First of all, before I take pen an paper (metaphorically speaking) and record my views for all posterity and for all to see, let me first make this disclaimer. I am no Greek scholar. I would never pretend to be. I would never claim to be. Like most pastors who have completed an M.Div. program, I have had two basic courses in New Testament Greek. I struggled through both and moved on. I have forgotten much of what I once memorized. But I do have a little bit of basic knowledge, and it allows me to pick up my Greek New Testament, do a little research, and so some basic interpreting. I know that there are the “armchair” Greek experts, as well as the seminary professors and such out there who will, no doubt, seek to (and probably be able to) “vaporize” me and my understanding. But that’s okay. I’m not going to get into any linguistic “fencing matches.” I would, most assuredly, be the loser.
Secondly, (I will be including this preface at the beginning of each of my posts on this topic.) I am writing these thoughts as a product of my own study of the issue of “tongues” and “private prayer languages.” Since these are subjects that are in the forefront of current Southern Baptist discussion, I felt that it was important for me (as a SB pastor) to clarify and express the views that I have held for some time. My analysis is not intended as an indictment or as a purposeful degrading of anyone else’s views. My views do not affect my ability to work alongside my brothers and sisters in Christ who hold pentecostal or charismatic views. I simply do not agree with them on the issue of ecstatic, unintelligible tongues. I pray that no one will be offended by my beliefs. I am certainly not offended by theirs.
So, that being said …
Let’s talk about spiritual gifts…
I believe that this is a natural starting point for explaining my views. And it goes to the root of the current discussion of the practice of “private prayer languages.” Those who claim the practice of a “private prayer language” must do so with a claim that this practice is a “gift” from God, i.e. a “spiritual gift.” There would be no other rational explanation. If the private ecstatic utterances do not originate in their own mind and emotion, then they must be claimed as a gift from God, since He is the only other Person involved in the conversation.
But can/does a “private prayer language” serve as a true spiritual gift? Does it “fit the bill?” Does it serve the same, or even a similar, purpose as the spiritual gifts described in the New Testament? Frankly, I do not think so. Let me explain why.
Paul gives us a little (actually a lot) or help in I Corinthians. Of course, much of the claims of support for the practice of “tongues” (unintelligible, ecstatic utterances) and “private prayer languages” is based upon Paul’s instruction to the church at Corinth, especially in the fourteenth chapter of this letter. But we need to always keep in mind … the church at Corinth was a church in disarray. Much of Paul’s dealings with them in this letter resemble a verbal reprimand. Much of it is an effort to correct bad practices, and even bad theology. I point that out so that we may keep the overall context of the letter in mind. But chapter 12 deals with spiritual gifts. Paul did not want the people of this church to be ignorant about those gifts (12:1).
Now look at what he says in 1 Corinthians 12:4-7:
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
We need to stop here. What follows is a list of several different spiritual gifts. It is, by no means, an exhaustive list. And, yes, it includes a gift of tongues (which can also, and perhaps more accurately, be translated as “languages”). But the seventh verse is an interpretive key, especially in a discussion of glossolalia or “private prayer languages.”
What is the purpose of spiritual gifts? These special gifts of the Holy Spirit are given by God so that the recipients may build up (edify) the body of believers. Their purpose, as we know very well, is to build up the body of Christ … His church. We have always known this fact. We were all taught it in Sunday School, way before any of us became pastors or theologians.
Think about some of the gifts listed in the New Testament: prophecy, ministry, teaching, languages, exhortation, giving, leading, mercy, knowledge, faith, love … they are given for the church. They are not given for an individual believer. If they were, they would become sources of self-focus and pride.
Christians with a continualist view, who accept the present-day practice of ecstatic utterances as the gift of “tongues,” tend to place much credence 1 Corinthians 14:4 as a foundation for such practice. In it, Paul says, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies, himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.” Their explanation seems to be: “No, the practice of glossolalia does not edify the church, but it edifies the speaker, so that means it’s still a good thing.”
But this interpretation and explanation misses the entire point of this verse. For it is, itself, a reprimand. The believer is not called and gifted to “edify himself.” His giftedness is for the edification of the church. Think back to Paul’s instructions to this same church regarding the eating of food sacrificed to idols (in chapter 10). The issue was freedom of expression and action by the individual believer. The comment that some of the Corinthians was making was that “everything is permissible.”
But listen to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 10:23:
“Everything is permissible” – but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good , but the good of others.
In other words … no Christian should seek his own edification, but the edification of others. One of the saddest, most troubling circumstances in the church is when individual believers (or individual churches, for that matter) turn inward and focus upon themselves. When individual believers make the focus of their time and faith into seeking after their own “blessings,” they remain unavailable to be a blessing to others. They take themselves “out of the game” with regard to ministry in and through the church.
Spiritual gifts are not for the individual believers, but for all believers (the church). We know this truth. This puts 1 Corinthians14:4 in its proper context. Paul was not commending the Corinthian “tongue-speakers” for edifying (building up) themselves, he was rebuking them for it. They had turned their worship into something that was about them … that was calling attention to themselves …rather than to God.
But the issue here is “private prayer languages.” At least that’s what I started out talking about in this series of posts. The question is this: Is a “private prayer language” a spiritual gift? More importantly, would God bestow upon someone a gift that has no apparent value in the building up of the church … a gift that focuses upon the individual … a gift that can only be exercised in private?
In my humble, genuine, sincere opinion, I do not think so. The descriptive word “private” removes this practice from the realm of spiritual giftedness.
Like I said before, this is my understanding and opinion. You may not agree … and that is okay. We just need to remember that the greatest of all of the gifts is love!
December 27, 2006 at 3:19 pm
First off, I agree with your premise that “tongues” or “PPL” cannot be understood apart from as a supernatural “spiritual gift” from God (be they spurious, as you claim, in the case of “PPL”, or authentic).
Next, while I agree with a good part of your assessment that the church in Corinth was a church “in disarray,” I do not agree that everything Paul has to say to them about “tongues” must be seen as a “reprimand.” I certainly agree there are some corrective injunctions given in response to abuse. But nowhere do I see that Paul completely prohibits the use of “tongues” as practiced by the Corinthians. He rather regulates it, according to the context in which it is used.
Now, regarding the point that a supposed “spiritual gift” should not be used for “self-edification,” I agree with the reference to Jude 20 given by “Jonathan” in a later post. I do not think that, just because Jude 20 does not specifically refer to “spiritual gifts” that the purported legitimacy of “self-edification” as a function of “spiritual gifts” is to be discounted. “Self-edification,” properly understood, is a good thing. There is a difference, as I understand it, between “selfishly-motivated-edification” and “self-edification.” Many “spiritual gifts” involve elements of “self-edification.” When someone receives a “word of wisdom” or a “word of knowledge,” as well as “prophecy,” they themselves (as well as others to whom these words are communicated) receive “edification” in the process. When someone “discerns spirits,” I believe there is also an element of “self-edification.” It seems to me that someone with the “gift of faith” is also “built up spiritually” by means of the practice of their gift. Etc., etc.
There are also many personal devotional practices (although not specifically “spiritual gifts”) that result in “self-edification.” I would say that one of the main functions of personal Bible study and prayer, for instance, is “self-edification.” Listening to Christian music serves mainly as “self-edification.”
Are you prepared to call these things “turning inward” and “focusing on ourselves”?
Moreover, 1 Cor. 12.7 says that “to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.” I do not see how this rules out the possibility of “self-edification,” if understood properly. When each of us is truly “edified” in our own personal spiritual growth, I believe the result is indeed the “common good” of the Church at large, as well as that of the particular local congregation in which one is a member.
December 27, 2006 at 6:05 pm
David,
Obviously we differ in our interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14. As I read the entire chapter through, in light of chapters 12 (spiritual gifts) and 13 (love), it seems quite clear to me that Paul was steadily building a “case” in order to deal decisively with the abuses that were going on in the church at Corinth. Paul did much, much more that simply “regulate” the practice of tongues. He systematically dismantled the practice as it was occuring in that church.
With regard to the discussion of spiritual gifts and self-edification, I thought I expressed myself clearly when I responded to Jonathan. But let me clarify. of course we are to seek to edify ourselves in our faith. That is the very definition of discipleship, is it not? The disciplines of the faith are not, obviously, a turning in upon one’s self. I think that both Jonathan and you have changed my subject for me a bit. I have spoken specifically about the purpose of spiritual gifts.
But with regard to spiritual gifts, I remain steadfast in the understanding that such gifts are given to build up the church … not for the benefit of the individual believer. I am speaking of the true purpose of our gifts. Of course, we will benefit personally from the exercising of our spiritual gifts. That is a given. When we are acting in obedience we will, undoubtedly, be blessed. But I will resist the notion that any spiritual gift is ever given for the express purpose of the personal benefit of the one given and exercising the gift.
I have struggled with this issue so much as a pastor. My sponsoring church was very much into the whole “spiritual gifts inventories” thing. Most of the adults in my core group had been through a spiritual gift study and taken an inventory. And it seemed that they talked incessantly about what gift they had. They wore their “gift designation” like a badge of honor … like it was about them. I finally had to confront some of them and inform them that the spiritual gifts that God had given them had absolutely nothing to do with their self-edification … they needed to put them to work in the church in order to build up the church. Such is the danger when Christians begin to look at their giftedness as being for themselves. And, David, this always, always, always happens with regard to tongues (in any form). There are always the haves (who think they are super-spiritual) and the have-nots. It is divisive. This is not the nature or purpose of spiritual gifts. So, the idea of “self-edification” from our spiritual gifts is not outside the realm of reality. It is simply not the true purpose of spiritual gifts.
Paul was most clear in Ephesians 4 when he said in regard to spiritual gifts, “…so that the body of Christ may be built up.” (v. 12) He further stated, “From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” (v. 16) David, just consider the many different spiritual gifts that are named in the New Testament. Every one of those gifts was given for the specific purpose of building up the church. If a gift of “private prayer languages” were included in the same discussion as, say, prophecy, ministry, service, teaching, administration, giving … it would be an anomaly … it would be out of place.
December 28, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Yes, Geoff, we obviously differ in our interpretation of 1 Cor. 14. While it may seem “quite clear” to you that Paul was “systematically dismantling the practice of tongues as it was occuring in the Corinthian church,” it is not quite so clear to me. It seems to me your interpretation is based upon a subjective a priori prejudice against certain practices. I imagine you might think the same thing regarding my interpretation. But I am attempting to be as objective as possible in my interpretation, and am open to being shown where and how I am being otherwise.
Once again, it seems to me you base your whole point against “self-edification” on your interpretation of 1 Cor. 12.7. Correct me if I am wrong here. I believe I have already demonstrated how the “self-edificatory” function of tongues (or PPL) is not necessarily in conflict with contribution toward the “common good” of the Body. In your illustration of your past experiences on your last comment, I believe you fail to adequately distinguish between “self-edification” and what I call “selfishly-motivated-edification.”
I believe your comment, “this always, always, always happens with regard to tongues (in any form)” is extremely unfair and non-objective. I personally have known many people who profess to have the gift of tongues who show a great deal of humility and servant spirit in their interaction with other Christians, and who, by no means, consider themselves to be more spiritual as a result of a gift God has sovereignly chosen to give them. I agree that attitudes of spiritual superiority can be present, and sometimes are, among “tongues speakers.” However, I have seen just as many examples of attitudes of divisiveness and spiritual superiority on the part of “non-tongues speakers.”
Finally, it seems the gifts you mention in your last paragraph are all taken from the passage in Romans 12. However, the biblical context of the gift of tongues is the passage in 1 Corinthians 12. I see no inherent incompatibility whatsoever between the practice of tongues (public or private, as long as it is done according to the regulations given in 1 Cor. 14) and the “message of wisdom,” “message of knowledge,” “faith,” “gifts of healing,” “miraculous powers,” “prophecy,” “distinguishing between spirits,” and “interpretations of tongues.”
December 30, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Geoff,
This is a fascinating series! Thank you for posting it. Like David, I am also late to the discussion, so please forgive me.
I think I would side with David concerning tongues and 1 Cor. 14. Paul has a specific context in mind in 1 Cor. 14, namely, when the church gathers together. According to Paul, uninterpreted tongues are not to be spoken when the church is gathered, because no one but the tongues speaker is edified. This is not the purpose of the church gathering, as Paul says several times in that chapter. Instead, those spiritual gifts that edify the body should be exercised when the church comes together.
Paul does not rule out self-edification. In fact, he states that tongues speaking does edify the speaker. However, this should be done in private, not during the gathering of the church.
This is as far as I have read so far… I’m looking forward to the remaining posts.
-Alan
December 31, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Alan,
Thanks for stopping in and contributing. I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to respond … but I am a pastor, and it’s Sunday and all!
Yes, the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is dealing with the worship practices of the church. But the difficult aspect of this debate is that we can often be discussing the issue of “tongues,” but all of the parties in the conversation may have different definitions of “tongues” altogether … so we’re not really talking about the same thing. Because of differing definitions, we are merely talking “around” the subject sometimes.
It is my contention and belief that the true gift of “tongues” is a supernatural language gift of God for the purpose of clearly communicating the Gospel. I also believe that there were other “tongue” gifts during the transitional apostolic times which have since ceased. But clearly, what was going on (whether it was unknown, “unintelligible” speech, or, perhaps even multiple spoken languages) was not bringing clarity to the worship. It was causing confusion. I see this entire chapter as correcting what was apparently a pervasive wrong practice.
I think, also, that the reference to “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,” in verse 4, is NOT pointing out a positive quality … it is part of the correcting that Paul is doing here. With the backdrop of his discussion on spiritual gifts (ch. 12), where he points out that the gifts are given for the “common good” (1 Cor 12:7), it is not at all appropriate to exercise a spiritual gift for self-edifying purposes. Instead, Paul requested that they prophesy for the edification of the church. Of course, we are to seek to edify ourselves in the faith. But such is not the purpose for the spiritual gifts that God has given us.
I know that David and others see an endorsement by Paul in this passage for a “private” speaking of tongues through a “private prayer language,” but I simply do not see it.
Thanks for speaking up! Please come back often.
Geoff