Evangelism as Worship: Instead of Working "for God," Engaging in Ministry "to God"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worship provides a helpful lens through which we can re-orient the practice of evangelism for those who have become overburdened by the task.When we focus on evangelism as a command to fulfill, we risk placing an over-emphasis on human effort, agency, and control.In the process, we miss the doxological source of evangelism, and its worshipful telos.Fortunately, when we look at worship in a broad sense, as the whole of life (individually and communally) oriented to God, enabled through our union with Christ, and empowered by the Spirit of God, we discover that worship offers a large expanse within which we can re-frame evangelism.I propose that Don Saliers' four theses of worship, expressed in "The Travail of Worship," provide a helpful way for us to re-think evangelism.First, Saliers proposes that worship is oriented to the glorification of God being "God-oriented, anamnetic, and doxological" (28).Second, worship reflects Hebrew and Christian scriptures, particularly as revealed in the redemption narratives of Jesus Christ.Third, Christian worship is always "culturally embodied and embedded" (29).Fourth, Christian worship involves "our whole life," where "formative and expressive dimensions of Christian worship are dependent upon the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit" (29).My contention is that these four theses are also helpful descriptors of evangelism.By closely connecting worship and evangelism through these four theses, evangelism emerges from our practice of worship, an extension of God's invitation to vibrant doxological living offered those inside and outside the Christian community.Thus, we are no longer burdened by working "for God."Instead, we become freed from an over-emphasis on human agency so that evangelism is offered as a testimony of worship "to God" and a testimony of witness to our neighbor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".