This is the first a series of posts I plan to author to explain, essentially, why when my fellow bloggers start vocalizing things other than English (or any other known language) I do not believe this to be a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. But before I go there, I want to start this whole process by giving a word to those of you who share my perspective on things. That word comes in the form of an exposition of 1 Corinthians 14:1.
Chase love down unrelentingly, through the swamps and sloughs and briar patches and cane thickets, until you catch it, but be people who think the spiritual gifts are the best thing since sliced bread and who really want to have them—most of all that you might prophesy. (1 Corinthians 14:1, ABWTSV)
Oh…I’m sorry…you’re not familiar with the ABWTSV? That’s the “Arkansas Boy Went To Seminary Version”
The Pursuit of Love
The first word of 1 Corinthians 14 is (in Greek) “Diokete.” When you encounter this word, you should imagine a hunt. Think of an English fox hunt, if you like, or the stalking of a gazelle on the African Savannah. As for me, although I never participated in any kind of hunting that actually amounted to the pursuit of prey (deer, ducks, doves…not much actual chasing involved in those sorts of hunts), I can’t help but think about the coon hunting my grandparents did in the bottoms of the Mississippi River Valley. I mean, you’ve seen “Where the Red Fern Grows,” right?
And the point, I think, is that love, for we who are sinners, is a prey that must be chased. It is not our natural state. We do not simply and easily will it into existence. We must labor and get sweaty pursuing it.
And so I confess that I find no joy in the task that I face over the next few posts. I wish I had not, a few posts ago, mentioned my “A Posteriori Cessationism” post in the comments. I think that’s what brought it to mind for Dwight and provoked his, the first post in this series. I wish we were not now three posts into a rehashing of this whole topic. I wish I were not writing rebuttals.
Why? Because I do not like how inevitably personal this topic becomes…how inevitably offensive my convictions are for someone like Dwight. This topic is a cane thicket, and the quarry (love) becomes harder to pursue on terrain like this.
And also, I like the state of Baptist blogging today better than I like the way it was “back in the day.” I’ve grown since then. I don’t want to go back. And when we start linking up all of our old posts and reassembling the gang for round 3, I worry that we are going back. Battle reenactments are enjoyable entertainment—for people other than veterans.
Exegetically, I think this is a pretty good understanding of the text, since this text itself was addressed to a group of people whose situation was perhaps not entirely dissimilar to ours. And so, in writing what I must, like it or not, write over the next several days, I must remember that I am COMMANDED to pursue love unrelentingly. And so are you, those of you who share my perspective. I’ve not paid careful attention to the comments on these other posts—they have been numerous and I have been busy—so I do not know what has been the tone of the conversation, but I’m just going to predict that pursuing love in the discussion of this topic will take intentional work, and if you aren’t working at it intentionally, you probably will not succeed.
The Desire for Spiritual Gifts and the Unbirthday
If cessationism is true, then that is an occasion for some sadness. Spiritual gifts are, after all, gifts. Birthdays are awesome. It’s fun to anticipate them. It’s a little sad when they are over. The spiritual gifts, whatever they truly were and are, are blessings, not burdens. They are good things, not bad things. Whenever and to whomever they were given, God is the Giver, and He gives only good gifts. Granted, there may be OTHER good gifts that God has given to us and not to those about whom we read in the New Testament, but a yearning for the spiritual gifts is, I think, Christian and holy and natural and good.
Most of us pass through at least some portion of our Christian lives—maybe all of it—envying the New Testament church and its members. To see Jesus teaching on the mount! To wash up on a seashore with Paul! To hear the mighty rushing wind of Pentecost! The irony, of course, is that we long to get back to a time that THEY desperately longed to escape. The early church was profoundly eschatological. We ought to be careful to long for what lies before us more than for what lies behind us—and we must all agree that the cessation of tongues lies before us if it does not lie behind us already. Nevertheless, even for those of us who are pressing on toward the upward calling, if you’ve ever stood at a checkpoint in a Cuban airport trying to determine the proper charades to indicate that instant Kool-Aid (which the machine-gun toting soldiers had never seen) truly is not some insidious Capitalist poison being smuggled into the country, then you’ve yearned to possess the gift of tongues and have seen how valuable they would be to us and how bereft of it we are.
By the way, God intervened in a mighty way in that situation, without the gift of tongues, and I’ll have to tell you that story someday.
In Alice’s Wonderland, the Mad Hatter and his friends celebrated unbirthdays. Their rationale? Birthdays don’t come often enough, so let’s change the rules to bring the merriment of birthday parties to every day of the year. Wishing that birthdays came more often is good. Changing to unbirthdays is cheating. It empties the real birthday of its special significance. It is an understandable temptation, but it is a temptation nonetheless.
But even if you agree with me about that, you don’t combat the unbirthday by suggesting that birthdays are not special. No, you show that unbirthdays can never be birthdays, try as they might. Sometimes our discussions of spiritual gifts can come off sounding as though spiritual gifts are for the needy or ignorant or excessively emotional—you know, all the things that the atheists say about our faith in general. But if we are healthy Christians, we ought to earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, valuing them.
The Primacy of Prophecy
The fact that prophecy is prioritized is evident and appears prominently in people’s discussions of 1 Corinthians 14. The nature of prophecy—what, in fact, prophecy is and is not—also receives prominent discussion. I know that not everyone reading this essay will agree as to what prophecy is. I hope to write something that will appeal to us all, no matter what you think the gift of prophecy is. I hope to do so by pointing you to the REASONS given for the priority of prophecy. This much, after all, is indisputable in the text: Prophecy is more valuable because the edification, exhortation, consolation, and profit of the church is of high value. Whatever you may think prophecy is or is not, I suggest to you that anything ELSE that edifies, exhorts, consoles, and profits the church by speaking God’s truth to His servants is also valuable and important.
And so, it is this truth that overcomes all of my misgivings and brings me to my keyboard to expound, yet again, for the umpteen-gillionth time, a perspective on spiritual gifts that does not acknowledge a common Pentecostal and Charismatic practice as any sort of miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in our midst. If any of what I will write is God’s truth, and if I will present it with love for my brethren and respectful longing for the work of the Holy Spirit among us, then I am willing to trust that God will make it worthwhile to someone.
May we all, those of us who will be called cessationists at this site (even if that terminology may do little to communicate clearly what some of us actually believe), write what we write in either post or comment with that objective in mind. May God protect us from seeking to defend ourselves from criticism. May God protect us from prideful displays of perceived superiority. May God protect us from a sinful sense of denominationalism (this from a grateful and convictional Baptist!) that would regard anything as wrong simply because it is Pentecostal, for example. May God protect us from a sense of theological segregationism by which we set our sense of what is true either to keep races out or to bring them in. May God protect us from the sort of pragmatism that adopts whatever viewpoint fills a room. Rather, may God give us a fierce conviction that Truth is healthy, that the church needs it, and that efforts to expound it are never in vain, so long as they are the trace-mates of Christian brotherly love.
“ABWTSV”??! Ecstatic language if I ever heard it….
🙂
🙂
Wow, Bart…the ABWTSV(That’s the “Arkansas Boy Went To Seminary Version”) sounds a whole lot like the “TBWTSV.”
David
A very similar family of manuscripts.
At the risk of making a comment that looks like it’s all about me, I see what you did there. I’ve used the term “pragmatic cessationism” in the past and I wanted to distinguish that from “a posteriori cessationism”. I’m choosing to do that on Bart’s comment stream just as a matter of personal convenience: to highlight distinctions that I think are of interest to us from an administration standpoint that echo Bart’s basic stance.
Let’s start:
1. By pragmatic I mean “what we can practically do and remain in unity”. So if you have a “continuationist” and a “cessationist” seeking to wear the same yoke, in reality the more restrictive view is likely to need to be the prevalent view. This is roughly the same political accommodation Paul exercised with respect to eating meat sacrificed to idols. Those who had freedom to eat those meats could do so. Those who considered it sin were admonished to not sin. And those with freedom were asked to respect those that felt it was sin.
What’s beautiful about that position? It chases love.
2. Furthermore, some of us–I’m in this category–simply have never experienced any portion of “the sign gifts”. Now that was an ENTIRELY TRUE STATEMENT for me in spite of coming into contact with many, many Spirit-filled Christians, pastors, and missionaries through my life. And that was AN ENTIRELY TRUE STATEMENT for me in spite of being a member of a charismatic UMC congregation in College Station for a couple of years. I never, ever, no not even once heard someone speak in tongues until roughly the spring of 2004 in the 44th year of my life. Then one day I was listening to Creflo Dollar–about the 30th or 40th time I listened to him because he was on while I was getting ready to go to work–and he clearly and audibly spoke in a language other than English. So now it isn’t entirely true that I’ve never experienced a “sign gift”. I’ve experienced it exactly once in (now) almost 53 years of life of which some 47 or 48 of them are filled with clear memories.
What’s the take away on this point? I’m eager to have spiritual gifts. But I’m uncomfortable at the lack of them in my life. Or, more precisely, the lack of spiritual gifts that I can clearly delineate–remember I’m trained as a scientist–as being solely spiritual gifts and not based on innate talents, skills, and experience. For example: I’m a gifted analyst. But is that the spiritual gift of discernment? Or the natural gift of intellect? I’ve been told both by different people. Who do I trust to tell me it is a spiritual gift rather than “merely” an intellectual gift? And, more importantly, how do I edify the body with it? (After all, discernment leads to some rather unpleasant conversations, no matter how you end up spinning them…)
3. Most importantly, my parents served with Jerry Rankin and so I was aware of his “personal prayer language” in roughly 1974 just prior to a visit to Jember on the eastern end of Java to visit with the Harry Bushes (NO JOKES!!!) and the Jerry Rankins. That was a memorable visit because it was my first contact with someone who…you know…”spoke in tongues”. Except he didn’t in my hearing. Drats. That would have been the eye-witness account of the ages for SBCVoices.
But that said: I trust Jerry and Bobbye like they were my own parents with respect to their spirituality and just importantly their work effort as missionaries for the cause of Christ. So for me it’s important that pragmatic cessationism leave room for people like them to be who they are without drawing the circle tightly and restricting the use of the gifting they claim even if the only merit I give to their claims (I just know of Jerry, not Bobbye, having a personal prayer language, by the way, but she has supported him for their entire career so I consider them as “one”.)
Now with that said: I fundamentally agree with Bart that from a cessationist viewpoint that his interpretation of Scripture is reasoned and reasonable. But I have to say one more thing: as a proponent of pragmatic cessationism, I’m actually a continuationist precisely because I wish to see active continuationists with active spiritual gifts received and comfortable in the Southern Baptist Convention which specifically means employable in our entities including in pastoral and missionary roles.
Now that’s a bit cutting to the chase and somewhat lets the air out of Bart’s multi-part presentation. Because I suspect at some point he’s going to get to that portion of his presentation and offer some very specific thoughts. I’m not going to presume he’s going to offer the same thoughts I have. I’m too smart to believe he wouldn’t find nuances and shadings if for no other reason than to demonstrate due diligence in considering the situation (and kudos to him for that!)
But in that last sentence I want to offer we’re going to find the greatest challenge in accommodating both groups: we’ve made it part of our mission as a Convention to be very smart about interpreting the Bible. And it has led to ever finer gradations of nuance that might make us FEEL smarter, but it also pressures us towards division and confrontation.
So the question really isn’t “how much differently do we interpret these passages of Scripture”. That IS AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. It is “where can we agree”.
The fact that Paul’s comments can be viewed by one person–Dwight in this case–as not just rejecting but actually supporting a “personal prayer language” while at the same time being viewed by another person–Bart will stand in for this point of view based solely on the previous article on “A Posteriori Cessationism” as well as his starting points here–as legitimately cutting off the exact same expression of giftedness as potentially legitimate should amaze all of us and cause us a tremendous amount of discomfort.
That’s a pretty wide difference in interpretation of the same passage. Almost as wide as the “Calvs” and “Trads”…if not wider.
Allow me to complete ONE dangling sentence:
“Even if the only merit I give to their claims (I just know of Jerry, not Bobbye, having a personal prayer language, by the way, but she has supported him for their entire career so I consider them as “one”) is based on a personal trust of them as believers with no biblical foundation (even though I think there MAY be one as Dwight demonstrated) for their claims.”
As written the sentence leaves you wondering what the point is. My apologies.
Fear not, Greg. After decades of trying by better men than you, nobody has ever successfully let the air out of me. 🙂
Good. I’m not sure that we have a spare for you.
When I started reading that rendering, I thought it was the Cotton Patch version.
I did think of Clarence Jordan when I was doing it.
Bart. Thank you for you pursuit of love in regard to this matter. It makes it ever so less offensive when you tell me that what I have experienced in my walk with The Lord is “not of the Holy Spirit.”
You are astute to point out that no matter what tone you express that in, it is not likely to engender a spirit of unity.
Let me share a bit of my context: I began as a very non-charismatic Baptist; got saved; spent three months underwater at a time sitting next to a God-loving pentecostal; had a life-changing vision in the jungle of Guam; ended up at a Baptist college that drilled anti-charismatic dogma into my life; started ministry and found that God kept miraculously showing up even in places and ways I was taught He no longer shows up.
Now, I no longer allow those who have not walked my path–indeed, will not walk my path–to tell me that what I know about the Holy Spirit, I in fact, do not know.
At the risk of offending non-charismatic, sort of cessasionists, or whatever one uses to describe oneself, I must say, this majority position is represented all too well in our SBC churches. Could that be at least part of the reason that the SBC is in a nose dive and has been for over half a century at least, and maybe more?
Are there not “sort of cessationist” churches in the Convention everywhere one looks? Some have huge crowds, grand buildings, programs that rival Hollywood, but where is the Great Awakening? Where are those that flood the altars with tears of repentence in their eyes? Is not, sort of cessasionist linguistically equivalent to “partly Spiritual?”
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything in this regard, but one thing: don’t put God in a box. He doesn’t fit very well.
A “sort of cessationist” has a biblically supportable exegesis, but no experience. A charismatic Baptist has a “biblically supportable position” and a “experience.” The latter in my view of the matter is the stronger position.
A “sort of cessionist” to me is like a scientist studying chocolate. He knows everything about chocolate that can be measured, but he has never tasted it.
Again, I greatly appreciate your spirit, Bart. I think you see that even with your best effort–and you made a heroic effort–you position will seem a bit patronizing to someone of my position.
One last thing in this too long post: I wish I had stayed in the Pentecostal family. I would have rather have dealt with the emotional excesses with the genuine spiritual experiences, than be a Baptist with a “sort of spiritual” walk with God that is too often dead orthodoxy.
I know this post may offend others, in the same way Bart’s offends me. However, believing Bart to genuinely want to pursue the matter in love, makes it possible to move beyond my offense to a broader understanding and appreciation of this very important issue.
Though I’ve not done so as eloquently as Bart, I offer my opinion most sincerely.
Well, if it helps at all, Frank, in my way of thinking you are hardly alone. I doubt there’s a Christian alive who hasn’t at some point along the way, been fully convinced that he or she knew something about God that turned out not to be true at all. Certainly that experience is not the unique possession of continuationists. If it turns out not to be true about you with regard to tongues, I’ll bet it has been about something else along the way.
We are not so untainted by sin nor unrestrained by our meager position in the cosmos that we perfectly discern the ways and actions of God at all times.
And, because this is true (for me and for you), I am never offended by this conversation or your opinions because I just think that you are wrong and it’s okay because we are all wrong about some stuff because we all see through a glass darkly and we all need to take a humble approach.
It’s just that I’m not wrong about this. You are. I’m sure of it. 🙂
Frank L.,
First of all, I am filled with the Holy Spirit. I have never spoken in tongues. I have never raised the dead. But, I am filled with the Holy Spirit. And, of course, we should be filled with the Holy Spirit, every single day, and walk in the Spirit all thru the day. The Spirit of God fills my heart with joy, and peace, and power. He pours the life of Jesus down into my heart. And yet, I have never spoken in tongues. I have never seen a true miracle performed before my eyes. And, I will probably never, ever speak in tongues, or see the dead raised, or see someone miraculously healed by someone with the gift. Yet, I’m still filled with the Spirit.
In fact, I will let you in on something that I dont talk about real often. It was about 2 weeks after I got saved. Now, the week after I got saved, all I did was walk around stunned. It was like someone feels after they’ve been thru a horrible ordeal, and they’re just in shock for a while. Well, that’s how I was the week after I got saved. My Church went to the Youth Evangelism Conference the next weekend. I went with them….didnt talk to anybody….didnt want to. I just wanted to keep to myself. And, after Dr. Adrian Rogers preached, one night, at the youth conference in Nashville, TN, I stood. I stood to let God and all my Youth group now that I meant business with God. I was seriously repenting, and had gotten right with God.
Well, the next weekend, I went to my Pastor’s house. I told him that I didnt want to go out and party with my Buddies anymore, so what was I supposed to do now? And, he talked to me for a while. Then, he said, “Why dont we go into my office and pray?” Well, I thought that was funny….just the two of us praying together….we werent at Church….we werent about to eat a meal…it wasnt time to go to bed. But anyway, I did it. Well, he prayed for me…then, he said, “Why dont you pray, now?” And, I began to pray. And, as I prayed, an electrifying energy swept across my body from the tip of my toes to the top of my head….all of my body felt like I was being energized in some way.
Man, I’ll tell you….I felt like I could charge the gates of Hell after that prayer time. In fact, my old buddies came to get me. They wanted me to go to Selmer, TN with them to the Pizza Hut. I got into the back seat…there were four of us in the car. One of them asked me, “You wanna beer, Worley?” I said, “Nope, I’ve got something better than beer.” The driver said, “What you got? Whiskey?” I said, “Nope, i’ve got something better than whiskey.” Then, the one sitting next to me said, “What you’ve got, Man? You got weed, or pills?” I said, “Nope, I’ve got something better than all of that, boys. I’ve got Jesus.” Well, the boy sitting next to me literally dropped his beer in the floor board, and looked at me like I was a spaceship alien. The 2 in the front seat sat up straight in their seats, and never said a word. I told them about Jesus all the way to Selmer and back. They had the most miserable night they’ve ever had….lol. But, hallelujah, i was on cloud 9.
And, I’ve been drinking from that fountain every day since….that was 32 years ago.
God is good.
David
Frank,
There is no such thing as a “Charismatic” Baptist. One does not exist. Now, there are Spirit-Filled Baptists and Baptist Continuationists and Baptists with Private/Personal Prayer Languages and Baptists who have experienced dramatic outpourings of the Holy Spirit and who witness in power and who have seen the dead raised and miracles occur. They are all over and I have met many of them. But, there are no “charismatic” Baptists, at least not according to the definitions of how “charismatic” is historically used.
Alan,
Okay, Bro. Dont get mad at me, and hang with me, here. Are you seriously saying that you know of truly dead people being raised back to life? that it’s been done here lately?
Are you also saying that you’ve seen miracles happen? Or, that you know of credible miracles taking place?
Are you also saying that you know of people, who have the gift of healings, and they can lay their hands on someone, pray for them, and they get healed….supernaturally, miraculously healed?
David
David,
I know you asked Alan, but I am curious: Did you ever watch the video I posted with the testimony of Dr. Chauncey Crandall? Are you saying you don’t believe what he said?
David Rogers,
I’m saying, I don’t believe what he says.
I saw the video. I have a hard time believing it. But, if Dr. Crandall, or anyone from that part of the world has the ability to raise the dead, my offer still stands. And, I’m very serious about my offer, as well. I will pay for whatever it takes to get them to Greenfield…I’ll come up with the money….so that they can go with me to the funeral home, and raise the dead….if they dont raise the dead, then you’ll have to pay for their travel, David.
David
Wow, Jess. This man is a well-known and respected cardiologist in West Palm Beach, Florida. He was also a trustee at Palm Beach Atlantic University. I have met him and talked to him personally. His son was my son’s roommate at PBA. And, to top it off, the man who came back to life gives the same testimony, as well as other family members.
Your response sounds exactly what I was referring to in my post A Priori Skepticism.
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2007/05/priori-skepticism.html
David Worley,
What Alan said.
David, you continue to set impossible and unbiblical parameters. You insist that we deal with your straw man instead of with biblical texts.
You and you alone have created the “he has to come to my town and go to the funeral home” scenario. It is absurd – constructed wholly of straw and logically flimsy.
You need to leave that bit of silliness behind, David.
David,
I go to India a lot. I have sat in a room with a group of Indian Christians and everyone in the room pointed to a man who they say has raised the dead – that they have seen it – and that God did it through His prayers and that God was glorified. They all say it happened and they testified to it. I heard it through a translator and asked them questions and they all affirmed it. Either they were lying to me or they were telling the truth. Judging my the character of the people, their godliness, and the ministry that they were doing, I believed them. I did not see it myself because I was with them for just a day in this particular area, but I knew of the ministry through people I trusted and it is an Evangelical ministry that works all over India.
But, you and I have had these conversations before and you have not believed me before so I have no expectation that you will believe me now.
Yes, I have seen people healed. Yes, I have seen miracles. Yes, I have known people who were more effective in praying for healings and the sick than other people. God seemed to grace them in that way and they seemed to have more insight into when and how to pray for the sick than others. No, they did not clean out hospitals as you keep asking for. They are simply people who seem to have a special grace upon them more often than others and a special leading by the Spirit to pray for the sick and see them recover.
I do not think that the Gifts of the Spirit work in hard and fast categories that are rigid like we try to make them out to be. I think that God just does stuff through His people so that He gets the glory and that often remain a mystery to us. I think that much of what has been taught by groups about the Gifts of the Spirit – miraculous gifts – are wrong and that as Baptists, we have a distinct opportunity to work in this area in a more Biblical way – if we would do it. But, we are so afraid of what Benny Hinn has done and what Pentecostals in the 1930’s scared our grandparents into in the way of reaction, that we do not even consider if there is something that we are missing here.
And, I am not mad, brother. I love you, David, and we can talk about this all day long. You will never offend me in this because we know each other and have a relationship and because we are brothers in Christ. We just disagree on this point – and that is ok.
David Worley,
And, according to your last statement about Dr. Crandall – what makes you think Biblically that gifts of healing work on your command or that one could ever walk into a funeral parlor and raise everyone from the dead? Jesus had the power to raise the dead but he didn’t keep the thief on the cross from dying – even when the other thief challenged him to do so. That didn’t mean that he didn’t have the power to deliver him.
Dave Miller says that you are constructing straw man arguments. I tend to agree here because what you are proposing and then dismissing is not what anyone is saying or has ever claimed. So, can we stop doing that please and respect one another enough to actually deal with the arguments and not caricatures? I think that you do respect people, but you have gotten this picture in your mind about what this argument is about that is just not accurate – at least not amongst Baptists. Sure, there are some Pentecostals/Charismatics who claim what you are denouncing – but I would denounce them too. I think that David Rogers and Dwight McKissic and every other Baptist Continuationist would as well, so I don’t see how what you are saying here is profitable to his discussion.
And, I’m still not mad. 🙂
Alan,
There’s also a lot of people…sincere people,…who believe in Benny Hinn, and would call what he does “true miracles.” They honestly believe that Hinn and Oral Roberts and others like that really did heal the sick and such. But, we all know that people can be deceived, or fooled, or they may have honestly thought the fella was dead, and he was really just unconscious. It’s not that I dont believe that you heard these people, and they sound sincere…I just have to doubt their experience was what they thought they saw.
Also, Alan, what miracles have you seen with your own eyes? I would like to hear what they were? I mean, if people cant heal someone that’s truly sick in the hospital….with a real, certifiable illness or handicap….then, how do we know the whole thing wasnt just them getting better naturally? or, the medicine just kicked in? or, it was psychosomatic? I’m not doubting your experience…I’m just doubting that it was a supernatural gift of healing. And please, I believe that God can heal people, today. I pray for people to be healed. And, if people get healed, then I give the glory to God. But, what I’m talking about is the supernatural ability to heal a person….by the power of God….
And, Alan, I love you, too, Brother….I’m not angry, or trying to be disrespectful…and, i hope you’re not taking it that way. My Great Grandmother and my Grandmother were Church of God. When my Mother was growing up, she went to the Methodist Church twice a month, and to the Pentecostal Church twice a month…they went to the Church, who had a preacher preaching on that Sunday..that was back in the days of part time Churches…a Preacher would preach at one Church twice a month…then, he’d also Pastor and preach at another Church in another town, or far enough away that the 2 Methodist Churches, or Pentecostal Churches, or Baptist Churches couldnt join together, and they couldnt afford a full time Pastor. So, they’d share a Pastor.
David
David Worley,
It sounds like you are looking for incontrovertible evidence with no other possible explanation. If we had that, there would be no need for faith. As my Dad used to say, if God wanted to, He could reach down and take the roof off the building and say boo, and we would all automatically be believers. But there is a reason God doesn’t do that. It is because He is looking for faith. I do agree we should not confuse faith and gullibility. There is indeed a place for sanctified skepticism. But when I have to choose between erring on the side of too much gullibility or too much skepticism, I think God is more honored by the trusting side of the equation. I don’t want to put God in a box. And I am doing my best to understand what His Word teaches on these things. There is no reason I should be a continuationist other than the hours I have put in to studying these things for myself, and trying to keep an open mind.
volfan007,
I have never seen such a thing, and I can guarantee you no one else has seen it either. To be absent in body is to be present with the Lord. Unless someone believes a Christian can be kicked out of Heaven.
I knew those Zombie movies would start having an effect of folks.
Alan, I was using “charismatic” in the sense that a charismatic Southern Baptist church used that term.
There are not many, but there are some Baptists who define themselves as charismatic. I happen to be one. You take a more narrow definition of charismatic than I do, which I understand from the charismatic wars of the 70’s and 80’s.
Part of the reason there may not be more “charismatic Baptist churches” is because it just ain’t worth the fight. I am in a unique position of being a SBC church in a pioneer area that is struggling to hold on to a “Southern Baptist heritage.”
I freely admit, I’m not sure how long I’m going to continue to try to hold on. Over 50% of our present membership (maybe more) have come to the church under my time of service. They have, for the most part, come from no denominational affiliation at all.
They only know what they are reading in their Bibles and hearing in sermons. Many of the “sort of cessationist” arguments on this blog would sound strange to them.
This is a bit of a confession because I am truly struggling with the issue in my own life.
For example: one of my associate pastors who serves as the Principal of our school and as the minister of youth and missions, graduated from an Assembly of God college, but grew up in a non-denominational (and quite successful) church. He is also my son-in-law.
Much of the SBC talk is quite foreign to him, and at least a little is troubling for him.
This is an issue I am really trying to wade through, and perhaps am only muddying the water downstream.
Right. I understand, Frank. I am just saying that the terms here need to be clarified. I understand what you are trying to say. But, if you hold to classical Pentecostal/Charismatic theology, you are in violation of the BFM2000 in a fairly significant way and I don’t think that you can be a Baptist.
Now, you can be a Continuationist. In the sense that “charisma” is used to simply refer to the Gifts of the Spirit, then of course, you can be a charismatic Bapitst. But, then again, all Baptists believe in the Gifts of the Spirit on some level, at least, so all Baptists are therefore charismatic in that regard. It is a dilemma. I am just trying to get us on the same page with the terms that we use – and when we do that, we often can better see where we agree and disagree.
I get weary of every time I talk about this someone thinks I’m promoting Benny Hinn or snake handling. That is not helpful. That is all I’m saying.
As for your situation, I will pray for you. It sounds difficult.
Frank L. asked:
“Could that be at least part of the reason that the SBC is in a nose dive and has been for over half a century at least, and maybe more?”
I wanted to respond to this specific question. Let me offer two answers:
1. I believe that the rejection of “Pentecostalism” in the 50s and 60s and the “Pentecostal-lite” charismatic movement of the 70s was a systemic, pervasive rejection of spiritual gifts that are openly practiced and celebrated in Southern Baptist churches. We definitely have fewer of these kinds of believers because of that systemic rejection through the majority of the churches.
2. But remember that the CR led to a rejection of all kinds of more experimental faith exercises beyond just charismatic/Pentecostal spiritual gifts. Those of the CBF-lean also will blame the lack of visible, profound growth in the SBC on the rejection of their viewpoints as well.
So just to offer a counter-example to your question, I recently dredged up a source book that should be interesting to those who understand the history of this particular event. Following the coup attempt by the Parti Kommunis Indonesia and the counter-coup by the Muslim generals that unseated Sukarno, the Pancasila–a basic secular national “creed” for the Indonesian nation–was re-affirmed with one twist: atheism was explicitly rejected and the government essentially required all citizens to identify with SOME religion.
This requirement coincided with the “Indonesian revivals” that included the account by Mel Tari “Like a Mighty Wind” of the Timor/Flores revival which was accompanied by many signs and therefore is general categorized as a “charismatic” revival.
One of our key missionaries at the time in Indonesia was Avery T. Willis, Jr. who later became better known as the author of MasterLife though he also served, later, as a VP of the IMB. His doctoral dissertation was on the Indonesian revival and sought through a series of nearly 500 interviews to attempt to put in words the key thoughts of the many believers–there were some two million–who came to during that time period especially given that many of them were nominally Muslim previously. (It’s a much longer discussion about the character of Muslim faith in the Indonesian archipelago at that time, but it would be somewhat fair to characterize it as a syncretization of both Islam and other influences including the preceding religions Hindu and Bhuddism and the continuing influence of animism and general pantheism.)
I had wanted to put up a comment about this after I got the name of the dissertation in book form confirmed by his daughter, Sherrie, who I went to high school with (her brother Wade was my suitemate in Jakarta and their sister Krista was good friends with my sister when both were in the Nashville area circa their high school years). But when she responded I didn’t really see a chance to mention it. But with this conversation resurfacing, I thought it might come in handy.
The name of the published book–not in print but still available–is “Indonesian Revival: Why 2 million came to Christ”. She confirmed that one of the central themes was that he viewed that the signs that occurred were not actually a key theme in the revival itself. Or as Duane Alexander Miller, a reviewer at Amazon, put it:
“His final analysis of the hundreds of interviews performed yields the following list of reasons for conversion, in order of how many people mentioned them: Spiritual need, Government, Protection, Church, Family, Society, Christian Life, Gospel, Reaction, Service, Miracles. He explains that the Islamist violence directed at suspected Communists after the attempted Communist coup in 1965 was the occasion for the conversion of many Indonesians, who were put in a place where they had to choose a religion (to prove they were not godless Communists)…Finally, he is refreshingly frank about the failures of his own community (Baptists) and their short comings at different times–both among the missionaries (and he was one of them) and the Indonesian leaders. The scope and depth are commendable, if there is one drawback it is that among his interviews there is a disproportionate number of church leaders and pastors, and fewer regular church members than one might hope.”
Looking at the list–“Spiritual need, Government, Protection, Church, Family, Society, Christian Life, Gospel, Reaction, Service, Miracles”–these are responses by real people (albeit heavily weighted with known leaders–to the question of why they came to faith. Miracles is listed last precisely because it was mentioned far less frequently. This is NOT an effort to undercut the question you’re asking, but at least in one historical situation where two million came to faith, it wasn’t a leading cause of faith.
Now I mention this specific situation for TWO reasons:
1. I found it fascinating when I read portions of his dissertation–I believe from his own library in his house–at the time I read it. He has a very deliberate, analytical approach that while not thoroughly scientific–he is acknowledging the existence of supernatural faith-based influence–it is rigorous.
2. There have been some references on this and other sites–particularly circa the time his name was mentioned as an active candidate for SBC presidency–that suggested others thought of him as being essentially a closet charismatic. I knew him well enough to know that he believed in Spirit empowerment–especially of evangelism–and had specific personal stories that he related about the differences–“before” and “after” if you will–in the effectiveness of his ministry before he experienced the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and afterwards. I’ve shared on at least a couple of occasions–as a specific for instance–of a word-for-word sermon segment that matched a sermon from Mission Meeting circa 1974 before their furlough and before my freshman year of high school and a similar sermon he preached at a gathering of Indonesian missionaries in the summer of 2008 at Buckner Camp near Burnet.
So without putting words in your mouth–and somewhat echoing Dr. Willingham–I can agree that some of our ineffectiveness as Southern Baptists might be explained by a frustrating period of diminished empowerment of the Holy Spirit. But I’m not sure that we could pin it directly on the lack of sensitivity to “spiritual gifts” per se. Except to the point you’re making that perhaps a resistance to one could–but I don’t think necessarily always does–lead to a diminishing of the other.
Which is to say: I’ve seen the Holy Spirit work in great ways with people who do not express visible spiritual gifts like tongues. They might be sufficient, but they’re not necessary.
Bart,
Thanks for your generous attitude here. I would expect no less from you. I would hope that we would be able to discuss this while pursuing love and a greater unity and while striving to maintain that unity. In reality, I think that we can because most of us who have discussed this issue over the years have gotten to know each other and we are having a conversation amongst friends (at least that is how I see it). So, even though we disagree on this issue and on whether or not a PPL is valid, Biblical, unbiblical, or a sense of dillusion, hopefully we can see our disagreement on this issue and on the rest of the Gifts of the Spirit as something that does not break fellowship.
At least that is how I see it.
Could I prevail upon you a certain indulgence as we move forward in this discussion? You have said (and this has been said repeatedly over the years) that those who believe that a PPL is from the Lord or that the Gifts of the Spirit have continued to today are Pentecostal/Charismatic in their theology. Can we correct that assumption? It just isn’t true. You can believe that a Private/Personal Prayer Language is what it is claimed to be and that the Gifts of the Spirit have continued on to today and not at all be a Pentecostal/Charismatic. The two do not go together – not necessarily, anyway.
Pentcostal/Charismatic theology is the same. Pentecostals are those who left established denominations and promoted a view of a second Baptism of the Holy Spirit with Speaking in Tongues as the sign of that baptism. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is an endument with power for witness and one’s walk – it does not constitute salvation. It is a second experience after salvation. Charismatics believe EXACTLY the same thing, but they primarily stayed in their established denominations or they formed non-denominational churches. The Second Blessing is the key.
Continuationists or Continualists who believe in a PPL do not in any way have to ascribe to Pentecostal/Charismatic theology to get there. You can be thoroughly Baptist/Evangelical in your theology and ecclesiology and believe in a PPL and that the Gifts have continued. One does not require the other.
Every time you say that this is a Pentecostal/Charismatic issue only, you completely obscure and bypass the actual conversation. There are no Pentecostals or Charismatics in the SBC. It is impossible. Southern Baptists do not believe in a Second Blessing or a separate Baptism of the Holy Spirit with Speaking in Tongues as the sign an endument with power. There are none that exist, no missionary is a Pentecostal, and the practice of PPL or a belief the continuation of the Gifts of the Spirit is not a Pentecostal/Charismatic belief necessarily. Without a separate Baptism of the Holy Spirit with Tongues as the sign, the entire Pentecostal/Charismatic framework falls apart.
So, as we begin this can we stop using those terms? They obscure the conversation and are just not accurate.
Now, I have said all of that and I love everyone (hug, hug, kiss, kiss!) 🙂 I just wanted to be clear in making that point.
Alan,
My apologies, and I’m entirely willing to do that. That’s not asking any more from me than I conceded in using the terminology “Particular Redemption” in an earlier post.
I would say, however, that this particular concept of speaking in tongues is the distinctive contribution of the Pentecostal & Charismatic movements. Second-blessing theology is not. Second-blessing theology is older than the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Its roots go back at least as far as Wesleyanism.
What the Pentecostals and Charismatics introduced was the idea of this kind of speaking in tongues. That seedling did in fact germinate in the soil of second-blessing perfectionism, but it is not the same thing as second-blessing perfectionism.
I say that not to lecture you on the topic of history, but so that you will know the academic reasons (well-founded or not) that bring that terminology to mind for me. Nevertheless, I am content to set it aside for the sake of our discussion.
Thank you, Bart. I appreciate that consideration.
Second Blessing Wesleyanism dealt with Sanctification. Second Blessing Pentecostalism deals with power for mission and the Christian life. This is why the Assemblies of God have 2 experiences and the Church of God has 3 (salvation, sanctification, and endument with power from on high). The AoG went straight for mission and the Church of God stayed steeped in the Wesleyan tradition and just added tongues on at the end.
I understand the origin of the idea of a PPL. But, there is still a dramatic difference. We do not call all those who understand Justification by Faith Alone to be Lutherans or Calvinists. We have incorporated those views into our understanding of Scripture as legitimate for all Bible-Believing Christians despite their particular background or denomination. I am not trying to equate the two doctrines at all – they are vastly dissimilar in their importance. But, I am trying to say that there are many things that certain groups have initiated over the centuries that many Christians have incorporated in. Just because a group is wrong in one area does not mean that they are wrong in every area.
I do not take your words here as a lecture. I appreciate your knowledge of church history and am always ready to listen to you. On this particular issue, however, I am just about as well read as one could be. When I first came to the Lord (really) as a college student, I studied the history, every major figure, every Scripture verse, and every bit of Pentecostal theology and became a Baptist out of conviction and studying the Scriptures and because I believe Baptist theology to be true and not just because I was born into it and never knew another way. I am fully aware of the abuses of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements and how much of it is not Biblical.
On the matter of Spiritual Gifts and PPL, I studied that as well and examined it in the same way as the other aspects of Pentecostal theology. I was willing to throw all of that out as well if the Bible told me to do so. But, in studying those doctrines I saw something very different than I found in studying the core of Pentecostal theology (baptism in the Spirit). I saw a pretty strong argument that was held by Bible scholars all over the world – Evangelical scholars in every denomination who saw God work in those ways. The Biblical arguments for those doctrines make perfect sense to me and are pretty rock solid, I think. So, I accepted those teachings but something like a PPL was not a gift that marked a gateway into the Holy Spirit. That was clearly wrong. Rather, it was just one of many gifts – a lesser one at that – that our Sovereign God chooses to give to some people and not to others and I have no idea why He does so. Perhaps this is why there are so many Calvinists who are okay with this doctrine. I am not a Calvinist, but I have no problem saying that the Wind blows where it wills.
And, in saying all of that I recognize that my view is no more valid than yours and that is why this conversation is helpful and edifying and why we can learn from one another as brothers and not enemies. I could very clearly be wrong – but I do not think that I am. I think that you are wrong, but that is between you and God and where I think that you are wrong on this is not something that constitutes a need for a break in fellowship.
Alan,
The reason why I outlined the history in my previous comment was to show that I was not trying to insult, but to describe. As you should know, when I’m trying to be insulting, I turn to words like “gibberish.” 🙂
Knowing why I was using those words might help you to know that I was not being intentionally derogatory.
Oh, I do not think that you were at all. We are on the same page here and I understand the history. I just thought that other terms would be more helpful for our current conversation. Thanks!
Bart, as one who does not, in whole at least, share your position on the matter, I would say the following:
1) So far, so good. I doubt we could find a lot to disagree on as to what you said here. I read the article hoping to engage something you said, and can only say amen. That will likely change later, I assume.
2) I don’t think you have to worry about us going back to the wild west days of blogging. Most of us don’t want to go there. What most want today is vibrant theological dialogue without the pettiness that is often seen.
3) You hinted at what I believe is the troublesome aspect of this discussion. It is hard to discuss the issues when we can’t even agree on what the issues are.
Is tongues a private/personal language? A heavenly angelic language? A human language?
What is prophecy – especially NT prophecy? Five teachers will give 7 variations of the definition.
What are words of wisdom, words of knowledge and such?
If we can’t define the terms, how can we discern the meaning of the text?
And more than that, if we cannot agree on the meaning of the terms, then shouldn’t we focus on BEHAVIOR that affects all of us instead of prayer that is personal?
I have NEVER had a problem with the IMB/NAMB or whoever saying that because the issue is divisive and we have disagreement that a Continuationist should not advocate PPL on the mission field or that if someone has a PPL that they should not engage in it publicly or promote it. But, what the IMB policy does (and NAMB as well) is effectively eliminate from service EVERY honest, theologically consistent Continuationist from service with our missions organizations or even anyone who BELIEVES that PPL is Biblical and legitimate. We are not talking about behavior here. That can be regulated. We are talking about belief and if people are honest, approximately half the SBC cannot serve in our missions agencies if they really understand what these policies say.
That is a travesty. Because, a Baptist Continuationist knows that not all of the Gifts, including PPL, are for everyone. But, if you have a missions agency that eliminates people who have a certain gift just because of fear, what they are saying is that anyone who believes that that gift is Biblical is also not welcome. If behavior was already dealt with and agreed upon, then the new policy can only really deal with belief and make sense, and in that regard, it catches up everyone but the strict Cessationist in its net – or someone who only defined Speaking in Tongues as a known language.
So, yeah. I do think that it has had an effect – at least somewhat – on our number of missionaries. But, we cannot pay for all those who want to go anyway anymore, so the crisis has not really been felt.
One of the great Doctors of the Church wrote this about the nature of prayer:
” For me, prayer is an aspiration of the heart,
it is a simple glance directed to heaven,
it is something great and supernatural,
which expands my soul
and unites me to Jesus.”
Bart,
You have done it again with your Godly character. You are the type of person anyone would want to have a conversation with. I feel blessed
just to have communicated with you here on Voices.
Thanks, Jess.
A proper definition of Cessationism would be helpful.
Cessationism is about Revelation and not spiritual gifts. Cessationists do not believe Spiritual gifts have ceased but that the revelatory gifts have ceased because Revelation is complete until Jesus Comes.
Spiritual gifts are not about “me” but others. Most of the arguments about these “special” gifts revolve around personal “experience” and are emotionally driven. Experience and emotion are subjective.
Concerning other gifts Cessationists would not say, for instance, “God no longer heals.” They would say that there are no “faith healers” of the apostolic kind, because, #1 Paul was the last of the apostles and #2 with the end of the apostles came the end of written revelation, our only authoritative Word and the need to authenticate the Apostle with apostolic sign gifts.
Agreed, we must lovingly and objectively contend for the truth. That is “What does God say in the Word of God?”
Jeff,
I just read the “Miracles in India” post on the HIMAfrica site. It puts what you are saying in a different perspective.
Yes I was thinking of this very thing when I shared the testimony. Am I in conflict with what happens often in places like Africa and India? In this particular situation the brothers (elders) prayed for this lady and she became better over time (still an answer to prayer) and her sins were forgiven because she came to Christ Jesus as her savior. Praise the Lord.
The Lord healed her.
I am very skeptical of “faith healers.” You probably are aware of the abundance of “super apostles” in Africa mimicking the false teachers from the USA and other western countries getting rich off the ignorant and gullible. To the Word! should be our battle cry.
The Word is our judge and the measuring rod we must use in judging. Lord help me not to be judgmental/prejudice.
Jeff, apart from the fact that there is no verse that says any gifts have ceased, what verse outlines “revelatory gifts” as a sub-category of spiritual gifts?
I think this is where I have some difficulty. I can bring my perspective upon the text and describe some gifts as this and some as that, but I have trouble starting with the text and arriving at my presuppositions.
What text do you feel outlines gifts into sub-categories? A side question would be: which list is complete? Do you put them all together? Is Paul seeking to be exhaustive in any lists? or even in putting the lists together?
Definitions are helpful, but are not inspired.
Also, in 1 Cor. 1:4-8, when Paul is telling the believer in Corinth that God would continue to confirm through the distribution of spiritual gifts until the revealing of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the the day of our Lord Jesus Christ, he specifies gifts related to “all speech and all knowledge.” Sounds an awful lot like “revelatory gifts” to me, if we want to use that category.
that should be “believers in Corinth,” not “believer.” I didn’t mean to imply there was just one. 🙂
David answered the question of which text would give a “sub-category” of gifts. And yes I was giving my own interpretation/understanding of the study of gifts, especially tongues without explanation. My presumption, which is a horrible weakness, was that you would understood me without any explanation. My wife takes me to task concerning this.
BUT 1 Corinthians 13:8 specifically says prophecy, tongues and knowledge will/would cease. The question is when. When is answered in the following verses. Then the question must be answered as to what the is meant by “when the perfect comes” means. Being the text is talking about revealed truth, I take the “perfect”, i.e. complete, being the Written Word of God.
Definitions while not inspired are absolutely necessary for understanding one another. I should not of said ” A Proper definition…” but instead “my definition…”
I should of said, “My definition of cessationism is…” This would of helped to better communicate what I am saying from my perspective.
The discussion/controversy is not new and has been hashed and rehashed many times.
Bart,
I love this post and even more the spirit of this posts. Being an Arkansan, even with far less seminary training than you, I loved the Arkansas translation and application of the verse on love and prophecy that you referenced. May the Lord be with you as you develop the future posts.
I thought Alan made some noteworthy comments in this thread regarding the distinctions between continuationist Baptists and classical charismatics. Like Alan, I wish those distinctions were better understood and identified by speakers and writers when addressing this subject.
So far, I’ve been impressed with the tenor of this whole discussion.
Dave, we got tired of fighting each other on this around 2008, if not earlier. Dwight’s conference on the Holy Spirit prior to that time had a lot to do with that, I think. Plus, at least for me, I came to appreciate deeply Bart and others that I once argued with. This is all just good fellowship to me.
Fair warning to everyone: The Supreme Court of the United States is going to issue its rulings on two homosexual-related cases tomorrow. I expect that to suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere for a while. My subsequent posts will probably not being to appear until at least Monday, in order to give space for this topic.
Indeed. I imagine that will take up our attention quite a bit. You are absolutely right. Praying tonight for all involved.
Bart,
You said “…suck the oxygen out of the atmosphere…” – I was just reading several articles on the rulings expected and another on Healthcare. Thought came to my mind – would probably be a good investment to purchase some stocks in oxygen companies!
Thanks, Bart, I’ll be praying and watching. I hope the Supreme court has, at least common sense.
“I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet” (grandson/father of said specie not excluded). I am a cranky old engineer who grows weary of seeing 10 million electrons wasted to parse, quibble and justify your ‘personal’ actions. How can they possibly be ‘personal’, with the constant demand that we express our appreciation of your ‘personal’ gift/or whatever term you choose. If it is ‘personal’, you keep it personal- I don’t need to hear about it. And the wrapping of scripture with ‘your experience(s)’ is neither convincing nor appealing. You’re welcome.
And I am aware of the mission board issue; but again, if it had been kept ‘personal’; how on earth could it have become an issue?
So why, why, why does this issue keep coming up? Very simply, “Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” are really difficult to fake. And it has been said by wiser folk than us; that if such were ever evidenced, it would be so visible/astonishing that no one could deny it.
Twenty plus years ago, I calculated that I had already been blessed by (or subjected to) over 10,000 sermons by you good brethren. And true to the bell curve, a few were absolutely awful (if not blasphemous), a LOT in the middle and several approaching holy ground on the top. So please skip the pontification. I do know what ‘is’ is.
“”” with the constant demand that we express our appreciation of your ‘personal’ gift/or whatever term you choose.””””
Dale, may I respectfully disagree that I ever asked anyone to express appreciation for my spiritual gifts.
The reason it could not be kept “personal” is because persons were asked if they engaged in this activity of the Holy Spirit. It was the intrusion of the Board that brought it into the public domain.
For many years, it had not been a problem at all and I do not know of any specific instance that sparked the problem.
I also think you confuse “personal” and “private” with secret. My private prayer is private and personal, but not a secret. I would not quibble, or parse anything if someone else did not express their opinion.
This is a blog and though it may aggravate your “cranky old engineer” sensibilities, I believe it is an appropriate discussion to have. If you don’t want to “waste 10 million electrons,” then that is certainly your privilege.
I would remind you, however, coming from a chemistry background, that no electrons were consumed or destroyed in any of my posts.
I really don’t understand this statement: “”””“Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” are really difficult to fake””””
I’ve seen these “faked” many times over the years–especially love.
Frank;
Please pardon my typing- this is the third attempt.
“I’ve seen these “faked” many times ..” My point precisely, you recognized the attempted fake and were not faked/fooled (or likely anyone else either) with “. And thus the problem with ecstatic utterance and the defense thereof.
Personal/private has been kicked back and forth throughout this comment stream- take your pick.
How would the board have ever known to ask if PPL was being practiced, if an individual had not previously made that known? The question was not without background. It is this seemingly endless need of practitioners to make public, their P/PPL usage that gens up controversy and smacks of boasting and/or seeking of public affirmation.
Frank;
Again, my typing;
either) with “. should have read::: either) with “fruit of the Spirit”. And thus…..
And I would have hoped that a chemist remembered that matter and energy are only transformed (not destroyed). But that certainly doesn’t eliminate ‘being wasted’. Sorry, I never remember how to do smileys.
Bart,
Have you buried me yet?; or are you going to wait ’til your next post to do that?????
Question marks should have been a smiley face. Since technology failed, I’ll have to do it the old fashion way -:).
Dwight,
Check your emails.
Dwight,
Sir, it’s easy. See! 🙂
Jess,
????
Dwight,
I tried to duplicate what you did. Except mine turned out to be a smiley face.