What’s the Point of Public Tongues?

Posted on by
15

Jeremy Pierce raised some interesting questions in his comments on my recent post. He confesses to not understanding how speaking in tongues might edify the speaker. I agree that there is some mystery to it, perhaps in a similar way to the way that partaking of the Lord’s supper and water baptism can be means of grace to us. From personal testimony though, I would say that speaking in tongues for a few minutes is very helpful in putting me into a more prayerful attitude when I am finding it hard to pray, and afterwards I find a surprising liberty and passion in my prayers in English.

However, the point I want to address here is why would we want tongues in a public meeting? If it only edifies the hearer (1 Cor 14:4), as Paul says, then why not speak in your natural language? It would seem that in Corinth that some people were quite self-centred about their use of this gift – wanting to show themselves as spiritual, rather than desiring to edify others. But ego-centric motives are not exclusively tied to speaking in tongues – prophets and even preachers could just as easily fall into the same trap.

As a general rule (and here I may go against the views of some of my charismatic friends), people with the gift of tongues would not normally expect to use it in a public meeting. But on occasion, they may feel that the Spirit is stirring them to speak out in tongues in much the same way that a person with the gift of prophecy does. In this case, they should be open to the possibility that God intends them to bring this contribution, and that the church will be edified through its interpretation.

Which brings us on to the question of how you know if “an interpreter” is present (1 Cor 14:28). In charismatic churches, there are often a few people known to exercise this gift. But if you are not sure they are there, then you should pray that you yourself would be given the interpretation (1 Cor 14:13), as your desire should be for the church to be blessed which cannot happen if the tongue goes uninterpreted.

So how is it that a tongue followed by an interpretation might edify a congregation in a way that a contribution in a natural language wouldn’t? Let me suggest two ways.

First, tongues is an exalted prayer language, in which we speak mysteries to God (1 Cor 14:2). In my experience the interpretation is a prayer that really lifts the spirits of all who hear, often with greater fervency and eloquence than is normally seen in public prayers in church. Thus everyone is encouraged and drawn in to worship more wholeheartedly as they see the Spirit moving someone to pray in such a way.

Second, tongues are described as a ‘sign’ for unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22). This is by no means a simple verse to understand, but I take it to mean that the gift of tongues is a powerful witness to visiting unbelievers that they are outsiders. There is a power present that they know nothing of, and this may stir a hunger within them to know it for themselves.

In conclusion, let me quote 1 Cor 14:39: “So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.” It seems clear to me that Paul considered prophecy far more immediately useful than tongues in meetings, but to forbid speaking in tongues publicly could also rob people of a blessing God wanted to bring. In other words, if Paul was judging a meeting, he wouldn’t be asking “were there three prayers in tongues?” but “were people edified?” and “was there evidence of the Spirit’s moving?”.

Books for Charismatic Evangelicals

Posted on by
7

There are not many books for people for whom being committed to Scripture is a non-negotiable, but desire to explore how much of contemporary charismatic practice is truly Biblical. Two good ones, from opposite sides of the table are Don Carson’s “Showing the Spirit” (which I have reviewed in detail here), and David Pawson’s “Word and Spirit Together”. Both books in their own different ways highlight strengths and weaknesses of the different positions, and offer ways in which evangelical non-charismatics and charismatics might find more common ground, and move towards a truly biblical unity.

But there are two very interesting new books that I feel will be able to contribute significantly to the ongoing debate between evangelicals about the charismatic gifts. Again, there is one from each side of the table, and both have the potential to be read and appreciated by those of differing persuasions.

First is Sam Storm’s new “Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist”, in which he argues that one can be both a convinced Calvinistic evangelical and a charismatic – in fact, that they belong together. Unfortunately its not available in the UK yet, but I have high hopes for this book to help non-charismatics understand and appreciate charismatic evangelicalism better. Having said that, Tim Challies was not convinced.

Second is a collection of essays entitled “Who’s Afraid of the Holy Spirit? An Investigation into the Ministry of the Spirit of God Today” edited by Daniel Wallace and James Sawyer. Abstracts can be read here. This comes from a non-charismatic background, and is intended to address the issue of the missing dynamic of the spirit-filled life in many reformed churches. They propose “pneumatic Christianity” as the answer, without fully embracing being charismatic. Again, its not easy to get this book in the UK, but Justin Taylor records Wayne Grudem’s thoughts on it here. Its another one I am eager to read.

Despite our sometimes robust disagreements, there is a surprising amount of common ground between the charismatic and non-charismatic evangelicals. Let us not be too proud to learn from each other, and together move closer towards being fully obedient to God’s Word and fully open to God’s Spirit.

Open but Cautious

Posted on by
11

I am struggling to keep up with the pace of the charismatic versus cessationist debate that has been raging in the Christian blog world over previous weeks. However, I did want explain my mention of the words “open” and “cautious” near each other in my last post, as Dan has taken this to be an advocation of the “open but cautious” position, which it was not supposed to be.

There is in fact a broad range of positions from the cessationists who see any modern day tongues and prophecies as being of the devil, right through to the raving charismatics who seem to think that tongues and prophecy are the only elements to the Christian life. The common division of evangelicals into three distinct groups (cessationist, open but cautious, and charismatic) is in fact over-simplistic.

For example, some who are broadly cessationist will still be open to the possibility of occasional supernatural occurrences of the charismatic gifts, but were they to occur, they would not expect or seek their recurrence afterwards.

The “open but cautious” camp itself consists of those who are not opposed in principle to the ongoing use of the gifts today, but are unsure that what they see in charismatic churches is either genuine or desirable. Within this group, there are those more accurately described as “closed and critical”, and no one would dare attempt to use such a gift during one of their meetings. But there are also those who are quite happy that one or two members of their church exercise these gifts publicly on occasions, but the rest of the church are not encouraged to follow suit.

Even within the charismatic group, there is variety, from those who insist that all believers without exception should seek and receive the charismatic gifts, and consider it dreadful for a meeting to go by without a prophecy or tongue, to those who place a lesser priority on these gifts.

However, I am not in the “open but cautious” group myself, because I believe their caution all but cancels out their openness to the charismatic gifts. However, I used the terms because they have a Biblical mandate.

We are called to be open. “Eagerly desire the greater gifts”. “Do not treat prophecy with contempt.” But we are also called to be discerning (which is probably a better word than “cautious”). The Bible repeatedly warns of deception and false prophecy. So I would say that the Biblical position is to be “open but discerning”.

In summary if “caution” is used as an excuse not to seek after God with all our hearts and to welcome all that he wishes to do through us and in us, then I want no part of it. All I meant to say is that I want the real deal, not a fake plastic replica.

Over Cautious?

Posted on by
3

In my last post I said that if you are not a person of the Word, then you cannot truly be a person of the Spirit. Dan described me as being “open-but-cautious-yes-prophecy-might-exist-but-the-Word-is-better”. I will admit that I did only give half of the picture. So here I will say it the other way round – if you are not a person of the Spirit, then you cannot truly be a person of the Word.

Over at the SBL conference, there are some seriously knowledgeable people. They would beat you on a Bible quiz any day. They know the original Greek and Hebrew, the textual variants, and the history of interpretation for any passage you care to mention. And the other day one of the scholars chastised the others for not being learned enough in the field of textual criticism.

In John 3, Jesus talks to someone who may well have been the leading theologian of his day “are you the teacher of Israel”, and tells him that he needs the Spirit’s work in his life. There is so much more to knowing God than simply knowing the Bible.

Non-charismatics often speak against the charismatic desire to “experience” God, particularly setting it as a battle of the subjective experience versus the objective Word of God. But this is to make a false dichotomy – the New Testament abounds with experiential language when the Spirit is discussed – joy unspeakable, crying out Abba Father etc. So a genuine commitment to the Word must result in a desire to know not just more about God, but to know him personally too.

So Dan, I am cautious, I freely admit it. But I hope I am truly open as well.

The Bible and Prophecy

Posted on by
3

As a charismatic, I believe that God can speak in many ways. But as an evangelical, I believe that the surest and clearest way to receive revelation is through the Bible. It is our plumbline for testing all other revelation against.

When charismatics ask “what has God promised me?”, they often refer to whether they have received a “personal prophecy”. If they say “did God speak in the meeting today?”, they are often asking whether there was a prophecy. This tendency to overlook God’s written word is one of the chief reasons why many non-charismatics, while not sure of the arguments for cessation of the gifts, are not willing to join ranks with the charismatics.

I sometimes think that if I were God, I would punish those who didn’t read my written word by not speaking to them in other ways. How arrogant after all, to say “I want to hear your voice” and in the next moment to think “I can’t be bothered to read my Bible”. But God is thankfully infinitely more gracious than me, and still finds ways of getting his message through to those he loves.

In the end though, we will seriously impoverish ourselves if we don’t feed regularly on the Scriptures. God has more to say to us than once a year telling us what house to buy or job to apply for. Every day in the Scriptures, there is a glimpse of his glory to be found as well as practical instruction for how to live a life that brings him glory.

If we charismatics are truly the people who earnestly desire to hear God speak today, then we must be lovers of the Word. If we know the Bible we are not only in a position to weigh the prophecies of others, but to evaluate the impressions through which we believe to be God speaking to us. If we are not people of the Word, then neither are we people of the Spirit.

The Great Cessationist Debate

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve had a rather busy few weeks, so have had nothing to put up here for a while, and that will probably continue for a while. I’ve been slowly working my way through all my books to work out who thinks what about the millennium and the rapture. There’s a fairly even spread at the moment of all opinions except pre-trib rapture (dispensational), which is only represented by my wife’s Left Behind books.

However, I have been following the cessationist debate amongst Christian bloggers with some interest, and its probably a good thing I haven’t had the chance to join in, as this is a subject that can run and run. Rob Wilkerson has very helpfully provided an index to posts on the subject. If I can find the time to read through all that and find anything whatsoever that hasn’t already been said, I’ll consider adding my thoughts to the debate.

At our cell group weekend away in the New Forest, I did get the chance to perform my Cessationist hymn though. I’m afraid there is no recording available, but the lyrics are here:

The Cessasionist Hymn (To the tune of ‘My Grandfather’s Clock’)

The gift of tonues was poured out from above,
By the Spirit on those who receive
It is lesser by far than the gift of prophecy
But was used most of all by St. Paul.
It was born on the morn of the day the church was formed
And was always its pleasure and pride
But it stopped… short… never to go again
When the apostles died.

Ninety years without slumbering
Sha la la, sha ba ba
Interpretations following
Sha la la, sha ba ba
But it stopped… short… never to go again
When the apostles died

Book Review – The Message of 2 Peter and Jude (Dick Lucas & Christopher Green)

Posted on by
1

Although this book covers only four short New Testament chapters, it is larger than many of the others in the Bible Speaks Today series. This is surprising as the BST series does not contain academic or detailed exegetical material, but rather focuses on practical application. 250 pages means that whole chapters can be devoted to just one or two verses. While this makes for a very thorough exposition of these books, I wonder whether it is a bit long for the BST target audience.

Lucas has written the introductions, while Green wrote the commentary and appendix on authorship, but their styles are similar and there is no sense of discontinuity. Lucas’ introduction to 2 Peter is itself a mini-commentaries on the book, tracing through its main messages and themes, and barely touching on authorship and dating. Those who have read Lucas’ BST volume on Colossians will immediately notice similarities, for both books are understood to be attacks on false teaching, by those claiming to have “knowledge”.

False teaching in the church is something that Lucas and Green clearly feel passionately about, and they don’t just have their sights set on liberal or cult doctrines. They believe that muddled and even dangerous teaching abounds from those who claim to be evangelical. It is difficult to disagree with this assessment, but it is also difficult as a charismatic not to see oneself portrayed as the villain. Strong hints at cessationism, criticism of modern “apostolic” ministries, and warnings against seeking “experience” are all tell-tale signs of an antipathy towards charismatic doctrine.

Green, like Lucas, clearly believes in line by line expository preaching, and this is how the book is structured. Each chapter is like a mini-sermon on the few verses in question, starting with some brief introductory comments, followed by the NIV text, and then dealing with the message of those verses under clearly defined headings.

2 Peter is described as a homily on Christian growth, but with the focus very much being on the maturity needed to combat the false teaching. As with Colossians, the essence of the heresy is seen to be “Christ plus” – requiring people to move beyond Christ to something better (again some thinly veiled polemic against the Pentecostal doctrine of the baptism in the Holy Spirit may be detected). The false teacher’s denial of the second coming is seen as their excuse for relaxing moral standards, and it is here that some contemporary liberal trends within evangelicalism come under fire.

When a passage has many possible interpretations, the options are listed and normally general lesson drawn that does not rely too heavily on one interpretation. Although the style of commentary is expository, it does not often delve into matters of Greek vocabulary and syntax. The main modern commentary that is interacted with is Bauckham’s (and sometimes Michael Green’s) and older commentators such as the Puritans are occasionally quoted.

The introduction to Jude lists similar themes between the books. Jude is said to emphasise the “closed” nature of the faith – it is not evolving even at this early stage. The authors are concerned to properly clarify his use of extrabiblical books, that he did not see them as on a par with Scripture.

An appendix deals in more depth with the issues that the introductions to the books would normally be expected to consider. It defends Peter as author of 2 Peter against both claims of pseudonymous authorship, and “testament” authorship (Bauckham), and deals with differences in Greek writing style between 1 and 2 Peter. Similarly Jude the half-brother of Jesus is seen as the author of the book that bears his name. There is also a study guide as with all BST New Testament volumes, although it is difficult to imagine many small groups wanting to spend 24 sessions working through these two short books.

I have criticised this book for perhaps being too long, and hostile towards charismatics, but it I still found it very helpful and thorough. The writing style is easy to follow, and the warnings against false teaching creeping in are worth seriously contemplating. It serves as a forceful reminder that error can creep in even in supposedly “pure” churches that have separated from more traditional and doctrinally compromised church groupings. And individually, we must not be too proud to think we can “wobble” doctrinally, so we must heed the message to continually grow in the faith.

New Testament Church – Baptism

Posted on by
2

It’s time to consider what the New Testament pattern is concerning baptism, and we all know that this is a contentious issue amongst evangelicals, whether charismatic or not. Restorationists, however, are firmly in the “believer’s baptism” camp, and this is the position I will argue for. Baptism is a practise that we can find mentioned in many books in the New Testament, although as usual there is no one place that sets out an exact definition of how the ceremony is to be carried out.

For Believers

When we first encounter baptism in the New Testament – it is John’s baptism “for repentance”, and was clearly administered to adults. In Acts, again we see that people who believe are then baptised. It is presented as the logical next step to repentance and faith.

Those who argue for infant baptism generally make three points. First, reference is made to various “households” who were baptised. It is argued that this must have included infants. This is of course possible, but not necessary. As someone has pointed out (Fee I think), the word for household can sometimes include animals, but no one thinks they were baptised. If the general understanding was that baptism was something that those who had made some sort of “confession” underwent, then it would be taken for granted that the very small children would go through this at a later stage. Even proponents of infant baptism generally recognise the need for some later ceremony (i.e. confirmation) to make this important stage explicit.

Second, a parallel is seen between circumcision and baptism. There may be something to this, but it is not a very convincing case for arguing for extending baptism to infants. After all, only male children were circumcised. An extra stage needs to be inserted into the argument (Gal 3:28) to make it work. This view is also strongly linked to a certain view of being in the “covenant”, which Restorationists do not generally share.

Finally, it is pointed out that we have some records of the early church practising infant baptism. I am in no position to comment on the evidence or lack of it, and how early this went back, but for Restorationists, this is not a particularly important point. They are happy to concede that the early church may have wandered from the New Testament pattern in a number of ways, and so what exactly they did in regards to baptism is not thought to be binding.

Total Immersion

I believe it is much easier to demonstrate etymologically (what the word baptism means), logically (why rivers were used, when jars of water were to hand) and theologically (symbolising dying with Christ and rising to new life) that total immersion was the normal New Testament mode of baptism.

Public Profession

All the baptisms recorded in the New Testament are preceded by some form of public profession of repentance and faith – turning from an old way to follow a new one. These baptisms are also all performed in the presence of witnesses – usually family and friends, but often held in public places.

Apparently, many early churches had “baptismal formulas”, or creeds which affirmed the basic beliefs of the faith, some of which may even be quoted in various New Testament passages. Restorationist churches encourage people to give their “testimony” (although this is not insisted upon), and will usually speak a very short formula before performing the baptism (e.g. “on profession of your faith we baptise you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”).

Hearing baptismal testimonies is often very encouraging and moving, although sometimes they do reflect a very limited understanding of the gospel. Perhaps we would do well to encourage candidates to make some form of creedal statement of faith as part or instead of this testimony. I thing this would be helpful, as baptism is usually linked to formally joining the church, which requires an assent to the doctrinal statement of the church, which is normally done privately (e.g. signing a form).

More to learn?

Baptism is a subject on which Restorationists feel very confident that the NT pattern is being followed. Yet there are two obscure verses concerning baptism, which people of all persuasions struggle to adequately fit into their theology. 1 Pet 3:21 comes very close to making baptism sound essential to salvation, an idea that evangelicals do not subscribe to. Perhaps it is just that it is inconceivable to Peter that a believer would not go on to be baptised. 1 Cor 15:29 talks about a practise where people were baptized “for the dead”, which barring an archaeological find that sheds some light onto this phrase, must remain an enigma.

New Testament Church – Communion

Posted on by
7

This post carries on my recent exploration of how the Restorationist vision of having a church following the New Testament pattern actually works in practise. So far I have looked at liturgy, worship, and leadership. Now “communion”, which is the preferred name in Restorationist circles for the “Lord’s Supper”, “Breaking of Bread”, or “Eucharist”.

It’s obvious enough that the communion meal was important to the early church. Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 indicate that it was a regular feature of church life. But as with so many other aspects of church life, we are not given precise instructions as to how to conduct the meal, and how often to hold it.

The Restorationist churches I have been to all seem to follow a typical Baptist church structure. The Lord’s Supper comes at the close of a time of worship, probably once every four Sunday meetings, and follows a fairly fixed pattern – a Bible reading (usually 1 Cor 11), a prayer, and a time of quiet contemplation as the bread and grape juice are passed around.

I can’t help wondering whether we fail to properly appreciate this meal. Perhaps it is because it is not celebrated as a meal at all – only the smallest amount of bread and wine are actually consumed, and no one speaks to one another during the whole affair. Of course it is understandable why things are done this way – the logistics of providing a meal to over 100 people are not easy.

Another issue that many new churches have with the communion meal, is that it seems too liturgical and sombre for them. We are used to a very informal meeting style, and generally trying to be upbeat and happy all the time. As a result it can seem like an awkward intrusion into the normal program – something we do because we ought to, rather than because we want to. Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t feel that it is done in an inappropriate way – just that it doesn’t seem to be something we do really well.

For some time now, I have been thinking that the communion meal is perhaps something that small groups could be encouraged to make use of more. Meeting with up to a dozen people in someone’s home is an ideal setting to enjoy fellowship together. Time in prayer, worship and Scripture reading, with maybe a short meditation on one of the many rich themes found in the meal could be included. This way it doesn’t feel like communion is being squeezed into an already busy meeting schedule.

My first attempt at this was earlier this year, and I’m hoping to make this a more regular feature of the cell group I am leading. I still think there something very important about the whole church gathering together for communion, but if we are serious about following a New Testament pattern, then there should also be times when we break bread together in our homes (Acts 2:46).

New Testament Church – Leadership

Posted on by
8

After a bit of a blogging break, I want to return to thinking about the New Testament church pattern, and how Restorationism seeks to build churches that are faithful to this. A key text for Restorationist churches is Eph 4:11 which lists what are often referred to as the “Ephesians 4 ministries” – apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

Cessationists believe that the first two ministries are no longer in operation in the church, but Restorationists strongly emphasise the need for all of them. The most controversial of these is apostles, but New Frontiers at least are happy to concede that there was something unique and unrepeatable about the original twelve, which puts most people’s fears to rest. Apostles are understood as those who relate to churches (particularly newly planted ones) in a fatherly way, giving direction and advice to the leaders, without having authority over them in an official denominational sense.

As important as these five ministries are, they are not understood to be exhaustive by Restorationists. Indeed, modern ministries such as “worship leader”, “small group leader” and “youth leader” are flourishing in charismatic circles, and supported by a wealth of training materials and courses.

But where do “eders / overseers” and “deacons” fit into the picture? Are these additions to the list of ministries? While I have never heard this explicitly expressed, I believe that the New Frontiers position would be that these are the only two “offices” in the church. In other words, anyone exercising a leadership or authoritative ministry is either an elder or a deacon. Most of the Ephesians 4 ministries would be exercised by the elders of a church, while those with the other “modern” ministries I have mentioned are understood to be deacons (although they would never be called this). I’m pretty sure that all the “apostles” in New Frontiers are also elders in their home churches.

Each local church is understood to be led by a group of elders, often with a senior elder (the pastor) being first amongst equals (theocracy is preferred to democracy in Restorationist church government). The church also would usually relate to someone with an “apostolic” ministry, who would meet with the elders on an occasional basis and provide some guidance, and prophetic direction. However, the elders are understood to be autonomous, and free to refuse the advice given (although this may result in the apostolic relationship being broken).

For complementarian groups such as New Frontiers, eldership is seen as male only, but the “deacon” ministries are open to all. So many female worship leaders, cell group leaders and youth leaders are to be found within these churches.

How faithful is this to the New Testament pattern? Richard Collins understands Eph 4:11 in a very different way. He sees it as expressing the diverse models of leadership that God is pleased to use in different churches. But as with the charismatic gifts, I would place more emphasis on the diversity within an individual church. So not everyone has the gift of prophecy, and not everyone has the ministry of evangelist, but we should desire all gifts and ministries to be operating within the local church.

So it boils down to three main levels of leadership:

1. Apostles – providing ongoing support to new churches, and ensuring they stay faithful to the gospel
2. Elders – initially perhaps only one, but quickly growing to a team of elders as the new church grows
3. Deacons – people given responsibility to lead in different areas of service as the elders see fit (see Acts 6 for an example of how a need was seen and met with the appointment of leaders)

While I don’t believe there is only one possible structure of church leadership, I do think that this general setup is preferable to some of the more complicated structures that exist in other circles. More importantly, I believe that it fits in well with what we see in the New Testament about church leadership.