;)
tagged: Baptist Life, Current Events, Geoff Baggett, LifeWay Christian Resources, Pastoral Issues, Prayer, SBC Issues, SBC News, TheologyThe Real "Scoop" on Private Prayer Language
Posted by Geoff Baggett in Baptist Life
On June 1 last year. LifeWay released the results of a poll of pastors regarding their beliefs about the phenomenon known as a “private prayer language.” The headline for the news release read, “LifeWay Research Studies the Use of Private Prayer Language.”
Within that study, pastors were asked this question:
“Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives some people the gift of a special language to pray to God privately? Some people refer to this as a Private Prayer Language or the ‘private use of tongues.’”
The results of that study were somewhat astounding, to say the least. Among the 405 Southern Baptist senior pastors polled, 50 percent answered “Yes,” 43 percent said “No,” and 7 percent responded “Don’t know.” The pastors were not asked if they personally practice the gift of tongues.
Here’s what I said in my analysis of last year’s study:
In a survey/poll, which claims to “study the use of private prayer language” among Southern Baptists, no one thought it important to ask the 405 SBC pastors interviewed (nor the lay people … how ever many there were) if they actually PRACTICED “speaking in tongues” or a “private prayer language?!!!”
Welcome to our “gaping hole.”
Maybe I’m just a simple country boy and all … but it seems to me that this would have been the easiest question of all to ask. Wouldn’t it? No possibilities for “misinterpretation.” No need to “force” another answer. No need to split theological or semantic hairs. Just a straightforward “Yes or No” question. And that one little question would have meant so very much to this entire dialogue. Truly, it would have cleared up a whole lot of things.
Why, pray tell, was this single, most critical question avoided?
So, in the end, what we have is an opinion poll on the personal theology of some Southern Baptist pastors … what they believe is “possible” for some believers. Interesting, I guess, but really not all that relevant to what is actually going on in the pews and prayer closets of the SBC.
Thus we remain not one bit closer … not a single inch … to understanding the actual scope, use, or practice of “private prayer languages” in the SBC.
And to this day, I stand behind that analysis. I don’t believe that last year’s survey told us much, at all, regarding the actual practice of PPL in the SBC.
But it seems that the researchers at LifeWay decided to to ahead and ask … well, sort of … the “real” question. This past Monday, LifeWay Research released a series of findings in a story entitled, “LifWay Research Examines Hot Topics in Southern Baptists Life.“ Actually, I’m not so sure that PPL is such a “hot topic” anymore (at least not like this time last year), but I am glad that Dr. Stetzer and crew decided to put a plug that “gaping hole” in last year’s study.
This time, instead of asking what pastors thought might be theologically “possible,” they inquired as to their actual practice. This time, the research team asked 778 Southern Baptist senior pastors if they actually spoke in tongues or used a private prayer language. The result? Less than 4% admitted that they speak in tongues or have a private prayer language. Now, we still don’t know exactly how many Southern Baptist pastors use a PPL (tongues and PPL were “lumped” together in the survey question), but according to these results it is a number less than 4%.
“Rubber,” meet “road.” This survey gives us a much more accurate picture of the scope of PPL in Southern Baptist life. Last year’s study was touted by some as a “watershed” moment … that a more charismatic “corner” had been turned in Southern Baptist life. But I did not and still do not agree with those claims. Indeed, I believe that this year’s study is much more revealing.
The contrast seems quite stark, doesn’t it? 50% of Southern Baptist pastors support a theological belief in private prayer language/tongues, yet less than 4% practice one. I find that curious …
I honestly believe that last year’s study basically elicited a “postmodern” response to an emotional, hot-button question. (After all … who are we to say what is or is not valid for someone else, right?) But this year’s follow-up really tells what is going on in the lives … and prayer closets … of our pastors. And that, I believe, tells the real story.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Thanks for pointing out the obvious “gaping hole” in last year’s survey; however, I don’t agree with your conclusions.
First, are you saying that one must have a spiritual gift in order to believe in it? That seems to be the meaning of your statement, “It seems like the other 46% must not practice something that they believe in.” I don’t have many Biblical gifts, yet, I still believe in their existence.
Second, does the fact that only something less than 4% have a gift mean that those having the gift should be excluded from service in our mission agencies and other entities?
Trey Atkins
IMB – Croatia
I’m with Trey here.
As I understand it, people with a PPL were excluded from becoming missionaries with the International Mission Board. The survey demonstrated that this policy was not in line with the beliefs of the majority of Southern Baptist pastors.
Trey & Kevin,
I went back and edited that statement a bit … wrote it late last night. The math one.
But I will remind you that made no comment on PPL and the IMB policies. That was not my intention here. I just wanted to point out the significant difference between belief and practice brought out in the two surveys.
But your bring out an interesting point regarding spiritual gifts. Are spiritual gifts given for the edification of the believer, himself, or for the building up of the church?
The fact remains … less than 4% of SBC pastors claim to practice a PPL. What does that mean to us, theologically? Can it be that only a tiny minority of our pastors … the shepherds of our churches … have been gifted with a supernatural language to communicate with God?
If this, indeed, is a valid spiritual gift, then what are the implications that 96%+ of the shepherds of our SBC churches have not received it?
Geoff: Wouldn’t that then be basing one’s theology on experience alone?
Debbie,
Could be. Good point. But not so much “experience” as “practice.” I would think that our practice is, indeed, shaped … or, at least, framed … by our theology.
But Trey does bring up a great point … about being able to believe in a spiritual gift without actually having it. For instance, I believe in the gift of mercy, but I just don’t have it.
So, I suppose the crux of the matter is found in our definition and understanding of spiritual gifts.
Whether PPL, Election, Baptism, etc…I would imagine that at some point two missionaries are going to arrive at different conclusions on something. And when they are discipling new Believers, I wonder how that works when there is a disputed point? You could just see the new convert looking back and forth as if watching a tennis match when this happens.
When the local church does missions, well they’re on the same page doctrinally, and the organization I mentioned yesterday (http://www.toeverytribe.com/), they’re on the same page too. I would think this makes discipling a little easier.
Geoff,
I believe the point that Kevin was trying to make was that the original survey doesn’t really have a gaping hole… it answered the question that was important for the time. If 50% of SBC leaders believe in Private Prayer Languages than the IMB’s policy did not reflect the beliefs of the whole.
In comment #3 you said, “The fact remains … less than 4% of SBC pastors claim to practice a PPL. What does that mean to us, theologically? Can it be that only a tiny minority of our pastors … the shepherds of our churches … have been gifted with a supernatural language to communicate with God?”
There are several ways to achieve a “yes” answer to your latter question…
1) Yes, Pastors are not the only Christians and therefore are not the only people who can be gifted with Private Prayer Langauges.
2) Yes, we shouldn’t assume that what is required to be an SBC pastor is the same as what is required to be a Biblical pastor.
3) Yes, Paul clearly says that we should desire the greater gifts. Assuming that tongues is a lesser gift, perhaps that could explain the 4%.
4) Yes, perhaps 758 people who supposedly have the gift of pastor won’t also immediately have this other gift.
5) Yes, perhaps pastors who have the gift of a private prayer language felt ostracized by SBC churches, so they left the SBC and are part of other denominations now. Remember, they’ve had a year to leave after the IMBs decision.
There are probably a number of other ways to get a “yes”. This is why I care very little for statistics and surveys. They usually only give us the appearance of information, which was basically your beef with the original survey.
God’s Glory,
Lew
Geoff,
Good discussion! Though I do not possess a PPL, there are people very close to me who do. Within my church, I am aware of perhaps 6-7 individuals that possess the gift in some form or another. That amounts to 3-4% of my congregation. There may be others that I am not aware of but it’s interesting to me that the percentage is consistant with the LifeWay percentage. It might be fun to compare the PPL beliefs of those who know someone with a PPL with the PPL beliefs of those who do not know someone with a PPL.
–Dave
Brother John,
You said:
And when they are discipling new Believers, I wonder how that works when there is a disputed point?
What should happen is that both present their position (from the Bible) and allow the Spirit to guide the brother. This is the same thing we do here. The difference is we have loads and loads of theological information in our language (both in print and electronic form) and, in many cases, they have a Bible, the Spirit and us. For our new brother, this is healthy as it models how brothers and sisters can differ on some points but still be unified and serve together.
You also said:
When the local church does missions, well they’re on the same page doctrinally, and the organization I mentioned yesterday (http://www.toeverytribe.com/), they’re on the same page too. I would think this makes discipling a little easier.
While I definitely enjoy working with folks who believe exactly as I do in every detail, that rarely happens anywhere ;^) If you are referring to major doctrines of the faith (such things that are present in the creeds), then of course we must agree. However, a private prayer language does not come close to falling in that category for me.
May His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
Brother Geoff,
You said:
Last year’s study was touted by some as a “watershed” moment … that a more charismatic “corner” had been turned in Southern Baptist life. But I did not and still do not agree with those claims.
I honestly do not remember where you fall on this discussion, but for me this is an extremely significant observation. It would not appear to me the SBC is “going charismatic” either. (I would argue that PPL alone would not make someone “charismatic” according to the current usage of the word to begin with). Anyway, considering the SBC is not going charismatic, I am not sure I understand why the IMB policies were put into effect.
May His peace be yours in abundance,
From the Middle East
The bible does specify that some have the Spiritual gift of faith. Would you say that faith was given for the salvation of the individual, or the edification of the body? Or, could it be, that the faith enables and empowers the believer to contribute to that building up?
I think nearly 100% of Baptists believe in the gifts of pastoring and preaching, but less than 1% are actually pastors. Does that cast doubt on those gifts?
A pastor’s bachelorhood does not call the sanctity of marriage, nor his his belief in it, into question, either.
There was the story of the accountant who was so swamped by the number 5 one day .. everywhere he looked, he saw that number .. that he went to the track and put everything he owned down on horse #5 in the 5th race. He got to the rail just in time to see it come in 5th.
Sometimes we can use all the right data to come to the wrong conclusion.
I think the bigger question is whether strict cessationism is the official policy of the Southern Baptist Convention. If it is not, then it ought not to be the official policy of the IMB.
We are sending people to foreign countries to spread the Gospel and present a picture of biblical Christianity. It seems disingenuous to present a picture that is not reflective of our own denomination. (yes, I know, we’re not a denomination)
If cessationism is so vitally important that we require it of our missionaries, then we ought to work it into the BFM. Then there will be no debate. (well, less)
Wow …
I went to have a little cereal and coffee, then everyone showed up!
John – Good point re: the discipleship issue. That may shed some light on the efforts at uniformity.
Lew – My comment on the “gaping hole” was based upon the title of the release .. a study of “the use” of PPL. Yet the study did not address use, merely theology/belief. The title muddied the waters with regard to the conclusions. The straight-up asking of the question of use, in my opinion, plugged the hole. (Interesting point on your #3)
Dave – An interesting correlation, indeed. Yet, I have never been told by a single believer that I know (personally) that they have a private prayer language … which makes this entire phenomenon difficult for me to grasp.
FTME – I noticed that most of those claims came from outside SB life. I found those references (I’ve long since forgotten sources) among charismatic writers and on sites that were more along those lines.
Bob – Indeed. [Though I'm not familiar with the gift of pastoring.
] Might not the 50% results from last year have been used to jump to a few conclusions?
Bill – Good point. But your idea goes to ths issue of whether the BF&M is a “minimal” or “maximum” document. Lots of differing opinions on that one.
I think we also have to look closely at what the underlying assumption is for the IMB. I very seriously doubt that prospective missionaries would be denied service if those in favor of the guideline actually believed that it was possible for a person to pray privately in tongues. To deny service to someone exercising a legitimate gift of God is unthinkable. They must be operating on the assumption that whatever it is the candidate thinks they are doing, they are NOT praying in the Spirit as God gives them utterance. This is why I think the convention as a whole should try to hammer out where we stand on the continuance of the gifts.
I believe that if we were to “hammer out” where we stand, we would find that we stand all over the place. It would rip our convention into pieces, once and for all.
Perhaps the “real story” is that not many Southern Baptists, including pastors, are obeying Paul’s command (given twice, 1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1) to earnestly desire spiritual gifts.
Brother Geoff,
It appears that your readers are all fairly sure that this PPL is biblical….kind of giving the new phenomena the benefit of the doubt, just in case it turns out to be tongues. That is bizarre! I am assuming that a contextual exegesis on the passage used to support this new found utterance is 1 Corinthians 14.
It is probably worth figuring out what it is…before we attribute the experience to God. For all we know it could be us just feeling happy and have nothing whatsoever to do with God.
Tongues are never mysterious, nor have they ceased by the way, yet it is clear tongues were never normative, nor are they today(ouch to cessationist)….or at least not according to the Apostle Paul when you read his chastisements to the Corinthian church.
Blessings,
Chris
Barry – Perhaps the real story is that many Southern Baptists, including pastors, do not regard a “private prayer language” as a valid expression of a spiritual gift.
Chris – Very well said. Indeed, I am still looking for that compelling case from Scripture regarding the practice of a special language during private prayer. It seems that, since the poll from last year, the phenomenon is given the benefit of the doubt.
I enjoy the Lifeway research.
But there seems to be a prevailing opinion on both sides that somehow polls are decisive in whether a doctrine is true or not.
At one time, a poll of all christians would have revealed a vast majority denying the deity of Christ. Then Athanasius took his stand “contra mundi.”
Let’s take the polls for what they are – expressions of public opinion (if done right). They are not arbiters of biblical truth.
Dave,
You are, indeed, correct. Rightness is never found within the numbers of a public opinion poll.
I had a member who came from a different church (non-SBC). That church began teaching that one had to have a PPL in order to show evidence of Holy Spirit’s presence. When asked if he had a PPL he replied, “Yes, it’s English!”. Then he left and came to us.
I personally do not have a different PPL than English but I do not draw a box for God that says someone cannot have one. Thus, I do not believe we should exclude anyone from service because they do. Count me in the 50% who say God is big enough to do it if He wants to and in the 96% that don’t do it themselves.
Brother bloginafogpastor,
I agree with you in that there is no reason to bring someone off the field for this confession. There are a lot of things that people say in private that are not from God necessarily, and would not merit their removal from service.
It seems that when we attach the word “prayer” to anything, we automatically assume that it is something that God does. There are many prayers I pray that are so selfish I am positive that God never hears them, but I insist on praying them anyway. I’m just a stubborn sinner…and those prayers are like a pacifier to me (but there is hope for maturity).
PPL is shorthand for “we don’t know” at this point. If it is tongues, it probably will not be different than what is in operation in the scriptures. If it is different, or is not found in the scriptures, it is just me speaking (praying) to God. Where’s the difficult rub in all of this? God has given us His word to test all things….and we should.
Blessings,
Chris
It appears that your readers are all fairly sure that this PPL is biblical….kind of giving the new phenomena the benefit of the doubt, just in case it turns out to be tongues. That is bizarre! I am assuming that a contextual exegesis on the passage used to support this new found utterance is 1 Corinthians 14.
The typical justification for tongues as PPL is 1 Cor 14:18-19: “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.” If Paul’s use of the gift of tongues exceeds that of all of the Corinthians put together, yet he refrains from using it in public in church, where does he use it? It’s also not uncommon to find Rom 8:26 being invoked, though I personally don’t reach that far.
The distinction between the gift of tongues and a private prayer language seems to me artificial. It’s not a different gift, it’s just a question of in what context the gift is used. And given the quote from Paul above, use in private prayer might generally be the most profitable use. The term “Private Prayer Language” basically means “I have the gift of tongues, but I use it in private, not publicly in church”. It at least gives the cessationists in the church the assurance that the person with a PPL isn’t going to be breaking forth in tongues during a service.
And I am one who has the gift and only uses it privately (and who probably doesn’t use it as much as he should).
Geoff,
I agree that for some reason the initial survey was agenda driven, whether or not there was a motive or it was undergirded by a worldview. I am enjoying this site more and more. Thanks for the great insight along with your willingness to share.
Scott
While this is going a little bit from the center of the post, I believe Oloryn in #23 has noted something of importance. While charismatics wish to distinguish the “gift of tongues” from the “prayer language” it cannot be done biblically – they are one in the same. At the same time, I cannot affirm the cessationist viewpoint – I believe it is just as un-biblical and I find no support of the position from Scripture. I have also heard of no compelling Scriptural argument for cessation of the apostolic gifts including tongues. I would be one of those who would have said on that first survey what the majority said – a view in my belief (with proof) that pastors of Southern Baptists churches hold to.
Rob
Brother Oloryn,
I wrote a short commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 several months back and will insert a little snip-it of it which links 14:19 into the context of Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthian church.
………………….
“In the context of this passage, Paul is clearly emphasizing that if a tongue (language) is expressed where no one can understand (spoken out of arrogance, pride or ecstatically, evidenced by what was occurring in the Corinthian church) that in those types of displays ”only God hears” (because he is omnipresent and omniscient) what is being said and “not” the church. In other words, God has so designed a “tongue” (language) that when uttered supernaturally is understood (by the interpreter) or interpreted (to the church) clearly to reveal the love of Jesus Christ for His church. The mention of a tongue in verse four (vs. 4) is to emphasize that “only” the speaker of a tongue is enlightened, or educated, or satisfied; but not to the benefit of the church when manufactured out of selfishness. This is not positive edification for the individual by any means, it is selfish ambition. Paul’s admonition to the individual is to prophesy for the sake of being understood within the church resulting in love that opposes selfish behavior. Paul was correcting the Corinthian church to stir up love through edification, and establishing the importance of the gift of prophecy.
The ability to prophesy was “especially” brought forward as the most desirable and understandable gift when compared to speaking in a tongue that was not understood. In fact, Paul illustrates the significance of prophesying throughout the context of this section. He states that it is two hundred thousand (200,000) percent more valuable to speak in a language that everyone can understand, than to speak in a tongue (language) that will require interpretation. (1 Corinthians 14:19)”
………………….
Paul’s scolding of the Corinthian church is in no way introducing new concepts of the gift of speaking in tongues. Paul evokes a variety of teaching methods to communicate his point. So if a PPL is seen as a positive prayer mechanism, then you won’t find it in Paul’s context of admonition to the Corinthians. It seems that another context would need to be found to substantiate praying in an unknown tongue. Even in the remotest of possibility that a PPL is somehow discovered to be a biblical tongue….the edification for the individual only becomes relevant when understood by the individual as recorded by the Apostle in 14:13-14. In fact, Paul says pray both with spirit and mind. In other words, in a language that is understood…even when alone.
This is an interesting concept to discuss though.
Blessings,
Chris
The distinction between the gift of tongues and a private prayer language seems to me artificial. It’s not a different gift, it’s just a question of in what context the gift is used. And given the quote from Paul above, use in private prayer might generally be the most profitable use. The term “Private Prayer Language” basically means “I have the gift of tongues, but I use it in private, not publicly in church”.
I think that’s well put, Oloryn. PPL is simply using the gift of speaking in tongues in a way modeled and commended by Paul.
Geoff,
If wrong conclusions were reached, I don’t know who did the wrong concluding. When the survey results were revealed, it wasn’t in response to statements of how many SBC’ers spoke in tongues. The prior ballyhoo claimed that only a “tiny minority” of SBC’ers believed tongues was a valid gift.
The big news of the survey was that such a large number of PASTORS believed it was.
In that context, the answer would be “no”.
Brother Barry,
Where do you find the way modeled and commended by Paul?
Blessings,
Chris
Geoff,
Just a side note: I actually did see that 4% number last year. It was in the original polling data, if I remember, or, it was included as an answer to a question. I wrote on this pretty extensively (perhaps more than anyone else) and do remember that number.
As far as thinking that this meant that we had turned some type of “charismatic corner” in the SBC, I do not recall anyone saying that. All that anyone did with this info is counter Jerry Corbaley and Co. who said that 95% of SBC’ers did not believe in PPL. Clearly they did not know what they were talking about.
I think that we have to stop making arguments from experience (or our lack thereof). We become what we criticize when we do that. I do not have many of the spiritual gifts, but it does not mean that I don’t believe in them or teach that they are biblical. So, 50% belief on this issue is signficant.
As for people making exegetical arguments from 1 Corinthians 14 FOR PPL, that was done again and again by myself, David Rogers, and others. Just because people did not read it or were late to the blogosphere does not mean that we did not deal with it in detail. Now, many came to other conculsions and disagreed with us, but their arguments were far from conclusive, in my opinion. But, I am happy for them to cooperate with the SBC even though they are in the minority.
Hello,
The only reason I can speak to you is because of our relationship through the SBC. I love the concept of the SBC and I believe the Baptist Faith and Message is enough for me to trust you as a Southern Baptist. As a missions sending organization, which is what the SBC was intended be, we wanted to make sure that “the” Gospel was being preached on the field. As a result, we all concluded that the principles set forth in the BFM could justify mutual fellowship. I really don’t care if you speak in tongues and I don’t care if you don’t like me because I don’t fit your experiential expectations. You are what you are and I am what I am. And because we agree to the teachings of the BFM I will put my money in the hat with you to send missionaries into the world. This post seems to be receiving the most attention and it worries me that I would be rejected by you over an issue that is outside of the BFM. I don’t know you and you don’t know me so how much more do I have to do for you to accept me? And where does it stop? I wonder if the Pharisees considered themselves to be legalistic. Would we know it if we were?
Scott
Hi, Chris. The italicized paragraph was a quote from Oloryn’s comment, made just before mine. I agree with his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:18-19.
I also find it significant that there are some (even very conservative) commentators who interpret verses 1-5 in a way that actually supports, rather than contradicts, Oloryn’s understanding.
In Banner of Truth’s “Let’s Study 1 Corinthians” commentary, David Jackman says, regarding verse 2, “This has rightly led many to recognize that uninterpreted tongues are for private, rather than public, use. The experience of those who use the gift is of a heightened capacity to praise and pray to God beyond their normal ability in their native language.”
“Rightly“! That statement is all the more remarkable since Banner of Truth is well known for its cessationist views.
I could go on and quote Martyn Lloyd-Jones and other conservative preachers and commentators in support of Oloryn’s interpretation, too.
There are in fact many godly (and doctrinally sound) men on both sides of this debate, so I think we will have to agree to cordially disagree, as many of our brothers have done in the past.
Blessings to you, too, Chris, and to all.
Alan,
That number did pop up in last year’s survey. I believe it was the percentage of recent seminary grads who practiced PPL. The same question was not asked of the pastors, in general.
Geoff,
As you well know, we had an extensive discussion about PPL and the biblical justification for it back a couple of years ago on your old “Along the Shore” blog. As Alan mentioned, I believe I, as well as he and several others, have given a sound biblical justification of our position at one time or another in the SBC blogosphere. I don’t really see the use in rehashing all that all over again, though. One of the main points I have tried to demonstrate all along on this is that a belief in PPL is not necessarily equivalent to traditional Charismatic/Pentecostal interpretation of Scripture. As I understand it, in accordance with the Charismatic/Pentecostal view, a 4% rate of practice would indeed be low, since this would translate to only 4% who had ever experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, as many have already pointed out here, for those who believe in PPL, but not the traditional Charismatic/Pentecostal position, it should not be surprising at all, since tongues (or PPL) is only one of many possible gifts, and God does not give the same gifts to all when He sovereignly distributes them according to His choosing.
BTW, I agree with what Oloryn says here about PPL not being a separate gift, but rather merely a reference to the particular context in which the gift of tongues is practiced.
David,
Indeed, the issue has been discussed at length. I have merely pointed out the difference in the two surveys. Everyone will draw their own conclusions based upon their theology and worldview.
Brothers Oloryn, Rogers, and Wallace,
I do agree with you that there is only one substance of the gift of tongues (languages) that occurs in scripture. Dwight McKissic and I had a conversation several months back about this practice and I wanted to know at that time and am wanting to know today if any language has been identified during these times of prayer. Does anyone that possesses the gift of tongues also possess the gift of interpretation as was the case in the early church.
The Apostle Paul was very clear that he spoke in languages more than anyone. What languages have been known so far in the prayer tongue?
I do not believe that the bible requires tongues to cease,…. but being initially raised in an Assembly of God church that obviously and consistently did not possess the gift of tongues yet tried very hard to act like it….I always ask for interpretation and language to sort out the hucksters, ….because scripture has proved that “real languages” declare Christ in the church and were never feared in the church. So,.. Paul is quick to point out that as the Spirit gave utterance the gifted were always clearly edifying and the church clearly understood.
Blessings,
Chris
I don’t disagree with either survey, though I would disagree with your conclusion. Half of the pastors in the survey believe that tongues is an active gift of God but only four percent actually claim to have spoken in tongues (a rather high figure considering how adamant some Southern Baptists are against the practice). That’s quite consistent with what Paul says. There is clear teaching supporting the practice in scripture, and there is also clear teaching that this particular gift is among the least given.
The real “gap” in this survey, if there is one and if any really conclusive results can come from such a survey anyway, is that it was conducted among pastors. What would the results be if conducted among church members?
I’m a bit disturbed by the implication that Southern Baptist doctrine, which is completely and totally the domain of the local church, seems to be determined on this issue by majority rule.
Brother Lee,
I think your disturbance with the SB doctrine is inherent in the pride that potentially and easily ensues from a democratic process protected by the majority. The democratic process has this type of inherit danger which ultimately opposes the work of the church because of sin.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, you ask what actual languages have been spoken as “tongues”.
I’ve personally heard Jack Hayford testify of being prompted by the Lord to use his prayer language to speak to a seat mate on an airplane. Jack procrastinated for fear of appearing foolish. But when he finally obeyed and spoke “several sentences”, he was told by his unbelieving new friend that it was an ancient form of Apache. Turns out the fellow had Apache ancestry. The experience opened him up to further witness from Jack. [This story is documented in his 1994 book, "The Beauty of Spiritual Language."]
A friend of mine is a Filipino Baptist worship leader. He attended a large Don Moen concert in Manila. A woman standing behind him told him after the concert that she heard him praying in Russian while worshiping. He was not aware of it at all. And he doesn’t know Russian.
It’s well known now, but Dr Jerry Rankin once interpreted tongues in Indonesia.
I don’t know anyone personally with the gift of interpreting tongues; and I think that’s one reason why I don’t see much use of public tongues in church services. But perhaps someone, if prompted by the Spirit, can give an interp on the spot without having the gift. Kind of like witnessing without the gift of evangelism, or believing without the gift of faith. But if we don’t learn about and teach these things, ain’t likely to happen.
I come from a long line of Southern Baptists (pre-1845 even). I’m a SWBTS PhD grad who’s had a PPL since 1994. Been an international church pastor in Malaysia since 1998. Not charismatic, but also not with IMB due to the anti-charismatic interpretations and sensitivities of Baptists and the IMB for the past many years.
I agree with Oloryn’s comment that PPL and tongues are the same gift, just different usages and purposes.
PPL is not a big deal with me. I don’t promote it. One thing that *is* important to me, though, living in SE Asia in a Muslim-majority country that also has Hindus and Chinese traditionalists, is having spiritual power and authority over “dark angels” or unclean spirits. I do have to deal with harassed or “demonized” people from time to time. But that’s another topic.
Brother Todd,
Thanks for the feedback,…
The only way tongues (languages) are known to be real is when they are just that …known languages. Like I said earlier….being raised in other church environments I have seen more abuse, pride, and sham… than actual language. But none the less, it was happening in the same form at Corinth and the Apostle did not stifle the real thing, because it was not to be feared.
What I find very comforting from the Apostles teaching though, are that spiritual languages are for the edification of the church…not sure if it rightly used to get a better seat on a plane.
Certainly a language being spoken in the midst of the church takes a secondary backseat to prophecy and teaching. So we can be sure that if tongues (languages) show up, there better be a clear interpretation for the edification of the church…or silence is golden….because there is no room for gibberish in the church.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
Here is my rationale for why I believe that biblically tongues may include languages that are not known by any other humans:
1. 1 Corinthians 14:2 says “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” The idea inferred here, at least as I understand it, is that “tongues” is a “language” intended for communication from man to God, not from man to man. The word translated “mysteries” may mean different things, according to context. One possible meaning is that of “mysterious” communication in which the meaning is obscured to the one transmitting it.
2. The same basic idea is communicated in 1 Corinthians 14:28 when it says that “If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (e.g. PPL).
3. 1 Corinthians 12:10 and 28 mention speaking in “different kinds of tongues.”
4. 1 Corinthians 13:1 specifies two different kinds of tongues: “tongues of men” and “tongues of angels.” Though many take “tongues of angels” to be purely hypothetical, the text does not demand this interpretation.
5. There is good reason to believe that there was also a miracle of understanding in the tongues related in Acts 2. The people, upon hearing the believers speak in tongues, thought they were drunk. Everyone was speaking at the same time; yet, those of each different language group heard what was being communicated in their own particular language.
6. On the other instances of the practice of tongues in the book of Acts, normal communication was able to take place (apparently in Greek) between those speaking in tongues and those witnessing this phenomenon. Thus, the purpose of tongues was not to facilitate communication, but rather to serve as a sign. There is nothing in these texts that demands that the tongues being spoken were recognizable human languages.
7. In order for tongues to be understood, apparently there was a need either for a miracle of understanding, or the gift of interpretation. It is curious that the possibility of interpretation by someone who had actually studied and learned the other language was never given as an option. This is in spite of the fact that the great majority of the people throughout the Roman Empire all understood and spoke Greek.
8. 1 Corinthians 14:13 says “For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.” This seems to indicate that the person speaking in a tongue did not actually understand what they were saying (though in the spirit they were uttering mysteries).
9. 1 Corinthians 14:14-17 indicates that we may pray, sing, praise God, and give thanks “with our spirit” while, at the same time, not doing so “with our mind.” This is my understanding of what is going on in “PPL.” However, in a public assembly, we are to pray, sing, praise God, and give thanks both “with our spirit” and “with our minds,” unless our message in tongues is interpreted, so that the others may also be edified.
To all -
Chris Johnson has e-mailed me a paper/post that explains in full his doctrinal position on tongues. Perhaps I can put that up as a guest post in the coming days. (If I can make it happen tonight, I may try to load it up for tomorrow …) If that’s okay with you, Chris.
Brother David,
I realize you and others have done a good job of thinking through the various interpretive values that exist on this subject and it has been very educational for me personally during the past few years. I like the heightened attention on tongues (languages) because it does make us all search the scriptures for the truth.
Geoff has the short commentary I wrote on the subject some time back which addresses to some extent the points that you have outlined. I believe the context setting and purpose of the letter from Paul to the Corinthian church gets ignored to a large degree. I approach the exegesis of chapters 12,13 and 14 trying to understand why Paul was having to write the letter and asking the question,….was he trying to introduce anything new. I have come to the conclusion, so far, that he is not trying to introduce anything new into the church, nor revealing anything different than seen in all other letters and books in scripture including OT and NT. In fact he is relying heavily on Isaiah 28:11-12 as his underlying context for the admonition. D.A. Carson does a good job I think of bringing this forward as Paul echoes Isaiah’s context later approaching the middle of his admonition in verses 11ff. Paul draws back to verses 1-5 to introduce the argument he will make later in verses 13-14 which I illustrate in my commentary. This is a common teaching mechanism used by Paul throughout.
Based upon that ….this is how I would answer your findings………
1. 1 Corinthians 14:2 is qualifying verse 1 and explaining how to love, not introducing a new context for mysteries in tongues.
2. I do agree that there are not new concepts here,…but for different reasons
3. “genos” is more associated to nations or types of existing tongues (nations / languages).
4. I do think Paul is emphasizing the importance of not having love….
5. Not sure if I follow…..Seems those that spoke the language understood.
6. I agree that if someone did not know the language they would not understand what was being said, while the language (tongues) could be beneficial if interpreted, …all the more requiring interpretation.
7. Not sure about the miracle of understanding was ever required, but certainly interpretation seemed to be the remedy.
8. 1 Corinthians 14:13 is a form of teaching style that Paul employs to describe the importance of the theme of prophecy. Verses 13 and 14 work together.
9. In the context of Paul’s admonition verses 13-14 qualify one another and verses 15-17 form the determinative outcome of edification for the church. In other words, an unfruitful exhibition is not the aim of a tongue (this goes right to Paul’s use of Isaiah 28). Paul’s illusion of individuals is wrapped in the context of teaching the entire church. He is not positioning the individual gift as important in this context. He is explaining why and how it works in the church and for God’s people collectively (again, Isaiah).
Thank you for being patient with me…..as I work through this interesting passage. Again, I appreciate listening and learning over the past few years on this subject.
Blessings,
Chris
Geoff,…give it a whirl, I’m ready to learn more!
Chris: Why in the privacy of a prayer closet would you need an interpreter?
Sister Debbie,
Since tongues (languages) are a manifestation of the Spirit of God for the church, whether individual or collectively,… it stands to reason that God would not want His children ignorant of what is being said (i.e. prophecy). So a great benefit in the prayer closet for anyone is to be aware of what God is saying manifestly through the tongue (language)…otherwise the tongue is useless as Paul would say. When Christ taught us to pray in private, He was very instructive and the language he suggests is very clear….which is also the Word made manifest. So it is a more sure way.
I am not trying to say that tongues do not exist in the prayer closet. But if someone does speak in a tongue (language), the speaker should pray for interpretation, so that he or she does not remain ignorant of what God is manifesting as He gives utterance since we know he is the giver of all good things.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I don’t have time now to reply to all of your responses to my 9 points. Also, I think I will wait until Geoff posts your entire article so I can get a better feel for your argument in context first.
In the meantime, I did want to respond to one detail in your reply to Debbie, though.
In the context of 1 Cor. 14, it says (v. 4), “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” The almost certain implication is that this edification takes place without the benefit of the speaker understanding with his/her mind what is being said, and without interpretation. Actually, if I am understanding vv. 14-17 correctly, praying, singing, praising God, and giving thanks may all be occurring, even though the tongues speaker is not conscious of what exactly is being said, and there is no interpretation. Of course, if there is also interpretation, there is even more edification, both for the individual speaking in tongues, as well as for any who may happen to listen in. But, to say that uninterpreted tongues are “useless” goes beyond what 1 Cor. 14 is saying, as I understand it. Otherwise, Paul would not advise those with the ability to speak in tongues, even though there is no interpretation, to do so, “speaking to themselves and to God.”
But, to say that uninterpreted tongues are “useless” goes beyond what 1 Cor. 14 is saying, as I understand it.
No, but it might be argued that Paul is saying that uninterpreted tongues when the church is gathered is useless. Nothing of use is accomplished by the use of uninterpreted tongues in a church service that would not be equally accomplished by their use in private. Hence, you shouldn’t waste church service time by engaging in them, but should focus more on the exercise of gifts what will build up the church as a whole.
What is beginning to strike me about this section of scripture is that while it is easy to read between the lines and say that the Corinthians were exercising spiritual gifts with impure motives, Paul doesn’t seem to try to ‘nail’ them about their motives. He seems to go out of his way to avoid discouraging the Corinthians’ enthusiasm for spiritual gifts. What he does do is to point them in the direction of making their exercise of those gifts more practically useful and towards exercising them in love. Is this an example we should be following?
not sure if it rightly used to get a better seat on a plane.
Chris, I think you’re misunderstanding Todd’s explanation of Jack Hayford’s experience. The result of Jack’s experience appears to be an opportunity to witness, not a better seat. I’m not quite sure where you came up with the ‘better seat’ bit.
Oloryn,
Thanks for making even more clear what I was trying to say. I am in full agreement with you here.
Brother Oloryn,
I probably did misunderstand the Hayford example…. My apologies to Todd.
When you said.. “Paul doesn’t seem to try to ‘nail’ them about their motives. He seems to go out of his way to avoid discouraging the Corinthians’ enthusiasm for spiritual gifts.”
I think you are absolutely right, because we see that with the myriad of other things he was admonishing and exhorting the fledgling church to change he continued to encourage their worship and teaching. He is no doubt in the process of correcting a problem though, and the context is extremely important as we understand the implication of his expressions in the first five verses.
As David mentions vs 4…. Paul’s primary goal of correcting a problem cannot be separated from the context and the preceding verses and throughout the section….“he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” not the church…is simply making an effort to say…. “sure, if someone exercised the gift and speaks in a tongue it is real and edifying, and the same goes for prophecy.” But,…the context is in verse 1 and 2, …which is to emphasize prophecy while correcting a problem. You’ll notice that Paul does not correct the gift of prophecy, although he has in other letters. I’m almost sure that the Apostle, if no problem existed concerning tongues, may have approached this entire section differently….he has in other letters. If tongues were not a problem here, he would have no reason to say what he is saying. Tongues were not a problem at Pentecost, so no correction was stated.
I will dig a little deeper on the interpretive value of tongues…. It seems that interpretation has always been a part of tongues whether heard in a language known to the receiver, or interpreted for the edification of the church. It seems a bit forced to get another type of use from a section of scripture that is intent on correcting a problem with the gift.
Thanks for the post,
Blessings,
Chris
I live in Pensacola, FL. Ther are at least two major fellowships of churches (quasi-denominations) in our area that are what you might call “Bapti-costal.” Each is rooted in former Southern Baptists who were forced out because of the use of private prayer language and public tongues (according to 1 Cor 14.) At the time (70s and 80s) it was local pressure, not national SBC, than did the pushing, so the dynamics were not the same as they are now. Nonetheless, we now have a haven for people who may like to fellowship with an SBC church yet have a PPL, so they connect instead with our Bapti-costal friends. I have one close friend whose story is just this. In fact, he and his wife have beeen praying about leaving their ministry here and going overseas. How I wish the SBC could be blessed with their service! I know the Kingdom of God will be just fine and my friends will discover their place, but maybe we as Southern Baptists are missing out on the blessing of them. There are more than a dozen of my more distant friends who were once SBC, but are now a part of these churches. The SBC is not bleeding members in droves to these churches, nor is membership an overriding concern of mine, but we are promoting a culture which presses wonderful people out ever so gently most of the time, but with exceeding effectiveness.
Maybe we are missing out on having them and being blessing in some small way by this mysterious, yet lesser, gift.
To All:
I have been in the ministry now for 18 years, some of you possibly longer. The issue on tongues has never been resolved. Many see tongues as a door to charismatic doctrines while others are simply attempting to follow the mandates of Scripture. We would be wise to not let our experiences dictate doctrine but it is also true that experiences can keep us hunched up in a corner being afraid of anything that resembles a charismatic church. The reason why this continues to be an issue is because the SBC is full of godly men and women who love the Bible and desire to implement all that God has for us. Each of us must live by what we believe but we must do so without being offensive. That is why I enjoy SBCimpact. Raise the issue, put your two cents in, and let’s remember that everone is not going to see it as you do. I have enjoyed reading each and every comment but no one has swayed me to change my mind. The more that secondary issues become essentials the more we will resemble the Pharisees. For me, the BFM is enough. If you want to talk to God in tongues go ahead but since Southern Baptists in general are people of the book don’t be surprised if your interpretation is questioned. Authority is at the heart of this issue and interpretations of a tongue may be seen as a slight of hand parlor trick. Nonetheless, live by your convictions and don’t be surprised if many reject you. Stop wearing your doctrines on your sleeve and people will stop attacking you.
Sincerely,
Scott
Brother Chris,
I really appreciate the tone of your comments and of most others on this thread. It’s been refreshing, really.
I’m curious about something. Have you read the two sections on spiritual gifts in Grudem’s Systematic Theology? They’re very helpful, especially concerning speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy.
Also, Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ book “The Sovereign Spirit” is pretty interesting. He argues that the tongues of 1 Cor. 14 were distinctly different from the tongues of Acts 2, precisely because no interpreter was needed at Pentecost, as was discussed earlier in this thread.
It’s a fascinating book, actually, although I don’t agree with everything he says.
Grace and peace to all of you.
The bottomline on all this discussion is where is there any support for a PPL in the Bible? I have never seen it and study scripture every day. I recognize a debate over whether ‘tongues’in the Bible is some sort of babble or simply ‘other tongues’ as that phrase is commonly used (a tongue other than what someone may have previously learned, but not one that is unknown anywhere)but PPL?? Let folks do what they want in that regard, as long as it is not passed off as a Biblical gift.
Chris, you did have me scratching my head with your reply. No apology necessary; but glad you see now the misunderstanding over the Hayford story. (Oloryn, thanks for pointing it out.)
Geoff and Chris, is the paper posted anywhere yet?
As is often the case regarding different interpretations — and this issue particularly — people tend to talk past one another. Those disbelieving and not having the experience of PPL or public tongues tend to discount the validity of the gift or biblical interpretation of those who do practice it. We practitioners are often accused of interpreting on the basis of our experience. I contend that it is equally true that non-practitioners often interpret Scripture from their bias of no personal experience and sometimes a negative experience with tongues. On the other side, admittedly, some people with PPL seem to be evangelists more for the gift than for the Lord. Personally, I hate the “have/have not” division. Of course, it shouldn’t be that way.
In this thread, I find especially unhelpful the comment, “Let folks do what they want in that regard [PPL], as long as it is not passed off as a Biblical gift.” How condescending! Jeff in Memphis, can you not allow that we just interpret the Bible differently than you do? There is much scholarly material written on this subject (Grudem’s is one, as Barry pointed out). On blogs, David Rogers has written on it. I have as well. Frankly, it’s tiring to keep “defending” an interpretation and an experience. So I won’t do it here.
Come on, family, let’s move past this impasse by agreeing to disagree and getting on with kingdom work — preferably together. Or, at least let’s discuss our interpretations and experiences without cavalierly dismissing the positions of others as unbiblical when there is lots of published reputable material to suggest otherwise.
Shane, fellow Floridian, I’m with you on your comment.
Chris, I look forward to seeing your paper. I may or may not make time to interact with it, but I would like to understand your position. Blessings…
Jeff in Memphis,
First off, seeing that, apparently, you are in Memphis, I am curious: do we know each other? Just wondering.
Next, I have also studied Scripture quite a bit, and have made an especially in-depth study of all the passages possibly related to tongues and/or “PPL.” It seems to me that a plain reading of 1 Cor. 14:2 & 28 support the use of tongues as a means to talk to God privately (e.g. “PPL”). Do you not agree? Whether or not these “tongues” must always be able to be identified as a known, “translatable” language in order to be considered legitimate is a more complex question, in my opinion. However, the 9 points I give in comment #41 lead me to think that perhaps not. I am open to dialogue about this. But frankly, I don’t think this issue is quite as “closed book” as you seem to want to make it in your comment here.
Unlike Todd (whose position I respect), I am not arguing on the basis of experience, since I have not ever spoken in tongues or practiced “PPL” myself. But, my study of Scripture alone has led me to this position. To be honest, I guess I would have to add that my observation of what appear to me to be godly, sincere people who claim to speak in tongues has led me to dig deeper into Scripture to find out for myself what I believe in this.
Todd, I apologize if I sounded condescending. I did not think I did, but I surely did not intend to. Back though to my original question: Is there Biblical support for PPL? It is not a question of interpretation until I know what you are interpreting. I appreciate the reference to those scholars who have written about it, but their opinions are just that, opinions… their writings, with all due respect, are not scripture(although they may be helpful). For any worthwhile discussion, there must be some Biblical basis to start from. Otherwise, as I stated, I am not doubting the validity of someone’s own particularities in their prayer life, let them do as they please(quite honestly, I don’t care much one way or the other in the scheme of things). I am just curious to see what Biblcal passages would prompt so much discussion and consternation. I will read it myself. Is your answer then to my question a big fat no?
David, thanks for your input. I have read your #41 comments and understand your points. The scenario in Corinth thought just seems pretty every day stuff, don’t cause confusion when publically speaking in a group by using your language, unknown to others, unless you have an interpreter. I just don’t see reading more into it than what the common person would just to make it fit some new experience. On the other hand, I would let each individual decide that. These letters were written to ordinary people and I see no advantage in trying to stretch it into more than it seems to say. (RE: tongues in Acts, I would only say that it was a miracle that the Apostles spoke in tongues,unknown to them, but known to the many pilgrims who listened.)
By the way David, I do live in Memphis. I practice law and attended SWBTS from ’87 to ’91 as a mission volunteer. I hesitate giving my phone # and email address on a public place but I am in the phone book: Jeff Barnett.
Jeff in Memphis,
Apology accepted, and no hard feelings. I don’t think I’m “wearing my doctrine on my sleeve” as one commenter put it. Nevertheless, no one who loves and believes the Word appreciates having their practices labeled unbiblical. That’s how I interpreted the last line in your comment #53, and that’s what moved me to write.
I’m surprised, Jeff, that you haven’t interacted much with David Rogers and his position. Because, in answer to your question, he has already pointed us to the relevant passages, and to the most relevant one, I believe, for PPL — 1 Cor. 14.
In comment #41, David’s points about chapter 14 (points 1, 2, and 9) are spot-on, I think. He and I agree, as far as I can tell, that there is a public use of tongues for praise and prophecy which requires interpretation for the building up the church. And there is a private use of tongues for praise and prayer which requires no interpretation because it builds up only the individual (it’s not for the congregation).
It seems that many people who don’t recognize the gift of a PPL also do not allow for this distinction between a public and a private use. Obviously, I find the distinction in 1 Cor. 14; and I don’t think I’m “stretching” it just to justify the gift of a PPL.
I’m curious, Jeff, how do you interpret 1 Cor. 14: 2, 14-18, & 28? Do you not see a public vs. private use of speaking and praying in an unlearned language? I agree with you that these were ordinary people Paul was writing to. But I also think that there was some supernatural work going on and some supernatural gifts being given by the Lord.
BTW, as a Southern Baptist, and like David, I came to my convictions about tongues and PPL from studying the Scriptures. The experience came after the study and after my doubts were settled.
Also, I am not on a mission to convert anyone to believe in nor to practice PPL or public tongues. The only mission I’m trying to obey is the Great Commission. And whether the people I disciple speak in tongues or not, is not a big deal to me. (I do want them, however, to walk in the power of the Word, and in the fullness of the Spirit.)
I don’t mean to sound pious or uncharitable, but for the reasons stated above, I don’t plan to debate this issue here on a blog. I yield to David to take up the challenge, if he so desires (even though he has already done plenty).
Sincere blessings, Jeff and others, on your study of the Word…
Todd in Malaysia
Todd, I agree that there was a difference in the use of the “tongues”, private and public. However, consistent with my post to David, Paul, in my view, was not trying to confirm that there was some special, spiritual language one can use in private, but that there was no special language for believers communicating with God, (they don’t have to learn a new language to speak privately with God), just don’t speak their native, but foreign language in public without an interpreter (to prevent confusion). For example, he might suggest that you not speak to the folks in Malaysia in English in a large group who did not know English, without an interpreter. Your unknown tongue would not be understood. However, that does not keep you from using your own, English language to speak with God privately. That would be an important point to make to a new believer who was being told he or she could not speak in their own language in public.
Malaysia? Cool! God Bless you.
Jeff,
It is interesting we have not yet made personal contact, at least that I remember. I was also at SWBTS from 1/88 to 6/89, and was in the M.Div. missions and evangelism concentration, so we may have been in some classes together.
In any case, I don’t want to do this in an argumentative spirit. But, just for the sake of coming together, and looking at Scripture together, and trying, with the Lord’s help, to come to a better understanding of what it says, I offer the following replies to your points in your answers to Todd and me:
1. Would you not agree that “tongues” in the context of 1 Cor. 12-14 refers to a supernatural ability or spiritual gift, and not just to the learned, human ability to speak one’s own native language? To me, that seems to be the conclusion one would reach from a plain reading of 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 27-31.
2. By the same token, it seems that the ability to interpret tongues is also a supernatural spiritual gift, and not something gained through mere human knowledge and practice.
3. I agree with you that it is not necessary to have a special language, as believers, in order to communicate with God. However, at the same time, I don’t see why this necessarily precludes the possibility of God giving this gift to some believers – not all, as the clear implication of 1 Cor. 12:10 and 30 is that He doesn’t give this gift to all. It also seems that this communication takes place, in one way or another, at a spiritual level and not a cognitive level (1 Cor. 14:2 and 14).
4. You talk about not reading into or stretching the text to say more than what is there. However, as I try my best to be objective, the preceding 3 points seem clear to me, and seem to preclude the interpretation I understand you to be giving here. If I am misunderstanding you, though, I will be happy to continue to dialogue about this until we feel we are both understanding each other’s position well.
Todd,
Although it could well have come off that way, I did not mean to infer that your position on tongues came as a result of experience, rather than understanding of God’s Word. Merely that, by your own testimony, you also have personal experience with the practice of tongues, while I do not.
I appreciate your spirit on this. Let’s continue to pray and work so that, in all things, Jesus is glorified, and we don’t feel the compulsion to have to win an argument and convince others of our position at the expense of overall edification of His Body. I love you, brother.
Thanks for the conversation David. Maybe we can get together sometime in Memphis.
I am not ignoring your recent comments, but it has been a long day @ work and I will have to get your response posted later tonight or tomorrow. Talk to you then.
David here is my response to your numbered points:
1. I agree that ‘tongues’ or any spriritual gift is ‘not just’ what has been learned or something arising from human abilities, BUT I do not exclude the role of what is learned or human ability. Without going into a long exegesis in this media, my convictions closely associate being filled (controlled) by the Spirit with the expression of the different ways to serve and activities Paul calls Spiritual gifts (Eph. 3:14-20; 4:1-6; 5:18). To put it simply, a Spiritual gift (to the body)is that service or activity perfomed by believers because they are constrained or compelled by the love of God. The expressions may seem more miraculous like the apostles’ speaking the various languages of their varied audience in Acts or from talents or skills developed by human effort. I believe an example of the latter to be Paul’s compulsion/contraint to preach and his admonishment for us to act likewise (1 Cor. 9:16 or 2 Cor. 5:14). I think Paul’s conversion simply changed the source and motives of the activites/ he already learned. To me, we have confused believers about gifts by trying to explain them in nebulous terms, as something like a special power that suddenly shines through us to the exclusion of simply doing what their love for God compels them to do. (I know this is probably dangerous talk because if enough people agreed, it would cut into someone’s royalties for all the books written on how to find ‘your gift’). I believe that as we grow in our knowledge of Christ and His very real and present love for us, we will be constrained to do something about that (our gift). Paul even rejects efforts, even ‘tongues’ that are not out of agape/love (1 Cor. 13).
2. My views above answers your second point too. In Acts, no interpreter was necessary since the hearers heard the messages in their own, known language. In the context of the probable, diverse cultures in Corinth, someone who was especially skilled in languages, out of their love of Christ, would be providing an invaluable/’profitable’ service to the body by interpreting the various, known languages so all could benefit.
3. I agree that everyone does not have the same spiritual gift. Also, I do not deny that God can do whatever He deems best according to His will, even in communicating with Him (ie., groanings of the Spirit, not our groanings, when we do not know what to pray for…Romans 8: 26). I just do not see an example of what I understand is called PPL in the Bible.
Thanks, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
I love this site!
This is one of the most controversial issues in the SBC for the last 30 years and there is no venom spewed on this entire page. Even though there are various opinions, the attitudes are Christ-honoring.
Let’s keep this up!
Thanks to those who liked my earlier post and to those who didn’t, thanks for not cyber-spitting at me! You guys are stretching me. I look forward to being next to you all at the throne someday, shoulder to shoulder as we fall before the Lamb.
[...] at Grace Church at Hermitage, near Nashville, Tennessee. Chris has been very involved in the ongoing discussion of “private prayer language” on this blog. Recently, Chris e-mailed sbc IMPACT! a [...]
I would like to say that I have so enjoyed this discussion. I have learned so much and that is what I come to forums and discussions for. I would like to thank each of you for the way everyone has, for a better word, handled themselves in the discussions. I have been in some discussions where those who are not Christians, actually
personally confessed atheist and agnostics who destroy the discussion with profanity, name-calling and just plain irreverance to other people.
I will bookmark this site to be able to return and read again the discussions you are having.
God Bless All Of You,
Chaplain Rodger De Ramus