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 others to disagree on the question and get on about the business of the Great Commission.
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. I just don’t see this as one of them, so the greater command of love seems to cover things like this.
Schism is an error too – one greater than believing in or not believing that PPL is biblical.
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 practices and viewpoints under the label “southern baptist”which previously would have been collectively rejected on the basis of “baptist conviction and principles”.
A renaming/reclassification may be in order at some point. If not, I’m sure the historians will do their own redefining and renaming.
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 in prayer meeting one night, we can rather suspect that sinners and rebels against God will find it hard to maintain their cause, their justification for continuing in a wicked way, a way clearly condemned by God’s written word and attested by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, those who are sure of their opinions in religion will feel constrained to practice restraint about their views, wondering if they might be surely and sorely wrong. Just consider how one county in Arkansas back in the 1800s had a revival and for ten years there was not a single case to come before the county grand jury.(source, lecture in Christian Doctrine by Dr. W.L. Muncy, Jr., Fall of 1959, he witnessed the power of God in that county in which he grew up).
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 not known, the “mystery language” belief of tongues seems to make sense of the text. However, I’ve been in churches where multiple languages were spoken. It’s good to know multiple languages so that different languages can be translated. However, polyglots can sometimes be prideful and speak in languages that no one else knows to make themselves look good. I think that may be what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 14. The cosmopolitan Corinthian church had serious faction problems, caused in part by a multiplicity of primary languages. 1 Cor 14:14 is the only indication that something else may be going on, but I think it needs to be interpreted in light of the surrounding context rather than some meaning being assumed from it and used to interpret the rest of the passage. Verse 16 indicates that the context of the prayer isn’t private. So: use your mind and pray corporately in such a way that builds others up. I think that’s the general meaning here.
Now, I may be wrong about that, so I’m wiling to allow others to have a personal prayer language that doesn’t make sense to me. Now, I’ve only been in churches a handful of times where people where “speaking in tongues”. My limited exposure may not be well-informed, but when some people speak in tongues in public church services, I wonder if they aren’t doing it in order to look super-spiritual to others. Well, that fits in the context of 1 Cor 14 of what Paul admonished not to do. I guess you could also say that if my faith is weak on the matter, perhaps it should be treated as an “eating meat sacrificed to idols” moment. I don’t get all incensed about it, but it does make for an opportunity to practice grace toward people who have a different and possibly legitimate take on the scripture here.
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. Also that they were actually NOT saved, having heard a false ” prosperity ” gospel, not the Gospel of Christ.
I believe therefor it is very dangerous to accept these folks as ” evangelical Christians,” including as missionaries. Correct doctrine matters. Like when I was saved at ten, my SBC congregation made me wait two years for baptism, looking for the marks of a true believer, and testing my doctrine. Once they were convinced it was a genuine conversion, I was allowed to be baptized.
If you’re interested in understanding the Pentecostal issues, I recommend the book ” Strange Fire,” by John McArthur.
Finally, these friends tried to get me to practice this gibberish. It didn’t feel right, on a spiritual level. Deceiving spirits can definitely use these types of things, as Paul explains when he talks about ” speaking in a tongue “( the counterfeit gift) with the Corinthians, which came from their background in pagan worship.
So, I think we have a great need to gently correct and restore those in error, and rebuke any false prophets and teachers.
“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 do not claim to be a cessationist. Cessationists wouldn’t accept me as one, and I do not desire to be accepted as one. I am open to the possibility that someone may possess the gift of tongues today. I find the biblical case for the position that tongues have definitely ceased unconvincing. However, every time that I have seen/heard someone who claimed to be speaking in tongues, it was being done in violation of 1 Corinthians 14 on a couple of fronts. I judged every one of those instances to be merely gibberish where the person speaking only thought that they were speaking in tongues.
With all of that being said, if the PERCEIVED gift of tongues is not causing a disruption on the mission field (as would be the case with private use of this perceived gift), I do not consider it to be such a grave doctrinal error that should exclude someone from missionary service with the IMB.
I would have a problem with the use of the perceived gift on the field if it did become a distraction. It seems that there are mechanisms in place for dealing with such situations. I trust the vetting process, and then the supervision mechanisms presently in place just as I do in other areas on the field.
Also, I do not think 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that tongues is a gift to be used in private. The whole context is the building up of the church. Why does Paul introduce a PRIVATE gift in that context that is not found elsewhere in Scripture?
Hope that makes sense of my thoughts.
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 Spirit is out of bounds in that type of discussion.
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 a lot of people on both sides of the equation are willing to live with.
In my opinion, cooperation implies compromise. I know I run the risk of being quoted and misinterpreted here. But I will say it anyway. This is the reason theological triage is so important. There are issues, level one issues, for which there can be no compromise. As a result, you cannot cooperate with people who are not in agreement on these issues. And I think most all of us, if we think it out, are in agreement there are level three issues on which it is not only helpful, but necessary, to compromise. Compromise is a dirty word for a lot of people. Maybe it would be better to use a different term. But whatever word you use to describe what Rom. 14 teaches, that is what we need to do with regard to certain issues, what in “theological triage” terminology we call “level three issues.”
The rub is with level two, and with correctly distinguishing between levels two and three.
The problem is, as far as I see it, the Bible does not really directly address level two. It is the practical, real world in which we live today that makes level two a category we cannot deny or avoid. I think there are biblical principles that can be applied—principles such as love being the the supreme virtue (1 Cor. 13) and of there being different members with different gifts and different ways of expressing those gifts (1 Cor. 12).
One way to deal with problems like this is to say cessationists need to all work together and on their own, and continuationists all together and on their own, and we probably just need to split the convention down the middle on this one and go our separate ways.
On some issues, (e.g. complementarianism/egalitariansim) we have, for all practical purposes, already done this. On other issues, though, it seems to some of us it is better to try to work together than to each go our separate ways.
Also, for people like me, who don’t neatly fit into either category, there is somewhat of a fear we will find ourselves squeezed out of both camps without a home anywhere (if I have to choose between the two, at the core, I am more Baptist than Charismatic/Pentecostal).
The same can be said on the Calvinist/Traditionalist issue. If we were all forced to take sides one way or the other, I would be left standing somewhere in the middle without a group to stand with.
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 it is not clear whether “drink” here has anything to do with alcohol. But I think that, even though we may not personally be convinced all alcohol use is sinful, we do not necessarily do wrong to submit to guidelines, such as that of the IMB, to abstain from alcohol, in the overall interest of the mission and the unity of those involved in the joint project.
Not sure how to explain it better, but I think there is a certain parallel in there somewhere.
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 fledged practice of tongues (?). I must admit to feeling a little nauseous, and I suspect that the real aim of the whole affair is to destroy the last bastion on Mission power in the world.
Even now we are on the verge of dissolution as we no longer can get the annuals that tell us who is in our denomination either nationwide or state wide and, perhaps, locally in some instances. Just think, if some one said they came from a church here in this state, you could contact the church, if need be. You knew that they were largely and for the most part, of the same faith and order. The Skeptical folks began the process, and the manipulators agitated all the time for an emphasis on practices previously rejected. Take, for example, the practice of accepting people without immersion at all. That was going on among some of the so-called Liberal churches here in this state back in the seventies. And then there were those folks promoting disunity by calling a person ignorant for believing in the virgin birth. And there are those charismatics who will look down their noses at a person who does not have the gift. This is a problem sometimes in those churches where it is full practiced with approval. Others have toned it down some. Now, not every one in those churches speaks in tongues or are expected to do so. Still there are those where they are, and those who don’t are second class Christians at best, if Christians at all (in the regard of the others in those churches).
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 tell” policy….as long as the missionary really keeps it private, and doesn’t try to teach it to others. Then, it would become a huge problem, in my book. But, if they like having a PPL…if they get some emotional uplift from it….then, fine. Who is it hurting? No one….as long as they don’t teach it to others.
But anyway, I agree….real tongue speaking is speaking a known language that’s unknown to the one speaking it…but, it’s a real language. And, I also believe the passages that deal with ecstatic utterances in Corinthians was really the Apostle Paul’s getting onto the Corinthian Church for practicing ecstatic utterance, like the Temple Prostitutes and other worshipers of the false goddess, Aphrodite. They would get all worked up, emotionally, and speak in ecstatic utterances in their worship, and some of this carried over into the Corinthian Church. And, Paul was correcting this Church for this.
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 in such a litmus test category, enough doing so distorts the truth of Salvation.
I am much more concerned with the Pentecostal belief that salvation is subject to loss by my own lack of enduring faith and continual repentance. Such a missionary is dangerous to say the least.
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 understand we should just say that no matter what anyone says, we are sticking with our own opinions on the matter.
For example:
1. Every time PPL comes up, it is called “Charismatic theology.” Even though it has been explained hundreds of times that Charismatic theology is dependent on a Second Baptist of the Holy Spirit with Speaking in Tongues as the sign, this misperception continues. Willfully, I imagine.
2. Every time the gift of healing comes up, someone says, “Why don’t you go clean out all of the hospitals?” Even though no one ever claims that it works that way and even Jesus didn’t heal every sick person he encountered all of the time. But, that accusation continues.
3. When it comes to PPL, it is compared to foreign languages, even though many have shown that they believe that 1 Corinthians 14 speaks of something different – a supernatural language in prayer that is to be kept private unless there is an interpreter/interpretation and that is meant for the edifying of the one praying – just as Bible reading, praise, and other spiritual disciplines would build up someone in their faith. But, the claim is “Why is it private and aren’t all gifts meant for the church and why isn’t it a language, etc.?” Isn’t it possible that God works in different ways with people?
At any rate, these are not misunderstandings. They are disagreements and we couch them as misunderstandings. And, that is ok. Just as some might believe that anyone who believe in PPL is in error, others believe that those who persist in opposition are also in error. We all think that the other is wrong here.
And, that is ok. I am not a Baptist because of the position on Private Prayer Language. I didn’t stop being a Baptist when the IMB adopted those policies and I am not more of a Baptist now that that the IMB is more in line with how I read read 1 Corinthians 14. But, let’s be honest. These are not misunderstandings. They are disagreements. We will never agree and we have no intention of agreeing on this. And, there will continue to be people who mock and make fun of anyone who believes that PPL is Biblical. I cannot change anyone’s mind. I have yet to see anyone’s mind change on this. And, that is ok.
We are still brothers and our unity is in Christ, not in how we interpret passages related to spiritual gifts. Or, it should be. I think that that is the point here and the reason why the IMB decision is helpful. As Todd and David said, this is a compromise position that is acceptable to me because I cannot make anyone agree with my position (thankfully) and our unity in Christ is more important than every single thing going the way that I want it to go. I am in agreement with David Rogers here and have been for 10 years. But, that doesn’t mean that the IMB has to reflect my position exactly. Compromises are sometimes necessary, lest we split into a thousand different groups.
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 open to change again. It is not totally out of the question that I might some day become a cessationist. I don’t think so, but it is not totally out of the question. Some might say that must be because I am so shaky on my beliefs I am a sitting duck for every wind of doctrine. I don’t think so. I think I am rock solid on the doctrines that really matter. But there are enough tricky hermeneutical matters involved in the relevant passages related to PPL, continuationism, et al, that my degree of certainty is not as high on these as it is on other issues.
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 cessationist, mind you. The compromise position is that those who believe that 1 Cor. 14 is talking about a PPL are required to never mention it, be quiet, never let it be heard, and never try to influence anyone toward it. They can have that belief, but they must be quiet about it. The Cessationist must only tolerate the presence of those that they believe are in error or they disagree with.
This compromise seems to be very difficult for many cessationists – to even tolerate the presence of someone who disagrees with them on one chapter of the Bible, which is a tertiary issue at best. Some are considering leaving the SBC and withholding funding and are all in an uproar. They cannot handle the compromise of allowing these people to participate. For the ones who believe that 1 Cor. 14 IS talking about PPL, they are required to be quiet.
That isn’t much of a compromise, if you ask me. But, I am completely fine with it, because I value unity and working together more than everyone agreeing with me on ever single issue. And, because proclaiming the gospel is more important than total agreement – which is impossible, anyway.
So, yes, people can absolutely change their minds. I am an example of that too. But, that is not what has happened here in this discussion on the blogs, so I think it is better to just admit it and still seek to work together.
“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 conversation. Personally, I believe the cessationist view to be a gross biblical error that actually hinders our mission work around the world. I think that a much stronger case can be made to NOT appoint cessationists to be missionaries with the IMB than can be made to eliminate those who believe in PPL. But, the thing about that is that even though I completely disagree with cessationism, I still see the error (even though it is a pretty big deal) to be relatively small in the vast scheme of things. Of much greater importance is what we believe about God, the person/work of Jesus, the gospel, the church, etc. So, I disagree on that issue but don’t have a problem with cessationists being appointed or even promoted their teaching, which I believe to be in error. I guess that I believe that God is bigger than all of this and can do what He wants and that the gospel is the power of God for those who believe.
I remain disturbed by the significant fear that exists that 1) someone would claim to have a PPL and 2) that they would actually seek to explain it to someone else when cessationist run amok all over the SBC and mission field without restraint even though the majority of SBC pastors would be considered to be some form of continualists.
Again, even though I disagree with that teaching, I have no problem with cooperating with cessationists. But, cooperation is a two-way street.
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 ask me is the speaking in tongues that is common today among charismatics nd “Bapticostals” biblical – I would say no – and be telling the truth.
I am not a cessasionist because I believe that speaking in tongues is still an active ministry of the Holy Spirit today – but I do not believe that the way it is most noticeably practiced (ecstatic utterances) is the way of the scriptures.
I believe the biblical gift of tongues to be actual and distinguishable human languages used in for the proclamation of the gospel and discipleship into languages that are interpreted and completely understood.
So it true that I am not a cessationist and I would be counted in the affirmative by a poll taker as one who believes that speaking in tongues is biblical – but my definition of speaking in tongues would separate from many of my cessationist and the continualist friends.
I do not allow disagreements (their error)to cause me to part with all who believe/practice PPL or utterances (it is not a fundamental issue) – But I do part with with those who affirm and teach ecstatic utterances as a second blessing/special anointing/ indicative of real salvation – I believe that to be just as heretical as as the teaching that baptism is salvithic or works salvation.
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 through the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements. There are those who receive the Pentecostal/Charismatic practices (i.e., they “speak in tongues” in this particular way and when they refer to “speaking in tongues” this is what they are talking about) but seek to do so without embracing all of the Pentecostal/Charismatic theology that has accompanied it.
So, when I refer to the Pentecostal/Charismatic practice, I am seeking to differentiate it from a different practice. This is especially important for me to be able to do, since I regard the other practice as the actual biblical gift of “speaking in tongues.” To call the modern practice “speaking in tongues” is to concede the argument before we begin.
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 different tongues seems to indicate that we are talking about different things here that the Bible all lumps in with the concept of “speaking in tongues.”
That does not seem far-fetched to me, but again, I get that you don’t agree.
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 oneself (Phil 2:3) — is not always easy. How is it realized? Humility in regard to Bible doctrine comes as the result of facing certain facts. The sincere Bible student recognizes: (1) revelation is only partial, (2) we are finite, (3) we are fallen, (4) we need an open mind, and (5) we must be willing to obey.” [Understanding and Applying the Bible, 223-24]
I applaud the leadership of the IMB in their conclusion that in at least some of the “gray areas” the previous appointment guidelines spoke too definitively to embrace the beliefs of a large portion of SBs. I believe it was Augustine who said, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” I don’t believe that SBs want to place PPL in the “essentials” category.
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 here in Montana. If he is said to have a PPL then not so much.
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) What I do in public worship people see and know (5) What i do in my private worship (not just prayer) is my business and no one else’s because it is…well…private.
Let me start a whole new controversy here. I do not think Jerry Rankin should have revealed he had a PPL for two reasons: (1) It was…ah…ah…on yeah…PRIVATE. (2) While the disclosure was seen as desirable by some it caused nothing but trouble when the missionaries were told the Pres. could but they could not. OOOPS, my computer just crashed so i can read no rebuttal.
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 for the sake of” our personal/private beliefs on these possibly divisive issues.
I believe if LifeWay did a poll on public glossalalia in the context of worship, I believe the SB numbers would be more one-sided.
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 that everyone understands.
It seems clear to me that there are 3 different kinds of tongues present here, which fits with 1 Cor. 12:10.
1. Human languages heard/understood by people without need of an interpreter (Acts 2)
2. Prophetic messages in unknown languages that are given for the edification of the church that require an interpreter
3. Prayer in the Spirit that is between the pray-er and God and that is not meant for others to hear in the church – which Paul seems to say that he does more than all.
And, he says don’t forbid the various kinds of speaking in tongues. The issue at hand for us is that we now no longer forbid those with a spirit-prayer tongue from being missionaries. That appears to be a good thing.
Now, I KNOW that the view that I just presented is not accepted by many here. BUT, it is a mainstream a Evangelical view held by many reputable scholars, including many Baptists. It is not an extreme view and is not tied to any other doctrine such as adding to Scripture, the prosperity gospel, or a second baptism in the Spirit, despite the claims of those who are ill-informed or just disagree and look for some kind of danger. If there is danger, the link to those things is not as direct as some would make it and is more circumstantial than causal.
In other words, this really should be an area where we can disagree. If this is not a tertiary issue, then what is?
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 case are slightly different, as I understand it.
As I follow Paul’s line of reasoning and overall thrust (taking into account principles such as those Kevin Peacock pointed to earlier), I can easily imagine him saying something like, “Given the circumstances and dynamic of your particular situation, I think it would make for greater unity among yourselves and contribute better to the advance of the work and of the gospel if you as workers would agree not to practice the gift of tongues publicly.”
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 I really respect those who disagree and I am not able to make them agree with me. So, I am grateful that they allow called/sent/gifted missionaries who pray in tongues to exist in the IMB. I can disagree with someone on a lesser issue and still work with them.
Calvinism is probably a bigger issue than this. I am not a 5 pt. Calvinist. But, I have no problem working with those who are and I have great respect for them, even though I think they are wrong on some things.
I know. You will say, “But, there are no policies that you would disagree with in that.” True. But, I do not feel a pang of conscience in submitting to the decision of the IMB on this issue because I trust that they have made a decision meant to enable the broadest number of Baptists to work together in proclaiming the gospel. This side of Heaven, that is a good measuring stick. The 2005 policy that narrowed parameters went the other way and I believed it to be counterproductive.
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 pangs of conscience from people who believe that the public exercise of a valid biblical spiritual gift is forbidden, but that’s a good thing.
As for the gift of interpretation, as I wrote long ago in my post A Posteriori Cessationism, I’m not categorically opposed to the gift of interpretation. Indeed, I feel better about it than I do about the gift of tongues as supposedly practiced today. If the gift of interpretation were operational today, I’d have a much different view of the gift of tongues.
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 their spirit to God and not to the congregation as Paul says, then it should be allowed and not forbidden. The IMB made a move in that direction and I think it is a good one.
As for the kind of speaking in tongues that requires an interpreter, I am aware of that and believe it is still in operation today. But, God gives that as He wills.
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 saying. It is a gift like any other gift. And God sovereignly determines who will have each gift He distributes. Not all speak with tongues, and we would be wrong to expect all to do so.
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 words were written because the same is true today, to wit. follow the rules and it will not exist. I have been in several venues where “tongues” was spoken and never were the guidelines followed.
Perhaps you have, I haven’t.
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 suspect that there are move divorced people who would like to be appointed as opposed to those with a PPL.
I have absolutely no issue with the changes at IMB. However, numerically I am not sure how much difference it will make.
The real discussion needs to be how to increase mission giving to support the needed missionaries.
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 until enough members moved away and no one else was available to support the Gospel. The pastor who had been there the longest led the people to build a nice sanctuary, one designed for preaching and for a congregation appropriate to that community (a town of about almost a 100 people back then). In fact, a successful farmer he, undoubtedly gave a great deal of the money, if not the most of it. I remember the wildness, even the madness of the scenes, the disorderliness (remember decently and in order) of the services in that Charismatic Church (we called them Pentecostal then). Later, on such churches would become more orderly, and in the sixties I would learn of one pastor in Missouri, not far from where I labored (perhaps an hour or two drive), having a Ph.D. I remember one pastor’s fascination with the matter, but what became of him I do not remember. I do remember the issue of women lying on their backs and sticking their legs up in the air, while others tried to screen them with blankets (I don’t have to say anything about that being out of the will of God). I did stumble over a narrative on the Internet about where Evan Roberts stopped the Welsh Revival, because the Azusa Street movement tried to bring the two together. I also remember the disruption of Baptist churches by those who wanted to convert their churches to tongue talking. I know of only two cases, one from the person who received the help from the Lord, in a life or death situation, and the other from a pastor who had heard about one of our missionaries (I wonder if it was the father or the fellow himself who headed up our FMB several years ago). There is likewise a problem about demon worship in Southeast Asia where they have tongue talking. And then there is the folks who say they have made more progress among the Protestants by means of the Charismatic movement than by any other means they had used previously. I read that somewhere some years ago, and I cannot vouch for it but do think there is some reason to believe it.
I do know that there is theological manipulation, the use of biblical teachings to get people to do what they other wise would not do. I stumbled over the sources of the pre-mil, pre-trib views and much of that got the Catholic church off of the hook for being the Antichrist (a charge first laid against them by the Waldensians with good reasons – the reasons being that they were being put to death, by burning, suffocation (cf. John Milton’s poem on the issue), and torture). Now we look for a personal Antichrist (of course there are personal Antichrists, but none who can compare to the Savior in power, etc.); it is the spirit of the thing that really concerns us. I can never forget hearing the author (on the phone and reading it in his book) of In Praise of Folly (or is it The Praise of Folly) (one is Erasmus and the other was David Lutzweiler) express his grief. His father had been one of the popularizers of C.I. Scofield’s views, and David had found by research that the fellow was married to a Catholic lady and had two or three children, one of whom he had written a few months or years before his death and congratulated her on some response she had made to a nunnery, as if he was still a Catholic. Anyway, Scofield was supposed to have been converted under D.L. Moody, became a Congregationalist, pastored in the First Congregational Church in Dallas and helped to found Dallas Theological Seminary. There is more, but I am tired and have other responsibilities. Our ministers need to be taught research and they need to do it, covering everything written on a subject that they can get their hands on. It would make a great difference in their preaching, and it might once more regain for the Christian Faith the position of leader in Western Civilization or even of World Civilization and, along with that, Interplanetary Civilization or Interstellar.
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 tongues? Is that private? What if I’m praying with one of my close indigenous friends and we’re both praying in tongues? Is that private?
2. If I’m funded by a church that prays in tongues at home in the US (since we’re opening up all of these new pathways), will I be able to pray in tongues in “private” with fellow church members when they come to visit? If they pray in tongues in public worship services, will I be able to pray in tongues with them? After all, they’re paying the bills.
3. If I’m part of a team that includes people who belong to scenario #2 listed above, and I like to pray in tongues, will my team members funded by their home churches be able to pray in tongues but I will not? Or will we only be able to do it in small groups out of the view/earshot of local leadership?
This policy is a stopover on the way to something else.
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, to simply come out of nowhere.
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 back, and the aim of ending this great mission program will have been accomplished. The aim of the infiltration, beginning circa 1800, was to blunt the effect of the Great Awakenings along with the launching of the Modern Missionary Movement bid fair to end the control that certain people felt they had over the world. The theology of the outfit is spelled out plainly in Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, along with the theology they oppose. Guess what theology they oppose, the theology of the Awakenings which they call determinism and which many, appealing to a party spirit, call Calvinism. Our Baptist are so ill-informed as to their history that they think they know for sure what the folks believed back prior to 1800, not knowing the difficulties involved in such a view. And yet, and yet, if they only knew how the theology of that day really stands for enabling believers to become balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic, I think they would rejoice at the thought that such a view was going to triumph, if we could keep the folks of infiltration from trying to run it into the ground of fatalism or pelagianism, one side or the other.
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? Why not let our missionaries go to any nation in the world and start speaking their language and exercise their gift from God? It’s because they don’t have that gift, and have never had that gift. Where are the divine healers? Let them empty out a few hospitals. No one has that gift either and have never had it. These gifts were for the early church and not for today. Where are the Prophets, to tell us what is going to happen tomorrow? Again, non-existent.
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 have even assumed anger.
But the author is welcome to engage comments and that is wonderful that Bart has done that. But he is not obligated to do so.
Again, this is a general comment, Jess, not specifically directed at you.
There can be several reasons that I (or another author) might not respond to a comment.
*I might not read it.
*I might be involved in ministry and not have time to respond.
*Perhaps I just don’t WANT to respond. I don’t have to respond to every comment.
Again, Jess, I was just looking for a time to say this and your comment was the reason – not specific to you.
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 what the writers have to say. If I’m not mistaken there is a comment section following each post, and I use it. Again, I wish not to communicate with anyone, but I have been guilty of commenting. Dave, if you write something and I comment, I don’t expect you to follow up.
I do feel singled out, I have only made a few comments in the past six months and when I did it was World War III. My friend, I have made my last comment on anything. I am a lot happier without SBC Voices. Good bye, gentlemen!
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 so. Are you better than I am that you always warrant a response? I don’t know. I am kind of a low-life scumbag saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ from the pits of hell with the flames yet licking at the soles of my feet, so it’s possible.
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 side of the page.
Honestly, I just don’t comment much anymore. In fact, we had one guy who used to post for us that got offended that I didn’t engage on his posts.
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 “supernatural” today than when the apostles walked the earth.
All you need is just one verse that says, “the miraculous acts of God were only for the narrow time of the apostles.” I’ve read the Bible several times and I may have missed that verse.
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 back then.
As for the visions and dreams with the Muslims – I certainly believe that that is going on today (and not just with Muslims) – I am careful though to emphasize that these are not saved because they had a dream they’re saved because theyve been pointed toward Christ (in this case by a dream) and later had an actual encounter with the gospel and actually embraced it.
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 on the results from his experiments. The problem is what does the scientist do, when both the hypothesis and the null hypothesis are right, true, real? In other words, the present method is too analytical. I remember about 9 years ago talking to a science educator and mentioning this problem (also known as the paralysis of analysis), and she looked dumbfounded. “How did you know that?” She asked, clearly implying that a dumb preacher could not possibly have access to such knowledge. I patiently explained to her that I stumbled across the issue, when I was writing a master’s thesis in American Social & Intellectual History and found that both the thesis and the null hypothesis were true. The analytical method did not suffice to cover a both/and situation. Every since I have been think, etc., about the matter, seeking to develop a synthetical method, one that could be used with more than one hypothetical realities. This is something very important to us today, seeing we are running up against the limits of our knowledge, what with quantum mechanics, geometry, and algebra, with fractals and the theory of complexity or how to deal with chaos which apparently does work according to some sort of rules of development. One will also need a method able to deal with the both/and situation of the macro and micro, light as both waves and particles, the flow of time and the fact that there are electric phenomena that travel faster than the speed of light….Anyway to deal with the matter at hand, we find that our methodology must be able to handle apparently contradictory realities, paradoxical and asymmetrical facts, so with the natural and the supernatural. Not everything supernatural is to be accepted as legitimate, germane, etc., just as the same could be said for things natural.
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 seen multiple churches band together and pray for someone else who got better. I think it just wasn’t their time. There are folks that recover that no one has prayed for. What you have to remember, is that God has a time and place when and where we are to pass, and no one can change that.
The Apostle Paul almost died of sickness. Don’t you think if gifts wasn’t ceasing, he could have prayed and got healed before he almost died. But by God’s grace Paul didn’t die then. I suppose Benny Hinn has had an impact on a lot of people.