LIE: Worship is an experience of God’s presence, part 1

Lie: Worship is an experience of God’s presence.

Truth: Worship is a response to God himself that results in the arrangement of our lives around him.

A disclaimer:
At the risk of undoing the clarity of what follows I need to say this: the gravity of the subject and the seriousness of the warnings that I make here, require that I try to take a humble posture. Because this subject is so important, but also so subjective, and the fact that worship experiences are so filled with intangibles too numerous to cover, I cannot and must not be dogmatic. Certainly not all megachurches fall under the charges I lay here; the charges clearly apply more to some than to others.

That said, I do hope this article raises awareness and that it creates a positive dialog here and within the body of Christ. Please share this article with others if you think it deserves to be heard. Your direct feedback to me is also most welcome.

I do believe in a wide latitude of congregational worship styles, if I can use that word – from high liturgical to contemporary to living-room simple. God is after the heart and – though I did not go into the cultural aspects of worship – many styles can facilitate the worship of our awesome God.

---

I can’t think of any more important subject to get right than the subject of worship. As Christians we all would agree that worshiping God – whatever it is – is supremely important. And most would also agree that getting this right is the one prerequisite to getting most everything else right. But the real disagreement enters around what worship fundamentally is. Too often we assume that we know this but the truth is that we’re confused. Worship is such a broad and profound subject that there are simply too many ways to get this wrong or woefully incomplete. Until we can better understand the nature of worship it won’t really matter to talk about how we worship, which is precisely where most of the disagreement normally occurs.

What is worship?

But we can’t lose the simplicity at the heart of worship either. At its heart worship begins as childlike adoration that then grows into a life that mimics the one who is adored.

So here’s my attempt at a straight-up definition:

worship – the unforced recognition and response of adoration or awe toward God himself, which then motivates and fosters the transformation of a life that reflects and is characterized by the character and life of him who is adored.

Worship is not capitulation or resignation; it’s not simply submission or service, though it may result in those things. God respects our will and desires that our worship be freely given, because a free will is part of the imago dei, the image of God, that he wants to restore.

This article is about this two-stage aspect of worship. In the first part, I’ll focus on the first part of worship – the initial response to God himself. In the second part, I’ll shift to what makes our life into a life of worship – the effect that consistent thanks, praise and adoration does to our life and our lifestyle.

In the New Testament the primary word translated worship is proskueo, from pros, meaning: toward; and kuneo, meaning: to kiss. The picture is of one who kneels down to kiss.

Surveying the entire usage of this word, proskueo, and its variations, the general sense is that worship is a response, the appropriate and primal response, to being in the presence of a great person, someone you perceive as much greater than yourself and who gives you attention and care.

Imagine – it’s akin to the response you might have if you receive a personal invitation from the President of the United States (or choose another important person), who simply would like to know you and see about your needs. You arrive at the White House, pass through multiple levels of security, are escorted to the ante-chamber of the Oval Office and now are finally announced and introduced to a smiling and gracious President, who gets up from behind his desk to greet you. How do you feel? What’s going on in your head? Here are some of my own thoughts:

‘Run and hide!’
‘I feel naked!’
‘Why is my mouth so dry?’
‘Why did I ever agree to do this?’
‘Now . . . what was I going to say?’

Maybe I’m overstating it a bit, but you get the idea.

Of course this analogy breaks down because the President, though he or she may be great and gracious, is still a human being like you and me. So multiply that response a thousand times in the event of meeting God himself (which of course we will all do at some point). Actually the Bible records the effects of humans personally encountering God and typically the effect is that the person appears to die.[1]

This primal and spontaneous recognition of God or to some aspect of his being or character, in one sense, is indeed an end in itself. Simply sitting and basking in his goodness, his love and mercy is a golden moment in itself. And so it must not be rushed or ‘used’.[2] But that said, true worship, true recognition of God will change us until our motives, our desires, our very reason for being also changes. Then as a different person – indeed as a new creation – we start doing things differently. What we once considered to be important is suddenly thought to be not so much; the things we thought essential are now trivial, etc.

This is why worship is absolutely critical and pivotal. If we get this right, everything else flows from it; yet, not without trouble or obstacle. But nonetheless, if we persist, our lives will progressively change to be more like the life of Jesus our Messiah.

That said, there are two aspects of worship response that we need to see. The first is the corporate aspect where we gather to worship with others; the second is the personal/private aspect where we consciously or unconsciously worship at home, in the car or even while walking in a crowded street.

We also must understand that both of these aspects are vitally important and reciprocal and will either nourish or drain the other.

Question: which aspect – public or private – is more important than the other? Although there’s no one simple answer to that question, most of the time, public worship is first because most new Christians first encounter God in the assembly of the saints or in the family. We learn about God in church with others; even as a child we observe and are inspired by the lives of other Christians who (hopefully) worship God.

So then, if corporate worship is primary; if it sets the stage and shapes our life of private worship, then it’s critical to correct the trends that may lead the church astray and either warp or stunt or reverse our private walk with God.

Worship is NOT primarily an experience

Now that I’ve tried to define what worship is, let’s make sure we understand what it is not. Although in worshiping God we do have an experience, any experience that we have is not the worship itself. Actually we could say that anything and everything is accompanied by an experience: driving a car, walking up stairs, talking with your child, eating a meal, watching TV – no matter what it is, it has an experiential component. That’s because life itself could be described as a long series of varied experiences.

So in that sense worship is no different – it must also have an experience. But the thing about a worship experience is that it may (or may not) be experienced as a powerful, or even a life-changing event in itself. Or at least that’s what many hope for. It is, after all, an experience with God himself. But focusing on the experiential component is looking at worship from the wrong point of view. Although we certainly gain a benefit from worshiping God, that is NOT the purpose and that is NOT what it is. Simply put, we do not worship God to gain an experience; we worship God because he’s God. Period. Full stop.[3]

Experiences with God can range from pure terror to euphoric adoration, and everything in between. But those experiences are not the goal; they are the involuntary and elemental responses to the actual encounter with God. Actually, while truly worshiping God, we’re not concerned about the experience at all. Later, we may remember it as an experience, but during the actual worship, we may be so caught up with who God is or what he’s done, that we are unaware of ourselves at all.[4]

The problem that I see in churches today, especially in many so-called megachurches[5] (but not exclusively), is that the apparent goal of a worship service is to design and choreograph a worship service so that it elicits a ‘worship experience.’ This is not hard to detect. For example, I recently attended a megachurch close to me and my first impression as I was ushered into the 3000-seat auditorium, was that I had mistakenly come upon a full-blown rock concert. The only lights were the professional stage lights and the artistic visuals; there were no windows; the entire auditorium was painted black; it contained a large stage of singers and musicians whose images were projected onto two giant screens. It had all of the elements of a professional concert production.

Common elements/characteristics of these productions include:

theater lighting	orchestra/band	floor directors
professional sound mixing	professional vocalists	graphic artists
stage designers	lighting directors	sound directors
technical directors	video engineers	videographer

In many churches, the production quality of these worship services rivals, and in some cases exceeds, the production value of a professional concert. Parishioners are regularly given what amounts to be a free concert every week. People of all stripes take in one of the multiple services held on a Sunday morning, sit in commercial-grade theatre seats, with little to no interaction with others. Everyone seems content to let the powerful music and visual art wash over them.

And corporate worship is now almost exclusively equated with music, and in some circles, highly produced and orchestrated music. In most megachurches, what is called the worship portion of the service features an audiovisual production intended to foster an emotional experience, which then is intended to enable worship. But do these productions really foster worship as I’ve defined it? or do they hinder it?

But what’s wrong with ‘worship experiences?’

What’s so wrong with ‘worship experiences’? Worship directors justify such elaborate productions by claiming:

1 Churches should strive to excel, to be excellent in all things, including audio and video engineering and production.

The assumption here is that the world rightfully sets the standard of quality for the church. The world’s quality attributes include professional composition, orchestration, visuals, etc. But this standard focuses attention on externals, not the heart of the worshiper. Certainly, some are more skillful and gifted and therefore more qualified to serve others in music. But in spending hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars on audiovisual equipment, staff positions, etc, are we really saying that without such expense the worship of the many-membered body is inadequate?

The quality standards of the world are based on standards that produce entertainment value. But that is not and should not be how standards are set in the church.

2 Music is a powerful way to reach the heart; God uses the power of music to reach the stony heart of man.

True. Undoubtedly God uses the song to touch our hearts. Music is powerful. But can’t it be actually powerful without all of the professional production? A simple song sung acapella can be just as ‘powerful,’ that is, effective at reaching the heart as the same song fully orchestrated and choired. The extra production is commonly used to hook and then immerse people emotionally into the song. The intention may be good, but the technique can too easily be used to emotionally manipulate. Consequently, in many cases, the risk is that an emotional response is wrongly equated with a worshipful response.

3 Corporate music experiences foster the unity of the body.

Also true. This is one of the primary purposes of our singing together – to remind us that we are one body and to foster that unity. But again, does that music require a certain level of production quality? I don’t think so. One thing I noticed about my experience in the megachurch service was that I could not hear the people – the human voices – sing, even though there were thousands in the auditorium. Everyone was easily drowned out by the amplified audio of the on-stage singers and instruments. We’ll talk about this more below.

Reasons this kind of ‘worship experience’ is counterproductive

Here are seven reasons that this kind of ‘worship experience’ may actually be detrimental to our own private worship of God.

1 Worship experiences should not be contrived or thought of as an on-demand outcome.

Are ‘worship experiences’ also teaching us, conditioning us that God shows up at our discretion; that we can ensure an experience with God if only we create a professional-grade audiovisual production? Or stated negatively, if we don’t produce this professional-grade audiovisual production, are we less assured of an experience with God?

We cannot force people to have a worship experience and we should not try. But if we do try to do this, the result may be that many will have an emotional experience thinking they’ve had a worship experience, which would turn out to be a deceptive practice, albeit unintentional.

But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. — John 4:23–24

Since authentic worship is unforced – that is, it’s offered freely from the heart – the concern is whether immersive ‘worship services,’ arranged through powerful audiovisual techniques, is actually producing something other than true worship.

It’s true that any congregant that participates in these experiences may worship God, but it seems they may only be able to, despite the production and not because of it. That is, they may have an emotional experience accompanied by genuine thoughts of God’s goodness and greatness, but those thoughts may only arise as a passive acknowledgement and not in response to the living and awesome God. The response may simply be due to the intentionally stimulating audiovisual techniques; otherwise, why would all of that power be needed? Thus, a worship experience may only be a simulation intended to artificially inspire awe.

The strange thing is, I think all of this is unintentional; most worship leaders and directors are true worshipers and sincerely desire to help congregations worship our God. But somehow, they’ve gotten the impression that all of these powerful production techniques cannot have negative effects. They reason that, since God is big and awesome, therefore the sound and visuals should be too. The problem is, all of that technical, theatrical power, if not restrained in some way, can too easily overpower a congregation and actually deaden them.

We must not ‘overpower’ others; we simply do not have the right to disrespect them that way. Yet God himself may overpower us, but he will only do so rarely, if ever. For example, he appears to have overpowered Paul on the road to Damascus, but clearly there was no fault with God in doing that; he certainly is justified in his actions. But normally, he does not overpower us because he wants our worship to be freely given. So then if he does not do this, surely we do not have the right to force or manipulate others, to subvert their will, especially to try to induce the high and holy act of worship.

The intent to produce immersive ‘worship experiences’ appears to be a violation of the Third Commandment because it’s the use of God’s Name, that is, it’s using God with the intent to produce a human benefit. This commandment teaches us that God’s Name must NEVER be used for any other purpose than to bring attention to God himself and should NEVER be used for our own benefit. The benefit of encouragement or edification that we may receive is not the reason that we worship. We worship him because he is God. Yet we are encouraged if we worship, but only if we worship him with no other aim.

2 These one-of-a-kind ‘worship experiences’ are tied to a particular place. They may give the impression that worship can only be done in that place and at that time. So the perception may slowly be built that God himself becomes limited to a time and place.

Are these ‘worship experiences’ teaching us that God is tied to a place, much like the Old Testament experience of God exclusively identified with the Temple? But carrying this concept over to the New Testament contradicts Jesus’ clear statement on worship:

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” — John 4:21–24

Jesus says that it should not matter where you worship; what’s important is the sincerity of the heart. But by creating elaborate ‘worship experiences’ that can only be produced in a particular place with sophisticated technology, we may send the wrong message – that God can really only be encountered there.

3 Highly-produced ‘worship experiences,’ since they are designed to elicit such powerful emotions, become equated with worship so that any other ‘worship experience’ would be inferior. It leaves the impression that our private worship is inferior.

Because the church has created these intense emotional ‘worship experiences,’ we can more easily assume that these experiences are worship, and that no other form of worship is necessary or even possible. When these worship experiences (if that is what they are), become equated with worship, then these ‘worship experiences’ may actually reduce our ability to worship privately because we’ve become dependent on them. The worship experience must be designed to elicit intense and powerful emotions in order to best match the potential emotional freight that a natural worship experience could have.

4 These worship experiences are so musically-centric, that a purely musical concert with the same music performance could replace it without notice.

The corporate ‘worship experience’ subtly teaches us that to have a worship experience you need to have a professional musical, audiovisual production. Consequently, we may develop a skewed dependency on them.

By itself, music can produce a euphoric, transcendent experience, even an altered state of consciousness. Before the phonograph, these experiences were rare and only occurred when a professional orchestra or band played live music. But fast-forward to today when high-quality music of every kind is cheaply available on practically any electronic device. Now, nearly anyone at any time can produce his own on-demand experience. What could this possibly mean? When anything becomes ubiquitous, it ultimately loses its value. Music – even high-quality music – becomes a commonplace. And familiarity breeds contempt.

In his book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology,  Neil Postman describes how symbols become trivialized and ultimately lose their value and meaning. We can extend this trivialization to include sound and music.

This is a point stressed in Daniel Boorstin’s classic book The Image, published thirty years ago. In it, Boorstin describes the beginnings, in the mid-nineteenth century, of a “graphics revolution” that allowed the easy reproduction of visual images, thus providing the masses with continuous access to the symbols and icons of their culture. Through prints, lithographs, photographs, and, later, movies and television, religious and national symbols became commonplaces, breeding indifference if not necessarily contempt. As if to answer those who believe that the emotional impact of a sacred image is always and ever the same, Boorstin reminds us that prior to the graphics revolution most people saw relatively few images. Paintings of Jesus or the Madonna, for example, would have been seen rarely outside churches. Paintings of great national leaders could be seen only in the homes of the wealthy or in government buildings. There were images to be seen in books, but books were expensive and spent most of their time on shelves. Images were not a conspicuous part of the environment, and their scarcity contributed toward their special power.

When the scale of accessibility was altered, Boorstin argues, the experience of encountering an image necessarily changed; that is to say, it diminished in importance. One picture, we are told, is worth a thousand words. But a thousand pictures, especially if they are of the same object, may not be worth anything at all.

5 ‘Worship experiences’ are designed to be completely immersive (darkened auditorium, no windows, sophisticated audiovisual), to allow the creation of a private space within the mass of people. But corporate worship should be about the whole body worshiping God together in unity.

Corporate worship is intended to edify the body and this is accomplished when we ‘speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.’ The saints gather to sing to one another and thus edify one another. But if the body cannot hear one another, this edification may not happen at all.

When I visited a local megachurch, the auditorium was so dark that I could barely see those closest to me. And I could not hear their voices. If I allowed myself (which I did not do), I could easily succumb to the power of the audiovisual that constantly washed over me. This is clearly the intent – to immerse the congregation and carry us into a private ‘worship experience.’

Good entertainment is also designed to be immersive. Actually, any storytelling is designed to be immersive so that the listener becomes vicariously involved. But that is an imagined participation, not a real one. True worship, however, is actual interaction and participation and engagement with others and with God himself; it is not a privately imagined thing.

6 ‘Worship experiences’ are primarily spectacle; they are intended to draw you in by means of an intensely visual experience.

With constant visual stimuli (huge screens showing emotional performers, background visual art, fog, moving light beams, words of songs emblazoned on a marquee-like display, etc) the clear intent is to enfold you in a spectacle that spreads out in front of you. But this striking visual experience is also intended to overpower us and carry us into a pre-planned ‘worship experience.’

Jacques Ellul warned of this kind of visual display of power:

The sixteenth-century debate over images . . . also shows a final aspect of these creations: for people in the Middle Ages, as for all those who came before them, images are always endowed with a certain spiritual meaning. They are never solely representation, design, or esthetic. Mainly they are bearers of a message or power. They are an integral part of the sacred world and therefore indicatory, significant, and inviting. You cannot fail to feel their charm. Even if you do not wish it, they take you off to a supernatural domain of worship or magic that is not of this world. They are always means and intermediaries, idol and myth; they are never mere distraction. If they are an evasion, it is an evasion toward the supernatural rather than the imaginary. . . . But in the Church images very quickly became the glorification of humanity and of individuals. . . .The cathedrals were erected to the glory of God, certainly; but they attested the indisputable power of the Church. These images are associated with the determination of the princes of the Church to dominate society.[6]

Today, many megachurches are not timid about using their power in their communities.

7 ‘Worship experiences’ attempt to simulate/mimic/produce a transcendent atmosphere/environment/space.

Biblical holy experiences were never contrived or simulated. They were actually experienced in the most austere spaces. But is there biblical support for having a holy experience? Yes, but it’s much different than the ‘holy experience’ that worship planners now conceive. The holy experiences recounted in the Bible are completely uncontrived and stark. I’ll mention just a few here:

Moses and the burning bush	the encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus	Paul on the road to Damascus
Daniel’s dreams	John on the isle of Patmos	Jesus calming the storm
Jacob’s dream	Anointing of David	Shepherds ‘abiding in the fields, watching their flocks by night’

No one planned these experiences and most of them were in a remote desert where there could be no humanly-produced visual or auditory stimulation.

Now in part two I’ll move from defining worship to how worship changes us.

---

[1] See for example Paul on the road to Damascus, or John on Patmos.

[2] ‘Used’ even for good purposes, for evangelism or for anything else. See the Third Commandment in Part 2.

[3] See part 2 under the heading Commandment 3 – designing worship as a benefit, even secondarily, is a violation of the Third Commandment against misusing God’s Name.

[4] From this point I’ll use quotation marks to indicate what is thought of as a worship experience, but that may not be worship at all. It may simply be a contrived emotional experience.

[5] For a definition of megachurch, see http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/database.html .

[6] Ellul, Jacques, The Humiliation of the Word, pg 185.