My position makes sense to me. I think it would be wrong to forbid speaking in tongues. I just have never encountered anyone actually doing that, as I understand the biblical gift: miraculously speaking in an actual language (a system of meaning-conveying sounds used to communicate ideas) that one has not naturally acquired. And so, I’m not in a position of encountering a biblical spiritual gift but forbidding its practice (as I see it). If I am in error, it is an error of being underly perceptive rather than overly restrictive. Whether the gift be exercised in public or in private really makes no difference—I’m encouraging people not to engage in a counterfeit practice while falsely attributing it to God.
The Pentecostal position makes sense to me. They think it would be wrong to forbid speaking in tongues, and they think that people are indeed speaking in tongues—practicing the New Testament gift as they understand it. They encourage the utilization of that gift in private. They encourage the utilization of that gift in public. Whether the gift be exercised in public or in private really makes no difference.
Some variants of the open-but-cautious position make sense to me. Particularly, I understand what’s going on where there are people who believe that some Pentecostal/Charismatic practice is unbiblical not because they won’t accept any old random assortment of gurglings as a miraculous word from God—they’re glad to do that—but because they see the setting and manner by which some of those ululations are delivered as being contrary to the rules of 1 Corinthians. Such people say that they are open to the practice of tongues, whether in private or in public, but they’re on guard against the practice of public tongues without interpretation or with numerous people at one time, or in any other way that violates the terms given to the Corinthian church. Whether the gift be exercised in public or in private really makes no difference. Just follow the rules of 1 Corinthians (which may be different for public versus private use, depending upon how you read the chapter), and you can exercise the gift in public just as well as in private. I even understand the point of view that would say, “Hey, you can ALWAYS exercise your gift in private prayer, and whenever we have in place someone with the gift of translation, you’re free to exercise your gift in public worship, but that’s often not going to be the case, so you’re usually not going to be able to exercise the gift in public.”
What I don’t understand is how you can have a position that says, (a) Yes, the Pentecostal/Charismatic practice is indeed the biblical gift, and (b) we’re perfectly OK with your practicing that gift in private, but (c) you’re absolutely forbidden from speaking publicly in tongues, no matter how you do it and no matter how many interpreters may be present. In this case, whether the exercise of the gift takes place in public or in private makes ALL of the difference. How can this be justified from scripture? How can this not be the creation of a new set of restrictions that go beyond the restrictions of the Bible (a consideration more important even than the fact that they also go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message)? Can anybody help me with that? It sounds more like modern American Democrat sensibilities (“What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own prayer closets is none of our business”) than the instructions of 1 Corinthians.
Furthermore, how is it that my position can be classified by anyone as a violation of 1 Corinthians 14:39 (people holding my position do not believe that they are forbidding anyone from speaking in tongues; we just think we’re forbidding people from doing another something that erroneously purports to be speaking in tongues), while the latter option that I’ve outlined is not classified as a violation of 1 Corinthians 14:39? That last position is, by definition, a position that acknowledges as valid the modern Pentecostal practice but adds unbiblical restrictions (no public speaking in tongues!) that are in violation of 1 Corinthians. After all, doesn’t pretty much every scholar regard 1 Corinthians 14:39 to be addressing (at least in part) the public use of the gift of tongues? Does anyone seriously assert that it says, “Do not forbid the PRIVATE speaking in tongues, but by all means, forbid all PUBLIC speaking in tongues”?
For me, with the imperfect knowledge that I possess (for we know in part, right?), it seems to me that if you acknowledge the Pentecostal/Charismatic practice as biblical, then you have to permit its use in all the ways that scripture prescribes, right? Or else, aren’t you something of an extra-biblical legalist?
Unless our real, de facto position as a convention is this one: We believe in option one. The modern practice is a bunch of gibberish. We don’t think it’s the actual, biblical gift of tongues. The people who practice it are mistaken, deceived. BUT, so long as they keep it to themselves, this is not so great of an error as to get in the way of a missionary appointment. Let’s go all Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell on the question and get on about the business of the Great Commission.
That approach, perhaps, makes some sense. I don’t hear that rhetoric from anyone in public, though. I’m curious whether there’s anyone in this forum who has advocated for change in this area who would own this point of view as his or her own.
My position has lost the day. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. Of course, we all have to live with the regnant philosophy of the day. It’s not that I’m trying to wage war against the point of view that has won (these decisions aren’t made on blogs, and shouldn’t be), it’s just that it would be nice to understand the philosophy under which we are cooperating. Mine is a position of submission (to the structures by which we make decisions) seeking understanding. Can someone give me a word of knowledge and enlighten me?
I think your assessment is a pretty good one. Here would be my modified version of the “de facto position” you have put forward: The modern practice of PPL is a form of ecstatic speech. I don’t think it’s the actual, biblical gift of tongues. The people who practice it are mistaken, deceived. BUT, there are biblical scholars whom I respect who disagree with my position and I could be wrong. I believe the position to be in error, but this is not so great of an error as to get in the way of a missionary appointment. Let’s allow… Read more »
Todd,
Amen!!!
Yes Todd, I think you said it better than I did. I agree.
That argument, made from the beginning, would have come much closer to persuading me.
“As Southern Baptists, we think this is error. And yet, we have to consider the importance of this error. So long as it is in private, we don’t see why it is so important.”
I could be persuaded by that.
Of course, Alan will point out a survey showing that Southern Baptists increasingly do not think this is an error. THAT worries me.
Well, I think that you are in error on this and I am not worried about it because I see a much bigger picture regarding your life and ministry. We are all in error in one way or another. And, we are all partnering with people in the gospel who we believe to be in error in different ways. That is part of what it means to see through a glass darkly. I am not saying that truth cannot be known. We all have our views and there are core issues related to orthodoxy that we have to agree on.… Read more »
Amen, Alan.
I also think Bart is in error on this point.
But I am very grateful for the work he is doing in Farmersville and in Senegal, and other places. And I am perfectly happy that some of my cooperative giving goes toward supporting people like him.
Only (1) I don’t think it’s fair to say “as Southern Baptists” when a significant number of Southern Baptists do indeed believe in a PPL and the Convention has taken no position on the issue, and (2) at the time the policies were put in place, the majority of our discussion seemed to focus primarily on the Baptism issue
Bart: The issue you lament may be a decline of historic “Southern Baptist” identity and, consequently, “Southern Baptist” consensus anymore inside the SBC. IMO, this is becoming evident in ongoing discussions about everything in “SBC” life from tongues to paedobaptism. You’re not dealing with the same kind of “Southern Baptist” collective identity you were dealing with 20 years ago. This particular denominational label (SBC) has/is becoming much more eclectic in its constituency as well as eclectic in the theological mix being taught in its seminaries and as represented in recent denominational appointments. It’s not surprising to see more and more… Read more »
Our problem is that the glue that holds the SBc is melting away, and with it the glue for America. When we dissolve this time, we shall find the whole country going to Hell in a handbasket. In fact, it is on its way there now. In an Awakening, the presence of God is so evident, so felt, that not even the most ardent and committed sinner will lift his or her voice. He or she will fall senseless at the manifestation of that great reality. If Whitefield and Wesley could not rise from the floor along with their assistants… Read more »
Well said, Todd. There is a difference between what is true and the practical way we fellowship on the matter. That is to say that we all could be wrong on it, it’s a third tier issue, and we need to be about the business of proclaiming the gospel while we discuss these things. We don’t need to nail this issue down before we hit the mission field. Personally, I think that biblical Pentecostal tongues are languages that are known to an audience where the speaker doesn’t know the language. In the West, where a multiplicity of languages is largely… Read more »
As a Southern Baptist, I have visited a Pentecostal church ( many years ago,) and witnessed the ” speaking in tongues.” This is not the actual sign gift described and regulated in the New Testament ( which were actual foreign languages, but ceased by the end of the first century. ). The Pentecostals have erred in this and many other doctrinal matters. Believing correct doctrine is practical; it affects our practice. Some of these folks are writing their own “scriptures.” My friends in that church eventually confessed to me that they were just making sounds they were taught to make.… Read more »
“Unless our real, de facto position as a convention is this one: We believe in option one. The modern practice is a bunch of gibberish. We don’t think it’s the actual, biblical gift of tongues. The people who practice it are mistaken, deceived. BUT, so long as they keep it to themselves, this is not so great of an error as to get in the way of a missionary appointment. Let’s go all Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell on the question and get on about the business of the Great Commission.” Yes, this is close to my position. Let me clarify it though. I… Read more »
The purpose of “praying in the Spirit” is to build up the prayer spiritually in their faith. You could also say that Eph. 6 and Jude 20 makes allusions to “praying in the Spirit.” I am not saying that someone cannot be carried along by the Spirit in prayer without praying in tongues, but 1 Cor. 14 seems to be clear on what is happening here. Not every spiritual thing that we do is for the edification of others. We edify ourselves as well through prayer, Bible study, obedience, and other spiritual disciplines. I don’t see why praying in the… Read more »
Bart, The problem you pose here is well-reasoned and to some degree legitimate. If, for example, everyone in the SBC believed like I do about this issue, we would have an IMB policy that allowed for public practice of tongues as long as the 1 Cor. 14 guidelines are followed. I think the policy we have now, however, is a reflection of the fact that we do not all agree on this. It is a compromise solution. It is a solution some folks on both sides of the equation are not willing to live with. And it is a solution… Read more »
I, for one, don’t want David and others like him to have to choose sides. I would rather that he be welcomed as a cooperating Baptist who is free to disagree on this “level three” issue.
If a “compromise solution” involves our forbidding what we’re forbidden in scripture from forbidding, that’s a bad compromise.
Would it be dishonest to say we are not actually “forbidding” it, but rather mutually agreeing to abide by a compromise solution that out of love and forbearance for each other’s understanding and convictions allows for a more effective furtherance of the gospel?
If someone doesn’t mutually agree, he’s fired. I’d call that forbidding. 🙂
I see your point. But I am not convinced that it is always bad (in the interest of the advance of the gospel) to submit to what we might consider to be extra-biblical guidelines. There are a couple of Scriptural parallels that come to mind. Paul was adamant that Gentile believers should by no means submit to Jewish demands that they be circumcised. Yet, for the overall benefit of the work, he advised (and led?) Timothy to be circumcised (though not Titus). He also says to the Colossians, “Let no one judge you on matters of food or drink.” Now… Read more »
Bart,
I think that everyone has said that if someone spoke in a foreign language they would accept it. Not forbidding those who pray privately in a tongue seems to be fitting with that verse. That leaves the tongue and interpretation. I guess that we could cross that bridge when we came to it.
That’s a salient point.
The ban on tongues never banned anyone from missionary service, just from doing it on our dime.
I still can’t get over the babbling and so called interpretations, the pure charlatanism of so much of the tongues movement, that I have seen in the many years of my life, beginning in my childhood. When I learned that the practice created havoc in so many churches, and, in those churches where it was encouraged as a regular part of their doctrine, many gave up on the Christian Faith and could not be reached by any one. Now we have PPL being accepted, the crack in the door (?), to be followed as some have suggested by the full… Read more »
Bart, You are spot on, IMHO. And, this part…”For me, with the imperfect knowledge that I possess (for we know in part, right?), it seems to me that if you acknowledge the Pentecostal/Charismatic practice as biblical, then you have to permit its use in all the ways that scripture prescribes, right? Or else, aren’t you something of an extra-biblical legalist?” ….hits at the heart of the matter. Either ecstatic utterance is tongue speaking, and we’re given regulations in Scripture for its use in PUBLIC settings, or it’s not real tongue speaking. It’s gibberish. I do understand the “Don’t ask; don’t… Read more »
You’re correct. Also, tongues was mainly a sign for unbelievers. There are no examples of genuine tongues , the unknown languages, practiced in private, in Scripture.
Taking the whole movement together, I’ve seen the extreme damage it can do. Many have fallen away, and are angry, in rebellion towards God. ( Here I’m speaking of friends I had thirty years ago.). When a preacher starts adding to, subtracting from, or changing Scripture, which they are doing in addition to the counterfeit tongues, spiritual abuses and disaster can result. Therefor, I think it’s dangerous to allow this practice in missionaries.
I have to stay in keeping with Bart’s leanings. I am not to “forbid” speaking in languages others don’t know. This includes myself speaking such a language. Yet, in discerning fashion, I must measure how, when and why, as my interpretation of “properly and in order” quite often is distinctly different from another. Unfortunately, my experiences in the realm of other tongues offers me little encouragement that such individuals who “possess” this gift will chose to promote Christ Himself above and over their “experiences” and resulting one-up-man-ship over all the other nominal, perhaps-not- saved, pretenders. While not all place tongues… Read more »
I appreciate your concerns especially in the area of errant soreriogy, but I must say I’ve known several who have practiced PPL who have never shown that to be an issue in their service, teaching nor their practice. Simply no one would know that didn’t ask them directly, and they were sincerely baptistic in doctrine. I myself did this in the 70s and 80s. But long since discarded it as my understanding of scripture changed. I’m a ‘borderline’ cessationist. 😉
Typos! Not tongues.
Shanda! A leek a Liam Posa! Oops did I say that publicly? Whatever, what I meant to say was I like Todd’s De facto position. I’m goin with that one.
Shanda!
Be careful what you say about Liam. He has a very particular set of skills, skills acquired over a long career.
And, he will find you.
and he has a special set of skills…..
If there is one thing that I have learned from these discussions over the past decade is that everyone believes what they believe and learning or coming to understanding or agreeing where one does not already agree is basically impossible. Many of Bart’s questions and misunderstandings were addressed over and over and over again for several years back when we were having these discussions. On Praisegod Barebones and multiple other blogs. I remember going over this with Bart again and again. Bart is really smart and is more than capable of grasping complex arguments. Perhaps instead of saying we don’t… Read more »
Alan, My only small disagreement is that I believe some people’s minds can change on things like this, because I am a personal example of this. I do not come from continuationist stock (at least not, the version of it I currently embrace). I was not taught continuationism in seminary. Neither have I had some dramatic supernatural experience I needed to find a doctrinal justification for. It was my careful study of the relevant Scripture passages and my interaction with and listening carefully to continuationists that caused me to change my views on this. And I think I am still… Read more »
Right, David. My mind has changed on things too. Everyone’s has to one degree or another. I overstated when I said that change was impossible. What I was really trying to get at is that on the blogs, at least, the lines are drawn the same “questions” are asked and the same misunderstandings are restated. My larger point is that it is far better to just say we disagree with one another and still love one another and seek to cooperate in the gospel. That is why a compromise position on this is needed – one which dramatically favors the… Read more »
“I am not more of a Baptist now that that the IMB is more in line with how I read read 1 Corinthians 14.”
I hope this is not true. What we are being told is that the IMB is not taking a position on PPL. I hope they are not moving from taking a position against it to now taking a position in favor of it. I prefer the no position. It is the best solution for the SBC broadly and the IMB specifically in my opinion.
Adam, By them not opposing anyone who reads 1 Cor. 14 the way that I do, they are more in line with me. I simply mean that by not eliminating anyone who agrees that a PPL is Biblical that we are closer together on where we stand on 1 Cor. 14. I am not insinuating that the IMB is promoting PPL at all. I do not see it that way. This is really interesting. According to the Lifeway poll a few years ago, over 50% of SBC pastors believed that PPL was Biblical. Yet, the cessationist view usually predominates in… Read more »
Alan, ” According to the Lifeway poll a few years ago, over 50% of SBC pastors believed that PPL was Biblical. Yet, the cessationist view usually predominates in conversation.” Like so many other polls – I think this may be skewed by the way the question is asked…. For example – If someone asked me if I am a cessationist I would answer no…and be totally telling the truth. If someone asked me do I believe PPL (or other ecstatic utterances) to be biblical – I would say no – and be totally telling the truth. If someone were to… Read more »
Tarheel
Well said my brother. While this is a controversy, I think the vast majority of SB pastors would agree
“Second Baptist of the Holy Spirit”….is that the name of your Church, Alan? 😉
Sorry, I couldn’t help it.
David 🙂
I sure do hope we have the Holy Spirit, David. We need him every day.
It took me a second, but I got the joke. 🙂
Alan, I’m facing quite a day here, so I don’t have the luxury of really getting into details today. I just want to make a clarification. I didn’t say that those who speak in tongues in Southern Baptist life are Pentecostals/Charismatics. I didn’t say that they held Pentecostal/Charismatic theology. I simply referred to the Pentecostal/Charismatic practice. Phenomenologically, “speaking in tongues” can refer to two things. It can refer to supernatural xenoglossy (speaking the languages of people foreign to oneself). It can refer to the speaking of that not known to be language. The latter phenomenon has emerged into our milieu… Read more »
I am also busy and won’t be back for a while. But, that is why I (and many others) call it PPL. The case can be made that there are different kinds of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10) and that we see at least 3 in the Bible such as those on Pentecost (languages), those meant for the edification of the church through a prophetic tongue with interpretation (1 Cor. 12, 14) and those mean for the personal prayer in the Spirit of the believer (1 Cor. 14). The context of each type and 1 Cor. 12:10 saying that there are… Read more »
Thank you for clarifying that this is willful ( ie. not error.). Because I was in error at one time, as a young woman, then was corrected on my beliefs in that matter. By both my church leaders, and by my experience of knowing the Pentecostals who fell away. Very sad. Thus,I took a good amount of time to study this issues.
Willful choice is much different that error, you’re correct. I won’t wast my time sharing the truth in love, if it’s already known.
My comments aren’t making their way to the site, but when I try to paste and resubmit it says “Duplicate comment deleted.” Conspiracy! 🙂
Well, that one squeaked through . . .
We are having a lot of that, Jeff. Sorry. It’s happened to Bart at times and Dwight McKissic.
Based the survey Adam mentioned above, about 50% of SBC pastors are open to the possibility of a PPL but only 4% claim to practice it themselves. I’ve been in SBC churches my whole life and have only met one Southern Baptist who claimed to have spoken in tongues. It seems that this will be an issue with very few missionaries. Why have any kind of blanket restriction for appointments based on tongues? Why not address specific abuses and concerns on a case-by-case basis?
The survey that Alan mentioned, not Adam. Ugh.
For whatever it’s worth, I also believe the true biblical gift of tongues is the ability to speak, and maybe hear, in another human language you did not already know.
At Pentecost, Acts 2, they were filled with the Spirit, spoke in tongues, and everyone understood them in their own native languages.
Today people claim to speak in tongues, and no one understands.
There seems to be a big discrepancy here.
David R. Brumbelow
To me, the LifeWay poll is significant (even if its ‘numbers’ are wrong) is that it shows that Southern Baptists are not unified on their interpretation on the issue. Private Prayer Language is a “gray area.” That in itself should warn any leadership or majority vote to take a hard stand that alienates a huge segment of SBs on the issue. I love Robertson McQuilkin’s counsel on “attitude in theological study.” He says, “An essential element in studying Bible doctrine is humility. Humility clear the way for love to operate. But rock-bottom humility — actually counting everyone else better than… Read more »
I agree, Kevin – especially with your last paragraph.
And yet, why then is the IMB policy not more humble and generous in the matter of public glossolalia?
Because it has a higher potential for being “disruptive.” In other words, it calls attention to itself more.
I would assume because that is well…public….
I heard an SBC big dog years ago say: “I would just assume that private prayer languages stay private.”
He went on say that if they do in fact stay private then those of us who disagree with your interpretation and behavior will not need to address it as they will not know about it…..
I found that to a good answer to a question relating to this issue.
That works until the hiring entity asks if you “speak in tongues” and in liberty, unity, and transparency answer the question honestly. From my recollection, that was somewhat how Jerry Rankin’s became known and it wouldn’t surprise me if it was during candidate interviews.
If they don’t tell the truth they aren’t following Christian comity and discipline and if they do they risk not being selected.
Greg
the issue is not tongues but a PPL…there is a difference.
You didn’t read what I wrote. If you are asked “do you speak in tongues” and you consider how you answer and you reveal “I have a private prayer language” then you are put on the record by honesty not by deception. So then to accuse you of failing to keep your PPL private is a gotcha approach.
Greg
I did read it. If I am asked do if I speak in tongues I can say no and not be lying even if I have a PPL. If someone discovers I have a PPL it is not a gotcha because it not speaking in tongues…there is a difference.
D. L., Actually, most of us who defend the possibility of a biblical PPL do believe it is a form of speaking in tongues. See, for example, Alan’s comment here. https://sbcvoices.com/trying-to-find-the-private-only-option-in-scripture/#comment-289619
David Of course theologically you could be correct. However I think it could be argued that perhaps not. However my point is different. I am thinking more pragmatically. I am referencing the issue with the IMB decision. It seems to me that when the average SB (whatever that is) hears the phrase “speaking in tongues” something different runs through his mind than when he hears the phrase PPL. If a candidate is introduced to the convention and it is said he speaks in tongues, assumptions will prevail and the groaning (no pun intended) will be heard all the way up… Read more »
Tarheel Great observation and comment. (1) The scripture most used for the PPL is in the context of a persons private personal prayer. Note the operative words, “private” and “personal”. (2) The context of the scripture suggest that one has come to a time in his personal prayer that he really does not even know what to say, how to pray, it is an agonizing time when as it were he cries out to God and admits his confusion/frustration and the Spirit intercedes (OK a little eisegesis there). (3) these times are my business and between God and I. (4)… Read more »
I think David Rogers has put his finger on at least one of the issues. “Private” beliefs and expressions and “public” ones seem to have a distinction in the NT. Paul says of eating meat (and possibly drinking wine, v. 21), “The faith/belief that you have, have as your own conviction (lit. “according to yourself”) before God” (Rom 14:22). It is possible to have a personal conviction on an issue, but at the same time, “we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another” (14:19). We “do not tear down the work of God… Read more »
Great use of Scripture there, Kevin. It does indeed seem this is the Pauline (i.e. biblical) approach.
In the abstract, I can see that. But when you have an item for which there is a positive biblical command not to forbid the public practice of it, does that not put this into a different category for any of you?
Someone’s going to think that I’m just being contrarian. But really, it just seems to me that the verse in question makes such a solution not just extra-biblical but anti-biblical.
That, I believe, is where my earlier comment about circumcision and not letting anyone judge us on matters of food or drink comes into play.
In an ideal world, from my perspective, perhaps the IMB should allow for public tongues (with 1 Cor. 14 guidelines). But if I put my own understanding of every biblical issue in front of my willingness to cooperate with those who agree on the essentials, but not on some non-essentials, I would likely end up working all by myself and greatly reducing my effectiveness for the advance of the kingdom as a result.
Another thought on this: Is it not possible (even likely) that Paul meant the injunction not to forbid speaking in tongues as a local guideline for the church in Corinth in their particular situation rather than an eternal command that applies in any and every situation and context?
“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue…. ….So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians? ?14?:?18-19, 39-40? ESV) So, Paul advocated paring with the spirit and also praying with the mind. Then he says that he speaks in tongues more than them all, but in the church he would rather speak words… Read more »
That’s rather beside the point, Alan.
The question is, believing what you believe, how is it that you are comfortable with IMB rules that prohibit those with this spiritual gift, as you see it, from exercising it in public when the scriptures explicitly forbid anyone from preventing them from doing so.
David’s solution (perhaps this was ONLY for Corinth) is a legitimate stab at it. I’m thinking that one over. It’s difficult to imagine a local contextual reason that would protect the freedom of the Corinthian tongues-speakers that would not be universal.
Bart
My personal take on “protecting” the Corinthian tongue use is as I stated earlier. If Corinth followed the guidelines set down by Paul, it is reasonable to assume that it would die. Perhaps Paul knew this. OK not my “personal” take, I heard Dr. Criswell say that years ago. However I have adopted it.
Dr. Bart
Re. contextual reason…you raise a valid point. I went to two churches as pastor following a charismatic split viscious enough that required the pastor to go elsewhere. The method of handling the issue was basically get right or get out. Hence they got out. There was little or know attempt to correct bad theology and live with acceptable theology, just get right or get out.
Could it be that the contextual reason Paul allowed for the practice in Corinth only was because he was trying to salvage and correct rather than get right or get out.
Bart, Let me clarify a bit more. I am not suggesting, in the strict sense, ONLY for Corinth. If Paul gave this guideline for Corinth, it is very likely he would give the same guideline for other churches dealing with the same issues and asking the same questions. What it does not necessarily mean, however, as I understand it, is, if something like the First-Century IMB were to come to Paul and ask him, given their particular set of circumstances, about this issue, he would necessarily tell them not to forbid public tongues, also. The circumstances and rationale behind each… Read more »
Bart, Let me explain. The only way that it can be Biblically used in public worship is if someone with the gift of interpretation is present. So it is a moot point. Southern Baptists neither recognize that gift nor are open to it. Half of SB’s would wrongly think that someone was trying to add to Scripture or something, which is patently false. Now, having said all of that, I have no ability to get Baptists to agree with me. That is not my concern nor is it my call. I think that we could do better on this, but… Read more »
Alan, I don’t know that I’m looking at any “pang of conscience” situation here. As I’ve said above (and this is part of the fruit of my working through this), a perspective that says, “This is not the biblical gift of tongues. That’s why we forbid the public exercise of it. But what people do in private does not hinder the mission enough for us to exclude otherwise-qualified missionaries on that basis alone,” is a perspective that I can embrace without suffering any pangs of conscience. The post isn’t about my pangs of conscience. Rather, it’s about the absence of… Read more »
Bart, I was not being sarcastic toward you with the “pangs of conscience” comment. I was talking about myself and I guess that I am at peace with what I can control and what I can’t. The only kind of speaking in tongues that is allowed publicly is that kind with the gift of interpretation. Absent that, it is not an issue. I don’t dispense spiritual gifts, so I am not that upset about it. I am not trying to get people to have a PPL or advocating for it. I just think that if people pray that way in… Read more »
But, again, if modern glossolalia is NOT speaking in tongues, then there’s no prohibition against permitting it in private and also no prohibition against forbidding it in public.
Believing that this is NOT speaking in tongues might leave me with more flexibility than with those of you who buy into it. 🙂
Eating meat sacrificed to idols and drinking wine in our culture do not set the Christian apart as somehow closer to God and specifically spiritual at greater depths as supposedly does the gifted glossolalia believer.
Neither does championing them in public view afford the same results of an extra language skill-set. If either of them did, they would be heralded in liturgy everywhere. Temptation too great.
Glenn, Perhaps it would be helpful here to make one thing perfectly clear. Neither myself, nor Alan Cross, nor others here (that I know of) that are defending the present-day biblical legitimacy of tongues as a private (or personal) prayer language are saying that praying in tongues makes you any more spiritual than anyone else. If I am representing the others correctly (and I think I am), we are as dead-set against that idea as anyone else here. Yes, that idea has existed and continues to exist in certain Pentecostal/Charismatic contexts. But that is most definitely NOT what we are… Read more »
Note: (1) Corinth had more problems that a hound dog has fleas and they had the tongue issue. (2) Corinth tolerated immorality that would make Hugh Hefner blush. Hardly a church I would want mine to be like. (3) One cannot read the Corinthian epistle and come to any other conclusion than Paul tolerated their activity at best. (4) Let me take David Roger’s point a step further (BTW David great observation); If the Corinthians would have followed Paul’s’ guidelines it would have in all probability killed the practice……Is it possible that under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit these… Read more »
Much of this discussion is framed in terms of the number of missionaries that can be put on the field. We want to go from 5,000 to 100,000. Part of that strategy seemingly was to be able to use those who have a PPL. Does anyone have any idea how many candidates were rejected because they had a PPL? Does anyone have any idea how many “additional” missionaries can now be appointed because they will not be rejected because of a PPL? It seems to me that in terms of numbers the divorce issue is far more important. I would… Read more »
I think that it has more to do with churches participating and at what level. That is just one area. Add them all up and then make the changes they are making and it starts to grow.
Alan
Yes you are correct. I guess my thinking is that while I like the changes, they will make an insignificant amount of numerical difference. Church participation, as you have pointed out, is the key. Also I think that a greater emphasis on “laymen” will produce good results. It is a small comparison I realize, but laymen have made a very significant difference in Montana.
Well, I have a problem with tongues, thinking the Bible is referring to human languages and seeing no need for some speech that no one can interpret, and that from a life time of dealing with the matter in this respect. First, from hearing the practice in childhood, and then seeing how the whole thing was pumped up and how many were taken from what would seem to them a rather tame preaching of the Gospel in comparison to the excitement of a Charismatic service. When the thing deflated, it went out of existence and the regular church struggled on… Read more »
So, I’m going to make a wrap-up comment on this:
The present policy is, I think, inconsistent. Because it is inconsistent, I think it will wind up being a waypoint to another destination that is less self-referentially nonsensical.
Um, excuse me sir….would you bring that down to a level that the rest of us might understand? 😉
I’m predicting that the end result will be the permission of public glossolalia as well. I don’t think it will necessarily be a quest for biblical consistency that will take us there, but I think that’s where we are going. There are enough practical difficulties to take care of it: 1. What exactly does “private” mean? Prayer when I’m all alone obviously qualifies. What if I’m praying with my wife and we’re both speaking in tongues? Is that private? What if I’m praying with members of my team who agree with my embrace of tongues-speaking and we’re all praying in… Read more »
Ummm…is that where we were headed pre-2005 before the policy was enacted?
Also, it sounds to me like Alan Cross and David Rogers would agree that praying in tongues in a group setting with no interpreter is a violation of 1 Corinthians 14.
Is that where we were headed? If nobody thought so, I’m guessing we wouldn’t have had the 2005 policies.
I think that was one of the issues. I never read anything that made it clear that there was a significant problem within our missionary force that provoked either of the 2005 policies. Was there a significant movement toward charismatic practice, even toward PPL, among the missionary force? Was there any kind of issue about immersion or about fidelity to baptist doctrine that necessitated the baptism policy? If there were issues within the missionary force that led to the adoption of those policies, it has never been made clear that such was the case. The policies seemed, in my recollection,… Read more »
And at this point I don’t think that there is any evidence that anyone in Richmond is desiring to appoint missionaries who actively practice tongues in public worship.
The only policy that has been discussed or adopted, to my knowledge, is that how a person prays IN PRIVATE will no longer be a factor in his appointment process.
Platt made it clear in the document I read that active promotion of charismatic or pentecostal practice in public worship would still be an issue and I see no reason to assume that is going to change any time soon.
Of course, my initial point in this post is that such an approach (this actually is the biblical gift, but you’re forbidden from expressing it in the primary way it was expressed in the Bible) is untenable exegetically or logically. In my experience, untenable things tend to stop being tenned. (Yes, I just totally made that up)
Bart,
I assume that there are some guidelines for differentiating between public and private ecstatic utterances – at least I hope so.
I will say though – Hmmmm…what you have posted is food for thought though.
I will say that I will join you and others in objection should those who practice public ecstatic utterances start popping up as IMB missionaries.
Further, I expect that at that point Todd’s argument that the SBC has not spoken to tongues either in the BFM or resolutions would cease to be the case.
Tarheel
It seems to me that there might have been a resolution in the late 70’s or so. I could be badly mistaken. Would some of you SBC historians (William T?) have any information on that?
I do recall some being submitted but they could have well died in committee.
Having said that I am not sure that it really relevant. Yes the BFM binds us together. However if any missionary began to use tongues in the neo-pentacostal fashion, that unity would erupt into chaos. It is well established that historically SB oppose such practices.
Dear Brother D.L.: I repeat that somewhere I read that one group stated, declared or otherwise made it known that they had made more progress among Protestant churches via the Charismatics than any other they had tried. Could it be that the skeptical approach to scriptures was one of their methods, and they found that it did not fly to well among Baptists, because B.H. Carroll said appeal to the people which, in essence, is what occurred. Anyway, the tongues issue, especially when it comes to public practice of the gift, is will be the straw that breaks the camel’s… Read more »
I don’t doubt the integrity of anyone in Richmond or on the IMB board. Nor am I criticizing their decision. I’m simply trying to look down the road into the future and predict what I think will be the eventual outcome.
It’s admittedly speculative. Feel free to think (even more than before) that I’m nuts.
And I see a consistency in it that is summed up in the following verse:
“Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” (Rom. 14:19)
Granted, David, but would you refrain from preaching or sharing the gospel in order to promote peace? Would you refrain from singing? Is there any other thing commanded in scripture either to do or not to forbid that you would nonetheless banish from the church in order to keep the peace?
I wouldn’t. Maybe that’s why I get this post and some of you don’t. If somebody told me they didn’t think preaching was valid and they wanted us to cease doing so, I’d tell them to go take a hike, no matter what association or fellowship it might break.
I don’t know of a command in Scripture to speak in tongues.
True, but there’s a command in scripture not to forbid anyone else from doing it.
As you know – the argument is what the definition of “it” is.
😉
I tried to comment on a post relating to this issue, but comments were closed so I am putting it here. Any update on potential bylaw changes at SWBTS regarding admission standards?
It was all resolved in the last trustee meeting. I’m sure there’s a Baptist Press report somewhere.
Can’t find it, Bart.
Shortly after trustee meeting I left for Africa, so I don’t know what Baptist Press did with it. I’d contact the seminary if I were curious about it. I don’t want to go off the top of my head in answering your question. Get it from an authoritative source.
Adam,
Perhaps Is it going to be part of President Patterson’s report at the convention again.
Yeah, that is part of the problem I have with needing to contact the seminary to get information about it. The trustees came out in October saying they would consider revising the seminary’s bylaws. They have met since October, the subject came up, and mum’s the word. I cannot understand why all SB media outlets have been silent about this since the spring trustee meeting.
Because what we did wasn’t all that newsworthy, I imagine. The press were there. Nothing was done in secret. Call the seminary, and they’ll give you exact wording, I’m sure.
If we’d done anything earth-shattering or sinister or whatever, you can bet that…uh…SOMEBODY would’ve blogged about it. 🙂 The fact that it has drawn no news coverage and not even any BLOG coverage is due entirely, IMHO, to the fact that it wasn’t really even all that interesting.
Adam, posts close automatically after either 45 or 90 days.
I thought because you wouldn’t let me comment that you were a closet Muslim trying to enroll at SWBTS. 😉
Because I raised the issue here, I am posting a link that points out what action was taken by SWBTS trustees regarding the “Who should be admitted as a student at SWBTS?” question.
http://texanonline.net/archives/5028/
While the trustees do not need my approval, I like the way it was addressed. Well done.
””(a system of meaning-conveying sounds used to communicate ideas”””
Not that it will change anyone’s point of view, but this is NOT the Biblical description of tongues. It is is the author’s personal interpretation of “tongues.”
Language is not limited, according to Scripture, to only those developed by man. In fact, the Bible teaches that “communication” with God does not even require words.
Bart, It seems to me that if no one possesses the gift of healing in this present church age, “and I know they don’t”. Then no one possesses the gift of tongues, “and I know they don’t”. We cannot drag one gift into the present time and leave the rest behind. Where is the anointing with oil, for the recovery of the sick? God allowed certain gifts to be exercised in the early church for the growth of the Kingdom. If the gifts of tongues is still in effect today, why do our missionaries have to go to language school?… Read more »
Bart Barber,
Did the cat get your tongue on my comment.
I guess I’m just sort of in “let the thread die” mode by this point, Jess. 🙂
Obviously, I’m sympathetic with the points that you’ve made.
Not to pick on you, Jess, but this brings up a point that I want to make. When someone writes an article for SBC Voices, we appreciate their willingness to engage in comments. But no author is obligated to engage every comment or devote his life to a post. Nor ought anyone to read anything in to the failure of someone to respond to a comment. I’ve had people say things like “I assume that because you didn’t respond to my comment, you agree that it is true.” Or, “You must not have an answer to what I said.” People… Read more »
Dave, I understand all of that, and know they don’t have to comment, and many times the writers don’t. I wasn’t expecting a comment from Bart. I think maybe he has commented on some of my comments three or four times in the past three years. I wasn’t even asking for him to comment on what I had said. I made the comment about the cat because I thought I had stunned him. I didn’t realize I would open a can of worms. Frankly, I don’t care if anyone comments on what I have to say. I just comment on… Read more »
Again, I was just looking for a place to make a general comment.
Three times I said it was not meant personally at you – no need to get in a snit.
Jess – What Dave said. I’ll add to it from the standpoint that most of my comments go unreplied to. I’ve never complained about it and I’m not complaining about it now. I have no idea why I don’t generally connect with people in the comments section and it doesn’t really matter. It’s a free Internet and people have the right to ignore other people. That said, you typically generate far more interest than I do. So I’m kind of baffled as to why you would seem incensed about not being responded to. Should I start complaining? I don’t think… Read more »
And Jim, there’s a reason for that. Your comments often simply add a perspective or a point. So, they simply further the discussion. I will respond (if I have time) to sincere questions, or if someone challenges my point, or if there is a comment that is so ridiculous or outlandish that I just feel I have to respond. But in reality, My responding to comments is hit and miss. I post and then I move on. I seldom go back and read all of the comments that have been made – just look at the latest comments on the… Read more »
Jim, I’ll tell you why I don’t respond to you often – for what it worth.
Because your comments, like this one, are so well reasoned and so well communicated there is often nothing else to be said. I cannot think of a time where I read one of your comments and felt a need to push back against it – you’re just plain too good! LOL
I spend my time trying to learn – not only what you post, but how you post it – seriously.
Dave and Tarheel,
Thanks! I hoped it was a positive reason. That’s why I take the chance and still comment.
Jess, I’ll comment to make you feel better. You don’t “know” anything. It’s your opinion. You have no Biblical basis for it. I’ve experienced supernatural phenomena in my life–though it is rare by definition. So, when you say you “know” this or that, then I simply say, “prove it.” Prove that God has changed His ways. Prove that God no longer performs miracles. Prove that the miraculous visions that are bringing Muslims to Jesus in the Middle East are not real. I could go on and on because God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is no less… Read more »
Jack – for my part I am convinced that the speaking in tongues that happens today – and the PPL – or not in keeping with the tongue said is referred to in Scripture. It appears that these gifts were actual languages – not babble – further – it’s also interesting that the whole idea of speaking in tongues is not mentioned at all in the later writings of the new testament – which seems to indicate that the regular and spectacular use of tongues was beginning to wane. Today the learning of languages is much easier than it was… Read more »
To which I will add, Jack, that I was an Atheist who was converted as a result of seeing a vision or a hallucination (how does one prove anything in such a realm) of Jesus standing before me, facing me, with an arm raised like He was knocking at a door. That was Dec.7,1957. Strange things do happen. I think Jess suffers from the problem of the present scientific method which is that you have a hypothesis and a null hypothesis, the latter saying the first one is wrong, and the experimenter proves that it is true or false, depending… Read more »
Jack, God works miracles, I didn’t say he didn’t. I said there are no divine healers, that gift does not exist today. Neither does speaking in tongues exist today. Jack, I believe the ball is in your court, prove all these gifts are in effect today. You say what you have experienced, I believe it was just something in your mind. I’ve seen multiple churches band together and pray for a precious person that belongs to God only to hear that they have passed on. Jack, are you saying there was no faith in all of those churches. I’ve also… Read more »