So here we go. Remember that whole disclaimer I posted a couple of weeks ago about how to disagree with me, discuss issues throughout the course of this journey, and interact on this blog? This is why I said that.
I have always had an aversion to the concept of the gifts of tongues, be that the speaking or interpretation thereof, in a modern setting. This predisposition most likely came from the doctrines in which I was immersed growing up, from which most of our cognitive predispositions tend to come (hence the term, pre-disposition).
In recent years, however, I have opened my mind to the modern day acquisition of said spiritual gifts. It is, in fact, stated plainly in Scripture, in 1 Corinthians 12, for instance, that the same Spirit distributes many kinds of gifts, including the standard gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith, as well as the, shall we say, less-palatable ones, such as miraculous signs or speaking in and interpreting tongues. The apostle Paul is speaking to a specific audience, the church at Corinth, for a specific reason, and we must keep that in mind when interpreting any part of Scripture.
Nonetheless, I have personally come to a point of acceptance of the modern day use and interpretation of various tongues, to some extent. First and foremost, I believe Scripture makes it clear that these gifts are only to be used in tandem, and not to be spouted off carelessly in an emotionally-charged rant. First Corinthians 14:27 states plainly that "one must interpret." When this is the case, I believe these gifts can be used to edify and build up the body of Christ, in the same way that a preacher believes that he is expounding the Word of God via the Holy Spirit from the pulpit to the congregation on a weekly basis (it's okay, go back and re-read that sentence, taking time to follow the prepositional labyrinth).
I spent some time reading over the Assemblies of God website, their core beliefs and doctrinal statements, and was quite surprised to find how much my own personal beliefs coincide with those I read. Again, for some reason I'd been under the impression that the A.G. beliefs were far more eccentric than they turn out to be. Their Beliefs Page states plainly a wide range of fundamental beliefs, and I can align personally with most of them. The one that sits a little uneasily within me is #8. As a building block upon #7, I can agree that all believers have access to should seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that being a life entirely submersed in the Spirit, aligned entirely under the will of God, and with that will naturally come:
- an overflowing fullness of the Spirit, John 7:37-39 [KJV/NIV], Acts 4:8 [KJV/NIV]
- a deepened reverence for God, Acts 2:43 [KJV/NIV], Hebrews 12:28 [KJV/NIV]
- an intensified consecration to God and dedication to His work, Acts 2:42 [KJV/NIV]
- and a more active love for Christ, for His Word and for the lost, Mark 16:20 [KJV/NIV)*
However, if you scroll down to #8, I can completely understand why some more conservative evangelicals take issue with the extent to which tongues is emphasized. This section explicitly states:
The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.
A basic definition of baptism would be defined simply as a rite of admission into a larger body or congregation. The wording of the above statement of belief implies that one is not admitted entirely into a life indwelt by the Holy Spirit until he/she speaks in tongues. Another way to word this would be that I don't have the whole Holy Spirit until I speak in tongues. Right? Did I just make too big of a jump?
Some of you clearly have more knowledge and experience within Pentecostal congregations and beliefs. Help me out here. Why is speaking in tongues so idolized? Why is it set on so high a pedestal? Will I not understand until I get there? I've never spoken in tongues. Does that make me less indwelt by the Holy Spirit than those who have? I've never even seen it. Does that make all of the pastors and elders and worshipers at all of the churches I've attended in my 23 years of life less filled with the Holy Spirit than those in a more Pentecostal congregation who have?
On the other end of the discussion, however, would be my questions posed to the more conservative who get a tingle down their spine whenever someone talks about speaking in tongues. Why does it offend you (and I, for many years) so much? Why are these kinds of spiritual gifts downplayed or viewed as illegitimate? What causes the dissension? Why is it any less legitimate for a sermon to be preached and interjected with the interpretation of spoken tongues than it is for a sermon to be preached without? Can both be equally as Spirit-filled?
These are simply questions, thoughts, ruminations for discussion and for feedback. These are not meant to spark a fire or pick a fight, and I would like to reiterate again for the sake of emphasis that I read over the entire page of beliefs which is hyperlinked a few paragraphs up and I align with the majority of them. I would also like to refer you to my previous post, and remind you to look forward to more posts about Bethel Temple Assembly and how wonderful of an experience I had there. They are most certainly doing the work of God and furthering the Kingdom here in Canton.
*See: http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_full.cfm#8
This is cool man, to see these. I didn't know you were doing this. Anyway, I wanted to remark about the tongues also.
ReplyDeleteI have been noticing that there are a lot of things that I have been learning in church that...I do not necessarily believe and you know the beliefs growing up (of course). I to agree that tongues are still in use and believe, now, that there are no ceased gifts at this time. But, I also believe that sometimes it is not tongues being spoken. For 1. like you stated using scripture, an interpretation needs to be made when it is done in front of the congregation. And 2. (which is what I would like to point out for thought) is the fact it is communication from man TO GOD not FROM GOD to MAN (1 Cor 14:1)(If use upercase to elaborate, not to yell).
I state that because I to have visited a church in which tongues were spoken (an some other things happened that I am doing some more research on) during a revival. During that we had a woman speak in tongues and another interpret but the interpretor spoke as if she were God "I will make a difference in your lives and I will do miracles. You will feal my presence" and more. That I do not believe is true tongues for she was speaking to MAN not GOD.
It's interesting how quickly new experiences can change our thinking on the things we were raised believing. As Real Life and Shawn point out, below, Biblical exegesis is paramount to any our of own experiences though, which I must admit makes my post look a hair premature, in light of the biblical wisdom presented below.
DeleteKeep reading, stick around and we'll all continue exploring these and other issues together.
Here are a few thoughts from a conservative pastor with a conservative upbringing and a desire to approach issues like this from a biblical studies standpoint. I would like to say that I have been wrong in the past and am willing to be teachable, however, the teaching must be approached with a biblical study approach - not just what you think or have experienced. There are many aspects of experience that I cannot explain so from the outset - even though I believe a few things very strongly - I have learned that I cannot put God in a box just because I feel that I have studied this out with proper methods and come to the best conclusion. So here goes...
ReplyDeleteWhile Paul gives a prescription and context for the use of tongues he very clearly states that it is not a preferred method of corporate worship, exhortation or preaching. As noted above, by Tarrin, 1 Cor. 14 indicates that this me communicated to God. It is me edifying me. So what is the larger purpose in a group setting? Prophecying or fore-telling the truth of the Word of God is of greater importance in the body setting. Why? because one can see in the Word of God what will happen if one chooses to live it out or chooses NOT to live it out - the results are evident and foretold in the Bible.
A second aspect of tongues to remember is that the Greek word indicates that this is a KNOWN language. Everytime it is addressed and excersized it is within the contxt of KNOWN languages. The Bible never says that speaking in tongues is some sort of a heavenly language known only between God and the speaker. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 13 when Paul writes, "If I speak with the tongues of angels..." The Greek word for "if" and the Greek grammatical structure indicates that he is speaking in hypoerbolic grammar. It is like saying "If pigs could fly..." Well everyone knows that they cannot. So his point in that passage is not to address the idea of an angelic language (everytime in Scripture that we hear an angel speak it is perfectly understood by those around) but to address the importance of true agape love.
Part One of my comments...
Part Two comennces below...
ReplyDeleteIn Acts, when the tongues came into practice for the first time it was in a known language - everyone was either hearing it in their own language (Acts 2:6) or speaking in another language perfectly (Acts 2:4) so that those around who knew that language were able to undertand the message. (Acts 2:11)
Remember, Peter and the apostles (and later Paul) were teaching a new concept to the Jewish nation - the concept that God had sent the Messiah and that Jesus was that Messiah. (Acts 2:14-35) As the taught this message the signs, miracles and the speaking in tongues were a means of validating their message as truly from God. Even Paul warns the Ephesian elders (acts 20) that some will come to sway them away from the truth. Not that believing in the gift of tongues or signs would do that but that once the gifts passwd away (1 Cor 13: 8 - do some Greek grammar study on this verse) the Word of God would be what we all have to stand upon - not miraculous signs, visions, tongues done by man to validate the truth of the message of God.
Another point to note - if you follow the timeline of Acts - tonuges was evident as the Holy Spirit came to indwell the believers from Jerusalem, to the Gentiles and then to the disciples of John the Baptist. Nearer the end of Acts you never see tongues mentioned as a gift. Similarly, as Paul writes the letters to the churches you see the earlier letters addressing tongues as a valid spiritual gifting aand begins listing out only those gifts that are intended for the body and the growth and increase of the body.
In Hebrews 2:1-5 indicates (in Greek grammar) that the reason for the sign gifts were just that - SIGNS - to testify to the message of savlation in its new context of Jesus Christ.s atoning sacrifice.
Now, all of that lengthy discourse to say that I believe they are not a valid practical gift for the church today BUT... I have seen and heard stories from missionaries where various gifts of miraculous healings, speaking the gospel in a native tongue that they have mnot learned yet and dreams of unblievers that guided them toward the Word of God and salvation. So, I am not willing to say that these things are NEVER possible. Only that I only hear of them were something drastic needed to happen to bring about God's desires. I hope this is not offensive and I apologize that it is so lengthy... this only scratches the surface of my studies into these things but it is enough to add to the discussion.
Thanks for posting your thoughts, Real Life. You definitely raised the bar and presented quite the convincing argument. I plan on looking deeper into all of this, as well as other issues that will undoubtedly arise over the next fourteen weeks. I appreciate your contribution and I hope you'll stick around to see where this thing goes!
DeleteBiblical Context is King and it must be overlooked when people try to biblically justify certain beliefs.
ReplyDeleteTongues in Scripture is a sign gift, meaning it is given as a sign. A Sign to Unbelieving Jews ( 1 Corinthians 14:22). Tongues was another interpretable language as if I went to Germany and, while preaching the Gospel, I suddenly spoke or was understood in German without any prior knowledge of German. Any time tongues was used in the church or preaching to a congregation it was understood in someone's native tongue for the purpose of the Gospel. This is not the primary Usage of tongues today. Also where are the unbelieving Jews? The Bible says Jews require a sign (1 Corinthians 1:22). This is because they were looking for the Messiah who was fulfilling O.T. Prophesy.
Acts is often used in example of These "Modern Day gifts" but the problem with that is The N.T. church receives its Doctrine from Paul in Romans. Acts is more of an historical account and transitioning of theologies from Judaism to Christianity as being the Method of Salvation. Trying to get Today's Church Doctrine from Acts is like trying to get the same story and perspective from all the major news networks. Even Peter had to be rebuked by Paul Because he was still teaching some Tenants of Judaism as a requirement for Salvation. There was a lot happening and changing during Acts, but then we have Roman's and Paul's other books where he clarifies correct Doctrine.
This is certainly a deeply seeded issue and one interesting to discuss, but ultimately not one that determines Salvation or the filling of the Holy Spirit. Show me every salvation instance POST ACTS Where tongues were the evidence... We receive all of the Holy Spirit at Salvation (repenting from Sin and turning to God); However, He may not receive all of us in the area of our submission to Him. That's where Growth comes in. At What point did Paul or the Disciples all start speaking in Gibberish to prove their Salvation. It didn't happen. Tongues again were never gibberish.
ReplyDeleteFinally for anyone who says, "well, I don't care because I know what I've seen or what I've experienced." (And I have heard this many times) I encourage you to take the words of Peter Very Seriously. 1Peter 1:18-19a " 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy" A man who saw Christ in person and heard God speak from Heaven said that he had a more sure word of prophecy as he was referring to the Scriptures. Why is this important? Because, as Humans, we are fallible. We are easily deceived and led astray By every wind of Doctrine: Eph 4:14 "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; " Our experience is not to be trusted as even the Devil himself appears as an angel of light: 1 Cor 11:14 "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." So What are the tongues we see in those churches??? Good question. I believe it is simply proof of the power of the mind. I have spoken with several AG friends who have said that they felt pressure to reveal salvation through that gift so they just started saying gibberish. Others have said they cleared their mind (To let the Holy Spirit in) and their mouth was simply filled. This also happens in Oriental Religions as well in meditation and random chanting. It could also be the result of people wholeheartedly believing in this theology and as a result their mind creates it. The Mind is very powerful and can actually make things like this happen and seem real. Regardless, this does not make it real. Scripture must be our Final Authority.
I you to match up with most of the Doctrinal statement because most of it is true and all the most important parts are, to my knowledge. However know that there are some doctrinal tenants of AGs that are simply not Biblically true for today's NT Church.
Shawn,
DeleteThanks for jumping in on the discussion. I appreciate what you brought to the blog today. I have already told "Real Life" that I plan on continuing to research this and other issues, both via this blog and my own personal means. I am grateful for your contributions, friend.