"Amazed" your attitude needs a check
|August 13 2008, 12:44 AM |
Is it really necessary to tell people that they're "morons" and to "get a life" because their opinions differ from yours? In doing so, you invalidate your otherwise reasonable opinion with the spirit of hatred and contempt.
Slaps Jesus in the Face.
|May 4 2007, 9:39 PM |
First, a thing cannot be Christian unless it is included in "discipling which was to teach the teachings of Jesus Christ." He is the Living Word Who brought the Written Word for our learning and as a MARK to weed out false teachers.
Second, it violates the direct command beginning with the "synagogue" or church in the wilderness, continued for the life of the synagogue, exampled by Jesus, commanded by Jesus in calling the church the EKKLESIA.
It violates the direct command of Paul to "SPEAK" which is opposite to POETRY or POETRY. No poet or musician could even be sent out as a kerusso (preacher) or presbyter to deliver a message from one RULER to another.
It violates the direct command to use THAT WHICH is written defined as SCRIPTURE because Jesus is THE Teacher when we "teach that which has been taught."
It violates the STYLE because "melody as tunefulness belongs to the 19th century" and PSALLO or melody has NO musical connection: it draws the line between the perverted marketplace and the ekklesia so that singers or dancers would be MARKED with a red polluted mark as second class in the ekklesia.
It violates what any simple simon knew who could read for almost 400 years.
It violates the PATRIARCHAL image of God because you did NOT make music to a MALE "god" but ONLY to the goddesses where the "musical worship ministers" were perverted and emasculated: sure, they even did sex change operations to make the minister BRING IN MORE TITHES AND OFFERINGS.
Like ALL of the "music" passages in the whole Bible it says to God: "Shut your face: we WILL NOT hear your words." Your self-praise song PROVES it.
History knew that "only females and effeminate males fell into it" (and came out stinking." One church father noted that if a male sang and played:
He was DRUNK
He was PERVERTED
or He was "just making fun."
I say that the Babylonian "praise singing" involves not-quite males DRUNK ON IGNORANCE, quite happy to wear the PERSONA of a pervert and ALWAYS mocking God just for fun and prophet.
So what do we have? You have the church of the Mother of Harlots (Zoe) who uses music and USES MUSICIANS as SORCERERS who HAD deceived the whole world. Because the TAIL ties back to the head where SATAN the "musical enchanter" DECEIVED Eve in a sexual sense according to Paul.
So, the CIRCLE (Circe or Circus) or church WILL NOT BE BROKEN and Lucifer "the singing and harp playing prostitute" and all He / She / It could seduce will be DRIVEN into the burning pit with WIND, STRING and PERCUSSION instruments.
It is a PERFECT MATCH for the Abomination of Desolation which brought idolatry, music, sex and homosexuality into the Holy Place as a type of the Church. Under the Jews a singer or musician who entered the Holy Place would be run through with a sword and tossed on the bed of maggots and everlasting fires.
In The Book of Enoch and many parallel accounts, the LAUGHING is a mark of those who having been warned have been seduced by the Cainites into wine, women and song. And having falling, will never get back up as Hebrews 6 etc makes clear.
I wish I was wrong...
|May 7 2007, 2:46 AM |
Well, it wasn't Whore of Babylon by Ken, and Bill proving yet another praise song was evil. Instead Ken's babbling was about Mother of Harlots and Bill was trying to make improvements to probably the most cherished English hymn of all time.
So, Bill, if Amazing Grace isn't good enough for you, can you mention one song that is acceptable to you. I'm not going to go down your pigeon hole about mentioning God, Jehovah, etc...namely because there are many praise songs that do that. Amazed listed one, I could probably add about 100 or more. Steven Curtis Chapman, probably the most successful CCM artist of all time, has profound lyrics in some (not all) of his songs. I mentioned "Free" which was written about a real visit to a prison where he met a prisoner who found Christ while behind bars. "Remember your chains" is another lyric rich song. There are numerous others.
Let me know if I am mistaken, but my impression of this thread was that Praise Songs are evil/misguided/bad. Some posts may take a different flavor but isn't the general idea is that by and large you believe the genre is evil? The point I was trying to make about my tragic experience is that what you consider evil I consider a God-send. Bill (and Ken and Donnie for that matter), I really feel you are taking a very myopic view of things and are more interested in arguing for argument sake rather than carrying on a real dialog. If you think Amazed and myself are wrong, are your responses an attempt at convincing us of the error of our ways?
Finally, how in the world can you view encouraging you to help the neediest of the needy a personal attack? I have been on the mission field for short periods of time and can tell you how much it has opened my eyes to God, my sin, the Great Commission, and the needs of poorest of the poor. It gives you a perspective that is hard to come by without leaving the states. My only reason for mentioning it was that I felt blessed by the experience and believed that you would be as well. For you to view this as a personal attack speaks volumes about the myopic view I mentioned earlier.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Re: I wish I was wrong...
|May 8 2007, 10:44 AM |
The problem with TMP is that s/he takes my one criticism of "Amazing Grace" (suffers from a lot of personal pronouns) and expands that into saying I can't find one song that is "acceptable" to me. That is not only hyperbole, it is not true. TMP further claims that I and perhaps all of the regulars here think that ALL praise music is bad/evil. That is also not true.
What we did was to show that the praise song "Strong Tower" has flaws--it is incredibly self-centered and it doesn't mention God even once. Yet TMP immediately jumps on that and claims that I have condemned ALL praise music, when TMP knows that such a claim is utterly false.
I advocate that praise music be less self-centered, for we know that many (but not all) of today's praise music has a tendency to stress the "Me Me Me" and less of God. There's nothing wrong with having personal pronouns in a praise song, just as long as they do not swamp and overshadow any references to God and His worship.
And I'll reiterate: What did TMP's previous statement that I should practice medicine in Africa have to do with the discussion at the time that songs with references to Jehovah don't sell? TMP changed the subject in mid stream. S/he just threw it in out of the blue. Ladies and gentlemen of the gallery, I submit that it was done because TMP knew I hit the nail on the head about a lot of the praise music today, and that angered TMP. Unable to counter my argument with anything sane and sensible, TMP decided to throw in a personal attack, subtle of course: I should go to Africa to practice medicine because it'll give me a better perspective on life. And if I do, then according to TMP's logic, I'm supposed to see that praise songs stressing the "Me Me Me" instead of God are acceptable? That's like saying I should buy an apple to fix a flat tire. There's no logic in that at all, because personal attacks, even subtle, are not based on logic, but anger and hatred.
Re: Re: Mentioning Jehovah does not sell
|May 7 2007, 1:23 PM |
This is in response to your earlier post in regard to the topic I first suggested that mentioning Jehovah does not sell.
He Bore It All was not popularized by a Christian Hot Rock artist
to my knowledge, and it cannot be associated with self-centeredness as it does not deal with self apart from the sacrifice of the Savior on the cross of Calvary. It does not portray self-praise that has to remind the Lord of: Look at me Lord, see how much I love youdont forget that.
I assure you that there will be some [not many] of the contemporary songs that will hopefully be included in the hymnbooksif the hymnbooks are not in themselves on the way to extinction. If Lamb of God and Blessed Be the Name truly express and magnify the Lordand, of course, many times titles are cleverly worded until the lyrics are carefully examinedthat hopefully they will be remembered and sung as hymns that teach and admonish each other.
I understand the difficulty you went through in the past and that Shout to the Lord has helped you through difficult times. Ive heard this song quite a bit [but dont remember all the words]. If I recall, while the Lord is magnified, there is some hint of forever Ill love you expressed in the song; and my opinion is that this may be OK when sung personally as that is simply your own promise to the Savior. [I would have preferred the expression of I need you and will need you constantly, Lord.] There is also a test of whether this song is sing-able by the congregation. If the congregation has difficulty singing it and expects a SOLOIST or the Praise Team to perform it for the congregants, then, there is that issue about performance.
There is a lot of truth to Jehovah doesnt sell, and the expression strong tower alone does not disqualify the song but again must be examined in conjunction what the rest of the lyrics that praise self that much. No, I am not a physician; and I understand what youre trying to say about changing perspectives resulting from real experiences in difficult situations. But were speaking here of Contemporary Christian Rock Music passing the biblical screen tests.
Re: Re: Mentioning Jehovah does not sell
|May 7 2007, 7:39 PM |
Thanks for the response. I understand your point of view. My point is that Christian songs written today will reflect the current music of the day as they always have. Most will not pass the test of time. Amazing grace was written in the 1770's and my guess is that our songbook may have one or two songs from that decade. I believe the most of the objections to praise songs are more knee-jerk to anything new than having any real basis in scripture. There are many songs that are sung in conservative churches that have much less scriptural basis than a good many praise songs that would never even be considered...and might cause a split if they were.
I don't know any praise songs that are not doctrinally sound...i.e. go contrary to scripture. They may be doctrinally weak, but does every song have to preach the 5 steps of salvation. Isn't there room for "Have a little talk with Jesus" (or a modern equivalent)...or do we have to sing "Trust and Obey" every time?
Being red, white, and blue, heterosexual men, it may be hard to stomach the "love" aspects to some of these songs. Of course there are numerous texts in the New Testament that talks about the church being the bride of Christ...so even if it is uncomfortable, it is scriptural.
Even though this thread is about CCM, a lack of perspective is a common thread through nearly every topic discussed here. We fight and feud over really trivial stuff when there is so much real work needs to be done. I limit myself on this site simply because it could consume me as well. Satan wants to keep us distracted.
FYI here are the lyrics to Shout to the Lord:
My Jesus, my Savior, Lord, there is none like You;
All of my days I want to praise the wonders of Your mighty love.
My comfort, my shelter, tower of refuge and strength;
Let ev'ry breath, all that I am, never cease to worship You.
Shout to the Lord, all the earth, let us sing
Power and Majesty, praise to the King;
Mountains bow down and the seas will roar
At the sound of Your name.
I sing for joy at the work of your hands,
Forever I'll love You, forever I'll stand
Nothing compares to the promise I have in You.
Before you make it Bill, the personal pronoun argument just doesn't hold water. In that case, we should throw out Psalm 23 since it has 17 me, my or I's in 6 verses.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
|May 8 2007, 2:39 AM |
Is "Anon." trying to imply that that Psalm 23 is self-centered, and that all "Christian" songs should have lots and lots of "Me Me Me"? I'm surprised that "Anon." didn't bother to count all the references to God in Psalm 23:
"Lord," "his," "he," "thou," and "thy" occur 12 times in 6 verses. The Psalm immediately credits everything to the Lord, and all the other non-personal pronouns that follow refer to Him, no one else.
At least 9 other attributes of the Lord are mentioned in that Psalm: shepherd, leader, restorer, always protective, comforter, provider, One who anoints, goodness, mercy. The Psalm is worded such that there can be no mistake about whom the psalmist is speaking, unlike some contemporary songs that fail to mention God even once, while shouting "Me Me Me" ad infinitum.
So all in all, Psalm 23 contains 21 references to God, compared to 17 personal pronouns. There's nothing wrong with a Christian song having personal pronouns as such, as long they don't vastly swamp and overshadow the references and praise to God. Compare the references to, or attributes of, God found in Psalm 23 or in "Amazing Grace" with the absence of definitive references to God in "Strong Tower." We've already discussed how the latter song is just too vague and generic in its treatment of God, let alone its incredible self-centeredness.
Billy is a hypocrite
|May 8 2007, 3:18 PM |
Hey Bill, I think the title says enough about your double standards and how what you (not God) don't like is wrong, but we're not allowed to use the same logic you used. "Lord" can be any number of people, of course we know it's God but if you didn't know who God was then you'd be completely thrown off. You sing praises to God because you know Him, if you don't know him then the song doesn't make sense. Before you or blubbering fumbling Kenny try to respond at least take the time to think up a suitable response that's above the 3rd graders ability (which is highly legalistic; i.e. A mom says to a son "I told you not to touch your sister." and the son responds that he only had his finger an inch away. He wasn't touching her, but he was trying to annoy her with the fact that he might) to comprehend.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Return(er) to Sender
|May 9 2007, 12:15 AM |
Is there some reason why "Anon" and "Returner" support modern praise songs that barely mention (or don't mention) God at all? At least, they get so furiously bent out of shape when their pet praise songs get criticized for being so abominably self-centered and so disrespectful of God by not mentioning His name or definitively referring to Him.
Hey, if you're more into the "Me Me Me," that's up to you, and if you're ashamed to sing and listen to songs that boldly exalt the name of God, because your friends might think you're weird and laugh at you, that's also up to you. But if you wanna do the right thing, you and all the other folks who are into praise music can send a message to the writers of the self-centered "hits": boycott their compositions, don't purchase them, and don't support the "Christian" artists who record them until they write and record songs that REALLY give praise to Almighty God, not to some vague phantom.
So what are you really into: Anything remotely "Christian" just as long as it has a good beat and rhythm, or something strongly Christian that's not afraid to proclaim the name of God and the message of salvation through faith and obedience to all that He has commanded us (Matt. 28:20)?
You need to read Psalms Billy
|May 10 2007, 4:43 PM |
You apparently haven't read through the Pslams, Bill, or you might have noticed that some of them have more "I", "me", and "my" parts to them then some of the contemporary songs do.
One More Thing
|May 8 2007, 6:27 PM |
I know, I just had to open my big mouth (metaphorical) and say something else. Why is this even a debate? The people here at www.ihatemychurch.com (alternate spelling of www.concernedmembers.com) obviously don't base their beliefs in scripture. If they did they would be able to see that what they see as "God's Will" is really their own personal opinion. That should be obvious by reading 2 Tim 3:17. You know, that thing about all Scripture being God-breathed? Read that and then you can't ignore Pslam 150, no matter how hard you try, no matter what you come up with, no matter what you say or scheme, if you try to write these off then you are calling Paul a liar when he wrote to Timothy or you are saying the OT doesn't matter at all...which would again be calling Paul a liar. Take your pick of which way you want to completely deface the New Testament while keeping ahold of your personal opinions, because they're obviously more important than the truth.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Just Get It Off Your Chest
|May 9 2007, 12:55 AM |
Returner, I sense that you've got a lot on your heart. You've got a lot of pent-up emotions and anger that needs to be let out. You've started by calling me a "hypocrite," so why stop there? Surely you can do much better than that, can't you? Don't you have some really rip-snortin' "classy" epithets that are just boilin' down there in your heart of hearts that need ventin'? So tell me, Returner, wouldn't you agree that callin' me some rippin' names like "knuckle dragger" (insinuating that I'm an ape) or "Neanderthal" (insinuating that I'm a primitive cave man) or just a plain ole straightforward name like "radical religious idiot" would really make you feel better and just completely make your day?
Now be honest, or you'll brand yourself just as much or worse the "hypocrite" that you accuse me of being.
1st Corinthians 13
|May 9 2007, 12:45 PM |
Please re-read 1st Corinthians 13. These posts definitely do not reflect the love that is referred to in the passage.
So? Want to worship the STARS in Canaanite Baalism?
|May 9 2007, 12:27 AM |
And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol,
and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.
Rising up to PLAY meant singing, dancing and sexual and homosexual PLAY: "The Apis cult dances of Egypt had their equivalent in the Cretan bull dance of about 1400 BC.
Other choral dances that came to Athens from Crete include two dedicated to Apollo [Apollyon]and one in which naked boys simulated wrestling matchesFemale characteristics were stressed in a stately and devout round dance in honour of the gods, performed by choruses of virgins.
This is defined by WORD MEANINGS to be musical idolatry of Apis the golden calf representing the Egyptian trinity. That is what David did when he PLAYED with the camp following girls and MADE HIMSELF VILE.
Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven;
as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel,
have ye offered to me slain beasts and
sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Acts 7:42
Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the STAR of your god Remphan,
figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
Acts 7:43Our fathers had the tabernacle of WITNESS in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses,
that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Acts 7:44
Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus [Joshua] into the possession of the Gentiles,
unto the days of David; Acts 7:45WHO
found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle [witness] for the God
of Jacob. Acts 7:46
Solomon built him an house
HOWBEIT the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet.
what house will ye build me? saith the Lord:
or what is the place of my rest? Acts 7:49
Hath not my hand made all these things?
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,
ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Now, you will understand that when the loud NOISE--never called Music--sounded when the Ark of the Covenant was taken into the Most Holy place,God SHUT DOWN THE TEMPLE so that the priests COULD NOT SERVE. This REMOVED ready access to the symbol of God's PRESENCE and access to the WORD once under the Mercy Seat.
Not to worry: the people CAST OUT of the gates during this EXORCISM prayed directly to GOD and GOD answered from HEAVEN. So, I GUESS that David didn't have God trapped in the Ark of the covenant and God never LIVED in a house built by human hands.Now, you will remember that TEMPORARILY God abandoned them to WORSHIP THE STARRY HOST but this was ON THE WAY to Captivity and Death in Assyria and Babylon for the TRANSGRESSION of MUSICAL IDOLATRY of the pagan trinity.
Now because the Levitical Warrior Musicians served (hard bondage) the KING and the COMMANDERS OF THE ARMY who served under the STAR OF DAVID, it should NOT be surprised that a Star Worshipper would want to worship in the FIRMAMENT.
So? You REALLY want to return to Canaanite Baalism? Do you REALLY want to be INTIMIDATED by the Warrior "kings" and their new Levitical Warrior Musicians so that they can LIE about every Biblical passage about music and all other known evidence and PICK YOUR POCKETS like "ole bloody hands, David?"
Besides, ALL of the instruments in Psalm 150 except the SHOFAR--because it was NOT a musical instrument--were abandoned when the temple was destroyed. ALL of them have roots in Satan, prostitutes or Warriors and David WAS the warrior king with whom the elders REPLACED God.
I am quite certain that the INTENTIONAL SOWERS OF DISCORD intending to lie TO God and ABOUT God gather specificially to LAUGHT at the silly lambs they have fleeced. I can assure you that NOT a one of them will GIVE AN ANSWER as long as they have dupes.
You didn't answer my question.
|May 9 2007, 2:33 PM |
First of all, you never acknowledged the fact that I destroyed every aspect of your arguement against playing music for worship purposes being unbiblical. Second of all, I've really got nothing against you other than the fact that you are hypocritical in your arguments, you know using your crazy double standards the way you like to do. But other than that I've got nothing against you. And Kenny...what?
Its about that ROCK in Contemporary Christian Rock Music
|May 10 2007, 4:24 PM |
Its not about just any of the contemporary Christian songssome of which may PASS the biblical screens mentioned in the original post. Its not about all the hymns in the hymnbooks, eitherfor some of the hymns would FAIL the biblical screens. The one who leads or starts singing should be careful in selecting hymns that meet the scriptural criteria that encourage letting the word of Christ DWELL IN us richly and that teach and admonish one another IN
. Generally speaking, publishers and editors and compilers in the brotherhood have done a fine job of including hymns that are doctrinally soundespecially in past generations, i.e., prior to the postmodern era when the church is being constantly bombarded with culture-driven influences and spiritual-emotional eroticism and entertainment.
The praise songs words and expressions may be doctrinally sound [not to mention the self-centeredness and egotistical elements in them], but when unintelligible o-o-o-o-o or humming is substituted for these words, the performance effect resembles that of the inanimate and lifeless musical instrumentationall of these elements DO NOT teach and admonish, and the word of Christ dwells in poorly.
Its about the ROCK factor with all else that it encompasses that negates the worshipful attitude that a Christian should have in the assembly. Its not about what tickles the nerve endings. Its not about how excellently a SOLOIST or an elite Praise Team performs. Praising can be verbalized or vocalized or be in prayerful delivery when the Christian is all alone. Praising does not even have to be done through singing. [Do you see what Ken Sublett has been constantly reminding us about?] Somehow, professed Christians have gotten the impression that they cant seem to do any praising on their own and by themselves but have to eagerly wait until Sunday to get motivated to praise.
It is sad to see it happening before our eyeswhen the praise service in TV-programming format becomes the focus and reason to assembly. Is this the emotional high that we hear about these days?
Why can't they?
|May 10 2007, 4:34 PM |
Inanimate objects can't be used to priase God? What about (and i know you non-instrumentalists think it's a dead horse, but that's just because it's the only way you can try to get out of the argument) Ps. 150? That aside, I think Jesus told someone once that if the people (on Palm Sunday) didn't praise him that the rocks would cry out. That's just what I remember at the moment. And you're still changing the subject. I was talking about how Billy was a hypocrite using double standards and couldn't really defend himself as the two posts that are needed to show that are on this forum.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
Not Psalm 150 Again?
|May 10 2007, 10:44 PM |
Are you really gonna try to justify instrumental music with Psalm 150 again and again and again? It's an overworked topic, but for your benefit, we will elucidate:
As we cannot serve two masters, God and mammon, we likewise cannot follow two covenants, the Covenant of Moses and the Covenant of Christ; the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Any references to using musical instruments in worship in the Old Testament cannot be carried over and applied to the New Testament, because Christ nailed the Law of Moses to the cross (Col. 2:14). The New Covenant superceded the Old Covenant. The term "Law" has been used to refer to all the books of the Old Testament, not just the Pentateuch or the first five books of Moses. The ancient Jews referred to passages in Ezekiel, Isaiah, Psalms, and Daniel, for example, yet they said, "We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever..." (John 12:34). Paul did the same in Rom. 3:10-19. He cites the "Law" but quotes from Psalms and Isaiah. It is true that on the surface, the Torah or the "Law" refers to the five books of Moses, but in more common usage as seen in the New Testament, the word "Law," by metonymy, includes ALL the books of the Old Testament.
Thus Christians must justify their music in worship based on what is written in the New Testament, not in the Old Testament. The NT authorizes only vocal music (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), not instrumental. Don't dance around with statements like, "If God didn't want us to use instruments in Christian worship, He would have said so." He HAS told us the kind of music to use, and that is vocal music. We cannot supplement or supercede God's commands with our own preferences, for the New Testament commands us not to go above or beyond what is written in Scripture, and that would especially apply to God's commands (1 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:18-19). And also don't dance around with, "Rev. 22:18-19 applies only to the Book of Revelation." If we are commanded not to tamper with Revelation, the same principle applies to ALL books of the Bible. Even the OT had a command not to tamper with God's Word there (Deut. 4:2). God's Word must not be altered or twisted to suit our preferences. Since Christians follow the NT, we must not add instruments to worship, because instruments are not authorized in Christian worship.
Ephesians in Context
|May 11 2007, 10:50 PM |
Dr. Bill wrote:
The NT authorizes only vocal music (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), not instrumental. Don't dance around with statements like, "If God didn't want us to use instruments in Christian worship, He would have said so." He HAS told us the kind of music to use, and that is vocal music.
Dr. Bill...are you speaking of our "worship" time (Sunday am, pm, and Wednesday pm) only? Or our lives 24/7?
Re: Ephesians in Context
|May 12 2007, 11:33 PM |
The New Testament has not specified corporate worship
as it is referred to in the religious world today. I dont agree with that type of reference especially when this type of gathering resembles that which is made-for-TV programming. Now, in John 4, Jesus said that we are to worship the Father in spirit and in truthand worship is the word mentioned in the passagenot corporate worship. In fact, it is painful to think that we would liken the gathering of Christians to that in a business or an entertainment setting.
Having said that, compare that [very much ritualistic] environment to the assembly of the saints in the early New Testament period.
Please note Acts 20:6-7And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
The two key elements that I observe in the above passage are: (a) the breaking of the bread and (b) the study of Gods Word.
I envision the gathering of the saints simply in those terms. The assembly is mentioned in a number of NT passages (James 2:2; Heb. 12:23; etc.). Heb. 10:25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
In answer to your question, I would associate the expression exhorting one another with what is expressed in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. The key points in these verses are to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly and teaching and admonishing one another IN psalms and hymns and spiritual songs. One another implies a gathering unless the only individual present in the assembly is schizophrenic. After all, the assembly, in synagogue pattern, is about a school of the Bible. It is exactly what the doctor orderedlet the word of Christ dwell in you richly; teach and admonish one another.
In essence, I personally would rather spend time praising our Lord alone. I shouldnt have to wait until it is praise service time [what a misnomer] to get my nerve endings tickled and to raise my arms and to clap-clap-clap and applaud and to be entertained.
Worship, like prayer, is a continual processnot necessarily continuous. There is a difference.