The Fork in the Road: “Will Worship”

When we in the Churches of Christ disagree over how to conduct the Sunday assembly, at some point someone will inevitably accuse the other side of “will worship.” And will-worship is sin.

The assumption is that “will worship” means worshiping as you please versus worshiping as God pleases. Indeed, when the discussion centers around designing a worship that is “relevant” to or speaks in the “heart language” of today’s culture, the accusations of “will worship” are guaranteed, because it sounds as though we’re concerned about the feelings of the congregation, when we should be solely concerned about God’s feelings.

Of course, there is no guarantee that doing it the way we used to do it isn’t itself will-worship, is there? I mean, there’s no presumption that tradition isn’t will-worship. Rather, the test is what the Bible says — a test that is given great lip service but rarely actually applied.

The language of “will worship” is found in the KJV translation of Col 2:23 —

(Col 2:23)  Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

It’s clear enough from the passage that Paul opposes will-worship. Wayne Jackson, the Christian Courier, defines “will worship” as “capitulating to human desire,” saying further,

If there is not a prescribed worship ritual for the Lord’s day, then one is free to do nothing at all, or, if he elects to worship, he has the license to improvise his own procedures. He thus would be allowed to practice an “arbitrary” worship. But this is exactly what the Bible condemns as “will-worship” (Col. 2:23).

J.H. Thayer comments on the Greek term that is rendered “will-worship” (ethelo-threskeia). He says it denotes “worship which one devises and prescribes for himself” (Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1958, p. 168). This is precisely what our erring friend argues in favor of in the article sited above.

F.W. Danker defines “will-worship” as a “self-made” or “do-it-yourself religion” (Greek-English Lexicon, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 276; cf. NIV; ESV).

Jackson’s argumentation is entirely typical of the 20th Century Churches of Christ, and it has two major flaws.

First, it proceeds from a false dichotomy: either there is a prescribed ritual or else you are “allowed to practice an ‘arbitrary’ worship.” But there are ways to worship that are neither arbitrary nor based on a prescribed ritual.

I mean, I ate supper with my wife last night. There was no prescribed ritual, and yet neither was my behavior permitted to be arbitrary. Rather, my behavior was dictated by my love for my wife, for the other patrons of the restaurant, the waitress, etc., and by the purpose of my being there (to eat and enjoy a night out with my wife). Therefore (you’ll be shocked to know), I did not throw my food at the other people at the restaurant and I used my knife and fork. My behavior was not arbitrary and yet it was not ritualized.

Jackson’s other mistake is to ignore the context. Let’s see what the passage is really telling us.

(Col 2:16-23 ESV) Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

20If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations — 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22(referring to things that all perish as they are used) — according to human precepts and teachings? 23These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Let’s start with v. 16. Paul’s first point is that we aren’t to allow others to pass judgment on us regarding our refusal to honor their opinions about how to worship. Of course, he’s obviously using “worship” in a much broader sense than the Sunday assembly, as he includes questions about food and drink — likely a reference to the commands of the Law of Moses regarding clean and unclean food — in his list. “Worship” is therefore really more about living in obedience to God — not what happens on Sunday morning.

Paul’s concern is broader than Judaism. The worship of angels was hardly typical of a First Century Jew, and so the commentators are inclined to conclude this was a practice pecular to Colosse. And there was something about this practice that led to asceticism — a Grecian approach to religion that later came to typify Gnosticism.

Now, asceticism is a fancy word for despising created things because they are material or because they provide physical pleasure. And even today, Christianity has been corrupted by the notion that we please God by making ourselves miserable. It’s as though the sum total of happiness in the universe were finite, and so by being happy, we deny God happiness! Or that God takes pleasure in our misery. And these are gross insults to our Creator and Savior.

(1 Tim 4:3-5)  They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

What God created he created for us — provided we use it consistently with the truth (the gospel) and with thanksgiving.

Now, in Col 2:22, Paul makes an intriguing argument. He says the commands not to handle, taste, or touch can’t be true because they deal with things that “perish as they are used.” These are earthly things that will not last, and therefore they cannot be inherently evil. Anything can be used for evil, but it’s not evil just because of its temporal (time-limited) nature. Indeed, the fact that God made it demonstrates that it is good.

Paul concludes by noting that true wisdom is in preventing the indulgence of the flesh, not in “self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body.” Obviously, the last two items in the list are of a kind. Both speak to denying oneself pleasure — or even inflicting pain — on the theory this somehow pleases God. It doesn’t.

Now, then, what is “self-made religion”? Well, plainly Paul is speaking of something much more fundamental than whether we say a closing prayer before the Freed-Hardeman chorus sings. He talking about misunderstanding what Christianity is all about. You see, his point is that binding rules does not solve the problem Jesus came to solve. Rules don’t stop “the indulgence of the flesh.”

In the New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce explains,

The term which Paul uses [will-worship or self-made religion] suggests that these people thought they were offering God a voluntary addition to His basic requirements — a superogatory devotion by which they hoped to acquire superior merit in his sight. Far from being of any avail against the indulgence of the flesh, as its proponents claimed, it could and often did coexist with overweening self-conceit, making it extremely difficult for those who accepted it to admit the truth that in God’s sight they were sinners in desperate need of His salvation.

In short, what Paul condemns is adding commands that God didn’t make. He’s especially critical of banning the enjoyment of things that God gave us to enjoy. And Paul warns us against practices that lead to pride.

Does Paul therefore declare that there is a prescribed ritual? Certainly not. He says, instead, that we should be careful not to impose rules on one another, especially rules than tend to make us feel superior to others.

You see, the 20th Century Churches of Christ were guilty of will-worship or self-made religion. Rather than focusing on the truly spiritual and important, we tried to prove ourselves superior to all other believers because we had the best and the most rules for how to worship.

Now, if Jackson were right — that Paul is saying there must be a “prescribed worship ritual for the Lord’s day” — you’d think that Paul would have followed his instructions in 2:16-23 with corrective guidance, telling the Colossians what they should do instead. And indeed he does —

(Col 3:1-14 NIV)  Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.

“Earthly things” is a reference back to “things that all perish as they are used” in 2:22. He’s not saying earthly things are wrong — far from it! — but that the focus of religion is “things above.” Whether we are worshiping God correctly depends more on heavenly considerations than on earthly considerations. It’s not about what we eat or don’t eat.

3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Rather than thinking as earthly people, we should realize that we’ve been united with Christ. We should think in heavenly terms.

5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices …

True worship, therefore, is setting aside our earthly nature —

… 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

— and alllowing our new self to be renewed (passive voice!) in a deeper understanding of God, restoring us to the image of God in which we were originally created.

This is deep stuff, and it tells us that the goal is for us to be like God — not for us to obey a bunch of manmade rules that have nothing to do with how much like God we are. It’s about a change in heart and mind, not whether you pick up a guitar when you worship. It’s about the profoundly spiritual, not the temporal, earth-bound things that we obsess over.

11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. 12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

It all comes down to love and unity. Jesus was really big on those, too, as I recall. He said they’d know whether we’re his disciples by our love and our unity. How on earth did we interpret that to mean that our discipleship will be manifested by “a prescribed worship ritual for the Lord’s day”? We have totally missed the point.

About Jay F Guin

My name is Jay Guin, and I’m a retired elder. I wrote The Holy Spirit and Revolutionary Grace about 18 years ago. I’ve spoken at the Pepperdine, Lipscomb, ACU, Harding, and Tulsa lectureships and at ElderLink. My wife’s name is Denise, and I have four sons, Chris, Jonathan, Tyler, and Philip. I have two grandchildren. And I practice law.
This entry was posted in Fork in the Road, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Fork in the Road: “Will Worship”

  1. Chris Guin says:

    Maybe I'm wrong, but it hit me the other day that "will worship" sounds like worship of one's own willpower – doing things because they demonstrate your own discipline but otherwise have no connection to the kingdom of God. This would cover pointless asceticism, certainly, and possibly a host of other practices intended to demonstrate "faith" simply by being difficult, rather than doing anything God cares about. Yeah, it's nice that you've had perfect Sunday school attendance / read a chapter of the Bible every day / eaten granola instead of bacon / tithed a tenth of your mint and rue, but have you neglected justice?

    Will-worship seems to be defined by its result – self-justification rather than God-justification.

  2. Jay Guin says:

    Chris,

    I think you're exactly right. The roots of the word support that conclusion. It's about self-imposed religion — adding commands to God's word in an effort to be safe or especially holy. Paul's point is that it just doesn't work because it misses what God really wants from us.

  3. Jerry Starling says:

    Jay,
    Another four-bagger! (With Spring-training about to begin down here in Florida, a baseball expression is timely.)

    A few months ago, I blogged on this passage in Colossians as a part of my series on Acceptable Worship. You may read it here.

    Grace and Peace!

    Jerry

  4. John says:

    When I define love the way I want it – it's will worship. When I let God's word define love – it's true worship. Reasonable?

    For instance, in the Colossians passage: the commands of kindness, humility, gentleness, etc. define love.

  5. Vicki says:

    Another great observation, Jay – thanks.

    @Jerry – I enjoyed your article too, and have bookmarked your site. Thank you.

    Vicki

  6. Jay Guin says:

    Vicki,

    Good to hear from you. I hope the winter's not been too hard on you in Scotland.

  7. Pingback: The Fork in the Road: On Building Fences (with an extra random thought or two) « One In Jesus.info

  8. Pingback: The Fork in the Road: The Perfectibility of the Intellect « One In Jesus.info

  9. jodyb says:

    According to Strongs "ethelothreskia", the term to which these writers refer to as self-willed worship, is a combination of two terms which are better translated "self-willed religion" as they are in the NASV. This concept certainly encompasses much more than worship, especially given the other statements in the context regarding avoidance of food, drink and even marriage.

    Your recent writings have really hit home with me. Keep writing.

  10. R.J. says:

    I firmly believe we’ve totally missed the boat regarding ethelothreskia in this passage.

    1. First off these guys were totally convinced that Christ did not completely bridge the gap(nor was he the seat of all wisdom so they reasoned).

    Thus, they devised a compromising philosophy. Angels were now fully worshiped as mediators between them and God(even belittling Christ to just one of them). It behooved them to practice strict asceticism to appease these Patrons to reach the God of God’s(pun intended).

    They haughtily delighted themselves in mock humility and self-styled formulas. Imposing them not only upon themselves but also on others!

    2. Second, they told others what to observe and what not to observe(completely denying their freedom in Christ). A list of do’s and don’ts to Kingdom come!

    Clearly these folks were worshiping God contrary to his nature. A good equivalent of this today would be to twist and mold the Sacred Feminine, Ying-Yang-Yo Doctrine, or the occult(good or bad) into the fabric of scripture.

    Praying with a candle or singing with or without a guitar does not alter the nature of God.

    Clearly any deliberate worship that is contrary to his precepts(weather positive or negative) or not grounded in scriptural principle is self-imposed. However, where there is no law, there is no sin.

    Both us and the reformed tradition(Calvin, Zwingli) have taken this term way beyond authorial intent!

  11. what defines relevant and heartfelt worship? I thought the two criteria are truth and spirit. howard

  12. Dwight says:

    In the OT there was such a thing as “free will worship” where the people could of their own free will worship God along side of the commanded worship practices. The “will worship” in context has to do with those who were denying themselves and teaching abstinence to others as commandments. It is “will worship” because they were placing there will as the absolute will above God’s will in worship. An exercise of their control over self and desires was their form of worship to God. So it was all about them and not really God at all.
    Now when we pray or sing we exert our will in doing so to do the worship. God wants us and desires us to pray and sing, but God doesn’t tell us when or where and one of the why’s is linked to our state as in “any one suffering let him pray, is anyone cheerful let him sing.” and even the example that Jesus gave had no time or placement.
    “self-willed religion” might be the best translation as they made self-denial the point and focus of their religion and righteousness.

  13. Jay Guin says:

    Howard wrote,

    I thought the two criteria are truth and spirit.

    No one has suggested otherwise. My interpretation of “in spirit and truth” will be posted in about 5 days as part of the current series on worship.

    The point of the above post regarding “will worship” is that Colossians 2:23 tells us not to worship by imposing rules God does not impose. It parallels Matthew 5:19 —

    (Mat 15:8-9 ESV) 8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”

    The context matters —

    (Mat 15:1-2 ESV) Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”

    Jesus is condemning “worship” based on imposing commands that God didn’t impose — in this case, washing hands before you eat.

    BOTH passages are warnings against imposing commands as a form of worship.

    Interestingly, neither involves what we would normally think of as “worship.” Col 2:23 is speaking of asceticism.

    (Col 2:16, 20-23 ESV) 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. … 20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations– 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)– according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

    We don’t know exactly what kind of asceticism Paul was dealing with, but it had to do with food and drink at least. Not exactly our normal sense of “worship.” In short, Jesus’ and Paul’s interpretation of “worship” is much broader than what’s traditional among the Churches of Christ.

    And if “worship” applies to what we eat and drink and whether we wash our hands, then I suppose CENI does as well — which would make for some real chaos. I mean, we have examples in the NT of people eating a fatted calf and mutton, but not deer. Does that make it sin to eat venison? Or is implying a prohibition against venison from silence by assuming authority is needed for what we eat and drink “will worship” and “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men”? It seems to be that creating a prohibition from silence is far more likely to violate Col 2:23 and Matt 15:9 than to honor either passage.

  14. Dwight says:

    There was a movement by certain groups of ascetics that argued for a denial of certain things which they considered fleshly and sinful. Paul confronts two of these in one entry “forbidding to eat meats and marry” and also “eating and drinking”. In particular a group or sect called the Encratites would develop from the teachings of Tatian, which argued for abstinence from the eating of meat, marrying and drinking wine which are three things that Paul addresses. Another group would also develop that only taught water and no wine, even in the Lord’ Supper. Timothy only drank water and was encouraged to drink wine by Peter.
    The problem is that Jesus nor the apostles ever taught abstinence as a command, except for certain group in regards to meat offered to idols. Paul did teach abstinence from marriage, but not by command and it was limited to certain people for a certain age.

    Admittedly to deny oneself from something takes “will” power, but even in the case of Jesus, He denied himself to pray to God and to be tempted by Satan. Prayer was often linked with fasting, but denial was not as a means to itself, but a means to better clarity towards God.

    Within our own churches we find many of the same teachings of abstinence preached on certain things even without command. But in these cases it is more of the same pharisaical approach that Jesus dealt with.

Leave a Reply