Well, I guess I have found something that I am sorely sorry that I missed by not attending the SBC annual meeting in San Antonio.
Yesterday, the Jerey Johnson Live radio program at Criswell College hosted a debate between Dr. Russell Moore and Pastor Dwight McKissic over the issue of the charismatic gift of speaking in tongues.
Art Rogers offered the following summary of the event, as described by a pastor in attendance.
Dwight McKissic and Russell Moore had a debate in the Exhibition Hall over the PPL issue. I caught a pastor (former Criswell College student and employee) who told me his impression. He said it was like a fight between a smaller faster boxer who was gaining points with many soft blows versus a crusher who was not as fast on his feet, but hit like a freight train when the blow landed. Guess who was who?
Russ waxed Dwight with rhetoric, but Dwight kept saying, “but the Bible says…”
(Commentary by Rogers) In a denomination that has gone through all that we have gone through so that we can call ourselves “people of the Book,” answering with “what the Bible says” is never a wrong move.
An excellent insight on Art’s part. But the quandry of the “private prayer language” debate is not so much about “what the Bible says.” Indeed, the problem lies within the various and divergent interpretations of “what the Bible says.” I know that I have posted extensively on this subject before (see my posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) but I feel compelled to speak to this issue again today, especially in light of the (from my point of view) disturbing revelations of the recent LifeWay study.
I submit (from my conversations with proponents of PPL) that the vast majority of support for “private prayer languges” are arguments from personal experience, not from Scripture. And surely we know that personal experience is no place for the formulation of sound doctrine.
From what I have been able to glean from reading viewpoints expressed on various internet and blog sites, the chapter (1 Corinthians 14) that most proponents of “private prayer languages” claim as a substantive defense of a doctrine of “PPL” is a chapter which ultimatelt proclaims the primacy of prophecy over and against “tongues.” Indeed, that is the theme of 1 Corinthians 14!
Advocates for a blanket acceptance of “private prayer language” will, most often, rely upon (perhaps even “fall back” to) 1 Corinthians 14:39, which says, “… do not forbid speaking in tongues.”
Yet how can doctrine of “private prayer language” truly be reconciled with “what the Bible says?” As always, we must consider the “whole counsel of Scripture.”
I leave you with this simple, straightforward verse – 1 Corinthians 14:22:
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers…
Tongues are a sign. They are for the benefit of unbelievers. They are not for the benefit of believers. How, then, does a mysterious, private prayer practice of “tongues” … practiced by believers in their private prayer times … wash with the Scriptures?
After all … that is what the Bible says.
June 12, 2007 at 12:46 pm
And as Morris Chapman said loud and clear: “The Conservative Resurgence was about the authority of God’s Word, the authority of God’s Word(repeat mine). It was not about the interpretation of God’s Word. We do have the right to engage in spirited debate where we differ.”
and to which I say Amen and Amen.
June 12, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Amen, Debbie!
This is just a little bit of that spirited debate.
June 12, 2007 at 4:20 pm
But Debbie, you stifle spirited debate when others disagree with your sacred cows, which I guess makes you the sacred cow! Believe it or not.. I don’t regard you as the sacred cow, nor do many others! At least not “sacred” anyway!
June 15, 2007 at 8:40 pm
In verse 22 of First Corinthians 14, the apostle is not speaking about tongues with reference to “private prayer language”, but with reference to the phrase in verse 19, “Yet in the church”. “In the church”, that is..in the public worship service setting, tongues are a sign to the unbeliever. Tongues as a private prayer language is not being referred to in verse 22. Thanks for the opportunity to share and God bless.
June 15, 2007 at 9:06 pm
David,
Welcome … and thanks for sharing.
Exactly! I am still waiting for that first biblical reference that addresses the phenomenon known as a “private prayer language.” I haven’t had anyone point me in that direction yet.
June 16, 2007 at 7:06 pm
In verse 4 of First Corinthians 14, the apostle says “He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself…”. This, I believe, is clearly a Biblical reference to the private practice of praying in other tongues…i.e. other languages than those understood by the one who is praying. Paul is contrasting the practice of praying in other tongues privately, with the gift of tongues as demonstrated in the public worship service where an interpretation is needed. Also needed when a gift of tongues is used in public (as opposed to praying in tongues in private prayer) are various regulations as to the operation of the gift of the Holy Spirit as applied to its use in public.
June 16, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Interesting … but I don’t see it. More “cryptic” than clear. To me, it seems a bit more eisegetical than exegetical.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, my brother.
June 16, 2007 at 8:09 pm
O.K. God bless, and thanks.
June 16, 2007 at 8:12 pm
BTW David, where are you from?
June 18, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I live in Savannah, Georgia where I am a pastor with the Assemblies of God. For a number of years my wife and I pastored churches in Maryland and West Virginia where we were landlocked, so we are happy to enjoy the coastal area…plus, we have great seafood! In my previous comments with reference to speaking in other tongues, I made a typographical error…In the last sentence I wrote the phrase “the gift of the Holy Spirit” but meant to write “this gift of the Holy Spirit” because I was referring to a gift of tongues if and only if it is followed by a gift of interpretation designed to edify the church.
June 18, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I understand … thanks for visiting.
June 18, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Thanks my brother for letting me express a viewpoint..I respect your view, and also appreciate the love and respect which you show your family in your comments elsewhere on your site.
July 9, 2007 at 9:28 am
I think the prevailing issue here should be that Paul plainly stated “do not forbid speaking in tongues.” That should be straight forward enough to be painfully obvious, I would think. Forbidding speaking in tongues is in direct contradiction to Paul’s direction to the Church. Why has our convention developed such a hatred for the spiritual gift of tongues that we would directly defy a direct commandment of Paul?
The divisions of tongues is merely a diversion or a side track from the main issue. Known, unknown, and prayer language are not useful breakdowns in this instance. I would contend that as a whole all three divisions of the gift are frowned upon by the SBC as a whole. From my lifelong observations, the SBC in practice strongly discourages all three forms of the gift from being practiced within its ranks.
July 9, 2007 at 11:35 am
Hal,
I think your apparent inability to offer a clear definition of what “tongues” is reflects the root problem of its practice in the church. The very definition of “tongues” is still argued, and often times misunderstood. Clearly, Paul knew exactly what he was talking about. But do WE know exactly what Paul was talking about?
The simple reality is that so much of what is practiced in our time under the banner of “tongues” is a relatively new phenomenon, arising in the early 20th century. There were sporadic occurrences of similar practices throughout history, but nothing at all like we see today.
Where was this supposed charismatic gift for 1900 years? That’s what I don’t understand…