This blog is really long (4 pages single-spaced). Take that however you want to :)
A friend of mine has encouraged me to not defend the truth, but to let the truth defend itself. I agree with that thought. However, the truth must be exposed before it can defend itself. God has already revealed the truth in a number of ways—through General Revelation (logic, language, and analogy) and Special Revelation (as found in His word and His Son). So, all that remains is the illumination of that revelation—we must be exposed to what God has already made known. These thoughts on revelation have been accepted throughout almost the entire Church (my theology prof. estimated 85ast week), throughout history. I know that most readers do not have a theological background, but it would take a long time to explain a sufficient amount of the theology of revelation, so you’ll just have to take my word for it for now.
All of this is to say, I do not care to convince you I am right. I simply care to illuminate the truth that God has already revealed through His word, and through the simple structure of logic that He gave to us when He created us with a rational mind. I will probably keep writing on this until people understand what I’m saying, regardless of whether they agree with it (though I don’t see how one could disagree with this concept, once it is correctly understood, because of its simplicity). It actually seems that a few of those who “agree” with me are still not quite getting the point. Yes, I know that it is possible to worship other things, but I think we all know that, and that is not the point of this discussion. So, here is what the point is, in a very long form:
The book of Hebrews was written to the Jews of the early church, who believed in Christ already. In the same way, I write to you, my brothers and sisters, who already believe in Christ. Unbelievers need not concern themselves with the finer points of theology until they have come to belief that Christ came to save us from our sin.
Hebrews was written to more-closely examine the nature of Christ. Throughout the book, the author (who is unknown) makes a number of comparisons between good things and Christ. In chapter one, he says, “he (Jesus) became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs”(v. 4). In other words, Christ is better than the angels.
In chapter 3, Christ is greater than Moses—“Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself”(3:3).
In chapter 7, Christ is compared to Melchizedek, who was a priest in the time of Abraham. The point of the chapter is that Christ, like Melchizedek, is greater than the Levitical Priests (the Priests of the Hebrew community). (Side note: nothing is said comparing Christ to Melchizedek, which is significant in my mind, but completely irrelevant here).
I bother to examine Hebrews, because I think it is a Biblical proof of what I’m about to say…
Worshiping Christ, while we live on the Earth, is limited by language to comparison of Christ to other things.
Our limitation to comparison is rooted in the nature of language. Language is flawed. It is insufficient. My own inability to communicate what I mean by sin being a type of worship is a good example (clarification: sin is worship in the sense that sin is a type of worship—a negative statement of worth).
I really do not care to convince anyone to see things the same way I do. I do want everyone to understand what I am really saying. Those of you who disagree with me and some of those of you who agree with me are leaving me comments that indicate that I am not communicating what I mean.
I know people will object to the notion that language could limit worship. But, that is widely accepted by the intellectual community within the Church. So, how could language possibly limit our worship of God? Calvin speaks of Total Depravity—that everything is tainted by the Fall. This is widely supported throughout Scripture (e.g. James 2:18, which says that we are the firstfruits of redemption in all creation, which implies that all creation is fallen because of man’s sin).
Consider what we can learn from the classical Greek model of Symbols. A word is a symbol. The symbol (referred to as “a” from here on out) stands for a true thing in the mind of the speaker (referred to as “b”). When the speaker says “a,” he is thinking of “b,” however, the listener has her own interpretation of “a,” which we will call “c.” For instance, if I say the word “dog,” I might be referring to my family’s dog, Cody. But, when I said, “dog,” you probably thought of your own dog or a generic canine. You see, language is flawed.
David Crowder has a lot to say about language. His new CD shows an atom on the cover due to the electron model proposed by Enrico Fermi. That is still how we draw atoms, but, in Crowder’s words, “this model is improper in its depiction of particle matter. We know in fact that electrons do not circle in elliptical paths around a nucleus. And this is the difficulty with symbols. They are never quite proper. They are always a bit broken.” In the same way, our symbols for God, our words to describe Him, are broken.
Another way to view the problem with language is to say that every descriptive word we have is simply a comparison. Even if I use a generic adjective to describe something, it is still a comparison. If I say my door is white, the only reason you understand what white looks like is because you have seen white before. Therefore, you automatically compare my door, at a very basic level, to whatever else you have seen that is white.
If I say, “God is wonderful,” I inherently say, “God is wonderful compared to this, and this, and this.” Hopefully, I mean that “God is wonderful compared to everything in my life.” Hopefully, I mean, “God is more wonderful than anything.” Hopefully, I mean, “God is better than everything,” which is the point of Hebrews.
We know that worship is not only about what we say, but is about how we live (which includes what we say). Romans 12:1 says, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship.”
Our actions (not just our words) must always say, “God is better than everything else,” or we are not worshiping Him correctly. Implicit in that statement is its counterpoint: incorrect worship of God is when we say, “God is not better than every other thing.” However, that is still a type of worship, because it is still a statement of worth, which, as I have said before, is the meaning of worship as defined in the English language. (For this discussion, looking at the Greek and Hebrew is simply tedious because in the Hebrew, there are many words translated “worship” that also mean many other things, and in the Greek, there are many words that are translated as “worship.” The reason the translators translated these words as “worship” is because it means “worship”—a statement of worth. I could use the Hebrew, at least, to defend myself, but that’s not what I’m trying to do. I’m not trying to defend myself, but rather, explain what worship is really about).
There is a significant difference between God’s worth and a statement of God’s worth. God’s worth is not worship; it is simply God’s worth. He is worthy. That can never change. As Juan said, He does not need us to worship Him. In other words, He does not need us to tell Him how much He is worth, because He knows that He is worthy beyond comparison—that He is beyond description. The problem is that worship has been misunderstood by the modern Church. Our generation, which is called “the worship generation,” especially doesn’t get it. Worship really is us saying “God, you are worth ________ to me,” through the way we live our lives.
Here’s some deductive logic. Here comes the bare bones version of this whole deal. Ready? OK.
Premise 1:
When I sin, I make a statement of God’s worth (I say He is worth less than my own pleasure).
Mathematical version: sin= one type of a statement of God’s worth
(Very important: Sin is only one kind of statement of God’s worth, and it is the wrong kind of statement, because it says something else is worth more than God).
Premise 2:
The meaning of the word “worship,” from the Old English weorth and scipe is “a statement of worth.”
Mathematical version: Worship=a statement of God’s worth
For those of you who do not have a background in logic or deductive reasoning, let me just say that it works very much like math, hence my “mathematical versions.” You have some premises, and when you add them together, you have the logical result. So long as your premises are correct, your conclusion must be. If the conclusion can be disproved, then one of your premises is inaccurate. I hope I have clearly defended that my premises are accurate through these blogs.
So, let’s add the two true premises together and see what comes out
Sin= one type of a statement of God’s worth
a statement of God’s worth=Worship
Sin= one type of Worship.
And, that, my friends, is why I believe that sin and true worship of God are polar opposites. What? That’s all I’m saying? Yeah, that’s all I’m saying. But, by recognizing that sin is a negative version of worship, our motive for not sinning is changed.
If we stop sinning for our own benefit, then we have stopped sinning for the wrong reason. We should stop sinning because we really believe, in our heart of hearts, that God is worth more to us than anything else. In this way, we even say that God is the only worthwhile reason to stop sinning, which is yet another statement of worth, and is a huge aspect of worship that I missed out on for the first 20 years of my life until this past April when this whole thought hit me and changed me completely.
So, back to the Bible—where it all is firmly anchored. In Hebrews, after all the focus on “Christ is better than x,” the author immediately turns to the issue of sin and salvation in Hebrews 9-10. Biblically, then, it is obvious that after a discussion comparing Christ to other things, the next step is to examine the sin issue. Why? Because sin makes a comparison of God to other things, and that is the same thing true worship does. Why? Because they’re the same thing. That does not mean that sin is good. That has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. What this issue is about is that sin is the other side of the coin when it comes to worship.
As Kenny said, this really isn’t a new idea. However, it is a new way to talk about things. I’m not sure why Kenny thinks that’s a waste of time. Isn’t that what all theologians do? Simply take the truth within the Bible and think about it in a new, right way that revolutionizes the way we live? Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the list goes on… They were simply people who used the minds God gave them and wrestled with the implications of what the Bible says and what they knew from the world around them that God made.
Theology is only worth your time if it helps someone praise God. If it increases the worth you place in Him, it’s obviously a beneficial venture. If it helps someone else to praise Him, it can be used in discipleship. Since this is an issue that may or may not revolutionize the way you see things, I would advise that if it doesn’t help you, then try to understand where I’m coming from, and then leave it. If you understand it, and it helps you, then praise God! I have learned to communicate!
I think there will be a future writing on the theology of language, and maybe one on the theology of revelation, too.
Note: I’m sure I will continue to use the word “worship” in its traditional sense most of the time (only referring to the positive side—the praise of God for His worth), but hopefully I will always be aware of the two sides of the coin.