The Reformation of Worship
With the NT, God no longer has to condescend and enter the fabric of the physical universe to manifest Himself to his people; he can now allow his people to ascend into Heaven itself to worship him, which the author argues is superior to the former worship. This is possible because of Jesus’s mediation on the behalf of his people (12:24), and thus Christians can now approach God with full confidence in worship.
The immediate causes for Reformation in various regions, as well as what caused divisions among various Reformation figures, are diverse. However, much of what lay at the core of what both unified Reformers in their reaction against the Roman Catholic Church and what ended up dividing them in the end, involved theology and practice of worship.
Yet what is remarkable is that some of the very same problems with worship that the Reformers criticized with medieval worship have appeared again in contemporary worship. No, the contemporary church has not denied the five Solas or submitted once again to Rome; rather, the practices of contemporary worship suffer from some of the same fundamental problems that Rome’s worship did at the start of the sixteenth century.
Core Problems with Medieval Worship
Although much of the development of worship during the Middle Ages was originally rooted in biblical prescription, example, and theology, heresy did grow, and several aspects of how many Christians worshiped by the end of the fifteenth century made significant reformation necessary.
Problems specifically with worship can be summarized with the following categories:
Sacramentalism
One of the first significant errors in late medieval worship was sacramentalism, attributing the efficacy of an act of worship—especially the eucharistic elements—to the outward sign rather than to the inner working of the Holy Spirit. Christians during this period came to believe that just by performing the acts of worship, they received grace from God, whether or not they were spiritually engaged in the act. Along with this belief came the idea of ex opera operato (“from the work worked”), the belief that the acts of worship work automatically and independently of the faith of the recipient.
Necessity of Faith
Martin Luther stressed the need for personal faith in those who wished to participate in worship. The mass is not, Luther insisted, “a work which may be communicated to others, but the object of faith, . . . for the strengthening and nourishing of each one’s own faith.”[4] Martin Bucer’s most significant work on the subject, Grund und Ursach (“Ground and Reason”), called the Roman view of the Table “superstition.” He insisted that worship that is “proper and pleasing to God” must always be based upon “the sole, clear Word of God.”
These Reformers insisted that the sacraments were limited only to the two Christ himself commanded and were considered visible signs of spiritual realities. Though the sacraments are means of grace given from God, then are not effectual in and of themselves; rather the benefits of the means of grace to sanctify a person necessitate the sincere faith of the worshiper and were brought about ultimately by the inner work of the Holy Spirit.
Sacerdotalism
Medieval worship also developed the error of sacerdotalism, the belief in the necessity of a human priest to approach God on the behalf of others. As a result of the drastic increase of church attendance in the fourth century, a strict distinction between clergy and laity had developed wherein the clergy did not trust the illiterate, uneducated masses to worship God appropriately on their own. Thus, the clergy offered “perfected” worship on behalf of the people. The pronouncement by the Council of Laodicea in 363 illustrates this: “No others shall sing in the church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo and sing from a book.” While this was a local council, it illustrates what became common among most churches in the Middle Ages.
The quality of worship became measured by the excellence of the music and the aesthetic beauty of the liturgy, and while this facilitated the production of some quite beautiful sacred music during the period, it resulted in “worship” becoming mostly what the priests did in the chancel, which eventually was often distinctly separated from the nave by high rails or even a screen. This clergy/laity separation was only exacerbated by the continued use of Latin as the liturgical language despite the fact that increasing numbers of people did not understand the language.
By the end of the fourteenth century, members of the congregation rarely participated in the Lord’s Supper, and even when they did, the cup was withheld from them lest some of Christ’s blood sprinkle on the unclean. Roman worship had moved from the “work of the people” (leitourgia) to the work of the clergy. As even Roman Catholic liturgical scholar Joseph Jungmann notes, “the people were devout and came to worship; but even when they were present at worship, it was still clerical worship. . . . The people were not much more than spectators. This resulted largely from the strangeness of the language which was, and remained, Latin. . . . The people have become dumb.” The people became mere spectators of the worship performed by priests on their behalf.
Congregational Participation
Luther criticized this very reality in the Preface to his German Mass: “The majority just stands there and gapes, hoping to see something new.” The Reformers countered this mentality by insisting that each member of the congregation ought to be an active participant in worship, including praying, singing, receiving the sacraments, and hearing the Word. Martin Luther stated in the Preface to his Latin Mass:
I also wish that we had as many songs as possible in the vernacular which the people could sing. . . . For who doubts that originally all the people sang these which now only the choir sings or responds to while the bishop is consecrating?
Preoccupation with Sensory Experience
Medieval Christians likewise became enamored with sensory experience in worship. Church architecture deliberately kept the nave dark and the elevated chancel bright and included ornate, elaborate decorations. Liturgy included rich vestments, processions, and other elaborate ceremonies that included bells and incense in order to create a mystical experience.
The Reformers Rejected Visual Images as Essential to Worship
Even Luther considered them “adiaphora”—“things indifferent.” He said of worship in The Babylonians Captivity of the Church, “We must be particularly careful to put aside whatever has been added to its original simple institution by the zeal and devotion of men: such things as vestments, ornaments, chants, prayer, organs, candles, and the whole pageantry of outward things.” In On the Councils and the Church (1539):, Luther said, “Besides these external signs and holy possessions the church has other externals that do not sanctify it either in body or soul, nor were they instituted or commanded by God; . . . These things have no more than their natural effects.”
The Reformed wing argued that if they were adiaphora, they should be eliminated. For example, Ulrich Zwingli was committed to church practice being regulated by Scripture alone, leading him to advocate much more radical reforms than even Luther did. He insisted that worship practices must have explicit biblical warrant, causing him to denounce images, other ceremonial adornments, and even music from public worship since he could find no warrant for them in the New Testament.
-
Don’t Pervert the Truth by Misusing It
In an increasingly relativistic culture, it is imperative that we remain committed to God’s truth. It is an indispensable asset and a precious commodity—one that transforms our minds, increases our wisdom, affects our speech, guides our steps, anchors our emotions, equips our ministry, and informs our worship.
Speaking the Truth in Love
Among the characters in Disney’s 1989 animated film The Little Mermaid is a seagull named Scuttle, whom Ariel mistakenly considers an expert on humans. Scuttle explains the functions of various manmade trinkets; for example, he identifies a fork as a “dinglehopper,” which he says humans use to straighten their hair. Demonstrating how he thinks the fork is supposed to work, he says, “Just a little twirl here and a yank there and voila: you got an aesthetically pleasing configuration of hair that humans go nuts over.”
On occasion, I may or may not have been reminded of this scene when forced to tell one of my growing daughters, “Stop putting that fork in your hair.” In response, none of my daughters has ever asked, “Should I not comb my hair?” or “Should I never use a fork?” And with good reason. They instinctively know I have nothing against fork usage or combing hair.
The point of my command is not that hair combing is unimportant, or that forks are useless. The point is that forks should be used properly. As useful as they are, forks don’t lend themselves to creating an “aesthetically pleasing configuration of hair,” no matter what Scuttle says. That’s not what they were designed for.
Similarly, those of us in the body of Christ can use truth improperly. We can mischaracterize, minimize, or overemphasize its role. And in so doing, we wield truth contrary to how it was designed to function. The result is, shall we say, a “morally unpleasant configuration of haziness that makes humans act like nuts.”
There are, unfortunately, many ways we can do this. Let us look at three examples.
1. Equating Truth with Love
The command to speak the truth to our neighbor (Ephesians 4:25) is different from the command to love our neighbor (Leviticus 19:18). The two are not synonymous, just as combing hair and using a fork are not synonymous. Obedience to one command does not equate to obedience to the other.
And yet, there are those who have conflated truth and love, imagining that it is inherently loving to speak truth to someone. Thus, the more you speak the truth, the more loving you are. However, love knows there are times when it is better to listen rather than to share truth, and even to overlook a wrong rather than confront it with the truth (Proverbs 19:11). There are occasions where we just need to pray and let God do the talking to the other person. It takes wisdom to know when and how to speak, and when to remain silent (Proverbs 15:23, 25:11; Ecclesiastes 3:7b; Amos 5:13).
One functional effect of the “truth equals love” paradigm is the devaluing of love, as if it were an automatic appendage of the truth, achieved effortlessly as long as truth is spoken. If that were the case, one might expect Jesus to summarize the law of God as “truth.” Instead, he summarizes the entirety of God’s law as “love” (Matthew 22:40). Paul echoes this sentiment when he says the law is “summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Romans 13:9).
It is important both what we say (the truth) and how we say it (with love). We cannot separate the what and the how and imagine that only the what is of consequence. Motives and methods matter just as much as our message. The wrong methods won’t fly under God’s radar simply because they are attached to “the truth.”
Let there be no mistake: one can speak the truth and be unloving at the same time. That is why the apostle Paul encourages us to always be “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). If we don’t speak the truth in a loving way, we will forsake “building up the body of Christ” (v. 12) and instead act like “children” (v. 14). Love is designed to guide and direct our use of the truth so that we communicate effectively and redemptively.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Look to Jesus
Christian, you are a runner in a race. The race you are running is the most important race you will ever run. You have everything to lose if you quit, but everything and more if you finish. Therefore, run to win. Run together to the end. Keep your eyes on the prize and run with confidence. Run without any burdens and discard entanglements. Finally, look to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of your faith.
One of the many lessons I learned from my cross-country ski coach was to keep my head up and look ahead when skiing, particularly when skiing up a steep hill. Going up a sharp incline is hard work, and it is natural to look down when you are tired. The problem, however, is that looking down leads you to focus on the pain and impedes your forward movement. By looking up and ahead, you are in a better mental and physical position to drive yourself forward up the hill.
In a similar fashion, when we run the Christian race, we need to look up and ahead to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2). By encouraging us to look to Jesus, the author of Hebrews is not saying that we should merely think of Jesus, but that we ought to grasp the practical significance of who Jesus is and what he has done.
Specifically, what should we think about when we think about Jesus? When we look to Jesus, what should we see?
Our Trailblazer
First, we should see our trailblazer. The author of Hebrews says that Jesus is the founder of our faith. The word “founder,” which is also used in Hebrews 2:10, may be translated as “pioneer.” The context in Hebrews strongly suggests the idea of a pioneer, who lays down a path for others to follow. In some of the cross-country ski races I attended, the racetrack had not been set by the morning of the race. This might have happened because of a lack of equipment or because of a heavy snowfall the night before. In such situations, it would be a serious handicap to race at the front because you would have to blaze the trail yourself, which would require a lot more effort. To make the race fair, two or three non-racing skiers would ski the course early in the morning to lay the track for everyone else to follow. They would be the trail blazers.
Similarly, Jesus is our trail blazer who has paved the way to God for us.
Read More -
The Must-See 12-Minute Documentary on the Transgender Movement
Transgenderism and Marxism are closely intertwined. Rufo highlights the work of Rosa Lee who saw trans people as “the new vanguard of the proletariat” who will help “abolish heteronormativity in the same way that orthodox Marxism promised to abolish capitalism”. In short, argues Rufo, “All of society must be reorganised to affirm their identities and more importantly, their politics.”
Transgender ideology is not going away. Understand the movement and how to respond by checking out this brand new documentary.
Transgenderism was a fringe idea just a few years ago. Now it is a booming industry.
It has been tempting — for Christians especially — to ignore the movement in hopes it will fade away like other fads.
Yet the ideology has only grown in strength, and now asserts itself in children’s classrooms, public libraries, sporting codes, TV, movies and politics.
A brand-new, 12-minute documentary has been released that explains transgenderism in clear terms and accounts for its wild popularity in Western nations.
How the Trans Movement Conquered American Life is the latest film by Christopher Rufo, a writer, political activist, investigative reporter, and contributing editor of City Journal.
Rufo’s previous documentaries have featured on PBS, Netflix, and international television. In prior years, the Daily Declaration has highlighted Rufo’s incisive commentary on Critical Race Theory and the poverty, homelessness, addiction and crime plaguing America.
How the Trans Movement Conquered American Life is possibly Rufo’s best film yet.
The Transgender Empire
Rufo begins his commentary by declaring, “the transgender movement has conquered American life”. He lays out his case:
Activist teachers have converted classrooms into propaganda. Influencers are driving billions of social media impressions. And doctors are cutting up kids in the name of ‘gender-affirming care’.
The story goes deeper than you might imagine, featuring rage-filled intellectuals, a trans billionaire benefactor, and large-scale medical experiments in a Detroit ghetto.
“This is the story of the transgender empire,” he summarises — “how it came into being and how it hopes to change the face of American society forever.
The Origins of Transgenderism
As with the same-sex marriage debate of yesteryear, the way many people encounter transgenderism today is through human stories. It is understandable that people feel sympathy when hearing about the experiences of people who identify as LGBT.
However, Christopher Rufo warns that behind the human face of transgenderism is a political ideology that was carefully designed to desecrate the traditional Western way of life. He explains:
In the late 1980s, a group of writers, including Judith Butler, Gail Rubin, Sandy Stone and Susan Stryker established the disciplines of queer theory and transgender studies. They argued that gender was a social construct, used to oppress racial and sexual minorities. They denounced the categories of man and woman as a false binary that upholds a system of heteronormativity, the “white-male-heterosexual power structure”.
Rufo adds that the aim of these writers was to reduce traditional views of gender to dust. “The most visceral, dramatic way to achieve this,” he narrates, “is transgenderism” — “If a man can become woman, if a woman can become man, they believed, the entire structure of creation could be toppled”.
Susan Stryker’s contribution is especially noteworthy:
Susan Stryker is one of the founding theorists of the trans movement. In her best-known essay on ‘Performing Transgender Rage’, Stryker argues that the transexual body is a technological construction that represents a war against Western society. “I am a transsexual, and therefore I am a monster,” she wrote. “And this body is destined to channel its rage and revenge against the naturalized heterosexual order, against traditional family values, and against the hegemonic oppression of nature itself.”
Read More
Related Posts:
