Biblical Illiteracy and Worship

I've heard it for years now: The old hymns have so much more theology and scripture in them. The new songs have no depth.

And the complaints go on.

So, today I read in the Baptist Standard: "The widely observed decline in biblical literacy among American Christians has paralleled a growing interest in developing new and enriched ways of worshipping. 'How can these two event--biblical illiteracy and a great passion for worship--be happening at the same time?' asked [Christopher] Teichler who teaches at an evangelical university in the Chicago area and blogs on music issues."

Great question. I have never thought of it in these terms--a relationship between worship and biblical illiteracy. In my Bible learning days, most of what I really learned about scripture was done on Sunday nights and in Sunday school. The worship event itself was more about music and experience. I have to admit that I remember very few things from the mouth of Dr. Criswell (could this be God's protection?). However, I remember many things from Sunday School teachers, discipleship leaders, and peer group discussions. Truly, all of the foundations set in my youth finally found realization in college classes and bible study. So for me, I find it difficult to be critical of modern worship in terms of biblical illiteracy.

Then, the article drops the bombshell: "If biblical literacy is so low at this point in Western history, then the God of the Bible is not the god being worshipped but rather a shallow and incomplete version of him."

OUCH!!!

I don't think it has much to do with worship style as much as it has to do with the overall culture that permeates our society. If we are not worshipping God, but a god who is shallow and incomplete, then it permeates all of our church culture and program and relationships, not just worship. Don't blame the upbeat, simple music of the day. Blame the upbeat, simple discipleship that our marketers tell us we need in order to grow churches. And blame ourselves for buying into a simple, easy Gospel. Now, I don't think we need to weigh people down with burdens we ourselves don't intend to carry. However, don't we all need to bear the cross? I do not want to be ashamed of the Gospel, but we all need to address what is at the heart of our Gospel. If we argue that we only need to carry part of the cross, or none of it, in order to follow Christ, then don't blame the music. We obviously need to read the Bible more and be obedient to it, regardless of the songs we sing.

Bottom line: if our music is shallow, it is a reflection of deeper problem--our discipleship is shallow.

Solomon on Worship: Ecclesiastes 5

Solomon on worship:

1. Be cautious when you enter the house of God. He hears your vows--your commitments. It is better not to utter a commitment than to say you will serve and then fall short of your vow.

Reminds me of Jesus: Matthew 5:33-37. 33"Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or’No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil."


2. Listen when you enter God's house. Are your words more valuable than God's Word?

3. Stand in awe of God. He builds and he tears down. He holds your present and your future in his hands. Honor him.

4. Love God and him alone. He who loves money never has enough. His wealth does not permit him peace. (5:10, 12) Money comes and goes (5:14-15). God is forever. Love God alone.

5. Praise God for his provision and peace. He gives money and possession, and enables the receiver to enjoy the gift--to accept his lot and enjoy his work. This is a gift from God. Happy is the man who seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart. (5:19-20)

First Corinthians 14: On women in worship

Paul, have you lost your mind?

After declaring that male and female are partners in Christ (11:11) and elsewhere that there is neither male nor female in Christ, Paul falls off the deep end in a comment that seems off the cuff and out of place.

Again within the context of worship, Paul addresses the women in the church, this time in the middle of his discussion on tongues and prophecy in worship. Apparently, the Corinthians are already struggling with order in worship (drunkness at the Lord's Supper, confusion of tongues and prophecy, and bitter divisions). Now, Paul takes on the women specifically. But why? His words have been used to alienate women from service and spiritual value in many cultures. Is this what Paul had in mind for the female who is a partner to the male? It could be that Paul is saying that women have a role to play as a partner, but it is as a silent partner. However, this is a hard teaching for me to understand or accept, especially in light of biblical examples where women play a large role in leadership of God's people--as prophets, leaders, communicators of the Gospel, and Christian examples.

Do we have any other choice here, though, than to accept the literal statement: women must remain silent?

How about these options: First of all, Paul may well be speaking specifically to the anarchy in the Corinthian church. He mentions women because of their spiritual significance in this pagan culture, and their tendency to speak in tongues in that culture for the purposes of the pagan gods and goddesses. So, Paul is calling on the Corinthian women to cease their old ways of living and listen to the Spirit of God. The one problem with this theory is that Paul says "as is the practice in all of our churches." While the issue maybe local, Paul states that silence in encouraged in all congregations. However, I imagine if things are done in order, Paul would be tolerant.

Secondly, Paul may be speaking of a formal meeting, like a business meeting, where the women must remain silent. Again, the context of the whole chapter is worship, and it is hard to see this verse outside of the worshp context.

Thirdly, maybe the silence pertains only to tongues, and not to worship or prophecy. This would make sense in light of Christian prophetesses and other Christian female leaders in the New Testament. However, one must still deal with the issue of "speaking" in general, and learning also.

Fourthly, what we have here is a Jewish model for synagogue and Christian worship, where women and men would sit separately in the worship environment. This model, while appropriate for the First Century, may not apply to today's Gentile cultures. Thus, the command is mute and of no real value, other than to emphasize the need for male and female to worship in order. Note: Within the context of Paul's comments in chs 11-12, this model is valuable for order, sexual purity, learning/teaching, and focus on God.

While this logic may be satisfying, it also is a slippery slope that has been applied from everything to slavery, adultery, and homosexuality. There must be more justification than just "it is not our culture today, and thus is of no value."

Personally, I think options 1, 3, and 4 all have merit in this discussion. Yes, the culture has changed, but I also think that Paul went to extremes in his discussion because of the extremes in Corinth. Ultimately, as long as order is preserved, and the Gospel communicated, then I think male or female is justified in worship through prophecy, preaching, and teaching--since there is neither male nor female in Christ. It may not be the Jewish ideal, but we are no longer under the law (as long as we are orderly), but under the law of grace.

Let each one interpret this as God's gives them faith.

First Corinthians 14: On prophecy and tongues

I asked earlier what Paul meant by "the greater gifts." He gives us his answer in 1 Cor. 14:1-5. The greater gifts are those that directly edify the church. So, prophecy is of more value than tongues because anyone who hears prophecy can hear the direct word of God spoken. Now, does this diminish tongues? No, and I do not believe that tongues has been erased as a gift for today's church. I do confess I have never spoken in tongues, although I have prayed for the gift when I was a teenager. However, there is a place in today's church for every spiritual gift. Paul's point is that communication of the good news of Jesus Christ is the purpose of the gifts, and the greater gifts are those that communicate the Gospel most clearly (12).

Paul's solution for the understanding of tongues is the interpreter--a direct biblical command that I personally have never seen practiced, even though I have attended many Christian services where tongues have played a roll in worship. I find it interesting that some of the most conservative biblical interpreters our there in the charismatic movements do not seem to take this admonishment by Paul very seriously.

First Corinthians 11:17-34

Whew. The first part of 1 Cor. 11 about wore me out--so many hot button issues in that text.

The rest of 1 Cor. 11 deals with worship, specifically the Lord's Supper. For me, the Lord's Supper is the most beautiful and worshipful expression of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for me. I love the services when we celebrate his gift, and I take seriously the command to remember him when we do it.

I remember watching my dad take the Lord's Supper while I was still too young to understand all of it. Our church was very quite and dimly lit--a very focused environment. The deacons would serve the elements so quietly--and my dad would take the bread, cradle it in his huge hands, and pray. He prayed prayers of thanksgiving and praise, cherishing the bread the whole time. It is as close as anyone can be to actually feeling the body of Christ--at least in this life. He did the same with the cup. When I began to worship like my own father, I felt a great appreciation for Christ's sacrifice and a deeper understanding of the love he expressed on the cross.

So, when Paul accuses the Corinthians of getting drunk at the Lord's Supper, I can only imagine the misunderstanding--mostly linked to pagan worship and celebrations, something like Mardi Gras. Could you imagine combining the images and actions of Mardi Gras with the Lord's Supper? Paul couldn't, and told them that many had paid the price for their disrespect of the Lord's Supper (30).

Now, none of us are perfect, and our hearts need to be prepared when we enter into worship through the Lord's Supper. It is as close as we can come to touching the body of Christ--wouldn't you at least wash your hands, or spiritually speaking--your heart, first?

First Corinthians 11:2-16: On Order in the New Creation

As mentioned in an earlier blog, God's order through creation takes a new shape in Christ (the New Creation).


In 1 Cor 11:11, Paul says, "In the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman." So, Paul indicates an equality in Christ that the physical creation does not reveal. Sure, Genesis notes that the woman is a helper, supplementing the man, and this may be a basis for further discussion on the egalitarian nature of the male-female relationship. However, Paul sees something new here in Christ. So, he says in Gal 3:28 "There is neither male nor female." Paul argues, then, in Christ that we are all unified as a body and gender means nothing. However, we still need each other, whether male or female. It is only in extreme circumstances, such as Corinth, he argues for order in family and worship when the ideal of "in Christ" is not met.

Ultimately we all come from God, and thus we should relate to one another in peace. If peace is not achieved, then follow the law of creation--Men lead and women support. This is God's natural law that can only be trumped by the spiritual leadership of Christ.

First Corinthians 11:2-16: On Women in Worship

On women, long hair, and shaved heads: Paul calls on Christian women to keep long hair so that they might distinguish themselves from pagan female priests who would shave their heads as a sign of submission to the gods. For Paul, their idolatry and shaven heads went together and were unnatural. He called on Christian females to dress and behave in ways that separated them from their former ways of worship. Certainly Paul is arguing from a cultural perspective that is somewhat foreign to us, but I do not think Gentiles or Jews would necessarily debate his logic concerning the natural order of things. The hair in our cultrue does not play as crucial a role in determining spiritual connections or convictions. So, while some would say that Paul's words are a command to all woman, most in the Baptist tradition would argue that as long as the actions and dress of the woman (or any of us, for that matter) do not detract from the worship of the Lord, then we are following the directives of Paul and of Scripture.

First Corinthians 11:2-16: On orderly worship and heirarchy

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God:

Paul is simply interpreting and applying Genesis 2 to the current issues that the Corinthian church faces. The specific issue here is one of appropriate worship and prayer. Paul believes there is a created order in Genesis 2 that we should follow when approaching God. God is over all, and Christ is directly over God's creation (not in Genesis 2, but accepted by Paul as understood by Genesis 2), and that man was intended to be over woman in the created order of things. His point is that God is to be exalted in an appropriate manner, and that all of us must go through Jesus to worship.

Where applicable, in Paul's mind, the woman also must go through the husband or authority figure because this is the created order of things. He reasons that the man was made directly by God’s breath, and thus man directly relates to God. He then reasons that the woman was made from and for man, as a helper and complementary portion. In Paul's mind, the first to be created is the one who exercises authority (This is rabbinic logic). Yes, Paul is from a male-dominated society, and his perspective reflects that. However, we cannot simply dismiss it because it does not fit our egalitarian perspective. Does it mean that a woman is less than a man? No. It means, though, that there are different ways to relate to God, and that the woman and man are created uniquely. Is it necessary for a woman to have a husband so that she may communicate with God? No. However, God’s original intent was to communicate in an orderly fashion with his creation, and Genesis 2, according to Paul, reveals that order to be God, Christ, man, woman.

It would be easier to explain this line of reasoning away if Paul had not appealed to Genesis. Instead, he focuses on scripture, and thus we must deal with the fact there is a created order, an ideal, that many of us find difficult to live up to. When we do not follow the ideal, we open ourselves up to chaos in worship and family. Apparently Paul feels the need to go back to the very order of creation because the Corinthians had no order in their worship, and the women in the congregation were a big part of the problem. Can I reason, then, that Paul would not expect such restrictions if a church was living in an orderly way that reflected God’s creative purposes? We cannot have utopia, but we also should not endure chaos when it is on our power to control it. So, Paul’s strict words to men and women are an attempt to bring order to a chaotic worship experience.

I think that his words also apply to the specific circumstances at Corinth and apply to churches today that struggle with chaotic worship circumstances. If a church can have real, authentic worship within an egalitarian framework, I don’t think that Paul would mind. His issue is reverence before God Almighty. It was so bad in Corinth he appealed to the ultimate Old Testament authority: creation. You can’t trump creation when you are arguing from the Old Testament—unless you bring up New Creation.