山道期刊

Ethical Dimensions of Worship in the Old Testament

WONG Fook Kong

In recent years, scholars like Hauerwas, Wells and Wannenwetsch have explored the relationship between worship and ethics. They have shown that the relationship between worship and ethics is closer and more involved than has been traditionally understood. Following their lead, this article points out that the Hebrew words usually translated as worship have ethical dimensions. The word 

( means, “to worship, to serve.” In quite a number of Biblical passages, it highlights the choice of one master over another with the implication of living according to the will of one over the other. Romans 12:1-2 is an echo of this concept in the New Testament. The other word, 

emphasizes submission of the worshipper to the will and authority of the one worshipped. Thus, worship is intricately connected to the worshipper’s ethics and world view in the Old Testament. The last section of this article discusses some limitations of worship as an incubator of ethics.

Worship as Foundation of New Testament Ethics: A Reflection on Some New Testament Passages

Samuel P. CHIA

The discussions of Christian ethics seldom connect with one aspect of Christian life, that is, worship. This paper attempts to show that worship that is construed in the right direction is the foundation of Christian ethics. In John 4:20-24, Jesus’ whole discourse with the Samaritan woman centers on the realm of worship. He tries to redirect the woman’s attention from the external to the internal. In the pericope of Jesus’ temptation recorded in Luke 4:7-8, Jesus’ refusal to worship the devil means that he refused to submit to the moral characteristics of the devil. For Jesus, cultic behaviors have a great effect on a person’s ethical resolve. Jesus’ rebuke aptly presents the concept that the cultic and practical side of worship cannot be separated. It follows that knowing the character of the deity and His requirements are essential for the worshiper, ensuring that whatever is performed and resolved is in accordance with His wishes and person. When we turn to Paul’s teaching in Romans 12:1-2, we see that the act of genuine worship has to be generated from the worshiper’s inner conviction of submitting oneself to God. The cultic aspect of worship cannot be separated from the moral resolve attained and the subsequent behavior of the worshiper. Thus, it is more than just a sporadic ritualistic act; it is a continual submission of one’s life to God’s moral guidance. Also, worship in the New Testament is more of a community event than an individual event. The believers gather together as a community. They proclaim their submission to God in recognition of the salvation by the mercy of God through their Lord Jesus Christ. The breaking of bread, the hearing of the words, the singing of songs, and so on so all tie together to form the community’s moral resolve to act and live in accordance to God’s moral attributes. Paul’s dealing with the Church of Corinth shows that another important dimension of worship is serving the fellow believer sitting next to the worshiper. In other words, worship should foster an attitude of caring, upholding, loving, nurturing, and respecting of one another. It has ethical implication for Christ’s community.

In the light of the above discussion, several areas of concern for today’s church are in order: (1) The worship leaders and pastors, as a team, need to evaluate each segment of the meeting to see if it moves the worshipers into a decision to conform to God’s holiness after the meeting has ended. (2) The worship service should be one that solidifies the local community of believers so that the community is motivated to ethical thinking and actions. The believer should be taught to see that he/she cannot worship God by himself/herself when he/she is in the presence of a believers’ community. (3) An ethically oriented worship, therefore, also represents the community of Christ that belongs to the one and the same spiritual body though physically present in different locations. It is a kind of fellowship that flows beyond geographical boundaries. A sense of awareness for other communities, prompting our care and concern, should be fostered during worship time. (4) Worship cannot escape from addressing the social evil that confronts the community daily. Beside evangelism and missions, the church needs to move its worshipers into actions that exemplify to the society (and nations) the moral character of God.

” Present Your Bodies as a Living Sacrifice …: An Investigation of Paul’s View of Worship with Reference to Romans 12:1-15:13″

Shiu-lun SHUM

As Paul claims in his Letter to the Romans, in spite of the invisibility of God, humans can yet know, through all that He created, at least the very existence of God. However, humans not only deny Him, but also create for themselves gods of various forms and worship them. Here, Paul implies that humans as a creature of God are expected to render exclusive worship to the Creator of heaven and earth. But how?

This essay seeks to investigate Paul’s view of worship with special reference to Romans 12:1-15:13. It is argued that Paul’s Letter to the Romans does not present the apostle’s general exhortation to the Roman Christians, but rather that his paraenetic sayings in the Letter are targeted at the specific situation of the Roman Christians. These Christians diverge so greatly on the matters of the observance of Jewish religious laws that the unity of the Christian congregation at Rome was jeopardized. To tackle such a problem, Paul asserts explicitly in Rom 12:1-2, with detailed elaborations in the subsequent verses (i.e., 12:3-15:13), how these Roman Christians were to lead a life that is worthy of their new spiritual identity, namely that they “present [their] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God.”

This essay shows that Paul’s instruction to the Roman Christians provides us with good insights into the issues of how humans worship the Creator or what sort of worship they should render Him. It is concluded that the worship or service Christians should render to God is to “present [their] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,” that means, to live holy, righteous, and obedient lives before God; in short, living as worship, worship as living.

Worship: The “Right” Relationship — A Lutheran Perspective

Charlene Yu-wen CHANG

What is ethics? Ethics is not a moral action; ethics is a “relationship”.

When Chinese talk about ethics, they are talking about “rightful” human relationships. For Chinese every relationship should be in a “right” place; ethics has something to do with roles—it is a kind of order; every relationship should develop in order. In fact, Chinese teaching about relations is totally human oriented, even when the relationships are with gods.

In Christianity one’s relationship with God is always God-centered, a seeking from His perspective to develop an “orderly” relationship, which is the “right” relationship.

How did God build up these “right” relationships with His people? In the Old Testament God built up a relationship with His people through the cutting of a covenant based on circumcision and all sorts of sacrifices, i.e., through worship.

In the New Testament relations between God and us are built up through worship also. It means that through Baptism God builds up a relationship with us in spirit; through His Word He builds up a relationship with us in soul; and through Holy Communion He builds up a relationship with us in body.

In worship, the only thing we need to do is to “follow” or “obey” His commands in order to enter into relationship with Him. This is our role and it is the “right” way.

We “obey” His commands by going through Baptism, and a new life and new relations begin. Through Baptism, we enter the “right” relationship with Him in spirit.

We “obey” His Word in our thought and in our life. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit we understand His Word and we live the Word out and bear fruit in our daily life. Through His Word, we enter the “right” relationship with Him in soul.

We “obey” His command to receive the Holy Communion, our flesh encounters Him in bread and wine. Through Holy Communion, we enter the “right” relationship with Him in body.

Worship is ethics, worship is orderly relationship, which is the “right” relationship with God. Human beings have to know their role and their place, which is the “right” way to enter into a relationship with God. Through worship—Baptism, Word and Holy Communion—we encounter God in spirit, in soul and in body.

Worship as Ethics: A Yoderian Visit

Vincent C. P. LAU

What is the relationship between worship and ethics? It seems to be a sensible question to ask? However, it is not new since Paul Ramsey was aware of their relationship in the late 1970s. Influenced by Barthian theology, John Howard Yoder argues that the life of the church is liturgical and the church is a worshipping community, that is, worship has to be embodied in the everyday life of Christians. The five practices of the church proposed by Yoder are not only ecclesiastical practices but also social ethical, serving as a paradigmatic public role for the people of God. Those practices are sacraments (ordinances), implying that God would be acting “in, with, and under” those human activities simultaneously. Essentially, these practices are worship, ministry, and doxology, and they are celebratory and mandatory by nature. Those who are influenced by Yoderian theology share a concurrence of views on worship as ethics. Firstly, worship is the real world or real life, that is, a microcosm of Christians’ lives. Secondly, worship is the occasion to foster a correct vision and to liberate Christians from “common sense.” They are the ways to refuse the marginalization and privatization of worship by the modernized Constantinian situation that originated from the Enlightenment. Worship is a counterlanguage to the language of the world; namely, on Sunday, the church learns what it is to be Christian Monday through Saturday. Lastly, worship is an eschatological practice of Christian daily life and “liturgy after the liturgy”. All Christian lives are liturgy and a reasonable worship to Christ.

Sacred Music: Its Ethical Formation, Approaching through Jeremy S. Begbie

Andres S. TANG

Firstly, this paper introduces the analysis of the temporal structure of music by Jeremy S. Begbie. The basic “tension-resolution-equilibrium” in various levels of a piece of music constructs the temporality of music, which enriches the dynamic quality of the rhythm and melody with a telos or direction. Secondly, by exhibiting the unique temporalization of Christian life through the device of the Christian year, this paper advocates that the church music performed in worship corresponds to the temporality of the Christian faith seen in the twin foci, Christmas and Good Friday/Easter, as well as the link between these two events –– the Advent. Both of them are characterized by the spiral forward movement of time. Thirdly, such a unique Christian temporality re-created in worship helps to nurture and shape the ethical virtues of Christians, namely, following God’s time by waiting in patience and hope. All creatures are going to grow into themselves in their own God ordained time. Christians are able to learn this through the church music performed in the worship so as to be different when viewing and practicing their lives in this way.

Different Ways to Same or Divergent Destination(s)? Religious Experiences and Ends in Buddhism and Christianity

LAI Pan-chiu

This paper aims at exploring the role of religious experience(s) and end(s) in Buddhist-Christian dialogue, including the convergence and/or divergence between Buddhist and Christian religious experiences and ends. After outlining the possible theoretical options among convergence, divergence and complementarity –– with special references to the theories proposed by John Hick, S. Mark Heim and the present author, it argues that the issues cannot be settled without concrete studies of the religions concerned and their actual encounters as well as dialogue.

In accordance with this, this paper further investigates the issues through reflection on case studies conducted by the present author concerning Buddhist-Christian encounter or dialogue in the Chinese and English speaking worlds. Based on these case studies, three observations or reflections are made.

Firstly, Buddhism and Christianity are neither totally divergent nor entirely convergent. Though the differences between the two religions cannot be overlooked, significant overlapping or similarities can be found in their descriptions of religious experiences and ends. However, the “eschatological” question concerning whether Buddhists and Christians will meet in the same Kingdom of God / Heaven / Nirvana / Pure Land or not, can only be addressed within the doctrinal framework of the respective religions.

Secondly, both Buddhism and Christianity include a diversity of religious experiences within each of them. Instead of generalizing or stereotyping any one or both of them and making comparison accordingly, it is important and beneficial to take serious the divergence of religious experiences within each of the two religions in order to enhance the dialogue between the two religions.

Thirdly, according to the two religions’ own understandings, religious experience is not restricted to the interior subjective inexplicable mystical experience, but related to intellectual concept and social praxis also. In other words, the interior dialogue is intertwined with the conceptual dialogue and the socially engaged dialogue. Religious experience may include one’s experience with the natural and social worlds in the daily life –– including the social, cultural, economical, political and even scientific activities. This kind of religiously interpreted “ordinary” experience is more communicable among people of different religions and should be taken more seriously in order to further enhance the Buddhist-Christian dialogue.

Karl Barth’s Theological Hermeneutics: Comment on Dr. Ou’s Analogia Fidei ─ Subversion and Revision of the Theology of Karl Barth

CHIU Shung-ming

This paper is a review of Dr. Ou’s Analogia Fidei ─ Subversion and Revision of the Theology of Karl Barth. It is essential for us to appreciate that the theological-hermeneutical question for Barth arises from his main theological concern, i.e. how to serve the church in its proclamation of the Word of God in a modern world. Undoubtedly, Dr. Ou has shown his sensitive awareness and clear interpretation of this area at various places in his book.

However, the reviewer also points out some questions for further discussion and exploration: (1) What was Barth’s view on the ontological relation between scripture and Jesus Christ as the revelation of God? (2) According to Barth, why does God use Scripture, influenced by human factor, as the mediate witness of his revelation? (3) How did Barth explain the hermeneutical circle between the revelation from above and the cultural influence from below? (4) Was Barth a methodologically non-foundationalist but materially tran-foundationalist as the author suggested? (5) In the light of Barth, the author argues that George Lindbeck cannot make the doctrine witness the absolute truth of God appropriately. Is this a reasonable comment?

The Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology of Karl Barth: Response to Dr. Chiu

OU Li-jen

In reading the review to which Dr. Chiu has devotes more than 6,000 words, I have no doubt that Dr. Chiu has shown a careful reading of my book. Although having occasional positive comments about my book, Dr. Chiu’s overall evaluation of it is rather negative. Basically in the discussion below I will: (1) respond respectively to what Dr. Chiu has raised regarding my book’s “problems” and “contradictions”; (2) argue against Dr. Chiu’s sympathy with recent postmodern or non-foundationalist interpretation of Barth.

I will show in this response that the alleged “problems” and “contradictions” in my book actually come from the reviewer’s misreading. I will also argue for my position that Barth is a methodologically or formally non-foundationalist but is by no means materially; therefore it is extremely inadequate to label Barth “a postmodern theologian”.