We've commonly equated "worship" with music, singing, responsive readings, reading scripture passages, choir specials, or any number of other things that we are accustomed to when attending a church service. But do these things, by themselves, have any spiritual significance? What are the elements of worship that we might be missing? To find the answers to these questions, we should look to the Bible.

There are three main aspects of worship expressed in the Bible, related by the three different words commonly translated as "worship" in nearly every English translation. Interestingly enough, these three words are found in Hebrew in the Old Testament and in Greek in the New Testament – indicating that the true nature of worship has not changed between the old and new covenants.

The first word is the Hebrew hawah, or the Greek word proskuneo. Often translated as "worship," this is also translated as "bow down" or "pay honor." It recognizes the attributes of the authority, and the willingness to submit to that authority.

The second word is the Hebrew 'abad, or the Greek word latreuo. Along with being translated as "worship," this is also commonly translated as "serve," usually referring to the act of offering sacrifices. It is about ministering to God.

The final word is the Hebrew yare', or the Greek word sebomai. As well as being translated as "worship," this is also often translated as "fear." This sense of fear is not about being terrified, but rather about an incredible sense of awe, respect, and reverence that drives one to obedience. This is occasionally translated as "devout" in the New Testament.

Here we have three primary meanings of worship, where God is the object of each act – giving honor (submission), service (sacrifice), and reverence (obedience).

How do our common elements stack up against these Biblical principles of worship? Certainly we approach hawah and yare' when we sing songs that give glory to God and declare our intent to be faithful. Certainly our acts of bringing offering, taking communion and participating in baptisms reflect 'abad. But these acts are symbolic, outward gestures, which even if brought in a heartfelt way, do not embody true worship.

True worship is living each of these elements out through our lives, not just at weekly gatherings, but every day through our jobs, our families, and our relationships. Our lives must be lived in submission to Him. Our lives must be sacrificed to Him. And our lives must be lived in obedience to Him.

We should not limit our view of worship. Submission, sacrifice, and obedience could easily be summarized this way: following Jesus.

This is not an easy calling, and it is not for the faint at heart. Jesus called his followers to "take up your cross" – the most gruesome punishment ever. Are we ready to have our hands nailed? Are we ready to suffer for the sake of the kingdom? Are we ready to sing these words – and mean it?

    "It may be through the shadows dim, or over the stormy sea,
    I take my cross and follow Him, wherever He leadeth me."
        -- B. B. McKinney, "Wherever He Leads I'll Go" (1936)

    "Father, let me dedicate all this life to Thee,
    In whatever worldly state, Thou would have me be.
    Not from sorrow, pain or care, freedom dare I claim;
    This alone shall be my prayer: glorify Thy name.

    If Thou callest to the cross, and its shadow come,
    Turning all my gain to loss, shroudng heart and home;
    Let me think how Thy dear Son to His glory came,
    And in deepest woe pray on, 'Glorify Thy Name'."
        -- Lawrence Tuttiett, "Father, Let Me Dedicate" (1864)

Labels: church

So it looks like Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson recently got to spend some time on Air Force One:


But wait, let's look a little more closely at that book on the President's desk:


Does that look anything like this?


Hmm... looks like President Bush might just be reading The FairTax Book! Have you gotten your copy yet? It does a great job explaining the system, as well as giving a great history of how the income tax was developed and passed, and why it needs to be scrapped.

Labels: politics

In my previous post, I discussed price gouging a little bit. In particular, I commented on John Stossel's column last week In Praise of Price Gouging. Two more recent columns do an excellent job explaining the economics behind the situation.

Walter E. Williams discusses price gouging in his column this week, The role of prices. "Rising prices get people to voluntarily economize on goods and services rendered scarcer by the disaster." Great column, check it out.

Now read Larry Elder's column, 'Gouging' and 'dumping'. In it, he reports:

For example, the city of Baton Rouge, almost 80 miles from New Orleans, saw its population double as a result of the people displaced by the hurricane and flood. Practically overnight, housing prices in Baton Rouge increased some 20 percent. Yet one reporter explained, "In a phenomenon familiar to Southern California's housing market, prices are rising not so much because sellers are gouging, but because buyers are bidding up the prices." "Not so much"? Apparently, the reporter's keen, psychic instincts recognized that the home seller perhaps only "gouged" to a small degree, because "buyers are bidding up the prices." But doesn't this describe exactly what happens when -- in the case of a natural disaster -- the price of gas climbs rapidly?

If you don't get it after reading these three great columns, then I don't know how to communicate it otherwise. What's obvious is that politicians don't get it - or more likely, that they know most voters don't get it, and are tinkering around with economics in order to appeal to voters. Politicians don't really care about hurting the economy (or the environment, or education, or other things that may be really important) if it means they'll get re-elected.

Labels: politics

John Stossel writes in his column, In praise of price gouging, why raising the price on items that will be in huge demand will ensure that there is enough supply for everyone. His point is first made by discussing bottled water, and the difference between what happens when the price is held low, versus allowed to go up to coincide with the demand:

At $1 a bottle, they stocked up. At $20 a bottle, they bought more cautiously. By charging $20, the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it.

This is exactly what happened last week with gasoline here in Atlanta. Suddenly, everyone expected that Atlanta was going to run out of gas by the end of the week, and hysteria was created. Everyone (well, not me) went out to fill the tanks of all of their cars, which immediately created a shortage. Before Katrina, gasoline was in the $2.50-$2.70 range here in Atlanta. Immediately most stations raised prices, some to as high as $5.00 or even close to $6.00 a gallon.

Governor Purdue signed an executive order enacting Georgia's price gouging statute. But this statute "does not prevent price increases that accurately reflect an increase in the cost of the goods or services to the retailer, an increase in the cost of transporting the goods or services into the area, or an increase due to the market forces of supply and demand."

Was demand high last Wednesday? I'd say so. Lines formed out onto highways. People bought out gasoline containers at hardware stores to fill them up. People pulled their boats up to fill them up. If you want to apply pressure to artificially keep prices low (which was a staple of communism), you also have to apply pressure to keep people from hoarding, by rationing (which was also a staple of communism). We don't want to go down that road.

Basically, when you can't raise the supply to meet the demand, you have to raise the price. This has the effect of reducing the demand. Others understand economics much better than I, but I understand this basic idea pretty well.

The net result of last Wednesday's fiasco is that some people ended up buying dozens of gallons of gasoline at artificially low prices, while others were stuck with no gas at all. One woman we know was trapped in the Atlanta area, unable to return home to Lake Hartwell, because all of the gas stations were out of gas. Had the price risen due to the demand, hoarders would not have bought dozens of gallons. They would have done what I did -- my sedan was full of gas, and I knew we could move the kids out of the van and into that if we really needed to, so we were OK for the week. Then there would have been gas available for people who really needed it - and though it certainly would have been more expensive, they would have been able to get home.

The reality is this -- when resources, such as water, are scarce, the free market dictates the price. When you have water and I don't, and I want to buy it from you, if it's scarce then you're only going to part with it for a lot of money, or something else that has a lot of worth, such another scarce resource. The reason why capitalism works is because it models this approach. And when a resource is scarce and prices go up, you encourage more suppliers to come in and bring the price down. When the government steps in and meddles with price or supply, it will only mess things up. Last Wednesday's gasoline fiasco is a testament to that.

Labels: politics