Ship of Fools: The use of the word “worship” eg. In MW 2586 & 2587

Thread: The use of the word “worship” eg. In MW 2586 & 2587 Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026502

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Can someone explain to me the use of the word “worship” in certain contexts with which I am not familiar, please?

I know what the word means – the content of any act of devotion – but it seems to be used in different technical sense, for example in MW 2587 from a Dulwich Baptist church http://shipoffools.com/mystery/2013/2587.html It seems to be used here exclusively to mean the congregational singing as in the comment “We went straight into worship, with a couple of the singers occasionally giving a verse or a thought”. Do the individual contributions count as part of worship?

Does this mean there is nothing in the servicer apart from the singing and the sermon? Or if there is, why is only the singing counted as worship? Is it that “worship” only covers praise and thanksgiving and not petition and penitence? If so, are there no other elements of praise and thanksgiving other than the singing? I must be missing something. Can someone explain?

(I’ll comment on MW 2586 in a further post.)

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

In this case I'd see it as being a lack of introduction, overly long welcome, or notices and that worship just started.

However the use of the term "worship" or "time of worship" to mean the period covered by approach and adoration, and at times thanksgiving is something that annoys me [Disappointed]

Example
"we had a wonderful time of worship at the beginning of the service, and then moved on to the readings and sermon..."
[brick wall]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

In some contexts, I think "Worship" is just a totum pro parte figure of speech referring to the singing portion of the service. It is typically used by members of churches where you start off with a praise band leading some songs, followed by a talk by a preacher, then some prayers, and a few more songs. I doubt they would disagree with the premise that they are committing an act of worship even when the band isn't playing, but it's just common parlance in those kinds of churches. (I find it as a useful indicator that a particular church doesn't do their Sunday service in the way I am used to and prefer.)

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Venbede, although I'm not sure this MW report is guilty, you are onto something important, something that matters. Over the last three or four years on several occasions I've encountered 'worship' being used to mean specifically 'singing' and only that. The circles in which this linguistic aberration is most prevalent means that the usual context is that 'worship' = 'singing with a band' and 'worship-leader' = not 'president', which is what one would have thought it meant, but 'the person in charge of the band'.

The implication is - and I suspect a lot of those who use 'worship' this way do think that - that the rest of the service, whether preaching, exposition, prayer, intercession, scripture readings or even the eucharist itself, whatever else it may be, is 'not-worship'.

IMHO this next example illustrates how serious an aberration this is. By analogy, if one were to apply this to a cathedral setting, 'worship' would be largely restricted to what the robed choir do. 'Worship-leader' would be the organist or choir master/mistress. There may be some choirs and some organists who do think that, but even they are sufficiently aware of the implications not normally to admit it.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

Let's remember the traditions that refer to "praise and worship". Praise being those songs that are fast and make you want to clap your hands, and worship being those songs that are slow and make you want to raise your hands or come down to the altar to pray.

So you can have a whole conversation using different meanings for the word "worship":

A: I went to worship at Destiny in Jesus Community Christian Fellowship Center International today.
B: Oh, what was it like?
A: Well, we started with three or four praise songs, followed by a really good time of worship, and then the pastor gave this great talk -- I guess you might call it a sermon? -- about dealing with all the junk in your life. Then we had another worship time where we were invited to come to the altar to pray and give it all to Jesus. The Spirit was really moving, man. God is good!

...as though worship were only songs sung at a certain tempo, or only music. Yet the whole service is referred to as worship, so it's confusing.

And yeah, I hear such language and think, "I'm really glad you're happy there and that you're finding God, but that really isn't my cuppa tea."

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

While I agree with all the above, I suspect that the MW phrase "We went straight into worship, with a couple of the singers occasionally giving a verse or a thought" means exactly what it says - i.e. that band started up with no introductory waffle, formal welcome or "call to worship", but the music started, the words came up on a screen, and everyone just stood up and joined in.

It's quite common.

[ 31. August 2013, 16:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

"Welcome! Stand up and put your hands together!"

(The smart aleck in me always wants to stand with my palms together in the classic "hands in prayer" gesture.)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I was wondering if there were some connotations from charismatic renewal that I hadn't picked up on...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I realise this is usage in a context of which I have no direct experience and I don’t wish to condemn good *people on the basis of their sloppy liturgical jargon. (I’m sure they’d be very surprised to hear they were using liturgical jargon, but that’s just what they are).

However, I was really surprised to find this worship=singing usage in describing an Episcopalian eucharist by a MWer who seemed familiar with the tradition http://shipoffools.com/mystery/2013/2586.html

In answer to the question “Was the worship stiff-upper-lip, happy clappy, or what?” the reply was “It was traditionally arranged 19th century hymns accompanied by the organ. Some of the participatory bits of liturgy had been set to music as well.”

So hang on, this Episcopalian eucharist didn’t include a Eucharistic prayer with Sanctus? What on earth or heaven is that if not “worship”?

* Although on the basis of that report I am not convinced of the human goodness of people who can tolerate that appalling sermon.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Actually, I suspect that it is not quite that. Having sat through more of these than I care or want to remember, that the reason for using "worship" is that actually it is a time of adoration that is done largely for music.

This makes a lot of sense of all those "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs if their intention was to create a mood where it is easy to adore God. It would also make sense of why they do not really work in a normal service.

Given the perfunctory nature of the adoration I often experience in service of the Word, this is I suggest a natural over reaction.

Jengie

[ 31. August 2013, 18:48: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
However, I was really surprised to find this worship=singing usage in describing an Episcopalian eucharist by a MWer who seemed familiar with the tradition http://shipoffools.com/mystery/2013/2586.html

In answer to the question “Was the worship stiff-upper-lip, happy clappy, or what?” the reply was “It was traditionally arranged 19th century hymns accompanied by the organ. Some of the participatory bits of liturgy had been set to music as well.”

So hang on, this Episcopalian eucharist didn’t include a Eucharistic prayer with Sanctus? What on earth or heaven is that if not “worship”?

I have to say this seem to not be a full reading of the text at hand, the MW goes one to talk about

quote:
The liturgy used was Rite II, Eucharistic Prayer B, with two notable modifications

it simply starts by describing the parts that where set to music, including parts of the liturgy - here the Sanctus I'd guess was one of them but not named.

I'd see that in both of the Mystery Worshipper reports referred to the term worship seems to be used IMO correctly.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

In the 80s when I was in Assemblies of God churches, "worship" did refer to the singing. It was called the "worship service," even, as a part of the service. E.g., the service consisted of the worship service, prayers, a sermon, and occasionally communion.

I suspect that's more common in churches that view themselves as a meeting of like minds for the purpose of worship, mutual encouragement, and the study of Scripture. The sermon, then, is the study portion, distinct from the worship portion. That's how I always understood it growing up. The idea that anything not beginning, "Dear Lord," and ending, "In Jesus' name, Amen" could be prayer and that the whole service was worship was actually new to me when I became Episcopalian.

YMMV, of course. I might've just been misunderstanding things all along, who knows.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
"Welcome! Stand up and put your hands together!"

(The smart aleck in me always wants to stand with my palms together in the classic "hands in prayer" gesture.)

A bit of a tangent I suppose but I have a similar reaction when asked 'Would you like to stand?' or 'Shall we pray?' I want to say, 'not particularly', 'if you insist' or 'I'm not in the mood today I'm afraid.'

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
In the 80s when I was in Assemblies of God churches, "worship" did refer to the singing. It was called the "worship service," even, as a part of the service. E.g., the service consisted of the worship service, prayers, a sermon, and occasionally communion.

Absolutely - this is my experience across a range of charismatic evangelical church meetings / services. 'Let's worship the Lord' means 'Let's sing some songs'.

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
The idea that anything not beginning, "Dear Lord," and ending, "In Jesus' name, Amen" could be prayer and that the whole service was worship was actually new to me when I became Episcopalian.

I'd go further than this - ISTM that 'worshipping God' in New Testament usage means something like 'putting God in his rightful place, submitting to his will and ways'. Obviously, in the NT that often took the form of physically following and obeying Jesus, but in any case ISTM there's not much link between worshipping and either singing or doing anything else when gathered together as God's people. Worshipping God is a whole-life thing.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
When asked 'Would you like to stand?' or 'Shall we pray?' I want to say, 'not particularly', 'if you insist' or 'I'm not in the mood today I'm afraid.'

Or, if the Minister says, "Shall we sing Hymn no. 123?", I want to reply, "Can't we have no. 456 instead, it's much nicer?"

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I am tempted to suggest - Let's get back to basics here.

Writing off the top of my head without reference books to hand, I would like to refer to a dictionary definition of Worship and I think I am right in saying - the word is short for worth-ship. One verse in a psalm comes to mind - Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; bring an offering and come before him - worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.

I will post again if further thoughts come to mind.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

In one olde marriage rite -- 1662 I think -- the groom includes in his vows the statement that "with my body I thee worship".

I expect he had more in mind than singing a lullaby!

In any case, that gives an insight into how far "worship" extends as a concept.

John

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Ya know, after 34 years of marriage, I still adore my wife's body.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

One's understanding of 'worship' will tend to vary depending on your background. Coming from a non-conformist/baptist/pentecostal background, I would primarily think of music, but I'm well aware that almost any actions done in a mindful way could be considered worship.

For example, in one church I was part of several years, I caused a stir when asked to pray over the offering and I referred to giving as an act of worship. It was a new concept to some people, though I was glad it caught on.

In more traditionalist churches, liturgical chanting is often considered worship, but this is rarely encountered in more modern churches, so is quite alien to a lot of people.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I've always understood the word 'worship' to mean'adoration' of any sort,particularly a lifting up of the mind and heart in prayer to God,either formal or informal, communal or individual.
The idea that it is a type of music is something
had never heard of before.You learn something new every day.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I suspect that it still has that meaning. Most people here are ignoring what style and type the music is. Remember that since the Reformation among Protestants the most perceivable way that the congregation is participant in worship.

The result is that a lot of things are actually put into music and that music is far more central to the Protestant worship than to more Catholic.

Worship refers not just to any time of singing but of singing a particularly range of songs. These predominantly have themes such as honouring God "Ascribe Greatness to our God", adoring "Jesus, Name above all name", "Lift Jesus higher" Praise and even intimate worship "I love you Lord". It is not accidental that in my old Mission Praise the two largest sections in Christian life are "Praise and Thanksgiving" and "Worship and Adoration".

Jengie

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Jengie, you are absolutely right.

But does that not narrow "worship" down to much? Do people who use the word in that sense need to learn about "Praise in the common things of life, its goings out and in; Praise in each duty and each deed, however small and mean"?

(The answer I would give, by the way, is "Possibly - or possibly not"!).

[ 06. September 2013, 11:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Ya know, after 34 years of marriage, I still adore my wife's body.

Last time I tried that one the judge said that was no excuse and the frozen chicken chest freezer at Sainsbury's at 3 in the afteroon was neither the time nor the place.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I am trying to suggest that it is being used in the same way as many of our more Catholic members use Adoration for a specific style of service.

Jengie

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Ya know, after 34 years of marriage, I still adore my wife's body.

Last time I tried that one the judge said that was no excuse and the frozen chicken chest freezer at Sainsbury's at 3 in the afteroon was neither the time nor the place.

Posted by ST (# 14600) on :

The best one I can think of was a description of an early morning BCP Holy Communion service - "it's a said service so there's no worship"! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
[QB] used here exclusively to mean the congregational singing as in the comment “We went straight into worship, with a couple of the singers occasionally giving a verse or a thought”. Do the individual contributions count as part of worship?

Does this mean there is nothing in the service apart from the singing and the sermon?

Yes I have been to non-denomination services that consist of 45 minutes of music and 45 minutes of sermon. No prayers except a brief sermon introductory "open our hearts to hear what God has to say to us through this sermon."

Any Bible reading is part of the Sermon - a verse, more sermon, another verse or two, in writing they would be footnotes - proofs that the sermon is Bible based. There's no reading long passages because people are expected to be reading their Bibles at home.

No Eucharistic prayers. Either there is no Holy Communion available, or it's off to the side, self serve if you want it while other things are going on (the worship or the sermon).

The brief talkings between songs are more likely thought of as inducements to participate in worship than acts of worship - here's the difference: worship is addressed to God. So a spoken "let's all raise our hands and worship God" is inducement, not worship. A spoken "God we just praise you" is worship even if not set to music, but usually music quickly follows.

All of which is why I was surprised to hear an Episcopalian music group leader refer to himself as the worship leader. That wording suggests to me a Non-Denominational background. Surely the primary worship in a TEC church is the Eucharist? Music is expendable, as proved by the said service?

Anyway, yes in some circles music and worship are used as if interchangeable words, even though most would agree technically there might be such a thing as worship that is not music.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ST:
The best one I can think of was a description of an early morning BCP Holy Communion service - "it's a said service so there's no worship"!

Found it!

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

But is a different version displaying for you? Miss Amanda sees "There was no worship of the singing/musical variety in the service", which isn't quite the same as "It was a said service, so no worship." And a little later on, the reporter thinks it heavenly that "Christian worship has been going on here for hundreds of years."

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Surely the whole service in church is worship whether music, readings, prayers and sermons. To pick on one small aspect of the service and call that worship is incorrect in my opinion.

Posted by ST (# 14600) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But is a different version displaying for you? Miss Amanda sees "There was no worship of the singing/musical variety in the service", which isn't quite the same as "It was a said service, so no worship." And a little later on, the reporter thinks it heavenly that "Christian worship has been going on here for hundreds of years."

Agreed, it's not a MW report that I was thinking of.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Nor was it your post that Miss Amanda was replying to, dear. Pererin wrote "Found it" with a link to the report in question. Sorry to have confused you.

[ 10. September 2013, 11:30: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But is a different version displaying for you? Miss Amanda sees "There was no worship of the singing/musical variety in the service", which isn't quite the same as "It was a said service, so no worship." And a little later on, the reporter thinks it heavenly that "Christian worship has been going on here for hundreds of years."

I asked Google and found the exact phrase here (which is not a mystery worship report), in the second paragraph, written by "a British Vicar & his wife".

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Ah, yes, there it is.

There is also this:

quote:
During the week the church had always had a 10am Communion Service on a Wednesday morning – although after 6 months of running this service people have only showed up twice.

Probably because there isn't any worship. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Ah, yes, there it is.

There is also this:

quote:
During the week the church had always had a 10am Communion Service on a Wednesday morning – although after 6 months of running this service people have only showed up twice.
Probably because there isn't any worship.

Oh, that awakens a memory, not about music but Wednesday morning church. Grandma used to go every week. Fewer and fewer other people went over the years. At last it was just her and the clergy guy.

I don't remember how long that went on, just her and him every week - months? years? but at last they had a talk and discovered neither particularly wanted to be there - she was showing up solely to support his efforts, he was showing up only because she kept coming. They agreed to stop. End of Wednesday mornings.

Job-holding people can't take a weekday morning off for church, nor can a child caretaker mother at home. Who is free to attend at 10 AM on Wednesdays? Where did that tradition come from?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've heard certain clergy refer to the midweek 10.00 in rather sexist, ageist and un-PC terms as 'the bagmass.' I can see the point of it if a few people come; much better (and fairer to workers and others) if regular weekday masses are held in the evening, or in some places midday or early morning.

Though I wouldn't regard celebrating the holy Eucharist as a chore, or only worth-while for a larger congregation.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

I've been at Wednesday morning Communion Services with an attendance of around 20, one of whom could play the organ (so there was "worship" [Razz]

). Definitely a higher median age than at other services, but it beats the classic Sunday morning choice between too quiet and too busy.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don't think Belle's grandma was attending a communion service. (Maybe she was, but Belle doesn't say.)

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

I was tallying to a pal of mine a week or so ago who's son's slightly autistic. They were at a Christian conference and she told him she would be "back after the worship." He was quiet for a minute then said "You mean you'll back after the singing part? I thought worship was something we did with the who,e of our lives."

Smart lad.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don't think Belle's grandma was attending a communion service. (Maybe she was, but Belle doesn't say.)

I don't know. That was in the days of Holy Communion once a month, morning prayer the other 3 Sundays, but I never thought to wonder what the Wednesday morning event was like.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Are we talking TEC? Certainly in the C of E, midweek services of any sort, in parishes of any tradition, are usually eucharists, unless they are bible-study groups which don't seem likely at 10.00 on a weekday morning.

Posted by AndyB (# 10186) on :

As an experienced musical director, there are two things I do not like: a time of worship, and a time of praise.

I don't like the phrase "time of praise" because it often implies some token songs led by a band to involve them, and everything else is traditional hymns. Then again, I like to have the right song at the right time of the service due to its content, and not because it's the right sort of style.

I cannot stand the phrase "time of worship" because as you've all already noted, it implies that you're not worshipping God during the rest of the service. Again, I think the whole service is worship, including the sermon (which after all should be proclaiming the gospel and thus giving God the glory, or teaching us how to give God more glory etc), and compartmentalising can lose that sense of the unity and integrity of the service.

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
As an experienced musical director, there are two things I do not like: a time of worship, and a time of praise.

I don't like "a time of..." anything.

Why do some Christians have this belief that putting "a time of" in front of a noun somehow makes it better? We do not talk about a time of singing, a time of confession, a time of listening, a time of intercession, a time of communion, and a time of blessing.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
We do not talk about a time of singing, a time of confession, a time of listening, a time of intercession, a time of communion, and a time of blessing.

Have you read Ecclesiastes? [Razz]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
I don't like "a time of..." anything.

Why do some Christians have this belief that putting "a time of" in front of a noun somehow makes it better? We do not talk about a time of singing, a time of confession, a time of listening, a time of intercession, a time of communion, and a time of blessing.

I used to think mainline Protestants (based on my massive experience of three or four services in a few of their churches) were in love with the word "moment." Instead of "a time of...," their orders of service seemed peppered with "moments": "Mission Moment," "Children's Moment," "Moment for Ministry," and "Moment of Silent Prayer." I think there was a "Choral Moment" in there as well. All precious moments, as I recall.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

In the Dutch language, we don't even have a good translation for the word 'worship'. Not one that we'd use in this context anyway.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:
Originally posted by AndyB:
As an experienced musical director, there are two things I do not like: a time of worship, and a time of praise.
I don't like "a time of..." anything.

Same here - I am even tempted to say that worship lifts us out of the realms of time into the eternal.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

Belle Ringer reports:

quote:
No Eucharistic prayers. Either there is no Holy Communion available, or it's off to the side, self serve if you want it while other things are going on (the worship or the sermon).

Is this for real? Is it common? I'm dumbfounded.

GG

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But is a different version displaying for you? Miss Amanda sees "There was no worship of the singing/musical variety in the service", which isn't quite the same as "It was a said service, so no worship." And a little later on, the reporter thinks it heavenly that "Christian worship has been going on here for hundreds of years."

[TANGENT]Given the pattern of services at that church, I think the MWer attended what was effectively a "stay behind" communion for those who wanted it and who had been at Mattins, rather than something intended to be experienced as stand-alone-service in its own right. That would certainly account for what was experienced as well. If you had already been to an 11.00 mattins you wouldn't want to spend long a t 12.15 communion, and you wouldn't need sermon etc. I notice too that on first Sundays when the 11.00 is a communion service the 12.15 doesn't happen.[/TANGENT]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0