The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XLI): “Further Thinking on 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a”

(Note: I’m getting this post up in my normal time frame, but Thursday is a big question mark at the moment.  I’m a character witness in a child custody case and do not know when I will be called to testify.  It could be any time from this afternoon through Thursday.  But, I have to be at the courthouse and available or possibly be found in contempt of court.  Thank you in advance for your understanding!)

From a “big picture” standpoint, it is quite helpful to see 14:26-33a against the wider backdrop and flow of the section chapters 12-14.  So, let’s get in our mental helicopter and go up for the telescopic overview.

Chapters 12-14 are focally about spiritual gifts, yes.  However, those gifts function practically in the context of the worship and spiritual state (i.e., immature and self-centered) of the Corinthian church that Paul had knowledge of from two sources: 1) his own personal experience in planting the church and being their chief pastoral figure for at least the first year and a half of its existence (Acts 18:11); and 2) his recent visit with “Chloe’s people” (1 Cor. 1:11), who had undoubtedly updated him on a lot more than just the problems related to factions in the church (1:12).

Chapter 12 tells us about the diverse unity of the Body of Christ.  We are all indeed spiritually baptized into one Body.  But, each Christian is also a unique member of that Body by virtue of his or her different spiritual gifts, ministries and impacts (12:4-6), all of which are sovereignly bestowed by the Holy Spirit (12:7, 11).  No matter how the church in Corinth evaluated certain gifts, they were expected to see and value them accorinding to God’s ranking (12:28-30).

But, they were also expected to prioritize another, “more excellent” way of approaching and using their spiritual gifts: love.  As 13:1-3 makes clear, God is totally unimpressed with even the most gifted person’s use of those gift(s) if love is not the motivating factor behind the ministry.  And, the love is not love of self, but selflessness embodied (13:4-7).  The other reason why love is so important, and not just in the use of spiritual gifts, is because love never ends (13:8a, 13).  All spiritual gifts will fade by the time Christ comes back (13:8b-12).  But, love will go on eternally.

In the meantime, since the misunderstanding in the church at Corinth seems to have been to elevate speaking in tongues as the ultimate spiritual experience and, by comparison, to look down on prophecy, Paul sets the spiritual record straight by comparing the porential for edification of the congregation between the two (14:1-25).  In such a theoretical face-off, prophecy proves to be much more valuable, especially if there is no interpretation of the tongues taking place–which appears to have been the case frequently in the Corinthian church.

However, there is a very real sense in which everything in this section, from the beginning of chapter 12 through 14:25, is theoretical theology until we arrive at 14:26-40.  Then, and only then, do we get down to the practical theology of how all these issues should be applied in the congregational worship setting.

So much for the “helicopter” overview.  But, as I think you will quickly grasp, it is equally helpful to break down 14:26-33a into an outline of its immediate argument.  So, let’s now move in for the “microscopic blow-up of this section.

Initially, we can tell that Paul is homing in for the practical bottom line of this wider discussion by the way he begins the section: “How is it then, brothers?” (14:26a, HCSB).  In other words, based on the discussion of prophecy and tongues in 14:1-25, what practical difference do his conclusions make “whenever you come together” (14:26b, HCSB) in a congregational worship setting?

Next, Paul includes the two major gifts (“a revelation” is apparently referring to the gift of prophecy in 14:26) about which there had been misunderstanding as part of a (probably partial) list of elements that might be included in the average Sunday “worship service.”  Other aspects listed are singing (“a psalm”), instruction (“a teaching”) and “an interpretation” (of the tongues-speaking).

Next, the first guiding principle that “All things must be done for edification” (HCSB) is stated at the end of 14:26 (and basically repeated and applied in 14:31).  The other guiding principle is at the end of the section: “… God is not a God of disorder but of peace” (14:33a, HCSB).

What is dealt with in between?  Only two things: 1) whether and how many people are to be allowed to speak in tongues in one service (14:27-28); and 2) how many prophets should speak in a service and how what the prophets say should be evaluated (14:29-32).

Isn’t it striking that, in this passage which tells is more about what a worship service was like in the New Testament era than any other still only tells us this little bit: 1) some of the elements involved (14:26); 2) the priorities of edification and order (14:26, 33a); and 3) how to handle those who speak in tongues and prophesy (14:27-32)? 

We will take a thoughtful shot in the next post at figuring out why the things are included here that are and why other aspects that we are intensely curious about are nowhere to be found.  In the meantime, what do you think?

Coming Thursday (I hope!):  “Putting the Puzzle Pieces Together in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a”

“Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles”

Note: I almost forgot to post again today.  We have been having a “prep” session with a lawyer since mid-morning to serve as character witnesses in a trial in which a lady in our church is trying to adopt her niece versus the hyper-control of the Comal County, TX, Child Protective Services office (which, in this case, has chosen, from the very outset, not to abide by many of their own protocols strictly and only to deny a Christian family member this child–a very sad case of “governmental bias,” as far as I can tell).  Please understand that I do not mean this as a blanket indictment of Texas CPS.  I have not dealt with any other county offices but this one.

“A ‘Red-Letter Day’”

 

            I have heard the phrase “red-letter day” all my life.  However, I had never followed up the origin of the wording… until just before writing this article.  And, maybe, just maybe, you are as much in the dark about where “red-letter day” came from as I was. 

            Starting with the First Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., church calendars began to list feasts and other holy days in red ink.  That practice continued throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance period.  But, it was when the holy days were listed in red ink in the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church in 1549 that the wording “red-letter day” began to be used more regularly.

            In case you have not noticed, the practice of putting Sundays and at least certain religious holidays in red on calendars is still quite common today.  And, it is not limited to calendars.  My watch has a calendar and the abbreviation for Sunday is in red.

            Why have I brought up the subject of “a red-letter day” now?  Because Sunday, April 20, was “a red-letter day” for Comal Country Church.  But, you ask, since it was not Easter or Christmas, or even Mother’s Day or Father’s Day, what could possibly set apart that Sunday from any of the rest?

            Well, what happened was that we baptized five youngsters, ranging from six to 12, in the Guadalupe River.  And, in my mind, that makes Sunday, April 20, a different kind of “red-letter day.”

            What am I talking about?  Before I did my research on the origin of “red-letter day,” I wondered if it did not derive from the fact that many Bibles have the words of Jesus Christ printed in red letters.  That practice, of course, comes from the idea that, since Jesus is God become man, our Savior and Lord, His words recorded in Scripture should be given special honor (i.e., red ink, as opposed to everything else being in regular blank ink).    

            So, how does that support the idea that April 20 and the baptism of these five children make for “a red-letter day?”  First, the most foundational reason that Christians baptize is because Christ commanded it in these words (in red ink in many Bibles) of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20): “baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” (verse 19).  Second, Jesus also said (again, in red ink): “I assure you… unless you are converted and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3).

            There’s my logic, whether you agree with me or not.  April 20 was “a red-letter day” for Comal Country Church because, in obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ: 1) those five children were baptized, just as Christ commanded in red letters; and 2) those children all exhibited the beautiful “childlike faith” that Christ commended in red letters.

            In closing, I think there may well have been another reason why it was “a red-letter day” for our church: the adults were all reminded of the wonder of a child first coming to know Christ by faith.  It is easy to forget, even to become a bit cynical, after you have been a Christian for many years.  But, the Lord Jesus wants believers never to get beyond childlike faith.  He even goes so far as to say: “Therefore, he who humbles himself like a child, that one is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:4).  Let that sink in on you for a while.

Coming Monday: “A Further Look at 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a”

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XL): “Whenever You Come Together, Each One…” (1 Cor. 14:26-33a)

(Note: I helped someone load a U-Haul for several hours during the late morning through lunch period.  Thus, I am later than usual getting to this post and so tired that I can barely make my brain and fingers move.  Consequently, if anything even remotely logical and helpful comes out of what follows, it is totally of the Lord!)

“Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue or an intrepretation” (1 Cor. 14:26).  Of course, the wording “come together” sounds like what we could call a “church service” today.  And, it is that very fact that seems to make so many Southern Baptist and other non-Charismatic evangelicals today highly uneasy, as I discussed in my last post.

Let’s break this verse down further and see if we are still so “freaked out” by what Paul includes here.  “Whenever you come together” does make it sound like something like these elements could expect to be present in any meeting of the church as a body (see ch. 12).  However, the wording “each one” cannot mean that each member of a decent-sized is going to participate in each service, given that Paul quickly adds that only two or three tongues-speakers and two or three prophets should speak in a service–and the tongues-speakers only if an interpreter is present (14:27-29).

Now, it seems likely that “a revelation” is that which is spoken by a prophet, so there are to be only two or three of those per meeting.  But, what seems odd at first glance here is that there is no limit mentioned to the number of those bringing forth “a psalm” or “a teaching.”  The only immediate guideline stated that applies for either aspect is” “All things must be done for edification” (14:26).

What are we to make of this?  Well, it certainly can’t be that prophecy is less edifiying than “a psalm” or “a teaching.”  After all, in 14:3, Paul went out of the way to say: “But the person who prophesies speaks to people for edification, encouragement and consolation.” 

So, what is going on?  In this context, my considered guess is that the church in Corinth had proportionately more prophets and tongues-speakers than the other gifts or worship functions listed.  As a result, there was a strong tendency for those two gifts to monopolize the time when the body met together.  Thus, it would be have been necessary for Paul to put a limit of “two or three” on the number of prophets or tongues-speakers who participated.

As an applicational aside, in looking at 14:26, I seriously wonder if most non-Charismatic churches have not swung completely to the opposite extreme in our congregational meetings.  We are so afraid of some gifts popping up their heads in our services that we have a number of songs (music ministry) and, so to speak, ”at most one” teaching or “prophecy” (if you at least partly equate modern preaching with prophecy). 

Now, it is true that a great deal of the sense of strangeness we feel in regard to 14:26 is simply because we do not sense any “order of worship” there.  Let’s face it: for most (at least non-Charismatic) Christians today, the idea of a worship service without a bulletin containing a well-planned layout of what is going to be done from beginning to end is almost nonsensical.  And, if nothing else, that does appear to take seriously the principle on which Paul closes this chapter: “Everything must be done decently and in order” (14:40).

Of course, that cannot be exactly what Paul meant in 1 Cortinthians 14, if for no other reason than they did not have such printed church bulletins and the like.  In fact, it can be argued that, if the order of service really was that big a deal in the earliest churches, we probably would have some fairly clear New Testament passages that would at least point us in certain directions.  However, we do not… so, it appears that such close attention to very detailed order in worship services is quite probably the invention of a later, more formal period of church history.

As we conclude this first stanza of probing this unsettling latter part of 1 Corinthians 14, what are we to take from Paul’s words for our church services today?  Allow me to suggest several thoughts that have emerged as I have reflected: 1) It appears from 14:26 that a number of persons participated in their services as individually gifted members of the body (i.e., not just as a mass ministry, such as a choir today); 2) The primary question of whether a certain person/gift should function in such a congregational setting had to do with “edification” (14:26), not entertainment; and, looking ahead to some of what I will get into next time, 3) It was possible for there to be “too much of a good thing” in regard to the ministry of some gifts (14:27-29); 4) Even more tragically, it was also quite possible for arrogance or lack of decorum or self-control to turn the worship of a highly-gifted local church into a setting of disorder and strife (14:30-33a).

What do you think?

Coming Saturday: “Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles”

 

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XXXIX): “What Makes Modern Churches Uneasy about 1 Corinthians 14:26-40″

Before beginning my treatment of what 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 actually teaches, I would like to do this one post on what it is about this passage that makes most modern churches, and especially their leaders, very antsy.  Put another way, before dissecting the passage itself, let’s invest a little time thinking through why, outside of heavy-duty Charismatic/Pentecostal circles, this passage is usually avoided like the plague.

When I was back in seminary in the early to mid-1970s, there was a new wind blowing in the non-Charismatic wing of the Jesus Movement called “Body Life.”  It greatly emphasized fairly spontaneous “sharing” by a number of people in large group meetings.  And, with the exception of those people who always stood up and “shared”–whether they had anything fresh to share or not–and those who “shared” simply because they loved the sound of their own voices, it was a generally very positive experience.

However, those experiences were at week-night parachurch ministry meetings or, and only very occasionally, at a mid-week or Sunday night church service.  To this day, in the non-Charismatic evangelical church circles in which I have been involved for the 30-35 years since, I have never seen anything that remotely resembles the dynamics of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 in a Sunday morning service of any of these local churches.

Now, I myself have been the pastor of three of those churches (for almost 12 years).  And, yes, I was either the short-term church planter or interim pastor for another half-dozen churches (for almost six years).  Thus, while I definitely was in a position to do something about bringing more “body life” into the worship services of these congregations, I have not done so.

Why?  Mostly because I was fearful–afraid of rocking the boat, afraid of things getting out of control, afraid I might be branded a “closet Charismatic”… who knows what else.  The main point here is that I let fear control me, instead of trying to apply Scripture as best I knew how.  I did that mainly by avoiding 1 Corinthians 14:26-40.

When you think about it, we really know very, very little about how the meeting of first century believers were conducted.  Actually, aside from 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, there is no extended description of church meetings anywhere in the New Testament.

Yes, Acts 2:42 does tell us the four priorities of the church from the beginning: teaching, fellowship, “the breaking of bread” (whether only the Lord’s Supper or it being taken in the context of a communal meal) and prayers.  Yes, Acts 13:1 tells us that “prophets and teachers” functioned in the church at Syrian Antioch… but not how or when.  Yes, Acts 19:8-10 tells us that Paul taught daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus for two years… but nothing at all about the church’s weekly services in that great city.  Yes, Acts 20:7 tells us that Paul preached “until midnight” in a Sunday evening meeting in Troas… but that was an exceptional situation, given that Paul was just about to leave town.   

Where does that leave things?  Pretty much wide open for interpretation methinks.

But, you might say, what about the New Testament passages that talk about the role of the pastoral figure in the church?  Won’t they provide some guidance in this area?

As I see it, the most biblically honest answer is “not really that much.”  Why do I say that?  Just move with me through the following key passages and see what you think.

How about Acts 2:42?  Great priorities–but when and how were the apostles to teach?  How were prayers handled in a congegational service?  It does not say.

Acts 6:4 seems more helpful, what with emphasizing the necessity of pastoral leadership to “devote ourselves to prayer and to the preaching ministry.”  But, how does that fit into the meetings of the church?  It does not say.

Other passages could be considered here, but let’s skip through to Paul’s two key exhortations to Timothy in regard to preaching.  In 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul instructs his younger lieutenant: “Until I come, give your attention to public reading (i.e., of the Scriptures), exhortation and teaching” (HCSB).  In 2 Timothy 4:2, we read: “Preach the word, in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with great patience and instruction.”   And, yes, both passages are very helpful in forming proper pastoral attitudes toward the task of preaching.  However, neither gets into when in the service, how long, what style–any of the questions we long to ask about how preaching fits into the Sunday congregational meeting context.

So, when the dust settles, we find ourselves back at 1 Corinthians 14:26-40.  We are left staring at this section which seems very “strange” to our experience, but which apparently needs to be carefully considered if for no other reason than that it speaks more directly and fully to what we are to be about on Sunday mornings than any other NT passage.  We will begin doing just that in the next post.

Coming Thursday: “Whenever You Come Together, Each One… (1 Cor. 14:26-33a)”

Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles

My bad!  There was so much going on today that I almost forgot to post.  (I’m still getting used to posting on Saturdays.)

Here’s my weekly newspaper article from the Canyon Lake (TX) Times-Guardian.  Enjoy!

                         “‘Paid in Full’ Day” 

            By the time you read this, that infamous day, April 15, now widely known as “Tax Day,” will be past.  Some, of course, file early, though that appears to be a smaller proportion of the populace all the time.  Others dodge the issue by taking the automatic six-month extension.  But, it seems like the vast hordes of tax-paying Americans, for whatever reasons, wait until “Tax Day” to file their returns.

            Since confession is good for the soul, I must admit that I was among that last-minute group.  In fact, I’m writing this article immediately after returning from the post office, where I bought the stamps (you’ve got to make sure the postage is correct!) and made sure to put the envelope in the appropriate mail slot a couple of hours before the last minute frenzy.  The post office was already quite congested, though.  And, there were indeed several people whom I passed by with that look of panic in their eyes.

            What are we actually doing when we pay our taxes?  To pay for its operation, he United States government has, through an increasingly complicated series of laws, established the Internal Revenue System.  It receives the tax payments from American citizens and checks their returns to see if they are accurate. 

            If you pay your taxes in full, everything is fine with the IRS.  If you don’t pay your taxes (at least not after the automatic extension), you are in trouble with the IRS, with potentially disastrous consequences.  It is pretty much as simple as that.

            The United States income tax is an excellent illustration of a major spiritual truth.  Every person who has ever lived is, because of universal human sin (Romans 3:23) deeply in debt to the “government” of the universe: the Lord God Almighty.  And, make no mistake—that debt of sin is going to be paid one way or another!

            However, there is absolutely no way that humanity can pay that overwhelmingly debt in this life (Romans 6:23).  Theoretically, if a person were able to live a perfect, sinless life, such a “payment in full” by good works could take place (James 2:10).  But, it must be pointed out that nobody other than Jesus Christ has ever pulled that off.

            But, God will be paid in full for all our sins.  And, there are only two alternatives in regard to how that payment is made.  Either: 1) you will pay for your sins yourself by suffering in separation from God in hell for all eternity; or 2) you will accept the ‘payment in full’ that Jesus Christ has already made by dying for your sins on the Cross.

            Now, there are many people who, much like taking the automatic tax extension, delay the inevitable issue of the payment for their sins until the bitter ends of their lives.  But, no matter how much they despise churches or hypocritical Christians with whom they have crossed paths or even foolishly try to convince themselves that God does not exist (see Psalm 14:1), “pay day” for their sins is coming and cannot be avoided, even if you live to be a hundred years old.  It is the ultimate “sooner or later” proposition in life.

            Wouldn’t it be glorious if someone stepped in and decided to pay all of your taxes in full in your place?  That may never happen, but Christ has stepped in and paid in full for all your sins?  All you need to do is to accept His payment by faith (John 3:16).  If you choose to trust Christ, that day is your very own personal spiritual “paid in full” day!

Coming Tuesday: “What Makes Modern Churches Uneasy about 1 Corinthians 14:26-40″

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XXXVIII): “Untangling the Purpose of Tongues in 1 Cor. 14:20-25″

This passage has always been particularly difficult for me to grasp.  However, much of the time I was working with it, I was a cessationist and perhaps reading into those assumptions.  In this post, you, the reader, will get to see whether I am any better at letting the text speak for itself as a continuationist than I was as a cessationist.  (I’m not making any guarantees here, so please feel free to hold my feet to the fire!)

First, it is completely proper to begin by asking what part this paragraph plays in Paul’s argument in chapter 14.  I think this may well be the most overlooked–or, at least underappreciated–part of this ongoing discussion.  You see, in 14:1-19, there is no indication at all that any unbelievers would be part of the congregation.  The issue seems to be strictly a comparison between the potential for edification for the church by the gift of prophecy vs. the gift of tongues, if it is uninterpreted.  But, by mentioning unbelievers four times in 14:20-25, the issue at hand has taken a turn.  Now, Paul’s discussion shifts to how prophecy and tongues affect both believers and unbelievers.

Having said this, though, this section is still tough to figure out.  But, I’m going to give it my best shot… and we’ll see what happens.

Verse 20 seem to me to be as much a conclusion to the Apostle’s argument in 14:1-19 as a lead-in to the present section.  If that is a correct perspective, the Corinthian Christians needed to grow up–to mature spiritually–in regard to their understanding of the use of tongues (especially in comparison to the edification offered by prophecy).  That much seems pretty clear.  However, Paul’s use of the immediately following supporting Scripture from Isaiah 28:11-12 is not.

To make a very long discussion short, in context, Isaiah 28:11-12 is referring to the invading Assyrian armies speaking to the conquered people of Israel in “other languages” than Hebrew.  Apparently, the meaning here is that, Israel could not understand what was being said… but, even if they could have understood, they were so hard-hearted against the Lord that they would not have listened.  If you do get my implication here, it appears that Paul uses the quote from Isaiah 28:11-12 here to make the point that, with unbelievers, uninterpreted languages (tongues here) do no more than further harden their unbelief. 

Now, I know that at least some of my cessationist friends will howl with disagreement at this point.  They will protest that, on the Day of Pentecost, tongues were used to present the gospel to many unbelievers who were saved.

However, a close reading of Acts 2 shows that is not the case.  All 2:11 says they heard was “the magnificent acts of God” (HCSB).  They did not hear the gospel until Peter preached it to them, starting in 2:14.

With the coloring presupposition of Acts 2 now out of the way in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25, we can now probe more deeply.  Verse 22 states that tongues is a “sign” (Gk. semeion) to unbelievers.  And, our understanding of the rest of the passage seems to ride on the proper interpretation of this word.

So, how should “sign” be taken here?  In my studied opinion (which is based on the flow of the argument), in the following manner: “If the first ’sign’ an unbeliever picks up on upon entering your congregation is speaking in unintelligible tongues, he or he will conclude you are all crazy” (see verse 23).  By contrast, if that first ’sign’ is intelligible prophecy, the unbeliever will glorify God (vv. 24-25)–and quite possibly become a believer.

Therefore, in this understanding, tongues are a ’sign’ for unbelievers because it hardens them in their unbelief.  On the other hand, prophecy is for believers because not only does it greatly edify believers (14:1-19), but it can also help unbeleivers become believers (14:24-25).

This could have been a much more involved discussion, but why stretch things if you don’t need to do so?  Bottom line: That’s all I’ve got.  Now, it’s your turn.

Coming Saturday: “Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles”

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XXXVII): “Thinking Deeper in 1 Corinthians 14:1-19)”

I’m going to begin this post with Paul’s shocking–at least for cessationists–words in 14:4a: “I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you prophecied.”  Let that sink in on you a little bit.  In our 21st century Southern Baptist orbit, that statement initally sounds completely bizarre… but there it sits, just as inspired (2 Tim. 3:16) as any other part of Scripture.  So, what are we to do with it?

Of course, the first thing to do hermeneutically is to consider carefully the context.  After all, as every first year Bible college student knows well: “A text without a context is a pretext.”

In this context, is it likely that Paul really meant it when he said, “I wish all of you spoke in tongues…?”  Absolutely it is.  After all, further down in this passage, he adds: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you” (14:18).

Here’s a very key point we all need to realize: Paul had nothing negative to say about speaking in tongues in and of itself.  Instead, it was the overvaluing (especially versus prophecy) and misuse of tongues (i.e., without an interpreter) that are his painstakingly belabored concerns in 14:1-25.

Now, I freely admit that I have never spoken in tongues or experienced a private prayer language.  In fact, I have only been in the presence of what I think were tongues a handful of times, only one of which was followed by what claimed to be an interpretation (which bothered me because it was so general).  But, if I am indeed the biblicist that I claim to be, I need to take very seriously what the Scriptures say is true, whether it stacks up with experience or not.

In this case, I wonder if some milder Charismatic types might not be much closer to the biblical balance than the average evangelical church.  Yes, gung-ho, more extreme Charismatics have cast a shadow of great distrust over their wing of evangelicalism with other groups through their frenzied overemphasis on tongues.  But, is the proper biblical corrective to any extreme movement ever to overreact to the other extreme?  No.  That is the classic mistake of “throwing out the (clean) baby with the (dirty) bathwater.”  But, sadly, that wording seems to aptly describe the way many SBCers view tongues: distancing themselves with fear or disdain from “the bathwater,” “the baby,” the bathtub, the bathroom and all other rooms nearby.

Frankly, as you attempt to read 1 Corinthians 14:1-25 without theological bias, it seems as if some of the more extreme continuationists and many, many cessationists haven’t read it at all–or only did so through highly tinted theological lenses.  The first group seems to vitually ignore that Paul clearly labels prophecy as much more important for, because much more edifying to, the church than tongues.  The other group acts as if Paul says that tongues are of no value and should not be exercised at all.

How does this happen?  These are nothing more or less than classic examples of what is often called “eisegesis” (i.e., reading onto a passage a predetermined meaning)–the exact opposite of careful exegesis (i.e., reading out of the passage its true, intended meaning). 

In contrast, what is the balanced meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:1-19 (I’m going to look more carefully at verses 20-25 in my next post)?  It appears that Paul is saying that there is nothing inherently wrong at all with tongues, whether exercised in public or as a “private prayer language.”  The problem comes in when there is no interpretation of what is vocalized in tongues (which, apparently, was a common situation in the church at Corinth).  In that case, prophecy is far preferable for the public setting, given that every listener can readily understand what is spoken by the prophet.  However, Paul in no way, shape or form discourages anyone with the gift of tongues from speaking privately, even though that reduces its impact to spiritual self-edification without knowledge of the actual content of the language spoken.

Since I lived for the first 35 years of my Christian life as a cessationist, I freely admit that this understanding still sounds strange to me.  But, that is what the passage says.  So, the problem here is that I need to actively shift my theological categories to fit the Bible, not the other way around–which, sadly, appears to be what many Christians do when they come face to face with this issue.

Selah and Amen.

Coming Thursday: “Untangling the Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25″

 

“Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles”

                           “A Voice from the Past”

            On Saturday afternoon, I received a phone call that began this way: “Boyd, this is a voice from the past.”  I didn’t recognize the voice immediately.  But, as soon as he identified himself, a flood of memories kicked in quickly.

            Sadly, he was calling because of a death of a loved one.  It was a dear lady who I had known and pastored while here at Canyon Lake from the late 1970s to the early ‘80s.  That was difficult to hear, even though she was over 90 when she died.

            Related to that, I feel honored that I will be able to participate in the family memorial service.  So, the voice from the past and the memories will make a difference in remembering her life in the present and helping her family grieve their great loss.

            This incident has gotten me to thinking about this kind of “voice from the past” events in my life.  For example, several of the jobs I have held over the years, including my current position at Comal Country Church, have occurred because of “a voice from the past” thinking of me when there was an opening for which I was qualified.  Thus, a great deal of my career has been more or less directly dependent on someone calling me to mind at a particularly significant moment.

            Why did that happen—several times, in fact?  In the specific events that brought those things about, I do not know, other than to state clearly that I do not believe in luck.  I do, however, very much believe in God’s providential timing in our lives, which is what I fervently believe these instances in my life have been.

            Have you ever had something similar happen in your life?  Has “a voice from the past” ever called you up on the phone?  Or, have you ever received a letter or an email from someone who you may not have seen or talked to for years or even several decades?

            If you have, those aspects of the hurried combing of your memory to recall the person and the context in which you knew them are something you understand well.  And, when the memories do start to defrost and come together, it is as if those parts of the past are projected into your present experience in a very powerful way.  Sometimes the memories are almost entirely pleasant and sometimes there is great pain attached to them.  Either way, the unexpected “flooding” of the memories will have a strong effect on you.

            For many people around me today, I suspect that the mention of the name Jesus Christ is “a voice from the past” in their lives.  At some point, perhaps many years ago as a child, they attended Sunday school or church or perhaps a vacation Bible school.  When they did, they heard about Jesus dying on the Cross for their sins.  They heard that eternal life is available to anyone who will believe that Jesus paid for all their sins and that, through faith, they are forgiven completely.

            What happened to make Jesus “a voice from the past” in their lives?  One of two things: 1) They did not choose to believe in Jesus and become God’s child; or 2) Through getting too preoccupied with their own lives or so turned off by the angry or hypocritical behavior of some who call themselves Christians that they decided to walk away and never go back.

            But, what will they do if Jesus’ “voice from the past” enters their life again, especially if it is at a point when they are experiencing great difficulty or pain?  I hope they will remember that Jesus loves them unconditionally and trust Him to come in and tenderly renovate their lives. 

            What if this newspaper article is providentially intended by God to be Jesus “voice from the past in your life?”  If so, please listen to His voice.  It could be the most wonderful thing that ever happened to you.

 

Coming Tuesday: “A Deeper Look at 1 Corinthians 14:1-25″

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XXXVI): “Prophecy and Tongues (Continued; 1 Cor. 14:1-25)

With apologies to Sam Creed (and his typically insightful comment), I apparently overstated my case in my last post on the flow of the section comprised of 1 Corinthians 12-14.  In retrospect, Sam is surely onto something in gently chiding me for presenting ch. 13 as an aside (i.e., a sort of parenthesis) in Paul’s argument, instead of a crucial addition to what had already been laid out in ch. 12.  If nothing else, this corrective becomes important as we get to the discussion in ch. 14 because it requires that the question having to do with whether one is exercising his/her gifts to edify others in love is a key aspect of the discussion.  So, I want to thank Sam for his graciously explained comment and getting me to (re)think this through!

For the remainder of this post, I would like to discuss the significance of the passage before us for the subject of what is often referred to as “private prayer language.”  And, let me begin by saying that I have never spoken in tongues, whether publicly or privately.  Thus, I have no personal “dog in this hunt” at all.  Instead, I am seeking to look at the biblical text and try to understand what it is saying and implying, not to defend a particular theological position.

Now, I do freely admit that I have several friends who have told me of their individual experiences with speaking in tongues (both publicly and privately–and, actually, more privately!).  According to each, they did not seek to speak in tongues.  It just happened to each one, in somewhat different ways.  In one case, it occurred right at the point when he became a Christian.  With the others, it varied in specific circumstances except one: they were all fervantly seeking the Lord (i.e., but not to speak in tongues).  That is, the experience of speaking in tongues came upon each of them unexpectedly.  And, in more than one case, they did not even share that it had happened with anyone else for some time afterwards.

While the remarks I just made may initially seem like an odd way to approach this subject, given my stated desire to be as biblical as possible, I think I can make the case this is a necessary related subject to bring up for preliminary discussion here.  You see, many people apparently stumble upon the realization that they have the gift of tongues privately.  And, although tongues is apparently largely intended by the Lord as a gift for public communication, if there is someone with the gift of interpretation present (1 Cor. 14:5), what does the person with the gift of tongues do with the gift the rest of the time?

The answer seems pretty clear in the public setting: those who speak in tongues are not edifying their fellow believers unless the tongues are interpreted.  Thus, they should be silent, unless there is someone who can interpret on the scene (or unless those gifted in tongues are given the ability to interpret their own glossalalia; 1 Cor. 14:13).

That question and answer might be taken by some to be enough to silence those who speak in tongues in any situation in which there is not an interpreter, except for one other point Paul makes in ch. 14.  What is that?  Well, it’s this amazing claim and explanation the Apostle gives in 14:18-19: “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, in order to teach others also, than 10,000 words in a tongue.”

Wow!  How in the world do those who are in opposition to the concept of a “private prayer language” get around those two assertions: 1) that Paul speaks in tongues more than any of those in the Corinthian church; and 2) that he rarely speaks in tongues publicly, given that it usually does not edify the hearers (i.e., because there is no interpreter present)?

Think about that.  The incredibly rational Apostle Paul, who is a great hero of the cessationist movement because of his taking to task of the supposed “charismania” of the Corinthians, spoke in tongues more than any of the readers he was correcting.  However, he apparently seldom did so in a congregational setting, leaving only–you guessed it–the private realm in which Paul could do all that tongues speaking.

OK.  So, there is clearly a place for speaking in tongues in private.  But, that still leaves us with the question of whether it can be legitimately called “a prayer language.”

The easy part of that issue has to do with the term “language.”  As far as I know, the vast majority of both continuationists and cessationists do think tongues is indeed some sort of language or languages–whether heavenly/angelic or earthly.  But, is it really legitimate to refer to it as “prayer?”

Yes, it is… and Paul says quite clearly that is the case.  1 Corinthians 14:2 states, “For the person who speaks in tongues is not speaking to men but to God… .”  And, what is speaking to God but prayer?  In addition, 14:13 says, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays… .”  What else can that mean but that speaking in tongues is a form of prayer?

Bottom line: Cessationists can huff and puff in arguing against the validity of tongues speaking for today all they want.  However, for them to attempt to say that Paul did not describe what is usually referred to in SBC circles as a “private prayer language” is ludicrous.  To attempt to do so, they must, in effect, call the Apostle a liar in the way he developed his argument in 1 Corinthians 14:1-25.

More on the flow of this passage next Tuesday…

Coming Saturday: “Saturdays are for Newspaper Articles”

The Holy Spirit and the Southern Baptist Convention (XXXV): “Prophecy and Tongues (1 Cor. 14:1-25)”

Don’t worry!  I’m not about to take on this entire lengthy passage in one post.  In fact, all I’m going to do today is to take an introductory “nibble” of what is a much more important text for the continuationist-cessationist debate than is usually admitted.  Hopefully, though, this post will be enough to help you grasp at least some of that significance, if you have not previously done so.

As you may already be aware, the way in which 1 Corinthians 14 begins has as much to do with the end of ch. 12 as it does ch. 13.  What I mean by that is that ch. 13 functions as a kind of aside on the “more excellent way” to view and use the spiritual gifts spoken of in 12:31b.  Right before that, however, is the specific wording that leads us to ch. 14: “But desire the greater gifts” (12:31a, HCSB).

What are “the greater gifts?”  In that context, that phrase appears to be referring back to wording in 12:28: “first apostles, second prophets, third teachers…” (HCSB).  Since prophecy is the superior gift discussed in 14:1-25, this understanding makes good sense.

Why are not the other two of the top three gifts Paul lists in 12:28 discussed in 14:1-25?  It appears that there is a direct head-to-head comparison (i.e., competition) in the Corinthian church between prophecy and tongues, with tongues getting the better of the face-off at the time Paul received his report on the church from the people of Chloe (see 1:11).  So, Paul decides to explain at some length why prophecy is instead superior to tongues, in order to try to restore the spiritual equilibrium in the congregation.

In fact, as he begins ch. 14, he makes this point even more specifically.  After repeating the emphasis of ch. 13 (“Pursue love”) and one major thrust of ch. 12 (“desire spiritual gifts”), the Apostle homes in (“above all”) on the importance of prophecy. 

Why was prophecy so critically important?  It is because of its role in building up the church (see, e.g., 14:3, 4, 5, 12).  Tongues, of course, also had the potential for edification, but only if interpreted (14:5). 

However, the fact that tongues loses this comparison in the explanation of the Apostle Paul does not in any way imply that tongues have ceased today.  If anything, this passage makes the opposite case.  In fact, far beyond the careful reasoning of this passage is the incredible assertion that Paul spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthian tongues enthusisiasts (14:15).  In addition, as he closes ch. 14 and this wider section on spiritual gifts, Paul summarizes by saying: “Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophecy, and do not forbid to speak in other languages (i.e., tongues; 14:39, HCSB).

Now, imbedded in the midst of Paul’s discussion is the biblical basis for what is often called–at least in the SBC debate–”private prayer language.”  We will get into that in the next installment.

In closing, notice this one thing in regard to the ongoing continuationist-cessationist controversy.  For Paul to argue that tongues were being too highly regarded in the Corinthian church is not at all the same as saying–or implying in any sense–that tongues were to cease.  Rather, he was simply explaining to the church how to have proper perspective on the gift of tongues… and the other spiritual gifts, for that matter.

Coming Thursday: “More on Prophecy and Tongues from 1 Cor. 14:1-25)”