In order to discern who our worship is for and furthermore to tell why our specific context of the Body exists, here’s something that helped me: Remove the words “Jesus”, “God”, “bible”, “religion” from your church. What do you then see? We can learn a lot about an organization by stripping away religious words and observing how they operate.

In ubf, I see a mafia-like military academy with Marshall law enforcement. In our new church, I see a hospital :)

That vision helped me to see whether or not my family was in a healthy church or not.

From what you have written it seems to me that the kind of atmosphere that is being spread in your church encourages people to do good works in order to please others. if this is true, i think it is extremely fatal in the long-run. I personally learned that every good deed done with another motivation but enjoying God and glorifying God is evil. it is pure evil because it alienates me from God who himself embodies everything that is good.

I have also seen the detrimental consequences in myself and others of what happens when God’s mission is worshiped instead of worshiping God. Loving God’s mission first or loving God first doesn’t seem to make much of a difference at first. But the consequences are huge. If i make God’s mission an idol it so easily happens that bible students become a mean to an end (for instance, feeling good about myself or impressing/pleasing other people). And wouldn’t you agree that this is simply another way of using people?

In essence, what you are talking about is not a culture issue at all. To me it seems it is a gospel issue. A deeper grasp of the gospel and spreading its aroma is a prerequisite to create a worship service atmosphere where people are drawn and mesmerized to look up to the author of grace.

I would  not characterize this attitude as anti-intellectual. Rather, it seems to be a quest for a spirit of simplicity, purity, humbleness, loyalty and obedience, which are some of the most deeply held values in this church. Those values are good, but they need to be balanced against the competing  values of honesty, creativity, openness to new ideas, and readiness to learn from the wider Body of Christ.

i had assumed that UBF understands itself as a church primarily focused on university students ministry. i know that UBF does not officially use the word “church” on its official website. Rather, the website says that UBF is an evangelical campus organization, which i think is not accurate at all because UBF clearly functions as a church.

Joe, i totally share your views and concerns that the precise role of UBF in the body of Christ is not well defined (to put it mildly). This is an ecclesiological issue that must be addressed. (Have we discussed this on ubfriends yet?)

And i also agree with you, David, that the anti-intellectual approach that is still too often found in our congregations cannot be appealing to students. To answer some of your questions: at least in the UBF ministries i have been an active member of (mostly in Germany), the use of commentaries is encouraged to help study a bible passage. I have seen that many (predominantly Korean missionaries) still use the sermon manuscripts for their reflections on the passage, which i think is mostly due to language reasons rather than for reasons of content (my personal obversation). Seminary studies are still not encouraged but i know of several young people who study theology anyway. It is unclear, however, if and what kind of place these people can find in UBF after graduating. It is a very likely and for me somewhat unfortunate scenario that they will leave UBF and serve God somewhere else.

in my article i tried to stay focused on a single topic, that is, the worship service on Sundays. It seems to be rather difficult to discuss this issue apart from the crucial question of what church actually is and what kind of church UBF is. This however was not the topic of the article.

You asked, “What can and should we do differently, especially in a setting like UBF, which understands itself as a church ministering to intellectual students?”

Is that how we truly understand ourselves? Is that the reality of what we have become? And is that what God is leading us to be?

I think we all agree that a  worship service should honor God and bring us into his presence. And it should be a reasonable reflection of what we are, what we want to become, and what God wants us to become. But what, exactly, is that?

Over the last year, I have listened to many members and leaders of North American UBF and tried to identify their views on these questions. What I have found is that there is a huge variety of opinions.

* Some say, “UBF is not a church, it’s a campus ministry.” Yes, that is how UBF began. But if we are not a church, then why do we encourage our members to commit themselves exclusively to this ministry beyond their student years? Why do we expect  members to tithe? Why do we pray for the establishment of “house churches”? Why do we have children’s and youth ministries? And why, in  most of our chapters,  do non-students comprise a majority of our members?

* Some say, “UBF is a missionary church.” (The sign above the Chicago main center says that, and has some language about “world campus mission.”) That seems to be an accurate description of many UBF chapters. They operate as small, independent churches led by missionaries. They are like missionary outposts in a foreign land. Most of the members are missionaries and children of missionaries. The messages are directed at missionaries, reflecting the missionaries’ faith and vision.  North American students are welcomed as sheep to be taken care of and served,  but with  the expectation that they will eventually accept and adopt the missionaries’ life-direction and style of ministry.  (This is not meant to be a criticism, and I hope it doesn’t sound critical. I believe it is an accurate description.) The problem with this is that most Christians do not  see themselves as missionaries, and they probably never will.  Most Christians  are laypeople who work, raise families, and live in communities. As they grow in faith, they may have ample opportunities to engage in “E-1 evangelism”, witnessing to Christ through their words and lifestyle. But the majority do not have the “gift of missionary.” They are happy to support missionary activity, but they want to be valued for who they are, not made to feel like cogs in an organization that is dedicated solely to raising up more missionaries and sending them out  so that the organization  grows larger. For a church to be healthy, it should be, as Ruth Tucker has said, both “inwardly caring AND outwardly focused.” A church may be started by missionaries, but how long can it sustain itself solely as “a  missionary church”  without becoming  deeply mindful of its members and rooted in the surrounding community?

* Some say, “UBF is a Bible-study organization.” Yes, we spend a lot of time studying Scripture, and that is a good thing. Bible study is very important. But at some point, I think it is possible to  focus on  Bible study  too much.  For most churches, this is not an issue, but for us it sometimes  is.  To expect every member to become a Bible student is perfectly reasonable; to expect everyone to be a Bible scholar and/or Bible teacher is not  (1Co 12:29, James 3:1).

* Some say, “UBF is dedicated to raising spiritual leaders who will change the world.” (Hence the “global leader” language at recent UBF events.) Raising leaders is a laudable goal. But to say that this is the main  purpose of  UBF makes us sound and act very elitist. It makes us fool ourselves into thinking that we are more important and influential than we are. We show favor to those who appear to have obvious leadership qualities and make others feel second-class. We lose sight of the fact that Jesus, the incarnate Word, was a very ordinary person, and  most of his followers  were nameless, ordinary people who permeated society like yeast and changed its character from within.

* Some say, “UBF is unique and hard to characterize. We don’t know exactly what it is, but it is wonderful. Don’t try to change it or mold it  according to  your own idea; let UBF be UBF.” I have some sympathy toward that view. Sometimes we have to just acknowledge that God has put us together in this unusual faith community and trust that he is working out his own purpose. But to say this, and then  refuse to  talk about it further, is a recipe for long-term disaster. No organization can  survive  for long if its sole purpose is to exist and grow. At some point we need to articulate our vision. We need to follow truth-in-advertising,  so that prospective members do not think we have hidden motives and  people can  make an informed decision about whether they want to join us or not.

Henoch said that UBF “understands itself as a church ministering to intellectual students.” To set this as one of our goals is fine. But  should we  set this as the primary goal, so strongly that it dominates the form  and cultural elements of  our worship service?

Two more ideas to  chew on.

* “Student” is not a kind of person. It is a stage in the life of many people. It is a rather intense and  formative stage, but it is relatively short part of the transition  from  childhood to  adulthood. Students tend to lose sight of this as they live a student-centered campus life. Many campus  parachurch ministries  (Crusade, IVCF, etc) recognize that it is not good for students to be in a student-oriented environment all the time, because they begin to see themselves as the center of the world.  Students need to come into contact with Christian people of many  ages (married couples, children, senior citizens, etc.) and worship with them in order to get a healthy perspective on life. That’s one reason why Cru, IVCF, etc. send their students out to worship in community churches.

* “Intellectual” is not really a kind of person either. It is a  dimension of every person’s life. People have different levels of formal education and different types of intelligence. But every healthy person  is an intellectual person. Christian worship  ought to  engage the whole person —  body, mind, emotion — and bring the whole person  to the presence of God.  Satisfying the  worshiper’s God-given intellectual curiosity is good.    But, because I  am a  person who has always had difficulty in expressing emotion to  people and to God, I feel the strong need to build up the other dimensions of my relationship with God. Not to turn off parts of my brain and become anti-intellectual, but to turn on 100% of my whole being and offer myself fully to God.  The best kind of  worship service  for me would not  cater to the kind of person that I am, but to the kind of person that God wants me to become.

Sorry to return your question with more questions!

Worship service is a tremendously complex and controversial matter. i can agree with almost everything you guys wrote. Even though we probably agree that worship service ought to be a place for God-centered, God-magnifying praise and adoration, through the blood and work of Christ, with repentance of sins and remembrance of what God has done for us and with preaching of God’s word, my basic question still remains.

if you look at Acts and the spread of the gospel in major cities of the Roman empire and the birth of local churches in each of these cities, i believe that the worship services conducted in these cities varied significantly based upon the congregation. What Acts tells us is scarce. However, if you look at the different approaches and ways the Holy Spirit inspired to lay a foundation for the church in respective cities (intellectual debate in Athens, talking to women in a predominantly Roman city like Philippi, preaching from the OT in Synagogues for Jewish communities, etc.), it seems to me that their Sunday gatherings must have reflected this kind of diversity, either. This seems logical and plausible to me.

My question is therefore:  How can our theological framework and discussion of what worship service ought to be and for whom it ought to be actually inform us who to make our worship service more appropriate and more fitting for its purpose(s)? What are the practical implications? What can and should we do differently, especially in a setting like UBF, which understands itself as a church ministering to intellectual students?

Eagerly awaiting to hear what you think.

Even so, Im glad that Joe brought up the point that we cannot earn God’s favor, even by our acts of service. 1)We can do nothing meritorious in the sight of God to earn his favor (“all our righteous acts are like filthy rags,” says Isaiah 64:6), the only way to please God is by faith (Heb 11:6),  and  and even our faith is a gift from him, as  Jesus says, “no one can come to me unless the father who sent me draws them to me…(John 6:44).” 2) In that way I do think that having an evangelistic flavor in at least part of  our worship services is also Biblical, because we know not who is and who isnt a true Christian, and a proven instrument that God has used throughout the centuries to draw people to himself is the local church. We see in Acts 16:14, the conversion of Lydia, although it was not inside of a building,  and they probably didnt have their guitars and amps with them,  Paul and his buddies were going out  to have a prayer/worship service…  “On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.”  

So who is our Worship service for?

1) God, because he is worthy of our worship and he  seeks our true  worship (even though as was earlier pointed out, he doesn’t need it). John 4:23, “Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.”

2) Believers, because it is a time to give thanks to God and worship God as we should, out of our thankfulness to Him. And not to mention it is a time for fellowship of the the saints, and learning from the preached Word, and “sabbath”  rest etc.

3) Unbelievers, because Romans 10:14 says, “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?”

Corporate worship is a part of serving God that the author of Hebrews thought was very important, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another–and all the more as you see the Day approaching (Heb 10:25).”

As usual, you’ve asked an awesome question.

I think your Bible teacher was right. The Greek word in Romans 12:1 rendered as “worship” (NIV) can also be translated as “service” (KJV). Using “worship service” to refer to a public worship gathering is definitely not just a UBF thing; it is common to many denominations.

Some authors have criticized the use of this term “worship service,” claiming that it puts too much emphasis on what the worshipers are doing, on whether or not it is pleasing to God, rather than on what God has done for us. That criticism is somewhat nitpicky, but they do have a point.

The fact is that nothing that we can do by ourselves can ever be pleasing to God, because we are tainted by sin. The New Testament understanding of worship, as outlined in Hebrews, focuses on the role of Jesus as our mediator and High Priest who approaches the throne of God on our behalf. (He is also the true Sacrifice and the true Temple.) When Christians worship God, we do so in the name of Jesus, covered by his blood. So our focus in worship service shouldn’t really be on ourselves, on what we are doing, and what we are experiencing, and whether we are serving God purely enough to earn his favor, because we cannot earn his favor. Rather, our worship should be a natural outpouring of thanks, adoration and love in response to what Jesus has already done and what he has promised to do.

But that’s easier said than done.

In our ministry here at Penn State, we are now taking a hard look at our Sunday service to see how it can be improved. We’re not sure how to improve it. But anything that we can do to take some the focus off of ourselves and help us to see Jesus more clearly will be an improvement. In my experience, two big hindrances to worship are unconfessed sin before God and unresolved conflicts with others. People can’t worship if they are estranged from God or angry at one another. Dealing with this at the beginning of the service through prayers of confession and absolution (in the name of Jesus, of course) might be a good start.

Thanks! God be with you all!

As you have said, everyone seems to agree on the importance of the Trinity: the central role of Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit in Christian worship.

But beyond that, the New Testament says very little about how the early Christians actually worshiped. Perhaps that’s a good thing. If we knew exactly what the early Christians did, we would probably engage in some misguided attempts to recreate their worship practices today. Henoch is arguing for diversity of worship practices. I agree. When it comes to worship, context is everything. A worship practice that would be perfectly ok in one time or place could be horribly unsuitable in another time or place.

I think a great worship service will make people comfortable, and it will also make them uncomfortable. It will use language, expressions, settings and artistic forms that are culturally understandable and natural to them. But it will also push them out of their comfort zone into the holy presence of the Trinity. And it will push them to open their hearts to accept believers who differ from them, uniting us around the throne of God with Christians of every tongue, tribe, and generation.

“Worship is a congregational event in which Christ mediates our prayers, conducts and leads our praise, and preaches His word to us. He alone is the God-ordained worship leader, the minister in the sanctuary.” Sinclair Ferguson

“True Christian worship is Word-communicating, God-glorifying, and Christ-confessing.” Philip Graham Ryken, City On a Hill

These quotes on worship address what it is, and how it’s done, rather than who it’s for. Also, worship, according to Jesus, is God our Father seeking true worshippers (John 4:23), rather than we worshipping God, because our own worship will always fall short on account of our sins and idolatry. Indeed, the only true worshipper is our Lord Jesus, who alone worshipped God in spirit and in truth perfectly (John 4:24). So true worship for all of us sinners can only be done through Jesus’ true worship. Apart from Jesus, no human ever can ever worship in spirit and truth, no matter how sincere or earnest.

But I would agree that though worship does please God just as we love when our children love us as their parents, worship is really primarily for us fallen sinners to experience the fullness of life in communing with the greatest community of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Apart from this worship of the Trinity, the Rolling Stones infamous words will always ring true: “I can’t get no satisfaction!”

i agree with most of the things you mentioned. i deliberately spoke very less about culture in the article and i tried to focus on the Sunday worship service. There is no doubt that the worship service is the most important weekly event in the church calendar. And every change in the worship service should be done prayerfully and theologically (biblically) driven. Thus, my purpose in the article was to suggest a veeeeery simple theological framework concerning our worship service. If this framework in its simplicity holds true, then i believe that changes must be made in most worship services i have witnessed in UBF.
Hardly any of the services where i participated seemed to offer an appropriate atmosphere for believing students of the respective city, in order to help them to focus wholly on God in their worship. This seems to be the case for couple of reasons that cannot be changed but also for reasons that can and should be addressed. i do see the necessity to bring these issues up and to discuss them among leaders. But i think that every church should also individually address the question of how to make their worship service more appropriate for the kind of people they want to raise because every church ministers to a different community.

Thanks for this thoughtful article. I have a few comments.

First, I agree with you that God does not need our worship. But I do believe that he takes pleasure in it (for example, see Genesis 8:21). God loves us, and he likes it when we respond to his love with genuine love of our own.

Second, I agree that a worship service should be culturally relevant for the worshiping community. This can be tricky when the community is multigenerational and multicultural.

When I attended my first UBF worship service nearly thirty years ago, I did feel uncomfortable. Most of the attendees were Korean, and their language and mannerisms were distinctly Korean. But honestly, that did not bother me at all. Because I myself grew up in an strongly ethnic (Polish Catholic) community in Chicago, I understood that ethnic elements in worship were perfectly normal. I expected Korean missionaries to act Korean, because that was who they were.

However, what I did find uncomfortable was Americans speaking with a Korean accent. The sight of Americans adopting distinctly Korean mannerisms, speech patterns, forms of dress, etc. was strange indeed. Reflecting back on that experience, I now realize that it made me uncomfortable for several reasons.

First, it left no doubt who was “in charge.” Although the presider and some of the prayer servants and musicians were American, the fact that they had adopted Korean expressions sent a clear message that Korean missionaries were hard at work behind the scenes making the decisions, setting the tone, and creating the atmosphere. It made American participation look like window-dressing.

Second, it made me uncomfortable because I saw that Americans in UBF had been changed in ways that went beyond the transforming work of the gospel. Yes, the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of students was undeniable. God had brought them out of sin and despair and had given them faith and hope. But it was also undeniable that many benign aspects of their American identity had been overridden by the strong Korean-influenced culture of UBF. Perhaps the missionaries couldn’t see it. But to me, as an American, it was plain as day. It was obvious that the discipleship training that Americans students were receiving in UBF was making them emulate the Korean missionaries in all sorts of ways that were not necessary to their spiritual growth, in ways that were alienating them from their (in many cases, Christian) families and backgrounds.

Third, it made me realize that if I stayed in UBF, I would come under the same kind of pressure that those Americans did to give up many aspects of who I was. I feared that I would lose my essential identity as an American and as an autonomous human being. Over the years, I was able to resist some of that pressure to conform to group standards in unnecessary ways, but it was not easy. It has caused some people to be suspicious of me and my family, and of Penn State UBF, because we were trying new things and deviating from cultural norms (e.g., by defying expectations about gender roles). Thirty years later, that pressure is not as strong as it once was. But it is still strong enough to make many of us feel uncomfortable. We Americans, many of us, still feel it in our bones.

Until a few years ago, I did not think that culture was much of an issue in UBF. Based on verses like Galatians 3:28, I declared that there are no differences among us, and that we were all one in Christ Jesus and didn’t even need to discuss it. However, several things changed my opinion.

First, when UBF’s membership in the National Association of Evangelicals was (I believe, unfairly) revoked, I wrote a lengthy, impassioned letter to NAE with my own personal testimony about how God had blessed my life in UBF. In order to explain why UBF was being criticized by ex-members and misunderstood by non-members, I appealed to the cultural differences that make UBF look different from other North American churches. I pleaded with them to understand our distinct culture and not judge it unfairly. I believe that my letter had some positive impact, because shortly after I wrote it, UBF’s membership was reinstated.

But I realized that this appeal to culture cuts both ways. If we appeal to culture to justify our practices, then we have recognized that culture is an issue, and we should then allow our culture to be fairly evaluated by those on the inside and the outside. It would not be right for North American Christians to insist that UBF get rid of its distinctive cultural elements. But neither is it correct for us to insist that North Americans who come into UBF and want to grow into leadership roles shed their distinctive culture and heritage if it does not conflict with the plain teaching of the gospel.

Second, I began to realize that there are some nontrivial analogies between what is happening in UBF now and what was happening in the first-century church when the gospel was first being preached to Gentiles. Jews instinctively felt that many aspects of the Gentiles’ ways of life were unclean. Some of the Gentile ways were sinful, of course. But many of the Jewish Christians assumed that the Gentiles who received the gospel should also emulate Jewish devotional practices. The practices that these well-meaning Jewish Christians wanted to impose (e.g., circumcision) were explicitly found in the Bible and were therefore “biblical.” But the Apostle Paul fought against this teaching, even to the point of opposing his spiritual elders Peter and Barnabas. To Paul, it was not a small matter. In his view, adding those extra practices to official church teaching did not strengthen the gospel message but actually nullified it. (That’s the central argument of Galatians.) After this issue was clarified at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles could proceed without hindrance.

A church is free to develop distinctive cultural practices. Every church does it. But those cultural practices cannot be above criticism and must to be open for discussion and change.
And when certain cultural practices are seen as non-negotiable, warning flags should start to go up. UBF has a wonderful spiritual heritage and has developed some interesting and unique methods. But if we promote those UBF-specific elements so strongly that people who do not want to accept them are driven away from us, then we should be honest about what we have become. At that point, we are no longer a pure gospel ministry, but a gospel-plus-something-else ministry.

It is my hope and prayer that sometime soon, UBF leaders in North America engage in an explicit, give-and-take discussion about cultural issues and about the related question of native leadership. Some of this has been taking place here and there among a few leaders on an informal basis. But because we are so busy living our lives, carrying out our ministry duties, planning the next conference, etc. we haven’t take time to discuss these fundamental issues in an official way. And I understand why, because discussing these things is sometimes uncomfortable, even painful. Some of us have found that, when we bring up these issues, we are discouraged from talking about them because they are seen as potentially divisive. Or we are told this is not the time nor the place to discuss this, and we should bring it up only privately with individual leaders. But I have found that private, bilateral communication with individuals is quite limited as a method for discussing issues of church culture which affect us all.