Ch 6 The Finale of Theology & Practice in Music-like Significance

In the vulnerable process of this study, what have you discovered that is essential to the Trinity and to those created in the Trinity’s qualitative image and relational likeness? Can you identity the common influences in theology and practice today, and that need to be changed to uncommon? Have you understood how your theology and practice have been composed and what pivotal changes are necessary? Do you feel that you have examined the innermost and experienced its depth as never before?

The face of God has been revealed “to shine on you from inner out” (Num 6:25); and “the unfolding of your Word (not our words) gives light…to child-like persons” (Ps 119:130) in the primacy of relationship together “face to face” (Num 12:8), so that “their innermost is the lamp of the Trinity, searching every innermost part” (Prov 20:27). This relational outcome has been vulnerably fulfilled because the face of God “has resonated in our hearts to give the light of the innermost of the glory of the Trinity in the face of the Word” (2 Cor 4:6).

When our theology and practice resonate the innermost in harmony and fidelity with the Word, then our theology and practice in music-like significance rises to the finale: The worship of each Trinitarian person as One in the innermost, with nothing less and no substitutes for the primacy of this vulnerable relational involvement of love in reciprocal response to the Trinity.

There are, however, many dissonant sounds of theology heard for practice, all of which have relational consequences most evident in times of worship. Worship services are the common sound heard across the diversity of churches today. The practice of worship is also the most common-ized condition existing throughout this diverse theology, which composes theology and practice not distinguished by the uncommon. Thus, much theology and practice (past and present) have been composed without its finale resonating the uncommon relational outcome in the innermost. That is, their composition has lacked the experiential truth (not just propositional truth) and relational reality (not mere reality assumed) of the relational outcome essential for our faith to be significant, so that our theology and practice will be whole.

The relational outcome of the Word is distinguished only when it resonates in our innermost with the integral harmony and fidelity amplified by the Word, whereby this uncommon relational outcome converges in the distinguished finale of uncommon worship—neither defined as a mere worship service nor determined by common practice. Yet, what is seen and heard in many worship contexts today are conducted lacking this relational outcome, even when reverberating with the function of music in diverse sound bites. It is crucial for us to understand these dissonant voices and sounds because of their relational consequences.[2]

Without this relational outcome constituted in the innermost, who and what of God have been distinguished in our theology and practice beyond human words?

Pala is the Hebrew word defining to be wonderful, to distinguish and thus to separate from comparison with anything or anyone else. Pala not only describes but defines God (e.g. Gen 18:14; Ps 9:1), who alone is distinguished above all and beyond all comparison, yet is wonderfully present and involved with us (as in Isa 9:6). Only God is pala and is worthy of our worship.

In addition to this reduction of God in our theology and practice noted above, without this relational outcome constituted by the uncommon, how is the holy God distinguished unequivocally from what’s common? Directly related is how the face of God gets shaped by anthropomorphism, such that God’s face gets diffused in the crowd of Christian faces, without being distinguished in relational significance. Moreover, without this uncommon relational outcome, what significance does our theology and practice have—that is, in the primacy of the innermost and not in the secondary (as the Word exposed, Mk 7:6-8)—to distinguish us unmistakably from what’s common, and therefore to be constituted hole and uncommon by the holy God for the holy way of life together?

Note: holy means to be uncommon, distinguished from all common; whole-ly is the integration of whole and uncommon, thus whole-ly.

The relational quality inherent to life always hungers and thirsts for more depth in our theology and practice (cf. Mt 5:6) when there is no finale resonating in the innermost. Even if our theology and practice reverberate in our minds, there will always be a lack in our innermost that remains missing until the finale resonates clearly distinguished.

I have been to a wide spectrum of worship services; and the dynamics engaged also appear to have a diverse range, but there are commonalities to this diversity. The dynamic most lacking in worship is the relational dimension, which signifies that the experiential truth and relational reality of the Word’s relational outcome is missing in the act of worship. A quality of worship engaged could be present to a certain extent, but the relational response integral to relational quality is not distinguished in all that may reverberate in these worship acts. Why, because the innermost of persons doesn’t resonate to evoke the relational response expressing its natural finale—not the obligatory response or duty common to worship dynamics of whatever diversity. A clear example of this difference is seen in Mary (Martha’s sister), who embodied the relational response of worship that resonated in and from her innermost; in contrast, Martha focused on her duty (Jn 12:1-3; Mt 26:6-13).[5]

If you examine your worship experiences, what do you think you would observe? Now imagine what would be better, and then imagine how this could happen.

In many worship contexts, worship is not the primary focus, in some cases not even a secondary focus, but rather a spiritual sound bite, or a performance or even entertainment to appease “consumer” interests, perhaps as an appetizer for the main attraction: the sermon. Spurred by the initial efforts of Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli in the 16^th century, the sermon became the central focus for the worship service, establishing the common tradition prevailing since. Most of what is heard in so-called worship is a musical prelude or arbitrary introduction to the sermon.

In any designated time earmarked as worship, the operating dynamics frequently function like a bot to digitize worship. Enhanced or not by technology, worship commonly gets reduced to what is analogous to social media. If you understand the relational consequences that social media has had on human connection, then you have a sense of how our worship has little if any relational significance to God. Worship has become a convenient and less personally involved engagement, which routinely gets preoccupied with secondary stuff at the expense of what’s primary—the relationship and its essential involvement; and as a substitute for the primary, it promotes simulations and illusions of both relationship and involvement, even to the common extent of manipulating those present with misleading practices and misinformation. In other words from the Word, churches today typically function as digital platforms/promoters to amplify this type of worship in order to intensify engagement in its brand by its members. Moreover, as in the worship, and consider how many become substitutes (intentional or inadvertent) for the relational response directly to the Word. Also, consider how much of what is heard or sung is really just an invitation to worship and/or an intention to worship the God elevated (notably with visuals or symbolic words) before the congregation, but the current controversy about limiting free speech in digital platforms like Facebook and Twitter, churches assume they have a freedom to worship without accountability. That is a misuse of the freedom that “the Truth will set you free” (Jn 8:31).

Now examine all the familiar sounds and words that compose the common designated time of relational response to God doesn’t actually unfold from all that attention—much to God’s disappointment and dissatisfaction.

Examine and consider the following (and any other sounds and words in your specific worship context):

All these expressions must be accountable to the Word’s critique of such worship practice: “You honor my name with these words of your lips, but the relational involvement of your innermost is far from my person; in vain do you worship me…and maintain your worship tradition” (Mk 7:7-8).[6]

The relational process to this relational outcome constitutes the relational response that is natural to and thus vital for our worship to have relational significance to the Trinity. Vital for this relational process is the relational quality of the songs we sing, which need to resonate the finale of musical theology and practice.

In the following intimate relational response to the Word amplifying the Trinity, typically insignificant sounds and words are humbly changed in child-likeness to the innermost in order to involve us directly in the uncommon finale of our theology and practice—resonating music-like with nothing less and no substitutes to diminish the significance of our worship.

Note: sing ‘Hallelujah’ (praise the Lord) or ‘Hallelu-you’ (praise you Lord).

And to help us maintain this relational involvement and not fall back into our default mode—a common occurrence when the primary focus is distracted—it would be better to make explicit the relational term “hallelujah” by our direct relational response of “halleluyou!” “You” alone is the focus of worship—nonnegotiable even by the reverberating words of sermons.

With the primary focus on the Word undiminished, our relational response will not stop short of its finale nor be diluted by insignificant sounds and words, because “only you are awesome—you alone.”

Note: Hebrew words ‘ares and yārē’ signify awesome. In contemporary language, we need to reconsider not only who but what is ‘awesome’ and how loosely we use the term, so that it will be restored to fully distinguish its significance.

If you review Peter’s words as he followed Jesus, they often were substitutes for the Word. If you review his relational involvement with Jesus, he often didn’t make relational connection with the Word; and he even countered Jesus, thereby preventing his responses from having relational significance to the Word. The relational quality of Peter’s theology and practice was inconsistent at best and nonexistent at his worst. The most evident consequence of Peter’s theology and practice is that it didn’t resonate music-like to unfold the finale in the innermost—that is, the depth of the worship finale that relationally responds to the Trinity as One. This finale involves integrating in the innermost the relational response of all the persons together in the Trinity’s family without outer distinctions (as Paul exposed the contradiction in Peter’s theology and practice (Gal 2:11-14).

This relational consequence is far-reaching in theology and practice today, as made evident by the fragmentation (so-called diversity) of the global church. Not apparent in this condition of the church is the finale lacking in the diverse worship practices, which have not been accountable to the Word to be clarified and corrected about the level of relational quality in their theology and practice. As those belonging to the church as one like the Trinity, we all need to humbly acknowledge what has amounted to denial about examining our theology and practice, and “Wake up” child-like, because our theology and practice “have not been found complete/whole by the interpretive lens of the Word” (as was the case with the church in Sardis, Rev 3:1-2). Denial, for instance, about the relational consequences of a reduced theological anthropology or weak view of sin, is common among church leaders; even Peter was in denial about his level of involvement with the Word (apparent in Jn 21:17,20-21), until Paul’s wake-up call humbled him. In spite of where we may find ourselves, the palpable Word is unmistakable: “Our ways are under the eyes of the LORD, and he examines all our paths” (Prov 5:21); thus, palpably with the Spirit, “all the churches need to know that I am he who searches your innermost, and I will respond to each of you according to your theology and practice” (Rev 2:23, NIV).

The resonance of worship in the innermost will be the pivotal key for us to get past the crossroads we now face into music-like theology and practice—just as music can resonate the deepest to touch persons like nothing else—whose finale will change us to the child-like persons belonging together, integrated as one in the Trinity’s family. The experiential truth and relational reality of this relational outcome resonates the deepest in worship, because this uncommon relational response involves us the most intimately with the Trinity face to face, and person to person with the Trinitarian persons as One.

When this finale resonates in our innermost without being diminished, then our persons and relationships are integrated in the wholeness of the Trinity’s family—transforming and reconciling churches from their fragmentary condition into “one just as we are one, Father” (Jn 17:20-26).

“More than we can ask or imagine,” the Spirit’s person is vulnerably present and relationally involved to compose our musical theology and practice in the relational quality of infinite dimension (Eph 3:20; 5:19-20; 1 Cor 12:12-13), so that the uncommon peace of the Word prevails in our innermost over other words of anything less and any substitutes (Jn 14:27; Col 3:15). Embrace this experiential truth for your relational reality:

Shalôm is the condition of well-being in wholeness; whole-ly (whole and holy) is this wholeness uncommon to the world. Righteousness define the whole of who, what and how God is in relationships. Composed from Ps 85:10; Num 6:24; Jn 14:27, cf. Col 3:15

Therefore, only on this relational basis, with nothing less and no substitutes from other sounds and words, let us join together in our innermost, resonating in the new song, humbly vulnerable with our veils removed as never before, and be reciprocally involved with the innermost of the Trinity at the integrating summit of our finale:

[2] Further study of prevalent aspects of common-ized worship can be found in Kary A. Kambara, A Theology of Worship: ‘Singing’ a New Song to the LORD (Theology of Worship, 2011: online at http://4X12.org. See also her critical examination of worship language, Hermeneutic of Worship Language: Understanding Communion with the Whole of God (Worship Language Study, 2013); online at http://4X12.org.

[5] See discussion of Mary by Kary A. Kambara, Embodying New the Worship Relationship: Whole Theology and Practice Required (Worship Study, 20115). Online at http://4X12.org.

[6] How we use (misuse) God’s name in worship is discussed more fully in Kary A. Kambara, Worshiping God in Likeness of the Trinity: Not Determined ‘in their way’ (Uncommon Worship Study, 2016), chapter 2; online at http://4X12.org. See also her broader examination in Hermeneutic of Worship Language.