Chapter 4.8

Whole-hearted Worship

In Spirit and In Truth

Overall Objective

To demonstrate the importance of reason in even Christian worship practices, and correct some of the error in modern emotionalism.

Table of Topics

A) Worshipping in Spirit & in Truth: John 4:21-24

B) Whole-hearted Christian Ecstasy: Revelational & Rational

B.1) Christian ecstasy is revelational and rational

B.2) Christian ecstasy is not being out of control

B.2.a) The spirits of Prophets are under the control of Prophets: 1 Cor 14:32

B.2.b) Paul was never “out of his mind”: 2 Cor 5:12-13

B.3) Christian ecstasy is not “possession”

C) Whole-hearted Worship: I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart (Ps 9:1)

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• To worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), and to “sing with my spirit [and] also sing with my mind” (1 Cor 14:15) requires “whole-hearted” worship which engages all our mental faculties, not just the feelings as in paganism, and not just the lips as in formalism.
• The goal of “Half-hearted” worship (emotionalism) is to merely and momentarily affect the emotions of people, instead of changing their lives.
• Because of the popularity of music particularly among young Christians, the Teachers, Prophets, and Psalmists of the next generation will be the Christian pop artists, and they had better take that responsibility seriously.
• It is not merely emotional worship we are concerned about, but rather, mindless worship which often results in merely emotional worship.
• The “truth” that needs to be in our worship is the biblical understanding and appreciation of both the “high God” and “nigh God” of Scripture.
• Perhaps the most significant influence that emotionalism has had on American Christianity is that we clap more in our worship services.
• Having a more “emotional” worship service is simply a personal preference and has no automatic bearing on how God-pleasing our worship is.
• King David is a biblical example of the biblical balance needed in whole-hearted worship.
• Unlike many modern Christian songs, the Psalms were not valued for the emotion that came from the tunes in them, but the truth in them. Even the good Christian lyrics in many songs are ignored because people get so caught up in the beat, that they miss the meat.

A) Worshipping in Spirit & in Truth

Throughout The Knowledge of God series in Knowing Our God we have endeavored to practically illustrate the God-ordained importance of human reason in a life lived to please God. Especially in recent years, this issue has become important in the area of Christian worship and spirituality. What is the balance between emotion and understanding in God-pleasing worship? How is our reason involved in true spirituality? Unfortunately, this is not merely an academic issue, or one for just worship leaders. On the contrary, a lack of understanding regarding the issues discussed here result in sin and damaging the faith of God’s people.

Worship is a multi-faceted topic in the Christian life. Of course, our whole life is to be worship (cf. Rom 12:1-3), but we also have specific times of worship, usually in a Sunday morning service, in which we are communicating with God in song. It is in this particular aspect of Christian worship in which we want to illustrate the importance of our mind and reasoning faculties in this section.

Along these lines in the previous chapter we wrote:

Supreme love will include all the positive emotions that result from an understanding and appreciation of God’s attributes. This is why Christ described this complete and supreme love as loving “the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt 22:37). . . . God-pleasing spirituality and worship demand a “whole-hearted” approach which includes the beliefs of our reason, holy desires, and appropriate emotions. A suppression of any of these God-given aspects of our human makeup is what we call “half-hearted” worship. ^[1]

Accordingly, the King made it clear that our reasoning faculties are an essential component of God pleasing worship when He told the Samaritan woman:

The time is coming when neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain will you actually worship the Father. You Samaritans worship something you don’t understand. We understand what we worship, because salvation comes from the Jews. The time is coming when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, and that time is here already. You see, the Father too is actively seeking such people to worship Him. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:21-24 NCV)

The context of Christ’s statement was a religious culture that believed the place of worship mattered, whether it was the Jewish temple or a particularly famous mountain. Of course, that was often the case in the OT with God dwelling in a specific place, such as a tabernacle or the top of Mount Sinai. Obviously many religious people today continue to believe that certain places are especially sacred. Christ used such a suggestion to make the point that what really mattered to God was the heart of worship, not its location.

More specifically, the human “heart” is what matters to God in worship, including its functions of understanding, belief, desires, and emotions. The King was referring to whole-hearted worship when He described it as worshipping “in spirit and truth,” because this kind of worship requires the whole “heart.” ^[2]

The precise meaning of pneuma (“spirit”) in Scripture is often difficult to discern because even when referring to the human spirit, as it would seem to here, ^[3] it has a variety of meanings. ^[4] Vine’s Expository Dictionary lists one as “the sentient element in man, that by which he perceives, reflects, feels, desires,” ^[5] with some uses particularly including our emotions (cf. Matt 5:3; Luke 1:47; Acts 17:16).

The point we wish to make from Christ’s statement is this: proper beliefs enable us to worship God correctly (“in truth”), but our “spirit,” and the desires and emotions there, enable us to worship Him completely. We see here in Christ’s statement, a description of worshipping God with our whole “heart.” Our beliefs enable us to understand and know God, our desires enable us to love and serve Him, and our feelings enable us to experience delight in all of these things. And the emotion of delight is an integral part of God-pleasing worship (see Ps 1:2; 16.3; 37:4; 43.4; 112.1, 9 times in Ps 119; Jer 16.10; Isa 61.10).

Every aspect of our “heart” is important in God-pleasing worship. Unfortunately, some Christian traditions neglect or even disparage different parts of the “heart” in worship. For example, more formal and liturgical worship traditions often do not welcome the expression of emotion in a worship service. On the other hand, modern charismaticism ^[6] would seem to often discount the place of our mind and reason in God-pleasing worship, making it “half-hearted” worship as well. This is what we call emotionalism which is the unbiblical neglect or intentional suppression of reason in spirituality or worship practices resulting in unbiblical practices such as modern glossaism (speaking in a mindless “tongue”) and being “slain in the Spirit” etc.

Elsewhere, we have pointed out another aspect of emotionalism:

A fundamental error of . . . charismaticism . . . is the confusion of the work of the Holy Spirit with human emotion. For example, it is popular to think that because a worship service was more emotional, that it was more influenced by the Holy Spirit. This need not be the case, and probably isn’t more times than emotionalists think. ^[7]

When mere human emotion is being used to recognize or evaluate the presence of the Holy Spirit, we have full-blown emotionalism.

When we understand that the essence of the human “heart” is our reason by which we process and produce all of our beliefs, desires, and feelings, then we understand that “half-hearted” worship does not simply reflect a neglect of our desires or emotions, but our understanding as well. It is this latter error that will be our focus here. ^[8] While certainly our “spirit” (i.e. desires and feelings) is necessary in worship, so is our believing, understanding, and meditating on the “truth” which is the function of our reason. As discussed elsewhere:

Our reason is the place in our “heart” that we deal with truth, and whatever truth we possess is processed, produced, applied, and protected there. This includes the most important truths including the Gospel and any knowledge of God. There is nothing we know of God either abstractly or personally that we do not know and keep in our reason. Likewise, God does nothing to us or through us that He does not do through our reason. ^[9]

Therefore, when the King says that “the Father is actively seeking . . . people to worship Him . . . in spirit and in truth,” it is clear that He expects our reasoning faculties to be engaged. The King implies here that Samaritan worship was lacking, yet we doubt that it was primarily a lack of emotion that He was concerned about. Rather, He said Samaritan worship was deficient because, “You Samaritans worship something you don’t understand [oida].” No doubt one of the reasons that the Samaritans did not adequately understand God for acceptable worship is that they had rejected much of the OT as divine revelation including the Psalms, Prophets, and historical books. Therefore, their worship was not what God wanted because they did not adequately understand the doctrinal truths contained in His written revelation. ^[10]

Essentially, then, we can say that the more truth we know about God, the more meaningful our worship is to Him, let alone ourselves. Real worship, the kind that God is seeking, always includes our thinking and understanding. The NT scholar Albert Barnes (1798–1870) summed up what Christ was saying when he wrote: “They shall worship God with a sincere ‘mind.’” ^[11]

Also commenting specifically on Christ’s description of “whole-hearted” worship in John 4 above, NT scholar John Stott has written:

Christ knew that the only worship acceptable to God is intelligent worship, worship “in truth,” the worship offered by those who know whom they are worshipping and who love him “with all their mind.” ^[12]

Commenting on the same passage, William Barclay (1907–1978) wrote in his well-known commentary:

A false worship is an ignorant worship. Worship ought to be the approach to God of the whole man. A man has a mind and he has a duty to exercise it. Religion may begin with an emotional response; but the time comes when that emotional response has to be thought out.

E. F. Scott said that religion is far more than merely the strenuous exercise of the intellect, but that nonetheless a very great part of religious failure is due to nothing other than intellectual sloth. To fail to think things out is in itself a sin. In the last analysis, religion is never safe until a man can tell, not only what he believes, but why he believes it. Religion is hope, but it is hope with reason behind it. ^[13]

Perhaps Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) said it best when he wrote in his lengthy treatise on this very topic:

Holy affections are not heat without light; but evermore arise from the information of the understanding, some spiritual instruction that the mind receives, some light or actual knowledge. . . . Now there are many affections which do not arise from any light in the understanding. And when it is thus, it is a sure evidence that these affections are not spiritual, let them be ever so high. ^[14]

Several theologians have echoed the concern of Edwards about the pagan mysticism inherent in any act of spirituality that does not engage our reason. Along these lines, the respected Bible teacher John MacArthur gives a good description of such mysticism in general, and its prevalence, when he writes:

Mysticism is a system of belief that attempts to perceive spiritual reality apart from objective, verifiable facts. It seeks truth through feelings, intuition, and other internal senses. Objective data is usually discounted, so mysticism derives its authority from within. Spontaneous feeling becomes more significant than objective fact. Intuition outweighs reason. An internal awareness supercedes external reality. . . .

Mysticism is at the heart of modern existentialism, humanism, and even many forms of paganism—most notably Hinduism and its close ally, New Age philosophy. Irrational mysticism is also at the heart of the Charismatic [movement’s] experience. ^[15]

Along these lines, the respected Protestant theologian Bernard Ramm (1916-1992) wrote something that applies to how we worship God on a Sunday morning: “The difference between a wise man and a fool is not in the degree of experience but in the measure of truth extracted from experience,” ^[16] including a church worship service.

Finally, the Christian philosopher/theologian Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985) asked some questions that need to be asked of modern day emotionalism:

It is extremely difficult to appreciate the motives, at least in the case of those who are attached to the Bible, which lead to a disparagement of the intellect. Why should emotion be the only way or even the best way to God? Why is it that thinking, meditating, understanding are to be condemned? Why is knowing, conceiving, or apprehending God a poor way, an impossible way, or an impious way of worshipping him? What is wrong with intellectual activity? . . . Those “religious” people who decry logic lack every basis for proclaiming any message at all. ^[17]

No doubt feelings and emotions can be a part of God pleasing worship, but these men remind our “sight and sound” generation that the kind of worshipers that God is looking for are those who worship with their reason and mind as well. Surely this is precisely what the Apostle is teaching when he says, “I shall sing with the spirit and [at the same time] I shall sing with the mind also” (1 Cor 14:15). ^[18] Purely emotional, empty-minded, feelings-centered worship is only half-hearted worship to God, and therefore, disappointing to Him. Which should caution our emotionalist brethren in regards to their common boasts that they worship God better than others. In fact, we would suggest that their mindless worship is inferior, and not superior at all.

Accordingly, the rightly respected British Bible teacher D. M. Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) pointed out:

At no point, then, are we deliberately to abandon our intellects. There is never instruction in the Scriptures for us to do that. Deliberately to stop thinking and to let ourselves become blank, as it were, and to surrender ourselves to other forces–that is never advocated in the Scriptures. . . .

You must have seen and read about the kind of thing that happens amongst the more primitive races, how they slowly work themselves up by these means into a condition in which they are no longer thinking and have lost the power of reasoning and understanding. Anything that does that should be suspect. There is nothing approaching it in the New Testament, indeed you find the exact opposite. ^[19]

If we remember that everything God tells us is for our own good, we can assume the same is true of His instructions for worship. Not only is mindless worship not good for God, but we can be assured that it must not be good for us either. As Leon Morris (1914-2006) put it:

It is not simply that he accepts such worship [“in spirit and in truth”] when it is brought to him. He is a God of love, a God who seeks the best for people, and therefore a God who actively seeks them out. ^[20]

In other words, God seeks people who will worship Him “in spirit and in truth” because that is what is best for them as well. “Whole-hearted worship” and prayer is hard work. But when we consider Who we are worshipping and praying to, we know it really is one of our greatest joys and privileges.

Along these lines, the Christian theologian E. J. Carnell (1919–1967) shares a biblical example:

Feelings are only as secure as the system of truth which fortifies them. Nehemiah, chapter eight, gives an example of the concomitance of faith and feeling in Christianity. When Ezra opened the law of Moses, the people heard the reading of the word and understood it with their minds. Being convinced in the whole soul that it was the truth, the people wept for their sins. This was contrition. Then they celebrated with eating and drinking and made great mirth, “because they had understood the words that were declared unto them” (Verse 12).

This was emotional joy. Here, in perfection, we see the Christian doctrine of the primacy of truth and the ability of that truth to assuage the whole man. Proper feeling, like proper mysticism, follows upon the establishment of the truth of the law of God. Truth establishes feelings; feelings do not establish truth. ^[21]

One important aspect of the “truth” that needs to be in our worship is a biblical understanding and appreciation for both the “high God” and “nigh God” of Scripture. The God we worship is a “high God,” the holy, demanding, sovereign, “unapproachable” (1 Tim 6:16) Creator and Judge of the Universe, Who makes people tremble in His presence (cf. Dan 8:15-18), and Who said:

“[M]y thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.  “As the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9)    

He is equally the “nigh God” who is the humble, compassionate, gracious Father of His children. The Psalmists said: “God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble” (Ps 46:1). God the Son came to live with us and then said upon His departure: “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matt 28:20).

We are not worshipping God “in truth” when we neglect or over-emphasize either the “high” or “nigh” facets of Him. While many more informal and contemporary churches tend to neglect our “high God” in their worship, other, more liturgical churches neglect the “nigh God” aspects of our Father. Perhaps if both worshipping communities would use their mind more in worship, letting the Scriptures inform their understanding, a God-pleasing and life changing balance may return to worship in American Christianity.

In our human-centered, feelings oriented culture, a lack of doctrinal content in worship has resulted in a neglect of the “high God” and an overemphasis on the “nigh God” in many churches. Accordingly, NT scholar D. A. Carson writes:

[M]uch modern evangelicalism tends to portray him [God] as exclusively personal and warm. Somehow his sovereignty and exalted transcendence disappear. If you enter certain American churches you will hear the enthusiastic singing of some such ditty (I can scarcely grace it with “chorus”) as “He’s a great big wonderful God.” Regrettably, I never fail to think of a great big wonderful teddy bear.

Such “choruses” are not quite heretical, not quite blasphemous. I sometimes wish they were, for then they could be readily condemned for specific evil. They are something much worse than isolated blasphemy and heresy. They constitute part of a pattern of irreverence, shallow theology and experience-dominated religious criteria, which has eviscerated a terribly high proportion of evangelical strength in the Western world.

This does not contradict my earlier comments concerning the personal nature of God as portrayed by the designation “our Father.” When Jesus taught his disciples to pray in this fashion [cf. Matt 6:9], he was addressing men who were already convinced of the awesomeness of God’s transcendence, the grandeur of God’s ineffable exaltation. When they first timidly prayed, “Our Father in heaven,” no doubt they deeply felt the tremendous privilege of approaching this marvelous God in so personal and intimate a fashion. But today, those who have lost sight of God’s transcendence can no longer cherish the sheer privilege of addressing him as Father. ^[22]

One of the reasons for this imbalance is that the primary goal of too many worship leaders is to merely and momentarily affect the emotions of people, instead of endeavoring to change their lives. Emotion is only one part of the human “heart” and not even the most important part in terms of causing a lasting, positive affect in the worshipper. And in some cases, this may not be simply a poor choice in worship technique, but real sin.

Accordingly, all worship leaders should ponder how the Apostle Paul described his ministry to change lives:

[W]e have renounced secret and shameful ways [panourgia: “craftiness, trickery”]; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience [suneidēsin: moral reasoning] in the sight of God. (2 Cor 4:2)

Here, the Apostle is contrasting his ministry with the corrupt ministers in Corinth who used, “secret and shameful [crafty] ways” to bring about their intended affect on the people. No doubt their ministries were popular, or the Apostle would not have been concerned about them. However, they were the kind of ministers whom he later describes as those, “who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart” (2 Cor 5:12). The Apostle calls these false ministers “fools” who enslave, exploit, and take advantage of those they are ministering to (11:19-20). Because such manipulative people had ministered to the Corinthians he was, “afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (11:3). He feared this because these ministers preached a different Jesus than he preached, and had even possibly ministered to them with a different spirit than the Holy Spirit (cf. 11:4).

We see similarities in some contemporary worship leaders and these false ministers in Corinth. They, “distort the word of God” (2 Cor 4:2) and promote a “different Jesus” (11:4) because they neglect either the “high God” or “nigh God” doctrines of Scripture. For the Apostle, on the other hand, ministry required, “setting forth the truth plainly” (4:2). Neither did the Apostle direct his efforts to appealing to people’s emotions, but rather, to their “conscience,” or moral reasoning. This would have included both truth about grace to soothe unnecessarily guilty consciences, and truth about who God is and what He wants, to address uninformed, immature, or hardened consciences, all to change people’s lives in the only place where such change takes place—our reason (cf. Rom 12:1-3).

Accordingly, because the Apostle’s goal was changing lives instead of mere emotions, he targeted his ministry to their understanding, not just their feelings. And the Apostle did this “in the sight of God,” being more concerned with the fact that He was watching, rather than what the people saw, because the Apostle knew that, “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (5:10), including worship and worship leading.

Because of the popularity of music particularly among young Christians, the Teachers, Prophets, and Psalmists of the next generation will be the Christian pop artists, and they had better take that responsibility seriously. We are warned in James 3:1 that, “Not many of you should presume to be Teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.” Therefore, anyone leading or performing Christian music had better be more than just entertaining, but equipped with a biblical view of worship. We hope to help with that in what follows.

Pastoral Practices

• As Pastors of our church, we have a responsibility to ensure that the singing part of our worship service reflects worshipping the Father “in spirit and in truth.” In particular, we should closely monitor the lyrics of the songs chosen for worship, and instruct the worship leader in what has been shared above.

B) Whole-hearted Christian Ecstasy: Revelational & Rational

B.1) Christian ecstasy is revelational and rational

Before we criticize “half-hearted” religious and worship practices that bypass or diminish the human mind, we need to distinguish between what may be called Christian ecstasy and the non-Christian variety. The Greek noun ekstasis (verb: existēmi) from which we get our word “ecstasy” had three meanings/applications in the ancient Greek world of the NT. David Aune, Professor of NT and Christian Origins at Loyola University, and a foremost authority on early Christian worship experience, explains in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE):

While the Greek words literally mean displacement or change, metaphorically they refer to at least three states of mind, each having characteristic behavioral features:

(1) mental or psychological distractions such as excitement and astonishment, fear and terror [cf. Mark 5:42; 16:8; Luke 5:26; Acts 3:10; 8:9, 11, 13];

(2) the pathological mental state of madness or insanity [cf. Mark 3:21; cf. 1 Cor 14:23 (mainomai: “out of your mind”)]; and

(3) the trancelike state in which people are considered particularly susceptible to communications from supernatural beings [cf. Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17]. ^[23]

The first Greek meaning of ecstasy, “amazement,” is the most common, but not relevant to our current discussion, while the second and third meanings are. In general, ecstasy was regarded as either a mindless, irrational state, often referred to as “madness” (mania), or a rational revelatory state referred to as “trance.”

It is our point here, and throughout this section, to demonstrate that while the mindless variety of ecstasy was often characteristic of pagan spiritual practices, the rational variety is always used in the Scriptures in the context of Christian ecstasy. Therefore, those who would profess to experience any kind of spiritual ecstasy in their relationship with God, while claiming it is apart from their reason, cannot claim to be experiencing Christian ecstasy, but rather the pagan variety.

Accordingly, we read of the Apostle Peter’s “ecstatic” experience in which “he fell into a trance [ekstasis: lit. “an ecstasy”]. . . and saw Heaven opened” (Acts 10:10-11; cf. 11:5) and received a divine revelation of God’s revolutionary change to include Gentiles in the New Covenant (cf. Acts 10:34; 11:18). The purpose of this state of ecstasy was not for merely an emotional experience, but to receive direct, divine revelation that was to exercise authority over all Christians. And obviously you cannot receive revelation in a purely emotional and non rational experience because revelation is truth, and truth must be received, understood, and then communicated with our rational faculties.

Some have suggested that the trance state that Peter experienced would be a catatonic, mindless, “foaming at the mouth” type of event. On the contrary, a trance is understood as merely a sleep state of varying degrees in which the senses are diminished but not necessarily eliminated. Webster’s defines “trance” as “a sleeplike state usually characterized by partly suspended animation with diminished or absent sensory and motor activity.” ^[24] Accordingly, the first revelatory trance we encounter in Scripture is described as sleep, not a seizure: “As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him” (Gen 15:12).

A revelatory trance of Paul also reflects its rational nature because he is having a conversation with Jesus. He describes this experience as follows:

“When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the temple, I fell into a trance [ekstasei] and saw the Lord speaking. ‘Quick!’ He said to me. ‘Leave Jerusalem immediately, because they will not accept your testimony about Me.’

‘Lord,’ I replied, [while in the trance] ‘these men know that I went from one synagogue to another to imprison and beat those who believe in You. ²⁰ And when the blood of your martyr Stephen was shed, I stood there giving my approval and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.’

“Then the Lord said to me, ‘Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 22:17-21)

Finally, a related concept is the Apostle John’s description of being “carried . . . away in the Spirit” which was always for the purpose of receiving Scripture-quality direct divine revelation from God (cf. Rev 17:3; cf. 1:10; 4:2; 21:10), but was not a mindless, irrational, purely emotional experience.

Obviously, this can be demonstrated in the OT as well, where such “ecstatic” experiences involve instances of such divine revelation, (cf. Gen 15:12; Num 24:4, 16; 1 Kgs 22:19-23; Ezek 1:1-3:15; Amos 7:1-8:14; Zech 4-6).

Therefore, the overwhelming testimony of Scripture is that Christian ecstasy was for the purpose of receiving a vision of absolutely authoritative divine revelation. Accordingly, and very pertinent to our discussion in this chapter, it also invariably engaged the mind. One cannot receive and process, let alone later communicate a divine revelation unless their mind is active. Hence, our claim that the biblical use of the idea of ecstasy always involved a rational, revelational event.

B.2) Christian ecstasy is not being out of control

B.2.a) The spirits of Prophets are under the control of Prophets: 1 Cor 14:32

Along these lines, we read in the ISBE:

The ecstasy of the true prophets did not usually display itself in peculiar behavior, for their ecstasy was basically a private experience of [and response to] the conscious reality of God’s presence. Ecstasy as a psychological state was concurrent with but distinct from the reception of God’s message. Its importance lay in assuring the prophet that God had spoken. . . . The prophets’ profound spiritual experiences should not, therefore, be confused with mystical experience, nor with the frenzied and irrational behavior of heathen prophets. ^[25]

Accordingly, as we shall see in the following chapter, pagan spiritual ecstasy was often described as “madness” (mania). Accordingly, NT scholar Anthony Thiselton remarks after detailing an extensive study of the concept in relation to Greek spirituality:

[I]n the classical Greek background . . . [the] Hellenistic understanding of [mania] in the context of religion . . . was emotionally “high” or out of control. . . . [T]he verb often applies . . . to the production of sounds while someone is out of his mind . . . hence it hardly overtranslates to use . . . two English terms: raving and out of your mind. [T]he term carries the double meaning of emotional lack of self-control, expressed as raving, and an unattractive, even frightening loss of rational sanity. ^[26]

While pagan “ecstatic” madness may have included a supposed divine revelation and intelligible content, we will discover that often it did not, especially in the practice of “praying in a tongue.” Mania was never involved in Christian ecstasy, but human rationality and divine revelation always was. Accordingly, the early influential Church leader Clement of Alexandria (c. 180) wrote that “speaking in an ecstasy” was “one of the marks of a false prophet.” ^[27] More recently, F. David Farnell, Chairman of the Department of Ministerial Studies, Southeastern Bible College, has written an extensive study of this topic and concludes:

The “ecstatic” state of biblical prophets was qualitatively different from that of pagan prophetism, especially since the Holy Spirit [whose fruit is self-control] was so intimately involved in the prophetic process of biblical prophets (Neh 9:30; Micah 3:8; Zech 7:12; Ezek 2:2; 3:12–14 ). Such a state prepared the prophet for receiving divine revelation, and at no time was he irrational. ^[28]

All of this is in line with the biblical teaching that the fruits and effects of the Holy Spirit always include “peace” (Gal 5:22), not agitated, gross behavior, “self-control” (Gal 5:23), not just emotion, and a “sound mind” (2 Tim 1:7 NKJV), not something that would look like mental disease. If someone claims to be experiencing the Holy Spirit but is not experiencing peace, self-control, and a sound mind, then they are not experiencing the Holy Spirit but possibly a demonic one.

Accordingly, any suggestion that pagan mania was an experience, particularly of biblical Prophets, is denied by the Apostle’s claim that “The spirits [mind] of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets” (1 Cor 14:32). As Pentecostal NT scholar Gordon Fee comments on this verse:

With these words Paul lifts Christian “inspired speech” out of the category of “ecstasy” as such and offers it as a radically different thing from the mania of the pagan cults.” ^[29]

Along the same lines, H. Wayne House writes in regards to Paul’s description of Christian prophecy:

Contemporary descriptions [of pagan worship and “prophets”] take note of the fact that such self-control was totally lacking in the orgiastic ecstasies of the mystery cults. Hence, these safeguards would protect the church by distinguishing the counterfeit from the genuine manifestations of the Holy Spirit. ^[30]

Likewise, Anthony Thiselton comments here:

Needless to say, any notion of a community “working itself up” by psychological autosuggestion or repetitive devices designed to heighten emotion would be entirely alien to Paul’s ethics of controlled speech. “All of these directives presume that the gift is in some sense under the speaker’s control. One can choose whether to speak out in tongues [or in prophetic speech] or to remain [or to become] silent” (Hay’s). ^[31]

Along the same lines, Leon Morris comments:

Just as those speaking with ‘tongues’ had the ability to keep silent when they chose, so it is with prophecy. It is not an irresistible divine compulsion that comes upon the prophet. ^[32]

Charles Hodge paraphrased Paul’s statement that Christian Prophets were under their own control:

‘You are not compelled to speak by any irresistible impulse.’ That influence was not of such a nature as to destroy the self-control of those who were its subjects. It did not throw them into a state of frenzy analogous to that of a heathen pythoness. The prophets of God were calm and self-possessed. ^[33]

John MacArthur summarizes concerning Christian revelatory ecstasy

The Bible knows nothing of out-of-spirit or out-of-mind revelations. Those to whom God revealed His Word did not always fully comprehend the message they were given, but they were always fully aware of what the message was and aware that it was given to them by God. God does not bypass men’s minds either to reveal or to teach His Word. There were no ecstatic, bizarre, trancelike experiences related to divine action or the prophet, such as occurred and occurs with demonic revelations. That was one clear test to distinguish the work of the Holy Spirit from the work of demons, and assumes the Corinthians were having difficulty so distinguishing (cf. 12:3). ^[34]

Of course, we have instances in Scripture where an encounter with God had physical effects on their body. But it was in the context of a miraculous communication from God, and because they had come to a rational understanding of something, like their guilt or God’s glory. It was never simply because they wanted to feel something and call it experiencing God. ^[35]

B.2.b) Paul was never “out of his mind”: 2 Cor 5:12-13

Some have thought that the Apostle Paul described himself as experiencing some sort of out of control ecstasy when he writes to the Corinthians:

We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. If we are out of our mind [ekestēmen], it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind [sōphronoumen] it is for you. (2 Cor 5:12-13)

Not surprisingly, there is some debate over what the Apostle is talking about here. Is he admitting that at times he was “out of his mind” in an uncontrollable fashion? On the contrary, we believe he is responding to accusations from his critics that he was just like the other pagan religious leaders in the mystery cults in Corinth.

First, the context of virtually all of 2 Corinthians is a defense of Paul’s ministry as an authoritative representative of God. It is generally agreed that the Apostle’s remark is prompted by accusations of “the detractors who lurk behind the scenes in the Corinthian correspondence.” ^[36] Evidently, the Apostle’s critics were attempting to equate him with the pagan soothsayers in the Greek mystery religions of the time. They are aptly described by the Apostle as those who “take pride in what is seen” as they were known for their showy, emotional, incoherent “prophecies” that were intended to merely gain the attention of men. Accordingly, NT scholar Colin Kruse writes regarding Paul’s comment that “If we are out of our mind [ekestēmen], it is for the sake of God:

First, it could be Paul’s response to charges that he was mad. Such charges were certainly made later in his career, and they had also been made against his master. Jesus was accused of being mad because of his unflagging zeal in ministry (Mk. 3:21) and because his teaching offended his hearers (Jn. 10:20). This latter reason underlay the charge of madness that Festus made against Paul (Acts 26:22-24), which charge, of course, Paul rejected: ‘I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking the sober truth’ (Acts 26:25). ^[37]

Evidence for this understanding is the fact that, as noted above, out of mind or out of control ecstasy was a pagan thing, not a Christian thing. Accordingly, it is clear Paul is contrasting being “out of our mind” [ekestēmen] with being “in our right mind [sōphronoumen].” This latter word literally means “sound mind” and in ancient Greek meant “to be prudent with focus on self-control.” ^[38] Elsewhere, the word is used to encourage Christians to have “sober judgment” (Rom 12:3), be “clear minded” (1 Pet 4:7), or “young men to be self-controlled” (Tit 2:7). Greek synonyms refer to the Holy Spirit as being a spirit of “self-control [sōphronismos, “prudence”]” (2 Tim 1:7), and are used to describe the required “self-control [[sōphrona]” that Church elders must possess.

Accordingly, do we really think Paul is admitting that he engaged in behavior that would disqualify a man from being a Pastor? He is contrasting being “in our right mind” which even young men were exhorted to be, with being “out of our mind,” and if he really intended to admit he practiced the latter then he was a hypocrite to tell Titus that elders and young men should not act this way. ^[39]

In summary, modern day emotionalists will find no biblical support for claiming that bizarre, overly emotional, and irrational behavior is a sign of being “in the Spirit” or super spirituality, but rather reflects pagan spirituality.

B.3) Christian ecstasy is not “possession”

When the Apostle says “The spirits [mind] of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets” (1 Cor 14:32), he also debunks the idea that they were “possessed” in the sense of losing control over their mind and body.

Nevertheless, it has been common to suggest that particularly Prophets were possessed by the Spirit in a way that controlled both their mind and body, when they received or spoke their revelations. Accordingly, the early Church Fathers typically defined “divine inspiration” in terms of divine possession. Athenagoras (c. 177) wrote that the Spirit of God “moved the mouths of the Prophets like musical instruments.” ^[40] Likewise, Chrysostom (c. 400) taught:

The Holy Spirit took possession of them [Prophets], sometimes suppressed their personality to a certain degree, and then employed their consciousness for his purpose. . . . In the case of the prophets it was the entrance of a foreign element, a foreign power into their lives. ^[41]

Long before that, the Jewish/Greek philosopher Philo (c. 20 B.C. – 50 A.D.) had written:

[A prophet] is the vocal instrument of God, smitten and played by his invisible hand . . . The mind is evicted at the arrival of the divine Spirit, but when that departs the mind returns to its tenancy. Mortal and immortal may not share the same home. And therefore the setting of reason and the darkness which surrounds it produces ecstasy and inspired frenzy . . .

The prophet, even when he seems to be speaking, really [is not], and his organs of speech, mouth and tongue, are wholly in the employ of Another, to show forth what he wills. Unseen by us that Other beats on the chords with the skill of a master-hand and makes them instruments of sweet music, laden with every harmony. ^[42]

More recently, David Aune, in his article on “ecstasy” in the ISBE suggests that it is “the extraordinary experience of full possession of the Spirit, in contrast to the normal, rational state of consciousness.” ^[43]

Unfortunately, such descriptions of “possessed prophecy” or possession revelation are more reflective of pagan prophets rather than biblical ones. What all such descriptions ignore is the Apostle Paul’s clear description of biblical Prophets even when they are prophesying: “The spirits of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets” (1 Cor 14:32). Accordingly, NT scholar Albert Barnes wrote concerning this verse:

The evident meaning of this is, that they were able to control their inclination to speak; they were not under a necessity of speaking, even though they might be inspired. There was no need of disorder. This verse gives confirmation to the supposition, that the extraordinary endowments of the Holy Spirit were subjected to substantially the same laws as a man’s natural endowments. They were conferred by the Holy Spirit; but they were conferred on free agents, and did not interfere with their free agency. . . .

In this the spirit of true inspiration differed essentially from the views of the pagan, who regarded themselves as driven on by a wild, controlling influence, that compelled them to speak even when they were unconscious of what they said. Universally, in the pagan world, the priests and priestesses supposed or feigned that they were under an influence which was incontrollable; which took away their powers of self-command, and which made them the mere organs or unconscious instruments of communicating the will of the gods. ^[44]

Such possession is a demonic act, not a divine one, and there are no biblical examples to prove otherwise. It is to be admitted that biblical Prophets describe “the strong hand of the Lord” being “upon” them (cf. Isa 8:11; Ezek 1:3) and even whisking them away in a vision that comes upon them (cf. Ezek 3:14; 8:3; 37:1). But these descriptions pertain to how revelation came to them, not how they spoke or communicated the revelation. Indeed, biblical Prophets seemed to often have no control over when and how they experienced a revelatory event, but we do not see such lack of control in when and how they spoke the revelation. It is true that Jeremiah wrote the following:

But if I say, “I will not mention Him or speak any more in His name,” His word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot. (20:9)

Most preachers have experienced the same burden. However, we are still able to exercise self-control and neither we nor Jeremiah was possessed and “taken over” in the sense that he became a puppet or robot forced to communicate the revelation he had received.

Some have pointed to the description of prophetic revelation in 2 Peter 1:21 as describing some sort of event that does dispossess the Prophet. There we read: “Men spoke from God as they were carried along [pheromenoi] by the Holy Spirit.” Admittedly, the Greek word here is a strong one, Charles Swindoll commenting:

The Greek word here is pherō, and it literally means to be “moved along apart from one’s own power.” It’s a nautical term used for a ship without a rudder or a sail, carried along at the mercy of the waves and the wind and the current. Here the word is used for the prophets, moved not by their own power, but by the power of God as He spoke through them and revealed His will. ^[45]

This suggests to some the mindless mania and uncontrolled behavior of pagan prophets. But it needs to be reconciled with the Apostle’s clear statement in 1 Corinthians 14, distinguishing Christian Prophets from pagan ones and insisting that “The spirits of Prophets are subject to the control of Prophets” (1 Cor 14:32). Accordingly, Michael Green concludes in his commentary on 2 Peter:

The fact of God’s inspiration did not mean a supersession of the normal mental functions of the human author. The Holy Spirit did not use instruments; he used men. God’s way is ever one of truth through personality, as was perfectly demonstrated at the incarnation. Moreover, he did not use any men, but holy men, those who are dedicated and pledged to his service. And even with such men, he did no violence to their personalities, but cooperated with them while revealing himself through them.

“He says they were moved, not because they were out of their minds as the heathen imagine in their prophets, but because they dared nothing by themselves but only in obedience to the guidance of the spirit, who held sway over lips as in his own temple” (Calvin). . . .

Peter’s words are equally in contrast to the mechanical understanding of inspiration to be found in Philo, his Jewish contemporary. Philo sees it as a compulsive divine possession which turned man into a theophoros, ‘God bearer’ (Mut. Nom. i, p.609, de Somn. p. 689). Peter sees it as a personal and ethical cooperation between god and holy men. There’s no suggestion that the sacred authors are beside themselves like the analogy from Bacchic [pagan] frenzy cited by Philo; they are carried along the path of God’s will by their own glad and willing consent. ^[46]

Again, if one is going to interpret Paul at face value, this must be our understanding of biblical prophetic revelation. ^[47]

C) Whole-hearted Worship: I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart (Ps 9:1)

It is not our desire here to depreciate our God-given human emotions in any way, including their importance in our relationship with God. ^[48] One only needs to read the Psalms and observe how emotional a relationship with God can and should be. We would hope that every Christian would sometimes experience the exhilaration of laughing, crying, or even shouting and dancing in the presence of God. When God says we are to love Him with all our heart (cf. Matt 22:37), He certainly includes our emotions. Accordingly, we have noted above that Christ’s description of worshipping the Father “in spirit and in truth” certainly includes the emotions. Along these lines we have also written:

We must ensure that the ministries of our church reflect and minister to all the aspects of the human “heart.” For example, it can be suggested that in a general way the teaching of the church builds and corrects our beliefs, the mission of the church engages our desires, and its worship gives us the opportunity to emotionally celebrate. If any of these ministries are neglected, a part of the “heart” of the church and the Christian will be deprived. ^[49]

Along these lines, Jonathan Edwards pointed out long ago in his Treatise Concerning Religious Affections that emotion has its place in real religion:

That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising us but a little above a state of indifference. God, in his word, greatly insists upon it, that we be good in earnest, “fervent in spirit,” and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion: Rom. 12:11. ^[50]

Unfortunately, it would seem the emotionalist movement has generally used Edward’s writings as an excuse for their abuses, rather than a guide for their correction. A reading of the Treatise reveals that Edwards defined “religious affections” as desire and devotion in one’s private life, rather than mere emotion in public worship. God has made humans with emotions, but just like sex, if it is abused, or used apart from the purposes God created it, it becomes a vice, not a virtue, a blessing and not a curse.

No one can deny that such emotionalist churches are more expressive in their corporate worship. Accordingly, perhaps the single most significant and acceptable influence that emotionalism has had on American Christianity is that we clap more in our worship services. We can find one verse of Scripture that even suggests this is biblical (cf. Ps 47:1).

However, at best this is simply a personal preference and has no automatic bearing on how God-pleasing our worship is. Saying that your church has more emotional or expressive worship is like saying your worship music includes a heavier element of the drums or violin. It makes the worship different than elsewhere, but not necessarily better from God’s point of view, which is the only perspective that matters.

Unfortunately, emotionalists have illegitimately criticized less expressive and more liturgical worship, assuming that it cannot be as God-pleasing or life changing as their brand of worship. On the contrary, the King said, “true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks” (John 4:23). Understanding that “in spirit” means much more than emotions, “charismatic” worship has no automatic superiority over other authentic forms of Christian worship and its overly emotional element can actually be selfish and sinful. And considering much of the content of the lyrics that has come out of “charismatic” worship, and the mindless nature of much of it, they are clearly inferior when it comes to the Father’s desire that we “worship. . . in truth.”

While modern emotionalism has perverted the place of emotion in God-pleasing worship by over-emphasizing it, there have been movements in Christianity which have erred in the opposite direction. One thinks of the continual debate regarding contemporary music in Christian worship. ^[51] For example, Dan Lucarini in his book, Why I Left The Contemporary Christian Music Movement seems to have an unhealthy perspective on emotion and Christian worship when he writes:

Rock and roll is a musical style that was created for immoral purposes by immoral men, and has always been used by the world to express its immoral attitudes in song. . . . Rock music and its offspring have the power to make our flesh and our minds do something. That ‘something’ must be conducive to the list of immoral behaviours we have just noted, or else these people would simply not use rock music. They would find something else to suit their fleshly desires. It should be no surprise then that this music, which emphasizes sensuality and rebellion, often gives rise to other behaviour that evidences a spirit of immorality. . . .

We are allowing Satan a wide-open door to seduce the saints, to keep our attention on what feels good to us, and to keep us walking in the flesh not walking by the Spirit. . . . We believe we can handle rock music safely and clean it up, because we are saved and we ask God to use it. Wrong! We cannot separate the style of music from its immoral associations. Rock music inevitably corrupts Christians. Look at what the Apostle says in Ephesians. Ephesians 2:3: ‘…we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the other’ . . . .

As leaders of the church, we are never to lead the saints into temptation or any hint of immorality. Why would you even permit an environment of potential sexual temptation and emotional adultery to exist in your church service? Of course, this type of sin can rear its ugly head in any musical environment, but Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) creates an atmosphere that actually fosters it. . . .

CCM is stuck with this stigma of immorality, because the music styles carry with them the baggage of the world’s immorality. It does not matter if you change the lyrics. It does not matter if you change the musicians. It does not matter if you change the record labels. It does not matter if you ask God to sanctify it. Rock music and all its children, and by association CCM, can and will corrupt the morals of everyone who practices it. ^[52]

While we would certainly agree with the author’s concern for Christian worship that centers on emotion and entertainment, there are several imbalances here. First, in Lucarini’s interpretation of Ephesians 2:3, and throughout the book, he automatically correlates emotional worship with our sinful flesh. This simply is not biblical.

Secondly, there is a mindless, irrational nature to these arguments because of the insistence that merely the rhythm of music can make it evil. On the contrary, authentic Christian music is not identified by the notes and chords attached to it, but rather its words, because it is our minds that are the most important thing in worship. While some music may distract from the words of Christian songs, decreasing its effectiveness, music cannot be evil apart from its words. Therefore, while the style of “rock” music may promote the mindless emotionalism that is unbiblical, the culprit is not “rock” music itself, but the devaluation of the human mind that emotionalism seeks to create.

Nonetheless, Lucarini’s warnings about “rock” music in Christian worship have some important truths. Unlike many modern Christian songs, the Psalms were not valued for the emotion that came from the tunes in them, but the truth in them. Even the good Christian lyrics in many songs are ignored because people get so caught up in the beat, that they miss the meat. If any music is used as merely a temporary fix of emotion to escape reality and leaves us unchanged in truly Christian ways, then it is probably of the flesh instead of the Spirit. And if Christian artists use their God-given gifts merely to attract attention, it is only “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor 13:1) to God, no matter how popular among people.

Few have articulated the balance between emotion and reason in worship better than the German theologian Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) in his rather famous treatise, The Idea of the Holy. Dr. Otto had traveled extensively researching the religions of the world in contrast to his own Christianity. First, he describes at length the fact that the Christian God is to be apprehended and worshipped through our reason, and that, “Only on such terms is belief possible in contrast to mere feeling.” ^[53] In fact, the rationality of Christianity is, “a very real sign of its superiority over religions of other forms and at other levels.” ^[54]

However, while the rational nature of God and our relationship with Him, “must be asserted at the outset and with the most positive emphasis,” Dr. Otto writes, “we have to be on our guard against an error which would lead to a wrong and one-sided interpretation of religion.” ^[55] Thereafter, the author attempts to explain the balance between mere “rationalism” and “emotionalism” in our relationship with God. Neither is desirable in themselves, but when our whole “heart” is engaged (desires, reason, feelings), we have authentic Christianity.

Accordingly, Dr. Otto writes:

All depends upon this: in our idea of God is the [emotional] overborne, even perhaps wholly excluded, by the rational? Or conversely, does the [emotional] itself, preponderate over the rational? . . . By the continual living activity of its [emotional] elements a religion is guarded from passing into ‘rationalism’. By being steeped in and saturated with rational elements it is guarded from sinking into fanaticism or mere mysticality or at least from persisting in these, and is qualified to become a religion for all civilized humanity.

The degree in which both rational and [emotional] elements are jointly present, united in healthy and lovely harmony, affords a criterion to measure the relative rank of religions; and one, too, that is specifically religious. Applying this criterion, we find that Christianity, in this as in other respects, stands out in complete superiority over all its sister religions. . . . And thus Christianity, in the healthily proportioned union of its elements, assumes an absolutely classical form and dignity. ^[56]

All need to admit that if either the emotional or rational elements are removed from Christian worship that we will have something less than biblical Christianity. Still, we would suggest that the relative superiority and “dignity” of Christianity over other religions that Dr. Otto suggests has been threatened far more by emotionalism than Evangelical rationalism.

We would suggest that the biblical balance is found in King David, a biblical character best known for his God-pleasing worship. No doubt emotions were a part of his relationship with God. We see this vividly displayed in 2 Samuel when “he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of trumpets” (6:12), returning it to Jerusalem after many years of being absent. It is here that we read, “David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might” (v. 14). God forbid that we would be like David’s wife Michal who, “when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart” (v. 16). David’s response was that he would “become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes,” (v. 22) in his worship to God.

There is no hint here that David was out of control or simply trying to draw attention to himself, as he said his worship, “was before the LORD” (v. 21). Those who would drain God-pleasing worship of all emotion must simply ignore the biblical example of this man of God. Therefore, we repeat that it is not simply emotional worship that we have been concerned with here, but mindless worship which often results in merely emotional worship.

Of course, some would want to make this one instance in Scripture the model for all real worship. David himself would rebuke them. Meditating before the Lord in worship is mentioned many more times in Scripture than dancing before Him. David describes one of his times of worship when he writes:

I meditate (hagah) on all Your works and consider (siach: “meditate on”) what Your hands have done. I spread out my hands to You; my soul thirsts for You like a parched land” (Ps 143:5).

We see the whole “heart” involved here, including the desires, reason, and emotion.

Likewise, David describes “whole-hearted” worship when he writes:

They will speak of the glorious splendor of Your majesty, and I will meditate on Your wonderful works. They will tell of the power of Your awesome works, and I will proclaim Your great deeds. They will celebrate Your abundant goodness and joyfully sing of Your righteousness. (Ps 145:5-7)   

Elsewhere in Psalms, worship is described as a mental exercise as well. For example, we read in Psalm 104:34 “May my meditation be pleasing to Him, as I rejoice in the LORD.” The Sons of Korah sang, “Within Your temple, O God, we meditate on Your unfailing love” (Ps 48:9).

Likewise, Asaph describes the kind of worship that enabled him to rise above despair, and it was not feelings-oriented, but rather reason-oriented:

I cried out to God for help; I cried out to God to hear me. When I was in distress, I sought the Lord; at night I stretched out untiring hands and my soul refused to be comforted. I remembered [zakar, “to be mindful of”] You, O God [a thinking exercise], and I groaned; I mused, and my spirit grew faint. . . . I was too troubled to speak.

[Then] I thought [chashab] about the former days, the years of long ago; I remembered [zakar] my songs in the night. My heart mused [siach] and my spirit inquired [chapas: “to ponder”]: “Will the Lord reject forever? Will He never show His favor again? Has His unfailing love vanished forever? Has His promise failed for all time? Has God forgotten to be merciful? Has He in anger withheld His compassion?”

Then I thought, “To this I will appeal: the years of the right hand of the Most High.” I will remember [zakar] the deeds of the LORD; yes, I will remember [zakar] Your miracles of long ago. I will meditate [hagah] on all Your works and consider [siach] all Your mighty deeds. (Ps. 77:1-12)

This description of a heart changing worship experience contains all kinds of actions that require our reasoning faculties.

As usual, the biblical view of something, including worship, is more balanced than what we see in much of American Christianity. To worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), and to “sing with my spirit [and] also [at the same time ^[57]] sing with my mind” (1 Cor 14:15) requires “whole-hearted” worship which engages all our mental faculties, not just the feelings as in paganism, and not just the lips as in formalism. May God help us to regain and maintain such a balance in both our private and corporate worship so that we may have God-pleasing worship.

Pastoral Practices

• All of us need to evaluate both our personal and our corporate worship to ensure it is “whole-hearted” worship. Some questions we can ask are: Is there room to grow in either our understanding of our “high God” or “nigh God”? Has worship ever been an emotional experience for us, and if not, why not? Are we going to stop our mind from wandering from focusing on God in our worship times so that “the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart [will] be pleasing in Your sight, O LORD” (Ps 19:14)? Is our congregation a place that promotes “whole-hearted” worship with meaningful content and freedom for expression?

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our heavenly Father, we praise You for the privilege of worshipping You with all of our heart, soul, and mind. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O Lord (Ps 19:14), especially in our times of worship. Help the Church gain and maintain a balance of “spirit” and “truth” in its worship.

Gauging Your Grasp

1) How do we define “whole-hearted” worship?

2) What is our primary Scripture for promoting “whole-hearted” worship? Do you agree with our application of Christ’s words? Why or why not?

3) How do we define “half-hearted” worship or emotionalism?

4) Why do we claim that Christian pop artists have a special responsibility to promote “whole-hearted” worship? Do you agree or disagree and why?

5) What do we mean by the “high” God and the “nigh” God? How do these concepts help us maintain a balance in “whole-hearted” worship?

6) What do we suggest is the most significant contribution more “emotional” or “charismatic” worship has made to American Christianity? What is your opinion of this?

7) How do the Psalms exhibit “whole-hearted” worship?

Publications & Particulars

1. Excerpt from section 4.6.C.1. ↑

2. NT scholar Leon Morris comments on the phrase “spirit and truth”:

   The linking of the two nouns under a single preposition shows that they belong together. There is one complex idea. E. C. Blackman takes the expression as demanding worship “conformable to the divine nature which is spirit, and determined by the truth which God has made available concerning himself. . . . Cf. Westcott: “Worship is necessarily limited by the idea of the being worshipped. A true idea of God . . . is essential to a right service [and worship] of Him.” (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1995], 239). ↑

3. Few translations (LB, CEV) or commentators render pneuma here as the Holy Spirit, but most understand Christ to be speaking of the human spirit. Accordingly, Morris comments, “It is not likely that “spirit” here means the Holy Spirit. . . . It is the human spirit that is in mind.” (Ibid.)

   Nevertheless, Jesus is certainly referring to a human spirit influenced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which would affect and control the emotions coming from the human spirit in a God-honoring way. (cf. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1991), 224-226). ↑

4. See a rather complete listing of the variety of meanings for pneuma in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Thomas Nelson, 1996), 593. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. By modern charismaticism we are primarily referring to what is commonly labeled the “charismatic” movement that began with the Pentecostals in the early 1900’s, spread into denominational churches in the 1960’s and 70’s, and has merged with what is referred to as the Third Wave churches today. Pentecostal churches include Assembly of God, Church of God, Open Bible, Apostolic, Foursquare Gospel, and Full Gospel. Third Wave churches include Vineyard and a variety of independent congregations.

   We thank God for all He has done through the “charismatic” movement, and for the dear Christian brothers and sisters who would claim membership in it. However, throughout Knowing Our God (KOG) we refrain from referring to this movement as “charismatic,” because this erroneously implies a uniqueness and even superiority in Christian grace (charis), and by further implication, a superior possession or experience of the Holy Spirit.

   Surely no right-minded “charismatic” would desire to claim such a superiority over their Christian brothers and sisters, especially since they cannot demonstrate one. Biblically speaking, being “led by the Spirit,” experiencing His power, and living “not under law” but by “grace [charis]” is most clearly manifested in the “fruit of the Spirit” which the Apostle Paul describes as “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal 5:4, 18, 22-3). “Charismatic” Christians in general are not superior in these virtues of love and holiness compared to other Christians, and these virtues are the real essence of Christian charisma, making all obedient Christians true “charismatics,” not just a particular sect.

   In fact, the greatest and most important uniqueness of charismatic churches over other authentic Christian churches is not their love or holiness, but rather an emphasis on, and practice of: 1) emotional worship, 2) speaking and/or praying in an incoherent tongue, 3) claims to direct divine revelation through spiritual gifts such as prophecy, and 4) claims to a greater abundance of miracles in general through the gifts of healing and miracle working.

   Therefore, throughout KOG we use the terms emotionalism (see chapters 4.8-11), glossaism (Gr. glossa: “tongue,” see Book 12: The Truth About Tongues), prophetism (see Book 9: Divine Prophets), and super-supernaturalism (see chapters 10.14-16) to refer to these distinctives respectively, while recognizing that they may exist elsewhere as well. Accordingly, we believe this allows us to address the areas of concern we have regarding the movement, and avoid speaking critically of the movement as a whole, which has many good, although not unique, attributes as well.

   Likewise, we refrain from referring to those Christians who would differ from “charismatics” as “non-charismatics,” erroneously implying again that the latter is somehow lacking in grace. Rather, those who oppose the sometimes bizarre worship of emotionalism, the obscure utterances of Glossaism, the extra-biblical revelations of prophetism, and the miracle-a-minute mindset of super-supernaturalism are better labeled as historicists. This reflects the fact that for at least 1600 years of Church history, the great majority belief and practice of God’s people was opposed to all of the uniquenesses that the “charismatic” movement claims today.

   It is a historical fact that miraculous gifts such as healing, tongues, and prophecy ceased functioning in the church in the fourth century. Accordingly, the very few people since then who have promoted bizarre forms of worship, obscure utterances in prayer, claims to extra-biblical revelation, and miracle working abilities, were always thought to be deceived and dangerous, and not accepted as biblical Christians. What those in charismaticism also refuse to admit, or take seriously enough, is that the modern versions of the miraculous gifts being claimed do not match the attributes of their biblical counterparts. For a great deal of discussion on these matters see the books in Volume 2 of KOG. ↑

7. Excerpt from section 4.6.C.2. ↑

8. For further discussion of the importance of emotion in the Christian life see esp. sections 4.6.A.2 and 4.6.C.1. ↑

9. Quoted from section 2.4.E. ↑

10. Accordingly, Dr. Morris writes concerning John 4:22:

    Jesus’ concern is with the essential nature of worship. He accordingly points out to the woman the inadequacy of Samaritan worship. Though they worshipped the true God the Samaritans did so very imperfectly. When we consider that they rejected the writings of the Prophets, the Psalms, the historical books of the Old Testament, and much more we realize that their knowledge of God was, of necessity, very limited. (John, 238) ↑

11. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Findex.Com, 1999), in loc. ↑

12. John Stott, Your Mind Matters (Intervarsity, 1973), 30.

    Jonathan Edwards, ↑

13. William Barclay, Daily Study Bible, CD-ROM (Liguori Publications, 1996). ↑

14. Jonathan Edwards, Treatise Concerning Religious Affections (online at http://www.ccel.org), III.4.1. ↑

15. John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Zondervan, 1992), 36. ↑

16. Bernard L., Ramm, The Pattern of Authority (Eerdmans, 1957), 45. ↑

17. Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1961), 110. ↑

18. For further discussion of 1 Cor 14:14-15 see section 4.9.D. ↑

19. D. M. Lloyd-Jones, The Sovereign Spirit: Discerning the Gifts (Harold Shaw, 1985), 72, 75. ↑

20. Morris, John, 240. ↑

21. E. J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Eerdmans, 1956), 88. ↑

22. D. A. Carson, Sermon on the Mount, (Baker, 1978), 63-4. ↑

23. David Aune, “Ecstasy,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols., (Eerdmans, 1988), II:14. ↑

24. http://www.merriam-webster.com. ↑

25. G. V. Smith, “Prophet,” ISBE, III.996 ↑

26. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans, 2000), 1126. ↑

27. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.17; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

28. F. David Farnell, Chairman of the Department of Ministerial Studies, Southeastern Bible College, has written extensively on the issue of pagan ecstasy, contrasting it with the Christian variety. After describing the latter he writes:

    This is in contrast to the secular [pagan] prophet, whose experiences often were irrational. Expressions like μάντις (“soothsayer”), χρησμόλογος (“oracle-relater”), μαίνομαι (“to rage”), ἐνθουσιασμός (“god-possessed”) which convey an irrational ecstasy are not used in the New Testament of biblical prophets.

    In the Septuagint μαντεύομαι and μάντις are almost always used of pagan soothsayers and false prophets. . . . In the New Testament μαντεύομαι is also used in a negative sense of soothsaying (Acts 16:16). In the Septuagint, the word μαίνομαι is used in Jeremiah 32:16 (Heb., 25:16 ) and conveys a negative connotation of “going mad,” while in Jeremiah 36:26 (Heb., 29:26 ) it is also used negatively to refer to madness.

    In the New Testament μαίνομαι has a negative connotation. In John 10:20 it is used by the Jews who asserted that Jesus was demonized and was thus “insane” (δαιμόνιον ἔχει καὶ μαίνεται). In Acts 12:15 the girl Rhoda was considered “mad” because she reported that Peter was standing at the door. When Paul gave his defense before King Herod Agrippa II, Festus used the word twice in referring to Paul as insane (Acts 26:24). Paul denied that he was “mad” (v. 25 ). Paul also used the term negatively in 1 Corinthians 14:23 where the word again has the idea of “insane” or “mad.”

    In the Septuagint the verb χρησμολογέω occurs in Jeremiah 45:4 (Heb., 38:4 ), where government officials who opposed Jeremiah requested his death for not “giving oracular responses,” or pronouncements, of peace (χρησμολεγει̂ εἰρήνην). Ενθυσιάζειν and its cognates do not appear in the Septuagint or the New Testament. . . .

    For a refutation of the concept of an irrational ecstatic state, consult Leon J. Wood, The Prophets of Israel (Baker, 1979), 37–56, and idem, The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (Zondervan, 1976), 90–112. (“Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?”, in Bibliotheca Sacra 149, 150, Parts 1-4 (July-Sept 1992 through Apr-June 1993), Part 3, 150:598; 179, note 28)

    Dr. Farnell’s study is in contrast to Dr. Aune who writes in his ISBE article on “ecstasy” under “behavioral features”:

    In the NT the revelatory state of consciousness has external behavioral features that allow it to be confused with drunkenness (Acts 2:13, 15; Eph. 5:18) or insanity (Mk. 3:21; 1 Cor. 14:23). . . . At times it is accompanied by bizarre behavior (Mk. 5:2-5; 9:22; Acts 16:17f.; 2 1: 11). (ISBE, II.15)

    This implies that Christian “ecstasy” and the revelatory state of Christian Prophets was much like their pagan counterparts. However, none of the verses that Dr. Aune uses to support his claims do so.

    The “drunkenness” perceived by those listening to the Apostle speak in tongues was not due to their stumbling around or other physical manifestations, but was due to their speaking in several foreign languages that many of those present wouldn’t understand. Ephesians 5:18 has absolutely no bearing on the topic.

    The claim that some would perceive a Christian as “insane” is equally non-relevant to the issue. Like Acts 2, the reason that visitors to the Corinthian church would think they were crazy was because they too would sound like they were speaking gibberish as they spoke in tongues in the hearing of those who would not know the foreign language being spoken. The reference to Mark 3:21 describes the fact that Jesus’ family accused Him of being crazy, not that He exhibited any spiritual experiences that would reflect such a state.

    The charge of “bizarre behavior” is unsupported as well. Mark 5 and 9 refer to demon possessed people, which actually serves to make our point that Holy Spirit possession does not result in “bizarre behavior.” And the Acts 21 reference is to the Christian Prophet Agabus who merely tied his hands and feet with Paul’s belt to indicate how Paul would be bound. Hardly an “ecstatic” action. In summary, Dr. Aune doesn’t have the biblical data to make his claims. ↑

29. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Eerdmans, 1987), 696. ↑

30. H. Wayne House, “Tongues and the Mystery Religions at Corinth,” BSac 140:558 (Apr 83), 146. ↑

31. Thiselton, 1145. ↑

32. Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1999), 196. Barrett has little comment (The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC), (Hendrickson, 2000), 1 Cor 14:32. ↑

33. Charles Hodge, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 14:32; online at ccel.org. ↑

34. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), 1 Cor 14:32. ↑

35. Regarding distinguishing fleshly bodily effects from spiritual ones in our encounters with God see section 4.11.C. For further discussion of the effects of miraculous communication on humans see section 10.2.C.2. ↑

36. Colin Kruse, 2 Corinthians (Eerdmans, 1987), 120. ↑

37. Ibid., 2 Cor 5:13. For a similar view see Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Findex.Com, 1999). ↑

38. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature (BAGD), F. W. Danker, ed., 3^rd ed. (University Of Chicago Press, 2001). ↑

39. Calvin agreed that Paul’s enemies were making an accusation, but felt the Apostle accepted it, paraphrasing Paul as saying, “I shall be quite content that the world reckon me beside myself, provided only it is not to myself, but to God” (Calvin’s Bible Commentaries; online at http://www.ccel.org)

    While Hodge also believed that Paul was replying to an accusation from his enemies, he does not believe that it involves madness, but another possible meaning of ekestēmen: “undue excitement or extravagance” (Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 5:12-13; online at ccel.org). As usual, Dr. Hodge’s view is worth serious consideration.

    Barnes shared essentially our view of the passage as noted above.

    Barrett seems non-committal on what Paul is saying in 2 Corinthians 5:12-13 (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC), (Hendrickson, 1997).

    Barnett says that the arguments against our view are 1) the verb used in Acts 26:24-25 [by Festus- “mad”] is mainesthai instead of existēmi, and 2) the antithesis in the text are against it. As for the first issue, the words can be synonyms, and as for the second, it is more probable that the antithesis that Paul intends is the one we are advocating, between being out of control and being self-controlled.

    Interestingly, Barnett goes on to relate that the Corinthians would have been well aware of “ecstatic behavior” because it occurred in the mystery cults:

    Ecstatic behavior would have been well known to the Corinthians through the cultic practices at Delphi. Lucian, The Civil War 5.67ff., describes the frenzied ecstasy of the Pythian priestess at Delphi: “the wild frenzy overflowed through her foaming lips; she groaned and uttered loud inarticulate cries with panting breath . . . and at last . . . the sound of articulate speech. The frenzy abides; and the god whom she has not shaken off, still controls her” (LCL). In Phaedrus 244.A-B, Plato sets sōphronoumen [sound mind] in contrast with mainouen [madness], which is a synonym for existēmen [beside ourselves]. . . In the Greek world religious madness was seen as divine inspiration. (284)

    Accordingly, Barnett seems then to be saying that Paul was claiming the same experiences.

    The popular opinion that the Apostle is referring to praying or speaking in an unintelligible “ecstatic” tongue (cf. 1 Cor 14:2) has no biblical warrant, as will be demonstrated in the next chapter, 4.9. ↑

40. Athenagoras, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: A Plea for the Christians, vol. 2 (Eerdmans, 1989), 132. ↑

41. Chrysostom, Homily on 2 Corinthians, 2Cor. 13:2b, 3; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

42. Philo, quoted by James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Westminster Press, 1975), 305. ↑

43. David Aune, “Ecstasy,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . (ISBE), Geoffrey W. Bromiley, ed., 4 vols., (Eerdmans, 1988), II:14.

    Dr. Aune at times describes revelational “ecstasy” as involving “possession” and equates this with “divine inspiration.” Several biblical references to supposed divine possession are given in the article, but upon closer examination, they do not clearly describe such a thing (cf. Num 24:4, 16; 1 Sam 10:5-13; 19:8-24; Ezek 2:1; 3:14, 22; 8:1; 33:22; 37:1; Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17; 1 Cor 14:27-33; 2 Cor 5:13; Rev 1:10; 4:1). Admittedly, the Spirit is strongly affecting such people, but He does not displace their person while giving them a vision or otherwise communicating to them.

    Dr. Aune goes on to write: “Another type of revelatory experience, which is an example of uncontrolled inspiration, is the call reported by many prophets (Ex. 3:1-4:17; 1 S. 3:2-14; 2 K. 2:9-14; Jer. 1:4-10; Isa. 6:1-13).” This is simply false. Indeed, God irrevocably called these men into ministry, but there is no hint in these texts that they experienced “uncontrolled inspiration.” (Ibid.)

    Dr. Aune later admits Paul’s statement that, “the spirits of Prophets are subject to Prophets” but suggests this was not true of all divine Prophets and that Paul had probably learned how to control the operation of the Spirit in his life which, evidently, would have otherwise been rather identical to what demonic pagan prophets experienced. Dr. Aune writes:

    In the NT, as in the OT, the revelatory state is not always attained in an uncontrolled manner, for the very fact that prophecy and other manifestations of the Spirit occur within the framework of Christian worship (Acts 11:27f.; 13:1; 1 Cor. 14:26-33) indicates that both the time and place of the onset of the revelatory state is subject to control. Paul urges even greater control in I Cor. 14:27-32. It is probable that Paul himself, who claims to have had many experiences while in a revelatory state (I Cor. 14:6, 26; 2 Cor. 12:1, 7; Gal. 1: 12; 2:2), learned to control the experience and on that basis could exhort the Corinthian community to exercise control over their experiences. (Ibid.)

    Such speculations are absolutely unnecessary. ↑

44. Barnes, 1 Cor 14:32. ↑

45. Charles Swindoll, The Mystery of God’s Will (Word, 1999), 32. ↑

46. Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude (TNTC) (Eerdmans, 1987), 103. ↑

47. Unfortunately, neither David Aune (Prophecy in Early Christianity & the Ancient Mediterranean World), nor the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology provide any commentary on 2 Peter 1:21. ↑

48. For further discussion of the place of emotion in the Christian life see chapter 4.6. ↑

49. Quoted from 4.1.B.3. ↑

50. Edwards, Affections, 10. ↑

51. For further discussion regarding the debate around style of worship music see section 3.2.C.3.b. ↑

52. Dan Lucarini, Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement (Evangelical Press, 2002), 68, 72-3. ↑

53. Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, (Penguin, 1957), 15. ↑

54. Ibid., 16. ↑

55. Ibid. ↑

56. Ibid., 17, 159. ↑

57. While emotionalists claim that the Apostle is referring to a mindless type of prayer and singing in 1 Corinthians 14:14-15, he is actually advocating praying and singing with the human mind and spirit simultaneously. For further discussion see section 4.9.D. ↑