# What's Wrong With Solos?



## Chiefmusician (Sep 5, 2007)

After reading several post in this topic I saw many passing comments about how solos=performance etc. So I would like someone to explain something to me.

There is a lot of talk among reformed circles concerning the move away from congregational singing. Their argument is that the seeker movement has turned church music into a spectator event. While this may or may not be true I believe we need to face the fact that congregational singing is not the only singing that God intended for the church. 

Historically the Old Testament reveals a lot to us about the use of individuals with great talent in worship. Men were set aside strictly for the purpose of writing songs of worship and praise to the Lord. These men were extremely gifted in their craft, whether it was playing an instrument or the singing of Psalms. We have no reason to assume these Psalms where always sung by the entire congregation of the temple. We do know for sure that numerous songs were sung by choirs.

What I have discovered about a majority of theologians or theologian wannabes is that they don’t really appreciate musical talent. Oh they recognize talent when they see it, but don’t appreciate it unless it falls into their particular preference of music. In my view they sometimes fail to see the emotional side of music. (many fail to see the emotional side to Christianity) but like Jonathan Edwards said, “yet true religion consists so much in the affections, that there can be no true religion without them. He who has no religious affection, is in a state of spiritual death, and is wholly destitute of the powerful, quickening, saving influences of the Spirit of God upon his heart.”

In reformed camps, if a song is not theologically as deep as Bill Gates pockets, then it is usually written off as not worthy of singing. I find however, a simple song of praise can rightly stir the affections of the soul as much as a great hymn, if it is truly Biblical in its message. There is more to music than its ability to help retain knowledge. One of the purposes of music is to stir the emotions of the heart. If not then why not just read the lyrics. We should choose songs that allow us to attach these emotions to the truth of scripture, but to act as if emotions don't play a part is deny aspects of anthropology. 

I am a singer. I play several instruments, but in my heart I am a singer. I am actually a good singer. I know how that sounds, conceited, right? With the recent American Idol craze I don’t blame you for not taking my word for it. You will just have to assume for the sake of this forum that I know what I am talking about (my singing that is). I have been given the ability to sing well. Most of my congregation has not. When singing a solo I try hard to keep my pride in check, I try to live a life that will glorify God, and try equally hard to sing songs that bring God glory, and sing them in such a way that God is honored. When it comes to congregational singing no one enjoys it more than me. One of my favorite times in a service is when a song has a true corporate voice and I can hear them praising God together as a body of believers, but I also like to sing solos and I life to hear solos.. I believe it is one of the talents God has given me. I also believe that when certain songs are sung by the right individuals our congregation is edified.

There are others maybe in your congregation that have a great talent to sing, but you may never know it. Some may have a great ability to play an instrument. 

I can tell you as a singer that I want to sing. So please, those of you who don’t really even like music don’t begrudge us poor singers the opportunity to share our talents. I believe God likes solos. 

If there should be no solos or instruments tell us poor musicians when and where we are supposed to use these talents to glorify God and edify the body?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2007)

Scott,

Welcome to the board. I enjoy your "Good Ol' Boy" accent on TNM. I have a home in Murrieta. I was telling Gene the other day I had no idea there was a Reformed Southern Baptist plant in my backyard when we lived there from 1999-2003. I'm gratified that the Lord has blessed your congregation.

Are you familiar with the Regulative Principle of Worship? (http://www.solideogloria.com/article/2007/07/10/08.24.57)

What element of worship would a solo fall under in terms of positive command for inclusion in worship?

I think you're confusing the idea of a talent that can be broadly used to glorify God with the idea that every talent ought to be exercised in the worship of God. Some people make the same arguments for dancing, drama, puppets, and mimes in worship as well.

I think one always has to be careful to not make an argument on the basis of a pragrmatism and likes/dislikes. Pragmatism can actually be a gateway to idolatry. The RPW is a very specific guard against that and is a Reformed principle of worship.

There are very accomplished musicians here that use their talents to the Glory of God. They just don't use those talents in worship if they believe that God has not _specifically_ commanded it and has therefore forbidden it.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 5, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> What element of worship would a solo fall under in terms of positive command for inclusion in worship?



Singing.


----------



## Chiefmusician (Sep 5, 2007)

I am familiar with the Regulative Principal, but I fail to see how adhering to the RP negates solos. I don't find drama, puppets or mimes in scripture, but I do find singing.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

Chiefmusician said:


> I am familiar with the Regulative Principal, but I fail to see how adhering to the RP negates solos. I don't find drama, puppets or mimes in scripture, but I do find singing.



Scott,

I appreciate your passion for music. I have it as well. I was a music education major in college. I have sung (solos) since I was in first grade. I have played the piano since I was in 3rd grade. I messed around with bagpipes and guitar (although not at the same time!) I was a music minister for 3 years. So, I understand where you are coming from.

Having been on both sides of the pulpit for many years, I have sympathy to both sides of whether there should be solos or not. To be honest, I don't think it is sinful, or necessarily completely against the RPW to have solos in worship. I just think that it is not the best place for solos. There is too much danger for pride when one person is performing. There is too much possibility for passive watching rather than engaged involvement from the congregation. For involvement in worship, congregational singing is best.

Those are simply my thoughts, not something I would be willing to die for!


----------



## dalecosby (Sep 5, 2007)

> I am familiar with the Regulative Principal, but I fail to see how adhering to the RP negates solos. I don't find drama, puppets or mimes in scripture, but I do find singing.


Are we talking about corporate worship or private worship?
I know the answer, that is an answer in the form of a question.

ANother thing to consider, do you allow women to sing solos?


----------



## dalecosby (Sep 5, 2007)

> I just think that it is not the best place for solos. There is too much danger for pride when one person is performing.


That is what helped me come to the conclusion that I should not be performing solos.
The last time I did a solo was about 2 years ago.

I was totally consumed with performing for the audience the whole time.
The audience seemed to really like it but how was God glorified?
Was I directing the glory to me or God?

I could not in good conscience do that again.
WHen others in our church sing or play specials I do not interfere but I simply do not play them anymore myself.
I should add that I have played literally hundreds of trumpet solos in church.
Church music has been a way of life for 3 generations in my family.
It didn't go over very well when I realized I should stop.


----------



## Greg (Sep 5, 2007)

During a solo (voice or instrumental), are the congregates, for that moment, focused on the Lord or the soloist? 

Excluding the use of soloists during a time when the church's focus should be on the Lord alone has nothing to do with not appreciating talent. Surely God is the giver of all good gifts and talents. And they should be used for His glory. 



> If there should be no solos or instruments tell us poor musicians when and where we are supposed to use these talents to glorify God and edify the body?



As a musician there are plenty of opportunities to use your gift. Is the church setting the only place you sing? Do you compose, record and/or gig? If not, have you considered to do so to the glory of God? J.S. Bach was only one of the countless musicians/composers to commit all of his works to the glory of God.


----------



## dalecosby (Sep 5, 2007)

Many of us have been raised to believe that church was the ultimate place to use our talents as musicians.
I am not sure that is true.

I am a recording engineer and I produce gospel radio program. That is outside public worship an I see no problem with it.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 5, 2007)

John MacArthur pointed out that musical talent is one of the few talents we assume *must* be used within the church: if I have a talent for plumbing or carpentry, I don't conclude it's wasted if I don't build the pulpit or set up sprinklers for the church lawn. Why should I assume my musical talent is wasted unless I regale the congregation with my favorite pieces?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 5, 2007)

I have been a music leader for many years - my experience has lead me to disagree with "solos" in the strictest sense - that is - a single person with some sort of recorded accompaniment. That being said - a vocalist working together with a group of musicians...I can see that being ok...as long as the song is glorifying to God and not the vocalist. Even as I lead - I feel most comfortable that I am not the center of attention by being a component of a group/ensemble. I seriously question anyone that desires the "limelight".


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2007)

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > What element of worship would a solo fall under in terms of positive command for inclusion in worship?
> ...



More specifically, where is the command for a solo to be performed? Corporate singing is an element commanded but solos are not.


----------



## JBaldwin (Sep 5, 2007)

> > Having been on both sides of the pulpit for many years, I have sympathy to both sides of whether there should be solos or not. To be honest, I don't think it is sinful, or necessarily completely against the RPW to have solos in worship. I just think that it is not the best place for solos. _There is too much danger for pride when one person is performing. There is too much possibility for passive watching rather than engaged involvement from the congregation. For involvement in worship, congregational singing is best._[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 5, 2007)

JBaldwin said:


> > > Having been on both sides of the pulpit for many years, I have sympathy to both sides of whether there should be solos or not. To be honest, I don't think it is sinful, or necessarily completely against the RPW to have solos in worship. I just think that it is not the best place for solos. _There is too much danger for pride when one person is performing. There is too much possibility for passive watching rather than engaged involvement from the congregation. For involvement in worship, congregational singing is best._[/QUOTE
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## Chiefmusician (Sep 6, 2007)

*Corporate Singing Commands*



SemperFideles said:


> More specifically, where is the command for a solo to be performed? Corporate singing is an element commanded but solos are not.



Where is corporate singing commanded?


----------



## Chiefmusician (Sep 6, 2007)

*Women singing solos*



dalecosby said:


> Another thing to consider, do you allow women to sing solos?



I am afraid to see where this is going, but yes I would allow a women to sing a solo in church.

Also don't me wrong. I am not looking for the limelight or feel that I have to sing a solo to feel validated. I spent the last two years with very few solos from anyone in our congregation simply for the fact that I felt we need to focus exclusively on the corporate singing. Mainly because so many people coming to our church had come from performance centered churches and needed to be retaught the corporate mindset. I still stress this mindset. My only point was that I believe you will have as hard of a time biblically backing the rejection of solos in church as you will biblically backing no musical instruments in church.


As with anything pride can always be a problem, but that doesn't mean it is automatically bad. I would ask someone with a pride problem to step down from a choir as soon as I would a soloist. 

_John MacArthur pointed out that musical talent is one of the few talents we assume must be used within the church: _ I use my talents outside of church when given opportunity, but the plumber or carpenter comparisons doesn't fit this scenario. I am sure the Emergents have found a way to do it, but you will be hard pressed to find carpentry as part of worship. However, singing and music take up a lot of scripture, and a large portion of our services. So it goes without saying that these talents should be used in church, but my question was a question of degree.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2007)

Chiefmusician said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > More specifically, where is the command for a solo to be performed? Corporate singing is an element commanded but solos are not.
> ...



Are you serious?

Do you believe that the Regulative Principle of Worship governs what is acceptable in worship or not? If not, then we might as well be talking about two different subjects. If you do, then your question would be odd considering you are leading Corporate Singing in violation of God's Will if you do not believe He has commanded the assembly of His people to praise Him with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Chiefmusician said:
> 
> 
> > SemperFideles said:
> ...



Rich, I think what he is getting at is that he doesn't believe that the commands to sing in the New Testament are specifically commands for _corporate_ singing, but can be interpreted broader than that and include both corporate singing, smaller-group singing (i.e. choirs), and solo singing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2007)

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Chiefmusician said:
> ...



Which is why I asked for the _Scriptures_ that command solo singing. I've seen a lot of pragmatic answers and "seems to me" offered. I haven't seen a specific command for the singing of solos (and, No, a Cantor for a Responsorial Song is not a Solo in my estimation). Arguments presented are very subjective above. "Theologian wannabees" like Calvin completely disagree with Scott and offer detailed arguments from Scripture in favor of the Regulative Principle for Worship.

I have seen no arguments presented other than a preference and that singing, in general, is commanded. I disagree. Corporate singing is commanded and not solos.

Prove me wrong - from Scripture - because every one of those "seems to me" or "this works" arguments resounds in my ear like some Ephraimite telling his son why Jerusalem is too far when Bethel is nearby to do the same thing thanks to Jeroboam's foresight.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 6, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Which is why I asked for the exegesis. I've seen a lot of pragmatic answers and "seems to me" offered. I haven't seen a specific command for the singing of solos (and, No, a Cantor for a Responsorial Song is not a Solo in my estimation). Arguments presented are very subjective above. "Theologian wannabees" like Calvin completely disagree with Scott and offer detailed arguments from Scripture in favor of the Regulative Principle for Worship.



The argument revolves around whether "singing" is strictly corporate or if it can include solos as well. The latter does not deny RPW. If Calvin made an argument against solos, you'll have to cite them, because I am not familiar.



SemperFideles said:


> I have seen no arguments presented other than a preference and that singing, in general, is commanded. I disagree. Corporate singing is commanded and not solos.
> 
> Prove me wrong - from Scripture - because, frankly, the argumentation has been pretty facile up to this point.



Rich, you said "corporate singing" is commanded and not solos. Scott is arguing that singing in general is commanded. I haven't seen either of you present a Scripture to argue from, so the accusation applies to both. Perhaps either one of you would like to present an exegesis from scripture to support your argument?


----------



## SEAGOON (Sep 6, 2007)

Hello Scott,

Please understand that I have no desire to beat you or anyone up on this issue, to a great extent it seems that we majoring on minors and this is certainly no hill to fight and die on. I just wanted to offer some thoughts of no great theological depth.

First, I understand your appreciation for a great voice. While I can't carry a tune in a bucket, my wife was classically trained in voice at the Eastman school of music and has one of the most beautiful singing voices I've ever heard. I depend upon her on Sunday mornings, as I listen for her voice in the congregation and strive to follow her lead. When she is in the nursery and we are singing I feel completely lost and can easily mangle even a familiar tune. 

Many people in the congregation, including myself, love to hear her sing, and yet she too is convinced that there is no warrant for soloists in God's worship. She is much happier therefore to sing as part of the congregation, where her voice stands out and she does a wonderful service in helping us to stay together in harmony. In this way she helps our singing to remain "decent and in order" week after week. Other strong voices in the congregation fulfill a similar role. This does not mean there are no other venues for her to perform by herself however. For instance, once a year the families in the church have an informal talent night on a Friday or a Saturday and she will usually sing at least two solos for that. 

My question would be, _why do you feel that your gift is not being used when you are singing with the congregation? _I'm sure that other members of the church appreciate the presence of your strong voice in their midst, and I have no doubt that God is being served and worshipped when you sing in that setting.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Sep 6, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Chiefmusician said:
> 
> 
> > I am familiar with the Regulative Principal, but I fail to see how adhering to the RP negates solos. I don't find drama, puppets or mimes in scripture, but I do find singing.
> ...



A gracious reply.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 6, 2007)

py3ak said:


> John MacArthur pointed out that musical talent is one of the few talents we assume *must* be used within the church: if I have a talent for plumbing or carpentry, I don't conclude it's wasted if I don't build the pulpit or set up sprinklers for the church lawn. Why should I assume my musical talent is wasted unless I regale the congregation with my favorite pieces?



Exactly. The OP certainly introduces a false dichotomy. 

Go sing. Play instruments. It doesn't have to be done in church to be glorifying to God. I also have been playing instruments since elementary school but "Let us musicians share our talent" never really seemed like a theologically sound argument to me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2007)

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Which is why I asked for the exegesis. I've seen a lot of pragmatic answers and "seems to me" offered. I haven't seen a specific command for the singing of solos (and, No, a Cantor for a Responsorial Song is not a Solo in my estimation). Arguments presented are very subjective above. "Theologian wannabees" like Calvin completely disagree with Scott and offer detailed arguments from Scripture in favor of the Regulative Principle for Worship.
> ...


You seem to be confused on who started this thread Don. You seem to be confused about who is the one advocating Solos. I'm not the one making a positive case for solos here, Don. That corporate singing is commanded is apparently obvious to the casual observer of Scripture. I'm asking for the positive command for solo singing. I cannot produce the exegesis to argue _in favor_ of solo singing because I don't know how one could do so. 

It is not my job to do the exegesis that demonstrates that solo singing is prohibited. Why, Don? Because, if only those things _positively_ commanded are to be done in worship then things not positively commanded are forbidden as well as things specifically prohibited. I will say this a different way to eliminate all confusion: I do not have to find a prohibition for solo singing any more than I have to find a prohibition for mime worship. Neither are positively commanded and they are therefore excluded. You say you understand the RPW but then you want me to argue as if you believe the Normative Principle of Worship applies. Which, of the two, do you believe applies, Don?

Further, asking for the place were Calvin prohibited solos is like the fundamentalist I once heard question Calvin's conversion because he never referred to himself as a "born again Christian". I stated that Calvin had clear Biblical convictions regarding the RPW that actually omitted instrumental music and advocated the singing of Psalms exclusively - never mind the issue of solos. Calvin is hardly a "wannabe theologian" that didn't appreciate good music or lacked a sophisticated understanding of the nature of man.

Simply asserting that corporate singing implies that private singing is commanded doesn't reach the level of serious exegesis on this issue especially when the OP implies that people who disagree with it are intellectually and theologically deficient. The main deficiency I've seen so far is exegesis that supports that God has specifically commanded solo singing. 

Finally, it must be said, that if God _has_ commanded us to sing to him in solos then we are _required_ to do so. It is not even an option. The thread should be advocating that all Churches that do not regularly have solo singing are sinning in their worship of God by neglecting a form of worship that He has commanded us to render unto Him. It is not even something that you can take a break from until "performance centered churches" are "retaught the corporate mindset." No, indeed, one may _never_ take a break from something God has positively commanded.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 6, 2007)

Rich, you're taking verses taking verses that talk about singing and say that it MUST be corporately. The verses don't say that.

[BIBLE]Col. 3:16[/BIBLE]

There's a command to sing. You seem to think that it ONLY means corporately, as in, everyone has to to it, and all at the same time. Where does it say that?

There's also a command to teach and admonish one another. Does everyone do that corporately? Does everyone have to teach at once, or can one person do it alone? Where is the specific command for "solo" teaching?

I believe everyone is to teach one another, and everyone is to sing, but there is no direction on the singing that it must be done corporately by everyone any more than there is similar direction on the teaching and admonishing. Singing can be alone, or with a group, or the whole congregation. All fit under the umbrella of "singing."


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 6, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Rich, you're taking verses taking verses that talk about singing and say that it MUST be corporately. The verses don't say that.
> 
> [BIBLE]Col. 3:16[/BIBLE]
> 
> ...



I keep running across this argument and it seems pretty strained, especially if you read the passage in context with the chapter, and even more especially if you work through the Greek.

It seems pretty plain that Paul is addressing a corporate body when he says "you." The teaching and admonishing and singing describe how the corporate body should act. The natural reading indicates everyone doing something together, not taking turns one after another doing the items commanded. That approach seems to be contrary to the command to do things in good order.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > Rich, you're taking verses taking verses that talk about singing and say that it MUST be corporately. The verses don't say that.
> ...





This is exegesis, not prooftexting. Further, the very corporate nature of the Body is not that everyone is doing their own thing (re: 1 Corinthians). Corporate worship is corporate. The Body gathers as one. You may be compelled by your argument, Don, but it doesn't reach the level of exegetically establishing a command for solos.

Is it your position, Don, that solos are therefore commanded on the basis of this verse and that all Churches that do not worship the Lord with solo singing are violating the RPW and not rendering unto God a mode of worship He has commanded?


----------



## MW (Sep 7, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I keep running across this argument and it seems pretty strained, especially if you read the passage in context with the chapter, and even more especially if you work through the Greek.



Well noted. "One another." I don't think the apostle envisaged the psychological break down of "me, myself and I" in the use of this term.


----------



## Wannabee (Sep 7, 2007)

JBaldwin said:


> Forgive me if this sounds sarcastic, but isn't there too much danger for pride when one person is up there preaching? My point being that anytime we are in front of a group of people doing anything, there is danger of pride. Fear of falling into pride should not keep us from doing what is perfectly acceptable. Instead we should go forward with it trusting God to keep our pride in check.


This is a good point. Imposition of personal convictions without clear biblical commands is legalism. While the Greek _might _more naturally lend itself to corporate singing, it does not make any sort of exclusive statement. Because of the nature of the passage solos are not necessarily excluded. 
The dangers of solos have been expressed well. There is always the danger of both pride and idolatry when someone does a job well when their performance is so readily observed by many. This is especially true when They are the focus of attention. Good preachers can be idolized. I hate to say it, but I hear it a lot in regard to MacArthur. Some act like the church hinges upon a single man, as though he's not expendable.
Great care must be taken by both the one ministering and the one being ministered to. Some singers showboat. You can tell they're in it for themselves. But others have a message to convey. Some hearers admire the person rather than the message, thereby committing idolatry. For those who have sung solos: There is a point where you can yearn to get your message across. You have a message, in song, and you want nothing more than to make it clear and challenge the hearers to consider that message in light of their relationship with Christ. Then, when the song is done and you know in your heart that you've pursued a love for God and man in your ministry, there is nothing wrong with being pleased to be able to minister in this way and with having done well in what God has set before you. Whatever you do in word or deed... This is in direct opposition to the one who is performing for personal recognition. This holds true for preaching, writing, singing, etc. 
As a listener we each have an opportunity to focus on the person or the Lord. When someone sings a solo are we examining their ability or considering the message? A listener can worship if they get immersed in the message. If they're immersed in the messenger then they're worshipping a "not-God" and are guilty of idolatry.
While I have grave concerns about solos, would be very cautious about who and how they are done, and haven't done one myself for many years, to claim that Scripture clearly teaches against it, or that Scripture clearly doesn't include it, is, as far as I can tell, to stretch the limits of clear exegesis. Perhaps Romans 14 should be applied in this instance.


SemperFideles said:


> "Theologian wannabees" ...


Hey! I might take that personally.  At least it's spelled correctly...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 7, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > Forgive me if this sounds sarcastic, but isn't there too much danger for pride when one person is up there preaching? My point being that anytime we are in front of a group of people doing anything, there is danger of pride. Fear of falling into pride should not keep us from doing what is perfectly acceptable. Instead we should go forward with it trusting God to keep our pride in check.
> ...



Joe,

Wannabe aside, I think you are missing the point re: the RPW. How does Romans 14 apply to the RPW? Scripture doesn't have to teach against solos. I don't believe anyone has tried to make that point.

While I agree there is a danger of pride, showboating, etc, those reasons are really quite immaterial to the issue at hand. The same arguments can be made against preaching and people are missing the point by focusing on the attitude of the people performing the solo or the way the solo is performed.

I get the impression many do not agree with the RPW, which is the reason why the pragmatic arguments are the only being offered instead of offering exegesis to demonstrate a _positive command by the Lord to worship Him with a solo_ in corporate worship.

For me the issue is very simple:
1. If no such positive command can be produced then it is forbidden.
2. If the positive command can be produced then it is _required_.

There is nothing adiofora when it comes to elements of worship.


----------



## caddy (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for this post. I believe this to be true. 



Calvibaptist said:


> Chiefmusician said:
> 
> 
> > I am familiar with the Regulative Principal, but I fail to see how adhering to the RP negates solos. I don't find drama, puppets or mimes in scripture, but I do find singing.
> ...


----------



## Covenant Joel (Sep 7, 2007)

I've been quietly reading through these posts, and a couple things jump out at me.

Everybody seems to be dancing around each other, not really addressing the issue. Those who are arguing for the prohibition of solos (by way of no positive command) are missing the point of those who are arguing for it. Those arguing for it are saying singing is commanded in general, the particular way in which that happens is not an element of worship and is open to differences. 

I'm not saying that no one has been getting the above. Several posts above did indicate that. It just seems to me that for everyone to keep saying what they've been saying isn't really getting anywhere. It would perhaps be more helpful to lurkers like me to see some of the solid exegesis that keeps getting talked about, but not done. In other words, why does the Greek in Colossians and Ephesians indicate that is refers to corporate? Does the Greek not allow for any manner of individual singing? Why? Conversely, can someone on the other side explain exegetically why the singing in those passages can and does refer to something other than corporate?

I know that some of these questions have been briefly answered in the course of the thread. But in reading, I've felt like I'm going on a merry-go-round, without really getting any farther in my understanding. Solid exegesis would be greatly appreciated for those of us like who are trying to understand this issue better. And this is an issue that has affected me, because I remember our family having a long discussion about this with my dad once when he wouldn't let my sister (a vocal performance major) sing a solo in worship.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 7, 2007)

Covenant Joel said:


> I've been quietly reading through these posts, and a couple things jump out at me.
> 
> Everybody seems to be dancing around each other, not really addressing the issue. Those who are arguing for the prohibition of solos (by way of no positive command) are missing the point of those who are arguing for it. Those arguing for it are saying singing is commanded in general, the particular way in which that happens is not an element of worship and is open to differences.
> 
> ...



Joel, I’m actually embarrassed to be considered an exegete. I’m self-trained in Greek and Hebrew and by no means a scholar in these languages (but in other things I can be considered that). But here is the simple breakdown as I see it. I’m only talking about Colossians 3:16.

First, without even getting into the Greek, notice that in Colossians 3:15, Paul addresses the believers as having been “called in one body.” He begins the sentence with “let the peace of God rule in your hearts.” So he is obviously addressing a corporate (which means “body”, by the way) gathering.

So in the very next breath, at 3:16, he begins a new sentence the same way, “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. . . .” He is still clearly addressing the “body.”

Now he gets to the means of letting the word of Christ dwell in the body: by “teaching and admonishing one another. . . signing . . . .” “One another” in Greek is one word: “heautous”. Without getting all technical (I’d ask Fred Greco or one of the other Greek scholars for that information), the word is a reciprocal pronoun. It means more than just the plural “you”. It’s more like “you all”. The KJV translates it “one another”, which worked fine in that era because “one another” implied “altogether”. 

It’s more like a coach addressing a team: “OK, I want everyone to help each other out.” We don’t understand the coach to be saying, “Joe, you first help out Jim; next, Jim, you help out George” etc. No, we understand it to mean that everybody should do his part.

So that is “one another”. The other thing seen from the Greek are the verb forms for “teaching”, admonishing”, and “singing”. All of these verbs are in the second person plural; They are imperative and are called present active participles. In other words, they direct continuing action to a group, not to people one by one. That’s why I say it seems pretty plain that it is describing a corporate action.

Anybody who _is_ a Greek scholar please feel free to correct whatever wrong things I've said.


----------



## Wannabee (Sep 7, 2007)

Rich, 

Because (as far as I can tell) the text is not necessarily dealing with only congregational singing, any imposition that it does is legalistic. The only way around this is to prove that it absolutely does deal exclusively with corporate singing. That's why Romans 14 may come into play. While I'm not in full agreement with the RP, I am sensitive to it. But this is an area where I cannot see that it can be proven that solos are necessarily excluded from the command. I need to be convinced, and nobody here has given irrefutable evidence that God's command cannot include both corporate and solo singing. All of my above comments are in light of this thought process. If I can be proven wrong then they don't stand. If I can't then they do.

This hits the nail on the head.


Covenant Joel said:


> In other words, why does the Greek in Colossians and Ephesians indicate that is refers to corporate? Does the Greek not allow for any manner of individual singing? Why? Conversely, can someone on the other side explain exegetically why the singing in those passages can and does refer to something other than corporate?


What does the text necessarily command? What does it necessarily exclude? Can we be dogmatic about it? This is the responsible way to deal with it. So, who's ready to set out an exegetical treatment of the verses involved?

Something to be considered: while it is obvious that this command is to the people of God, it is not evident that it is necessarily restricted to the church gathering. Is there any reason this could not include the fellowship of two believers? If so, is there any reason one could not encourage, exhort, etc. the other one in song?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Sep 7, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> Joel, I’m actually embarrassed to be considered an exegete. I’m self-trained in Greek and Hebrew and by no means a scholar in these languages (but in other things I can be considered that). But here is the simple breakdown as I see it. I’m only talking about Colossians 3:16.



Hey, I appreciate you getting into the text. I've had a fair bit of Greek (3 years in college), but I still consider myself a novice. But the comments you've made do seem to accurately reflect the considerations of the text.

I do have one more fundamental question that I'm not sure anyone has brought up yet, one that has puzzled me for a while. Why do we automatically assume that the injunction in verse 15 is for corporate worship? There doesn't appear to me to be any sure indication that the text is referring to corporate worship. I'm not saying that it doesn't. But it seems to me that it is talking about body life in general (including the preceding and following context), not necessarily corporate worship. But that is an aside that occurred to me.



> First, without even getting into the Greek, notice that in Colossians 3:15, Paul addresses the believers as having been “called in one body.” He begins the sentence with “let the peace of God rule in your hearts.” So he is obviously addressing a corporate (which means “body”, by the way) gathering.
> 
> So in the very next breath, at 3:16, he begins a new sentence the same way, “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly. . . .” He is still clearly addressing the “body.”
> 
> Now he gets to the means of letting the word of Christ dwell in the body: by “teaching and admonishing one another. . . signing . . . .” “One another” in Greek is one word: “heautous”. Without getting all technical (I’d ask Fred Greco or one of the other Greek scholars for that information), the word is a reciprocal pronoun. It means more than just the plural “you”. It’s more like “you all”. The KJV translates it “one another”, which worked fine in that era because “one another” implied “altogether”.



I may be mistaken on this, but does a reciprocal pronoun necessitate that the activity all take place at the same time? In other words, from what you have said and my own observation of the text, it does indeed seem clear that he is referring to actions that the body as a whole is involved in.



> It’s more like a coach addressing a team: “OK, I want everyone to help each other out.” We don’t understand the coach to be saying, “Joe, you first help out Jim; next, Jim, you help out George” etc. No, we understand it to mean that everybody should do his part.



But everyone's role may be slightly different, yes? Even when involved in the same general pattern of activities?



> So that is “one another”. The other thing seen from the Greek are the verb forms for “teaching”, admonishing”, and “singing”. All of these verbs are in the second person plural; They are imperative and are called present active participles. In other words, they direct continuing action to a group, not to people one by one. That’s why I say it seems pretty plain that it is describing a corporate action.
> 
> Anybody who _is_ a Greek scholar please feel free to correct whatever wrong things I've said.



Perhaps neither you nor I is exegetically capable of commenting on this part, but even though it does seem clear that a corporate action is described, does that mean that it necessarily requires corporate singing (all voices in unison at once)? It seems that it could be a general corporate instruction to sing, while not defining whether that happens as a big choir, or with singing done in different ways at different times.

I don't have an agenda here. Indeed, I am somewhat cautious of the "let's have special music" mindset. But then again, I also want to not say more than the text does. Nor less.


----------



## JBaldwin (Sep 7, 2007)

> Quote:
> There are psalms that were sung in a "call and response" style where one person (a cantor) led and the congregation responded. That in itself is solo singing which is perfectly acceptable. An example of this is Psalm 118.
> Actually, although I am not sure of this, I believe the "call and response" in the Old Testament involved antiphonal choirs, not an individual cantor.



I did a little research. Actually there were three ways of presenting the psalms and the scriptures apart from straight reading: 1) antiphonal - two parts sung in turn by two choruses 2) responsorial - the leader sang the first line of each psalm verse and the congregation responded (solo singing), 3) reciting prescribed passages of Scripture by a soloist, using certain melodic formulas the essential outlines of which could be retained while details were varied to suit the requirements of the particular text. (_A History of Western Music_, Grout) The early church adopted all three of these styles.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 7, 2007)

JBaldwin said:


> > Quote:
> > There are psalms that were sung in a "call and response" style where one person (a cantor) led and the congregation responded. That in itself is solo singing which is perfectly acceptable. An example of this is Psalm 118.
> > Actually, although I am not sure of this, I believe the "call and response" in the Old Testament involved antiphonal choirs, not an individual cantor.
> 
> ...



Oh, sure, bring out _Grout_ on us! You probably have those pesky Norton Anthologies, too, don't you! (Whoa! Bad flashbacks to music history class!)


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 7, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote:
> ...




ahhhhh!!!! Norton! run away, run away!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 7, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> Rich,
> 
> Because (as far as I can tell) the text is not necessarily dealing with only congregational singing, any imposition that it does is legalistic.


There it is Joe. Poison the well. Those who disagree with you are legalistic. What epitaphs should I lob in the direction of those who hold to the Normative Principle of Worship? I believe the Lord hates murder. Am I a legalist, Joe? Those kinds of comments are simply lazy and unwarranted.



> The only way around this is to prove that it absolutely does deal exclusively with corporate singing. That's why Romans 14 may come into play.


No, Joe, it is not the only way it proves it. I think you are reading these posts very uncarefully. I think I have laid out the issue very plainly. Again, if you subscribe to the RPW (which you clearly do not), then you would understand that the exegetical burden to introduce something into worship would fall upon the person introducing it and not on the person prohibiting it. If everything that could be introduced into worship in the human imagination required exegesis to prove that it could not be then I could think of a ton of things that could be done in worship that I would be unable to provide the verse(s) to prohibit.



> While I'm not in full agreement with the RP, I am sensitive to it.


I actually don't believe you are sensitive to it in the least. This is a Reformed board and you just called those who want others to provide a clear positive command for solos, legalists.



> But this is an area where I cannot see that it can be proven that solos are necessarily excluded from the command.


Well, there you go, you just demonstrated you are _not_ in the least sensitive to the RPW. What you just proved is that you want to apply the Normative Principle of Worship to place the burden of proof upon the person wishing to guard worship with only positive institutions. So, you cannot see how it cannot be proven that solos are excluded. And?

My problem, Joe, is that I haven't seen anyone prove that they _must_ be included. This is the nature of the RPW that you call a legalistic approach to exegeting to look for positive command.



> I need to be convinced, and nobody here has given irrefutable evidence that God's command cannot include both corporate and solo singing.


Again, this is because you have no sympathy for the RPW. This is not how the RPW functions. This is the NPW.



> All of my above comments are in light of this thought process. If I can be proven wrong then they don't stand. If I can't then they do.


Yes, they can. Start a thread on the nature of the RPW. I would caution you to actually have some respect and sympathy for those whose board you are a guest in because the membership requirements are confessional.



> This hits the nail on the head.
> 
> 
> Covenant Joel said:
> ...


As I've said, over and over, this does not hit the nail on the head. It is the Normative Principle of Worship at work. I understand exactly why people are arguing in favor of solos and why they want the RPW crowd to prove to them that Scripture forbids them something but this is not the Reformed position on the nature of worship. I am permitted to take certain assumptions into a dialogue and not have them petulantly labelled as legalism.



> Something to be considered: while it is obvious that this command is to the people of God, it is not evident that it is necessarily restricted to the church gathering. Is there any reason this could not include the fellowship of two believers? If so, is there any reason one could not encourage, exhort, etc. the other one in song?


Again, let me lay this out again so you are without excuse. If you mischaracterize this again, I will assume you are purposefully slandering the position:

If you are unsure about whether or not this command applies to individuals then it is not a clear positive command. Why? Because you are unclear. Are you asking me or telling me that the passage includes solos? If you are asking me, then, by definition, you lack a clear, positive command to sing God with solos in worship. If you are telling me that it is clear then tell me. Then tell me, by this positive command to sing solos, that all Churches everywhere MUST sing solos. This is what the RPW would require. If a positive command exists for something then it must be performed.

But don't place the burden of proof on me to say that the RPW includes all those commands that someone, somewhere might personally infer from verses. I can't control personal inference. I don't see a personal command to sing solos anywhere that places upon me and all others an _oughtness_ - that is a *binding of the conscience*. You see, Joe, Romans 14 applies just perfectly in this case but completely in the opposite way that you believe it does. Why? Because the RPW is a guard to liberty. It guards the congregation from worshipping God in any way that He has not commanded them. It guards men from their consciences being bound by others who would introduce an element into worship that is unclear.

And so, I categorically reject that this debate is about the RPW folks not understanding the NPW folks. I completely understood every single argument. Don Lowe is the only person who has even attempted to try to understand the RPW on this thread and provide a single verse in favor of solos to produce a positive command. The only thing you did, Joe, was stand as an opponent to the RPW and tell us to give it up and prove to you that solos are prohibited on the basis of your view of worship.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 7, 2007)

> 1 Corinthians 14:26
> What then, brothers? When you come together, *each one* has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.



In category - a lesson and an interpretation (reckon that is exegesis he is referring to here? ) is taught solo - even if you reject the other elements as a cessationist - he is still talking solos not corporate, here - all approved for building up - so singing a hymn (however that is defined) solo is approved for corporate worship.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 7, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> > 1 Corinthians 14:26
> > What then, brothers? When you come together, *each one* has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
> 
> 
> ...



Did you actually read the context of that verse before you quoted it, J.D.? I'm actually really shocked you just completely saw in that verse a thing that Paul was _commending_. In fact, he is condemning the Corinthians for the fact that this is what characterizes their worship - it is disorganized. You actually are advocating that everybody brings to Church their own songs, lessons, interpretations, etc and just pipes in whenever they feel like it. This is what Paul is referring to above.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 7, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> > > 1 Corinthians 14:26
> ...



Rich - is he really *condemning* or *prohibiting* the elements he is describing, or is his condemnation directed toward the *manner* in which they are practiced?

I seriously doubt that the early church was as stratified and formalized as we are today, but even today we still have music leaders, teachers, interpreters of Scripture and *each* one, not *every* one brings what they have to offer. And they are *commended* if they *build up* the body and follow this directive:



> 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.



I am not *advocating* anything - I am describing the text.

Peace, brother...shocked, indeed...your tone is shocking - I doubt you would speak this way to me in person - I certainly hope you don't teach this way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 7, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > jdlongmire said:
> ...


J.D.,

Which is it? Is he advocating that each person bring a lesson and a hymn and a tongue individually to Church or is he not? You quoted the verse as _meaning_ that Paul is telling people they should be doing this and presented the verse as a command for the practice. Does the verse support people individually bringing these things to the Church or doesn't it?



> I seriously doubt that the early church was as stratified and formalized as we are today, but even today we still have music leaders, teachers, interpreters of Scripture and *each* one, not *every* one brings what they have to offer. And they are *commended* if they *build up* the body and follow this directive:
> 
> 
> 
> > 40 But all things should be done decently and in order.


What does "stratification" have to do with the exegesis of the text. What does Paul intend to say here? Is he advocating individuals bringing lessons, tongues, and songs in this verse or is he not. What does the exegesis of the text demand?



> I am not *advocating* anything - I am describing the text.


You described it by saying that Paul's intent behind the passage was that individuals doing what you quoted were "...all approved for building up...." Is that what the exegesis of the passage demands? 



> Peace, brother...shocked, indeed...your tone is shocking - I doubt you would speak this way to me in person - I certainly hope you don't teach this way.


I would speak to you this way in person and I do teach this way. I want people to be careful in their use of Scripture. There is no need to be insulted or shocked by somebody when they ask you to back up the exegesis of a text. The verses that surround this text and this text especially are classic texts that teach against disorder and individualism in worship. The verses are railing against self-edification and self-promotion. They can hardly be used to establish a positive command for solo singing.

My shock was and is warranted on this point. I would hope you don't think that a careless treatment of the Scriptures should be greeted with a yawn or disinterest from someone who loves the Word. I would hope that someone who, in like manner, loves the Word would want to extend their remarks, show the surrounding context, and demonstrate that what they stated is supported by the text rather than get offended. Do you believe Arminians are warranted at being offended when you try to contextualize their quoting of John 3:16?

If you have an argument for the positive command of solos from this verse then please demonstrate that I am missing a key element here. I just taught on 1 Corinthians last week and I see nothing in this text that remotely sees Paul as advocating these things. Rather, he is _describing_ what they are doing and telling them that they're wrong for doing it. How can that be turned into a warrant for any positive command?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Sep 7, 2007)

I formally exit this this thread - so long and thanks for all the fish.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 7, 2007)

jdlongmire said:


> Hold on - not "should be", Rich - ARE - I am saying he is describing common elements in early church worship - at least at this church. He does not prohibit ANY of these elements. Does he? He tacitly APPROVES the practices, just not the manner in which they are performed.


No J.D. he does _not_ approve the practices. This you have not established. You have quoted a verse and I frankly don't know where you're conceiving of this stuff about "early church worship" and Paul organizing for the Corinthians in some sort of democratic way.

Would you please produce one NT scholar or commentator that agrees with your exegesis of this passage? It is so novel that I really don't have time to undo everything you just wrote. The very point of 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 is to rail against self-edification. The very context of the passage is to rail against disorder. The very point of Paul against the tongues speaking is that something that is done to self-edify in the Church is not from God. When Pentecostals read these passages about tongues edifying themselves they miss Paul's complete point: nothing should be done for self-edification. The Church is completely out of control and the passage you quoted is Paul saying that the idea that _everyone_ is coming with a teaching, a tongue, a prophesy, and an interpretation is completely out of control.



> Now, I know you are a cessationist, so I made allowances for your position. You reject the modern practice of tongues and I think you would deny prophetic utterances while allowing for "prophecy" and potentially "interpretation" to include Scriptural exposition.


But, if you were reading the passage in context you would see, as I noted, that Paul is condemning there tongue-speaking as "self-edifiying". Nothing in worship is for the self. Disorder is in view here. I don't know what to do here J.D. because the passage is so obviously condemning worship where everybody is just out of control. People showing up early, eating all the bread, drinking all the wine, everybody has a tongue, everybody has a teaching, everyone a prophesy, everyone a song, etc. In short, it's like modern Pentecostal worship where everyone is "...led by the spirit..." but Paul says that it's not the Spirit that produces this caucophony.



> That being said, I know you would **at least** support the practice of singing and teaching (preaching) within worship, so these elements are supported, if not explicitly here, then certainly by the clear teaching of Scripture.


Of course, but it's the contextual use of this Scripture to establish something. You're even using it to establish a notion of a "primitive Church" that didn't believe in congregational worship. Where are you getting this from? I honestly have no idea.



> Now - the passage is clearly indicating that EACH ONE, not EVERY ONE brings some or all of these elements when they gather together. Who are the EACH ONEs? Certainly he is not acknowledging ALL, since he clearly excludes women from acceptable practice. Is it EVERY MAN in the gathering EVERY TIME they meet? I don't see that, and neither do you.


Yes, I do see that everyone is speaking and out of control and this is what Paul is railing against. He's telling women, in fact, to be quiet because they're the one's talking too. Isn't it fascinating that in the Pentecostal Churches, those who prophesy the most are the women. They also have a lot of women pastors. Contextually, this is exactly the problem: that everyone (or practically everyone) is just going into worship and doing their own thing. You'd have to jump right into 1 Cor 14 and miss the first 13 Chapters, especially Chapters 11-12, to miss this obvious problem.



> Anyway, this is beside the point - my point was that Paul was CLEARLY contextualizing in these verses that these elements mentioned were commonly practiced solo.


In violation of the way they were supposed to be practiced.



> Maybe not EXCLUSIVELY, certainly in the case of singing, but clearly solo in this context. Thus for the elements we would both agree are still relevant for the church today - these elements may be performed solo as long as they are done decently and in order - for building up.


No, that is completely improper because you have exegeted the passage improperly.



> That is, unless you contend they were teaching and preaching congregationally? We both know that is not the case. You are interpreting these Scriptures based on your own programmed biases.


Are you referring to this "programmed bias":


> Ephesians 4
> 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you[a] all.
> Spiritual Gifts
> 
> ...


*

Are you saying that Paul only appointed Elders in Ephesus but not in Corinth? Are you saying that discord was normative for the "primitive Church" of Corinth but a more "structured" form of worship and intent was evolved by the time Paul wrote to the Ephesians? What, exactly, are you arguing for here?



I am shocked that you have trouble seeing this...well, I guess, not really, since you contend I am a careless handler of Scripture, anything I propose is suspect.

Click to expand...

You've seen my PM. Review the rules again as to who the burden of proof for a-confessional mattters falls upon. My patience is running thin in this thread. In this case I do believe your handling of the Scriptures is extremely careless. Now, you can be offended by this but if you can produce a single NT scholar that remotely agrees with your novel presentation here then I'd like to see it.*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 7, 2007)

> Peace, brother...shocked, indeed...your tone is shocking - *I doubt you would speak this way to me in person - I certainly hope you don't teach this way*.



This comment was totally uncalled for. And I think Rich made some good points and just wanted a fair response. Eisegesis seems to be leavening the lump here. And I don't think it is Rich doing it.


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 8, 2007)

Covenant Joel said:


> I do have one more fundamental question that I'm not sure anyone has brought up yet, one that has puzzled me for a while. Why do we automatically assume that the injunction in verse 15 is for corporate worship? There doesn't appear to me to be any sure indication that the text is referring to corporate worship.



Joel, I'd answer that simply: nobody is using this verse to command corporate worship. We'd look for that elsewhere and cumulatively. Still, it obviously _assumes_ corporate worship because the things mentioned can only be done corporately.

The point of discussing this passage was not to prove corporate worship or that solo singing is _prohibited._ Rather, it was to show that a plain reading indicates that singing was corporate. As was pointed out elsewhere, under the regulative principle, we don't go looking for express prohibitions. (And I don't think you are demanding this).



> I may be mistaken on this, but does a reciprocal pronoun necessitate that the activity all take place at the same time?



I think this isn't actually the point. I'm not advocating that everything takes place at the same time, merely that whatever they are doing, they are doing together. 



> But everyone's role may be slightly different, yes? Even when involved in the same general pattern of activities?



Certainly, in the sense that I sing baritone and my wife sings alto. The analogy I used was not meant to really imply that a congregation was a "team" with quarterbacks and linemen. I sort of regret using it. But still, to the extent that there are people directing things to maintain order (elders, for example), I think the analogy works.



> Perhaps neither you nor I is exegetically capable of commenting on this part, but even though it does seem clear that a corporate action is described, does that mean that it necessarily requires corporate singing (all voices in unison at once)? It seems that it could be a general corporate instruction to sing, while not defining whether that happens as a big choir, or with singing done in different ways at different times.



I'm sure there is an exegetical rule equivalent to the medical diagnostic rule: "when you hear hoofbeats, think first of horses, not zebras." It's really a matter of taking the text at face value. People clearly are gathered, they clearly are told to sing. Nothing further is given, nothing further needs to be read into it. If we think of everbody singing as a body, we are thinking horses. If we say, "well the passage doesn't prohibit special music," we are thinking zebras--introducing something new that isn't supported by evidence.

Finally, I was thinking about this on my commute home. The church in Collosae apparently wasn't having the problems that Corinth was having. Paul was encouraging them in what they were doing. He didn't need to set out detailed instructions. Among other things, he told them to sing together.



> I don't have an agenda here. Indeed, I am somewhat cautious of the "let's have special music" mindset. But then again, I also want to not say more than the text does. Nor less.



I hope that is all I've done too.


----------

