HORIZONTAL COMMUNITY, NOT JUST VERTICAL WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

HORIZONTAL COMMUNITY, NOT JUST VERTICAL WORSHIP

            A growing concept, in recent decades, is that of vertical worship, i.e. worship occurs solely as a dialogue between God and individual worshiping. I do not deny that worship is vertical; nonetheless, it is not solely vertical, for there is also a horizontal aspect. By horizontal, I do not mean that God’s people worship each other or other earthly things; contrarily, I mean that the church corporately worships triune God. In fact, God has covenanted with a people more obviously than with individuals. While individuals comprise the body of Christ, the church exists as one body. The connection between worship and mission, corporate and personal happens in the sending; when the church is sent from the corporate worship gathering, God’s people begin a process of personal worship together. Thus, even in personal worship, there is a corporate aspect. To neglect the horizontal relationships shared between the people of God is to effectively become absorbed in self-seeking goals. Worship, however, is not self-seeking but looks first to the glory of God and second to the good of others. If worship were solely vertical, the ordinances would not only be corporate; therefore, private communion is not Communion at all; there is surely a horizontal obligation in worship. So as not to deny the vertical aspect of worship, for the following, I will assume the truth of vertical worship while concurrently providing a foundation for horizontal worship.

Worship Is Horizontal Because God Has Covenanted with a People Rather than Mere Individuals

            First, to argue that worship is simultaneously vertical and horizontal and not to neglect the horizontal aspect, I submit that God has covenanted with a people rather than mere individuals. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul discusses the redeemed people of God as many members of one body; yet, the emphasis is placed on one body more than many members, i.e. the body takes precedence over the individual members. Sarcastic and rhetorical pictures of body parts personified and speaking to other members of the body in their own will are indicative of the overall purpose of the body rather than individual members. In our self-absorption, we often speak of God’s will as it applies solely to our lives. Nonetheless, God does not have only a will for our lives but a will at-large which glorifies himself and brings him pleasure and a will into which each person in the covenanted body of Christ fits.

            In Exodus 2, God hears the cries of his people and responds to bring them out of the bondage of slavery. “…God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant…God saw the people of Israel – and God knew.” (Exod 2:24-25) The focal point of God’s response here is his covenant; he responded to his covenant, not purely the cries of his people. The various covenants of old between God and Abraham, Moses, David, and others were ultimately an extension of the overarching covenant of grace between himself and his people which was made permanent and perfect through the new covenant in Jesus Christ. The covenant, however, is with a people, not individuals.

            No child of God is born as a child of God but is rather adopted (Rom 8:15). As adopted people then, God has given us a part in his body. The link between this truth and worship then is that we worship not only as individuals but also (and even more) as a corporate body. Throughout Scripture, we are referred to in a plural sense but also as a singular body. We are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession.” (1 Pet 2:9) By God’s covenant with his people, we worship as a body, not solely as individuals. In this manner then, worship is not only vertical but horizontal. Picture a global redeemed people of God, the church, worshiping triune God. We might visually think of God’s people dialoging vertically; nevertheless, the body worshiping and proclaiming the story of God exists as a vertical body, i.e. the church is comprised of many people who form one living organism. God has covenanted with a people, not merely individuals. The worship we give triune God then is given together. We live together; we love together; we function together; and we worship together as the body of Christ.

Worship Is Horizontal Because It Declares the Gospel to Others

            My second argument for seeing worship through not only a vertical but also a horizontal lens is that worship declares the gospel to others. The tendency might be to consider the proclamation of the gospel for only those who do not know Christ; yet, the gospel should be proclaimed to everyone including those who already have a personal relationship with the Savior. The gospel should be proclaimed to the lost and continue being proclaimed to the church because it has not only been life-changing for God’s people but continues to be life-changing. Christians have repented but should continue repenting and need the gospel to do so.

            A constant declaration of the gospel should not be confused with seeker-sensitive worship if such a thing exists. God is the point of the gospel and is, in fact, the gospel himself. In declaring the gospel then, the church declares God. The gospel does not point first to the redemption of humankind but rather to the glory, fame, majesty, and worth of triune God, from which humankind’s redemption is derived. Surely, there is an evangelistic theme and aspect to worship by nature; yet, it is not seeker-sensitive. The point here is that the church worships to give glory to God by proclaiming his story. Worship declares the gospel not only to God but also to others, i.e. we continually declare the gospel to each other in corporate worship. Therefore, it is okay to sing songs about God as well as to him. If we desire to only sing to God, we have both missed the point and limited worship solely to music. A sermon or homily, for example, is also worship; yet, they are not preached to God but about him to God’s people. Worship declares the glory of God and proclaims the gospel message, through which God’s people are changed. The horizontal aspect here then is God’s people declaring the gospel to each other.

Worship Is Horizontal Because the Holy Spirit’s Work Is Horizontal

            The Holy Spirit’s work is fundamental to worship, for it is only in the power of the Spirit that God’s people approach the Father mediated through the Son. While God is the object of worship, we would be mistaken to consider ourselves as the subject, i.e. the one(s) at work. God is both object and subject; he is the one whom we worship and the one who works in our midst. In the triune Godhead, the Holy Spirit works among the people of God; thus, his work is horizontal. Preceded only by his love for both the Son and the Father, the Holy Spirit works in the church and out of love for her.

            The Holy Spirit is likely the most neglected person of the Godhead; yet, we must strive to change this. To ignore the doctrine of the Trinity (including the Holy Spirit) or to claim such a doctrine cannot be explained is a copout. Worship is triune in nature. God is triune and eternally exists as the Godhead, three in one: no hierarchy and no division but three distinct persons, co-equal and co-eternal with each other. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one with each other and equally worthy of worship. Neither is created, and all are equal in power and glory yet function in disparate manners in a specific Godhead order. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father. Yet, the Father is God; the Son is God; the Spirit is God; and all three persons eternally exist as one with each other. All three persons of the Trinity operate in a love relationship with one another yet as one God. The Father, out of love for the Son, has bequeathed a people to his Son; the Son, begotten of the Father as incarnate word and out of love for the Father has redeemed the people given to him through his death, burial, resurrection, and eventual return; the Spirit, eternally proceeding from both the Father and the Son (John 14:16, 16:7) and out of love for the Father and the Son, calls, guides, and convicts the redeemed people of God; through the distinct work of all three persons then, triune God is glorified. The church worships and lives in the power of the Holy Spirit, through Christ the mediator, to the glory of God the Father. One in love, glory, and power, a specific Godhead order is designed for the overarching and governing purpose of worship, namely the glory of God. One God, three distinct persons, God ordains all things, and in all things, the three persons of the Trinity, in love for one another, function to the glory of the triune God.

God is not distantly observing the worship from his people but instead is among and working in the bride of Christ, particularly through the work of the Spirit. If we focus solely on our individual selves without realizing God’s work among his people as a body, we fail to see not only the horizontal relationship and offering of love given by the church but also the work of the Holy Spirit among God’s people as a single unified body. God’s work is not merely in and for individuals but rather his own purposes manifested and carried out through the church. While it might be tempting to seek God’s will for our lives individually, we should understand that God has a supreme will, into which we individually fit. The Holy Spirit’s work then is among the people of God, not merely individual believers. Worship is not only vertical but also horizontal because the Holy Spirit’s work among the people of God is horizontal.

Worship Is Horizontal Because the Church Is the Body of Christ

            The body of Christ is most naturally a horizontal body, i.e. the church is comprised of relationships not only with and in Christ but also with each other. The church does not merely represent the body of Christ but literally is the body of Christ; we are his hands and feet (1 Cor 12:27). Perpetually unified in Jesus, the church possesses the sole ability and right to worship God; yet, it happens as a body, not as mere individuals.

            I submit that (corporate) worship forms people as individuals. Personal worship then is derived from corporate worship; the way people worship becomes the way they live their lives. In a cyclic manner, the church worships corporately and are, thus, formed individually as a part of the body of Christ and then glorify God together as a single unified body. Horizontal worship then lends itself to vertical worship presented to God by the church. Even in personal worship, God’s people (together) present their lives. In this manner, Christians do not go to church but are the church and the body and bride of Christ.

It Is about Horizontal Relationships

            It is not intended for us to live life alone; God has created us with individual purposes, subsequent to his governing purpose, namely his own glory. The church is a single unified body and worships as a single body. The key to unity is Jesus Christ and the shalom relationship which exists as a result. The church is a horizontal body comprised of horizontal relationships among the adopted people of God. Worship then is not solely vertical. In Christ Jesus, the horizontal nature of worship is evident. We must be faithful worshipers who do not neglect the horizontal; we must be people who understand that we do not go to church as if it is a place but (collectively) are the church.

MORE THAN MEETS THE EAR: VERNACULAR JARGON'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ETHOS OF WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

MORE THAN MEETS THE EAR: VERNACULAR JARGON’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ETHOS OF WORSHIP

            The ethos of the modern church, particularly in western society, seemingly involves a catering to the culture for a plurality of underlying reasons. The strong belief in the use of vernacular language stemming from the Reformation era has drastically changed in its purpose. Where Reformers desired for communities of God’s people to possess the ability to worship in their own language and, thus, experience a greater effect in life-change, the tendency of modern churches’ use of vernacular language appears to be founded upon the desires of people (lost or saved) rather than the worship of God.

            I will discuss vernacular jargon, specifically lingo, and its contribution to the ethos of worship in modern society. Worship leaders often see themselves as indirect theologians and theological teachers when instead the view should foster teaching in a direct manner, i.e. worship leaders should be intentional and purposeful with the lingo they choose to use. Lingo teaches ideas, concepts, and even theologies whether realized or not. One can certainly say, “Well, they know what I mean.” I would, however, respond with, “Do they?” When worship leaders use terms such as stage and setlist, many people’s minds automatically create an association with worship. Since a worship leader’s context is the local church (not a concert setting), jargon such as stage and setlist is naturally associated with worship, although it should not be, which is why leaders should be careful to be intentional, pointed, and clear with the lingo used. Every single word used in the context of corporate worship (quite literally) has an either intended or unintended implication.

            I suggest here that lingo has become one of the most neglected aspects of corporate worship. Even Reformation era theologians, in their desire to cultivate communities of worship through understandable language,[1] had, at the center, a desire to worship God rather than to cater to societal norms. Lingo then is more than meets the ear. In fact, what is heard is surface level; what is experienced and internalized both mentally and emotionally is at the root of the issue. Lingo should not be neglected. We should not shift back to language which is difficult to understand; yet, those who lead the church in worship should take seriously their call to cultivate worshipers of God, not merely congregants who understand theological concepts, albeit in an inaccurate frame. Lingo, therefore, should not be neglected, negated, or de-emphasized but rather intentional.

Lingo Has Unintentional Implications that Should Be Intentional

            The underpinning of the issue is not necessarily lingo itself but the lack of intentionality behind it. I have personally had worship leaders tell me that they are not theological teachers. Realize it or not, worship leaders teach theology. Many people think of theology as deep and profound topics about God; yet, theology can be simple. When someone tells a child that Jesus loves him or her and the Bible says so, they are teaching theology. Similarly, when a worship leader sings, “Hallelujah! All I have is Christ,” they are teaching theology. Theological teaching happens week in and week out, day in and day out, often without realizing it. The issue, however, is that we should realize it.

            Throughout church history, much theology has been derived from congregational music, particularly in eras and societies where illiteracy was rampant. Music then became not only a mode of worship but also a tool for theological instruction. Western society is largely literate; nevertheless, the music and lingo used in worship teach believers theological concepts and ideas, right or wrong. Worship leaders should realize this aspect of ministry and strive then for intentionality.

            The copout argument is that much of what people criticize is semantics. I usually push back on such a suggestion, however, because of an intentional attitude geared toward proper teaching. Even the most miniscule difference in language can have a profound impact. For example, one has a choice to teach that people either receive Christ or accept Christ. I do not intend to argue for one or the other here (although I have an opinion on this phrase) but rather to point to the difference between the two. Depending on your theological persuasion, you should likely choose one word or the other. A semantics argument would suggest that the two words possess the same meaning; deliberation, however, would realize that there is not only a subtle but a vast difference.

Many worship leaders do not understand the effect lingo has on those to whom they minister. The effect, however, is present whether intended or not; it is inevitable. A semantics argument often lends itself to apathetic lingo. Scripture commands Christians to constantly be prepared to give a defense of the faith (1 Pet 3:25). Additionally, we are commanded to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31). If the glory of God is the pointed goal of all we do, why would we not strive for excellence in all areas of life and especially in the lingo used in corporate worship? To write off lingo is to effectively write off our call to excellence as believers.

A lackadaisical attitude has yielded an overarching neglect of lingo in the church. Certainly, lingo should be understandable, accessible, and contextual; nonetheless, lingo should not be unintentional. Upon the basis of the unescapable effect of lingo, worship leaders have a choice to either steer that effect with intentionality or risk improper teaching with unintentionality. To be faithful to the call is to be faithful to the message and treat it with utmost respect and reverence.

Lingo Matters Because Scripture Matters

            God was pointed and intentional in inspiring the text of Scripture. Original language texts are intentional; scribal editions are intentional; and modern vernacular translations are intentional. Why then would we not be intentional with the lingo we use in corporate worship? We should not dare say that the text of the Bible is comprised of merely semantics-based concepts. Either Scripture is the inspired word of God or it is not. If the Bible is truly inspired by triune God, then every word matters. Worship leaders should teach the same truths as presented in the Bible. Since every single word of Scripture should be scrutinized and treated with greatest care, why should we not manage lingo with the same care? Lingo is a tool to teach the authoritative message of the gospel found in Scripture. Therefore, lingo matters because Scripture matters.

            Throughout the centuries, scribes, translators, ministers, and teachers have been diligent to reverently and carefully submit the gospel message of the Bible to the church. Feeble attempts to stamp out Christianity have been made throughout history. Persecution in the early church simply allowed Christianity to disperse to other parts of the world. Before Constantine (306-336 AD), Diocletian (244-312 AD), tried to rid the world of the Bible even decreeing that if someone was found with one copy of the word of God, they would be killed. When Constantine became a Christian, he offered a financial reward for copies of the Bible, and within a day, fifty copies were brought to him, thus the word of God continued.[2]

Voltaire, the noted French infidel, who died in 1778, made his attempt to destroy the Bible. He boldly made the prediction that within one hundred years the Bible and Christianity would have been swept from existence into oblivion. But Voltaire's efforts and his bold prophecy failed as miserably as did those of his unbelieving predecessors. In fact, within 100 years, the very printing press upon which Voltaire used…was being used to print copies of the Bible. And afterward, the very house in which the boasting Voltaire had lived, was literally stacked with Bibles prepared by the Geneva Bible Society. Voltaire…had miserably failed.[3]

If Scripture matters this much, why should our methods of teaching Scripture not matter as much? The Bible is not just semantics; why then would the lingo we use be merely semantics? If the gospel message matters, lingo matters; if Scripture matters, lingo matters.

To Declare the Full Counsel of God, Even Vernacular Lingo Must Be Accurate

            Worship leaders must remember the underlying reason for vernacular language: so that the full counsel of God might be declared and understood in the church. Vernacular language and lingo should not exist for the sole purpose of colloquial understanding, appearing to be in touch with modern society, or even only relating to current trends. Vernacular language exists for the purpose of worship. The gospel message should be declared and understood by the people of God; thus, the message should be accurate. While vernacular (and even colloquial) lingo can be a vital tool to proclaim God’s story, accuracy should be prioritized.

            Vernacular language is not the issue. In fact, vernacular language helps everyone in a congregation understand the gospel better; yet, the full counsel of God should be understood rather than a partial counsel of God. While many believers might be tempted to write off the idioms used in corporate worship, what is said is vital to an accurate message. If one chooses to approach lingo as if it is not important, the risk is taken of submitting a false gospel.

One could teach that God helps those who help themselves without realizing that such a concept is nowhere in the Bible. It sounds spiritual to many people and could be considered biblical truth, but it is not. Even upon discovering its absence from the Bible, one could argue, “Well, you know what I mean,” or, “It is not a big deal.” Moreover, one could argue that such a concept could be true depending on the perspective. The overwhelming truth, however, is that the concept is not true irrespective of the perspective. Thus, to teach the concept is truth is to not only neglect the full counsel of God but to also teach a false gospel.

While my final statement here may seem drastic, it is the necessary approach of one who takes the gospel message seriously. Surely, believers can and should use understandable lingo and jargon; yet, jargon’s contribution to the ethos of corporate worship exists naturally. One’s theological beliefs and ideas are often embedded through the lingo of corporate worship. A starting point would be for Christians to move beyond embedded theology into deliberative theology. The proper mindset should also be continued, however, with worship leaders’ purposeful efforts to proclaim the full (and accurate) counsel of God in corporate worship, which could likely require a change in some of the lingo used. Lingo is often neglected in corporate worship; yet, to declare the full counsel of God, even vernacular communication must be accurate.

Lingo Matters Because Worship Is about God, Not Humanity

            The purpose of Christ’s incarnation is frequently understood in the context of a vertical relationship between Jesus Christ and his bride, the church. The proper relational understanding, however, should first and foremost be as a triune love relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit and secondarily as a love relationship between Christ and the church. Out of love for the Son, the Father has gifted a people, namely the church; out of love for the Father, the Son is incarnate word and has given his life for the people whom he has been given and loves yet primarily out of love for the Father;[4] and out of love for both the Father and the Son, the Spirit calls, convicts, and guides the people of God. The vertical relationship between God and his people then is subsequent to and derived from the horizontal and triune love relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit. In this way, lingo matters because worship is about God, not humanity.

            The lingo employed in corporate worship should serve the purpose of worship, namely glorifying God. If it does not, i.e. if it exists to make people feel better, the point is missed. Lingo should not be random, unintentional, or undirect no matter how sincere we might consider a lack of preparation to be. Most people would usually not approach a judge or someone else of noble position and prestige without a plan. Language would not flippant but would rather be as clear and precise as possible. Why would we approach the creator differently (except that we approach him in an even more reverent manner)? While we should strive for understandability, we should also strive for accuracy.

            When God’s people realize that worship is not about them but about triune God, the perspective drastically changes. Human desires, understandings, and feelings become secondary or even negated when God’s pleasure becomes the goal of corporate worship. If worship leaders approach lingo in this manner, while understandability is still vital, precision is also important; thus, every word is not seen as semantical but rather as a crucial tool for proclaiming God’s story. Lingo then should be used yet never neglected.

The Issue Is Apathy

            Worship-related lingo did not become neglected overnight. Rather, where we are as the church has resulted from years of apathy, which I submit is the issue at large. Where pre-Reformation era clergymen regularly exercised legalistic language in such a way that the layperson rarely understood it and, thus, was not able to participate in corporate worship, modern churches have become lazy in their approach to lingo, i.e. it is common for ministers and laypersons alike to write off and criticize an intentional effort to theological precision in lingo. I will reemphasize the fact that understandable lingo is vital to the corporate worship experience. This is why we worship in the vernacular rather than another language such as Latin. I do not believe, however, that the Reformers’ intended trajectory of vernacular language was apathy but far from it. We can reasonably conclude that the church has veered off course.

            Faithful Christians have likely experienced apathetic lingo, although those who hold a high view of the language used in worship likely notice it more. Irreverent prayers that address triune God as Daddy[5] or the big guy in the sky might seem personal and sincere; yet, they are (unintentionally perhaps) discourteous at best. God is unquestionably a personal God to his people as both individuals and as a covenanted body; he is also, however, indisputably, sovereign, holy, and larger than a friend we can carry in our pockets like a small pet. Irreverent and thoughtless lingo should not be accepted by Christians, especially those in worship leadership.

            I recall a recent moment in corporate worship when I heard someone pray, “Father, thank you for dying for our sins.” On the surface, such a statement might seemingly make sense to many people. To many believers, it seems like a good thing to give thanks to the Father for dying for the sins of the church except for one neglected but vitally important fact; the Father did not die for anyone’s sins; that was the Son. A common response might be, “Well, they are both God,” or (again), “Well, you know what is meant.” Again, however, do I? A greater question would be this: does the one praying such a phrase understand what they are saying or understand trinitarian theology at all? This is thoughtless lingo. Years upon years of apathy have led us to where we are: a place of theological neglect in the lingo we use. We are here; now, in the power of the Holy Spirit, we must fix it.

The Solution Is Intentionality

            I do not intend to solely offer criticisms here but also solutions. The solution for neglected lingo then is intentionality. There is nothing inherently wrong with using the term, stage, instead of platform or to speak of the music during corporate worship as a setlist; it is not sinful. I would suggest, however, that such terms are reckless and exude unintended associations among believers and further contribute to the false equation of music and worship. Worship leaders should strive to cut such ties and teach the church that music is not equal to worship. This is one example of many; the point I submit, nonetheless, is that intentionality is fundamental. Each and every word used of the lingo used in the context of worship possesses meaning and furnishes either intended or unintended implications. Intentionality looks disparate between various worshiping contexts; yet, it is vital in each. A progressive free church holds the same responsibility of intentionality as a strict liturgical church. Leaders of worship should examine every word spoken in worship. If that means over-planning, then over-plan; if that means scripting, then script. Whatever it takes, may God’s people be faithful to his call, his glory, and the gospel message, God’s story, declared clearly and accurately in understandable lingo.

---

[1] Prior to the Protestant Reformation, liturgies were conducted and almost solely in Latin, a language that many laypeople could not fully understand. Thus, a transition to the vernacular was necessary and allow congregants to not only worship in their own language but to also understand the gospel message and story being proclaimed in corporate worship.

[2] Cecil Willis, “The Indestructability of the Bible,” Truth Magazine XIX 31, accessed April 25, 2017, http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume19/TM019211.html.

[3] Ibid.

[4] In the Garden of Gethsemane (among other places in Scripture), Jesus selflessly prays, “…not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke 22:42)

[5] While Abba was certainly a term employed by children to refer to their fathers in ancient Hebrew culture, it was also a term used by adults and, therefore, not equivalent of the English word, Daddy.

A HOLY KISS: GREETING AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

A HOLY KISS: GREETING AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP

            One of the seemingly most despised moments during a weekly worship gathering is the greeting time. I have personally observed the woes of many who are opposed to greeting one another during corporate worship and, in fact, used to be one of those people. Yet, my heart and mind began to change on the issue when I realized the underpinning on which such an act is built, namely the kiss of peace.

Paul instructs believers to greet one another with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16). The significance is not found in the act of kissing itself but rather in the adjective which proceeds it: holy. Built upon the truth that God’s people are holy and set apart, the weekly greeting should be viewed not as a regrettable act but as a sacred act. More than a mere greeting, the act is sacred because the people of God are sacred and called to holiness. When one’s attitude shifts from greeting with a kiss to greeting with a holy kiss, the act becomes not merely a kind gesture but an act of worship. To discuss how to approach the kiss of peace in a modern context, I suggest five imperatives of which believers should be mindful.

  

A Holy (Not Ordinary) Act

            Paul’s instructions emphasize the holiness of the act of greeting, i.e. he does not instruct believers to merely greet one another with a kiss but with a holy kiss,[1] meaning an act set apart and ordained by God in holiness. The act of greeting one another in the name of the Lord is a holy act; it is set apart. When Christians move beyond understanding greeting one another in worship to be a meager kind gesture and to a place of understanding it to be a sacred act of worship, by necessitation, the attitude changes. The foundation of the act of sacred greeting (the kiss of peace) is not kindness but unity in Christ. Called and covenanted by God himself, the church possesses the unique unity and holiness that cannot exist apart from Jesus; the church has been given the sole right to commune with triune God; thus, the kiss of peace is a holy and set apart act which symbolizes such unity and holiness.

The Church’s Holy Calling

            Scripture refers to the people of God as a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a chosen nation, a people for God’s own possession who are called to proclaim the excellencies of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 2:9). The key here is that the church is called and set apart by God. Greeting one another with a kiss of peace then symbolizes this truth. A lack of understanding about the holy calling of God’s people has surely contributed to the diminishing of the kiss of peace. While the common form of greeting in western culture does not usually include kissing, greeting one another as an act of worship is yielded from a proper understanding of identity in Christ. We are chosen, called, and set apart; therefore, greeting one another as such a people recognizes and symbolizes this unique character. The church’s calling is holy; so also is the act of greeting in worship.

The Intentionality of Realizing the Holy Kiss

            When the foundation of holiness is realized by God’s people, greeting as an act of worship becomes more intentional, i.e. greeting in any form (shaking hands, hugging, first-bumps, etc.) becomes more than merely catching up on the previous week. Paul assures God’s people that the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard their hearts and minds (Phil 4:7). When we greet one another with a holy (set apart) kiss (or other gesture), we are expressing our unity and love in the peace of Christ. Thus, it is not uncommon for some local churches to pass the peace of Christ. When a church is instructed to pass the peace, the act then is intentional and employed as an act of worship. Such an act is focused on God’s glory rather than human individuals. If churches and individuals view greeting as an ordinary hello instead of a sacred act of worship, the depth and richness of worshiping God through the kiss of peace will not manifest. God’s people should be intentional about the attitude of greeting and, thus, the mode in which they greet one another, for it certainly is worship.

The Historic Act of Passing the Peace

            Liturgies throughout the centuries have included some form of greeting, passing the peace, or the kiss of peace. In fact, in early ecclesiastical contexts, the act was literally a kiss. A common form of greeting in New Testament and early church eras, kissing expressed not only brotherly love and devotion but was also utilized when the Holy Spirit played a significant role.[2] There were various forms of kissing, e.g. rubbing noses;[3] nonetheless, the intent was to present an intimate expression. Even breathing was a form of kissing in the New Testament period.[4] Jesus said to his disciples, “Peace be with you,” and then breathed on them saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:21-23). The breathing here might be considered a form of kissing and, thus, a holy kiss of peace.

            For these reasons, although the form of greeting has certainly been adapted to the culture over the years, liturgies through the centuries have included the kiss of peace. God has used such richness in corporate worship. I am personally reminded of a situation where a man was convicted through the liturgy during the kiss of peace. The man had been unfaithful to his wife so during the kiss of peace, he could not, with a clean conscience, say to her, “May the peace of Christ dwell with you.” The Holy Spirit used the sacred act of passing the peace among a holy people to convict him. When we realize that we are acting in holiness through greeting one another, our hearts cannot help but be renewed and concurrently convicted, for only in right standing with God can Christians truly be conduits of the peace of Christ.

The kiss of peace has been present in the church for centuries; it was not an act derived from modern innovations to reach people or make them feel welcome in worship gatherings. Indeed, the kiss of peace has been used as an act of worship through the church’s history. We also should faithfully heed the biblical instructions to greet one another with a holy kiss.

A Modern Context but the Same Concept

            In a modern context, kissing is usually not the common manner to greet one another. Viewing Paul’s instructions in a contextual light, we can adapt our mode of greeting to a handshake, fist-bump, hug, or another action. The context might be different; nevertheless, the concept is the same. We are the people of God set apart for his good works and his glory. The church, therefore, should not greet one another in corporate worship as anyone else would on a daily basis. We do not greet one another to simply offer an empty hello; rather, we greet in the peace of Christ with one another’s best interest at heart. While the context has changed, the concept has not. We participate in a holy act, not an ordinary one.

Do Not Diminish the Kiss of Peace

            Vital to the church is the unity and peace in Christ, which we possess because of him and not apart from him. Without a proper understanding of identity, e.g. a holy and chosen people, the church cannot fully understand the foundation of our weekly greetings. The purpose of greeting is not to make people feel more comfortable or welcome but to worship triune God. As a people set apart by Christ and found in his peace, we should not diminish the act of greeting but should instead resolve to worship God through it. With an intentionality toward holiness, the redeemed people of God are given the governing responsibility of worship. In all acts then, including greeting one another, may we worship our Lord and Savior in his peace, as the bride of Christ, and with a fervent realization of what we do when we greet one another in the name of the Lord.

---

[1] Kissing was a common form of greeting in the New Testament and Patristic era. It should be understood to be like the western culture handshake or hug.

[2] See S. Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1984).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

MORE THAN A SNACK: RECOVERING THE VITALITY OF THE LORD'S TABLE

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

MORE THAN A SNACK: RECOVERING THE VITALITY OF THE LORD’S TABLE

            Recent personal discussions and observations of Eucharistic practices have made it abundantly clear to me that the vitality of the Lord’s Supper must be recovered in the church. I believe most local churches’ view of the Lord’s Table has veered so far off course that a track toward recovery is necessary. Not only do Pew and Barna statistics reveal a lack of deep spirituality in the church, but my own (and others’) personal observations have led me to this conclusion. Communion is not an option for the believer, i.e. it is a command and a crucial command at that; yet, many local churches seem to diminish the importance of the ordinance. Thus, those who hear my call right now, let us faithfully begin to recover the vitality and fundamental importance of the Lord’s Table in our local churches, for recovering can only happen in local churches.

            My personal conviction of the importance of the Lord’s Table has greatly increased over the past four years. Before beginning a process of recovery, we must understand why the vitality must be recovered. I would like to discuss the vitality of the Lord’s Table in a succinct and concise manner. I have four thoughts I would like to expound upon to argue for the vitality of the Lord’s Table and its recovery.

Is It Really That Important? Yes, in Fact, It Is

            Recent comments I have heard regarding the Lord’s Table are similar to what follows:

            The Lord’s Supper is not worship.

            The Lord’s Supper is just ritual.

            If the Lord’s Supper is becoming routine and people are disliking it, you are doing it too often.

            While these statements are not verbatim, they are close to what I have heard and observed, even sadly from pastors. The apathy revealed in these thoughts and statements significantly clarifies that the vitality of Communion has been lost and must be recovered.

            What I mean by vitality is the strength, energy, and necessity of the Lord’s Table. Some might suggest that the vitality of the Table is found in Christ’s command; others might suggest anamnesis or remembrance; still, others might even suggest the presence of Christ during the ordinance (or sacrament for those who operate from a sacramental tradition). I do not argue for one or the other but for all, as I often do with many theological realities. I remember my grandmother making a cake when I was a child and letting me lick and eat the chocolate frosting from the bowl after the cake contents were put into the oven for baking. I have often asked people before if I ate the cake when I licked and ate the frosting. Some say yes; some say no. The answer, however, is both. Every reason for observing the Lord’s Supper builds the ordinance’s foundational vitality; thus, the vitality of the Table is found in anamnesis, Christ’s command, the presence of Christ, and the reality of what Communion represents and in which Christians live.

            Historically, the Lord’s Table has been a weekly part of the church’s corporate worship gathering since the early church. Only in recent centuries has a weekly observation of the Table been lost. Moreover, the church has seen the Table to be the pinnacle of corporate worship, i.e. communion with Christ represented in the Eucharist should be the center-point of corporate worship. Even early Reformed theologians and churches placed great emphasis on the Lord’s Table in such a way that some type of confession or even church discipline was stalwartly tied to the Table. The Lord’s Supper then has historically been a significant portion of corporate worship. It should be obvious that the vitality of the Lord’s Table is no longer what it once was. I have a few suggestions for how I think the church (largely) lost the vitality of the Lord’s Table.

An overemphasis on evangelistic-minded corporate worship. In recent centuries, corporate worship, for many churches, has become primarily a time for evangelism. Worship is designed for God’s people, not the lost; the lost have no ability to worship God. Certainly, there is an evangelistic aspect to corporate worship. Nonetheless, we should not design our services and liturgies primarily to reach lost people; rather, they should be designed to worship God, which means that whether lost people are comfortable with Communion or not, it should not be neglected, for it is a vital part of worship.

An overemphasis on the sermon as the most important aspect of corporate worship. The Reformation saw a revival of the sermon. Sermons became longer and deeper in content, the effects of which are still present today. The sermon is crucial; yet, it is not the most important part of the worship service. I believe this mindset has contributed to wrongly equating music with worship and diminishing the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper. Often, people think that music is used to set up the sermon as a precursor; we should rid ourselves of this mentality, for all parts of corporate worship are pieces of the whole and should not be either more or less important than each other. The Lord’s Supper then is equally as important.

Connecting the Eucharist solely to Catholic tradition and liturgy. Modern Protestants and Evangelicals often make the mistake of connecting a high view of Communion with Catholicism. I experienced this personally when a local pastor asked if the Baptist church I attend is Catholic because of our weekly observance of Communion. Not only is a view like this wrong, it further weakens the appropriate view of the Lord’s Table placed in a high position.

Catering to individuals’ personal preferences rather than Christ’s command. To reach the lost, many modern churches have become perceptive more to the desires of the world than to the command of Christ. When Jesus commanded his disciples (including us) to partake of Communion in remembrance of him (Luke 22:19), he was serious, which is why the church has historically, until recent years, observed the Table weekly.[1] In an attempt not to offend lost people who might attend corporate worship gatherings, many churches have lessened the interval in which they observe the Table, waned the mode of Communion, or even rid themselves of the ordinance completely. I recently heard of a church that gave their congregants crackers and a cup of juice as they were leaving; that was their thought of Communion. I was stunned that anyone could ever justify such an action and offended by the lack of sincerity. Whether or not people feel comfortable observing the Table, it is a command of Christ. Not realizing this has surely contributed to a loss of the ordinance’s vitality.

Anamnesis Alone Is Thin

            My common experience and the experience of other Evangelicals with which I have discussed this matter has been a Lord’s Supper founded only on anamnesis, i.e. we partake only to remember. Such a view diminishes the importance of the Lord’s Table. We must see the ordinance for what it is in every way and be intentional about how we discuss and participate in Communion. Therefore, I suggest that anamnesis alone is far too thin. To further illustrate this notion, I will examine four truths of the Lord’s Table, each comprising a foundation more secure than remembrance alone.

Communion Is Experience

            A particularly detrimental way the vitality of the Lord’s Table has been diminished is by considering it to be a mere act of obedience, i.e. it is considered not to be a genuine experience. The ordinance of Communion not only remembers Jesus Christ but also participates with him. Paul asks two rhetorical questions: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Cor 10:16)[2] Scripture is replete with instructions to share in the body and sufferings of Christ, e.g. 1 Pet 4:13. Thus, our call as Christians is not only to remember Christ’s death but to also participate in it.

The Lord’s Table then not only symbolizes but also realizes our participation; it is an experience rather than merely an act and, thus, not void of reality. In fact, in our very obedience to Christ’s command, we live in the reality of participation with him. Christ is present during the Lord’s Table. How his presence is manifested is a topic of discussion for another time; yet, his presence must be understood by each local church. We participate with Christ and with each other, which is why Communion cannot and should not be taken only as individuals, couples, or families; it is a corporate act. We commune with God and he with us. Hence the common name given of Communion. The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is experience.

Communion Is Reality

            Not only is Communion experience, it is also reality. We not only remember that Christ’s body was broken and his blood shed on our behalf, we also realize the reality that he is still the mediator and substitutionary atonement for the sin of his people. The price of the cross has been paid once and for all; yet, it fully satisfies God’s wrath for all eternity never to be needed again. In many liturgical contexts, the oblation is the offering of the gifts (the bread and cup) to God the Father. Remembrance then is not only for the church but also for God. It is not as if God forgets; nevertheless, the body and blood of Jesus Christ eternally stands as our defense. As such, Communion serves as a present reality rather than merely remembering the past. Christ lives and still serves as our mediator and our substitutionary atonement. We rest assured of this and now live in joyful participation in his life.

Communion Gives Thanks

            It is not uncommon for some local churches to refer to the Lord’s Supper as the Great Thanksgiving. Eucharist might be a familiar term to many; it is derived from the Greek word, eucharisto, which means to give thanks. The Eucharist then gives thanks to God. It might be easy to neglect thanksgiving as a significant portion of the Lord’s Table by merely remembering. If we truly remember, however, should we not also give thanks? Jesus’ sacrifice, continued incarnation and mediation on behalf of his people, and his eventual return assuring victory in his name demands thanksgiving. More than anamnesis alone then, Communion gives thanks.

Communion Remembers Not Only Jesus’ Death but Also His Resurrection and Return

            Finally, to illustrate how Communion is more than mere remembrance, I suggest also that Communion remembers all aspects of Jesus Christ including his resurrection and return. If we only remember the death of Christ and not his resurrection, we exercise futility, for we have no hope of a returning Savior. Certainly, Jesus’ command heavily involves remembrance; yet, anamnesis alone is a thin way to view the Lord’s Table, i.e. there is more than anamnesis alone.

In Paul’s instructions, we are reminded that we partake of the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Christ yet also proclaiming his death until his return (1 Cor 11:26). Thus, the Table recognizes not only Christ’s death but also his continued incarnation and his return. To remember his death alone negates the purpose of his death, namely the salvation of his bequeathed people (from the Father) for the glory of God. We are commanded to remember; nonetheless, remembrance is not limited to Christ’s death alone but every aspect of his salvific work prior to the cross, on the cross, and after the cross, i.e. the Lord’s Supper is an experience, not merely an empty act that believers employ on the sole basis of command; we live in the reality of the Table daily. Christ will return for his people; we should live in the reality and hope of this truth and remember not only what Christ did but also what he is currently doing and what he will do. Communion is more than mere anamnesis.

This Again?

            One of the most common criticisms I have heard regarding Communion is the interval of time between each instance of the ordinance. I have found that most churches who observe the ordinance weekly place a higher importance on the Lord’s Table; I do not think this is coincidence, for we are formed by how we worship. Jesus was serious when he commanded his disciples (and subsequently the church) to partake of the Table in remembrance of him. The church, since the first century, has observed Communion weekly. Some might argue that there is not a prescribed interval of time to observe the Lord’s Supper. There certainly is not an explicit command. I would, however, push back on the notion that an interval of time is not mentioned in Scripture. The early church is seen to hold the Lord’s Table every time they met (Acts 2:42). Ray Van Neste suggests that the early church’s devotion to breaking bread and the wording in Acts 2:42 suggests that Communion occurred whenever they gathered.[3] Additionally, “one of the most striking references to the frequency of the Lord’s Supper occurs in Acts 20:7: “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread…”[4]

            While it could surely be argued that the Bible does not explicitly command local churches to observe the Lord’s Table weekly, why would we not? Scripture does not prescribe an interval of time for baptism (the other ordinance) or some other acts, e.g. preaching, singing, or even acts outside of corporate worship such as witnessing; yet, most people have no problem with weekly singing or preaching or even daily personal evangelism. If one thinks the other acts I have mentioned are more important than Communion, it further illustrates the loss of vitality in the church. The tie between frequency and view seems to be cyclic; the more frequently a church observes the Table, the more important it becomes, and the more important it becomes, the more frequent a church will observe the ordinance of Communion. The opposite could be true as well.

            Historically and biblically, the Lord’s Table has been observed weekly. When congregants question the frequency of the Lord’s Table as if it is employed too often, the problem does not lie in the ordinance but rather in the heart of the person. To suggest that taking the Lord’s Supper weekly is too often and lessens its importance is to also suggest that the same is true for other weekly acts such as preaching and music or even the entire worship service itself. The problem then is not Communion but the individual hearts of the people. Moreover, my experience (and the experience of many others with which I have discussed this issue) has been the opposite of the claim such a person might make. Rather than asking why we observe the Table so often, we should be eternally thankful that we have the privilege to participate with Christ in such a frequent manner.

The Lord’s Supper Has Nothing to Do with Evangelism. Isn’t That Our Real Purpose?

            A different type of argument I have heard for not having the Lord’s Supper frequently (and, thus, diminishing its vitality) is that the ordinance has nothing to do with evangelism, which is the church’s real purpose. In response, I would first suggest that the Lord’s Supper has everything to do with evangelism and secondly that the church’s governing purpose is not evangelism but worship, namely glorifying God.

            Believers are usually okay with weekly baptisms, at least from what I have observed. I think this is because baptism, in most people’s minds, symbolizes salvation; thus, when one is baptized, they have come to know Christ. Communion, however, also symbolizes salvation. I have previously, on many occasions, suggested that there is really one ordinance, namely Jesus, manifested in two different ways: participation in his body (Communion) and participation in his death (baptism). When one participates in Communion, he or she is a participant in his body, the church, meaning that such a person is a child of God. If the purpose of evangelism is to bring people to a place of worship, which is the governing call of God’s people, then one’s participation in Communion recognizes that people have come to that point. Communion then has everything to do with evangelism. Yet, we must keep in mind that evangelism in and of itself is not the overriding purpose of the church; worship is. If we continue to see worship as substandard to evangelism and missions, we will further diminish not only its importance but also the importance of the Lord’s Table. As an act of worship, Communion is vital.

More than a Snack

            The Lord’s Table is not a snack but a meal in which God’s people spiritually feast on Jesus Christ. While the vitality of the Lord’s Table has largely been lost in recent decades, it can be and must be recovered. Without a proper realization of the vitality of the Lord’s Table, the ordinance will perpetually diminish. It is not the job of the pastor to recover its vitality but every believer in every local church. We should begin with not only frequency but also knowing, in our hearts and minds, how important the ordinance of Communion is. Let us faithfully carry out the task of remembering Jesus Christ, every aspect of his life and ministry and continued work in our own lives. Let us recover the vitality of the Lord’s Table.

---

[1] Robert E. Webber, Planning Blended Worship (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 21.

[2] All biblical references are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.

[3] Ray Van Neste, “Three Arguments for Weekly Communion,” The Gospel Coalition, accessed September 3, 2018, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/three-arguments-for-weekly-communion/.

[4] Ibid.