CACOETHES SCRIBENDI

Top Stories in Books

The Lord's Service A Journal Review

The latest volume of Calvin Theological Journal contains a positive review of my book. (The link to CTJ is simply for reference; the current volume is not online.) The reviewer, Harry Boonstra, has been very cordial in his correspondence with me. Earlier this year he had some questions, and it seems as if I answered those questions to his satisfaction because they do not come up in his review. I sincerely appreciate this approach and wish that Christian reviewers would do this regularly when critiquing an author. Today, with the ease of email communication, there is really no excuse for not corresponding with an author before one goes public with criticism. If only more reviewers would practice this courtesy, we would be spared the exaggerations and over-interpretations that plague the world of intra-Christian criticism. Of course, mea culpa - I have been guilty of my fair share of this.

There is one criticism made by Boonstra that I would like to address in a future post.

I copied the review at the library but forget to get the bibliographic information. If anyone has that, would you mind forwarding it to me?

|

The Lord's Service Questions - All of Life is Worship? Part 2

I addition to what I said in the first post on this subject, let me approach this question from another direction. It is not merely that we do things in worship that we don't do in every day life and work - kneeling, praying, singing, hearing Scripture read publicly in the assembly, sitting with the body of Christ at the Lord's Table, etc. More than that, if we believe what the Bible says about the significance of the worship of the assembled people of God, then we also confess that the Lord is present to his people in a special way in corporate worship.

The reality of God’s special presence with his people on the Lord’s Day has come under considerable attack in recent years. All of life is worship, we are told. God is present everywhere all through the week; therefore, what we do on Sunday is not really different than what we do on other days, not especially special. After all, everybody knows that God cannot be more present on one day or in one place over against another. Right? Have you guys that talk about the Lord's special presence in Sunday worship forgotten about God's omnipresence? He's present with me at home and at work just as he is when I go to church on Sunday.

What are we to think about this kind of reasoning? Well, first of all, it is true that God is present everywhere. But his omnipresence is not what I am referring to here. The systematic theological doctrine of God's omnipresence can be abused if it is used to deny the many explicit biblical references to the Lord's "drawing near" and "coming" to his people on special occasions and at special times. And then there are Jesus words that he will be present in the midst of two or three disciples gathered in his Name. At the very least these kinds of statements should make us cautious about logical deductions based on the doctrine of God's omnipresence.

God has promised to be present with his people in a special manner when they gather on the appointed day of worship. The one who skips church for the golf course or shopping mall or State park may not argue from God’s omnipresence to justify his not being in church. Sure, God is present on the golf course, just as he is present in hell. But this general presence of God doesn’t do the people in hell much good. God is present in heaven and hell, but he is not present in the same way in each of these locations. There is a huge difference.

Even if we cannot define it precisely, God is nonetheless present in a heightened special sense when his people gather as the church on the Lord’s Day. For one thing, he is present there pro nobis (“for us”). This is the place and time where he gathers his people around the Word and Sacraments. He has promised to be there for us when his people gather. It is not so much that God was not present in, say, China, when the pillar and fire led the people of Israel out of Egypt or when his presence filled the Tabernacle upon its completion; rather, the Lord was at these appointed places in a special, life-giving way.

The people of Israel were given singular signs of God’s special presence as they gathered around Mt. Sinai and the Tabernacle. Similarly, it is not that God is absent from the food court in the mall on Sunday; rather, he has promised to be present in a special way, the way of salvation and blessing, at the Communion Table in church. The bread and wine are singular signs designed to assure us of his special, gracious presence with us. To make this personal, God has not promised to be in the mall on Sunday for you. Actually, if you refuse to heed the Lord’s summons to gather with his church, he may be present there against you so that you could very well experience his judgment and curse, rather than his promise of blessing, life, and salvation.

Moreover, when we are in God’s special presence every week, receiving from him his promise through his Word and Sacrament, we can go forth out of church into the world with the full assurance that God will be with us and for us wherever we may be during the week. Without being in the Lord’s special presence we have no assurance of his omnipresent help in every situation and location (see Gen. 3:8; 4:16; Exod. 33:14-15; Deut. 4:37; Deut. 12:7, 18; 14:23, 26; 15:20; Judges 18:6; 2 Kings 13:23; 17:18-23; Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 5:4; 11:18ff.; etc.).

Go to All of Life is Worship, Part 3.

|

The Lord's Service Questions - All of Life is Worship?

Objection: Your book treats Sunday worship as something special and therein is your fundamental mistake. I believe that all of life is worship. We are called to worship God all week, not just on Sunday morning.

Answer: Let me try to answer this in a few posts and make the answer a bit more "bite sized" than the discussion on the priesthood of all believers.

First, I understand and agree with the concern behind the slogan "all of life is worship." We don't just pray and read the Bible and practice the Christian faith on Sunday morning. The saying "all of life is worship" was coined to combat the segregation of worship and life. Confining your religious devotions to Sunday morning and then "livinig like hell" the rest of the week is double-minded disobedience. Jesus is Lord over all of life. If that's what the phrase means, I'm all for it.

Moreover, I would take this one step further. What we do in worship orients us to the rest of life outside fo the sanctuary. We learn how to think and act in a disctintively Christian way by participating in the weekly rituals of worship. You can find more on this in my book.

But here's the rub: we don't do exactly the same thing during the week as we do on Sunday. Sunday is special. On the Lord's Day we are called together as the bride and body of Christ for corporate worship. You do things in the Sunday service that you don't do during the week. And even if you do some of the same things on Monday through Saturday, they are not done continually. For example, you sing at church and you may sing during the week, too. But you don't do it all the time. You kneel and pray at church, which I trust you will do at home, too. But you don't do it all the time. At some point you must set down your hymnbook or get up off your knees and work.

The point is: work is not worship. All of life is worship only in a metaphorical (though real) sense. You can work with a worshipful attitude. That's fine. You can and should by faith work for the glory of God keeping his law! That's great, too. But working with that motivation, goal, and according to God's standard comes about as the result of proper Sunday corporate worship. Fixing a meal for the family is not worship. Eating the Lord's Supper with your local body of Christ is. You learn how to eat gracefully at the Lord's Table. But eating dinner at your family table is different than eating at the Lord's Table with the church.

This is the point I was trying to make on p. 308 of the Lord's Service in my discussion of John 4:19-24
First, the Greek verb proskuneo (used 9 times in 6 verses in John 4:20-26) means “to bow down,” “to kneel,” or “prostrate oneself.” Even though my translation of this passage is awkward, I have tried to bring out the ritual dimensions of the conversation by consistently translating proskuneo as “bow down.” One must remember the very concrete meaning of proskuneo in the ancient world. Doing “obeisance” means bending your body and placing yourself “under” another. When you proskuneo-ed before someone, you bowed down in their presence, even at their feet.

The English word “worship,” especially as it is used in modern times, is not a very helpful translation. One of the problems with our word “worship” is that it now refers to all sorts of activities, both physical and mental. In fact, a recent fad is to stress that all of life is “worship.” In some sense this is true, but only in a very loose sense. When used in this sense “worship” denotes a mental disposition. But this is not the sense in which this word proskuneo or “bowing down” is ordinarily used in the Scriptures. If you want to say that all of life is “bowing down,” that is fine; but this can only be so in a very abstract or metaphorical way. If you are working hard on a painting job, for example, you may, indeed you should mentally give thanks and praise to God while you do so, but . . . you are not bowing down at that time with others who reverence the same God.

The woman and Jesus are not talking about this kind of mental attitude. Jesus is addressing the question of where one should bow down to the Father. He is talking about the ritual act of bowing down or kneeling before God in order to honor him and express one's proper devotion. This woman asks in effect, “Where is the place, the location, where we should bow down to God?” We will see how Jesus answers that question in a moment, but for now simply attend to the kind of devotion in question. The activity in view here is what we might call “special” as opposed to “general” devotion. It is special in the sense that it happens at a known location and it involves the people of God in acts of ritual devotion before God. Furthermore, the bowing down in question has to do with corporate or public worship, not private worship.

Bowing down, then, is a kind of synecdoche for everything the people of God do when they gather together in corporate worship. It simply has to be this. Everyone, both Jews and Samaritans knew that one could pray and praise and petition God, one could even get down on one's knees anytime or place. Individual bowing down was never restricted to the Temple or Jerusalem or in Samaria, to Mt. Gerizim. Please, pay careful attention to this point. The big point being made by Jesus in this passage cannot be that now in the New Testament individuals can bow down, pray to, or mentally worship God wherever they want. This has always been the case. The controversy here is about where the people of Samaria should gather to bow down in special corporate worship. All special, corporate worship in the Bible is external and bodily and involves the biblical ritual (among others) of kneeling or bowing down.
Well, so much for a "bite-sized" post. I will address the related issue of the specialness of corporate worship in the next post. I think that what people sometimes mean when they say "all of life is worship" is that corporate, Lord's Day worship is no more special than our everyday devotions during the week. That is not true.

Go to All of Life is Worship? - Part 2.

|

The Lord's Service Questions - The Priesthood of All Believers, Part 4

Just a bit more on the objection to pastor-led liturgical worship based on the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

First, there's a great deal of confusion about what a "priest" was in the OT before Christ transformed the world. In too much Protestant literature one gets the impression that the priests of Israel were akin to Roman Catholic priests and that we can rejoice because Christ put an end to all that. Sadly, it is an all-to-common mistake to identify the rites and rituals of the Mosaic covenant with Roman Catholicism. (I should say also that this goes hand in hand with the notion that the problem with the Roman church has been that she never quite got out of the Old into the New Testament.) It's just not the case. But all of this is impossible to explain in any detail here.

Suffice it to say that Yahweh did not deliver to Moses on Mt. Sinai a proto-Roman Catholic liturgical ritual system, especially as some Protestants often characterize Rome's system. If one grants this, then certain things follow. For one thing, we might actually benefit from going back and carefully analyzing the OT liturgical system of sacrifices. As I have argued quite extensively in my book, the way that the NT uses the language of "sacrifice" and "offering" and even priestly vocabulary to describe the worship of the saints in Christ, assumes that we know something about Israelite sacrificial rituals and are able to make the necessary adjustments given the new situation in Christ when applying them to the Church's worship. In other words, it's a good thing to study the sacrificial rituals for insight on how to worship. The New Testament encourages us to do so.

Second, priests in the old order before Christ were "palace servants." They were brought near to God in order to serve in his temple/palace/house. The Lord's house was a place of meeting, the location chosen by him in which Israel would find restoration and fellowship. Leviticus begins with Yahweh calling from inside of his house, the tent of meeting, and giving directions through Moses to the Israelites about how they are to "draw near" (qrb) and meet with him at his house.

Since "drawing near" to God was a frightening prospect for people that continued to offend the Lord of the house, Yahweh gives the protocols necessary for people to "enter" his courts properly. The climax of this process was a fellowship meal eaten with the Lord in his house.

In case you didn't make the connection, this is not much different than what happens when you invite someone to your home for a meal. We are, after all, made in God's image. If someone who was out of sorts with you knocked on your door, you wouldn't immediately walk into the dining room and start eating with him or her. No, rather, you would expect the person to patch things up at the doorstep or at least inside the door at the threshold of your home. We don't normally eat friendly meals with people with which we are not reconciled. So if you invite your neighbor over for lunch, something like this might happen at the doorstep:

"Jeff, I'm sorry about screaming out the window at you the other day. That chain saw was driving me nuts. I should have come over and talked to you. You had no idea that I was home to rest that day and the noise kept me awake. Will you forgive me?"

You say, "Sure, neighbor, I accept your apology. Come on inside and sit down for a while. Honey, would you get something for Sam and I to drink while we talk. Thank you. Now, Sam, I'm sorry, too. I didn't realize you were sleeping. I would have been happy to wait. By the way, how are things going at work for you. . ."

Eventually, you eat and renew your friendship at the Table. Now you can do all this yourself because you're only dealing with one neighbor and a handful of friends and acquaintances. You are not a king or a president who cannot meet personally with everyone. And, of course, you are not Yahweh who is throned above the cherubim in the Most Holy Place. Yahweh, the great Lord over Israel and the world, assigns priests to help him with these household necessities.

That is what priests do. They serve the Lord of the house/palace. When the people draw near to visit their Lord, the priests help them. They assist the Israelite who has come to renew fellowship with the Lord. This means that they walk them through the process of animal sacrifice. They inspect the beasts. They insure that everything is done properly so that the Lord of the house will accept the worshipper at his Table. They also guard the house, keeping it from thieves and robbers. And they spend a good deal of time teaching the people how to approach their Lord and what all this implies for their daily lives.

Third, a great deal could be said about this as it relates to the priesthood of all believers in the New Testament. But let me make just one point here at the end of this post. And that is this: it is the essence of the priesthood to help people draw near to God. Yes, you get to go into God's house yourself as a priest. The High Priest even gets to go into the Most Holy Place where Yahweh is enthroned. But whether you are a priest or a High Priest, you only enter the house for someone else. In other words, priests are always helping other people. They are priests to assist others. They are not priests for their own individual selves. The priesthood is about service to others.

Therefore, when the whole of Israel is called "a kingdom of priests" it means that the entire nation has a calling to serve, to assist the nations in drawing near to the true God. Priesthood makes no sense without the other that the priest is called to serve.

What bothers me about the way the priesthood of all believers is commonly conceived in American Protestantism is that it becomes some sort of authorization for the individual believer to worship by his lonesome apart from any help he may give or get from anyone else. But if we are really all called to be priests, then we are called to assist others in drawing near to God. A corollary to this is the fact that we all need the assistance of others when we draw near to God.

So the real thrust of the priesthood of all believers principle is often lost in American individualistic religious thought. Every Christian is a priest comes to mean that we don't need any help from anyone; it's just me, God, and my Bible. Don't tell me that I need help with approaching God! I'm just fine without anyone else's help! If you say that I need help and assistance, then you are subtly introducing Roman Catholic priesthood again in the church. No one comes between me and Jesus.

But it's one thing to insist that no one comes between you and Jesus. After all, he is the one mediator between God and man. It's something else entirely to say that I don't need anyone to come alongside of me and help me draw near to the Lord.

I'll say this again in a slightly different way to make the point clear: priests always help others into God's presence. That's what the OT priests did at the altar. They didn't inspect the animals, and help with the preparation of God's food to feed themselves. They didn't go into the Tabernacle or Temple for themselves but for others. So if the New Testament says that Jesus is now our high Priest, then he enters God's heavenly house for us. And he assists us in our approach. But if we are all priests, too, in the image of Jesus, then we also enter for others as well. So saying that Christians are priests does not mean that we don't need others to help us into God's house. That's just what priests do!

The doctrine of the priesthood of all believers means that we also all need one another to exercise that priesthood in service to each other. The pastor is the one who models that behavior because his priestly work is for the whole community. He helps everyone approach God in Christ. As I explained in an earlier post, the pastor is the servant priest ministering to the royal priests.

And people learn how to help others at church. To say we don't need anyone to help us enter into God's presence because we are all priests is a contradiction. If that is true, then no one dare exercise his duty as a priest! The priesthood of all believers means that we don't "go in" alone. We need each other. If this is true, then using the priesthood of all believers to eschew any help from other believers, including the pastor, is to deny the very doctrine you are proclaiming.

Rather, we all benefit from the priestly work of others for us - whether they are guarding us from evil, serving us food, or helping us approach God. If we don't need this from others, then there is no need for the priesthood of all believers.

Which means that everyone needs priestly service from others in the body in order to find assurance and approach God! I'm starting to ramble (it's getting late), so I better bring this to a close. Let me cap this off by quoting from the Reformed Baptist theologian and historian Timothy George. This is from his book The Theology of the Reformers (Broadman, 1988):
Luther's greatest contribution to Protestant ecclesiology was his doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. Yet no element in his teaching is more misunderstood. For some it means simply that there are no priests in the church, the secularization of the clergy. From this premise some groups, notably the Quakers, have argued the abolition of the ministry as a distinct order in the church. More commonly people believe that the priesthood of all believers implies that every Christian is his or her own priest and hence possesses the "right of private judgment" in matters of faith and doctrine. Both of these are modern perversions of Luther's original intention. The essence of the doctrine can be put in one sentence: Every Christian is someone else's priest, and we are all priests to one another (pp.95-96).

|

The Lord's Service Questions - The Priesthood of All Believers, Part 3

I'm still thinking about this objection to a liturgically ordered service where the pastor presides as somehow violating the reality of the priesthood of all believers in the new covenant.

Perhaps someone might object to the fact that the pastor leads the service and does most of the speaking and reading as well as presiding at the Lord's Table. But if that is the real issue, then it's not my book that's causing the problem but rather the Reformed tradition as a whole, indeed, the historic practice of the Church throughout her history.

The practice of including a variety of non-ordained men and women in the leadership of corporate worship on Sunday morning is a very recent, mostly American phenomenon. But the novel practice arose in the 1960's with the introduction of "informal" worship services, even "folk Masses" in the Catholic church. Now, of course, it has spread to other parts of the world. Nevertheless, it took decades to drive the pastor away from his ordained place as liturgical leader (not just preacher) for the congregation. In many 21st-century Evangelical congregations the pastor may welcome everyone to the church at the start of the service, but doesn't do much else but preach. Lay people pray, read, and often lead the congregation with informal, chatty directions and comments.

Now, I don't think this kind of thing is evil or wicked. What I do think is that the Bible says more about pastoral leadership in these areas than is commonly conceded. And the reason for this is that Christ's people are better served by a well-ordered and pastor-led worship service. I've argued this in my book (chapters 14-15). But again, I wonder how many people who jumped to the conclusion that I was violating the priesthood of all believers principle actually read that far in the book.

I suspect someone might argue that removing the pastor from everything but the sermon was overdue and nothing but an application of the doctrine of the priesthood of believers. Something like this: Protestant pastors were effectively acting like Roman Catholic priests until we started to behave in a manner consistent with our commitment to the priesthood of all believers. There are a couple of problems with this.

First, the priesthood of all believers principle does not mean that everybody ought to get a chance to be a liturgical leader on Sunday morning. It never has. Nobody ever dreamed that it might imply such a thing until very recently. The Reformers certainly did not think that this is what the doctrine meant. This observation, of course, is not a slam-dunk because it is always possible that the Church had been wrong about this in the past. We have to grant that possibility. I do not believe in the infallibility of Reformed tradition. The Bible is our ultimate authority.

Where in the Bible do we read that leadership in the community has been democratized in the new covenant? We don't. Rather, in the NT we read about pastors, elders, and deacons. I don't need to cite references. But one example is instructive. Paul writes to Pastor Timothy that he "not neglect the public reading of Scripture." It seems to have been part of Timothy's vocation to read the Scriptures to his congregation.

Every member of the Body of Christ has full sanctuary access in the new covenant. In Christ the barriers of the OT have been removed. When God draws us into his presence we are taken up into heavenly places in union with Christ. That happens to the entire congregation. No one believer is closer to God than any other. There are no degrees of nearness or holiness. That goes for the pastor as well. The pastor is not nearer to God because of his office. Rather, he is called to serve the congregation so that they will experience and receive all the gifts offered through the Word and Sacrament.

But this is standard Reformed, even PCA stuff. There's nothing Romish in the notion that the Pastor serves the congregation in this way. To ask the pastor to speak as the Lord's representative in the Sunday assembly is not to ask him to violate the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, rather it is to ask him to fulfill the vocation to which he was called.

I don't believe I've deviated from what I've learned about the ministry from Reformed sources. What I have written is pretty standard Reformed teaching on the meaning and function of the Ministry. For example, in the Westminster Assembly's "The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government" (1648) the minister's function in the church is lined out. Eight duties are listed. "The pastor is an ordinary and perpetual officer in the church, prophesying of the time of the gospel. First, it belongs to his office,
[1] To pray for and with his flock, as the mouth of the people unto God, Acts vi. 2, 3, 4, and xx. 36, where preaching and prayer are joined as several parts of the same office. The office of the elder (that is, the pastor) is to pray for the sick, even in private, to which a blessing is especially promised; much more therefore ought he to perform this in the public execution of his office, as a part thereof.
If you didn't know that this document was produced by the Westminster Assembly, would you think that saying that the Pastor prays as "the mouth of the people unto God" was priestcraft?
[2] To read the Scriptures publicly; for the proof of which, 1. That the priests and Levites in the Jewish church were trusted with the public reading of the word is proved. 2. That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the law, proved, Isa. lxvi. 21. Matt. xxiii. 34. where our Savior entitles the officers of the New Testament, whom he will send forth, by the same names of the teachers of the Old. Which propositions prove, that therefore (the duty being of a moral nature) it follows by just consequence, that the public reading of the scriptures belongs to the pastor's office
A couple things to note. First, see how the Westminster divines used the OT ecclesiastical and liturgical situation to inform their understanding of the function of the Minister today. Second, if the pastor is called to read the Scriptures publicly, why is this reading so neglected today? And why does everyone but the pastor seem to be the one called on to read Scripture in church? Continuing with the pastors ministerial duties:
[3] To feed the flock, by preaching of the word, according to which he is to teach, convince, reprove, exhort, and comfort. 
[4] To catechize, which is a plain laying down the first principles of the oracles of God, or of the doctrine of Christ, and is a part of preaching.
[5] To dispense other divine mysteries.
[6] To administer the sacraments.
[7] To bless the people from God, Numb. vi. 23, 24, 25, 26. Compared with Rev. i.4, 5, (where the same blessings, and persons from whom they come, are expressly mentioned), Isa. lxvi. 21, where, under the names of Priests and Levites to be continued under the gospel, are meant evangelical pastors, who therefore are by office to bless the people.
[8] To take care of the poor
Once again, pay attention to how the Assembly saw the NT pastorate as the fulfillment, in some sense, of the OT priestly calling. The link between Christian pastors and Hebrew priests is made explicit by Westminster when they summarize the three ordained offices in the Church:
As there were in the Jewish church elders of the people joined with the priests and Levites in the government of the church (2 Chron. 19:8,9,10); so Christ, who hath instituted government, and governors ecclesiastical in the church, hath furnished some in his church, beside the ministers of the word, with gifts for government, and with commission to execute the same when called thereunto, who are to join with the minister in the government of the church (Rom. 12:7,8; 1 Cor. 12:28). Which officers reformed churches commonly call Elders.
I'm not necessarily saying that this is the best way to explain the connections between the old order and the new situation in the Church. But one should notice that the Reformed tradition can make these links without denying the "priesthood of all believers." A high view of the Ministry does not necessarily mean that one is a Romanist or that one has denied the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

If you have never heard Rob Rayburn's lecture on this subject from a few years back at Covenant Theological Seminary, it fits wonderfully with what I am saying here. It's called "The Centrality of the Christian Ministry" and you do download it as an mp3 file or listen to it online.

The ministry does not replace Jesus, but stands in for him in his absence (he's in heaven) and serves his Bride in his Name. It's one thing to say that the pastor stands between God and man as a priestly mediator like Jesus. It's something else entirely to know that the Bible says that our Mediator Jesus uses our pastors in a special way to communicate his gifts to us. The pastor is not a mediator between God and man, but Jesus does use the ordained pastorate to communicate his will and grace to his people.

And there's a reason for this. It's to help assure God's people that what happens in the worship service is indeed the Lord's work for them. The people should be left in no doubt that Jesus is speaking to them and feeding them in the assembly – the presence of a ordained, robed minister helps them know this is true.

Continue to Part 4 in the series on the priesthood of all believers.

|

Articles in Books (Total Entries: 31)
  • 1632
    Date Created: Nov 18, 2004, 02:05 PM
  • Baudolino
    Date Created: Nov 18, 2004, 09:30 AM
  • Solaris
    Date Created: Feb 02, 2004, 01:43 PM



Copyright © Jeff Meyers. All rights reserved.