Let me get this started. How are you enjoying Webber’s book? Strengths? Weaknesses?
Recent Comments
 | brianbergman on July Book |
| July Book « Su… on June Meetings | |
 | Ed on July Meeting Book Proposa… |
 | Jim Holway on So… |
| Jim Holway on July Meeting Book Proposa… |
I’ve completed the book. The last few chapters are really good. Here’s what I loved: Webber’s respect for early Christianity, his rock solid view of baptism (though he softens his position a little later), but most of all, his quest to restore the place of the Lord’s Supper in modern, contemporary worship.
The key weakness (where I am hesitant to follow him) is that he seems more facinated with 3rd/4th Cent. Christianity than 1st Century Christianity, and so he really likes the more formal liturgy that developed in corporate worship around that time. He wants to restore the feeling of being in the awesome presence of God, which requires some level of pomp, ceremony, and liturgy…like the Old Testament Temple worship and Shekinah presence, but minus the visible cloud of glory. I’m not sure that that was what the early church was going for in their more informal corporate worship which centered on singing, praying, teaching, and eating together. I don’t see much formal liturgy in the New Testament corporate worship examples.
I hope someone disagrees to keep this interesting :-)
By: Robert on June 2, 2008
at 5:27 pm
Sorry, I can’t disagree.
I’m still reading, but the authors reverence for Jewish ceremony is the reason he leans toward the pomp of the 3rd/4th century.
I am disappointed that the book doesn’t do more to actually explore WHAT worship is. To me, this is the key. Once we know what, we are well on our way to HOW.
Is worship neccessarily emotional? Is it reverent? Does God “need” it?
I think I need more of this line of thinking. Simply exploring the HOW’s of Jews and early Christians isn’t going to suffice for me.
By: Tom P on June 2, 2008
at 5:54 pm
If you are meeting this coming Saturday, I’ll be out of town, so I guess I’ll go ahead and weigh in here. I was not particularly enthused with Webber’s book, and although I appreciated his desire to restore the place of the Lord’s Supper, I am looking forward to dealing with that more directly in some other books that focus specifically on that issue.
Here’s what I did not care for:
1) Webber’s continued reliance on 3rd and 4th century sources as a model of the NT assembly – hadn’t significant distortion had already occurred?;
2) the connection with the tradition of temple worship and its rituals and symbolism as a model for the NT worship assembly (35)
3) the idea that worship is the enactment of an event – acting out the story of Christ (73-74);
4) that the assembly is a special, personal meeting with God “through signs and symbols of his presence” (74);
5) Webber repeatedly assumes premises and makes leaps from the OT to the NT that I don’t make with him and then he proceeds to base additional arguments on them [e.g., Because worship is a meeting between God and human beings, it is bound by the rules of order; Because worship is the enactment of an event… (74); Because it is an enactment of the gospel story…; Because worship demands response… (88); If we are to restore symbolism… (89)]
6) An understanding of the 4th and 5th century worship is important for us to know how to worship today because of the working out of rituals during this period (98)
7) “The Christian church has continued to use the practice of consecration and recognized that the place where people gather to worship is special.” !!!! (138)
As a balance to this book, I have also been reading “Spilt Grape Juice” and “Empty Baskets” by Mike Root, who is definitely well on the side of the edification model of the assembly. I haven’t finished “Empty Baskets” yet, but here are a couple of quotes to give you the idea. I think this addresses something Tom alluded to and I agree with this view much more than the formality presented by Webber:
“…the word “worship,” in whatever Greek word you like best, is never used in the New Testament in connection with a Christian assembly. The problem is that we don’t begin with a biblical definition of worship when we study or talk about it.”
“Worship is a life given in obedience to God. God told us to meet together to encourage, edify, and equip one another; so when we do that, God is obeyed and therefore worshiped, but no more than when we obey Him anywhere else at any other time. The Christian assembly is not THE worship.”
“You won’t find any place in the New Testament where these ideas of a special presence or encounter with God are part of the Christian assembly….The ideal of a limited or special presence of God comes from temple traditions and cathedral thinking.”
”I think it is amazing and ironic that reverence for God is never described in the New Testament as an attitude we must have inside a building, but a respect we show for Him by doing His will….Real reverence – real worship – is constantly being aware of the presence of God.”
By: Sandy on June 2, 2008
at 8:22 pm
To both Tom’s and Sandy’s points above, I agree that Webber misses the mark on worship. The tell tale sign of this was his quotation of how Christianity was chosen as the favored religion by Russia. The beauty of the cathedrals visited by the Russian delegations caused them to report “we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth.” Webber wants to create the awe of heaven on earth in appearing before God. Worship to Webber is about the awe and experience of encountering the presence of God, which he feels should happen in an assembly.
By his own admission, the NT is scant with “how” to create the heaven on earth feel, so he needs to go to the 3rd/4th Cent writings to get this.
I felt that Webber was yearning for something that we all yearn for…the feeling of God’s presence in our lives and in our assemblies. Obviously, he feels that we get that by signs, symbols, beautiful architecture, elaborate rites, and formal liturgy. Ironically, the “free church” movement is being embraced by those tired of formal liturgy, and the more formal liturgical approach is being embraced by those who are tired of the emotional/entertainment approach. I think that that says a great deal.
There is obviously a purpose for our assemblies. We are not to forsake them (Heb. 10:25), and they are opportunities to encourage each other. I think that I am beginning to unlock part of the mystery of worship. It seems to rarely be veritcal alone. Worship is mostly horizontal. Our prayers our for God to help each other. Our songs are to teach and encourage each other. Our giving is to help each other “collection for the needy saints…” (1 Cor. 16:1). Our preaching is to teach and encourage each other. AND, the Lord’s Supper was a “supper” eaten at tables (hence reference to the “table of the Lord” in 1 Cor 10), a meal of fellowship and celebration over the victory of Christ, done in memory of Him. The fellowship of the breaking of bread was for us to remember together. So what does this say about worship? Is worship only as vertical as it is horizontal? And if that’s the case in the assembly, is it the same way outside of the assembly? Is worship outside the assembly the acts referenced in the parable of Judgment of the Nations in Matt. 25 (feeding, clothing, visiting, and housing)… Jas 1:26-27?
What do you all think?
By: Robert on June 3, 2008
at 11:29 am
The thing I keep returning to is the WHY???
Does GOD need worship?
Is it for HIM or is it for US?
If it is for ME, then I would like to be awed, excited, entertained, and I want many interesting magic tricks that make the whole thing appear more powerful than it really is.
If it’s for GOD, he likely wants something different.
One thing I DO like in Weber’s book is that we should have more reinactment and visiting events. Christ’s death, burrial, resurrection … our commitment and calling … should be constantly before us.
I think the restoration movement often throws out the “baby with the bath water”. I think symbols like ceremonies and crosses, etc… may indeed facilitate tyhe message sometimes. But, because some turn these items into idols, we avoid them completetly.
I grew up Episcopal, and much of the formality Weber speaks of is included in that worship service. I always felt awed by the event (reverence for the ceremony), but I never felt spiritually involved.
By: Tom P on June 3, 2008
at 11:50 am
I think we can agree that God doesn’t need anything from us. His need seems to be to love us. There is something in His character that requires Him to give of Himself completely for us. I don’t understand that, but boy am I glad of it!!
I think that God wants us to be awed, excited, and entertained, but He knows how that will best be done. Episcopalians could not hold a stick to OT Israel in formalism and liturgy, but God knew that was a temporary measure. There has to be a reason He didn’t carry all of that over. The fact that He didn’t carry it over is a point Restorationists hone in on…the implication that He doesn’t want it. What He left us was the best way to get what we really need and want. Not to beat a dead horse on this, but I found everything that you are talking about at the Soto’s home Sunday night. If Ed could juggle 8 balls, it would only take away from the spiritual nature of what happens. It’s love, joy, and peace bellowing out from the heart. People who have left Miami mourn the loss of the meetings at the Soto’s. They miss nothing else in Miami…just that, and there is no recovery. You just remember how great it was and try to recreate it as best as you can where you are, or resolve to create it again one day when you are older, have your own house, and can make a difference like that.
By: Robert on June 3, 2008
at 2:06 pm
I understand the concerns about relying too much on later Christian sources, but the reality is that the NT documents do not reveal much in the way of an order of service. Most of what we have are brief mentions on specific aspects whose purpose was to deal with specific concerns and problems. There is no text that joins all “five acts of worship” in one assembly.
One problem I have with this book is Webber’s reading into the OT texts a formalized sense of institutional worship assemblies. Do a quick search on the word “worship” beginning in Genesis, and almost every instance is an individual who is worshiping in a non-liturgical setting.
It seems that “worship,” as used in the text, has more to do with sacrifice than an assembly.
Is this how you guys see it?
By: Jim Holway on June 5, 2008
at 6:05 pm