What is Worship?

I thought that a Sunday would be a proper day to ask a basic question that pertains to all Christians, whether layman or theologian. The question is:

What is worship?

As I read volume two, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, of Jaroslav Pelikan's five-part history of the development of Christian doctrine, there were two questions that loomed large in my mind. The other one which I won't discuss here was “What is the point of dogma?” Both this and “What is worship?” are theological questions that seem simple. Almost too simple to entertain seriously, but when further reflected on, they prove to be absolutely fundamental for every Christian. I was hoping to find, if not proper answers to them, at least a satisfactory articulation of the questions themselves.

Indeed, what is worship? What exactly do we mean when we say we “worship” God?

We Christians believe that worship is the proper response of creature towards Creator. We believe that worship is the primary calling of man in relation to God. One could say that love is this primary calling. Yes, worship and love may be treated as one. Both overlap each other, and both are prerequisites for happiness in the truest sense (“human flourishing”). And happiness includes (but is not limited to) eternal happiness.

We also believe that the object of worship must be the “true God”, not our construction of him, otherwise we worship and idol (in other words we are “idolizers”). Also, not only the object of worship but worship itself must be “true” or “right”, otherwise it is imperfect at best and meaningless at worst (making us unjust towards our Creator to whom, and only to whom, true worship is due).

Now, what constitutes worship? Here’s a sub-question: how does worship towards God differ from a proper disposition towards other things, like people?

Some distinctions

Catholics make a distinction between “worship” and “veneration”. The first, when applied to God is proper, and when applied to people (mainly to saints, “our forefathers in faith”) is not only improper but also a mortal sin. The second, when applied to saints is proper, and when applied to God is either proper or, when not accompanied by worship, meaningless.

Thus far the distinction, however, is only of terminology. Where lies the “real” difference, the difference in terms of “substance”, the difference that counts, the difference that can be experienced and observed in reality? What, exactly, is reserved for God only that is constituent of worship and not of veneration? In other words, what is the heart of worship?

Is the difference between worship and veneration a difference of type or a difference of quality? To use an analogy, is veneration a mild electric current which, as it grows stronger, approaches worship (difference of “quality”), or is veneration a mild electric current and worship something quite different, like fire (difference of “type”)?

If the difference is that of quality, “proper worship” would be a “proper order of worship” – God merits our highest worship, and lesser things merit lower worship. In traditional theology, such an “order of loves” (ordo amoris) is very common. But if the difference is that of type, we need to clarify more precisely what these two types – worship and veneration – are. I will not discuss the type option here.

An “order” of loves and worship

What, then, if the difference is that of quality?

We have treated worship and love as nearly synonymous. What follows is an order of love. Loving objects in the proper order is the (or a) key of right worship.

Is this backed by Scripture? It would seem so. The disciples asked Jesus of the “proper order of commandments”. “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31.)

Implicit in Jesus’ answer is an order of loves: the most important thing is to love God, and secondly, you must love your neighbor as yourself. The right order is the “measure” and difference of proper worship and veneration: if the order is wrong, worship and veneration become corrupted in some sense.

We must remember that the type of love we are here discussing is charity or agape, divine self-sacrificing love, the word John used when he said that “God is love [agape]”. When we love (agape) our neighbor, we love them through God (who is the source of love) and we love God through them (who are images of God) provided the order of our loves is proper. In this way these two commandments form one “great commandment”. They are two sides of the same coin.

Faithfulness and sacrifice

So, we’ve established an order of things. What else can be said? By connecting love to worship and by establishing an order of love/worship we’ve found part of the answer to our question. But, the core of the question still remains: What, exactly, is love (or worship)?

Jesus provides another key when he says that: “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15) and: “The person who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me” (John 14:21). This is helpful. Love (or worship) is doing the will of God. (Here I am not going to ask if obeying, “works”, is merely the fruit of love, “faith”. I take it that they are organically connected.)

Continuing with the quality paradigm, we can add sacrifice as one constituent of love/worship. It is remembered that agape is self-sacrificial. Now, what is sacrifice? This is a difficult question, and I will not attempt an answer here. But one thing can be confidently stated. Our presuppositions imply that sacrifice belongs to the quality category (not to “type”), because sacrifice is a constituent of love/worship.

From this it follows that, if the “order” is right, sacrifice can be directed and offered both to the Creator and to the creature. This makes sense: humans often “make sacrifices” for each other, especially for spouses and children, and we commend them for that.

Summa summarum

We left many important questions unanswered. But, if the difference between worship and veneration is that of quality, at least we’ve established a few things.

We know that worship, veneration, and love are all intimately connected. Their legitimacy or illegitimacy depends on the proper order of their objects. Love/worship of God implies doing God’s will. Lastly, love/worship is sacrifice (whatever that is).

So, when we say that we “worship God”, if our words are backed by our whole being, we are saying at least the following: that we love him, that we love him above all else, that we love our neighbors as ourselves, that we live by his will, and that our love is sacrificial.

We understand that we haven’t said what “sacrifice” is, and we understand that loving God requires knowing him (we cannot love that what we don’t know – worship/love requires the right object).

Any extra light from Pelikan?

Now, I must say that The Spirit of Eastern Christendom offered no new insights to the question of worship. Well, it didn’t have to as it was a book on the development of dogma, not a book on basic theological questions. The author must have presumed that the readers know the answers to elementary theological questions, like what is worship. I didn’t. I don’t.

In the chapter on icons, “Images of the Invisible”, Pelikan uses “worship” and “veneration” interchangeably (see e.g. pp. 96-99, 106). That is very odd. Why would he do that? I doubt that a theologian of his caliber would not distinguish between them in his private thinking, so it must be presumed that he is trying to faithfully follow the belief of his sources as it chronologically developed.

For early on in the chapter we have the only (yet still minimalist) definition of worship: it is “paying honor” (p. 103). The definition, though welcome, remains a mere verbal one and begs the question: What, then, is “paying honor”? But later, a need for clarification and distinction becomes clearer. Eastern theologians made it clear that “it was one thing to pay proper respect [τιμή] to the saints, quite another to address worship [προσκύνησις] to them, and yet another to portray them in worshipful images” (p. 112). But this distinction too, though welcomed, remains one of mere terminology.

Attempted articulation

Eventually the question that bothers me is raised in a straightforward manner. The italics are mine.

The orthodox “were obliged to set forth a theory of worship that would protect the uniqueness of the worship of the true God and yet permit other acts of reverence”. When iconoclasts argued that “there is only one kind of worship, not many kinds,” the orthodox replied that “this is true of the worship of adoration [λατρευτική]” but that the worship of mortals “was nevertheless permissible by analogy and derivation from the single worship of God”. There was a “worship of adoration, which we pay only to the God who is by nature adorable”, but there was also a worship paid to “the friends and worshipers of God” for his (God’s) sake, because of “their derivative divine nature; this included both angels and saints”. “Adoration pertained only to God, but either by love or by reverence or by law one was also bound to other to whom one paid worshipful respect. This distinction was grounded in biblical evidence about worship paid to creatures by men whose adoration of the one true God was beyond reproach.” (p. 126.)

Yet the exact difference between “worshipful adoration of God” and “worshipful respect of saints” remains unclear. All we can take away from these clarifications is that “worshipful adoration” of God means worshiping him for his own sake; whereas “worshipful respect” of saints means worshiping not for their own sake but for God’s sake.

In light of the type/quality distinctions above, these really amount to neither. They’re not, strictly speaking, different types of worship, nor are they worship of different quality. Rather, there’s a difference in one’s basic attitude and understanding of why one worships. Does one worship the object for its own sake or for the sake of something beyond the object?

Question left unanswered

If this is really what we are looking at, it is no wonder that the “accusation of idolatry and the response to it struck at a deep and sensitive point in Christian belief” (p. 127).

Cyril of Alexandria rejected any “adoration or worship of them [images of saints]” (p. 284) but from this we cannot make out whether Cyril took adoration and worship to mean different things or the same thing (in either case, he rejected it). And since no explanation has been offered as to how the different kinds of worships differ concretely (mere use of different words does not count), even these potentially helpful passages shed no new light on the problem:

“The worship paid to them [images] was an act of ‘honor [τιμή],’ not one of ‘adoration [λατρεια]’” (p. 291). “[W]hile the worship paid to the icons was one of honor rather than of adoration, the worship paid to the Eucharist was one of adoration rather than merely of honor, because the presence in the Eucharist was that of the Lord himself” (p. 291).