Author: Matthew

Posted on

Recharging alone and together

Doug Wilson is a local pastor, author of many books, and regular blogger. I’ve been reading Doug for a couple years now (and have even visited his church a few times). He represents a particular flavor of “reformed” Christian theology, along with some of his peers, such as Peter Leithart. It’s not so much Doug that I’m attached to. I’m really much more weary now of following any particular personality. I’m attracted to what he stands for and teaches about God and how to live the Christian life. There are a host of things that I agree with and I’ll highlight them in a later post.

I’ve hesitated several years in putting this list together. It’s changed over time. The reformed view is different than what I’m used to in many ways. I wanted to make sure I understood what was going on before I opened my big mouth. These guys are really smart. Am I just stupid if they say something I don’t agree with? I wanted to make sure. A lot of things I thought might be problems have turned out not to be. I think I finally have a pretty good idea. I’ll run through this in maybe 3 posts. This is all to try and solidify in my mind what I believe.

1. Focus on the corporate (church) relationship to Jesus VS. the individual personal relationship to God.

Here, his position is briefly explained:

I am fond of telling people that Christianity is not a relationship, it is a religion. Of course, after having made the point, I hasten to add that it is a covenantal religion with a covenantal relationship at the heart of it. God promises that we will be His people, and He will be our God. But this is not what the religion of revivalism demands. Revivalism demands that there be what is called “a personal relationship.” And of course, we must be careful here. Each believer is a person, created in the image of God, and God has poured out His Spirit into the hearts of believers, causing them to cry out, Abba, Father. In a profound sense, this is a personal relationship. But this is not what revivalism means by “personal relationship.”

In revivalism, this personal relationship is isolated and individualistic. In the orthodox Christian faith, our personal relationship is covenantal and connected. God never establishes Himself as an individual’s Father without simultaneously giving that person countless brothers and sisters. This is another way of saying that there is no salvation outside the Church. Note the difference it makes in the nature of devotion – one emphasizes a personal “quiet time” while the other emphasizes corporate worship.

Now, here is the problem I have with this: It serves to explicitly deemphasize personal prayer and devotion. In the larger discourse he points out problems that can arise from personal quiet time. OK fine. But if there is anything I have learned in my journey following Jesus, it is that personal “quiet time” is actually very very important. How do I know? Because the amount I sin is inversely proportional to the amount of time I spend alone talking to Jesus. It is NOT directly related to the amount of time I spend at church, in corporate worship services, in ministry or service, or fellowshipping with believers. Those things can help, but the prayer and personal devotion to Jesus is by far the most substantial element in my walk with the Lord. It is the thing that gives me the most peace (and I’ll say it again) the thing that stops me from sinning. Hard heart? Bad attitude? Lustful thoughts? Jealously? Take them to Jesus. He is the great redeemer and intercessor and HE alone can renew our minds and change our hearts.

I don’t say any of this to diminish our relationship with our brothers and sisters in the church. I have a new found respect for the Christian community since studying the reformed way. I think both are critical. I’ve heard taught in my charismatic background that spending personal time with Jesus every day is what recharges us to live righteously each day. Doug teaches that it is our participation in corporate worship every Sunday that recharges us to live righteously the next 6 days of the week. I disagree. I think we (sinful man) is quick to take this as a license to be LAZY. I think that personal time of devotion and prayer is not to be minimized. If you look at the Saints and heroes of the faith, all of them, not just the contemplative ones, would agree with this. I think if questioned about it, Doug would say that he isn’t trying to minimizing personal devotion, just redefining it’s place in our lives. It’s a reaction to “every man is an island”. Sorry, I have to move it to a more prominent place when I describe the church.

So what is the source of this? I’m putting my own personal experience against a (particular way of interpreting) scripture. Oh, that’s a quick way to get into trouble! True, but I don’t think Psalm 119 should have been any shorter than it is. Our personal connection to Jesus is vital.

Photo credit

Posted on

Defining Worship (Part 4): When the scripture is vague

I sat down in Ball and Cross Books the other day to look through their supply of Christian reference books. I probably could have done better at a library, but none of the libraries I know have really good coffee only 20 yards away. In this case, it’s via Bucer’s Coffeehouse Pub.

Anyway, first I picked up Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, to see what they had to say about worship.

Answer: Nothing!

Really. It wasn’t in there. It’s a very thick book with lots of bible words, but apparently he didn’t want to tackle this one. Hmmm.

William Wison in his Old Testament Word Studies comments:

…of the hebrew word, to fall down in worship, yet the meaning does not seem to be confined to the act of prostration, but to imply all profound adoration. (emphasis mine)

Right, it SEEMS to just about everyone to mean more than prostration, but you won’t find that in the text.

The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church has it hashed out a bit more.
From section 2135:

“You shall worship the Lord your God” (Mt 4:10). Adoring God, praying to him, offering him the worship that belongs to him, fulfilling the promises are vows made to him are acts of the virtue of religion which fall under obedience to the first commandment.

So it’s the inside act/feeling of adoration, along with prayer in general, give him honor (not defined here), fulfilling vows (interesting), and a catch-all of “acts of the virtue of religion”, which I think would include giving to the poor, and even raising Godly children. This definition fits nicely with my “worship is a pretty big box” idea that I discussed in the first post. I like this definition a lot. It starts inside and works it’s way outside. All of it is worship, but maybe the first things on the list more so than the latter things.

Next I went to Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. He briefly goes through the same word study I went through myself last week, coming to the same conclusions about how the word means to bow down. He does include this interesting note:

The worship of God is nowhere defined in Scripture. A consideration of the above verbs shows that it is not confined to praise; broadly it may be regarded as the direct acknowledgment to God, of His nature, attributes, ways and claims, whether by the outgoing of the heart in praise and thanksgiving or by deed done in such acknowledgment. (emphasis mine)

Well no kidding it’s not defined! 66 books of religious law, history, and spiritual instruction and nowhere is a clear explanation of what worship to the one true God looks like. I think this is something some people don’t want to admit. When they read the bible, they see it describing the kind of worship they happen to already participate in. Our temptation is to fashion our interpretation of scripture into support for our own traditions. If we do that, all we have to do is mess with the words a bit and we’re doing it “right”! We don’t have to actually change what were are doing or rethink our actions. How convenient.

But what do you do when something really is vague in the bible? Since so many things in the Bible are so clearly addressed again and again, (such as sexual purity, money, and mercy), I think it really stands out that worship isn’t defined for us. I think God must have done that for a reason. Maybe he wants us to fill in the blanks with our own creativity and imagination. If he really wanted it a certain way, I think he would have communicated that to us. So maybe there is nothing wrong with your traditions and the way you’re doing it. Or maybe there is. I think there is value in examining the bible and asking, “Do we worship this way because somebody 500 years ago someone was trying to obey the bible and did it that way? Or are we worshipping this way because the youth pastor saw it on MTV last week?”

Some tradition that started out as a very good thing can be distorted over the years. Some things that may be new could be completely legitimate. Some things that may seem new might not actually be so new. (There is nothing new under the sun.) So scripture is vague about worship. Alright, so read what is there the best you can. Don’t neglect to examen history. Hundreds of generations of Christians before you can’t all be wrong. Examen your heart. Put the goal of honoring God in the forefront and make the best informed decision you can.

In the meantime, I’ll do my best to worship AND continue to “be informed”. Until the next segment…

Photo credit
Photo credit

Posted on

Thomas A’Kempis with salt

I’ve been working through The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A’Kempis. Parts of it are really wonderful. Whole sections of it read like they came straight from the Psalms in a style not unlike e.e cummings psalm rewrites that sound better than the originals. Some of it sounds like it’s straight from Proverbs. Good stuff. He also has some very harsh words to say to those obsessed with religious academia and high theological arguments. Those are some of the best parts! I’ll be posting a sampling of that soon.

BUT, (and “That’s a pretty big but(t)” says the little fish in Finding Nemo), A’Kempis also gets on my nerves. The book is chock-full of stuff like this:

Whoso, therefore, withdraweth himself from his acquaintance and friends, God will draw near unto him with his holy angels. It is better for a man to live privately, and to take care of himself, than to neglect his soul, though he could work wonders in the world. It is commendable in a religious person seldom to go abroad, to be unwilling to see or be seen.

Let not thy peace depend on the tongues of men; for whether they speak well or ill, thou are not therefore another man. Where are true peace and true glory? Are they not in [Christ]? And he that desireth not to please men, nor feareth to displease them, shall enjoy much peace. For inordinate love and vain fear ariseth all disquiet of heart and distraction of mind.

It is better often, and safer, that a man should not have many consolations in this life, especially such as are according to the flesh…When a man hath perfect contrition, then is the whole world grievous and bitter unto him.

Stop the tape! That’s easy for you to say. Let’s tear ourself away from the world and meditate on the Lord, rejoicing in quite communion with him. That’s all great, but I think this all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Why? How dare I question the wisdom of this highly-spiritual church father?

  • He was never married, never had to learn to communicate with a wife.
  • He never had to raise any children.
  • He never had to take care of toddlers. (Yes, this deserves it’s own bullet point.)
  • Living in the monastery, he never had money so he never wrestled with managing finances.
  • He had lots of work to do, but never a job with a boss, staff meetings, finite sick leave, and a house full of dependents hanging on every penny bought home. Just 50+ years of chores.

I think the little bio on the back of the book puts it plainly:

Thomas A’Kempis (c. 1380-1471), a Dutch priest, quietly lived to more than ninety in exercises of devotion, writing and copying, reading, preaching, and exhorting others.

Hey man, whatever floats your boat. Sounds nice actually, but it’s not what God has called me too. Therefore, I won’t get upset about these kinds of idealistic exhortations any more. I won’t feel like a failure! Right…

Photo credit
Photo credit

Posted on

Only the unshakable remains

The following is kind of a “steam of consciousness” post…

Back to C.S. Lewis’s journey through heaven and hell (The Great Divorce). Here, some light is shed on his theory of hell:

“Then those people are right who say that Heaven and Hell are only states of mind?”
“Hush,” said he sternly. “Do not blaspheme. Hell is a state of mind-ye never said a truer word. And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind-is, in the end, Hell. But Heaven is not a state of mind. Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakable remains.”

So passage brings up so many thoughts and connections: The idea that hell is not so much a place of fire and physical torture, as it is a place of being alone. Very very alone forever. I am frequently tempted to retreat back into my own mind, to pull away from other people and from God. This is more than just a personality trait of introverts. It is the enemy coercing me to disengage from relationships. To take a little step into hell.

The mentally insane are classified into different groups depending on how much interaction with other human beings they are able to handle. Everything from those are are a little eccentric and need to live by themselves all the way to the dangerously violent. I think being crazy must be a little bit like hell too.

What piece of scripture is he referring to at the end?

Hebrews 22-29 (NIV):

But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. 25 See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? 26 At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27 The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken–that is, created things–so that what cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, 29 for our “God is a consuming fire.”

I see the whole creation as the Lord’s great project. The fallen earth and fallen man is being redeemed through death and resurrection. Our hearts and minds shaken, sanctified, our trust in fleeting things laid waste. All throughout history, from Abraham to David, the apostles and the church of today, he is always reforming us. Cutting off branches and grafting new ones in. It is a great work, spanning many lives of men, but just the beginning of his purpose for His creation. What remains will be solid. A solid new earth, solid people.

The thing that reminds me of this verse is the song Shake the Heavens by Kim Hill:

Not to a mountain
Not to a temple
Made of wood and stoneNot to the angels
To the saints assembled
To God on His righteous throne

Not just a trembling of my flesh
But in all consuming fire I rest

You will shake the heavens
As You shake the earth
When the fires fall by Your grace I’ll stand
I’ll join with the angels
As the elders fall
We all cry holy, we all cry holy
We all cry holy, we all cry holy

Not to a system
Not just religion
Empty words and rules

But to true salvation
Holy mediation
The sprinkled blood
Of the one who rules

Not just a trembling of my flesh
But in all consuming fire I rest

You will shake the heavens
As You shake the earth
When the fires fall by Your grace I’ll stand
I’ll join with the angels
As the elders fall
We all cry holy, we all cry holy
We all cry holy, we all cry holy

Photo credit

Posted on

Jane Austen, good for meeting girls

From Blue Like Jazz (p.140)

Here’s a tip I’ve never used: I understand you can learn a great deal about girldom by reading Pride and Prejudice, and I won a copy, but I have never read it. I tried. It was given to me by a girl with a little note inside that read: What is in this book is the heart of a woman. I am sure the heart of a woman is pure and lovely, but the first chapter of said heart is hopelessly boring. Nobody dies at all. I keep the book on my shelf because girls come into my room, sit on my couch, and eye the books on the adjacent shelf. You have a copy of Pride and Prejudice, the exclaim in a gentle sigh and smile. Yes, I say. Yes, I do.

Interestingly enough, I bring this up because my wife hates Jane Austen. She finds the lifestyle of the typical characters to be quite dull. I myself have yet to read any of her works, though I saw the recent Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley in it. My guess is that it’s difficult to relate to noble culture, my wife and I both growing up blue-collar. My friend Mark on the other hand, is quite a fan of Austen and actually met his wife through that mutual appreciation! What a striking contrast to our author in this case.

Posted on

The Music of Heaven

In C.S. Lewis’s afterlife fantasy The Great Divorce, he comes across people in heaven singing and describes them this way:

If I could remember their singing and write down the notes, no man who read that score would ever grow sick or old.

What music could be so powerful that only looking at the score, not even hearing it played, could alone reverse the decaying effects of the fall of Adam? Beethoven’s 9th? Lightyears away, but nonetheless hinting at it I believe. I have heard Christians speak this way of the scriptures – of the power of the physical written scripture on the page, of hugging their bibles close, of the joy felt by a prisoner who discovers a single page of the “The Gospel According to St. John.”

The law that Moses bought down from Mount Sinai was etched in stone by God himself. What fear and trembling must the sight of those tablets stirred in the people of Israel? Behold the law, announcing our certain death. Many years later, the gospel completes the law and announces our redeemer. Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Jesus Christ. He is the one the angels sing of. We join them now, and even more so in the endless days to come!

Photo credit

Posted on

Defining Worship (Part 3): Bowing to the Greek and Hebrew

Alright, so the bible talks all about worship right? The word shows up hundreds of times. What did it mean to the apostles and patriarchs? This is a quick word study done using the Strongs concordance and KJV bible. I’m sure an exhaustive study would be beneficial, but I write these posts on my lunch break and only have about 45 minutes. I think I have enough to go off of. I was surprised by what I found.

Let’s start with the OT:

Abraham worshipping with Isaiac on Mt. Horeb (Gen 22:5)
“Thou shalt worship no other God, for the Lord thy God is a Jealous God…” (Ex 34:14)
“All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name.” (Psalm 66:4)

Virtually every time it appears, it is the Hebrew word Shachah – to bow down or prostrate oneself.
It’s used 100 times as “worship” and ~50 times as bow or stoop.

There is no idea of paying homage to deiety, singing songs, doing something ceremonial or ANY of the other activities we typically associate with worship. It is literally physically bowing down. Now bowing down probably implies that other things are going on (in the heart), or that other things may be going on around you. But the word means to get on your knees or face. That’s it.

The book of Daniel was originally in Aramaic, not Hebrew, so we get a little bit different word there:

“Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, shall fall down and worship the golden image” (Daniel 3:10)

The word is C@gid – to prostrate oneself, do homage, worship.
Used 12 times as worship

There it is again. To bow down. Worshipping Nebuchadnezzar’s golden statue consisted entirely of physically bowing down in front of or toward it. Shadrack, Meshach, and Abednego just had to stay standing up to get the death sentence.

Alright, what does the New Testament have to say?
I was surprised to discover that the word worship doesn’t actually show up very much in the NT at all.
Here are some examples:

“We have seen his star in the east and have come to worship him…” – Says the wise men in Matthew 2:2.

And now for the most quoted verse on worship in the whole Bible:
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24

There is also magnificent imagery of worship in heaven:
“The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, holy, holy…” – Revelation 4:10

All of these are instances of the Greek word Proskuneo. Used 60 times, it means:

to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence,
among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence,
in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

So it’s definitely more defined in the NT. Other physical actions such as kissing the hand could be described. My guess is that this is a cultural difference. Maybe more southern-Europe than middle-east. Also, the idea that you are doing it to pay homage or show reverence IS wrapped into the definition this time. It’s not JUST bowing, as if you may be just tying your shoe.

Another word for worship, used only 6 times is the Greek Sebomai meaning to revere, to worship.
This time, no physical action is being described.

“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt 15:9)

And finally, Paul uses the Greek word Latreuo in about 3 places where it gets translated to mean worship in English. Most of the time, the word gets translated as “service”. This one is by far the most descriptive and the closest to what we think of as religious worship or litergy. Example:

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. (Philipians 3:3)

The definition is:

1. to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen
2. in the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship
3. to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship
4. of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office

I think this word must have been used (not in the Bible) to talk about worshipping other gods. It’s the OT that has all the complicated temple rituals, sacrifices, offerings and rites. The NT doesn’t have any priests. There are rites such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper that I guess could be included in here.

My conclusion? I’ve been to a lot of churches that claim their worship is “biblical”. OK, so maybe what they are doing is. That’s great. One thing I take away from this word study though is this: If you’re worship doesn’t SOMEHOW include physically bowing down, then I don’t think you can argue that it’s all that “biblical”.

The high church liturgies often involve kneeling down during certain prayers, etc. Cool. Pentecostals often kneel down and even lay on their faces. Maybe that doesn’t float your boat, but there is a TON of biblical support (in both the old and new testaments) for doing just that! I grew up in a Baptist church and had never bowed or knelt in worship until I came to college and saw other people doing it at a charismatic gathering.

I’m curious of how the word worship has evolved over the years from meaning ONLY bowing down to the fairly broad concept where bowing down is an optional activity that comes several bullet points after “singing”. I think the word “praise” (which I’ve completely skipped over up until this point) must be wrapped up in all of this too.

Conclusion for today: Bowing down before God is a physical action we can do that is most certainly worship to him. Let’s do it, eh?

Photo credit
Photo credit

Posted on

On Television

From Blue Like Jazz:

When you are a writer and a speaker, you aren’t supposed to watch television. It’s shallow. I feel guilty because for a long time I didn’t allow myself a television, and I used to drop that fact in conversation to impress people. I thought it made me sound dignified. A couple of years ago, however, I visited a church in the suburbs, and there was this blowhard preacher talking about how television rots your brain. He said that when we are watching television our minds are working no harder than when we are sleeping. I thought that sounded heavenly. I bought one that afternoon. (p.15)

I think I’m beginning to warm up to this perspective on television. TV was not really permitted when I grew up. I got to occasionally snag an episode of Duck Tales and if I was allowed to stay up, Star Trek: TNG. I used to love going to Grandma’s house. It was there I discovered Law and Order reruns on A&E. In college I watched absolutely nothing.

My wife and I have always owned a TV, but the only channel we get is PBS. This past year though, we have started watching Survivor online. I had never seen it before then. I was surprised to find that I enjoy it a lot. It’s especially nice being able to watch the episodes at any time with virtually no commercials on the CBS website. The current season is over, so now we have switched to it’s summer replacement, Pirate Master. The idea is really fun, but it just doesn’t work quite right. The cast has a high concentration of oddballs, the challenges are (so far) all the same, and there are no sea battles or sword play! There is however a real ship, sailing, treasure hunting, and rum. I want to see what happens, but unless it improves I doubt it will ever get past its maiden voyage.

Posted on

Defining Worship (Part 2): Dictionaries, love, and action.

It is curious to look at what professional lexicographers have to say about worship, without necessarily attaching things to their own tradition.

From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2006) via Dictionary.com:

noun
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
verb
6. to render religious reverence and homage to.
7. to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).

I think it is interesting here is #7. Feelings of adoration, but not necessarily tied to action. The others deal more with the external object. You revere God and SO you do something like proclaim it or participate in a formal ceremony honoring him. So, are you really worshipping if there is not visible outward action? If I love coffee, but never drink any, do I still love it? Well, I think the answer is yes. However, when you try to apply this same idea to religious works, things can get a bit sticky. If you love Jesus, but don’t turn from your sin and call him Lord, do you really love him? Our salvation is by grace alone, (HIS work), but it also implies action on our part (repentance). Theologians can bat this around the park all day. I think I’ll go get a hot dog.

Back to worship. How much is our worship to the Lord an outside action – something physical and tangible like the song we are singing, the candle we are burning, the the sacrifice on the altar, the bending of our knees? How much of it is what goes on inside us – our hearts loving, our emotions captured, our minds meditating on? One could say that they are just two components of worship: the internal and external. That’s pretty straight forward. Or you could say that what goes on inside is the source and it overflows as action with our bodies. So if you sing a worship song, but don’t “mean it” inside, is it really worship? I think most people would say no. (I say no too.) So if you don’t give a rip about Jesus, but go through the motions of a worship service, does this please God? I really doubt it. What if you feel love for God on the outside, but you never do anything (formal or informal) to render praise in a way that another human being would recognize? Probably not worship either. You could say, “Well, that is pointless, since if it was really in the heart, then it MUST come out somehow. Even if just a little bit. So there is not worship that is JUST inside.” I think I’ll say that too.

I would just like to add, that we should be careful to judge how worshipful someone is by looking on the outside. That’s what WE see, but the Lord looks at the heart. Someone may seem on the outside to not be worshipping very much or in a very potent way, maybe just kneeling in prayer. Another may be making quite an elaborate show, maybe singing and dancing and shouting or leading an elaborate ceremony with candles, robes, incense, and sophisticated music. Both may be worshiping with lots of energy and God may be pleased to receive it. But the Lord looks at the heart.

I like how the American Heritage dictionary brings “love” into the mix:

1. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
2. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.

So here, it is first the source, or feeling and then number 2 is the outward action. I think this definition is a lot more useful than the first one I looked at.

The Princeton dictionary (via WordNet) has a distinctly non-Christian feel to it:

noun
1. the activity of worshipping
2. a feeling of profound love and admiration

verb
1. love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol; “Many teenagers idolized the Beatles” [syn: idolize]
2. show devotion to (a deity); “Many Hindus worship Shiva”
3. attend religious services; “They worship in the traditional manner”

Why is this a non-Christian definition? It’s not just that Shiva is given as an example. Whatever. Look a little closer. The activity comes first. The metaphysical is given as secondary. Notice how in the verb it is simply “attending” worship services. All you have to do is show up. Finally, the first example of the verb given implies that when worshipping, you don’t question what you are doing, have not thought critically about it, and are doing it in excess. So a rock-band doesn’t deserve this kind of devotion, but I believe the author of this entry doesn’t think any god deserves it either.

For the flip side, let’s take a look at the classic Webster’s 1828:

noun
4. Chiefly and eminently, the act of paying divine honors to the Supreme Being; or the reverence and homage paid to him in religious exercises, consisting in adoration, confession, prayer, thanksgiving and the like.
(The worship of God is an eminent part of religion. Prayer is a chief part of religious worship.)
5. The homage paid to idols or false gods by pagans; as the worship or Isis.
6. Honor; respect; civil deference.
(Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. Luke 14.)
7. Idolatry of lovers; obsequious or submissive respect.verb
1. To adore; to pay divine honors to; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration. (Thou shalt worship no other God. Exodus 34.)
2. To respect; to honor; to treat with civil reverence.
3. To honor with extravagant love and extreme submission; as a lover.

Webster spends the first three sections (not shown) on the archaic definitions that we don’t use anymore (meaning worthiness, or the title of a certain British magistrate). Then he jumps into the actions, even giving specific examples. He ties outside worship to being a key component of religion. He also contrasts it with worship paid to things that don’t deserve it (idols and human lovers). In the verb though, I don’t think he is qualifying the love component. The love can be towards God too, but he would have thought “reverence” was a better word for what we feel toward Jesus. I like this one a lot!

I’m sure this could be explored a little more, but that’s all I have time for today.

Photo credit
Photo credit
Photo credit