Evangelicals and the Holy Spirit, Part 3: So, What About Speaking in Tongues?
After talking about presuppositions and foundations, it is time to move to the direct issue of speaking in tongues. This issue is important because the boards of trustees of the International Mission Board (IMB), the North American Mission Board (NAMB), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) have all made statements and policy against this practice. In doing so, they have gone beyond the Baptist Faith & Message2000, our confession of faith. Where do Baptists and Evangelicals stand on this issue? Where should we stand? It is not that we should embrace speaking in tongues, or private prayer language (ppl) as many have called it. It is not that we should promote the practice. But, should we eliminate from missionary service and leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), those who do engage in this practice? Is it that big of a deal, or is it a non-essential that can be overlooked? Is there room enough in the SBC for both the pro and con positions on this issue to exist side by side? Time will tell, but I wanted to put my two cents into the debate.
What do you think about when you hear the term, "Speaking in Tongues?" For most Baptists (of which I count myself), the issue has been scary and considered dangerous. "That's what those crazy charismatics do!" It has been equated with the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which Pentecostals believe that you receive AFTER you are saved. They teach that speaking in tongues is the sign of this, or the initial evidence of the baptism. Baptists, and most evangelicals, reject this teaching, because we believe that you receive all of the Holy Spirit when you accept Christ as Savior, and the examples of the early church being baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues (Act 2, 8, 10, 19), were historical anomalies used to mark the advance of the church through different ethnic groups. It is clear from Scripture that not all spoke in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30), so it must be but ONE gift of the Spirit, instead of the initial mark of the Spirit's coming.
So, what is "speaking in tongues?" In Mark 16:17, Jesus prophesies that certain signs will accompany those who believe. One of those signs is that they will "speak in a new tongue." Many scholars have said that this means that they will be able to speak in new languages to share the gospel. They are saying that Jesus was speaking of the phenomenom of xenoglossalia, which is a supernatural ability to speak another human language you have not learned to aid in evangelism, or that the gospel would just spread to other people groups and languages. While this is possible, Jesus' hearers and the disciples were already able to speak multiple languages, and the disciples of Christ to come would surely already speak many more. He seems to be speaking of something supernatural, especially since the other signs mentioned that followed believers were of a supernatural nature (drive out demons, pick up snakes, drink poision without harm, and heal the sick).
The actual Greek word used here for "tongue" is "glossa," which basically means to speak in an unacquired language. We do not get any hint from the Greek what type of language it is, whether it is heavenly or earthly. We will need to look to the context of the relevant passages to derive the actual type of language we are talking about. This is the word that is used in every reference to tongues throughout Acts and 1 Corinthians, so this definition is sufficient.
So, what did Jesus mean when he said his followers would speak in a new tongue? We get the first hint in Acts 2:4-13. In verse 4, we see that they were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Why would being filled with the Holy Spirit enable you to speak in other tongues? John 7:37-39 says,
37On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." 39By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
We know that when we are filled with the Spirit, life will flow out of us. We will experience God's presence, fruit, and gifts. We will be able to pray and meet with God intimately. It is apparent to me that even a superficial reading of Scripture will leave you with the impression that something amazing and supernatural happens when you are connected with God through the indwelling of His Spirit. The idea of being able to pray in a heavenly language does not surpass the realm of possibility for me, especially when we consider the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer (more on this in the next installment).
But, what was the nature of these tongues, or new languages? In Acts 2:6, "each one heard them speaking in his own language. And verse 8 says, "how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?" Verse 11 says, "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" For those who say with certainty that on the Day of Pentecost, the 120 disciples were speaking in known human languages, I ask the question, "Was the miracle in the hearing or in the speaking?" Is it possible that the early church was speaking in a heavenly language, an otherworldly language, and the miracle was in an interpretation being given to each individual person? I think that is VERY possible. Here's why:
-
If you had around 15 languages being spoken by 120 people at once, who could understand anything? It would be chaos. But, somehow, each person was able to hear God being praised "in their own language." This was a clear announcement of what God had done. Each of them heard them in their own language. It does not say that they heard 15 different languages and they picked out a language that was their native tongue. I believe that this possibility must be dealt with.
-
The idea of a heavenly language with the attendant gift of interpretation is apparent in 1 Cor. 14. If it was a heavenly or spiritual language in Acts 2, it would fit very well with what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 14.
-
Acts 2:13 says, "Some however made fun of them and said, 'They have had too much wine.'" Why would people say this? Perhaps it was because of the content of their message. Or, perhaps it is because they were not given the interpretation of what is being said and it sounded like senseless babble. This would fit with Paul's teaching that tongues are a sign for unbelievers in 1 Cor. 14:22, because their presence shows them that they are uninitiated and unfamiliar with the ways of God.
-
Some say that the tongues were human languages that were given for evangelistic purposes so that each person could hear the gospel proclaimed. But, this would not have been necessary because every pilgrim to Jerusalem for the Day of Pentecost would have spoken Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew. In other words, they were able to communicate already, as we see in Peter's sermon to the crowd (Acts 2:14-41) where around 3,000 of these people were saved from hearing Peter proclaim the Gospel without speaking in tongues.
-
We do not see a single example in the New Testament where God supernaturally gifted the Apostles to proclaim the Gospel in another language that they did not know. They always proclaimed it clearly to people in a common language, but we do not see any supernatural gifting here, unless you point to the fact that it was always accompanied with power (1 Cor. 2:1-5).
Based on this evidence, and the description of tongues that we see in Acts 10 and 19, and in 1 Corinthians 12-14, I do not believe that the early church spoke in 15 different human languages, but rather, I believe that they spoke in a heavenly language and God supernaturally gave the hearers the interpretation so they could hear God being praised in their native tongue.
Other Instances
The other instances of tongues being used in Acts are in chapters 10 and 19. In Acts 10, we see Peter summoned to the household of Cornelius, a gentile God fearer who was seeking after the right way to know and follow God. This was a major step for Peter, because the Jews saw the Gentiles (everyone else) as unclean, and therefore unworthy of a relationship with God. God showed Peter through a vision that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. When he went to Cornelius' house, he proclaimed the Gospel and all who heard the message were saved. The Holy Spirit then came upon them (Acts 10:44-46). They knew this because they "heard them speaking in tongues and praising God." Now, were they speaking in other human languages in order to share the gospel with unbelievers? That would be silly. They all spoke the same language and they had already heard the gospel. Why would they need to speak in other languages to proclaim the gospel to those who had already accepted it and spoke their native language? The key here is that they were speaking in tongues and praising God. This is what Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 14:13-17, where we see a picture of believers praying, singing, and praising God with their spirit (unknown tongues) and their mind (earthly languages they understand). I believe that this is what is happening in Acts 10.
In Acts 19:1-7, we see another picture of the followers of John the Baptist hearing the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and being saved. They were filled with the Holy Spirit when Paul laid hands on them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Again, if this had been other human languages, what would have been the point? They all spoke the same language and had already heard the gospel clearly. They heard and believed. Speaking in tongues came AFTER. It is much more likely to follow the hermenuetical key given in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and see this as a sign of the activity of the Spirit. The fact that it is related to prophesy is also convincing, because tongues are joined together with prophesy (especially the interpretation of tongues) in 1 Corinthians 14:2-5. In that passage, tongues edifies the believer (unless there is an interpretation which is for everyone), and prophecy edifies the church. So, both seemed to be happening here.
There is much speculation that the tongues listed in Acts are known human languages and the tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14 are ecstatic utterances that were pagan in nature. But, this position is unconvincing considering the fact that there is no proof of this in Acts. It is all based on the presuppositions of the interpreter. It is hard for some to believe that God could be pouring out His Spirit in such a way that some believers are able to engage in a heavenly language of prayer and praise to God. That seems irrational to them. Why would God do this, they ask? Why is our human language not sufficient? Why would God give this ability to some believers and not to others?
Those are questions that we'll tackle next as we look at the purpose of speaking in tongues, or what has come to be known as Private Prayer Language.
Dear Alan,
I really appreciate your laying all this out so thoroughly and clearly. I have done lots of study on this issue. But reading this post, it just hit me that we should let 1 Cor 14 (Paul's teaching) be the control over Acts 2, 10, and 19 (Luke's narrative). And the passages make much more sense this way. (This a good hermeneutical principle, as we all know.)
Though I've considered the possibility that the miracle of Pentecost involved *hearing* tongues as familiar languages, I still assumed that they were actual human languages. But now I see that it is more consistent to believe that they were unintelligible utterances, like the tongues used by the Corinthians. And the miracle was that the listeners were given the gift of interpretation to hear the tongues in their own language. Your five points in support of this interpretation have fully convinced me. Well done and thanks!
I've done some discussing with Brad Reynolds on his blog, and he is doing just the opposite of the principle mentioned above; he's letting Acts 2 (the narrative) have control over 1 Cor 14 (the teaching). And I believe he's letting the context of paganism in Corinth have too much influence on his interpretation. It's also clear to me that his presuppositions are determining his conclusions. Of course, he accuses me of the same thing. But as Dwight McKissic has said, "The one who is armed with a legitimate biblical experience is never at the mercy of a man with only an intellectual argument based on his biblical reasoning." I would add, "...and based on his lack of that same biblical experience."
BTW, there are two new good articles on the sbtexas.com web site on this issue. It's encouraging to know that Ken Hemphill is supportive of allowing diverse viewpoints among Baptists on PPL. And Leo Garrett recognizes that differing interpretations of the charismata should not be made tests of cooperation. Amen!
My own time at SWBTS leads me to believe that Jack MacGorman and Jack Gray would also be more tolerant of a continualist position on tongues.
Please keep up the great service you're providing!
Blessings,
Todd
Posted by: Todd Nelson | November 14, 2006 at 09:30 PM
I posted the following on your blog eariler, but I think it was done after everyone had moved on to the next post. However, since this comment also applies to the current post, I thought I would copy it here.
This is a great post, and I am not surprised having seen your posts on other blogs. Have you heard the recent reports that brain scans of people speaking in tongues indicate that activity in the speech centers in the frontal lobes of the brain is greatly diminished? The scienctists concluded that the physical evidence is consistent with the perception of these people that they are not in direct volitional control of what they are speaking (http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061101_tongues.htm). I am a scientist and a Christian, so I find these results interesting on many levels. I do not like using science to "prove" faith, because science is entirely provisional and revisable. However, it is interesting that there is scientific support indicating that tongue speaking is not acting. If nothing else, it should make people who state that they are certain that mordern manifestations of tongue speaking are not of God at least think more about the possibility that they are wrong.
Posted by: Stephen Pruett | November 14, 2006 at 09:44 PM
Alan, you say:
What do you think about when you hear the term, "Speaking in Tongues?" For most Baptists (of which I count myself), the issue has been scary and considered dangerous. "That's what those crazy charismatics do!" It has been equated with the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which Pentecostals believe that you receive AFTER you are saved. They teach that speaking in tongues is the sign of this, or the initial evidence of the baptism. Baptists, and most evangelicals, reject this teaching, because we believe that you receive all of the Holy Spirit when you accept Christ as Savior, and the examples of the early church being baptized in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues (Act 2, 8, 10, 19), were historical anomalies used to mark the advance of the church through different ethnic groups. It is clear from Scripture that not all spoke in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30), so it must be but ONE gift of the Spirit, instead of the initial mark of the Spirit's coming.
I agree that speaking in tongues is not "the" sign of baptism of the Holy Spirit. You are correct that it is but one gift of the Spirit and that not all have it. I also agree that we receive all of the Holy Spirit when we are regenerated. But I do have a couple of questions, not necessarily disagreements, just questions. (1) I am not sure where or why we can conclude scripturally that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is an historical anomaly. That same argument really could be used in support of cessationism. (2) While we receive all of the Holy Spirit when we are saved, is it not also correct to say that we are filled and refilled and refilled and (etc.) or that we can quench the Spirit or that we should ask God to fill us with His Spirit after that initial salvation experience? Finally, (3) how do we deal with the experience of the Christians in Acts 8?
Posted by: Bryan Riley | November 15, 2006 at 01:55 AM
Bryan.. consider this:
1 Corinthians 12:13: For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-- whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-- and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. (NIV)
Since the Corinthians are the folks to whom Paul also said, rhetorically, "Not all speak in tongues, do they?", I must conclude that there were folks who were baptized by the Holy Spirit without receiving the gift of tongues.
Speaking of being filled, I always ask what it is that the Spirit fills. The answer is usually the "heart" .. the seat of the will. I also ask where that is, physically, and of course it's the mind. So ... when folks ask how they can know if they are filled, I ask them what their mind is full of. I think that's analogous to the time when Israel bound God's law in phylacteries to their forehead or left hand. Everywhere they looked and everything they did, there was the law.
I'm an old untrained guy and I have no answer for Acts 8, but one thing is apparent for sure. The "conventional church" is missing something BIGTIME.
Alan ... great points about those who didn't understand them. Never thought of that before. There you go again .. interrupting my train of thought.
Posted by: Bob Cleveland | November 15, 2006 at 08:22 AM
Bryan,
Great questions! I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I can give it a shot. What I meant by "historical anomaly" is just that it seemed to happen that way only once. We see lots of examples of people receiving Christ all through Acts and the New Testament, but we only see the Baptism in the Holy Spirit happening seperately in Acts 8. Some also say that it appeared to happen later in Acts 10 and 19, but I think that's a stretch.
So, the question is, why did it happen later in Acts 8? I have been puzzled by that for years. Some say that the Holy Spirit was withheld until Peter and John could get there so the leaders of the church in Jerusalem could verify that God actually was pouring out His Spirit on the Samaritans, who were considered unclean by the Jews. This is plausible and I find myself siding with this perspective. However, it is all inference, because the Bible does not teach that clearly.
Another interesting note about Acts 8 is that it says that the Samaritans had "accepted the Word of God" in verse 14. The Greek word for "accepted" is dechomai, which can involve a more passive acceptance or reception of something. In verse 15 and 17, the words "receive" or "received" comes from the Greek word lambano, which can mean a more active reception, or to receive something into manifestation. Some have speculated that the Samaritans received Christ when they heard and believed the Word, but it was a passive acceptance. When Peter and John came and laid hands on them, they manifested into fullness the Holy Spirit that they had already passively received at the point of salvation, and their deficiency was solved.
I don't know exactly what I think about this because all answers are speculation. However, I do think that what happened in Samaria was not normal and there is no teaching on it in the New Testament. Thus, I would believe that there was a specific purpose for this event.
This leads us into the idea of multiple fillings of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the Samaritans had received the Holy Spirit passively, but it had not yet been manifested. If a manifestation of the Holy Spirit is considered normative, that raises the bar a bit on the expectations of our Christian experience. But, I think that we intuitively go along with this. Often, people will come to Christ through praying a prayer or beginning to attend church. Then, at some later date, something will click and they will rededicate their life (a good Baptist term :)), or they will become serious about their faith. For some this is primarily emotional. For others, it is primarily intellectual. Either way, there is a solidifying of their walk with God.
I definitely believe that there are multiple infillings of the Holy Spirit. We see this in Acts 4:31. This is to happen regularly (Ephesians 5:18). I think that it is possible that this infilling can be dramatic to the point of being accompanied by an outpouring of prophecy or speaking in tongues, but that is not necessarily the case. I think that Pentecostals confuse a dramatic infilling with the Holy Spirit with a one time seperate Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The experience can be the same as what Baptists affirm, but the terminology can be different.
Those are just my thoughts, however.
Posted by: Alan Cross | November 15, 2006 at 03:36 PM
Now the SBCT has added its name to the list with the new resolution on "Glossolalia and PPL." I feel kind of sick. Where is all this heading to? Do you think this is a reaction to the reaction against the new policies at the IMB? Or would a resolution like this have come about even if there were no public reaction to the IMB policy?
In any case, thanks for another good post. I think we all need to pray that the devil doesn't get us sidetracked from the main issue of obeying the Great Commission. I think we all need to do our best to take the "high road" and not get into a tit for tat mentality. May God help us all.
Posted by: David Rogers | November 15, 2006 at 04:35 PM
Good answers all. 1 Corinthians 12:13 is an important verse, as is that entire passage in 1 Corinthians. Those chapters are a large part of the reason why i reject cessationism. Remember, I definitely agree that the Word does not indicate in any way that the only manifestation of the Spirit is tongue speaking, and, we baptists would do well to remember that there are many who believe in a baptism of the Holy Spirit (that can come simultaneously or separately from regeneration) who also would say the same thing. Not all who might call themselves charismatic can be lumped into the "far out" camp. I just see that much of what I was taught about the Spirit is more tradition than scripturally based, as you freely admit, Alan, and that definitely suggests to me that we should be careful about building doctrines thereon or, even more importantly, we must be very careful about finding someone who believes differently in error.
Posted by: Bryan Riley | November 15, 2006 at 06:01 PM
Why is our human language not sufficient? Why would God give this ability to some believers and not to others?
Looking forward to reading your answer to this question. This whole series has been great and quite enlightening. Thanks for taking the time to write out all these thoughts in such a clear manner.
Posted by: GuyMuse | November 15, 2006 at 06:14 PM
Bryan .. you're right in that there's no hint anywhere that unknown tongues is the only manifestation of the Holy Ghost. But I'm not sure many among us would recognize any manifestation at all.
For years, I went to ordination councils at our church. I asked the candidates to describe how they knew they were "full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom", which was included in the original selection criteria. I never, ever got a satisfactory (to me) answer.
I don't want to guess why that was.
Posted by: Bob Cleveland | November 15, 2006 at 08:48 PM
Bob, I hear you. And, yes, it concerns me, too. There is something lacking in worshipping in word only, particularly when we are told to worship in spirit and in truth, to walk by faith and not by sight, to live by the spirit and not by the flesh...
Guy, it is a good question, but I suppose I'd like to look for a biblical answer as to the why. The bible does appear to say that some do and some don't. But, I'm not sure if the why is there without looking a little more deeply. Why do you ask the question?
Posted by: Bryan Riley | November 16, 2006 at 11:21 AM
If the Holy Spirit is unchanging and
If the phenomena of tongues is the same as that in the New Testament
Would it be logical to conclude that the results would also be the same.
As i read Acts - we see in a short period of time - thousands upon thousands coming to know the Savior and an entire city being "turned upside down" by the Gospel.
I have traveled in nearly 70 countries of the world myself - yes nto all but many and try to read vociferously about what is going on in the world - especially as it involves the working of the Spirit.
Can you document for me a similar moving of the Spirit as recorded in Acts.
And if not - is it bcause the Holy SPirit no longer has the power to produce the same results - only the same phenomena.
I do think maybe during for example the Welsh revivals you had such a thing happen. Bars closed - the police did not have much business - society was transformed. ANd yet I do not see where tongues is a part of that - in fact to me a visit by the Holy SPirit in any period of time seems to be more accompanied by things like confession, contrition, brokenness - things in the 20th century that we do not want to do. Maybe they are not showy enough - we like a good show. The bottom line for me - you can talk all you want - both sides pout it great arguements - however where is it happening - even one place. MAybe instead we should all focus more on brokenness, contrition, confession - compassion for the lost. I can rarely even go to a mall or public place any more where I do not end it with wet eyes as I weep for the lost around me who have never heard the gospel message. And we spend hours debating whether God needs to tell them in another tongue or in their own tongue. I have come to the conviction that I will not blog on any given day until I have personally shared Jesus with at least 5 persons and I live in a country which is security level three - so much less freedom to share.
Posted by: anonymous | November 18, 2006 at 06:56 AM
Anonymous,
Thanks for stopping by! Again, I do not think that speaking in tongues is a mark of spirituality or something to focus on. The things that you mentioned (brokenness, contrition, confession, compassion for the lost), are most definitely more effective doorways to spiritual power and closeness with God. I don't think that tongues are given anywhere near the importance that you assign to them in the Bible, unless you want to say that tongues in Acts 2 were the mark of the Spirit's coming. But, the focus is on the power of the Holy Spirit, not tongues. There are many signs of the Spirit's presence besides tongues, and you have listed several of them.
Please do not think that I am just trying to engage in theological arguments or I am calling people to vain experiences. This whole thing has been going on for a year now with the IMB and there have been several bloggers (Brad Reynolds, Bart Barber) who have written treatises AGAINST speaking in tongues. I thought I would add the argument from the other side. That does not mean that I don't value the things you value or that it is all one way over another. I am not trying to get anyone to embrace this, only to point out that it is a valid Biblical perspective.
There are many who have a very quiet position on this topic. They are being told that they cannot serve with the IMB or in SBC leadership, even if they do not promote this, do not practice it publicly, or do not make a big deal out of it. When a few speak up and say that this is wrong and the practice is Biblical, we are told that we are focusing on the wrong thing and being divisive. You can't have it both ways. Truthfully, I wasn't focusing on any of this before the IMB trustees came up with their new policies. I rarely focus on it now.
I applaud your service to the Lord and your desire to see a true awakening. I share it with you and I do not think that whether people speak in tongues or not has anything at all to do with an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I just think that it is one of the gifts listed in the Bible and we should not elevate it or forbid. That's it. That's all.
Posted by: Alan Cross | November 18, 2006 at 08:45 PM
Alan,
Thanks so much for the gracious manner in which you responded to my email - I appreciate it. I am not a complete cessasionist and believe God can do anything He decides to do. But I also feel that we are not to just blindly accept anything that we see - God instructs us to use discernment to test the spirits. The questions seems ot be "IS what people are calling tongues or PPL the same as what is found in the Scripture?" If it is we would be crazy to forbid it. If it is not however then we must forbid it. And if is it is questionable - then at best while not forbidding it we should be able to put some parameters upon who we will financially support in regards to the issue. Therefore my quesiotns remains - IF IT IS the same as what is found in Scripture, and if it is the SAME Spirit - then it would only follow that their would be the same results. Therefore if someone can kindly point to place where as a result of tongues a city has been turned upside down, crime has gone down, adult tpes of amusement are out of business, people are broken, everyone is helping their brothers and sisters (the government does not know what to do because the churches are doing it) - if you can show me such a transformation of society - then I will repent. I can give you a number of exmples of cities with huge charismatic churches - sometimes thre eof four of them running in excess of 8000 people - where the city has increased illicit sexual activity, the television - once pretty clean and family friendly - now filled with foul language and sexually suggestive things - increased juvenile delinquency, division among the churches over the Holy Spirit, - from all outward evidence the cities seems in much worse shape morally than before these huge churches started reaching their thousands upon thousands.
You may disagree but I truly believe that when the HOly SPirit comes - cities and even nations will be transformed and the leaders will not know what to do about it. I wish to God that I saw this happening today. I would love to believe that all of this is a move of the Holy SPirit of God. But if the Holy SPirit is no longer powerful to change a society - if He is only a spiritual drug that makes people feel good until the next week when they can come and get "high" again - then we are in trouble. Blessings on you - I feel that you are defending something you very much believe in and I commend you for that - but I am questioning any evidence of the reality when it comes to practice. How does it stck up against what the SPirit didin the New Testament - for some reason I find it strangely lacking. I weep for our world - I weep for a genuine outpouring of the SPirit of God - such that hearts are changed to the extent that churches are changed to the extent that communities are transformed.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 19, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Anonymous,
Again, I totally agree with you in almost everything you have said. Our difference is that I do not put the same emphasis on tongues that you seem to. I do not see where they were a transformative element in the Bible. I don't see speaking in tongues as being the key to revival or the ultimate sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit (even though they accompanied the Spirit in Acts 2,10, and 19, but so did proclamation, praise, and prophecy). I give them no more importance than the Bible does. They are simply a gift of the Spirit meant to edify the speaker as they pray in their Spirit to God. Where there is interpretation, it is meant to build up the body. To blame the presence of evil on churches who advocate speaking in tongues is a reach in my opinion. I am not saying this, but is it possible that Satan is attacking that much more strongly when churches start to grow and the Kingdom begins to expand? I don't know the circumstances you are speaking of, but immorality is surely not isolated to charismatic churches.
One other thing: I am not advocating charismatic churches. I have many problems with their theology and that is why I not a closet charismatic in Baptist clothing. I don't think that a belief in the continuation of the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, makes you anything other than a Bible believing Christian. I long for the same deep repentance and sincere move of the Spirit as you do. I abhore the same false practices as you do. While some may, I do not associate tongues with those things because I am really trying to do my theology from Scripture instead of by reacting to the abuses of others. If we did that across the board, there are few things that we could advocate clearly.
Societies are transformed when the gospel is preached and believed. The gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, right? Tongues is not in the equation. It is just one of many gifts that should not be forbidden. To say that the tongues that are experienced today are not the same as what is experienced in the Bible is a difficult argument to prove or disprove. Many have testimonies of a greater love for the Lord, a sense of His nearness, a strengthening in their spirit, a greater desire for the Word, prayer, worship, and spiritual growth. They are not the end all be all of spiritual life. I flatly reject the prominence given to tongues by charismatics, but I also reject the elimination of the practice by fundamentalists. I look for balance and edification according to what the Bible says. If you would like to see what I believe Scripture teaches on this, please check out my final post on this subject.
Thanks for engaging with me on this. I truly appreciate the dialogue. Again, we are in agreement on everything except the importance of tongues in relation to the work and movement of the Holy Spirit. I am a student of revival as well, and I do not see tongues involved in lots of the great revivals. That is irrelevant to me, because I don't think that if everyone starts speaking in tongues that we will necessarily have revival, just like if everyone starts exercising the gift of teaching or wisdom we will have a revival. It is just the manifestion of a gift of the Spirit to build believers up. No more. No less.
But, I've said too much already. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that changes hearts and lives. Christ alone.
Posted by: Alan Cross | November 20, 2006 at 12:29 AM
Speaking in tongues is only ONE gift of the Spirit...why do "non-Charismatic" and even some "Charismatic" believers get hung up on ONE gift?
As a seminary-trained Pentecostal believer--who embraces all the spiritual gifts--why on earth would anyone want to "put God" in their little theological box, when the Scriptures do not do the same thing?
We are given instances in the Book of Acts about how the Spirit filled believers. We are given instructions in the New Testament about testing the "fruit" and the "manifestations" of the gifts which the Spirit endues upon those who are yielded to Him.
Why are believers so hung up on the "tongues" but seem to have little if any problem with the other gifts listed in the Scriptures?
I would strongly recommend Pastor Jack Hayford's book "The Beauty of Spiritual Language" as a starting point for investigation of the whole "tongues" argument.
Posted by: Phil Hoover | November 21, 2006 at 03:56 PM