Church service as temple worship?

From my observation, most contemporary church-goers has considered the church “sanctuary” or the place where the corporate worship is carried out to be some kind of “holy place” or a “temple” where they come into God’s presence to worship. Although not explicitly said, but I think many in the local church subconsciously treated the church service or prayer meeting as something more spiritual or sacred in comparison to other kinds of Christian meetings such as home meeting/cell group or Bible study meeting. No doubt that since a church service is obviously more formal and organized compared to the other meetings, then I guess naturally it will be more esteemed. However, have we as new covenant believers unconsciously (or ignorantly?) transferred the Old Testament paradigm of temple worship into our religious practices? Have we also unknowingly regarded pastor as the NT equivalent to the OT priest or the worship leader/team as Levites?

Therefore, I strongly feel that the contemporary church needs to be biblical educated in the Theology of Christian worship since there are many elements/forms of worship found in the bible (that is in OT) that are not directly “transferable” into NT perspective. Since Christ has fulfilled the OT laws, under the terms of the new covenant, it is either only Jesus is our high priest (Heb) or we have the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet). Jesus himself becomes the temple (Jn 2:13-22) or the church as a whole or as individual Christian is the temple (1 Cor 3:16-17; 1 Cor 6:19). Even the language of worship which in OT is so bound up with the temple/holy place and sacrificial system has been radically transformed by what Christ has done (cf. Jn 4:19-26, Rom 12:1-2).

So what are we to make of the contemporary church service? How do we understand what it means to come together for corporate worship? Is the praise & worship part of the service becomes our “offerings of worship” unto the Lord? In what way (if any) individual Christian’s acts of worship different from the corporate worship of the church?

Speaking in tongues as private devotional prayer language?

I think what I’m about to write here is going to be very controversial. I’m not surprise if after reading this many of my friends and acquaintances in the Pentecostal/Charismatic churches would label me as Pentecostal backslider or Evangelicalized Charismatic. Well, it is never my intention in writing this post to cause contention or to challenge the Pentecostal beliefs and theology. What I’m writing about here is the result of careful reading and rereading and study of the New Testament.

It is the official belief/doctrine of the Assemblies of God (as far as I know, in the US and in Malaysia) that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (BHS) is subsequent to one’s conversion and it is necessary for empowering Christian as witness for Jesus (cf. Act 1:8). According to AG Statement of Fundamental Truths, the BHS is normatively accompanied by speaking in tongues as the initial evidence that someone is baptized in the Spirit or filled with the Spirit for the first time. AG has articulate, defended and reinstate this doctrine over the years and this is what mainly differentiated Classical Pentecostals from the rest of the Evangelical Christians in the matter of doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Pneumatology).

I have no problem with this doctrine. It has been shown by Rev Lim Yew Chuen, a Malaysian AG scholar that this is a normative pattern in the occurrences of the BHS in the book of Acts. Logically speaking, since the Spirit of God is invisible, there need to be an accompanying sign/evidence for us to know if a person is baptized in the Spirit.

Now what I am having problem with is the teaching on the practice of speaking in tongues as one’s private, devotional prayer language, commonly called praying in the Spirit by Pentecostals. For a start, if we read the narrative in Acts carefully, there is no subsequent record of the believers speaking in tongues AFTER they had been baptized in the Spirit. In Acts 4:8, when Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit once again, he became so bold and courageous to proclaim Jesus to the Jewish rulers/elders. Acts 4:31 recorded that when the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit once again, they spoke the word of God boldly as a result but no speaking in tongues was mentioned. The same thing with Stephen the Martyr. Full of the Holy Spirit, he saw the glory of God and Jesus. No speaking in tongues is mentioned either.

Many Pentecostals said that Paul is the one who taught about tongues as devotional prayer language, taking their cue from 1 Cor 14:4, 15 and 18. Here is where my problem lies. Those particular passages have to be understood in its immediate context which started in 1 Cor 12. Paul here is clearly addressing the exercise of spiritual gifts particularly the gifts of tongues and prophecy. Throughout chapter 12 to 14, he is talking about the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit exercised in the church. Early on he specifically mentioned that not everyone has every /all the gifts. That’s why he said we are different parts of the one body. Our different gift(s) from one another is/are meant for mutual edification. I have no idea how Pentecostals can make the sudden shift from the gift of tongues to the private, devotional tongues in 14:2, 4 and 18. The context and the flow of the argument simply would not warrant such jump. However, many would point out that 1 Cor 14:18 proved that Paul is talking about private tongues. Is he? Now if we do not bring into the text any prior concept of private, devotional tongues, would we naturally understand this verse this way? Apparently not. If we follow the context, he is still speaking about the spiritual gift of tongues and prophecy as evident from his subsequent argument from 14:9-33.

But then if not in public meeting then when did Paul have been speaking in tongues more than any of the Corinthians? Is it logical to conclude that it must be in private? Perhaps. But if we pay careful attention to his argument, this interpretation I think is more natural: Paul is exercising the GIFT of tongues more than anyone else because he also has the gift of interpretation of tongues. That’s why he can say like that. After all, he just said in 14:15-16 that he will pray/sing in tongues and also in understanding so that others can say “amen.” The flow of the text and its context will tell us that this is still the exercising of the spiritual gifts, not any “personal tongues” for self-edification. However, in 14:19, he prefer to speak in intelligible words since this way is more direct and immediately understood rather than in tongues that needed to interpret as a second step. Perhaps some people will point out to verse 28 as justification for speaking in “personal” tongues in church since the speaker can speak to themselves and to God (for self-edification). Still, however we may understand this verse, the context is still clear that Paul is still talking about the gifts of tongue (that not everyone has) rather than personal tongues.

Someone may object at this point. If the gift of tongues, being one of the many spiritual gifts given by the Spirit as he determines (not to every single one, as per 1 Cor 12:29-30) to edify others, how then can Paul say that those exercising this gift edify themselves? Isn’t it meant to edify others? Well, the answer is of course it is meant to edify others. That why tongues needs interpretation. But even if there is no interpretation, it will still edify the speaker for the fact that God uses that person to bring manifestation of the Spirit (cf. 12:7). A person uses by God to bless others will surely himself be edified spiritually, is it not? That is precisely why Paul told the Corinthians to prefer the gift of prophecy rather than the gift of tongues because prophecy will directly addressing (thus edifying) others but tongues has the possibilities of not being interpreted thus not accomplishing its purpose to edify others except the speaker personally. He basically doesn’t want them to misuse this gift for personal benefit because it is meant to benefit the body.

Now how about the instructions to “pray in the Spirit” elsewhere in the NT? Doesn’t that pointing us to personal devotional tongues? Well, let’s look at those passages. They are found in Eph 6:18 and Jude 1:20. The term “praying in” the Spirit, in Greek have few range of meaning namely “by means of,” “with the help of,” “in the sphere of” or “in connection to.” In all the above meanings, they refer to how we pray rather than the words we are saying. In their respective context, praying in the Spirit is likely to mean praying according to the Spirit’s leading or praying in dependence of the Spirit. Nothing in those two verses suggesting that they meant praying in tongues (as of personal devotional tongues). Even in Rom 8:26, the context will not point us to praying in tongues but rather it is the Spirit that prays for us, not ourselves because the groaning CANNOT be uttered. Praying in the Spirit is not praying in tongues just like walking in the Spirit is not walking in tongues (Gal 5:25, NKJV).

Interesting theological model on Spirit's Baptism

Baptism of the Holy Spirit, A New Model by By Gordon L. Anderson as published in Enrichment Journal Winter 2005 Issue

Here are some excerpts:

The goal is to try to understand what is involved in spiritual life and how it is accomplished. The nine elements are:

1. Justification: the experience of forgiveness, adoption into the family of God, being made spiritually alive, receiving the potential for growth and development, and enjoying fellowship with God.

2. The Word: the source of direction for life, conviction of sin, encouragement, and doctrines to live by.

3. Prayer and fasting: the source of strength, power, growth, and discipline for an overcoming Christian life.

4. Community (or the church): where a person receives the help, support, correction, rebuke, encouragement, and fellowship needed to live a successful Christian life, and the opportunity to minister to others.

5. Water baptism: a symbolic rite that signifies the reality of the Cross in the life of the believer. This experience symbolizes the spiritual crucifixion that takes place in our lives, where death to self is established, and we are made alive to God and dead to sin.

6. Sanctification: the ongoing, progressive work of purifying and perfecting the believer.

7. Suffering: the divinely ordained trials and tests; the chastening that produces strength, character, obedience, and perseverance.

8. Ministry: the call of God to service that is accompanied by empowerment, ministry gifts, and the ability to get the work of God done.

9. The baptism in the Holy Spirit: the experience subsequent to salvation where more power for ministry, more gifts, more miracle-working ability, and many other added dimensions of spiritual power are given. This experience includes the ability to have noncognitive communication with God by means of speaking in tongues. In addition, more passion and emotion for ministry are conveyed.

This list shows there are many significant spiritual activities in the life of any believer. We all know people who strongly disagree with the doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit (No. 9), but who demonstrate a godly life and ministry because of their rich experiences in God in the other areas (No. 1 through 8). For example, there are many non-Pentecostal ministers who have not had a Pentecostal experience and do not speak in tongues, but have, nonetheless, wonderful ministries by virtue of their knowledge of the Word, the sufferings they may have endured, and the discipline of a rich prayer life.

Evangelicals collapse No. 9, the baptism in the Holy Spirit, into No. 1, and eliminate the charismatic gifts and speaking in tongues. Charismatics are satisfied with the list, but they eliminate tongues as the essential item in

No. 9 — the baptism in the Holy Spirit — and emphasize its value as a prayer language. They also believe the baptism in the Holy Spirit is for personal edification and spiritual growth more than an empowering for service. Third Wave Christians probably agree with the elements in the list, but de-emphasize the unique experiential quality of No. 9 — the baptism in the Holy Spirit — and see it rather as a gifting that occurs apart from a specific and concrete experience. Also, they eliminate the necessity of tongues for this enabling to occur. Over-reaching Pentecostals see No. 8, ministry, as following from the baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Some even include No. 6, sanctification, as a part of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

The presence of God

As Pentecostals, we are group of Christians that are well known for the hunger and zeal for the presence of God to be manifested among us in our meetings and the community at large. Undoubtedly, these enthusiasm and expectation were the hallmark to the early Pentecostal meeting as transparent in the Azusa Street revival and has became one of the main heritage of the Pentecostal movement worldwide to this day. The pentecostal revival has brought radical changes to the order of Christian worship meetings from being liturgical and predictable to become free-flowing and variable, with much expectation for God's presence to be felt and demonstrated supernaturally.

I myself is growing up in Pentecostal churches this way. Without being really perceptive of or even being able to understand this mindset in light of the Scripture, usually, as honest as we are, we are kind of driven by this hunger for God's presence almost every time we attend prayer meeting, worship services and especially revival meetings. Usually, the "highlight" or the "best" moment of a service would be the "time of worship" and "altar call" as they were. Somehow, when the time of worship is over, the atmosphere became relaxed and emotions are at bay. With this came along the notion of the "time of worship" and the "time for the Word" resulting in the unfortunate division between worship and preaching. Hence, instead of the whole service being the gathering of worship, only the singing/meditation/prayer/waiting on God are considered to be the "worship" time, as opposed to the preaching, announcement, offering collection, etc. This mindset could inevitably entails, to the larger extent, a further division between the sacred and secular and the unfortunate understanding that certain places (such as church "sanctuary") is the locust of God's presence. Thus we, without conscious understanding of the New Covenant's scheme of things, for example said, "Let us come into the house of God (by which we meant, the church building/lot) to worship and seek God's face" as if our churches representing the temple of God as in the ancient Israel.

I would like to argue that for any particular meeting of God's people, as long as God is magnified in our fellowship, be it through prayer, singing praise unto him, preaching of his Word, giving unto the Lord etc, the  whole meeting/event is the corporate worship of God's people unto him. There should be no division between time of worship, time of preaching, etc because the whole thing is our worship unto the Lord. This means that the entire service must be observed with reverence, not just the "worship" part. Moreover, there should be no division between the sacred and the secular either (for example, attending/participating in church activities are considered sacred matters while our daily doings such as family time, our job/carrier, social activities are thought  to be secular). Apostle Paul in Romans 12, are quite clear that our entire life should be presented as offering to the Lord, being our true/spiritual/reasonable worship, thus blurring any distinction between sacred and secular.

As far as the presence of God is concerned, the Scripture as a whole is quite clear that our God is omnipresence. The heavens are his throne and the earth is his footstool. Without denying the testimony of Scripture that God did chooses sometimes to localize his presence dramatically at certain places (Eden, Mount Sinai, Tabernacle, Temple, personal encounter, etc), the basic truth that God is everywhere-present must, I think, governs our understanding at the foundation. If he chooses to reveal his tangible presence to us, we need to understand that it is at his gracious will and not because we can somehow cause his presence to come down. In fact, I think whenever the Spirit of God is convicting our hearts, bringing clarity of God's Word into our understanding, encouraging and comforting our weary soul, God's presence is manifested, just that perhaps not as dramatic as we expect it to be. We will be wise to heed Wayne Grudem's assessment that "one of the Holy Spirit's primary purposes in the new covenant age is to manifest the presence of God, to give indications that make the presence of God known." Thus, whenever the Spirit of God is at work, God's presence is manifested, whether we are conscious of it or not. Still, at the most fundamental level, objectively what brings and enables us to enter God's presence is the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, not what we have or can do, and certainly not the intensity of our singing and music.

Surprised by Memoirs of the Azusa by Frank Bartleman

Memoirs of the Azusa Revival was published in the Enrichment Journal in 2006. It is one of our reading materials in the Pentecostal Foundation subject. This memoirs was written by Frank Bartleman describing his experience attending the Pentecostal Revival that happened in Azusa Street, Los Angeles. Surprisingly, he described things that happened as the "ark of God" which he said as "moved off slowly but surely." I'm not entirely sure but I think he is talking about the presence of God. That gets me thinking. Why was he associating the presence of God in Azusa with the ark? Did he meant that the Azusa believers had somehow become the new Israel? Did he meant that God only specially present at Azusa at that time? Is that even in line with the New Testament teaching? He goes on to mention that Christians meetings at other places began to close up due to their people coming to Azusa. The tone of his writing suggesting that it was something to be proud of. Now should any thinking believers be proud when people abandoned their respective ministry/fellowship of believers for another revival in other places? Well, when Jesus came to the world, his ministry was restricted around Galilee and Judea in Palestine. Jews in diaspora did miss out but then eventually through his disciples they did come to hear and experience their Messiah (but of course many rejected him after hearing). My point is, celebrating the fact the God moved in one place in not the other is really meaningless because God is sovereign over the entire universe. Bartleman even said Los Angeles is the American Jerusalem...a statement I found really strange. In the Bible, didn't the Holy Spirit also fall in Samaria, Caesarea and Ephesus? What about the Welsh Revival and revival in other places in America prior to Los Angeles? Of all these, my biggest surprise is that of all his description and commentary on what he experienced in Azusa, at least in this article, there is no single mentioned of the Name of Jesus! It makes me wonder, what kind of working of God's Spirit that would not glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom the Spirit testify? Now I am by no means questioning the authenticity of the Azusa Revival but I wonder if everyone attending the meetings really understand what God was doing and really benefited from it according to Divine purpose.

Pentecostal/Charismatic Spirituality

Without question, the Pentecostal Revival followed by the Charismatic Movement/Renewal have changed the face of modern Christianity from a formalized, institutionized and lethargic religion into a vibrant, expressive and passionate spiritual life by calling Christians to hunger and seek for “encounter” with God, actively expecting and responding to the move of God’s Spirit in the church and its missionary works, creatively expressing the gospel by its music and worship style, its praise-permeated spontaneity and bold ventures in community.

As J.I Packer puts it, “It [Pentecostalism] sees itself as a revitalizing re-entry into a long-lost world of gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit, a re-entry which immeasurably deepens individual spiritual lives, and through which all Christendom may in due course find quickening. Charismatic folks everywhere stand on tiptoe, as it were, in excited expectation of great things in store for the church as the movement increasingly takes hold.”

Being much involved in Pentecostal/Charismatic church myself, especially in taking up role as worship leader in church services, a creative, expressive and passionate worship was something that I sought after. I remembered sometimes ago, in our church service that was mainly consist of youth, week after week we zealously worship the Lord and often expect some forms of manifestation of the power of God’s Spirit in our midst. The general expectation runs along this (albeit theologically and biblically ignorance, since when being such enthusiastic about God’s presence, not much thinking takes place) line: praise God until the Spirit comes and worship God until His glory fall. I’m not sure if this line of thinking and expectation holds true for many Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians but I think it does reflects the mood and probably the worldview of most Pentecostals, that is, a hunger for some kind of personal, tangible (and may I dare say, a “dramatic”) encounter with God.

It is not my intention to question or to be skeptical of such passion for I myself was numbered among those that I just described. But after several years, I took some liberty to seriously think about it and begin to wonder if this is a misplaced or misguided but otherwise sincere passion and hunger for the things of God. The reason I say this is because too much of the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic-like spiritual life (hence “spirituality”) is centering on oneself and on their respective exciting experiences rather than being God-centered and contemplative of who God is as revealed in Scripture, much less on what the cross has accomplished in the lives of believers. Untrue to the heartbeat of the NT and also the Pentecostal fathers, the gospel is only mainly heard in evangelistic events, Good Friday/Easter or during Holy Communion addresses. Other than that only scant mentions of what God has done to reconciled sinners through his Son Jesus Christ and all the spiritual significance that flows from it were mentioned in most Charismatic-like sermons. Too much emphasis on personal needs, appeals to feelings/emotion, on the “how to live a victorious life” or the “7 steps to experience breakthrough” kind of formulatic messages. Sadly, the gospel is appeared to be regarded only as category for the entry point of salvation while the rest of the spiritual life from there on turns on spiritual exercises such as prayer, devotion, Bible study, worship, encounter with God, etc.

Believers coming to church service usually expecting some kind of “special touch” from the Holy Spirit which could potentially entails dissatisfaction if they did not experience any tangible goose-bump or the like. What worries me is that instead of letting the Spirit of God works according to His sovereign way, we due to our misinformed expectations, would tend to expect him to work only in certain ways, that is, in certain dramatic, tangible or sensible manners. So while in our prayers we asked God to move freely, in our expectation, we unknowingly put him in a box. We that has a very commendable habit of Scripture devotion, of all people should realized that, as much as God through powerful manifestation of his power has caused people to come to saving faith and empower his people for service, has also saved other people through “normal” and casual preaching or conversation such as in Acts 8:26-39, 13:13-52, 16:13-15 and 17:16-34 and has also empower his people to go through hardships (Rom 8:14-28) in the natural world, not to mention enablement from God for the “unspectacular” gift of serving, teaching, encouragement, generous giving and even to show mercy (Rom 12:3-8).

I sense a dire need for modern-day Pentecostals/Charismatics to be more careful and be more reflective in our practices. We need to really evaluate if our spirituality measure up to what the Scripture actually taught. In the end of the day, it is not about us but about God. However powerful and dramatic the manifestation of God’s power we may expect and that really had happened, it is by his grace and according to his sovereign prerogative. Moreover, manifestation of his Spirit is meant to point us to Christ, who through his death and resurrection has accomplished for us our salvation, sanctification, and eschatological perfection to come and in turn poured his Spirit upon us as deposit for eternal life and to empower us to live by faith in his finished work. Instead of being intrinsic, biblical spirituality should be extrinsic, that is, focusing upon God and his great redemptive acts in human history that arousing deep affection and heartfelt responses.

AG Articles of Faith Item 8: The initial evidence

In today's class, we were informed that some AG churches no longer hold to the entire AG statement of faith, one of them being the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (HS). I followed with interest this matter for couple of years now and personally begin to question it myself. From my experience in Pentecostal church, I've seen many questionable occurrences of speaking in other tongue. One of it is that, when people were being prayed for to receive the Baptism of HS, they were asked to "desire it," to simply "speak it forth," sometimes with insistence from the minister. Worst, I've seen people were asked to "imitate" the other tongue speaker and even being whispered tongue-speaking into their ears. I'm certainly not a theologian or scholar or even have enough skill to do exegesis on Act 2, 8, 10 and 19 but apparently from my surface-value reading, I found in no condition that the first recipients of the baptism of HS were "thought" or even make any significant effort to speak in tongues. In Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19 it just happened spontaneously. Especially in Acts 10, the Gentiles and Peter himself were not even expecting anything to happen.Very interestingly, the NT records of baptism of HS occurred to particular groups of people, almost in logical sequence of redemptive history, starting with Jewish believers, Samaritan converts (half-Jewish), Gentiles converts and the "disciples" (of John the Baptist?) which seems to be "half-Christians" (was baptized for repentance but haven't heard of the HS...i.e, non-apostolic believers?). Should we take this as the sign of God's acceptance of particular groups into his Kingdom or as a normative pattern of experience for all individual believers?

From 1 Cor 12, when Paul speaks about the spiritual gifts, he told the Corinthians that God's Spirit distributed each (or should we say "different?") gifts to different people for the benefit of the body, in which different members function differently. In the end of that chapter he throws a rhetorical question: "Are all apostle? Do all work miracles? Do all speak in tongues?" The answer is obviously NO. Not all are apostles and not all speak in tongues. Moreover, in chapter 14 he goes on to talk about how the gifts, particularly prophecy and tongues, should be properly used in public worship. Paul said he was speaking in tongues more than others in Corinth but in the church he rather not speak something unintelligible like tongue that does not edify others but oneself.

I've heard some pastors trying to distinguish between "personal tongues" and "the gift of tongues" but I find no warrant in NT to make such categories. Perhaps they are drawing conclusion from the biblical account of Acts where all attendees were speaking in tongues when the Spirit falls on them thus making it "personal" tongues while in 1 Cor 12-14, Paul clearly speaking about the gifts of the HS which not all had. But precisely what biblical principle must be used to warrant such hermeneutics? Moreover, in any case, should tongue-speaking believers keep speaking in tongues in public prayer or worship meeting while clearly the speaking in tongue would not benefit others but individual speakers? Doesn't that violate the principle that Paul had laid in 1 Cor 14? Doesn't that appear to be "individualistic" corporate worship as opposed to the principle of mutual edification in 1 Cor 14 and also that is so cardinal in other Pauline letters?