What's Wrong With Solos?

[caddy]

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

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!

 

[Covenant Joel]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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!)

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:


“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first[c] descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

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.

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]

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]

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.