IVP - Addenda & Errata - And the Worshp Survey Says . . .

And the Worshp Survey Says . . .

Yesterday I filled out an on-line survey for worshipers at the church I attend. There was a section on worship, and at one point we were asked to fill in by numerical order what aspects, or elements, of worship we valued the most (that’s not how it was worded, but it’s close enough)—Scripture reading, sermon, prayer, congregational singing, “special music,” baptism, communion, etc. Each aspect was to be given a unique number (say, 1-10). I tried to give them all a “1” or “2,” but the program wouldn’t allow it, and thus wouldn’t allow me to proceed! As usually happens, I was becoming progressively annoyed by the questions in this survey, but on this one I bottomed out. The pattern of worship is—or should be!—part of our churchly heritage, shaped by Scripture and the long wisdom of our forebears in the faith.

Now, I should tell you that worship (Presbyterian worship) is actually “done,” or led, exceptionally well at our church. Is someone wanting to “fix” it by finding out and catering to our preferences? Rightly or wrongly assuming this motive was in play, I wanted to respond, “Our preferences don’t matter. Lead us in worship!”

Later in the day I again came across Craig Broyles's (of Trinity Western University) article on “Lament, Psalms of” (the elegant title is mine) for our forthcoming Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings. Note the wisdom he finds in the liturgical function of the psalms of lament:

We should not view a lament psalm as a composition that a psalmist wrote in direct response to his own personal need. Rather, lament psalms are models of prayer composed for the generic needs of God’s people. In this respect, a lament psalm is not a mirror reflecting the composer’s experience; rather, it provides worshipers a framework to interpret their own experiences and to guide their expressions of prayer. A psalm’s development did not necessarily follow the author’s changing mood, but it was clearly intended to lead the worshiper’s experience. A lament psalm should be read not autobiographically but rather liturgically. We must be cautious, for example, when referring to a “change of mood” in some lament psalms. Instead of supposing, “The psalmist now feels like praising God,” we should instead think, “The psalm leads worshipers to praise God.”

The psalms were hammered out over generations of living with God. We moderns should not impose upon them our assumptions that individual, private experience is to be valued more highly than the experience of God reflected in a corporate identity. In fact, they are what generations of the believing community have found to be appropriate and effective ways of speaking to God. The worshiper who recites a psalm speaks not with a singular voice but rather with the voice of generations of God’s people. This should give greater confidence when speaking to God. In addition, we are invited to read our own personal experience against the wider experience of the community and so see that our experiences are shared by others.

Amen and amen! (And you thought reference books were just repositories of dry and dusty information.)

Posted by Dan Reid at March 11, 2008 5:23 PM