So what if we could forget everything we know about worship, start from zero, and rebuild our worship experience from the ground up?
Yes, this is one of those purely hypothetical, impossible to achieve in reality, questions. No one could start from absolute zero. We all bring experiences and ideas from our past when we approach the subject of worship. The early church obviously did this. We necessarily do it. Everyone has certain things that they view as normal and essential, before they even begin thinking about what Christian worship should be like.
But what if we could wipe the slate clean and start over? Let’s say that we got a copy of Scripture (preferably not bound in black leather and free from verse numbers and chapters). If we could approach Christian worship from a completely objective point of view, what conclusions would we draw from Scripture alone? What practices would we discern as appropriate? What things would be seen as necessary? What would our assemblies look like, if we had assemblies at all?
It’s an interesting exercise to try and think about that. I’m not arguing that we should approach worship in this way; I’m not even saying it’s possible.
Still, I think it’s healthy to think about it. If a people with no experience with worship of any sort received God’s Word and wanted to live by it, what would their worship look like?
Thanks, Tim!
I rather suspect that – upon studying stories of old from the Old Testament – people would spend a great deal of their worship time lying on their faces, crying out in fear and shame OR shouting praise to an awesome God that they feared to even look up at. I know they sang – it’s what gives our thoughts wings and cleanses our hearts; I know they prayed because for some reason I can’t stop praying. But when people remember how holy and awesome He is, I think they’ll discover humility and an appreciation of God’s Grace that drives them to their knees. or – better still – their faces!
That the Christian experience is focused on living it out, discipleship, and that worship is a product that grows out of living the story. The fact that one can’t find a focus on a worship service should give us pause when we reboot.
The exodus story is a great example. The story is about the trip and yet they do worship but no one would mistake the exodus for being about a worship service. Book of Acts as well. About missionary journeys and the spread of the Good News. Do they worship during that, without question, but no one would mistake Acts for being about worship. Well most people wouldn’t…
I actually tried this exercise about 20 years ago with a high school class I was teaching. The only rule was they had to have specific Scripture to support each conclusion. Their results focused on two areas: “everyday” living and then items/acts for group worship. This looked amazingly like the “restored” church of the 18th century, which, of course, had the goal of copying the pattern of the first century church. It also came with the disagreements that have marked the movement since its inception. The class did not agree 100% over just what parts were a pattern to be followed and which were optional, opinion, or tradition. So they argued, tried to persuade each other using Scripture, tried to persuade each other with emotional pleas instead of Scripture, accused each other of being too strict and legalistic, accused each other of having no respect for God and His Word, etc. Then they killed Piggy, and so the cycle continues….
Here are some obstacles I see:
Funny that Darin should mention Exodus. I was thinking of Exodus as one of the places where God’s people had little background in godly worship, and God had to teach them. Of course, they weren’t at zero; they were sort of in the negative, for they were familiar with all sorts of pagan practices and rituals, but probably hadn’t seen godly worship.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Here’s another question I’ve been pondering. Maybe you can start a thread on this some day. We have passage after passage about not changing “worship” or adding to/taking from God’s word, etc. But in studies I’ve done over the past few months, I’ve noticed how much the worship and celebrations within Judaism changed through the centuries. Hannukah is a religious celebration (of a sort) and Christ took part (it appears He did. We have no record of Him rebuking those who celebrated it.). Also, the Passover feast changed significantly from its origins, adding the drinking of wine (nowhere mentioned in the OT), the reading of certain psalms, etc., and we see Christ celebrating the Passover on multiple occasions. In both of these examples, we see Christ later using them as teaching moments, first to teach “I am the light” (Hannukah) and second the institution of the Lord’s Supper during Passover. My question is, from these examples, does this signify acceptance on God’s part that we are not obligated to keep 100% what is specified for worship? We can change it, without penalty? Not trying to derail this post, but it’s sort of in line and something that’s been on my mind as we’ve discussed other topics in your series of blogs on worship. Thanks for considering.
As we’ve been striving to return to the first Church in our home fellowship, and as you’ve referenced the early Christians, we’ve used the ante-Nicene writings to a great extent. I presented a message a few weeks ago on worship in the ante-Nicene period. You’re right in that we can’t begin from absolute zero but I do believe, and hope, that what we came up with was closer to what God prefers. Some of the elements of worship we found were; an opportunity for all the men to share something, acapella singing, corporate prayer, reading of scripture and exhortation of the leader to follow them, partaking in the body and blood of the Lord in communion (not a symbolic communion but an understanding of the real Presence), voluntary offering. There may have been a couple of other things but I don’t have my notes with me right now.
If we did that, do you think we might sell our possessions and see to it that no one among us was in need? Would we still see that as part of our spiritual act of worship and as true religion?
We are very small, two families and one single grandmother raising her grandaughter. We take care of each other’s needs and, yes, sell our possession when/if needed.
Bryan, do only the men share? The women do not have a voice? This does not sound like the churches in which Priscilla, Lydia, Junia were members.
If we went back to zero, I believe we might find that the most important portions of worship are the parts right before we begin our formal worship and right after. You know, those parts of our fellowship when we get together and share with each other the ups and downs from the previous week, we encourage and edify each other by greeting each other, we speak and talk to each other. I truly believe if we went back to zero, we would have many periods of fellowship, friendship, conversation, communion/intimacy with each other and community than we would have formal worship. I’m not saying that those periods of formal worship are not important, but I believe that God gave us the gift of community in order to assist us in our walk with Him.
Wendy, It absolutely sounds like the Church that Priscilla, Lydia, and Junia were members of. The women have very signifcant roles but Paul specifically said that they are to remain silent in the services and, if they have a question, should ask their husbands at home. Our wives cover their heads during the services and remain silent as the scriptures command…doesn’t mean they are “less” than us, just that they have different roles. They sing with us, they pray when we hold corporate prayers, they may request to sing a song but God has not given them the role of leading or teaching in the worship.
Bryan, you have a very different hermeneutic to mine. Paul wasn’t writing to all churches for all time. He was writing to a specific church to address a specific problem. If women could not be vocal in any gathering, why were the Corinthian women told me cover themselves when praying and prophesying? How did Philip’s daughter’s prophesy if they were to have been silent in any gathering of believers? How did Priscilla teach Apollos when Aquila was available?
May God forgive the repression of women that is done in His name.
Wendy,
Though I’m not entirely unsympathetic to your viewpoint, let’s be careful not to abuse Scripture to make it say what we want. Your point on 1 Corinthians 11 is valid. The other two… most prophets didn’t prophesy in assemblies in the Bible. Priscilla and Aquila both taught Apollos, and it was done privately, not in public.
God is much more forgiving than humans are.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, the problem is that the repression of women in the church is a missional issue. It’s one of the reasons why unchurched young people are reticent about exploring the claims of Christ. Hence my angst about the issue.
I have also, for the past 4 years, been a member of a church that has women elders, where women preach from time to time, where women are encouraged to lead ministries as they are gifted by the HS and as God calls them to do so. I have experienced the difference and I ache for those women who are still held bondage by a patriarchal interpretation of Paul’s epistles.
It’s probably best I bow out of this discussion.
It is interesting to me how much hermeneutics determines our viewpoints. When we adopt the CENI hermeneutic, which most of us do unconsciously, we come to one set of conclusions. When we adopt the hermeneutic that Jesus apparently used in John 5:39, we reach other conclusions.
The more we can focus our studies on and draw our conclusions from what the Scriptures say about Jesus, I suspect the closer we will be to what pleases God.
Neither 1 Cor nor 1 Tim, as traditionally interpreted, leave room for application of the private/public codicil. If three Christians are together, even if they’re hiding in a closet, Christ is among them and his will applies to the situation.
If we start from zero, isn’t one of the things we have to throw out our preconceptions about the public/private split?
Wendy, your conversations about issues like that would probably go a lot smoother if you spent some time meditating on the approach Paul took concerning Onesimus in Philemon.
That’s all very well if you have a husband at home, but your gathering is in the very situation that troubles me. Your single grandmother (as well as the unequally-yoked believing wives of 1 Cor 7) have no husband at home who can teach them The Way.
Nick,
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (NASB)
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
If a sister doesn’t have a husband but does have a question we certainly believe that she could ask one of the brothers after the meeting. I frequently counsel our single grandmother as well as some of the single girls as well.
Nick,
I know that there has been some abuse of the difference between public worship and private worship, yet I think that it’s a mistake to deny that it exists. And actually, 1 Corinthians is one of the strongest books that speaks to the difference between the two.
“When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus…” (1 Corinthians 5:4) doesn’t sound like 3 people sitting around a kitchen table.
Women were to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying. Do you think that was in all situations or just in public? I believe it to be referring to public settings, but the text admittedly doesn’t say that.
The second part of chapter 11 makes a difference between how the church eats when gathered and what people are to do in their homes.
The discussion of spiritual gifts makes a difference between private worship and public worship. The instructions given in chapter 14 make little sense when applied to 2 or 3 people in a home. And that’s the context of the admonition about women being silent. (though there are few churches which actually have the women remain silent; most allow them to sing.)
And remember, we CAN’T start from zero. There’s no way. Wasn’t done in the first century. Wasn’t done in the nineteenth. Won’t be done today.
That is excellent, because it shows that you appreciate that Paul himself didn’t expect his instruction to cover all situations, even though he specifically says, “If she wants to learn anything…” which sounds pretty broad.
Next troubling situation – Paul doesn’t say, “The women are to keep silent when the men are present in the churches.” So there’s another exception we *assume* he intended – that women are allowed to speak in Christian assemblies when only women are present. But Scripture doesn’t say that anywhere – we assume it because our modern Western common sense tells us to.
I’ll see your 1 Cor 5:4 and raise you a Matt 18:20, which really does sound like 2 or 3 of you together :)
But there are two problems with framing Paul’s discussion that way. One, he was writing to churches that gathered in homes, so whatever the church did when gathered, they did at home. Two, many of the believers who gathered *didn’t* have homes to eat in – they were slaves. But that’s for a different discussion, although admittedly it also rubs up against your question about trying to find a starting line to begin from.
That’s the context of *one* of the admonitions about women refraining from disruptive activity (as you say, if they can pray aloud as 1 Cor 11 teaches, and if they can sing aloud, as we assume, then what we translate as silent cannot be intended to mean *silent* – if indeed Paul is doing something other than quoting the correspondence he received from Corinth. One would expect Paul, of ALL the apostles, to know that the Law nowhere says that women are to be in subjection). And while 1 Cor 14 does discuss public worship, it hardly follows that we’re to assume that “private worship” is something different.
But Nick, Matthew 18 doesn’t support your case very well. There’s a strong demarcation between what is done privately and what is done before the whole church.
I also disagree with your take on 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is making a difference between what is done in the assembly and what is done at home. The fact that the meeting place is in a private home does not mean that you behave the same way that you do “at home.” The whole point of the chapter is that the gathering for the taking the Lord’s Supper is not like every other meal time that they knew.
What I’m saying about 1 Corinthians 14 is that the whole idea of “let 2 or maybe 3 speak” makes no sense in a setting like we’re discussing with Pricilla and Aquila. The disorder that Paul is seeking to correct occurs in the context of a larger gathering.
I don’t know that their worship assemblies looked much like ours. In fact, I’m fairly sure they didn’t. But from what I see in the text, and especially from early Christian writings, I feel that there were norms of behavior within the larger gathering that differed from those of an informal Bible study.
To which I imagine the early Christians replying, “What is this ‘informal Bible study’ that you speak of?” When it speaks of Priscilla and Aquila talking to Apollos, it only suggests that they didn’t correct him in front of the whole synagogue. We make a *lot* of assumptions about what did actually happen, when we’re really only told that they got together away from where Apollos was teaching.
Of course you act differently when you have company in your home than you do when you’re relaxing by yourself – what I don’t necessarily see in either 1 Cor 11 or 14 is the establishment of a set of “best practices” or something like that. Paul’s giving corrective instructions to the norms that had already started taking hold, not laying down a new set of cultic practices – a 1st century version of the gold trays and little plastic cups.
Nick, not sure what you mean by the “traditional” interpretation of 1 Tim. I assume you’re talking about 1 Tim. 2:8-14. Vs. 12 is pretty plain. Not much “interpretation” needed. Paul even gives the reason, one that is universal, not just related to the problems of a specific congregation.
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:8-14 ESV)
Unlike the Corinthian letter, this one isn’t addressed to a congregation that may be having a specific problem Paul may be addressing. This is a general letter to Timothy with instructions about a variety of things, including behavior and roles during the assembly, elders, deacons, etc. As you like to point out, maybe poor placement of a chapter break here. Right after he specifically says women are not to teach or have authority over a man, he goes in to the requirements for church officers, the first of which is that the officer is a man. Starting from the zero point, I think this one is kind of hard to miss. Seems to me it’s only been within the past generation or so that this one has really even been challenged on a large scale.
Travis –
Not sure where you see instruction about behavior and roles during the assembly in 1Tim 2. What good works are women intended to adorn themselves with during the assembly?
I think the “universal reason” given in 1Tim 2 is problematic, the way it is traditionally interpreted, and the fact that “the last generation or so” has really challenged that interpretation is no concern of mine, any more than it concerns me that it took 18 centuries for the Christian truth about slavery (and another century for the truth about racial hatred) to challenge the traditional understanding of those topics.
I am to understand that Paul means that because Eve was deceived, females are forever banned from teaching men – but Adam, WHO WAS NOT DECEIVED but who went willingly into sin, sets a precedent that establishes males in the teaching role?
No – that line of reasoning makes far less sense than the idea that Eve was deceived *because* she was not accurately instructed. Note that her answer to the serpent is NOT what God told Adam. Eve was created to be a “strength comparable” to Adam, and the results of the curse brought on them by their mutual rebellion shatters that unity, that partnership, setting them at odds against one another. “Your desire shall be against your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
I think that the situation in Ephesus, the context where Timothy is being guided in his ministry (as clearly as Titus’s instruction is for his situation in Crete – which is why Paul didn’t send him the same instructions about eldership as he did to Timothy), is one where uneducated women are usurping authority because of their new-found freedom in Christ (along with the women-dominated pagan religious context out of which they’ve been drawn by the Spirit). That’s why Paul.instructs that they are to learn, not to try and seize control. The equality of Adam and Eve in Eden, the reversal of the curse as stated in Gal 3:28, and the understanding that leadership is a spiriual gift (1 Cor 12:27-31), together convince me that this passage in 1Tim 2 cannot be accurately interpreted as a universal mandate against females receiving and practicing the spiritual gifts of leadership, ministry, and administration
Nick, that’s a long thought process to come to the conclusion that Paul didn’t mean what he wrote. The fact that the same principle about women being silent and not having authority over a man, and not teaching a man in public, is mentioned in two different epistles, should be enough proof on the matter. However, if we don’t want to believe something, it’s not hard to string a bunch of verses together to muddle the topic and disprove a point. Of course, by disproving a point, it doesn’t necessarily prove an alternate point.
Travis,
Though I’m not where Nick seems to be on this issue, I will say that the two passages aren’t as similar as they seem at first blush. 1st Corinthians 14 is a series of admonitions against three groups that were causing trouble: tongues speakers, prophets, and women (married women?). Each of these groups is given the same instruction: keep silent (sigao). From what I understand, the verb means to keep silent, which is why some Orthodox churches don’t allow women to sing. Given the nature of the problem with the tongues speakers and the prophets, as well as Paul’s admonition to ask at home if they have a question, the problem seems to have been a group of women who were interrupting the assembly, possibly challenging their husbands publicly during the time of testing that followed each prophecy.
In 1 Timothy 2, women are told to learn in quietness (hesuchia). This word is related to the word in 1 Thessalonians 4:11, where it talks about leading a quiet life. The issue seems to be women teaching and having authority over men.
I don’t see in Nick a desire to not believe something. I think he’s honestly seeking the truth. All of us, at times, wander down incorrect paths on that journey, before finding the correct path. If Nick is mistaken, I don’t think it’s out of a desire to muddle the truth and cling to error.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Travis – “Slaves, obey your masters” is mentioned in just as many epistles. Should we read that as God’s universal stamp of approval on owning other human beings?
If he meant exactly what he wrote, then *silent* means SILENT. Zip, zilch, nada. No talking – no singing – no praying. And while 1 Cor 14 mentions something like “in public,” 1 Tim 2 places no limitations on where (or what, for that matter) a female may not teach a male. So I’m not sure where you get the idea that the instruction against women teaching men is only “in public” – Paul doesn’t say that, so you must be doing some of that “unnecessary interpretation” to fit it in there.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, you’re reading the text through the lenses of the tradition within which you’ve been raised. I’m sure you appreciate that suggestion about as much as I appreciate the statement that I’m just stringing texts together to believe what I want to believe, while you’re just reading the text straight – but that shoe comes in many sizes, brother. I’m not the only one that it might fit.
Believe me, I appreciate that my understanding of God’s intent for women in the kingdom is not without its problems. What I *don’t* believe is that you appreciate the questions and contradictions in your own position.
Tim – thanks for your support! But Travis and I worship together, so we each know where the other’s heart is coming from, I think.
When it comes to the two passages you mentioned, I think Paul’s *positive* instruction to each group of women is the key to solving the conundrum. He instructs each set of women to learn. Thus, I *think* that the problem in each situation is one of uneducated women creating chaos (in Corinth) and trying to exert power over the assembly (in Ephesus). Once they’ve “learned in quietness,” the problem of shouting uneducated questions and playing power games will be taken care of.
In our Christian context, where females have been taught alongside males since infancy, this problem of uneducated female Christians is far less prevalent, and thus the situation that demanded such instruction from Paul ought to be taken into account – we should apply “the whole counsel of God” (The Hebrew Scriptures, the Gospels and Acts, as well as *all* of the epistles) to how we understand the role of women in the kingdom of God.
Tim – As Nick pointed out, we worship together and I consider Nick a valued friend. I appreciate his perspective and love him dearly as a brother, even though as he will readily admit that because of our histories our views and reasons on some issues may be quite far apart. We disagree, we hug, we move on. Maybe that’s why I tend to be a little looser in how I answer Nick’s posts. I’ll try to rein it in.
That being said, I think your current post on CENi will offer much to help understand various views on this. My take on this particular passage, in view of CENi, is that we have a command. Yet we also have examples that would seem to *contradict* the command (per Nick’s example: singing). That means we have to reconcile them somehow. Do we exclude one in favor of the other, or do we try to understand one in the light of the other? I personally don’t think they contradict. Here’s my take: To reconcile the two, women are to remain silent (not teaching or having authority over a man = no preaching or leading a Bible study in which both Christian men and women are in attendance). The “singing” that women do is an authorized activity (exception?) in which a woman is not in a position where she is in authority over a man. This is why I have no objection to comments from women in Bible classes. In fact, I welcome them. God’s view of the roles of women and men in society and the church is fascinating, and way off topic here, so I won’t go in to it except to say that God is consistent.
Nick – As for the stringing of verses together, it looks like you got my point, as it’s something you’ve brought to my attention before. Prooftexting is typically condemned when it is used to label something as being wrong or sinful. My point is that as dangerous as it is to use prooftexting to speak against things, it is just as dangerous to use the same technique to justify some things.
Travis – “This is why I have no objection to comments from women in Bible classes. In fact, I welcome them.”
What about comments from women in an assembly? At our congregation, we have life groups on Sunday evening. There are a number of members who prefer to meet as they always have on Sunday evenings and have a worship service. There usually aren’t more than 40 in attendance. (The other 600 or so are at a life group somewhere or . . . well . . . maybe they went fishing.) The feel is more like a large life group, or a Bible class if you will. We sing, pray, hear a message from the Word, offer the Lord’s Supper and take up a collection. During the lesson, all are welcomed and even encouraged to make comments and ask questions – both male and female. I manage the discussion, and it is done decently and orderly.
What do you all think about this?
Brent – from what you’ve shared, it appears the format is conducive to welcoming participation from all during the Bible study, with you acting as a facilitator. The setting is irrelevant, I think, for what you are asking here. We have Life Groups at our congregation, as well, so I’m familiar with the concept. With all that being said, please don’t let me be the judge or jury on any activities! I’m just offering my humble thoughts based on what I’ve studied.