All Comments for: Seeker Unfriendly | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > June (Web-only)

Christianity Today, June (Web-only), 2007 |

SoulWork

Seeker Unfriendly

We need more than worship that makes sense.

Mark Galli | posted 6/14/2007 08:31AM

"We value God-honoring, understandable worship," announces one Pennsylvania church on its website.

A North Carolina church says, "Meaningful and understandable congregational participation in worship is ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

theologian777@xanga.com

Posted: June 14, 2007 12:02 PM

The tension between apophatic and kataphatic approaches to theology is an ancient one. Worship should evoke the mysterious and untameable God. Still, it should be inviting, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord....." I think the tension between compulsion and repulsion is a healthy and biblical tension--look at Isaiah 6; Luke 5 ("Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man" yet Peter followed Him.....), etc. See Charlie Starr's book _Honest to God_ for example after example of people wrestling with God--hardly a comfortable phenomenon. But to wrestle, you must approach, or be approached by, the living God. Theologian777

Eugene Maze

Posted: June 14, 2007 11:56 AM

I think the point will best be made by this: God. Whether it be in the building (structure), in the field (workplace), or in the building (the Body of Christ), worship can only be an expression of a present experience. That experience (if there is one) is prompted by nothing or no one else other than the Holy Spirit inhabiting our praise (lives). By the way, what a unimaginable analogy: politics and holiness! Sure was good reading, however. Thanks everyone.

Craig S. Prest

Posted: June 14, 2007 11:48 AM

Years ago as a worship leader in Northern california there were several years when explored the combonation of structured and spontaneous worship, guided, but not dominated by leadership. The result at that time (1977-1980) was an increddible engagement of an atmosphere where the majority of people believed they engaged the Living God in one way or another. Lawyers, Phd's, Doctors, several famous musicians and many others by their own words were deeply effected by the sometimes simplistic, non-professional yet very inspiring worship they encountered. it lasted for 1-2hrs usually. A few people complained for one reason or another, but over 90% sent in glowing reviews, notes or took the time to personally express positive sentiments to us. Now, my wife and I are apprehensive that this generation may never be blessed with such worship. We wonder if it was just for those years and now we must move on?

Don	Posted: June 14, 2007 11:00 AM


Just because God is incomprehensible doesn't mean that worship has to be.

John M. Frame

Posted: June 14, 2007 10:47 AM

The article makes some important points. But it rather dismisses 1 Cor. 14. This chapter is the only focused discussion in the NT of post-resurrection worship, and the whole thrust of it (not only verse 12) is that worship should be intelligible, so as to be edifying. Now I think to edify we must focus at times on God's incomprehensibility. To miss that is to trivialize the one we are worshiping. The article makes that point well (though I would not have pointed readers to Meister Eckhardt, who also taught a lot of dangerous things). But in the end, we should not dismiss either intelligibility or incomprehensibility, but rather seek a balance, certainly a difficult task. I was hoping to find in this article an attempt to formulate such a balance, and I was disappointed.

Robb Redman

Posted: June 14, 2007 12:00 AM

I'm concerned about the dualistic and neo-Platonic implications of focusing on the ineffibility of God in worship (Meister Eckhardt and Peterson), which is a persistent danger in apophatic theology. Tozer's uperspective, which is more solidly rooted in a thoroughly biblical view of God that is incarnational and trinitarian, suggests a better direction. Rather than being "balanced" between mystery and intelligibility, we need to understand worship as centered in the triune being of God, out of which our worship springs. Worship that is anchored in the nature and character of God will be incarnational, that is, embodied in the language and culture of Christians in space and time, as Jesus was. The evangelical problem remains the same as in Tozer's day -- we do not know God very well.

Matt Stephens

Posted: June 14, 2007 12:00 AM

It is a false dichotomy that churches wishing to make their worship services meaningful are doing so simply for the sake of seekers feeling comfortable. I abhor the technique of comfortability as a means to tricking people into following Christ (The farthest thing from comfortable! How comfortable is bearing a cross?!). At the same time, even the Catholic Church has recognized (albeit only within the last half century) that a corporate "worship" experience which is altogether foreign to a congregation is ineffective at helping people embrace an infinite God in worship. The clash between "traditional, contemporary, modern, and postmodern" forms of worship is a clash, not merely of preference, but of meaninglessness versus meaningfulness. We would all do well to stop drawing lines in the sand and casting false dichotomies of either/or, and learn to incorporate the best elements of all traditions into a truly edifying corporate experience of Christ.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment