All worship is to be directed to God alone, the blessed holy Trinity. He never commanded us to worship things of the earth or any created beings, angels or holy objects. He forbade this and punished the worshippers of the Golden Calf, which was a representation of YHweh, the true God. Nowhere in the Old Testament was it commanded to worship Abraham, Moses or King David. Nowhere did the Apostles teach that we were to worship angels, holy men of the Church or martyrs. God alone is worthy of worship. My mother was a godly woman but to worship her would be blasphemous. To honor her and give glory to God for her life is what is taught in Scripture.
I appreciate your position on evolution by the way. Most of the Orthodox folks I know are very liberal, and like most Protestants, readily and unquestionably accept evolution. This is sad.
In Scripture, Jesus directly commands us to worship our father and mother. This is pointed out in the original article above.
Thank you for holding the traditional line on creation & evolution. It is a significant issue, and it is important not to give in to the errors of the culture.
Please stop asserting that scripture commands believers to “worship” our parents. You are warping our contemporary English or American language to bolster your edgy, fringe theological perspective. Americans learning about Orthodox Christianity will be confused by your wordbending, so why do you do it?
The culture and language are so thoroughly loaded with Protestant ideas at this point that it might be one of the bigger stumbling blocks towards baptizing America. The average Protestant would not read past the first paragraph before damning you to Hell for idolatry. I’m a convert and even I was shocked until I kept reading and saw exactly what you meant. We are a people that have thoroughly forgotten our past and our own language has essentially been double-speaked.
As always, when non-philologists delve into etymology--they sow discord and confusion among the rest of us. No matter what the original Greek or Hebrew words were, the English language has changed a lot since Beowulf. And our Modern English is very different from Shakespeare’s Early Modern English; so much so that his plays are learned in class, with copious footnotes guiding the reader. Same with old translations of the Bible into English.
So why not enjoy the precision our latest Modern English affords us? I mean, we use “worship” to clearly denote the respect due only to the Trinity et al, and have due “respect” and “reverence” for lesser beings.
Lumping respect with worship because of etymology leads us into silly controversies such as Australian Christians’ arguments (decades ago) about not calling children “kids”, because a kid is REALLY a baby goat! What’s “really” the meaning of a word, but what the current culture says it is? This isn’t an excuse for the rhetorical craziness of today’s Ministry of Truth, however!
Back to the point, I once heard a Rabbi deem that the word origin of “weird” connoted demonic involvement, so we should avoid using it. Yes, the witches in Macbeth were “the weird sisters” but we all use that word differently now--apologies to those to whom English is supposedly frozen in time.
No, worship and respect do not mean the same thing. Anymore.
You might have a point if we were only relying on sources that were several hundred years old. But as I pointed out in the article, a number of modern English sources continue using the word "worship" in the broader sense. For example, the liturgy book I use at church every Sunday was published just last year, in 2022. It is published by the Jordanville monastery. And according to it, we worship the cross, and we worship icons. The article presents other examples as well.
Even in the underlying original languages in Scripture, there is no distinction in wording between worshiping God and worshiping man, in the particular passages presented in the article.
I already covered the matter of original languages, how we’re not slaves to etymology.
What of modern translations that aren’t beholden to that broader sense of the word “worship”, are they to be discarded as inaccurate? No, they should be received as convenient because they embody in multiple words the distinction between how we apprehend the Creator versus the Created.
Another word in this predicament is “pray.” Someone might assert that it’s the same as ordinary “ask”, because of its use in arcane legalese or old writings but they’d have to ignore what the larger society understands it to be. It’s the special way we address a deity. It’s a powerful word because of its focus.
Actually, the original languages we are discussing have nothing to do with the etymology of the English word "worship". Those are two completely separate issues.
Etymology has to do with the history and origin of words. The modern word "worship" comes from the Old English word “weorthscipe” and the Middle English word "worschip", which simply mean “worthy of honor, respect, or dignity.” That is the word's etymology.
But in our discussion, that is not what we were talking about. Rather, we were talking about the original languages used in Scripture. As Scripture reveals, some of the holiest people in history bowed down before other people. To show their love, honor, and respect, they bowed down before them. And to describe what is happening, the Hebrew Scriptures use the word “shachah”, the very same word that is elsewhere translated as the “worship” of God. In numerous biblical passages quoted in the original article, we see godly people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Abigail, Solomon, and Elisha engaged in “shachah”.
In Scripture, this Hebrew word "shachah" has nothing to do with the etymology of the word "worship". Rather, it is a word which means "worship" in Hebrew. And in the Hebrew language, the same word is used, regardless of whether it is being directed towards God, or towards godly men. Just as we give love and honor to both God and men, we can do the same with this biblical form of worship.
We also discussed the modern English language. For example, consider the liturgy book I use, which was published just last year, in 2022. It has the liturgy printed in two languages — Russian and English. In English, the same word "worship" is used both for God, and also for icons and the cross. Likewise, in the same locations, the Russian word for "worship" is used.
Whether we are reading in Hebrew, or in Russian, or in English, the same words are used in multiple places, whether we are worshiping God, or whether we are worshiping icons, crosses, or godly men.
This has nothing to do with etymology. Rather, it demonstrates that multiple languages and multiple cultures recognize that worship is something with a broad definition. Just as you can offer love and honor both to God and to good men, you can do the same with worship.
It is a mistake for modern English speakers to pretend that the word "worship" has a narrow definition, as if these other usages did not exist.
Now you’re repeating yourself. The heart of the matter is that modern English speakers are not mistaken or pretending that “worship” has a narrow meaning--it certainly does. Now. Because the language has changed. Your bilingual liturgy book is not the arbiter of the American or English language.
In the study of language there are those who consider dictionaries descriptive (acknowledging that usage changes the language over time) and people who think they’re prescriptive; requiring adherence to static definitions. You’re firmly in the latter camp. I eagerly await your revival of the old word napron, which is what the rest of us call an apron!
Nor are some people's narrow experience of the English language the arbiter of the American or English language. Those who read more widely are aware that there has never been a point in time at which the broader usage of the word "worship" has ceased. It has become less common in certain circles, but the broader usage of the word never died out.
To this day, just for instance, there are countless Anglican churches still regularly using a Psalter where the word "worship" is used more broadly. People continue to use the Anglican marriage service as well. We already mentioned this ROCOR liturgy book, which is now in the 5th printing, most recently published in 2022. There are also multiple current websites where people use the word "worship" in the broader sense.
Perhaps some people are unaware of the many ways in which the word "worship" has continued to be used, even in modern times, but that lack of awareness doesn't change the fact that the word "worship" means the same thing now that it did 500 years ago.
There are many words in English, such as "let", "silly", and "prevent" which have significantly changed meaning in English. The word "worship" is not one of them. — There has been a Protestant-driven effort to change the word, which has only partially been successful in certain circles, but the broader usage has never ceased.
A major reason for this has to do with how the word "worship" is used in other languages. Since the broader usage is common in Hebrew, Russian, and other languages as well, that puts pressure on the English language to resist semantic drift. Whenever a translator sees the same word used for worshiping God in one passage, and worshiping an icon or a holy person in another passage, there is an obvious pressure to use an identical English word in both situations. So whether you are translating from Hebrew, from Russian, or from any of a number of other languages, there's often a good reason to make the English translation parallel to the original.
“It has become less common in certain circles, but the broader usage of the word never died out”--this really sums up your point of view which is understandably from inside the church service environment.
The “certain circles” you consider narrow are actually the vast majority of 334 million Americans on whose ears your definition of “worship” grates. We simply don’t talk that way in daily life where language lives. And neither do Anglicans--outside their church services where language is on life support.
Howardo, I can certainly agree with what you say here regarding the vast majority of the English speaking public, outside the Church.
Of course, church usage is the trump card. It is our job to evangelize the culture and to change them, not for them to change us.
The popular usage of "worship" is a corruption of the language which causes confusion rather than clarity, much like the corruption of the word "gay", which as recently as the Flintstones cartoons simply meant "happy". It's not unlike the corruption of the rainbow for similar purposes. Nevertheless, Genesis 9 still provides the foundational meaning of the rainbow, and hundreds of millions of woke Americans can't change that.
If we were only talking about the word "worship" itself, and nothing more, then I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. But the Protestant mangling of the entire concept surrounding "worship" has so infected the culture, that it needs to be addressed like a disease, not merely as a semantic curiosity. It is a problem that needs to be cured.
When talking to Protestants about worship, they don't merely get hung up on the word "worship" itself. They are imbued with deep confusion on the very concept of it. One one hand, they have it deeply ingrained that "worship is for God alone". On the other hand, quite a few of them do just enough research to know that the OT Hebrew word for worship means "to bow down", and the NT word for worship means "to kiss towards", and so when Orthodox Christians are bowing down to icons and kissing them, Protestants say, "Aha! That's worship! That's idolatry!".
And since they have done just enough homework to know that "worship" and "to bow down" are the same word in Hebrew, and that "worship" and "to kiss toward" are the same word in Greek, and since they know from history that both of these things were done by pagans when worshiping pagan idols, they conclude that Orthodox Christians are idolaters, and that we are being disingenuous when we say, "Well, what we are doing is not really worship."
Actually, yes. Yes it is. It is worship. Protestants are right on that specific point. That's why Hebrew, Greek, Russian, and other languages don't make any stark distinction between the two. And Orthodox arguments to the contrary are frankly unconvicing to almost everyone, including to me. If there is no reason to use two separate words for honoring God and honoring men, then there is no reason to use two separate words for worshiping God and worshiping icons. If no such linguistic distinction is made in Hebrew, Greek, or Russian, then there is no reason to invent such a linguistic distinction in English.
So we do not need to capitulate to this Protestant corruption of the modern English language. Rather, we need to correct it.
My article is offered as a correction of their error. Anyone who doesn't read it, has no cause to be offended by it. Anyone who does read it, and reads it honestly, can easily see that I am not advocating idolatry. Readers are provided with all of the information they need, to understand the proper Church usage of the word "worship", and to understand how it differs from the current modern mainstream usage of the word.
I believe we should follow the explanation of St. John of Damascus, who distinguishes Latria (worship offered to God alone) from Proskenesis (honor and veneration offered to created things). Unfortunately the English language has degenerated into more simplified forms over the centuries and has been greatly impoverished. It no more conveys fine distinction of concepts.
I believe the word "worship" would not be currently acceptable in our modern English to be offered to created things.
Following our great Father among the Saints, John of Damascus, we offer worship (Latria) to God alone, and veneration (Proskenesis) to created things.
Our final reference in this matter ought to be the teaching of St. John of Damascus, accepted by the Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Church since he shown forth in the East.
Of course I agree with St. John of Damascus. And I understand the distinction that needs to be made between Latria and Dulia. However, this particular distinction does not apply to the passages presented in the above article. In the original languages, in all of the Scriptural passages quoted in the article, there is no difference between the word "worship" when it is directed to God, and the word "worship" when it is directed to man.
On this point in Scripture, ancient Hebrew and Greek are accurate. In the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian (Slavonic) language is likewise accurate. That is why in my Russian language liturgical service books, the same Russian word is used for "worship", both when it is directed toward God, and when it is directed towards other things, such as icons and the cross.
Modern English is not impoverished. On this particular point, modern English is accurate.
The service book I use to serve the Divine Liturgy every Sunday morning is published by Jordanville monastery, and was printed just last year, in 2022. In both Russian and English, it uses the same word for worship, whether it is directed towards the Trinity, or towards icons and the cross.
That being the case, what exactly is the distinction between Latria and Dulia? Interestingly, the standard translation of these words is not "worship". Rather, both words are normally translated as "service" or "to serve". The word "Dulia" has a broader definition, sometimes in reference to service offered to God, and sometimes in reference to service offered to men. The word "Latria" is more specific, and is strictly used in reference to the service that is offered to God (e.g. liturgical servies and sacrifices). Of the 21 times that the New Testament uses the word "Latria", 17 of those times it is translated as "service".
I agree that it would be nice to make this Dulia/Latria distinction more clear in modern English. But to do that, it wouldn't necessarily involve any change to the word "worship". Rather, it would involve a change to the word "service". When we "serve" God, and when we "serve" men, those could be two separate words.
Consider Christ's words in Matthew 4:10 — “You shall worship (proskuneo) the Lord and Him alone you shall serve (latria).” — Notice that the qualifier "alone" doesn't go with "worship". Rather, the word "alone" goes with the word "serve" (latria). Scripture does not say we are to worship God alone, any more than it says we are to love God alone. It does, however, say that we should serve God alone.
The Latria/Dulia distinction primarily applies to the English word "service", not to the English word "worship".
In the Orthodox New Testament (ONT), published by Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete, in Buena Vista, Colorado, Matthew 4:10 is translated as follows:
"Thou shalt make obeisance to the Lord thy God, and Him alone shalt thou worship."
I believe the ONT to be the most accurate of all ancient and modern English translations. What do you think?
As far as I can tell, that particular convent is not even Orthodox. They appear to be a schismatic sect. They are not in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Antiochian Orthodox Church, or the Serbian Orthodox Church, etc.
Actually, Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete, in Buena Vista, Colorado, are truly orthodox, having succession from the ROCOR, and and having anathematized Ecumenism and Sergianism. The translation is made by a native Greek speaking monastic. Fr. Peter Heers and many others testify that the ONT is, by far, the best and most accurate literal English translation of the New Testament.
Latria and Dulia are normally translated into English as "service". Proskenesis is normally translated into English as "worship". These translations are fine, and there really isn't any need to change them. Even in the original Greek, the word Dulia is sometimes used for serving men, and sometimes used for serving God. It was a more general term, only made clear according to context.
Just as context clarifies our understanding of various Greek texts, context likewise clarifies our understanding of modern English texts. It is easy to tell when service is being offered to men, and when service is being offered to God. And obviously, when service is being offered to God, it is something deeper, stronger, and more solemn than service which is offered to mere men.
Yes, Dulia is non specific service, and could apply to the created or Uncreated.
Proskenesis is the same, meaning veneration, obeisance, or respect.
Latria is worship only to God.
I don't see why we should scandalize people by using the word "worship" for the created.
At any rate, we don't seem to agree.
As a parallel, the word Love in English is non specific, and could be directed to God, brother, mother, child, spouse, objects, etc. But it is not the same species of Love. As you may know, in Greek there are several different words for Love that have significant nuances.
So, just to be clear, are you accusing the Jordanville monastery of idolatry, since they use the word "worship" in the broader sense in their modern liturgy books? Or would you agree that it's just fine for them to do this?
Likewise, in the liturgy books that have been published in Russian, are you suggesting that the Russian Orthodox Church is guilty of idolatry, since they use the same Russian word both for the worship of God and the worship of icons and the cross?
No one is saying that you personally have to use the word "worship" in the broader sense. The word "venerate" is perfectly fine. But you seem to be upset about the fact that a number of writers in English always have, and still do, use the word "worship" in the broader sense.
I am amazed that you are using my argument, which proves my point: "As a parallel, the word Love in English is non specific, and could be directed to God, brother, mother, child, spouse, objects, etc. But it is not the same species of Love. As you may know, in Greek there are several different words for Love that have significant nuances."
That is precisely my point . . . even though the same word "love" is used for the love of God and the love of men, everyone understands that they are not identical. Our love for God is supposed to be deeper, higher, and greater than our love for men. The same goes for worship.
Nevertheless, even with the word "love", it would be a mistake to imagine that the original Greek text provides a perfect guide for where these distinctions lie. We cannot always draw major distinctions among the various versions of the Greek words for "love". In the LXX translation of the Old Testament, when Tamar is raped by her brother, it happens because he "loves" her so much. The Greek word for "love" here is "agape". And I think we can all agree that the "love" that he had for his sister bore no resemblance whatsoever to the sort of divine love people often call "agape love".
I don't accuse anyone of idolatry. Nor am I upset.
I just claim that the Orthodox New Testament (ONT) is a superior translation made by an American orthodox monastic who is also a native Greek speaker, and who has translated the 14 volumes of the Great Synaxaristes and many other works.
Given today's parlance and English usage, I believe the word "worship" is inappropriate for usage toward the created.
I do not know enough about Slavonic translations to make an intelligent comment.
I use your point that the word Love is non specific. It lumps all different kinds of love, whereas in Greek it is split into different words expressing different kinds of Love. The Love used for the rape of Tamar by her brother is more like Eros rather than Agape. Yes, agreed.
However the usage of the word Worship has shifted in English. Modern understanding of this word is never used towards created things. In order to avoid scandal and controversy, I believe that differentiation would be advisable as following the ONT:
Worship: Latria, for God alone.
Service: Dulia to the Uncreated and the created.
Obeisance or veneration or respect: Proskenesis for the created.
All worship is to be directed to God alone, the blessed holy Trinity. He never commanded us to worship things of the earth or any created beings, angels or holy objects. He forbade this and punished the worshippers of the Golden Calf, which was a representation of YHweh, the true God. Nowhere in the Old Testament was it commanded to worship Abraham, Moses or King David. Nowhere did the Apostles teach that we were to worship angels, holy men of the Church or martyrs. God alone is worthy of worship. My mother was a godly woman but to worship her would be blasphemous. To honor her and give glory to God for her life is what is taught in Scripture.
I appreciate your position on evolution by the way. Most of the Orthodox folks I know are very liberal, and like most Protestants, readily and unquestionably accept evolution. This is sad.
In Scripture, Jesus directly commands us to worship our father and mother. This is pointed out in the original article above.
Thank you for holding the traditional line on creation & evolution. It is a significant issue, and it is important not to give in to the errors of the culture.
Please stop asserting that scripture commands believers to “worship” our parents. You are warping our contemporary English or American language to bolster your edgy, fringe theological perspective. Americans learning about Orthodox Christianity will be confused by your wordbending, so why do you do it?
I believe we ought to follow St. John of Damascus in his apologetics against iconoclasm.
Worship: Latria, for God alone.
Service: Dulia to the Uncreated and the created.
Obeisance, veneration, or respect: Proskenesis for the created.
The culture and language are so thoroughly loaded with Protestant ideas at this point that it might be one of the bigger stumbling blocks towards baptizing America. The average Protestant would not read past the first paragraph before damning you to Hell for idolatry. I’m a convert and even I was shocked until I kept reading and saw exactly what you meant. We are a people that have thoroughly forgotten our past and our own language has essentially been double-speaked.
As always, when non-philologists delve into etymology--they sow discord and confusion among the rest of us. No matter what the original Greek or Hebrew words were, the English language has changed a lot since Beowulf. And our Modern English is very different from Shakespeare’s Early Modern English; so much so that his plays are learned in class, with copious footnotes guiding the reader. Same with old translations of the Bible into English.
So why not enjoy the precision our latest Modern English affords us? I mean, we use “worship” to clearly denote the respect due only to the Trinity et al, and have due “respect” and “reverence” for lesser beings.
Lumping respect with worship because of etymology leads us into silly controversies such as Australian Christians’ arguments (decades ago) about not calling children “kids”, because a kid is REALLY a baby goat! What’s “really” the meaning of a word, but what the current culture says it is? This isn’t an excuse for the rhetorical craziness of today’s Ministry of Truth, however!
Back to the point, I once heard a Rabbi deem that the word origin of “weird” connoted demonic involvement, so we should avoid using it. Yes, the witches in Macbeth were “the weird sisters” but we all use that word differently now--apologies to those to whom English is supposedly frozen in time.
No, worship and respect do not mean the same thing. Anymore.
You might have a point if we were only relying on sources that were several hundred years old. But as I pointed out in the article, a number of modern English sources continue using the word "worship" in the broader sense. For example, the liturgy book I use at church every Sunday was published just last year, in 2022. It is published by the Jordanville monastery. And according to it, we worship the cross, and we worship icons. The article presents other examples as well.
Even in the underlying original languages in Scripture, there is no distinction in wording between worshiping God and worshiping man, in the particular passages presented in the article.
I already covered the matter of original languages, how we’re not slaves to etymology.
What of modern translations that aren’t beholden to that broader sense of the word “worship”, are they to be discarded as inaccurate? No, they should be received as convenient because they embody in multiple words the distinction between how we apprehend the Creator versus the Created.
Another word in this predicament is “pray.” Someone might assert that it’s the same as ordinary “ask”, because of its use in arcane legalese or old writings but they’d have to ignore what the larger society understands it to be. It’s the special way we address a deity. It’s a powerful word because of its focus.
Actually, the original languages we are discussing have nothing to do with the etymology of the English word "worship". Those are two completely separate issues.
Etymology has to do with the history and origin of words. The modern word "worship" comes from the Old English word “weorthscipe” and the Middle English word "worschip", which simply mean “worthy of honor, respect, or dignity.” That is the word's etymology.
But in our discussion, that is not what we were talking about. Rather, we were talking about the original languages used in Scripture. As Scripture reveals, some of the holiest people in history bowed down before other people. To show their love, honor, and respect, they bowed down before them. And to describe what is happening, the Hebrew Scriptures use the word “shachah”, the very same word that is elsewhere translated as the “worship” of God. In numerous biblical passages quoted in the original article, we see godly people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Abigail, Solomon, and Elisha engaged in “shachah”.
In Scripture, this Hebrew word "shachah" has nothing to do with the etymology of the word "worship". Rather, it is a word which means "worship" in Hebrew. And in the Hebrew language, the same word is used, regardless of whether it is being directed towards God, or towards godly men. Just as we give love and honor to both God and men, we can do the same with this biblical form of worship.
We also discussed the modern English language. For example, consider the liturgy book I use, which was published just last year, in 2022. It has the liturgy printed in two languages — Russian and English. In English, the same word "worship" is used both for God, and also for icons and the cross. Likewise, in the same locations, the Russian word for "worship" is used.
Whether we are reading in Hebrew, or in Russian, or in English, the same words are used in multiple places, whether we are worshiping God, or whether we are worshiping icons, crosses, or godly men.
This has nothing to do with etymology. Rather, it demonstrates that multiple languages and multiple cultures recognize that worship is something with a broad definition. Just as you can offer love and honor both to God and to good men, you can do the same with worship.
It is a mistake for modern English speakers to pretend that the word "worship" has a narrow definition, as if these other usages did not exist.
Now you’re repeating yourself. The heart of the matter is that modern English speakers are not mistaken or pretending that “worship” has a narrow meaning--it certainly does. Now. Because the language has changed. Your bilingual liturgy book is not the arbiter of the American or English language.
In the study of language there are those who consider dictionaries descriptive (acknowledging that usage changes the language over time) and people who think they’re prescriptive; requiring adherence to static definitions. You’re firmly in the latter camp. I eagerly await your revival of the old word napron, which is what the rest of us call an apron!
Nor are some people's narrow experience of the English language the arbiter of the American or English language. Those who read more widely are aware that there has never been a point in time at which the broader usage of the word "worship" has ceased. It has become less common in certain circles, but the broader usage of the word never died out.
To this day, just for instance, there are countless Anglican churches still regularly using a Psalter where the word "worship" is used more broadly. People continue to use the Anglican marriage service as well. We already mentioned this ROCOR liturgy book, which is now in the 5th printing, most recently published in 2022. There are also multiple current websites where people use the word "worship" in the broader sense.
Perhaps some people are unaware of the many ways in which the word "worship" has continued to be used, even in modern times, but that lack of awareness doesn't change the fact that the word "worship" means the same thing now that it did 500 years ago.
There are many words in English, such as "let", "silly", and "prevent" which have significantly changed meaning in English. The word "worship" is not one of them. — There has been a Protestant-driven effort to change the word, which has only partially been successful in certain circles, but the broader usage has never ceased.
A major reason for this has to do with how the word "worship" is used in other languages. Since the broader usage is common in Hebrew, Russian, and other languages as well, that puts pressure on the English language to resist semantic drift. Whenever a translator sees the same word used for worshiping God in one passage, and worshiping an icon or a holy person in another passage, there is an obvious pressure to use an identical English word in both situations. So whether you are translating from Hebrew, from Russian, or from any of a number of other languages, there's often a good reason to make the English translation parallel to the original.
“It has become less common in certain circles, but the broader usage of the word never died out”--this really sums up your point of view which is understandably from inside the church service environment.
The “certain circles” you consider narrow are actually the vast majority of 334 million Americans on whose ears your definition of “worship” grates. We simply don’t talk that way in daily life where language lives. And neither do Anglicans--outside their church services where language is on life support.
Howardo, I can certainly agree with what you say here regarding the vast majority of the English speaking public, outside the Church.
Of course, church usage is the trump card. It is our job to evangelize the culture and to change them, not for them to change us.
The popular usage of "worship" is a corruption of the language which causes confusion rather than clarity, much like the corruption of the word "gay", which as recently as the Flintstones cartoons simply meant "happy". It's not unlike the corruption of the rainbow for similar purposes. Nevertheless, Genesis 9 still provides the foundational meaning of the rainbow, and hundreds of millions of woke Americans can't change that.
If we were only talking about the word "worship" itself, and nothing more, then I wouldn't be overly concerned about it. But the Protestant mangling of the entire concept surrounding "worship" has so infected the culture, that it needs to be addressed like a disease, not merely as a semantic curiosity. It is a problem that needs to be cured.
When talking to Protestants about worship, they don't merely get hung up on the word "worship" itself. They are imbued with deep confusion on the very concept of it. One one hand, they have it deeply ingrained that "worship is for God alone". On the other hand, quite a few of them do just enough research to know that the OT Hebrew word for worship means "to bow down", and the NT word for worship means "to kiss towards", and so when Orthodox Christians are bowing down to icons and kissing them, Protestants say, "Aha! That's worship! That's idolatry!".
And since they have done just enough homework to know that "worship" and "to bow down" are the same word in Hebrew, and that "worship" and "to kiss toward" are the same word in Greek, and since they know from history that both of these things were done by pagans when worshiping pagan idols, they conclude that Orthodox Christians are idolaters, and that we are being disingenuous when we say, "Well, what we are doing is not really worship."
Actually, yes. Yes it is. It is worship. Protestants are right on that specific point. That's why Hebrew, Greek, Russian, and other languages don't make any stark distinction between the two. And Orthodox arguments to the contrary are frankly unconvicing to almost everyone, including to me. If there is no reason to use two separate words for honoring God and honoring men, then there is no reason to use two separate words for worshiping God and worshiping icons. If no such linguistic distinction is made in Hebrew, Greek, or Russian, then there is no reason to invent such a linguistic distinction in English.
So we do not need to capitulate to this Protestant corruption of the modern English language. Rather, we need to correct it.
My article is offered as a correction of their error. Anyone who doesn't read it, has no cause to be offended by it. Anyone who does read it, and reads it honestly, can easily see that I am not advocating idolatry. Readers are provided with all of the information they need, to understand the proper Church usage of the word "worship", and to understand how it differs from the current modern mainstream usage of the word.
Thus, I don't see any problem with the article.
I believe we should follow the explanation of St. John of Damascus, who distinguishes Latria (worship offered to God alone) from Proskenesis (honor and veneration offered to created things). Unfortunately the English language has degenerated into more simplified forms over the centuries and has been greatly impoverished. It no more conveys fine distinction of concepts.
I believe the word "worship" would not be currently acceptable in our modern English to be offered to created things.
Following our great Father among the Saints, John of Damascus, we offer worship (Latria) to God alone, and veneration (Proskenesis) to created things.
Our final reference in this matter ought to be the teaching of St. John of Damascus, accepted by the Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Church since he shown forth in the East.
Of course I agree with St. John of Damascus. And I understand the distinction that needs to be made between Latria and Dulia. However, this particular distinction does not apply to the passages presented in the above article. In the original languages, in all of the Scriptural passages quoted in the article, there is no difference between the word "worship" when it is directed to God, and the word "worship" when it is directed to man.
On this point in Scripture, ancient Hebrew and Greek are accurate. In the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian (Slavonic) language is likewise accurate. That is why in my Russian language liturgical service books, the same Russian word is used for "worship", both when it is directed toward God, and when it is directed towards other things, such as icons and the cross.
Modern English is not impoverished. On this particular point, modern English is accurate.
The service book I use to serve the Divine Liturgy every Sunday morning is published by Jordanville monastery, and was printed just last year, in 2022. In both Russian and English, it uses the same word for worship, whether it is directed towards the Trinity, or towards icons and the cross.
That being the case, what exactly is the distinction between Latria and Dulia? Interestingly, the standard translation of these words is not "worship". Rather, both words are normally translated as "service" or "to serve". The word "Dulia" has a broader definition, sometimes in reference to service offered to God, and sometimes in reference to service offered to men. The word "Latria" is more specific, and is strictly used in reference to the service that is offered to God (e.g. liturgical servies and sacrifices). Of the 21 times that the New Testament uses the word "Latria", 17 of those times it is translated as "service".
I agree that it would be nice to make this Dulia/Latria distinction more clear in modern English. But to do that, it wouldn't necessarily involve any change to the word "worship". Rather, it would involve a change to the word "service". When we "serve" God, and when we "serve" men, those could be two separate words.
Consider Christ's words in Matthew 4:10 — “You shall worship (proskuneo) the Lord and Him alone you shall serve (latria).” — Notice that the qualifier "alone" doesn't go with "worship". Rather, the word "alone" goes with the word "serve" (latria). Scripture does not say we are to worship God alone, any more than it says we are to love God alone. It does, however, say that we should serve God alone.
The Latria/Dulia distinction primarily applies to the English word "service", not to the English word "worship".
In the Orthodox New Testament (ONT), published by Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete, in Buena Vista, Colorado, Matthew 4:10 is translated as follows:
"Thou shalt make obeisance to the Lord thy God, and Him alone shalt thou worship."
I believe the ONT to be the most accurate of all ancient and modern English translations. What do you think?
No. I do not believe it is the most accurate.
As far as I can tell, that particular convent is not even Orthodox. They appear to be a schismatic sect. They are not in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Antiochian Orthodox Church, or the Serbian Orthodox Church, etc.
Actually, Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete, in Buena Vista, Colorado, are truly orthodox, having succession from the ROCOR, and and having anathematized Ecumenism and Sergianism. The translation is made by a native Greek speaking monastic. Fr. Peter Heers and many others testify that the ONT is, by far, the best and most accurate literal English translation of the New Testament.
If they are not in communion with any of the Orthodox, then they are not Orthodox.
Based on the Orthodox New Testament, I propose the following translation:
Latria, to worship, used for God alone.
Proskenesis, to make obeisance or venerate, used for created things.
Dulia, to serve, used for created things.
What do you think?
Bad idea. Not an accurate way to translate.
Thank you Fr. Joseph for your lengthy explanation.
Is there any specific equivalent in the English language to Latria, Dulia, and Proskenesis?
Or in the Slavonic language?
Wouldn't Latria be the most specific service to God, whereas Dulia and Proskenesis can be used as service to God or created things?
How can we adapt the explanation of St. John of Damascus to the English language?
Latria and Dulia are normally translated into English as "service". Proskenesis is normally translated into English as "worship". These translations are fine, and there really isn't any need to change them. Even in the original Greek, the word Dulia is sometimes used for serving men, and sometimes used for serving God. It was a more general term, only made clear according to context.
Just as context clarifies our understanding of various Greek texts, context likewise clarifies our understanding of modern English texts. It is easy to tell when service is being offered to men, and when service is being offered to God. And obviously, when service is being offered to God, it is something deeper, stronger, and more solemn than service which is offered to mere men.
Yes, Dulia is non specific service, and could apply to the created or Uncreated.
Proskenesis is the same, meaning veneration, obeisance, or respect.
Latria is worship only to God.
I don't see why we should scandalize people by using the word "worship" for the created.
At any rate, we don't seem to agree.
As a parallel, the word Love in English is non specific, and could be directed to God, brother, mother, child, spouse, objects, etc. But it is not the same species of Love. As you may know, in Greek there are several different words for Love that have significant nuances.
In Christ, our Lord, King, and God,
Jerjis
So, just to be clear, are you accusing the Jordanville monastery of idolatry, since they use the word "worship" in the broader sense in their modern liturgy books? Or would you agree that it's just fine for them to do this?
Likewise, in the liturgy books that have been published in Russian, are you suggesting that the Russian Orthodox Church is guilty of idolatry, since they use the same Russian word both for the worship of God and the worship of icons and the cross?
No one is saying that you personally have to use the word "worship" in the broader sense. The word "venerate" is perfectly fine. But you seem to be upset about the fact that a number of writers in English always have, and still do, use the word "worship" in the broader sense.
I am amazed that you are using my argument, which proves my point: "As a parallel, the word Love in English is non specific, and could be directed to God, brother, mother, child, spouse, objects, etc. But it is not the same species of Love. As you may know, in Greek there are several different words for Love that have significant nuances."
That is precisely my point . . . even though the same word "love" is used for the love of God and the love of men, everyone understands that they are not identical. Our love for God is supposed to be deeper, higher, and greater than our love for men. The same goes for worship.
Nevertheless, even with the word "love", it would be a mistake to imagine that the original Greek text provides a perfect guide for where these distinctions lie. We cannot always draw major distinctions among the various versions of the Greek words for "love". In the LXX translation of the Old Testament, when Tamar is raped by her brother, it happens because he "loves" her so much. The Greek word for "love" here is "agape". And I think we can all agree that the "love" that he had for his sister bore no resemblance whatsoever to the sort of divine love people often call "agape love".
I don't accuse anyone of idolatry. Nor am I upset.
I just claim that the Orthodox New Testament (ONT) is a superior translation made by an American orthodox monastic who is also a native Greek speaker, and who has translated the 14 volumes of the Great Synaxaristes and many other works.
Given today's parlance and English usage, I believe the word "worship" is inappropriate for usage toward the created.
I do not know enough about Slavonic translations to make an intelligent comment.
I use your point that the word Love is non specific. It lumps all different kinds of love, whereas in Greek it is split into different words expressing different kinds of Love. The Love used for the rape of Tamar by her brother is more like Eros rather than Agape. Yes, agreed.
However the usage of the word Worship has shifted in English. Modern understanding of this word is never used towards created things. In order to avoid scandal and controversy, I believe that differentiation would be advisable as following the ONT:
Worship: Latria, for God alone.
Service: Dulia to the Uncreated and the created.
Obeisance or veneration or respect: Proskenesis for the created.