afterthought whose primary function is to
help us make the connection with Jesus. This is a distorted view of God, one
that affects the manner of our relationship with God and the Scriptures. The
three Persons of the Godhead are One. Neither is subordinate in any manner. The
Father, Son and Spirit are all present in their every encounter with Creation.
They are present in the Scriptures, present in the prophets, the incarnation,
the cross, and the resurrection. Jesus is both the object of the Spirit’s work
in the incarnation and the subject who ministers in the power of the Spirit.
The mission of Jesus is the fulfillment of the mission of the Spirit and vice
versa. The members of the Trinity are not envious of each other. When we
worship one we worship all. Pentecostals continue to be accused of exalting the
Spirit above Jesus. (A truly strange accusation since the only non-orthodox
group we produced is called “Jesus Only.”) Nothing could be further from the
truth for we have learned through encounter that the most certain way to exalt
Christ is to do so in the power of the Spirit. Only when God is known through
the transforming presence of the Spirit can Jesus be truly known and exalted
with the Father and Spirit. JDJ # 349
Just
a Thought: In communication, words are critical, making correct spelling
important. Spellcheck must then be seen as a gift from God. Pentecostals are
notorious for their creativity in the use of words. Alliteration is our forte;
spelling is our nemesis. For example, the altar area is extremely important for
us. It is the focal point of our worship, the place where we most expect to
encounter God. We go there often. Yet, we have a proclivity for misspelling
this short word. You will often see Pentecostals spell it as “a-l-t-e-r.” My
friend and noted Pentecostal scholar, Dr. Harold Hunter, has observed this and
suggested that there is a theological undercurrent to this common error. We
believe lives are “a-l-t-e-r-e-d” in the “a-l-t-a-r.” Another word we use often
but frequently misspell is “anoint.” We have a tendency to add an extra “n” and
spell it as “a-n-n-o-i-n-t.” I suspect this is our subliminal theology at work
again. When we use “anoint” we almost always connect that concept with the
promise of a “double portion.” Hence, we double up on the first “n.” We also
value creativity as seen in our frequent creation of new words. And if you have
not noticed, we are inclined toward hyperbole. This is true when counting
attendance or converts; it shows up in every discourse (hyperbole intended).
Finally, we have a tendency to hyperbolize technical terms. For example,
consider our use of “heresy.” It matters not that the rest of the Christian
world reserves the word for those false teachings that deviate from the
essential doctrines of the Christian faith. For us a “heresy” is any religious
concept with which we disagree. A “damnable heresy” is then any teaching with
which we disagree strongly, not necessarily one which results in eternal
damnation. Besides, it lets us use a “damn” in a sanctified form. ;) JDJ # 389
Just
a Thought: As the Body of Christ, the church has the responsibility to help all
of its members discover, cultivate, and use their gifts for the glory of
Christ. This applies to all persons and to all gifts, not just the “beautiful”
people and the popular gifts. Ministry gifts are as diverse as there are people.
We might categorize them in divergent patterns of service, but they, like the
Spirit who births and nurtures them, cannot be constrained to popular
categories even the categorical lists contained in Scripture. Are all apostles
or prophets or pastors or teachers or evangelists or deacons or elders or
bishops? Do all have gifts in teaching, exhorting, giving, leading, or
encouraging? Not all are gifted in music or song or art or crafts. But all are
gifted. This primary calling on the church requires first of all that the
church to learn to honor diversity. Further, the church must create free space
where individuals can explore their giftedness through service to one another.
Thus, the journey into every kind of ministry must begin with the cultivation
of humility and love with a corresponding desire to bless. In that atmosphere
there is no room for pride, just a humble desire to serve others. The modern
church has focused too much on performance and too little on service, too much
on getting a blessing and too little on being a blessing. The only performance
fit for the Kingdom of God is that born of love for God and others expressed as
a sincere desire to see others uplifted. This is nowhere more critical than in
the realm of worship; preachers, singers, and musicians must above all else
serve out of humility and love. JDJ # 409
Just
a Thought: According to the Apostle Paul, tongues are a sign, not to believers
but to unbelievers (I Corinthians 14:22). And yet, if an unbeliever enters a
church gathering and all are speaking in tongues he or she will say the
speakers are mad (v. 23). A quick read of these juxtaposed statements may
appear to be a contradiction in thought, but they are not contradictory ideas. It
is important to note that signs are not symbols. Symbols are visual images that
by common agreement represent something that they are not. Signs, at least in
the Biblical context, are the initial manifestations of an alternative reality,
whether natural (weather) or supernatural. Signs are what they represent; they
are of the same nature as that to which they point. Thus, the signs of the
Kingdom are in fact the in-breaking of the Kingdom and not just arrows pointing
toward it. For Paul to say that tongues are a sign for the unbeliever is for
Him to equate tongues with the presence of a reality that is not yet fully
evident. Tongues confront the unbeliever with the spiritual reality of God’s
presence and of His nature to speak. Thus, speaking in tongues as the Spirit
gives the utterance should be understood as a form of prophetic speech. As
such, it demands a response; the hearer must interpret the event if not the
words. A cacophony of tongues could only serve to confound the experience of
the outsider. The sign would be buried in the confusion. Thus, Paul desires
that all would speak in tongues, just not at the same time in a worship
service. In those gatherings he prefers that prophecy prevail and that tongues
be accompanied with the gift of interpretation. Lord, pour your Spirit out on
us so that we will be a sign of your redeeming presence. JDJ # 414
Just a Thought: A great deal of
attention has been given through the centuries to the proper manner of keeping
Sabbath. Enshrined within the accounts of creation and the giving of the Law,
the Sabbath is considered by some to be one of the oldest continuing customs
within Judaism. Most Christians have understood the Sabbath to be folded into
Sunday as the Lord’s Day. Since the Reformation however there have been many
who have opted to keep Saturday as their day of rest and worship. For both sets
of believers there have been varying stipulations about what can be done on the
day of rest, i.e., no games or other entertainment. Some have discarded the
teaching altogether counting it as a vestige of Law with no place in
Christianity. In modern times the emphasis has shifted to the benefits of
keeping a day of rest; it’s good for your mental and physical health. In light
of the fact that God declared that the Sabbath was a perpetual sign of the
covenant between Him and Israel (Exodus
31: 12-18), should we not reconsider the significance of Sabbath for Christians.
JDJ # 424
Just a Thought: Work was not
intended to be drudgery; suffering in labor is the result of the curse, not
faulty design. Work was intended to be humanity’s primal expression of worship.
Pietistic groups such as the Quakers and Mennonites understood this well. There
is beauty in simplicity. Harmony with nature echoes the harmony of God. We were
created to worship through our work and not in spite of it. That which we do
with our minds, our hearts, and our hands should proclaim the beauty and
sovereignty of our Creator. For this reason the Apostle writes “Whatever you
do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord
you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord
Christ” (Colossians 3:23-24 - ESV). He wrote this instruction specifically to
slaves, those whose work was oppressive and with little or no reward. As
difficult as it may be in today’s post-industrial rat race, those words ring
out as a promise. God is with you. He knows and understands. He will join you
in your field, assembly line, or cubical and transform it into a cathedral of
quieted praise. JDJ # 432
Just a Thought: Sabbath is first
and foremost a call to communion with God. It is to enter sacred time and
sacred space for the singular purpose of knowing and being known by our
Creator. Sabbath is thus an end in itself. It does not exist primarily as a
means toward something greater. Its purpose is not principally utilitarian. God
did not give us Sabbath so that we would be physically renewed, or mentally
renewed, or spiritually renewed. He could do those things in an instant if
needed. These renewals were designed to be accomplished through the six days of
creative work; work should renew. But sin got in the way. Rather, God gave us
Sabbath so that we might be with Him.
Sabbath centers creation in the creator. It makes worship the focal
point of our existence. Yet, when properly practiced Sabbath does bear much
fruit in the richness of life. It does renew and in this it serves to point us
toward our intended future in God. JDJ # 435
Just a Thought: It is one thing
to know that God is present; it is quite another to know His presence, to know Him
in His presence. The invitation of God is not to merely think right thoughts
about Him or to understand His presence in creation or to understand one’s
circumstances in light of His presence. The invitation of God is for us to know
Him. This is eternal life, to know the only True God and Jesus Christ whom He
sent (John 17: 3). The fulfillment of this invitation requires faith, but not
the mere faith of acknowledgement; it requires the faith born of fervent
desire. The expectation of God is that we seek Him, not that we simply
acknowledge Him. If you seek Him with all of your heart, He will let you find
Him. Never settle for the satisfaction of insight when God is offering intimate
knowledge of Himself.
Seek the
LORD while He may be found; Call upon Him while He is near. (Isa 55:6 NAS)
I love those who love me; And those who diligently
seek me will find me. (Pro 8:17 NAS)
And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search
for Me with all your heart. (Jer
29:13 NAS)
Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the
throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time
of need. (Heb 4:16 NAS)
Ask, and it shall be given to
you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. (Mat 7:7 NAS) (Or more accurately “Keep asking…Keep
seeking…Keep knocking”).
JDJ #436
Just a Thought: I am not opposed
to the use of the word “sacrament” to designate the central rites of Christian
life and worship (baptism, Lord’s Table, footwashing). For the record, I often
use it because it is the most common designation in use in modern English. But
I find it too far removed from the New Testament and too grounded in a
Latin/Roman worldview for my comfort. I slightly prefer the word “ordinance” to
signify those rites ordained by Christ to be practiced in the life of the
church. However, I find the Eastern Church closer to the New Testament with its
language of the “mysteries.” I fear in the West the sacraments function too
much like a veil; they point toward the Holy One while simultaneously
functioning like a barrier to Him. They are treated like icons that allow a
glimpse into heaven and allow a little of heaven to touch us. Lost in the
liturgical churches of the West is the full realization that the veil between
us and God is removed. Christ leads us into the holy of holies. The mysteries
are then much more than signs of grace. They are present events occurring
within the coming reign of Christ. They express Emmanuel; God is with us. They
are not occasions of special grace; they are special events infused with God’s
promised presence. The mysteries are not primarily about grace at all. They are
about life in the New Covenant; they are about the communion of the saints with
each other and with God. Or to express
this in metaphysical terms, the mysteries are not occasions in which the
material world is supplanted by the spiritual world; they are events in which
the material world is being recreated and its incipient spiritual nature
restored. In them the mystery of the incarnation of Christ is extended to His
union with the Church as His body, which then serves as a promise of the
summing up of all things in Him. Thus, the mysteries (or ordinances, or
sacraments) are less about receiving a gift from God than they are about
ongoing encounters with Him, the celebration of and renewal of our covenant
relation with Him. They are events for the renewal of His glory yet to be
revealed but already within us. They are a missional expression of God’s reign
over creation. JDJ #437
Just a Thought: I am thankful for the
congregation I am blessed to pastor, the New Covenant Church of God. We began
as two home based covenant groups in January of 1989, 25 years ago. Our
overarching vision has always been to be a faithful expression of the body of
Christ, a congregation that “worships together in
the presence of Christ, walks together in the way of Christ
and labors together in the mission of Christ.” With this vision we have cultivated
a distinctive identity. We are not different for the sake of being different
nor do we consider ourselves better than others; we are merely distinct in our
efforts to be found faithful. Visitors often comment on the depth and beauty of
our worship, and the strong sense of community we share. We are known for our emphasis
on the place of children with us as church, especially our weekly children’s
sermon. Those who have been with us for any period of time know that we are a
“city of refuge,” a place for the wounded to come and seek healing. They also
know we are a sending and giving church; currently ten missionary families
consider us their “home church” (http://www.newcovenantcleveland.org/our-missionaries.html). We are a Scripture oriented
church, experiencing the Bible as Spirit-Word of God wed to the
thoughts/language of humanity. Those who stay with us for a long period of time
seem most appreciative of our emphasis on the preached Word. Our reputation has
been that we are more “liturgical” than other Pentecostal churches. We do
loosely follow the church year: Advent, Epiphany, Lent, Holy Week, and
Pentecost. We also practice weekly communion and footwashing is made a
prominent opportunity every Sunday service. (Does that make us more, or less
liturgical?) Like all other churches we have people who come for a season and
leave; we just never feel like “home” for them. The comments I hear from those
who visit for a few Sundays and leave most often center on (1) they loved the
beauty and depth of our worship, but (2) we are just a little too Pentecostal
for them. I find it always disappointing when we cannot be for people what they
need us to be. It is painful when this happens because we have failed to be
faithful to our calling, and that does happen. But I have no delusion that we
can always please God and people. More significantly, I know we can not be
faithful to the heavenly vision without the ongoing outpouring of the Holy
Spirit. Why would I want to be anything other than Pentecostal in faith,
experience, and practice? Come Holy Spirit; take full control. JDJ # 438.
Just a Thought: During the second
half of the twentieth century there was a steady flow of believers out of the
historic liturgical churches into Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.
Certainly there were many congregations in the “mainline” denominations that
retained their historic identity while embracing charismatic doctrines and
experiences. But the trend was to migrate to less restrictive liturgies with more
phenomenological experiences. However, in the last twenty years there has been
a reverse-migration taking place. Not a small number of persons rooted in the
Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions have converted to more liturgical church
traditions: Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican in particular – the same is true
for other Evangelicals as well. For the most part this phenomenon is centered
in the young and well educated. In my opinion, they are looking for a broader
base for spiritual experience, beginning with a reasoned foundation for
spirituality. They are looking for security in tradition. They desire to be
connected to something bigger than themselves that is historically grounded.
They are also looking for symbols, art, and beauty in worship, a more holistic
approach to spirituality. Conversely, they are rejecting both a faith limited
to reason (as is common among many Evangelical groups) and experiences grounded
in individualism (as is common among many Pentecostal and Charismatic groups).
Even so, they are retaining the self as ultimate authority, embracing liturgy
and tradition more as a larger and safer pool in which to swim than
constitutional delimitations of the faith. The church must do a better job of
understanding the growing appeal of tradition and it must respond with wisdom
and grace in light of the Scriptures. JDJ # 440
Just a Thought: There is much to
commend in the liturgies and traditions of the historic liturgical churches.
Through their images, symbols, and dramatic rituals they convey the Gospel more
holistically than the typical Evangelical church’s more limited modes of
expression. A Benedictine Monk I know (and highly respect) is fond of saying
that he wished his Pentecostal friends could accept that there is nothing in
Catholicism to prevent a person from having a dynamic personal relationship
with Christ (and I agree). Yet, his own Catholic Church has in recent years put
forth a concerted effort to evangelize its own members having recognized untold
numbers of them have failed to personally own the truths of the Gospel. I am
left with the question of why the historic churches have statistically produced
so many members who do not profess having a dynamic personal relationship with
Christ; why do so many of them need to be evangelized? Why are the ancient
traditions and liturgies so appealing to some persons who were raised in a
Pentecostal/Charismatic spirituality while at the same time they are so often
ineffective in nurturing mature disciples among those raised within their own
more historic spiritualties? (Granted
that Pentecostals are not known for keeping all of their youth.) In my opinion,
formal liturgies may serve well to nurture an existing faith but they are less
effective in spawning a living faith. They provide a form for godliness but
lack the power thereof. I suspect they are well suited for aiding in
introspection by those with a living faith but are lacking in ability to
generate such faith. They provide the security of structure and patterns of
normalcy but fail to see transforming encounters with a living God as the norm
of the Kingdom. Indeed, they may become a substitute for those encounters. They
do not prevent, but they may hinder. For me, beauty is a poor substitute for
glory. JDJ # 441
Just a Thought: Apparently some interpreted my last “Thought”
as pejorative against the historical, high-liturgy churches. That was not my
intent. My desire was to merely point out that converts from Evangelical,
Pentecostal, and Charismatic churches [herein EPC] to the more liturgical
churches typically find the liturgies to be meaningful, beautiful, and
edifying. This phenomenon runs counter intuitive to the experiences of many who
grow up in these traditions, a significant number of whom fail to see the
meaning and beauty of the liturgies. [I am not here addressing the experiences
of those who grow up in EPC churches and remain there or move out of there to
other traditions or to no tradition.] I was merely observing the obvious; (1)
converts have a higher appreciation of the liturgies of their adopted
tradition, and (2) EPC’s who convert to these churches tend to be more highly
educated. My interpretation was that (1) formal liturgies tend to nurture an
existing vibrant faith while having less of an impact on those who are
nominally of the tradition and (2) those who get the most meaning from the
higher liturgies appear to be the more highly educated [not that others don’t
find them enriching]. One implication is that persons who convert from EPC’s to
high church traditions are not necessarily switching spiritualities but rather
adopting a more satisfying location for their already formed, more intellectual
approach to faith. Further, their adopted tradition allows for a more holistic
experience of that spirituality, one that fits well with the aesthetics of the
more highly educated. [I recognize the reasons for converting are far more
complex and diverse. I am merely offering what I believe to be one important
thread in the cord.] The ultimate implication for me centers on the question of
what the EPC’s need to learn from the older traditions in order to be more
effective in making disciples. How can we be faithful to our own faith
traditions (which emphasizes personal experience with God) and also embrace
practices that are faithful to our own “catholic” heritage? For Pentecostals in
particular, how can we retain our primal commitments to (1) the freedom of the
Spirit to direct worship and (2) the promise of Spirit baptism with signs for
all believers, while also recognizing the work of the Spirit in the liturgies,
forms and structures of the church? I have committed 40 years of ministry to
that later question but always from the stance that the presence and work of
the Spirit as revealed in the Scriptures must take priority over liturgies and
forms developed in the early centuries of the church and later. JDJ # 442
Just a Thought: Too often worship
is human centered. Many years ago David Horton shared with me some transitions
he had made in his understandings of worship. He spoke of how he had early in
ministry rejected the more testimonial songs of his Pentecostal youth, but he
said, “then I made the mistake of reading the Psalms in the Bible; they are
chocked full of testimony.” He also spoke of a transition from seeing worship
as something we do to “move God into action” to seeing it as a drama we perform
before God for His enjoyment. I suspect in the last decade of his life David
made another transition in his understanding of worship. When I was blessed to
worshiped with the Lee University Campus Choir under his direction I sensed he
had entered into a more primitive understanding; true worship is to enter into
the worship that eternally exists within the Triune God. We do this by entering
through the worship of Christ our elder brother, the Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world. We must enter into His life to worship with Him. I had
suggested a simplified version of this to David in that earlier conversation;
worship should be less of a drama we do before God than it is a dance we do
with God. (I am not suggesting my comment influenced David; I don’t think he
ever made major transitions without seeking God and doing thorough research. I
did have a brief conversation with him about the transformation of the Campus
Choir in which he shared it was the result of a divine in-breaking on the
choir.) The Orthodox have especially retained the sense that worship is done
with God, as have to a lesser degree the other historic, high-liturgy churches.
This is why liturgy is critical to them. God is revealing Himself through the
church, especially the worship of the church. Worship must therefore conform to
the traditions handed down from the Apostles. Ask any Orthodox Patriarch and he
will assure you their liturgy follows the pattern established by the Apostles.
I personally cannot affirm this from my studies in the literature of the
Ante-Nicene church. What I strongly affirm is the assertion that worship should
be viewed as entering by the Spirit into the Triune life of God. I also affirm
that the ordinances/sacraments are critical components of the dance of God.
When we share them we should do so to the music and rhythms of the Spirit. JDJ
# 443
Just a Thought: If Pentecostals and Charismatics are tempted
to confuse enthusiasm with anointing, many others are tempted to confuse
meaning with anointing or wisdom. Insight is confused with inspiration and
illumination. There is a certain stoic inclination in much of Christianity that
tends to elevate reason and understanding above feelings and affections. In
such an atmosphere the “ah ha” moment can be equated with a spiritual word of
wisdom, a divine insight, or divine approval. Insight can be erroneous; a burst
of understanding can be deceptive. Meaning can be self-deception. Even when
these “experiences” are grounded in valid logic they are powerless to make one
holy and acceptable to God. Insight is not wisdom if it lacks the fear of the
Lord. In short, people can have worship experiences that are meaningful and
insightful but void of the transforming presence of God. In my experience, the
wisdom of the Spirit is more likely to produce an “oh me” response than an “ah
ha” or “wow” response. True worship must engage the mind and the heart; it must
cherish meaning without fearing emotion. JDJ # 456
Just a Thought: The most prominent image for ministry
leadership in the Scriptures is that of a Shepherd. While not explicit in the
Bible, it seems appropriate to apply that metaphor to those who lead in
worship. A shepherd leads and his or her flock follows. By way of contrast,
ranchers drive their herds of cattle. My fundamental posture is that worship
leaders should therefore be worshippers who by example and encouragement invite
others to join them in worship; they should not be entertainers, neither should
they primarily function as cheerleaders. Worship leaders are not ramrods on a
weekly cattle drive to ecstasy. Yet, when I read the Psalms I find an abundance
of exhortations for the people to worship exuberantly: “shout aloud unto the
Lord.” There is not a shortage of commandments to worship with a shout of joy
and to clap your hands. My conclusion is that worship leaders must be persons
who can follow and give voice to the leading of the Spirit. The Spirit will woo
us into God’s presence and the Spirit will thrust us there if need be. The primal
disposition of a worship leader should be that of a shepherd, one who invokes a
worship response by others, but she or he must also be available to be a prophetic
mouthpiece for the Spirit, one who provokes praise from the people. There is a
place for psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, anthems and testimonial ballads.
There is also a place for songs requiring a spirited cheerleader. Shepherds may
not drive their sheep, but their staff does have a crook/hook for a reason. JDJ
#457
Just a Thought: While I have long been a proponent of a more
intentional inclusion of the historic rituals of Christianity, I have never
seen that as a break with Pentecostalism. For the most part it has only meant for
me that we have returned to the patterns of earlier Pentecostalism, i.e., we
practice footwashing and the Lord’s Table more frequently than most modern
Pentecostals; for the past year both of these ordinances have been made
available during each Sunday morning worship service at the New Covenant Church
of God where I serve as pastor. We have for decades also followed the church
calendar, which may represent a bending of but not a break with our Pentecostal
heritage. In truth, my initial motivation for following the calendar was for
discipleship purposes. I recognized there was significance in the Jewish
calendar and that the cyclical time it represents was woven into the processes
of identity formation for God’s people. The first Christians continued to
follow the Jewish calendar with its feasts and festivals. We are formed, our
identity takes shape, through the normative patterns of our lives, through the
rituals that embody and provide meaning for our values and relationships. Our
walk with God is shaped by those normative practices that we deem as sacred. In
the best of Christian tradition those practices embody the gospel of Christ,
the mystery of the incarnation, in a manner that is faithful to and responsive
to the sovereign presence of the Holy Spirit and thereby incorporates believers
into the mystery of Christ. Otherwise, the rituals of the church “collapse
Pneumatology into ecclesiology” (I am not certain if I got this from Cheryl or
she got it from me.) and people are incorporated into the culture of church
without being incorporated into Christ and formed as living and Spirit-filled
members of the Body of Christ. Rituals provide the form but they must never be
confused with the grace they were intended to convey. JDJ # 459
Just a Thought: Having defended the more formalized
liturgies as being packed with meaning and beauty and thereby offering
opportunities for sincere and deep worship (See “Thoughts” 280-281, 293-294,
302-310, 389, 437-438, 440-443, 455-457, 459. They are collected at http://jackiespeaks.blogspot.com/2014/06/thoughts-on-worship.html),
I now turn to my criticisms of them. My first concern has to do with the
historicity of the highly formalized liturgies and the tension that exists
between them and the Scriptures. The liturgies of Christianity evolved over
centuries and until the Reformation the general trend was for each development
to exact greater control over the form of the liturgy. What were at first
practices grounded in Judaism and the life of Christ would by the fifth century
take on forms far removed from that heritage. Specifically, the atmosphere of
communal celebration was replaced with one of public presentation with personal
reflection, and active participation was replaced with more passive reception.
Interactive engagement with the Scriptures (at first the Old Testament) was
replaced with the patterns of Roman rhetoric, i.e., a speech or ritual that
called for a response. In brief, the primary ordinances of First Century
Christianity (Lord’s Supper, Hymns, Scripture, Homilies, Prayers, Sharing of
the Peace) were retained but transformed into liturgical forms more compatible
with the Roman world. It is not coincidence that the more formalized liturgies
took their shape during the same period (4th and 5th
centuries) that Christianity was consolidating a polity of power and control
common to the empire. Ordination to ministerial positions was being restricted
to men and the gifts of the Spirit were being placed under the tight oversight
of the Bishops all but shutting them down, especially the prophetic gifts. It was
also the same period in which the church aligned itself as a partner with the
Roman Empire moving from a persecuted sect to the official state religion,
which for the first time endorsed the execution of heretics. In short, I am not
satisfied to stop with the forms of the 4th and 5th
centuries; I am compelled to press all the way back into the Scriptures. While ancient in origin, formalized liturgies
were not written by the Apostles and do not carry the authority or power of the
Scriptures. JDJ # 464
Just a Thought: Every development in the history of the liturgy came in a specific ecclesiastical context, which almost always was the need to address a pressing doctrinal concern. At the core of these concerns was the need to keep heretics and their heresies out of the church. Orthodoxy with its primal meaning of straight or correct worship (“ortho” meaning “straight” and “doxy” meaning “glory”) became merged with the concept of orthodoxy as straight or correct doctrine. Sound doctrine became the delimiter of sound worship. In time, the precise form of the liturgy in words and actions became essential to what was understood to be true worship. Thus, the shape of the liturgy was defined by the doctrines it was intended to preserve. While it is true that the essential forms of the liturgy developed as the canon of New Testament Scripture was being formed, it must be noted that the earliest Christians were guided by the oral and written traditions attributed to the Apostles, i.e., they were guided by a commitment to follow the patterns established by the Apostles. It is also true that the church has never ceased to link the liturgy to the Apostles. My point is that in spite of that linkage there is a wide gulf between the worship presented in the New Testament and the worship circumscribed by the liturgies as they evolved in the history of the church. It is my belief that the more liturgy became formal and controlled the more it lost its core New Testament feature, i.e., the manifest presence of the Spirit through the charismata. (After I have a chance to read Metzger’s History of the Liturgy as Dale Coulter suggests I may have to amend the above.) JDJ # 465
Just a Thought: Every development in the history of the liturgy came in a specific ecclesiastical context, which almost always was the need to address a pressing doctrinal concern. At the core of these concerns was the need to keep heretics and their heresies out of the church. Orthodoxy with its primal meaning of straight or correct worship (“ortho” meaning “straight” and “doxy” meaning “glory”) became merged with the concept of orthodoxy as straight or correct doctrine. Sound doctrine became the delimiter of sound worship. In time, the precise form of the liturgy in words and actions became essential to what was understood to be true worship. Thus, the shape of the liturgy was defined by the doctrines it was intended to preserve. While it is true that the essential forms of the liturgy developed as the canon of New Testament Scripture was being formed, it must be noted that the earliest Christians were guided by the oral and written traditions attributed to the Apostles, i.e., they were guided by a commitment to follow the patterns established by the Apostles. It is also true that the church has never ceased to link the liturgy to the Apostles. My point is that in spite of that linkage there is a wide gulf between the worship presented in the New Testament and the worship circumscribed by the liturgies as they evolved in the history of the church. It is my belief that the more liturgy became formal and controlled the more it lost its core New Testament feature, i.e., the manifest presence of the Spirit through the charismata. (After I have a chance to read Metzger’s History of the Liturgy as Dale Coulter suggests I may have to amend the above.) JDJ # 465
Just a Thought: My second concern is with the form of our
liturgies. Form can enhance or interfere with purpose and meaning. There is an
old architectural adage that form should follow function, that is, a building
should be built so that the form of the structure serves the intended purpose
of the space. However, the inverse is true as well. If the form does not well
suit the function, the function will soon adjust to the form. The form of a
space will largely determine the character of the events that happen within its
environment. This is most readily seen in the classic cathedrals of
Christianity. With their high, long, and narrow space combined with their
ornate décor, the structures were designed to draw attention forward to the
altar and upward toward heaven. The effect was to create a sense of the sacred
that lifts the worshipper toward heaven while temporarily shutting out the
realities of life on earth. In other words, the design enhances the vertical
aspect of worship and suppresses the horizontal or communal aspects of worship.
Marshall McLuhan offered a parallel thought from the perspective of
communications theory: the medium is the message. His underlying thesis was
that regardless of what was intended, the medium imbeds itself in the message,
drastically influencing how the message is received. Taken together these
theories imply that the form in which worship is experienced will greatly
impact the meaning of the experience for the believer. The patterns we follow
in our liturgies will impact if not determine the spiritual realities of the
participants. The critical question becomes, does the form and content of a
worship practice conform to the nature of the practice as revealed in
Scripture? Do the patterns of our worship communicate the great mystery of Christ
incarnate in us? JDJ # 466
Just a Thought: For me the primal test for true worship must
be whether it welcomes believers into the glory of God (orthodoxy), that divine
light shining forth from the intra-Trinitarian communion of our God. This
requires that we open ourselves without reservation to the deep searchings and
longings of the Spirit of God (ortho-pathy). It further requires that we know
ourselves as rightful participants in the reign of God, both recipients and
agents of His gracious gifts (ortho-praxy). It also requires that we as living
epistles join in the chorus of the eternal Word of God being written on our
hearts (ortho-doxy). In this kind of worship the chaos of our broken world is
tamed and creation is reclaimed as the habitation of God. This worship is
located more in God-with-us than God-above-us, or better stated, it focuses on
the God who is wholly other having made His dwelling place with us. The
vertical and the horizontal are melted into the universal. Generally speaking,
the problem with the more formalized liturgies is not so much the doctrinal
content associated with them as the nature and functions of worship circumscribed
by them. The question is not whether our liturgies (and we all have them) are
consistent with the truths revealed in the Bible. The question is whether
Christian worship is experienced as a shared entering into to the light of God’s
Kingdom. Do the rich and the poor, the lettered and the illiterate, within all
the races know each other knowing God? In that atmosphere the sacraments are
not significant because they express sound doctrine, or because they are
beautiful dramas portraying divine activity on our behalf, or because they
invoke faith. No, their significance is that they actualize our shared union
with Christ as attested by the Spirit and the Scriptures. JDJ # 467
Just a Thought: Reflections on worship in the New Testament and
other early Christian writings offer a vantage point from which to critique the
forms of our own worship. During the first few centuries of the church the nature
and function of worship was quite different from the patterns that would later
develop. I offer the following personal perceptions about early Christian
gatherings for consideration. 1. Christian gatherings were above all else
considered to be gatherings with Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit;
the post resurrection appearances of Christ on the first day of the week set
the stage for all the Sundays to follow. The true significance of the Lord’s
table and the gifts of the Spirit was not the meal or gifts themselves but the meal
and gifts as signs of the presence of Christ and the in breaking of His Kingdom.
2. Christian gatherings were familial in character, with fellowship in Christ
being the cornerstone of all that happened: one with Christ, one with each
other. 3. All members were expected to minister grace to one another through
the sharing of the fruit of the Spirit, especially the peace of Christ, and
other spiritual gifts. 4. The church understood itself to be a learning
community; their mission was to make disciples and their principle
officeholders were tasked with faithfully communicating the revelation of
Christ. 5. Emphasis was placed on reading the Scriptures, preaching and
teaching the Word of God and communicating the traditions of the Apostles, fervent
and effectual prayer, and varieties of songs: psalms, hymns, and spiritual
songs. 6. The Lord’s Table was celebrated frequently, weekly by the early
second century if not from the beginning. 7. Giving was a hallmark of Christian
worship with offerings being used to support ministers, widows, orphans and the
needy. 8. Washing the saints feet was a normative activity. 9. Christian
gatherings were orderly, being overseen by a presiding officer and elders, but they
were also open to spontaneous participation by any or all persons present; any
member might give a gift of the Spirit or a spiritual song as the Spirit led. Bishops
played a prominent role in assuring all was done in a manner consistent with
the teachings of the Apostles. 10. During weekdays, it was normative for
believers to gather in one another’s homes for worship, fellowship, prayer, and
study, but they gathered on Sundays in spaces sufficient for larger numbers of
people. JDJ # 468
Just a Thought: No one can come to the table of our Lord in
isolation. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one table. Whenever
we feast on the mystery of His incarnation we are assembled with all who are in
Christ Jesus. It is not enough that we grant intellectual assent to this truth;
we must also discern and honor the Body of Christ in our midst (I Corinthians
11). The table is not for our healing alone; it is for us to share in His
healing. It is not directed toward our blessing alone; it is directed into us
that it might be channeled through us. It is not for our time and context
alone; it is that we might be one with all the saints in Christ Jesus. A sure
sign that one has not been blessed with union with Christ at His table is the
absence of a sense of union with the members of His Body, especially the poor
and oppressed. Woe to that person who rejoices in the blessings of God offered
at the Table of Communion but does not also mourn with those who suffer. Our
union with Christ cannot exist without union with His sufferings. The ancients
gave thanks in their Eucharistic prayers, “We thank Thee, our Father, for the
life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to
Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the
hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered
together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the
glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever” (The Didache). Whenever we
make the Eucharist about ourselves alone we have made an idol of the Table. JDJ
# 469
Just a Thought: Having established the importance of the
Lord’s Table and my own present commitment that it be a part of Sunday worship
each week, I turn to my concerns for the current
Pentecostal/Charismatic/Evangelical infatuation with tradition-based liturgies,
the Eucharist in particular. First, when I read what others write about the
comfort they take in the Lord’s Table, it often reads like they perceive the
Eucharist to function as a dispersion of grace instead of a means of grace, the
gradual infusion of love and acceptance without the requisite transformation
appropriate to an encounter with God. As a means of grace the sacraments are
occasions of God’s abundant grace for those who embrace Him in the sacrament in
order to be embraced by Him there. The sacraments cannot be entered into with
passivity; they are not a spiritual sauna where we sit and soak in the aura of
grace. They are a reminder that we live in the already-not-yet of God’s Kingdom;
we live in a state of spiritual warfare. The grace belonging to salvation is
not infused merely because we have a habit of quieting ourselves in an
otherworldly space and partaking there in a reverential ritual. We truly partake
of them only if we actively come in faith. They are occasions for the renewal
of our covenant with Christ and that renewal requires a recapitulation of the
inauguration of the covenant. The Lord’s Table must be an occasion of
self-examination of our readiness for the Kingdom, a place of repentance, an
altar of self-denial and cleansing, a tabernacle of praise and thanksgiving,
and a meal of communal celebration. There is grace at the table, grace that
refuses to leave us bound to our sinfulness. JDJ # 472
Just a Thought: As my physician/theologian daughter Alethea Allen
has observed, it appears that some are making an idol of “The Table.” I fear
that this is all too true. We have made an idol of the Table when we focus more
on what it symbolizes than on Who’s presence it actualizes. It has become an
idol when we leave the Table more focused on our state of well being than in
awe of Him, when personal catharsis is allowed to supplant fellowship with our
Triune God, when the Table becomes a shortcut around the work of praying
through to the presence and peace of God, when it becomes a substitute for
spiritual discipline. Another indicator is the tendency to bifurcate the Word
of Life and the Bread of Life. The Eucharist is not a substitute for Scripture;
they are one. The table has become an idol when it ceases to call us into the
written Word of God, when it ceases to create a hunger for the voice of God
inscripturated. Another indicator the Table has become an idol is when
connection with the sainted dead there assembled becomes more real and
comforting than fellowship with contemporary corporeal believers. Harmony with
an idealized spirituality of those gone before must not supplant the call to
embody the presence of Christ with our imperfect brothers and sisters gathered
with us at the Table. A corollary indicator is the abuse of the table as a
means of escape. The Table has become an idol when it serves as a means for
denying the truth in which we live, a portal of temporary escape from this life.
The sacred meal does not transport us into the future and away from this world;
it brings the coming Kingdom into this world. Do not come to the Table to flee
your problems; come to confront them in the presence of Christ. JDJ # 475
Just a Thought: One of the most
misunderstood concepts in the Church of God is our position on “open
communion.” We do not believe that we are exclusively “The Church of God.” We
do believe we are an expression of the one catholic (universal) church. We
therefore welcome all who are members of the church universal to the Lord’s
Table when we celebrate it. Generally, this means we welcome all who profess
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. On the surface it would then appear that we
would never forbid anyone from the table. On reflection however, it should be
evident that the table is only offered to those who actively profess Christ as
Lord. I am not suggesting that the table be barred until visitors speak the
passwords “Jesus is Lord.” I am stating that it must be clear that participation
is a proclamation that Jesus is Lord. I am also stating that persons who are
known to refuse to declare the Lordship of Jesus must be barred. There is
another set of people who must be barred from the table, those whose lives make
evident they are not of Christ regardless of the words they utter. I am
referring to those who are known to be living in the “works of the flesh” as
identified in Scripture. Those whose lives are marked by fornication, rage,
greed, etc. are to be forbidden from the Lord’s Table until they have made
evident their repentance. Our position must be that we accept all who are in
Christ and reject all who are known to be outside of Christ as is made evident
by the Spirit of the Scriptures. I usually state it this way, “Everyone who
professes Christ is Lord is welcome when I preside over the Lord’s Table,
except those whose lives make evident He is not their Lord.” We do not take
these issues seriously because we do not take the Lord’s Table seriously; we
have reduced it to a publicly exercised, private, symbolic gesture far removed
from the actualization of the body of Christ. JDJ
