Question 141, from John, United Kingdom

I was wondering when the churches began to separate the bread and wine out of the context of the Passover Seder, and how the “Bread and wine” became “the Lord’s Supper”. Can you help?

It is generally accepted that the ‘Last Supper’ that Jesus shared with his disciples took place around the time of the Jewish Passover. In the synoptic gospels, the ‘Last Supper’ certainly appears to be during Passover week, but John’s gospel implies it takes place beforehand. In John chapter 13, the Last Supper is set “just before the Passover feast” (verse 1), and the disciples assume Jesus is giving Judas instructions regarding preparations for Passover (verse 29). In addition, none of the gospels mention (more…)

Question 138, from Julie (UK)

My ex-fiance felt that he could receive messages in tongues from God for his own personal information and use. I could not see this in the Bible and felt uncomfortable about it. Can you elaborate?

‘Speaking in tongues’ – which can be defined as prayer or praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker [1] – is a Christian practice that can be quite divisive. Some Christians would regard it as an essential part of Christian experience, while there are many church streams that regard ‘tongues’ and other ‘charismatic’ practices to be redundant. The word ‘tongues’ can be confusing; in this sense it means speaking in another, unknown, language.

However this practice is now viewed, ‘tongues’ were certainly part of church life as recorded in the New Testament. 1 Corinthians, which Paul is generally assumed to have written, contains a number of specific instructions relating to how ‘tongues’ should be used in corporate worship. Interestingly, many of the experiences seen in current Pentecostal churches, including practices like ‘singing in the Spirit’, are not mentioned.

One often overlooked aspect of the use of ‘tongues’ is (more…)

Question 102 – from RT, USA

What does praise do? Why do we praise?

Praise, in terms of singing about or to God, is one aspect of Christian worship. Technically, all of a Christian’s life is regarded as being a place where the believer worships God. However, there are certain times when Christians gather together to express corporately their thankfulness to God using praise songs or hymns. God can also be praised in private devotional times.

There are two main reasons why Christians praise God. The first is that it is a purposeful activity for human beings to do, according to numerous Biblical sources. In fact, it would seem from the Biblical story of the Exodus that the main reason God wanted the Israelites freed from Egyptian tyranny was so that they could worship God freely (see Exodus chapter 7, verse 16). The second reason owes more to psychology and explains why worship/praise is common in virtually every religion. This is the sense that religious rites provide the participant with an understanding of the transcendent – that which is beyond normal experience. This sense of something higher naturally evokes praise.

In Christian terms, praise therefore brings the believer closer to God. It is a divinely sanctioned act, which God wants believers to do. Theologically, it can be argued that a reciprocal action takes place. As the believer delights in God, so God delights in the creation, as believers draw near to God, so also God draws near to them.

It is also believed that through praise God ministers to the needs of people, whether through supernatural ‘gifts of the Spirit’, or through direct revelation (prophecy). The action of praise and the atmosphere it creates also serves as a witness of the reality of God to unbelievers, usually resulting in conversion (1 Corinthians chapter 14, verses 24-25). In some Biblical accounts praise also caused the ‘enemies of the Lord’ to flee (e.g. 2 Chronicles chapter 20, verse 21-22). In churches with a tendency towards ‘spiritual warfare’, praise is seen as a key weapon against demonic influence, following on from the Old Testament idea of praise employed as a weapon.

However, it is generally considered that praise must be genuine in order for any of these things to occur. A key phrase can be found in John chapter 4, verse 23 when Jesus describes true worshippers as doing so “in spirit and in truth”. In the original Greek text, it would seem that Jesus is emphasising ‘spirit’ as a place a person is in (compared to being in Jerusalem or on the holy mountain of Samaria referenced earlier in the passage – John chapter 4, verse 20). ‘Truth’ also refers to a quality of worship – with that worship being a genuine response to God. Praise is also dependent on personal holiness (see e.g. Matthew chapter 5, verse 8), and is exercised in humility (Matthew chapter 6, verse 6).

Praise, then, is both a response to God and a means of apprehending God. It is usual for praise to be the first response of a person who suddenly becomes aware of the transcendent reality of God and serves a continuing vital function in the life of the church.

Thanks for your question RT.

Question from LH, USA

In our church people have an opportunity to share their prayer concerns and joys. A lot of the time I feel these prayer requests are really just information sharing. Which I guess is okay because they can be prayers too and we all have pure and impure motives when we pray, we are a broken people! But now people would like a follow up to these concerns. They would like an elder to contact them after the prayer request and I guess see how it went. My question is: isn’t this taking the focus then away from God and putting it back on to us? Aren’t we then sort of checking up on God? And aren’t we then sending the message to the congregation that this is a time of information sharing and a call to have a pastoral visit, instead of focusing on God and asking Him alone to transform people? Or am I missing the point of the sharing time during corporate worship?

Corporate prayer in Christian religious services has a long history, stretching back to Peter’s prayer shortly before the selection of Matthias as a replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts chapter 1, verses 24-25. However, it would seem that even among the earliest Christian gatherings, there were some difficulties when it came to corporate expressions of worship (see, for example, 1 Corinthians chapter 14, verses 26-40). As Christianity became more structured, corporate prayers were usually led by the recognised leaders, or priests, and this system is found in many traditional denominations today. However, there has been a move in recent years towards setting time aside in Christian services for ‘open prayer’. As is ever the case, freedom of expression can lead to problems.

One of the clearest examples of the misuse of public prayer found in the New Testament is in the parable where Jesus contrasts the motives of the ‘holy’ Pharisee and the ‘sinful’ tax collector (Luke chapter 18, verses 9-14). In this short fable, the Pharisee uses his prayer to tell others about his own holiness, while the sinner addresses only God and asks for forgiveness. The Pharisee thus abuses the prayer time and it does him no good in the eyes of God. Taking this parable and applying it to the scenario outlined in the question, it would seem that moving the focus of prayer from God to the needs of the person praying, is less than ideal.

However, and while it is not the place of freelance theology to criticise any particular form of Christian expression, it would appear that there is a genuine case of unmet pastoral needs in this given situation. It is probably the case that it is only when the pastoral needs of the church members are addressed adequately that the proper focus for corporate prayer will be rediscovered.

Thanks for your question, LH.

Question from DH, USA

I was wondering if you could explain the Biblical grounds for water baptism and why it is required for membership in many churches today? John’s water baptism is distinguished from the baptism of Jesus which was a baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts chapter 1, verse 5). As I understand it, that occurs at the moment of conversion. So why do we still practice a water baptism?

Full baptism ‘by immersion’ is practiced in many protestant churches that have their roots in non-conformist teaching (i.e. historically they differentiated themselves from established state churches). In seeking to rediscover the Biblical practice of baptism, for a variety of theological reasons covered later, these churches began to teach that true baptism was undergone voluntarily and involved complete immersion in water. The model this is based on is Jesus’ own baptism as recorded in the gospels, which implies full immersion. For example, afterwards Jesus “came up out of the water” (Mark chapter 1, verse 10), using the Greek words ek’ tou udatos, which can only be translated as ‘out of the water’. This implies he was under the surface of the Jordan River during his baptism.

Jesus subsequently commanded that believers be baptised as part of the Great Commission (Matthew chapter 28, verses 18-20), although it is not clear from the gospel accounts whether he insisted that his companions during his earthly ministry were all baptised. It is likely that some of his disciples had been baptised by John the Baptist prior to meeting and following Jesus.

There are a number of theories why Christian tradition changed to infant baptism. Because of the link made by Jesus between belief and baptism, the act of getting baptised was often regarded as a necessary part of being saved. The high infant mortality rate meant that believer’s children might die without being baptised, and thus saved, so it may be that infant baptism developed as common practice to ensure dead ‘innocents’ were washed clean of original sin and therefore would enter Heaven. During the Reformation the principle Reformers refused to abandon the practice of infant baptism, with Huldrych Zwingli, among others, arguing that baptism was the new, and superior, circumcision that marked God’s covenant with his new people, the Christian Church. Zwingli saw baptism as superior to circumcision because it included girls as well as boys, and it was painless. Luther and Calvin regarded infant baptism as marking children out as part of the covenant people. Having your children baptised became a statement of belonging and was linked to family loyalty to the governing powers – an important aspect of life in the threatened Reforming states that had broken with the temporal power of the Holy Roman Empire and the Pope.

However, during the Reformation, many Christian sects sprang up that rejected infant baptism and argued for full ‘believer’s baptism’. Labeled ana-baptists (‘re-baptisers’), these groups were persecuted by both Catholic and Protestant authorities, sometimes with due cause. Many of these groups contained radical elements, which believed in the imminent apocalyptic end of the world and advocated anarchy or different moral codes. However, despite their persecution, these groups provided the blueprint for the emerging non-conformist practice of baptism, both in Europe and the USA.

The theological reasons behind baptism by immersion are quite varied. They range from the idea that in baptism, the participant symbolically enacts death and resurrection, by going beneath the water and emerging a ‘new creation’. In Colossians chapter two, verse 12, Paul tells the Christians in Colossae that they “were buried with [Jesus] in baptism, in which you were also raised with him” (see also Romans chapter 6, verses 1-11).

There is still a strong sense that through baptism, Christians fulfil Jesus’ commandment in the Great Commission, with baptism almost ‘sealing the deal’, acting as a definite sign of the inward acceptance of Christ as saviour. Baptism as a public act is seen as a crucial means of identifying oneself as a believer in Christ.

Within the denominations that still practice infant baptism, the idea that baptism symbolically washes away sin is still held, and this is sometimes found in traditions relating to baptism by immersion. In Acts chapter 22, verse 16, Paul relates how after his vision of Christ on the road to Damascus he was instructed by Ananias to “be baptised and wash your sins away”. There is some debate whether this cleansing from sin actually happens at baptism, or, alternatively, if baptism merely represents symbolically the internal purification of the believer. Certainly in the current Roman Catholic view, baptism of infants causes their regeneration at that point, cleansing them of original sin. It is essential to bear in mind that in regard to sacramental rites like baptism, Roman Catholic theology holds that the sacraments work regardless of the faith of those involved. So it is quite possible for infants to be regenerated, even though they could not possibly have an understanding of what the rite of baptism means.

However, the current standard protestant view is that baptism is not a necessary part of salvation, but it is a necessary part of being obedient to Jesus Christ’s commandments.

The distinction between ‘water baptism’ and the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ is another matter. In fact, the New Testament seems to indicate that the two are distinct and it is possible to have one without the other, as it were. In Acts chapter 8, verses 11-17, the believers in Samaria are baptised in water, and then are subsequently baptised in the Holy Spirit when the apostles Peter and John arrive. There is a definite distinction between the two events, as seen in the story of Simon Magus (‘Simon the Sorcerer’ in some translations). Simon Magus had himself been baptised (verse 13), but when he saw the effects of baptism in the holy Spirit offered the apostles money for their kind of power (verses 18-19).

Baptism in the Holy Spirit is a divisive issue among protestant Christians, especially over the use of ‘gifts of the Spirit’ (for example, speaking in tongues). There are several views on this, broadly split into two camps: those who believe that the external evidences of Spiritual gifts have ceased (the ‘cessationist’ viewpoint); and those who hold that the gifts can still be used today to enhance the proclamation of the gospel and the believer’s own understanding of God’s purposes. Opinion is divided over when and how the Holy Spirit enters the believer. Generally the consensus is that at the moment of confession of faith, the Holy Spirit enters the new convert. There are still some groups who hold that it is only with water baptism that the Holy Spirit enters the believer. Within Pentecostal or charismatic churches, there is sometimes the argument that the Spirit does not enter the believer until the evidence (Spiritual gifts) is seen. More often these churches teach that the believer receives the Spirit at conversion, but later (or at the same time) also experiences the Spiritual gifts. This is sometimes referred to as ‘baptism in the Holy Spirit’, but unlike water baptism, it is not considered a one-off occurrence.

There are problems with all these viewpoints. The cessationist view seems to be based more on personal preference for traditional, orderly worship styles, then Biblical grounds, although there are some Biblical ‘proof-texts’ used for arguing that Spiritual gifts ceased after the apostolic era. The link between water baptism and indwelling of the Spirit can be directly disproved from the passage in Acts cited above. The view, sometimes held in charismatic church streams, that Spiritual gifts are the sole evidence of the Holy Spirit is not necessarily Biblical, and charismatics have been rightly accused of promoting a two-tier Christianity, differentiating between ‘Spirit-filled’ Christians and those who are not. The use of spiritual gifts is also often open to criticism and ‘direct revelation’ of the ‘true meaning’ of the Bible, or authority given to ‘prophecies’ received, has led some churches into the margins of orthodox Christian belief.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit, however it happens, and whatever the results are, is generally accepted to happen at conversion. However, water baptism remains one of the ways in which Christians can publicly state their commitment to Jesus Christ, by fulfilling one of his final commandments made while he was on earth.

Thanks for your question, DH.

Question from JM, Sweden

I’ve been living in Sweden for two months now and have come across a puzzling difference between the translations of the Bible that we commonly use in the UK and their Swedish equivalent…

And again in the Swedish bibles it reads almost word for word, but with the word women taken out and replaced with “them”. Is there some kind of conspiracy going on?

This is particularly of interest to some of my friends who are female, Swedish and have leadership gifts, but have been taught by the Swedish state church that women are not allowed to lead.

The problem here lies in the particular texts used by the translators. A variant reading of Colossians chapter 4, verse 15 does read ‘his house’, rather than ‘her house’. It was this reading that was used in the English King James Version, drawing on the ‘Received text’ that was prepared by the scholar Erasmus during the Reformation and was also used by Martin Luther in his German translation of the New Testament. As the Scandinavian state churches are Lutheran, it is highly likely their traditional translations are also based on the ‘Received text’.

It’s worth noting that the ‘Received text’ is so called because it was the complete Greek text that Luther and others received from Erasmus. Despite the subsequent claims of supporters of the King James Version, the title ‘Received text’ does not imply any greater authority. In fact it was an edited Greek text drawing on the best-preserved manuscripts of the time, prepared in virtually the same way as modern textual scholars collate Greek texts to produce the most accurate version possible.

In the past 500 years or so, a number of earlier, and therefore arguably more reliable, texts have been discovered. In these earlier manuscripts ‘Nymphas and the church in her house’ (oikon autes: literally ‘house, belonging to her’) is the more common reading. In more recent collated Greek textual versions of the New Testament (e.g. Nestle-Aland fourth revised edition, published by the United Bible Societies in 1993), this textual form is given, with a footnote recording the textual variant oikon autou (‘house, of him’). It is therefore at the discretion of the translator whether Nymphas is considered to be a man or a woman.

The strong likelihood is that Nymphas is a woman’s name and the earliest texts bear this out. It could be presumed that with the growth of an exclusively male priesthood, it was naturally assumed that Nymphas would be a man, because of the implication that Nymphas led the church that met in his/her house.

In Philippians chapter 4, verse 2-3, the correct translation is actually the Swedish one. The passage reads ‘help them’ (sulambanou autais) and the word ‘women’ does not appear. But this translation, while accurate, is slightly disingenuous because there is no other way for us to tell in translation that Euodia and Synteche are women, as their names suggest. Paul refers to them as ‘fellow contenders for the truth’ and as ‘co-workers’, indicating some level of equality in service. Translating ‘autais’ as merely ‘them’ does not indicate the gender of the two women (who were undoubtedly women), leaving the modern reader uncertain as to their gender, and perhaps assuming that such named and important individuals would be male.

So, in short, there is probably something of a conspiracy, but it has its roots way back in the early history of Christianity as women were marginalised from positions of leadership. Most contemporary scholars and translators would seek to redress the balance by highlighting the gender of these leaders who worked alongside the apostle Paul (e.g. by inserting the word ‘women’ into the translation for clarity). The fact that the institutional church in Sweden has not incorporated these findings into current practice or translation probably indicates a continuing bias against women in leadership roles that has more to do with historical prejudice than accurate Biblical scholarship.

Thanks for your question, JM.

Question from MF, USA

What are curses? Are they real, and how do you make them go away? Can you make a curse on someone else go away?

A recent news story from England, reported on BBC online, relates to this in very interesting way. The city of Carlisle in Northern England has a bloody history relating to a time when the ‘reavers’ of the lawless English and Scottish borders exerted a reign of terror during the Middle Ages. [On a tangent, that’s where the English word ‘bereaved’ comes from.] During this period the Archbishop of Glasgow issued a ‘curse’ upon the reaver families in 1525.

As reaver history centres on Carlisle, a local artist carved the words of the Archbishop’s curse on a special 14-tonne stone commemorating the turn of the millennium. In early 2005 a number of people requested that Carlisle Council remove the stone because since it had been installed the city has suffered widespread flooding, a large city-centre toxic fire and had borne the brunt of the foot-and-mouth epidemic that significantly affected the agricultural economy on which Carlisle depends. To make matters worse, the local soccer team were relegated from the Football League. [Full details of this story can be found online]

Ironically, a ‘white witch’ argued against destroying the cursing stone because: “A curse can only work if people believe in it… if the council destroys it, they would be showing their belief in the curse… destroying the stone would be very bad for Carlisle because it would feed that power.” [Kevin Carlyon, quoted in a BBC Online article ‘White Witch Warns of Curse Stone Power’, 8 March, 2005]

While it is not freelance theology’s intention to endorse Wicca or paganism, there is a certain element of truth in this statement. The Bible is fairly consistent in believing that words do have power, whether ‘blessings’ or ‘curses’. Oaths and vows are treated as seriously binding. However, while curses are regarded as, in that sense, ‘real’ by the Biblical authors, there is also a clear paradigm where God counteracts a human-uttered curse: Balaam’s curse on the Israelite nation is turned to blessing (Deuteronomy chapter 23, verses 4-5; see also Numbers chapters 22-24).

Within a Christian theological framework, curses are rendered powerless. A significant aspect of the crucifixion is that it included an aspect of being cursed because Jesus was ‘hung on a tree’(see Galatians chapter 3, verse 13/Deuteronomy chapter 21, verse 23). Every curse invoked against a Christian is therefore dealt with, just as any sin or wrongdoing is dealt with, through Jesus’ death on the cross.

In terms of making curses on other people ‘go away’, in Matthew chapter 18, verse 18, Jesus tells his disciples that: “Whatever you bind on earth will be (or has been) bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be (or has been) loosed in Heaven.” This is a commission of authority to those who choose to follow Christ and it would naturally follow that curses and the subsequent effects of curses are included in this, as much as anything else.

Thanks for your question, MF.

Question from CM, United Kingdom

Those who come to Church seem more worried about “experiencing” God these days than about having a deep and full knowledge of Him as contained within the Bible. Is that a just a sign of the times that people want “signs and wonders” and faith just isn’t good enough anymore?

Wanting to see ‘signs and wonders’ is nothing new. Jesus was asked by the leading religious people to give them a sign in Matthew chapter 12, verse 38. His response, as recorded in that gospel, was vitriolic. Similarly Herod, the puppet ruler of Judea, was apparently eager to see the captive Jesus because “he hoped to see him perform a miracle” (Luke chapter 23, verse 8).

In both these cases Jesus refused to comply. The religious elite were chastised for not recognising his messiahship, a theme that dominates Jesus’ confrontations with them. They were the people who should have had no need for a sign. Herod was interested out of his own curiosity, nothing more, and Jesus had no intention of pandering to the demands of a spoiled despot.

However, elsewhere in the gospel accounts, and in the Biblical stories concerning Jesus’ followers, the miraculous is commonplace. Despite originally being included in the gospels to authenticate Jesus’ divinity in the minds of the reader, the miracles have caused immense problems for scholars in Western society since the Enlightenment. The rise of post-Modernism has fortunately rehabilitated the miracle stories, making them more acceptable to people.

As there has always been a ‘demand for a sign’, except during recent fads of rigorous rationalism, it should not be a surprise that people are looking for that now. Not much has changed in human nature in the past two thousand years and current Western culture is both consumerist and existential. Patrick Whitworth describes this tendency as such: “Reality today is people’s own experience. So we are all, in our Western society, children of existentialism, meaning ‘What I experience is truth’.” [Becoming a Spiritual Leader, Terra Nova, 2005, p.259]

This is both a challenge and a correction for the Christian Church. It is a challenge because it means the Church has to live good its promise. It is not enough to tell people that God loves them; they have to be shown. Similarly it is not enough to merely say that Jesus has conquered sickness; healing is the proof of the claim. Christians are therefore being pushed to prove their claims, which is only a worry for those who secretly do not believe their own propaganda. It is perfectly legitimate for the unbelieving to demand proof.

This questioning attitude is also a correction for the Church in that it prevents the development of a purely intellectual faith reliant more on human reason than faith experience. Obviously, there needs to be a balance between the two – experience should keep (fallible, limited) human reason in its place, while reason provides a limit on the possible excesses of charismatic religion. The difficulty is that sometimes the scale tips too far, so there exist churches with shallow theology ‘proven’ by dubious hysterical activity that can be easily manipulated, and churches who go as far as to deny that the miraculous can happen at all these days. In the case of the latter, a cynic could say that such churches have gotten so used to not seeing miraculous events they have had to find a reasonable explanation for why the things they read about in the New Testament Church do not happen in their church. Cue a doctrine of ‘dispensationalism’, prevalent in many non-Charismatic churches, that states that the ‘Spiritual Gifts’ were solely for the Apostolic era.

The question about faith ‘not being good enough anymore’ is interesting. Of course, this depends on what is meant by ‘faith’. If it means sound doctrine, then the argument can be advanced that any doctrine needs to be tested in the real world. Words have to be backed up by actions. While this probably does not apply to doctrines concerning the divinity of Christ, it does apply, as mentioned, to God’s power in healing. It is not unreasonable to expect pragmatic demonstrations that reinforce the doctrinal claims of Christianity, in some areas. Otherwise the statements made by Christians, however grand they sound, are ultimately meaningless.

There is a worry, however, that churches which perhaps over-emphasise the miraculous are ‘living in the moment’. As time goes on, and circumstances change, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that Christians without a sound knowledge of the Bible or Christian teaching (catechism to use its proper description) are more likely to lose their faith. Experience is transient and highly variable. A person who bases their personal faith on the way they feel is therefore constructing their life on something that may change rapidly. They are also partaking in the modern cultural cult, the idolatry of self; making themselves the arbiters of what is real and doing what sinful human beings have always tried to do – put themselves in the place of God.

Question from MF, USA

Why do we “praise” God? Does God need praise (flattery, compliments, the way most of us think of it)? Or am I misunderstanding this injunction? What’s the deal there?

In terms of Christian theology, God is regarded as being self-sufficient, in that no other thing can alter or affect His existence, so He does not ‘need’ to be praised, in that sense. Praising God should be a response from the heart of a believer, not something done out of duty or to ‘bribe’ God. In one of the oracles of the prophet Amos, the religious feasts and sacrifices are described as hateful to God when the hearts of the people are not set on doing the right thing (Amos chapter 5, verses 21-24). In that part of the Bible, and in several other places, praising God without meaning it is considered worse than not recognising Him at all.

Praising God for what He has done has been a Christian activity since New Testament times, continuing on from the praise (‘Hallel’), sung in Jewish worship. In the Bible, God is praised as creator, the rescuer of Israel, redeemer, saviour and because of His own intrinsic glory. It is not ‘flattery’, which has a certain amount of falseness to it, rather a natural expression of thankfulness and acknowledgement of the greatness of God. Ultimately, the reason to praise God is entirely subjective. People cannot be forced to do it; it has to be a genuine result of being aware of who God is and what He has done.

Thanks for your question, MF.

Recently freelance theology received a slightly negative comment from somebody who had asked a question and did not like the reply. As freelance theology is about freedom of expression, the complaint is printed below, followed by a response from Jon the freelance theologian.

Comment from AH, United Kingdom

I’m not sure I’m entirely happy with how my question was answered, the importance of corporate worship disappeared in an air of political correctness about worship as a lifestyle, something that I severely agree with. However, my concern and what I wanted to highlight with the question was actually the fact that worship, the corporate singing version of it, plays an important part in our lining up with God and each other. Joining the angels, like the crowd in heaven. I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before. I don’t know. I just felt that that it wasn’t really a thorough answer to my question.

A response from Jon the freelance theologian

The comment about worship being a lifestyle is not being politically correct, although it is a popular ‘buzz-phrase’ at the moment. In fact, the original answer noted that sung worship has almost always been part of the way Christians worship God. However, the equally valid point was made that it was not the only way.

The concept of having a ‘time of worship’ during a religious service can be open to misinterpretation. There is a tendency in Christianity to divide the ‘sacred’ from the ‘secular’, but Paul’s instruction in Romans chapter 12, verse 1 is to “…offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your spiritual act of worship.” This implies that worship affects every part of a Christian’s life, not just the physical things that occur during church services. Paul has been called many things over the years, but ‘politically correct’ isn’t one of them (ask any feminist theologian!).

If corporate sung worship is called just ‘worship’, that implies worship only happens at certain times on certain days, which can lead to the idea that whatever happens during the rest of the week is unimportant. Seeing the whole of life as worship to God hopefully means Christians can avoid the frequent charge of hypocrisy – that what they say on Sunday bears no relation to how they act on Monday.

Of course Christians gathering together is important. Songs and music may help Christians ‘line up’ with each other. There is a long-standing Christian tradition of corporately singing praises to God, a tradition that works so well at bringing people together that Marxists decided to copy the Christian idea and sing their own hymn, The Red Flag, together at their meetings. However, again the point must be made and it was said in your original comment, singing is only part of this. Most Christians also engage in religious rites (communion being the prime example), many speak creeds together, celebrate Christian festivals in special ways and a few choose to live in actual community together. All these activities bring Christians into line with each other and with God and they could all be viewed as acts of worship.

Got a question or a comment? Want to make a point? Email freelance theology.