Gospel-Centered Congregational Worship (Part One)
August 21st, 2006I often wonder what Christians are actually thinking about worship as they worship together through the singing of hymn texts, the giving of offerings, the responsive reading of Scripture, etc. If we could quietly pull a few aside who are engaged in these corporate expressions of worship to ask them what they think worship is, I wonder what they might say. I wonder if their answers would be more man-centered than God-centered. In A Passion for Christ: The Vision that Ignites Ministry, James B. Torrance suggests that more answers would come out on the man-centered side than they would on the God-centered side. Torrance believes that there is one particular view of worship that seems to dominate the evangelical landscape, namely, that worship is something which we do in response to who God is and what He’s done. Although that view appears God-centered at first look, when it’s really examined its true man-centered colors begin to show. He describes the thinking behind this view like this:
We go to Church, we sing our psalms to God, we intercede…, we listen to the sermon (too often simply an exhortation), we offer our money, time and talents to God. No doubt we need God’s grace to help us do it; we do it because Jesus taught us to do it and left us an example to show us how to do it. But worship is what WE do (36).
How many within evangelical churches would describe corporate worship in this way? Worship, after all, is a response to God, our response to God, is it not? In worship we offer to God that which He rightly deserves, correct? Torrance argues that this way of thinking “falls short of the New Testament understanding of participation through the Spirit in what Christ has done and in what Christ is doing for us in our humanity. It is human-centered.” (38). He adds:
Its weakness is that it falls short of an adequate understanding of the role of the vicarious humanity of Christ (emphasis mine) and of the Spirit in our worship of the Father - of why Christ became man for us and our salvation (38).
(If you want to hear an entire sermon that considers the significance of the vicarious humanity of Christ for Christian living / worship, check out my audio sermon here.) Torrance is essentially arguing that the dominant view of worship fails to give the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious humanity its rightful place. It is a view that has lost sight , in many (most?) cases, not of Christ’s vicarious death but of His vicarious humanity, his vicarious life. Sure, our church may sing songs about Christ, corportately read biblical texts that explicitly reference Christ, and listen to sermons that speak of Christ, but if our understanding of corporate worship centers on what we do in response to what God has done, it’s really not as gospel-centered as we think it is. Torrance writes:
Although [this view] stresses how God comes to meet us in Christ, the movement from us to God is still our movement, our faith, our response (emphasis mine)! This theology short-circuits the vicarious humanity of Christ and belittles union with Christ. While it seems to emphasize the vicarious work of Christ on the cross to bring forgiveness and make our faith a real human possibility, it fails to see the place of the High Priesthood of Christ as the One who leads our worship, bears our sorrows on his heart and intercedes for us, presenting us to the Father in himself as God’s dear children and uniting us with himself in his life in the Spirit.
To reduce worship to this two-dimensional thing (God and ourselves today) is to imply that God throws us back on ourselves to make our response, and to ignore the fact that God has already provided for us that Response which alone is acceptable to him - the Offering made for humankind in the life, obedience and passion of Jesus Christ. But is this not to lose the comfort and peace of the Gospel, as well as the secret of true Christian prayer as the gift of sharing in the intercessions of Christ, that we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit makes intercession for us? Whatever else our faith is, it is a response to a Response already made for us and continually being made for us in Christ (41).
Torrance is arguing that true Christian worship is worship that is swallowed up into what Christ has done in his vicarious life and death and what he continues to do as our Heavenly Intercessor. We may well be aware of Christ’s vicarious death as we gather to worship but we must not lose sight of his vicarious life and continued priestly ministry. Gospel-centered worship actively recognizes that God has not only provided us with His gracious movement toward us in Christ but also with our responding movement toward Him in Christ as well. God has not only provided that which we must respond to, namely, the gospel, but also our Response. The Gospel teaches us that Christ is our acceptable response to the Father given to us by the Father. Christian worship is never simply something we do. It is both something that already has been done in the life and death of Jesus and something that Jesus is doing for us in his High Priestly ministry. As we worship we must be careful to understand Christian worship as participation in what Christ has done in His vicarious life and death and presently is doing as our heavenly High Priest. It is never simply a response to who God is and what He has done.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:38 am
Dan,
Wow! Our union w/ Christ even affects our worship. How cool is that? Getting our minds around this will revolutionize our worship. It’s already blown me away. Once again, the gospel makes us say, “How come I never saw this before.” Hooray for the Gospel’s changing everyone of our paradigms.
Thanks,
C-dog
August 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Dan,
Keeping our worship centered on the gospel [Gospel Worship] gives us the pleasure of drinking from the [thanks for your message at TLC] ever-powerful, all-refreshing waters of Niagara. I like how Jeremiah Burroughs [GW] puts it when he mentions that Christ [our altar] must sanctify the gift [our response]. So in essence, our response [sanctified by God]is as you’ve said God’s provision. Here’s Burroughs:
“Jesus Christ is the Altar upon whom all our spiritual sacrifices are to be offered, and this Altar sanctifies the gift that is offered upon it. Let it never so great a gift be offered upon any other altar, it was not accounted holy nor accepted.
So let men, by the natural strength or power that they have, offer up the most glorious and attractive service to God; it is not acceptable unless it is offered up upon the altar, Jesus Christ. We have an altar now [not the communion table], but Jesus Christ Himself is our altar upon whom we are to offer all our sacrifices, and this Altar must sanctify the gift. We can never have our gift sanctified, no, nor God’s name sanctified in this gift, unless it is offered upon this Altar, and our faith acted upon Jesus Christ.” [Soli Deo Gloria, pp. 118-119].
August 21st, 2006 at 7:49 pm
I’m trying to track w/ you Dan, but I don’t know how to explain this to a 15 year old. I think they could UNDERSTAND it cognitively, but I’m struggling with how this changes what they DO when they “worship”. I hear it, understand it, but I find myself approaching worship the same way…as a loving response to who God is and what he has done (in Christ and in my life) and will do.
August 22nd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Mr. Cruver,
It has been a while! Five years since I graduated. I just wanted to say that I love your new blog colors!
Chase
August 24th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
[…] *Part one in this series raised some comments / questions that I intend to address in parts 3 or 4. […]
October 17th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
This is right on, Dan. Torrance’s Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace was the first wake up call towards Gospel-centered corporate worship. I’ve found David Peterson’s work, Engaging with God beyond helpful. I think his definition is profoundly helpful: “Worship of the living and true God is essentially an engagement with him on the terms that he proposes and in the wya that he alone makes possible” (p. 20). This takes worship in general and corporate worship in particular above the “worship is my response”.
I resound a loud AMEN to your conclusion:
“It is both something that already has been done in the life and death of Jesus and something that Jesus is doing for us in his High Priestly ministry. As we worship we must be careful to understand Christian worship as participation in what Christ has done in His vicarious life and death and presently is doing as our heavenly High Priest. “
November 4th, 2006 at 3:23 am
[…] Finally, Bixby chimes in again (we are still waiting for his “alternative” springing from the post linked to of his below) stressing a need to remember a Gospel Centered approach to worship. Worship is not primarily us giving back to God, but rather us experiencing the benefits of Christ’s vicarious humanity (and his death). Bixby helpfully points us to Parts One and Two of Dan Cruver’s Gospel-Centered Worship series. Do go check those posts out! Ken Fields will have to forgive me for using a line from his recent post for my title. There has been quite the blog storm recently, and those words were the best description I have found.Last Sunday, my church had Curtis Allen (a Christian rapper aka “Voice”) come to perform for our Aeropagus—a culture club of sorts—after the Saturday evening service at our downtown site. Since Curtis was present for the worship service, Pastor John Piper invited him to sing for the service, and he sang one song as a special number—a testimonial song that was quite tame as far as rap songs go. Well, as Ken said, “the people clapped, he sat down…and the fundamentalists went wild!”Justin Taylor posted a video-clip of that service, and Sharper Iron linked to it. One of the most heated (non KJV only) discussions in SI’s history followed (it grew to over 30 pages in near record time). Other fundamentalist blogs joined the many SI posters in a loud disgust over Piper and any fundamentalists which would condone the use of rap music in worship (see here and here). More discussions were held on SI (here and here), and an incredibly harsh post was given by Scott Aniol. Other fundamentalist bloggers joined SI posters in expressing surprise at the mean attitude apparent in some who were so vocal in their bashing of rap or CCM type music, see here and here and here. There was even an apology and a retraction. Lastly, Bob Bixby offered a really good analogy regarding the future “movement” of some fundamentalists which stresses a “high view” of music. I really recommend reading his post, even if you skip all the other links above. [Note my listing of these links is not necessarily in chronological order–they all were from 10/31 through 11/2, however.]I linked to all of these discussions on purpose. Some of my readers may not be privy to all the “young fundamentalist” blogs out there (and I am sure I missed some posts, too) and may have missed this whole discussion. But beyond that, I think this whole discussion is instructive. It reveals the sometimes shameful attitudes of some fundamentalists—I particularly was shocked by the willingness for many to just write off Piper completely because of this “wrong” decision. It also shows how so many refuse to let music be a matter of personal conviction. They prefer to make judgments on those who do not agree with their position, or worse to mandate a certain musical style—all this and yet no Scripture directly bears on musical style. Yes, we can apply Scriptural principles and we should, but such application is not equivalent to a direct command. Our interpretation and application of them is important for us but is not universally binding. And lastly, this discussion informs us concerning the musical debate. There were interesting arguments on both sides, and they may prove enlightening to some of my readers. […]