Biblical Worship

 

*This is not a definitive answer on the topic but I hope it is useful food for thought.

 

Biblical Worship

 

The full question:

Evaluate and comment on the hermeneutical approach of the following evangelical scholars as to what constitutes true Biblical worship: John Piper, Donald A. Carson, Robert E. Webber, Allen P. Ross and Daniel I. Block.

ABSTRACT

True Biblical worship is vital to comprehend as this is the goal of humanity and the end state of all those who have been given the gift of grace. There are multiple opinions on this topic that comes down to the hermeneutical approach one uses in understanding how the whole Bible fits together. John Piper and Don Carson fit roughly into a praxis-oriented regulative principle. This view holds many strengths and some weaknesses. The theologically-oriented regulative principle is the other model that various evangelicals follow. Within this hermeneutical approach there is the patristic-ecumenical model which Robert Webber follows. The biblical-typological model also comes under this category. Allen Ross and Daniel Block fit well in this camp. While some conclusions that are drawn from this model are difficult to fit with the movement of Scripture, there are many benefits in emphasising the necessity of the Old Testament and its application for the church today in what is true Biblical worship.

Introduction

Worship is key to humanity for ‘to be human is to worship’.[1] Though this is true, constructing a theology of worship is ‘a difficult task’.[2] To embark on such an endeavour requires one ‘to know everything about everything…a mastery of the contents of the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation and an opinion on virtually every challenging issue in between’.[3] There has been a movement to consider the ‘different eras of church history to identify helpful traditions’ but the ‘results have been quite varied’.[4] It is clear that Christians must return to the bible for their understanding of worship. Ross believes that ‘one of the reasons, if not the main reason, for the lack of proper attention given to worship is the lack of a biblical, theological understanding’.[5] Evangelicals must look to the Bible for ‘the ultimate guide and norm for true Christian worship’.[6] Even then, there are still disagreements over the hermeneutics required to comprehend biblical worship which results in ‘a substantial lack of agreement about which biblical texts are relevant and applicable’.[7] This paper seeks to evaluate five key evangelical scholars on their hermeneutical approach to what constitutes true Biblical worship. Each scholar can be relatively identified within categories of the ‘regulative principle’ according to Farley.[8] Beginning with the praxis-oriented regulative principle John Piper and Donald Carson will be considered, followed by the theologically oriented regulative principle divided in two sections: the patristic-ecumenical model represented by Robert Webber; and the biblical-typological model represented by Allen Ross and Daniel Block.

Praxis-Oriented Regulative Principle

The praxis-oriented regulative principle is a hermeneutical approach to biblical theology. It considers ‘the norm for Christian worship as the apostolic practice of corporate worship in the first-century church’ and ‘liturgical practices are biblical only if there are explicit NT commands or normative examples of those particular practices’.[9] The Westminster Directory for Public Worship holds an example of this by stating that ‘there is no day commanded in Scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day’.[10] Here we see how the New Testament does not ‘practice or command Christians to do it’[11] which results in a lack of ‘biblical warrant’ and thereby ‘the church must not engage in that practice’.[12] It is this category in which Farley places Piper and Carson.

John Piper

In discussing this concept of worship, it is vital to point out Piper’s emphasis of worship is not solely on the public gathering of the church but what comes out of one’s own heart.[13] This treasuring heart-attitude of God is demonstrated through our lips: singing; praying; repenting; and confessing. It is also demonstrated through our hands: serving others; doing good (Heb13:15-16).[14] This is the essence of worship according to Piper. As to what happens in the church’s corporate gathering of worship, he explains this solely from the New Testament (i.e. sing (Eph 5:19); pray (1 Cor 14:16); preach (2 Tim 4:2).[15] In discussing why the church sings he compares the extremely detailed worship in the Old Testament with the sparse details in the New Testament and considers this to be an opening of corporate worship to all cultures.[16] The predominant way Piper uses the Old Testament is to compare the transformation of worship in the New Testament from ‘outward and ritualistic’ to ‘primarily inward and spiritual’.[17] In this he follows a ‘Puritan and Presbyterian tradition’[18] as Collinson comments on the essence of the life of a Puritan being, ‘a continuous act of worship, pursued under an unremitting and lively sense of God’s providential purposes and constantly refreshed by religious activity, personal, domestic and public’[19]. Farley appears to be accurate in his assessment of Piper’s biblical theology of worship as the sole, ‘source of liturgical norms in the Bible for the church in the present age appears to be explicit commands and examples of apostolic practice found in the NT’[20].

A fitting critique of such a view is one that may cause a belittling of the ‘First Testament’[21]. This is in no way Piper’s intention as he holds up the relevance of the Old Testament and explicitly states one of its purposes is to reveal who God is so that ‘we can know him and worship him since his character was revealed as truly in the Old Testament as in the New Testament’.[22] Nevertheless, by not emphasising what the Old Testament teaches a Christian in his explanations of worship[23] Piper may cause a dismissal in those who read his articles on worship of ‘the only Bible that Jesus and the New Testament authors had as irrelevant and lacking authority’ sweeping ‘away significant continuities between the faith of ancient Israel and the early church’.[24] This does not appear to be deliberate, but by omission it can lead to this unfortunate outcome. At the same time, Piper is right to contrast the discontinuities between the Testaments for both realities speak clearly to one’s worship of God today. Essentially, this is biblical theology, ‘the discipline that helps us trace both the unity and diversity, the continuity and discontinuity, within the sprawling storyline of Scripture’.[25] Perhaps Piper tends to overbalance the discontinuities without emphasising the principles that can be understood in the continuities between the Testaments, for the Old Testament is a rich source that ‘informs the manner of our worship’[26] and this must not be neglected.

Donald A. Carson

Carson bears striking similarities to Piper in his understanding of worship as their hermeneutical method for the biblical theology of worship is almost identical.[27] He identifies the change in worship from the Old Testament in that the language of worship in the New Testament ‘moves the locus away from a place or a time to all of life’[28] The fulfillment of type to antitype, promise to reality and shadow to substance is part of the language that Carson sees as inescapable in the transformation between the Testaments. At the same time, he stipulates that ‘we must not conclude that, apart from instances of individual worship, in the Old Testament the formal requirements of the cultus exhausted what was meant by public worship’.[29] It is important to realise something Carson notes that Piper appears to omit: there is not a move ‘from the formal to the spiritual’.[30] God has always required his people to love him wholly. The way this works out is part of the disunity that Christ brings in the New Covenant. For the Old Testament explicitly defines a distinction ‘between the holy and the common’, but ‘under the new covenant’ it is ‘not so much of a desacralization of space and time and food, as with a sacralization of all space and all time and all food: what God has declared holy let no one declare unholy’.[31] This difference is key in Carson’s understanding of what public worship now entails and the essence of worship in itself. He does not see the New Testament as providing ‘officially sanctioned’ liturgical order in a church service but more ‘examples of crucial elements’.[32] Both Piper and Carson appear to bear similarities in their biblical theology of worship to David Peterson.[33]

Some of the same critiques of Piper can be directed at Carson as well seeing as ‘citations from the OT are rare’ in Carson and most often refer to the ‘negative examples’.[34] Farley critiques the praxis-oriented regulative principle by saying that they infer the New Testament is not ‘an exhaustive liturgical manual’ and yet hold it as ‘restrictive’ in the practices of the church.[35] While this challenge holds some truth, the actions and examples in the New Testament are claimed to be unrestrictive and freeing in that the many details that the Old Testament enforces for approaching God in worship have been fulfilled in Christ. Perhaps it is restrictive to view the New Testament as the only source for principles of corporate worship. It may be more beneficial to consider all of Scripture in ‘a more theologically oriented regulative principle rather than one that would limit legitimate liturgical practices solely to those explicitly attested in the NT’.[36] However, the practice of such a view does require a careful monitoring that centres all of its conclusions through Christ. Both Piper and Carson do allow for a wider principled approach in that they both acknowledge the use of liturgies despite no explicit example in the New Testament.

In conclusion, the praxis-oriented regulative principle contains many strengths and some possible weaknesses. Its emphasis on all of life worship and the wonder of Christ’s actions is noteworthy. The simplicity and freedom involved in employing the practices and examples of corporate worship in the New Testament is appealing and culturally adaptable. The biblical theology that it employs emphasises the discontinuity of worship which is vital to comprehend for a greater appreciation of the centrality of the cross. At the same time, it appears that often the Old Testament is too easily ignored and its continuity in the manner of worship is left silent. For the Old Testament is replete with examples such as the attitude of worship, how to approach God in prayer, the importance of hearing and responding to God and much more that would be a significant and fatal loss if it was discounted in this vital discussion. Such a view can, at times, be too restrictive without allowing a more theologically principled approach (i.e. celebrating Christmas and Easter[37]). It would be useful for a greater recognition of how the Old Testament continues to impact the corporate nature of worship before the unchangeable God (Num 23:19; Heb 13:8; Jam 1:17).

Theologically Oriented Regulative Principle

The second category Farley identifies within evangelical opinion is a hermeneutical approach he calls a ‘theologically-oriented regulative principle’. This method does not ‘reject or downplay’ any of the explicit practices within the New Testament but argues ‘emphatically that these practices must always be central for Christian liturgy’.[38] The difference comes when they broaden an understanding of liturgical practices by appealing to ‘more general theological themes and practices in both the NT and the OT’ for ‘additional biblical guidance’ to assist in determining the wisdom of various orders and forms of corporate worship ‘as well as the architectural and aesthetic environment in which they occur’.[39] Within this hermeneutical grid there are two subsections: a patristic-ecumenical model; and a biblical-typological model.

Patristic-Ecumenical Model

The patristic-ecumenical model develops its liturgical theology by relying ‘almost exclusively’ on the New Testament in considering its ‘commands and examples’ as well as ‘evaluating the way that particular practices embody biblical truth, even if such practices are not explicitly attested in the NT’.[40] Most of the ideals they hold are ‘from post-biblical liturgies’ particularly during the ‘patristic era’.[41] Robert Webber relies upon this hermeneutical approach as he crafts ‘his biblical theology of worship’.[42]

Robert E. Webber

Webber is a prolific author, yet of all his books, ‘Worship Old and New’[43], ‘is the single best introduction to’ his ‘vision of public worship’.[44] His Ancient-Future Church movement ‘has experimented with ancient liturgies, celebration of the church calendar, clerical garb, incense, and icons’.[45] Webber begins his argumentation often with practices in the New Testament and then follows on with a ‘defense of post-biblical liturgies from the early church’.[46] He believes that ‘because the New Testament does not provide a systematic picture of Christian worship’ then ‘guidance may be sought regarding worship from the practice of the early church’.[47] His strong support of liturgy is used to uphold ‘the fullness of biblical orthodoxy’[48]. Most often Webber uses the Old Testament to support the ideas he concludes from the New Testament yet he does seem to place more weight on the Old Testament than Farley’s categories appear to accommodate. He sees the Old Testament as unique in that ‘God gives His people specific directions regarding the how, when, and wherefore of meeting Him in worship’ which ‘contain principles that were not abrogated for the Christian church’.[49] Webber argues against the proposal that Israel’s worship was ‘physical and the worship of the church should be spiritual’ claiming it is a ‘false dichotomy that fails to recognize the overlap between the content’ of the two Testaments.[50] Pointing to the Lord’s Supper, the first day of the week and established buildings, Webber considers there to be an overlap with the difference being that the physical elements ‘are informed by the event of Jesus Christ’.[51] If the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds are held up as a keen theological perception, Webber argues that the liturgical forms in that era should also be upheld.

Webber’s understanding that general theological principles are useful in developing corporate gatherings is helpful yet perhaps his ‘enthusiasm for the worship traditions and practices of the early church pushes features of these as normative and threatens the Reformation principle of sola scriptura’.[52] Though there is certainly much to learn from the patristic sources, ‘they should not be read back into the canonical sources’.[53] This view can then cause some adherents to ‘become too open ended’ through ‘their sometimes minimal use of Scripture’ leading to ‘needless and even harmful innovations that move the church away from the central actions of word, prayer, offering and sacrament’.[54] Although there is a little more focus on the Old Testament, such as the concept of ‘an annual calendar of festivals’ and ‘corporate confessions of sin at the beginning of worship services’[55], the manner of worship that should be identified and emphasised from the Old Testament could be further examined. The patristic-ecumenical model contains some helpful considerations in understanding one’s theological principles for corporate worship yet remains too undefined for guarding against fanciful inclusions within church gatherings.

Biblical-Typological Model

The second model of a theologically oriented regulative principle is known as a biblical-typological approach to hermeneutics.[56] Farley believes this model not only acknowledges the commands and examples of the New Testament but emphasises the biblical warrant for liturgical practices from the Old Testament more than the other orientations.[57] While there is appeal to the patristic era, the difference is found in the necessity of a foundation within the entirety of the Bible. Two representatives of this view that will be evaluated are: Allen Ross and Daniel Block.

Allen P. Ross

Ross holds a ‘tenacious commitment to the biblical text and less to traditional applications’.[58] There is a combination of ‘insight and practical application’[59] in his work[60] on worship. Both Farley[61] and Block[62] highly recommend Ross’ study of worship in Scripture. His emphasis upon the Old Testament is evident by the division of his book in that worship in the Old Testament covers ‘almost two thirds’ of the content.[63] Ross identifies how ‘the biblical patterns and principles leave open a wide range of ways to do things’.[64] The one common element ‘in the formative periods of the religious experience of Israel…was the proclamation of the faith’.[65] Ross works diligently to find worship principles within the Old Testament which fits the biblical-typological model. Some of his conclusions are: there is value in aesthetics ‘and visual art and symbol in places of Christian worship’; there is importance for ‘the church’s ordained officers taking responsibility to lead the church in corporate worship’; there is an order of worship which is consistent in God’s covenant renewal ceremonies with his people (Ex 19; Lev 9) which can serve as a template and begins with God’s call ‘to confession and forgiveness followed by the ministry of God’s word, the response of God’s people in vows and offerings, and a communion meal and divine blessing’; there is biblical warrant for a liturgical calendar.[66] These and other descriptive details that develop corporate worship go further than Webber’s work. Ross seeks to improve worship and desires to hold the entirety of God’s word in attaining this endeavour.

Ross is commendable in his love of corporate worship and desire to hold to the whole counsel of God. He is ‘more restrained’ than Webber and the patristic-ecumenical model because he does not merely correlate ‘liturgical practices with very general theological themes or ideas’ but ‘moves from the specific set of God-given practices in the OT to those of the New’.[67] Harman believes Ross embraces all of life worship ‘without disallowing communal acts of believers that can also rightly be called worhsip’[68], yet his overall emphasis of worship is on the communal activity and this consequently downplays the emphasis of all of life worship. Ross ultimately holds ‘a strong emphasis on the lines of continuity within the biblical material on worship, and between this material and our contemporary situation’.[69] The danger involved with such a position fails to highlight the ‘significant discontinuities…of how God is to be worshipped’, not ‘merely the quantum change that is inaugurated with the coming of the Messiah’.[70] Within the Old Testament itself there is a change in worship as Duguid points out,

‘The temple is not the same as the tabernacle, and both represent a significant shift in the mode of worship from the worship of the patriarchs. Which of these provide the models for our worship? How can we tell? The result of neglecting these discontinuities is at times a rather flat reading of the biblical data.’[71]

It is possible that failing to consider the discontinuities throughout the Bible causes one to use God’s Word ‘indiscriminately’ and construct a theology of worship ‘idiosyncratically’.[72] Carson offers an example where the ‘temple service developed choirs’ which one could conclude ‘corporate worship must have choirs’ to which Carson says, ‘perhaps it should – but somewhere along the line we have not integrated into our reflection how the Bible fits together’.[73] This keen observation is the major breakdown within the hermeneutical approach that Ross employs. At times he seems to go too far in correlating supposed continuities like the necessity of ‘spiritual leaders’ to make worship ‘pleasing to God’[74], Christ causes a discontinuity in the priestly role of drawing people to God in that he is now the high priest who leads the priesthood of all believers. We no longer need mediators in the worship of God.[75] It is difficult to retain continuity where discontinuity has been made evident. This is not to presume that principles cannot be garnered from the wisdom of the entirety of the Bible, yet it does cause some applications of the biblical text to be contradictory to its overall teaching. If a correct biblical theology of worship is not held together it can be easy to ‘unwittingly read our ideas and experiences of worship back into Scripture, so that we end up “finding” there what, with exquisite confidence, we know jolly well ought to be there’.[76] It is the possible failure to identify the connection between the Testaments that causes Farley’s observation that Ross’ ‘theological and hermeneutical bridge between the OT and NT remains undeveloped’.[77]

Daniel I. Block

In the reading of Block – and by his own admission – it is clear that he holds strongly to a similar view as Ross.[78] The difference between the two is the Block organises his ‘material topically, while Ross, serially’.[79] Due to this, much of what is stated above also applies to Block. Daniel’s desire is ‘to recover for the church a biblical theology of worship by bringing the whole Bible into the conversation’.[80] This emphasis fits squarely into Farley’s categorisation of the biblical-typological model. At the same time, Block appears to describe more accurately both corporate worship and everyday life worship.[81] In each chapter of Block he begins by considering what the Old Testament foundation is for a particular topic and then moves on to the New Testament. This arrangement is helpful in considering the broad overview of Scripture. There are also helpful application points that Block finishes with in each chapter.

Once again, this view is helpful in its desire to focus on the entire Bible. Some of the passages that Block points out are worth serious consideration. His recognition of ‘the importance of reverence and awe in acceptable worship’[82] is noteworthy and reflects much of the manner of worship within the Old Testament that must be acknowledged by those who focus solely on the New Testament in determining corporate worship. As with Ross, Block contains a section in consideration of sacred space. This may again emphasise a continuity where a discontinuity exists. The New Testament appears to be plain its rejection of sacred space and as said above it upholds the sacralisation of all space. Is there wisdom involved in the design of a church building? Naturally one is to bring wisdom to such a task, yet such ideas would be better developed from upholding the practices of the New Testament and the manner of worship one can glean from the Old Testament. Frankland summarises Block and the biblical-typological model well when he notes Bock’s ‘suggestions are valuable and worth considering’ but ‘at times…it is a stretch to say that the application is based upon the biblical interpretation presented’.[83] Perhaps the biblical-typological method, in its desire to uphold the whole of Scripture, swings too far and places an emphasis on the Old Testament in detriment to the teaching of the New Testament. Perhaps a balance is still required.[84] Piper’s critique applies to the theologically oriented regulative principle when he says,

‘Following the Old Testament forms too closely contradicts the obsolescence of the wineskins. God must mean to leave the matter of form and style and content to the judgment of our spiritual wisdom – not to our whim or our tradition, but to prayerful, thoughtful, culturally alert, self-critical, Bible-saturated, God-centered, Christ-exalting, reflection driven by a passion to be filled with all the fullness of God. I assume this will be an ongoing process, not a one-time effort.’[85]

One must commend the upholding of the Old Testament, yet at the same time, it is necessary to employ a hermeneutical approach that identifies the discontinuities and recognises the continuities without one contradicting the other.

Conclusion

Each of these approaches to biblical worship is to be commended in its desire to comprehend the correct worship of God. The praxis-oriented regulative principle is commendable in its focus on the New Testament, its comprehension of worship in everyday life and the clear understanding of the discontinuities in worship, yet it fails to recognise the significant contribution that a study of the Old Testament can provide for a thorough understanding of the manner of worship in a corporate setting. The theologically oriented regulative principle is commendable in its appreciation of the early church traditions in the patristic-ecumenical model and the appreciation of the entire Bible in the biblical-typological model, yet a failure to magnify the discontinuities of worship and the application that is drawn from the Old Testament may lean away from a clear understanding of biblical theology in worship. Piper, Carson, Webber, Ross and Block are all to be commended for their desire in relation to corporate worship ‘to evaluate everything they are doing to see how they can do it better’. In the end ‘the critical issue is not the techniques of worship, or the traditions of worship, still less the experience of worship, but who is being worshipped, and who is worshipping’.[86] May each Christian endeavour to worship God spirit and in truth.

 
  1. Daniel Isaac Block, For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2014), 1.
  2. D. A. Carson (ed.), ‘Worship Under the Word’, in Worship by the Book (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002), 11.
  3. Iain Duguid says it well and continues with ‘in a day when scholars seem to know more and more about less and less, few would even undertake such a daunting endeavour’. Iain Duguid, ‘Review of Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation’, JETS 50/3 (2007): 599.
  4. Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Worship: Letting the Gospel Shape Our Practice (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009), 71.
  5. Allen P. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), 38.
  6. Michael A. Farley, ‘What Is “biblical” Worship?: Biblical Hermeneutics and Evangelical Theologies of Worship’, JETS 51/3 (September 2008): 591.
  7. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 591.
  8. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?”
  9. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 592.
  10. An Act of the Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland, ‘The Directory for the Publick Worship of God’, in Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, February 1645, https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_standards/index.html?mainframe=/documents/wcf_standards/p369-direct_pub_worship.html, (accessed September 27, 2018), Appendix.
  11. Some would argue that it explicitly argues against celebrating particular holy days (i.e. Rom 14:5-6).
  12. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 594.
  13. John Piper, ‘What Is Worship?’, in Desiring God, April 29, 2016, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-is-worship, (accessed September 30, 2018).
  14. Piper, “What Is Worship?”
  15. John Piper, ‘Why Do Christians Worship Together on Sundays?’, in Desiring God, February 9, 2016, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-do-christians-worship-together-on-sundays, (accessed September 30, 2018).
  16. John Piper, ‘Do We Really Need Musical Worship?’, in Desiring God, March 17, 2017, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/do-we-really-need-musical-worship, (accessed September 30, 2018).
  17. John Piper, ‘Worship God’, in Desiring God, November 9, 1997, https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/worship-god–2, (accessed October 1, 2018).
  18. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 594.
  19. Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 356.
  20. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 595.
  21. Block’s phrase to refer to the Old Testament. Block, For the Glory of God.
  22. John Piper, ‘What Value Is the Old Testament to the Christian Life?’, in Desiring God, January 17, 2018, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-value-is-the-old-testament-to-the-christian-life, (accessed October 1, 2018).
  23. Piper, “Worship God”; Piper, “Do We Really Need Musical Worship?”; Piper, “Why Do Christians Worship Together on Sundays?”; Piper, “What Is Worship?”
  24. Block, For the Glory of God, 5.
  25. Bobby Jamieson, ‘Biblical Theology and Corporate Worship’, in 9Marks, n.d., https://www.9marks.org/article/biblical-theology-and-corporate-worship/, (accessed October 1, 2018).
  26. Jamieson, “Biblical Theology and Corporate Worship.”
  27. Carson, “Worship Under the Word.”
  28. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 24.
  29. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 39.
  30. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 40.
  31. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 40.
  32. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 52.
  33. David Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
  34. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 594.
  35. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 610–611.
  36. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 611.
  37. Not that such events are a necessity of a liturgical calendar as some claim but they do allow for a broader acceptance of worship than the New Testament explicitly commands. The wisdom involved in such a situation requires theological principles beyond the direct explanations and examples of the New Testament.
  38. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 597.
  39. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 44.
  40. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 597.
  41. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 597. One example of this approach is also found in Simon Chan. He is does not necessarily favour patristic liturgical models but demonstrates how they are biblically warranted through this theologically oriented regulative principle. Simon Chan, Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community (n.p.: InterVarsity Press, 2009).
  42. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 599.
  43. Robert E. Webber, Worship Old & New: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994).
  44. John D. Witvliet, ‘Review of Worship Old and New: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Introduction’, Calvin Theological Journal 31/1 (1996): 268.
  45. Chapell, Christ-Centered Worship, 71.
  46. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 599. This is evident in books such as Webber, Worship Old & New; Robert E Webber, Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2008); Robert Webber, Worship Is a Verb: Eight Principles for a Highly Participatory Worship (Nashville, Tenn.: Abbott Martyn, 1992).
  47. Webber, Worship Old & New, 43.
  48. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 601.
  49. Webber, Worship Old & New, 14.
  50. Webber, Worship Old & New, 38.
  51. Webber, Worship Old & New, 38.
  52. Block, For the Glory of God, 2.
  53. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 21.
  54. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 611.
  55. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 602.
  56. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 602.
  57. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 602.
  58. Paul S. Lamey, ‘Review of Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to New Cration’, MSJ 19/2 (2008): 284.
  59. Duguid, “Review of Recalling the Hope of Glory,” 599.
  60. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory.
  61. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 602.
  62. Block, For the Glory of God, xiii.
  63. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 603.
  64. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, 74.
  65. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, 164–165.
  66. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 603; Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory.
  67. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 612.
  68. Allan M Harman, ‘The Apostolic Methods of Gospel Presentation in the Book of Acts’, (Kosin University,Pusan, Korea, 1961), 174–175.
  69. Duguid, “Review of Recalling the Hope of Glory,” 600.
  70. Duguid, “Review of Recalling the Hope of Glory,” 600.
  71. Duguid, “Review of Recalling the Hope of Glory,” 600.
  72. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 16.
  73. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 17. This point is put well. Carson is not denying the possibility of church being benefitted by the use of choirs but rather demonstrates how such a view comes about from a correct hermeneutical understanding of the entire Bible.
  74. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, 218.
  75. This is not to say that good and wise leadership within the church is unnecessary. The New Testament is clear that it is vital and desired for there to be leadership within the church. Can worship be ‘pleasing to God’ without a ‘spiritual leader’? If God is worshipped in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24) then it seems that worship can be pleasing to God without the necessity of a designated spiritual leader.
  76. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 13.
  77. Farley, “What Is ‘biblical’ Worship?,” 603.
  78. Block states at the beginning of his book that ‘the perspectives I present in this volume generally agree with those of Ross’. Block, For the Glory of God, xiv.
  79. Mark A. Hassler, ‘Review of For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship’, MSJ 26/1 (2015): 148.
  80. Craig D. Bowman, ‘Review of For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship’, Stone-Campbell Journal 18/2 (2015): 271.
  81. Dinelle Frankland, ‘Review of For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship’, Stone-Campbell Journal 18/2 (2015): 270.
  82. Block, For the Glory of God, 7.
  83. Frankland, “Review of For the Glory of God,” 270.
  84. Again, Frankland recommends Block’s textbook for seminarians but believes it is necessary for it ‘to be paired with a solid NT work’ which is evidence of this very conclusion. Frankland, “Review of For the Glory of God,” 270.
  85. John Piper, ‘Thoughts on Worship and Culture’, in Christianity.Com, March 2007, https://www.christianity.com/church/worship-and-hymns/thoughts-on-worship-and-culture-11531783.html, (accessed September 25, 2018).
  86. Carson, “Worship Under the Word,” 13.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Fill out this field
Fill out this field
Please enter a valid email address.
You need to agree with the terms to proceed

Menu