Tuesday, April 11, 2006

More Thoughts On Worship

This was originally a comment by Jim Clement under the Worship thread from last week--I thought it could stimulate some more discussion so I asked Jim if he would mind if I posted it as a new thread to address these questions. Clement spent many of his early years growing up at FBCH--he has been gone for many years but has never left historic fundamentalism. Whether or not Hyles realized it, within this "study" he was not only giving his philosophy of ministry but also his answer to the centuries old confessional question, "What is the chief end of man?"~~Phineas Taylor Barnum

"Misunderstood Worship" by Jim Clement

Bro. Hyles said: "When formal worship is substituted for the real purpose of the assembly, Christians do not get strengthened, encouraged, exhorted or motivated to do the main task of the church, and that is to carry out the Great Commission, which is soul winning. To that end, formal worship becomes an enemy of soul winning!"

It is clear from this statement that Bro. Hyles dogmatically believed and taught that the "real purpose" and "main task" of the church is soulwinning. Thus, the thrust of his ministry was to motivate the people of FBC to go soul winning.

Besides the fact that I may disagree with that emphasis, the statement raises several questions that must be answered from a Biblical perspective.

1. What is "formal" worship?

2. What is the "real purpose" of the assembly or the "main task" of the church?

3. Does an assembly either engage in formal worship or its real purpose? Or is it possible for an assembly to engage in formal worship without being distracted from its real purpose and main task as those terms are understood by Bro. Hyles?

4. Is the "main task" of the church to carry out the Great Commission?

5. Is the Great Commission properly defined as "soul winning"?

6. Is it the role of the pastor to motivate the assembly to go soul winning?

7. Is Biblical worship always private and never public?

Biblical answers to these questions will likely determine our philosophy of the local church as well as the style of church we will attend. Is worship really an enemy of soul winning? Or is motivational preaching that emphasizes soul winning an enemy of worship and an enemy of the Great Commission?

Just my random thoughts.

Jim Clement

21 comments:

PT Barnum said...

1. What is "formal" worship? To me it is empty ritualistic worship of Catholics and Episcopalians. To Hyles it was robed choirs, expository preaching, and stained glass windows.

2. What is the "real purpose" of the assembly or the "main task" of the church? To glorify God.

3. Does an assembly either engage in formal worship or its real purpose? Or is it possible for an assembly to engage in formal worship without being distracted from its real purpose and main task as those terms are understood by Bro. Hyles? I believe it is possible to do both. Hyles was an unapologetic decisionist who loved nothing more than a full altar.

4. Is the "main task" of the church to carry out the Great Commission? It is an important commandment--Hyles thought the Great Commission was to get as many people to "1-2-3 pray after me" as possible. He had no concept of the real commission found in Matthew 28.

5. Is the Great Commission properly defined as "soul winning"? No. The Great Commission is to make disciples--soul winning falls way short of obedience to this command.

6. Is it the role of the pastor to motivate the assembly to go soul winning? No.

7. Is Biblical worship always private and never public? If it is real in private it will overflow into our corporate worship. Hyles told fantastic stories about his personal "worship" but then trashed corporate worship--this is part of what convinces me that they were many times trumped up just to "motivate" the masses.

I would appreciate it if someone here would take me to task on these answers--let's be honest about this topic and discuss it. Did Hyles have a point about NT worship? What do you think the early church's services looked like?

Matthew

BeckyJoie said...

My understanding was that early church services were strong in the prayer and worship part of the service, and preaching/bible teaching/ study were included as well as discipleship. Read Acts.

I also recall Jesus being angry that church had turned into a circus. He said it was suppose to be a house of prayer.

Oh, and by the way, I never read about Jesus' disciples sticking their foot in the threshold of a door to make people listen to them while they were "soulwinning". I saw this alot in Foster Club and Bus Ministry.

I agree that public worship is a result of private worship, however, I'm sure there are some that put on a front in public like the Pharisee in Jesus' day. You can usually tell this by the way they look around or announce to others what they are doing. I'm afraid this was common practice at HAC coupled with a statement such as: "I don't usually talk about this, if I had wanted to, I could have talked about this sooner, but wanting to be humble, I didn't tell you but..."and then came the boastful story.

Last point: I believe the term worship goes far beyond the church service but means all the service, prayer, singing, daily living that we do with the attitude of giving it to the Lord. Perhaps this seems broad, but when we give our lives as a living sacrifice, we are no longer our own and are in the service of the Lord to worship Him in everything. Just my opinion.

PT Barnum said...

Becky,

I couldn't agree more. Reminds me of what John MacArthur said in his book, "The Ultimate Priority": "Worship is to the Christian life what the mainspring is to a watch, what the engine is to a car. It is the very core, the most essential element. Worship cannot be isolated or relegated to just one place, time, or segment of our lives. We cannot verbally thank and praise God while living lives of selfishness and carnality. That kind of effort at worship is a perversion. Real acts of worship must be the overflow of a worshiping life."

Style over substance and quantity over quality is the FBCH creed.

Matthew

Joshua R said...

It is true. It was always dogmatically stated at HAC that worship was to be private and not corporate. What Biblical proof was given for this? None---Biblical proof was unnecessary.

Mike Hess said...

This focus on worship has been great! Unfortunately, many Christians fail to understand that worship is much more than music styles during our services in church, it is our life. After all, we will become what we worship.

What is so sad about all of this is the fact that while I was under Hyles' spell, my understanding of worship was centered around Hyles himself. That is rather sad and pathetic. My worship was only as good as the number of "converts" that I had down the aisle that were coerced into praying the fabricated "sinner's prayer" on the streets of Chicago. This was another scheme that Hyles used to promote himself and his empire.

James Spurgeon said...

More evidence that Hyles and his branch of fundamentalism were apostate. Imagine telling people they are NOT supposed to be worshipping God - in Church! Corporate worship an enemy of soulwinning? What a maroon!

Remo said...

More evidence that Hyles and his branch of fundamentalism were apostate. Imagine telling people they are NOT supposed to be worshipping God - in Church! Corporate worship an enemy of soulwinning? What a maroon!

James,

In what sense do you refer to that "branch" as Apostate. I fail to properly appreciate the correlation.

Apostate \A*pos"tate\, n.
[L. apostata]

1. One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to which he before adhered; sp., one who has forsaken his religion for another; a pervert; a renegade.

2. (R. C. Ch.) One who, after having received sacred orders,
renounces his clerical profession.

Apostate \A*pos"tate\, a.
Pertaining to, or characterized by, apostasy; faithless to
moral allegiance; renegade.

So spake the apostate angel. --Milton.

A wretched and apostate state. --Steele.

PT Barnum said...

Remo,

I see your point. Couple of questions for you: What would you call Hyles' teaching on worship? Do you agree that corporate worship is an enemy of soulwinning? BTW, although I would not have used the word, "apostate", I was drawn to the word, "renegade", in two of the definitions. Hyles definitely liked to play the role of "renegade" and did so in many of the personal stories he shared. Do you believe FBCH is apostate concerning the KJV issue?

Matthew

BeckyJoie said...

How about his belief in the Lordship of Christ being unnecessary, along with no repentance for salvation. What about his belief in the eternal humanity of Jesus? These are certainly apostate doctrines in comparison to what most consider to be orthodox for fundamentalist Christianity.

Let's look at the first definition of apostate which you quoted.

1. One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to which he before adhered; sp., one who has forsaken his religion for another; a pervert; a renegade.

He forsook his party to form his own sect of fundamentalism, branding his former fellows as neo-evangelical. Ie. In chapel I heard Jack Hyles call other ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian colleges "Satan University". He also allowed, nee' encouraged the school representative to act out a parody ridiculing Bob Jones University with skits from a character called "Bubba Jones". It was meant to be funny but also to poke fun and make Bob Jones look stupid.

He perverted many basic doctrinal concepts with his own redefinition of them. For instance, I heard him preach a sermon on separation which said that the church should always take the place of your family and that you should have no recreation (life)outside of the church. He also allowed female students from his college to substitute his name in the song "O How I Love Jesus". (I heard that with my own ears and saw him glowing from the admiration.) There are more examples but here you have enough to comprehend the level and types of perversion.

So in every aspect, the former definition fit.

Remo said...

M.R. said>>>>>

"Remo,

I see your point. Couple of questions for you: What would you call Hyles' teaching on worship? Do you agree that corporate worship is an enemy of soulwinning? BTW, although I would not have used the word, "apostate", I was drawn to the word, "renegade", in two of the definitions. Hyles definitely liked to play the role of "renegade" and did so in many of the personal stories he shared. Do you believe FBCH is apostate concerning the KJV issue?
"

In you initial post you danced all around your definition of public or corporate worship, you told what you think Hyles' definition was, but never really specified exactly what you meant by the term. Do you lift up "holy hands" and speak in foreign languages? Do you mean some kind of feel-good experience that makes you all tingley? I doubt that you do those things and realize I am being slightly absurd with with these queries, but in doing so, feel like they fit right in with the other slightly exaggerated scenarios. Could you please clarify your terms?

Beckyjoie's definition was this

"I believe the term worship goes far beyond the church service but means all the service, prayer, singing, daily living that we do with the attitude of giving it to the Lord."

so according to her, FBCH passes the Worship test when they pray and sing hymns.

JohnnyMac said this about Worship:

"Worship on the Lord's Day should be the crowning joy of our week. It's our opportunity to engage our minds toward God. To enjoy His people. To bask in His presence. To corporately drink from His Word. To give of our talents and resources. To encourage and to be encouraged. To offer praise."

Are you contending that FBCH does none of those things? Perhaps not to your satisfaction, however to deny that at least some of these events happen in Hammond on a weekly basis is ludicrous.

M.R. said:

"What would you call Hyles' teaching on worship? Do you agree that corporate worship is an enemy of soulwinning?"

It all depends upon what the specific definition of 'Formal Worship' is. Must one have a robed choir in order to Worship God properly? I enjoy expository preaching, but is a properly constructed, biblical topical sermon any less worshipful? Was Hyles merely eschewing the formalism of Catholocism with his rejection of formality? I know it is rude to answer a question with a question, but I believe they are valid or at least semi-valid points.

M.R. said>

"Do you believe FBCH is apostate concerning the KJV issue?

In the past 5 years I have not heard the pre 2001 emphasis on the KJ Translation of the Scriptures and I strongly suspect that Schaap is KJVP, but is "handcuffed." I was taught years ago by my BJU Pastor, Glen Lockwood (now of Trinity Baptist Church, Muncie, IN)that 'the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible in the original autographs' and I have never strayed from that belief. On the other hand I use the KJ translation of the Scriptures almost exclusively (other than looking up definitions of archaic words, like this morning in the Psalms, the word "leasing" was read and that was kinda unclear)I believe that in thirteen years, I heard the message on the perfect or good seed of the "KJB" exactly one time. (Not counting special speakers such as the fruitloop Al Lacey who the Kenster promotes moreso than FBCH)I do not agree with KJVOnlyism, but would not go so far as to say that those who adhere to this belief are apostates. In the strict sense of the word, (as you and anyone else who is not clueless or ignorant knows), Hyles did abandon his prior belief.

BeckyJoie said...

Remo,
My problem with Hyles' KJV onlyism is not the preference of the KJV but Hyles' statement that one could not be saved using another version, thus making the KJV the savior in essense instead of Christ. That is apostate, in my view. Although you say you have not heard KJV-onlyism in the past five years, have you heard one statement of denial of this belief? And how many of Hyles-birthed churches still believe this?

Also, while I agree that some of what is done at HAC and FBC would "fall" into the category of worship, I regret that some of it also would "fall" under the category of worship of the wrong object/ person. (At least while I was there)

Furthermore, I don't believe many present day churches are what Christ meant them to be in the NT when He said His Father's house was to be a house of prayer. I think one of the pre-eminent things in the church gatherings was suppose to be prayer. In other words, prayer was not an incidental thing in the program ie., Two hymns and a prayer, two points and a poem followed by an altar call and another short prayer. I think that prayer was a larger part of the service just like in the book of ACTS. Preaching/ Teaching appears to have been as important. ( BTW, Do you ever recall a PRAYER meeting being held at FBC or HAC?)

As far as "feel-good" worship: here I have to laugh so hard. Now, we are getting into subjective issues, as one's interpretation may be based on their denominational leaning. Let me follow your example and answer a question with some questions. Then I will expound on my view. Are there verses in the Bible which suggest raising your hands and feeling good while you worhip is wrong? No, quite the opposite, but have there been people who worship worship and make it all about the feelings and a show of their spirituality? Yes. The objective of worship is to give God glory and praise, not to feel good or put on a show. Feeling good happens as a side effect of focusing on God. Here are some examples of joy and peace due to being in God's presence. Psalm 16:11, Isaiah 26:3, Rom. 14:17 (But I say that joy and peace are even more than a good feelings. They are a frame of mind. That is because God is always in our presence, but when we are aware of it, we can be joyful.) Can you feel good while singing a hymn or worship/ praise chorus? Absolutely! Is that your objective? No! The sad thing is when either type of music (hymns or choruses) becomes ritualistic as a part of worship. We are told to worship God in spirit and in truth. That is the tricky part for people who call only the music or the teaching worship. There needs to be a balance and there needs to be time in the worship service to worship God with all your heart, soul and mind/ heart, soul, and strength.Mark 12:30, Matthew 22:37.
Worship of the Lord should be intelligent (ie., expository Scriptural teaching AND (not or) doctrinally sound topical STUDY), it should be heart felt, perhaps even stirring the emotions (psalms, hymns AND spiritual songs) and it should be physical (ORDERLY and biblically correct physical expressions allowed.) It should also produce fruit in our daily lives and not just be an experience or a routine as part of a corporate schedule. (Galatians talks about the fruit of the Spirit.)

Now to the topic of "formal worship": I heard Jack preach on the topic when I was there. It seemed to me that he was decrying the phoniness of pomp and circumstance of some churchs' corporate traditional worship but at the same time, had some of his own brand of it in his own services. He opposed the ornamentation of church buildings, the choir and the preacher, but yet, in practice he embraced it in his own church in other ways as did his followers. Compared to alot of churches, FBC is quite ornamental. (Whether or not ornamentation of a building is wrong, that is another lengthy topic.)

Also, he mentioned instances of his own private worship, telling stories of conversations he and God or the Holy Spirit had, showing us what HE was calling worship. To me, it sounded like he not only opposed "formality" but also opposed personally intimate worship in the public realm.

I hope it was ok for me to give my opinion. I know that you were not addressing it to me, but I felt it ok since you used my definition of worship, too.

Fundamentally Reformed said...

Here is my take on Jim's questions. (Sorry I tend to be rather long in my responses, but I hope this clarifies rather than obscures my meaning.)

1. What is "formal" worship? I would describe this as the public, formal, coorporate worship of the church. In the OT this was the public worship that David organized with Levitical choirs, and etc. surrounding the Temple. Heb. 2:12 referring to Jesus says "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise." Since the NT Church is described as a Temple (Eph. 2:21 and cf. Acts 15:15-17/Amos 9:11-112), it follows that such public worship would transpire in the assembly. In 1 Cor. 14, hymns are described as being part of the service. Further, the unbelieving one who might happen to attend the a Biblically correct service would fall on his face and "worship God and declare that God is really among you." (14:25) Now it is true that Jesus took the emphasis off of the place of worship, and put it to the believer's heart Jn. 4:21-24. But since the church is the people of God, it is reasonable to expect that some form of public worship of God would happen when the church convenes.

2. What is the "real purpose" of the assembly or the "main task" of the church? I would have to agree that as far as the NT pattern goes, the main purpose of assemblying is not strictly to worship God. Now this is not to say we should answer the confessional question "What is the chief end of man?" any differently than "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever". That is our personal main purpose. But the main purpose of the assembly is to edify and encourage one another coorparately; The assembly (the meaning of the Greek word translated church) assembles to be built up by the word both through the public teaching/preaching ministry of the church and by the interpersonal edifying of believers by other fellow believers. I Cor. 14 teaches that everything from tongues (only with interpretations and perormed according to the rules given in 1 Cor. 14) to lessons/teaching, prophecies, and hymns is to be done "for building up" (ie. edification)--see vs. 26. The goal of prophecy in the church (the forth-telling of a message God brings to mind, not strictly a fore-telling of future events) is that "all may learn and all be encouraged"--vs. 31. Heb. 10:24-25 mentions that neglecting the meeting together of the assembly results in not being encouraged or edified. I would urge you to check out a post I did concerning the "one-another" aspect of the church which covers in detail this often neglected duty of encouraging and exhorting of believers by fellow believers in the church--you can find that post here.

3. Does an assembly either engage in formal worship or its real purpose? Or is it possible for an assembly to engage in formal worship without being distracted from its real purpose and main task as those terms are understood by Bro. Hyles? I think the "either/or" idea is wrong. Why not "both/and"?

4. Is the "main task" of the church to carry out the Great Commission? Actually I would agree with this, sort of. In the Greek, the only verb in the Great commission is "make disciples". The command shows you how to make disciples. The idea is "while going" or "having gone" "make disciples of all nations" by "baptizing" and "teaching them to observe everything I commanded you". The how of the "make disciples" is "baptizing and teaching". I think the "teaching" part is a lifelong commitment. We partner with others and teach them and encourage them to obey everything God has commanded. We are to be followers of Christ--disciples. We live in this world as a called out body of believers who are involved in exhorting one another, and in reaching out to the lost through evangelism and missions. This evangelism and missions in no way opposes exhorting and encouraging fellow believers, rather it serves that calling. One million decisions is not the goal--one million (or whatever number God grants--1 Cor. 3:5-7) disciples is the goal.

5. Is the Great Commission properly defined as "soul winning"? No, see above.

6. Is it the role of the pastor to motivate the assembly to go soul winning? Pastors are to "equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood..." (Eph. 4:12-13) Is motivation part of that? Perhaps. But clearly teaching the word and sound doctrine is--1 Tim. 5:17. The goal should be building up the flock so that they do not need motivation from without to obey Christ's commands.

7. Is Biblical worship always private and never public? The examples of the church's gatherings in Acts show public prayer--which is clearly worshipful. Eph. 5:19 stresses that Christian music is both "to the Lord"--worship, and "addressing one another"--public. I quoted Heb. 2:12 before, this was done after the Lord's Supper--"they sang a hymn and went out to the Mount of Olives". That Supper was clearly prescriptive for the NT Church to follow. Public hymn singing as worship to God clearly is a pattern set for the NT Church to follow.

BeckyJoie said...

Fundamentally Reformed,

I agree. You've articulated it well.

Joshua R said...

Remo,
IMO, silence on the KJVO subject by the current pastor of FBCH is not acceptable. Yes, he is the son-in-law of Hyles. Nevertheless, if FBCH would have others to believe that they are trying to take a more balanced, orthodox approach regarding the scriptures, they MUST clearly proclaim their position---as recently as two years ago at HAC, the KJVO position was emphatically taught in Bible Doctrines class. This needs to change.

Lets take this discussion to the comments section of "Phooey on the theologians!" shall we?

PT Barnum said...

Remo: Do you lift up "holy hands" and speak in foreign languages? Do you mean some kind of feel-good experience that makes you all tingley? Could you please clarify your terms?

MCR: I have not nor have I seen anyone at our church speaking in other languages. I am not speaking of tingley feelings but more so some of the benefits of a more formal worship service than Hyles' brand of fundyism employs. I think it is comical when Hyles bashes formalism and paints it with a broad brush--he used to regularly criticize FBCH from the pre-Hyles era--I would have felt right at home in that church! God is holy and our worship ought to be reverent and not man-centered and flippant.

Remo: Are you contending that FBCH does none of those things? Perhaps not to your satisfaction, however to deny that at least some of these events happen in Hammond on a weekly basis is ludicrous.

MCR: No I am not saying that FBCH never does anything right--I think that even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while--just kidding. I enjoyed great fellowship and encouragement at FBCH, but it did seem like it was hard to focus on worship when so much of what went on was so glib and silly.

Remo: It all depends upon what the specific definition of 'Formal Worship' is. Must one have a robed choir in order to Worship God properly? I enjoy expository preaching, but is a properly constructed, biblical topical sermon any less worshipful? Was Hyles merely eschewing the formalism of Catholocism with his rejection of formality? I know it is rude to answer a question with a question, but I believe they are valid or at least semi-valid points.

MCR: You don't need a robed choir or pastor to worship--I believe that true worship is a way of life and not just done at church--it must start in private and overflow into our lives and churches. Our church has a robed choir and I think it takes the focus off of what so and so is wearing and makes everyone uniform and more focused on glorifying the LORD--I would never be dogmatic about that issue. I know what Hyles was trying to say--the early church was not formal and FBCH is not formal so therefore his type of "Fundyism" was just like the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem! Nothing wrong with an occasional well-constructed topical sermon in context and without silly personal illustrations. However, when that is the habit rather than the norm Christ-centered worship falls to the wayside and man-centered gimmickry begins to thrive. I would love to believe that Hyles was just going after the Catholics on this one, but I have reason to believe otherwise. In his book on the Church he goes into great detail about how the only churches doing the job for God these days were the fundies who came out of the SBC--Hyles, Roberson, etc... He bashes the fundamentalists who broke away from the ABC and claims they are formal and non-soulwinning. You questions are extremely valid and I hope you keep asking them--sometimes I get carried away and need to be called on the carpet.

Remo: In the past 5 years I have not heard the pre 2001 emphasis on the KJ Translation of the Scriptures and I strongly suspect that Schaap is KJVP, but is "handcuffed." I was taught years ago by my BJU Pastor, Glen Lockwood (now of Trinity Baptist Church, Muncie, IN)that 'the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible in the original autographs' and I have never strayed from that belief.

MCR: I want to commend you for not changing like FBCH did--KJVOnlyism is such a dangerous and wickedly divisive issue. It has torn apart churches all across the fruited plain and needs to be smothered. I pray that what you say about KJVO at FBCH is true--I am working on a letter right now to address this issue and ask Pastor Schaap what his stance truly is. I am not one of those who thinks it matters whether or not FBCH retracted the "perfect seed" foolishness--I believe that even those who do not ascribe to this level of the KJVO error are still dead wrong on the translation issue.

Remo: I heard the message on the perfect or good seed of the "KJB" exactly one time.

MCR: I heard it a couple of times and then at HAC this was the main focus for a solid year--did you ever hear Hyles' sermon on someone's feet in his drinking water? Ken has it up on his baptist city site.

Matt

Remo, what do you believe to be the "main job" of a church?

Joshua R said...

Remo,

I immediately noticed a more worshipful atmosphere in church after leaving FBC for DBC. No more of the flippant "pep rally" sermons, etc. Pastor Atkinson was determined to expound upon the Scriptures and leave his personal opinions behind. The difference I think has to do with the view we have of God. Hyles and co. have always had a very pragmatic view of the LORD.

Needless to say, DBC was much like a breath of spring to this life-long Hammond-ite. :) Our current church makes Christ-centered worship a priority also. Here is a link: http://www.heritagebiblechurch.org/

Josh

BeckyJoie said...

Sounds like a nice church, Josh!

Mike Y said...

Without posting my lengthy list of responses, I'll comment on two of the questions. First, the purpose of the church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. As such it is to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.

Now, as to the Great Commission, I believe HAC/FBCH couldn't be further off. In both Matt and Mark, the word translated "Go" is an aorist participle (poreuthentes), not an aorist or even present imperitive. Properly translated, it means having gone. The aorist imperitive in Matt 28:19 is mathetusate (disciple). And in Mark, it's karuxate (preach).

The disciples were left with a command to preach and to disciple others in all the things they were taught and witnessed. Teaching folks how to get someone lost at the door and then pray a prayer isn't what the disciples learned from Jesus. I also fail to get that from any of the epistles.


-Mike

James Spurgeon said...

Remo, what I meant is that whatever Hyles and FBCH might have been at one time, what they were at his death was apostate Christianity. They proclaimed enough heresy, imo, that they were more cult than Christian.

That's what I meant.

James Spurgeon said...

It doesn't matter what one's definition of corporate worship is or what should take place there. That's beside the point. The point is that Hyles said it should not be done because it was an ENEMY of soul winning. Hyles had pep rallies, not worship services.

And, in case you missed it earlier, Hyles was apostate.

Remo said...

J.S. said:

It doesn't matter what one's definition of corporate worship is or what should take place there. That's beside the point. The point is that Hyles said it should not be done because it was an ENEMY of soul winning. Hyles had pep rallies, not worship services.

Actually it DOES matter, you are misquoting Hyles IMHO in the fact that he eschewed "Formal Worship" which does not in the least preclude 'corporate worship.' I contend and can testify that corporate worship takes place on a weekly basis, regardless of whether you agree with the methodology or not.

And, in case you missed it earlier, Hyles was apostate.

Speak up, sonny?????

8-)