Reverent, grave, seemly, solemn – these adjectives convey a seriousness about worship that seems to preclude external expressions of emotion. But this language is not to suppose that the Puritans did not value emotion. In fact, the Puritans were “intensely self-conscious of – and, indeed, fascinated by – their own emotions.”[1] Many Puritans looked to their own spiritual experience for evidences of God working in their lives.[2] For the Puritans, reverence in worship did not stifle the emotions, but channeled them so that they ran deeper. 

The Puritans (1600s)
The Puritans in the 1600s continued the legacy of the Reformers by seeking to purify the worship of the Church of England. The crowning documents of the Puritans were the Westminster Standards, completed in 1646. In The Directory for the Public Worship of God, the Westminster Divines describe how the congregation ought to assemble for worship:
Let all enter the assembly, not irreverently, but in a grave and seemly manner, taking their seats or places without adoration, or bowing themselves towards one place or other.
The congregation being assembled, the minister, after solemn calling on them to the worshipping of the great name of God is to begin with prayer.
In all reverence and humility acknowledging the incomprehensible greatness and majesty of the Lord, (in whose presence they do then in a special manner appear,) and their own vileness and unworthiness to approach so near him, with their utter inability of themselves to so great a work; and humbly beseeching him for pardon, assistance, and acceptance, in the whole service then to be performed; and for a blessing on that particular portion of his word then to be read: And all in the name and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Reverent, grave, seemly, solemn – these adjectives convey a seriousness about worship that seems to preclude external expressions of emotion. But this language is not to suppose that the Puritans did not value emotion. In fact, the Puritans were “intensely self-conscious of – and, indeed, fascinated by – their own emotions.”[1] Many Puritans looked to their own spiritual experience for evidences of God working in their lives.[2] For the Puritans, reverence in worship did not stifle the emotions, but channeled them so that they ran deeper. Speaking of early modern Protestants, historian Alec Ryrie writes:
Certainly they observed and disciplined their emotions with unusual rigour … But channeling a current only makes it run swifter and deeper. Nor did the early modern Protestants discipline their emotions because they wished to suppress them. Rather, they believed that the emotions – or “affections”, “feelings” or “passions”, to use their preferred terms – could be guides on the road to godliness, supports when the road became hard, and invaluable testimonies that the destination was within reach. Protestants disciplined their emotions because they mattered.[3]
For the Puritans, the emotional and rational faculties of man are both necessary for true spiritual worship.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Michael J. Kruger |
Friday, April 5, 2024
Ever since the discovery of the scrolls, scholars have been eager to learn which Old Testament books were represented in the manuscripts discovered there. And it turns out that we have a manuscript from every single book from our Old Testament except one. The book of Esther. As a result, the absence of Esther has led to all kinds of scholarly speculation over the years about why the Qumran community (presumably the community associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls) did not have that book in their Old Testament canon. 

When we want to know how the New Testament canon developed, we have a number of sources at our disposal. Most fundamentally, we have patristic sources—the writings of the church fathers—which can show us when books were known, read, and cited.
We also have archaeological evidence at our disposal. We continue to find manuscripts of the New Testament, particularly at the site of Oxyrhynchus among other places, showing that early Christians knew and used these books in some fashion.
But what do we do when a particular book is missing from either of these sources? For example, Irenaeus does not mention (or quote from) the book of Philemon. Should we conclude that he didn’t know it or value it? Or consider the early second-century writer, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. If you study his writings, it seems clear that he knows the books of Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and 1&2 Timothy. So, should we conclude that Polycarp had just a 7-book Pauline canon?
Here’s where we are faced with a problematic trend in canon studies that I have observed over the years. Some scholars will conclude that if an author doesn’t use/cite a book that he doesn’t know it or value it. Or if a manuscript of a certain book is not discovered at a certain locale, then some will conclude that that particular community must not have known or valued that book.
The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that it is a form of the argument from silence. And the argument from silence is regarded as fallacious for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that we simply don’t have enough information to reach a conclusion one way or another. After all, we have only a limited sample of a church father’s writings, and we have only limited samples of New Testament manuscripts that survive. Therefore, no certain conclusions can be reached by what is not present.
As a parallel example, consider Paul’s discussion of Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:23-26—a topic he never discusses anywhere else. Now imagine for a moment that (for some reason) we didn’t have 1 Corinthians.
Read More
Related Posts:

Corporate worship is corporate worship, not individual worship. Corporate worship is for believers, not unbelievers. Corporate worship has the primary purpose of edification, not merely expression. Corporate worship accomplishes edification through order, not disorder. Corporate worship should be biblically-regulated, not unregulated. And if we do follow these principles as we approach our corporate worship as a church, then our relationship with God will be properly formed and shaped according to his designs and his Word.

Our church’s worship is pretty formal, but I prefer Holy Spirit-led worship.” Such was the comment I overheard recently by a young evangelical describing his church’s worship service, illustrating a very common perception by many evangelicals today—if the Holy Spirit actively works in worship, the results will be something extraordinary, an experience “quenched” by too much form and order. A common perception, to be sure, but how grounded in Scripture is this expectation concerning the nature and purpose of corporate worship?
My goal in this essay is to assess this common expectation, measuring it against what is perhaps the single most important text in the New Testament regarding the nature and purpose of corporate worship. In fact, 1 Corinthians 14 is really the only chapter in the New Testament that gives direct and specific focus to the subject of corporate worship.
However, Paul addresses the subject of corporate worship not exactly directly, but rather indirectly by addressing a problem within the Corinthian church. But in addressing that problem, Paul highlights the central nature and purpose of corporate worship in cultivating our relationship with God.
Corporate Worship Context
Paul’s argument is essentially that the believers in the Corinthian church should desire the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues. Notice what he says in verse 5: “
5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
And again in verse 19:
19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
But notice that the context of the discussion in this chapter is “in church” (v. 19), “when you come together” (v. 26); that is, the context is specifically corporate gatherings of the church. But the specific focus is on the use of such gifts in the context of “coming together” within the gatherings of the church.
So, what the chapter teaches about the primacy of prophecy over tongues within church gatherings provides broader principles for the nature of corporate worship. In other words, the reasons Paul gives for why the Corinthian believers should desire prophecy over tongues in corporate worship help us to understand better the nature and purpose of corporate worship.
Tongues vs. Prophecy
But in order to do that, we need to grasp what, exactly, these gifts were. First, what is prophecy?
To prophesy is to speak the very words of God. Sometimes those words are predictive; more often those words are instructive or exhortative. But no matter the content, prophecy is the delivery of direct, divine revelation to the degree that one who prophesies can always unequivocally say, “Thus says the Lord.”
The gift of tongues is the ability to speak in known languages that the speaker himself does not know. And the content of the speech here in Acts 2 is important for our purposes as well: verse 11 tells us that they were speaking “the mighty works of God.” This is speech that brought praise to God, and it was speech in a known language, but one that the speakers themselves had never learned.
The purpose of the gift was as a sign to the Jews that God was shifting his focus away from them for a time and toward the Gentile nations.
There is, of course, debate over whether these gifts of tongues and prophecy continue today or whether they have ceased. Although I will not be able to offer a complete defense in this message, I will just note that the historically held view through the entirety of the church’s history until the nineteenth century is that that these spiritual gifts have ceased.
But This understanding of the gifts in Corinth sheds some light on why Paul would tell the Corinthian believers to prefer prophecy over tongues. Remember, Paul is specifically focusing on corporate worship, and therefore his insistence that tongues is less desirable than prophecy reveals to us some important principles about corporate worship.
The Nature and Purpose of Corporate Worship
So, Paul’s central argument in at least the first half of 1 Corinthians 14 is that for corporate worship, the gift of prophecy—divine revelation from God—is more desirable than the gift of tongues—a sign meant for unbelievers in the form of speaking praise to God in a known language but one not known by anyone in the congregation. This very central argument implies some key principles about the nature and purpose of corporate worship gatherings.
Corporate, Not Individual
First, corporate worship is corporate worship, not individual worship. This is the essential difference between tongues and prophecy: tongues is individual expression toward God, while prophecy has corporate benefit.
Notice how Paul describes the purpose of tongues in verse 2:
2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
We saw this in the book of Acts—the content of tongues was praise toward God. Now in the case of Pentecost there were people from various nations present who could understand the specific dialects, but if someone spoke in another dialect within a corporate worship service in the church at Corinth, no one in the congregation would have been able to understand what was being said.
Instead, verse 4:
4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
The whole rest of the section highlights the personal and individual nature of the gift of tongues. If someone speaks in a language that no one else in the congregation knows, he might bring individual praise to God, and he might have a legitimate individual experience with God that builds up himself, but he is of no benefit to the congregation as a whole. That would be like if someone came into our service this morning and started praising the Lord in Russian. That person might be genuinely worshiping the Lord, but it would be individual worship, not corporate worship. Paul is emphasizing the importance of the corporate nature of a church service here.
Prophecy, on the other hand, is a gift that edifies the entire congregation. Paul states this clearly in verse 3:
3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.
And again in verse 4:
4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
When the revelation of God is clearly proclaimed to God’s people in words they can understand, that builds up the church, which emphasizes the importance of recognizing the corporate nature of public worship. This is not to say that individual expression is always inappropriate—as Paul says in verse 5, if there is an interpreter, then tongues speaking can be edifying to all. In other words, if there is individual expression in corporate worship, it must be such that has corporate benefit.
Paul’s emphasis here runs contrary to a common way of thinking that has become prevalent in evangelicalism today, even among those who have in a sense recovered a God-centered focus to corporate worship, in which the purpose of the worship service is assumed to be for individuals to have a personal experience with God. Individual praise to God and self-edification are good, but when we gather as the church, our focus should be corporate, not individual.
When you come to corporate worship, are you just expecting to have an individual experience with God, or are you concerned about the whole body? Corporate worship is not the time to close your eyes and simply focus on God alone. Corporate worship is the time to open your eyes, look around, and join with the whole body in worshiping the Lord.
Believers, Not Unbelievers
Second, corporate worship is for believers, not unbelievers. Notice in verse 22 where Paul says that tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers.
22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
As we see in Acts, God gave the sign of tongues in order to help first Jewish unbelievers, then Gentiles within Israel, and then Gentiles outside Israel recognize that anyone who believed in the name of the Lord would be saved. But the purpose of the corporate gatherings of the church is not primarily to bring unbelievers to faith in Christ; corporate worship is first and foremost a gathering of Christians, which is another reason Paul emphasized the superiority of prophecy—a gift of benefit for believers—over tongues in corporate worship.
This is not at all to downplay the importance of evangelism for the church. Indeed, part of what it means to fulfill the Great Commission is to preach the gospel to every living creature. But evangelism should happen primarily as we go out into the world; when we gather as the church, we are gathering as believers.
Read More
Related Posts: