There are two vivid memories that I have from growing up and the lessons learned from these memories have shaped me in a huge way. The first memory I want to share with you is one about relationship.
I had some friends that were, shall I say, always doing things in expressive ways. Sometimes these ways were harmless and other times they were bordering on vandalism. One particular instance of the latter involved the open expression using paint cans and the outside brick wall of the science lab. It seems that we were out doing nothing that we would want our parents to know about, and one of my friends painted some derogatory remarks concerning our principal. We were caught and punished for the event.
My Daddy expressed to me his desire for me to “come clean” to him concerning this event. The reason? He knew this principal had helped me in the past over some issues that I was struggling with. He could not believe that I felt the way the words expressed about the principal. I came clean with him and he then encouraged me to visit the principal and come clean with him. I refused to do that. The reason? I would betray my friend, I felt. I suffered the consequences of the painting and I also suffered the consequences of refusing to do what Daddy told me to do. But I kept my friend, at least until I got saved. Then he deserted me. To this day that principal believes I felt the way that my friend did. Why? Because I never came out and said differently.
The second memory is of one concerning my family. It seems that there was this girl that I was dating that desired to break up with me. She did break up with me but then set her sights on my brother. He started to go out with her this began a disagreement between us that you would not believe. When my brother and I were younger we would literally throw fists and fight all over the house. This did not really hurt when you were 9 & 7, but when I was 18 and he was 17 these fists caused damage. Daddy finally set us down to help us see that when someone from outside of our family, who probably would never come into our family, caused a division between us, it was not good. Daddy helped us realize that we were brothers that needed to stick together in a family and not allow someone from outside the family make us have such hard feelings toward each other. He was right because within two weeks of this family gathering that we had, the girl broke up with my brother and to this day I do not know where she is.
These two life situations instilled two very distinct and strongly-held convictions within me. The first situation taught me that when I am a part of something that is not right, I need to make certain that my thoughts are not the same as those I am with. The second situation taught me that anytime I disagree with my family, it should not be increased by someone from outside of the family egging on the disagreement.
This brings me to the situation that I have witnessed with the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Brother Dwight McKissic was a featured panel guest along with Brothers Dwain Miller and Scott Camp. These three were featured along with Evangelist Authur Blessitt on Richard Hogue’s broadcast that he hosts for TBN. All of the above mentioned men either pastor churches that are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, or are former pastors and members of Southern Baptist Convention churches. Brother Hogue featured a session on Speaking in Tongues–A Controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention
. He opened the program espousing his enjoyment of a good controversy. Here is where I want to focus my attention.
As Southern Baptist we are free to dissent on any issue our hearts desire. I will stand and defend anyone’s right to dissent. Everyone has a right to tell how much you disagree with a certain doctrine and everyone certainly should be afforded that right. However, dissent and controversy are not the same thing. I can dissent without being controversial, but when I become controversial I no longer can call that my right to dissent.
Brother Dwight McKissic has every right to dissent in his beliefs about praying in tongues. However, I do question his wisdom in opening himself up to the criticism he knew would come by appearing on this program. While Brother Dwight and I disagree on the issue of a private prayer language, there are many more things that we agree. I love him as a Brother in Christ and I love him as a person. I do not know Brothers Dwain Miller, Scott Camp, Authur Blessitt, or Richard Hogue. However, I love them as brothers in Christ. I have had a couple of conversations with Brother Dwight since the TBN appearance and I knew before he appeared on this show of his continuationist theology. He openly stated on the show, when asked, that he did not believe that every Christian would have, or should have a PPl. However, as I watched his appearance on the TBN show, while he did not nod his head in agreement with some of the views being espoused, some could assume from his silence that he held the same theology concerning glossalalia of the other panelist, and even that of the host. I know that Brother Dwight does not advocate the ecstatic utterances of the Montanists, because I have spoken with him concerning his theology on estatic utterances. I know that Brother Dwight does not believe that there is extra-biblical revelation today because I have asked him personally concerning this issue. However, his silence on these issues, when presented in the forum, was deafening.
Silence in theological matters is an area that concerns me, but I am also concerned with the public promotion that there is controversy within the SBC by pastors of the SBC, especially when that perception is egged on by pastors no longer part of the SBC. The very controversy that Brother Hogue tried to promote is not the classic view of the charismatic practice of tongues. Everyone knows that TBN takes a classic theological approach to Pentecostal doctrine. There is not controversy within the SBC concerning charismatic practices of speaking in tongues. There is a controversy about private prayer language, which has been debated ad nauseum and those who advocate PPL have strenuously contended that it is not the same as the Pentecostal doctrine of tongues. In the current issue of Charisma Magazine, a magazine that promotes classic Pentecostal doctrine, David Shibley issues an open letter. David Shibley, a third generation pentecostal and graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, appeals to Southern Baptists to accept the classic practice of the Pentecostal doctrine of speaking in tongues. He uses Mrs. Joyce Rogers’ appeal to the 2006 SBC in which she says that the late Dr. Adrian Rogers would not be in favor of the IMB policies. Allow, me to briefly appeal to Brother Shibley. Read the IMB policies before the PPL guideline was added and you will see that Southern Baptist, when Dr. Rogers was living, did not agree with classic Pentecostal speaking in tongues.
How does one conclude? First, I believe Brother Dwight McKissic should issue a statement denouncing the non-biblical views held by those on the program. If he does not do such a thing he allows himself to be viewed in the same pneumotological position theologically as those on that panel. Second, as you can see from the open letter of Brother Shibley, any use of the term “private prayer language” or “praying In tongues” is interpreted by the world as classic Pentecostal pneumotology. As Southern Baptist, we need to seriously consider a statement concerning the distinguishing of the two. If private prayer language does not result from the same pneumatology exhibiting itself in tongues as came from the Azusa Street Revival, then it needs to be articulated in that way. We need to let our Pentecostal brethren know that we love them and we acknowledge their right to believe their doctrine, but we will have no part in planting churches with them. This debate about private prayer language is a family issue within the context of the SBC. We need to resist the tendency to allow those from outside of our family to express our differences.
As Baptists, we disagree over things that range from the color of carpets to the nuances of eschatology, but we clearly state our position. We certainly do not need to allow those outside of our family to use our disagreements as fodder for their grist mills to further their causes.
brother Tim,
this was a very reasonable article, thank you for speaking your mind in decent way. my only small complaint or possible correction is that I would not equate “classic” Pentecostalism with either TBN or Charisma magazine. nearly all Charismatics are Pentecostals…but not all Pentecostals are Charismatics.
a “classic” Pentecostal believes that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. the prosperity gospel and other hooey we see on TBN and read in Charisma magazine should not be necessarily lumped in with that “classic” Pentecostal distinctives. I’m sure leaders within the Assemblies of God would agree…however…they would do so quietly, unfortunately.
one more thing and I’ll “shut up”(unless engaged of course)…
thank you for pointing out that SBC’ers who believe in the possibility of a PPL do NOT believe that tongues is the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit…therefore…are not, by definition, Pentecostal.
Brother IF,
What I do want to point out, is there is a difference in interpreting and understanding pneumotology between Baptist and Charismatics/Pentecostal doctrine. And this is the issue that I believe divides us within our own denomination. Some are accepting the classic understanding of “second blessing” doctrine and the pneumotology doctrine that we have within our ranks as being the same. I have spoken with Brother Alan Cross and according to him there is a huge difference. That is what I am calling our brothers and sisters to distinguish for us as they speak to others about this “gift“.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Thank you for such a well written statement on this issue. I believe you and I would agree pretty closely on this issue. I think that tongues is being used by Satan to divide us and, therfore, distract us from the task God has called us to. This issue has divided us across denominational lines – perhaps rightly so due to our differences in theology. But now it is beginning to divide us within the SBC. Let’s hold to a Scriptural view and focus on the Great Commission.
In Christ,
Greg
Tim,
I don’t think you thought through this post especially the following line of reason:
“However, dissent and controversy are not the same thing. I can dissent without being controversial, but when I become controversial I no longer can call that my right to dissent.”
Christians should not seek controversy obviously. But the so-called “Conservative Resurgence” was a “movement” (political and about power, I believe) that was organized by fundamentalist DISSENTERS. Your “Battle for the Bible” was pretty dang CONTROVERSIAL.
Using that line of reasoning, we as Christians should cease dissenting once our dissent is perceived to become controversial.
That’s perhaps the silliest notion to ever come from this here blog, SBC TOday.
Name a reform in Christian History that would have been possible if dissenters stopped asserting their right to dissent merely beceause said dissent was perceieved to be controversial by the Establishment?
On the subject of tongues, let me say this: speaking in tongues publicly seems to be the logical extension of praying in tongues privately. The SBC knows how to exclude. And if you welcome into mainstream, SOuthern Baptist circles men and women who promote the right to pray in their private prayer language – shouldn’t you include into the fold folks who have a public prayer language? Charismatic Southern Baptists have always been living on the fringe in SBC life even under the reign of Moderates. The real question for you folks is this – What does it mean to be a Southern Baptist? And are Southern Baptists comfortable with The Pentecostalization of The Southern Baptist Convention? Would Pentecostalization of the SBC be a consequence of allowing folks with public and private prayer languages into the leadership fold?
Look what happened in places like Costa Rica and Guatemala. Charistmatic Priests and lay leaders were allowed entry into the front door of the Roman Catholic Church and now Pentecostalization has ensued throughout most of Latin America. The Catholic Church in the Global South is forever changed. Not saying that would happen in the SBC by any means. But that’s why questions concerning Southern Baptist identity are very important.
Issues like this are not relevant in moderate circles. We have our own issues. But all of those issues come back to the question of Baptist identity and what does it mean to be an “American” Baptist.
All in all, these questions about prophecy and private and public tongues come back to issues of race. There are indeed differences between black Baptists and anglo Baptists in your Southern Baptist Convention. You desire a racially diverse Convention (I assume) but I’m not sure you’re willing to truly embrace diversity in terms of beliefs and practices. Is there A Baptist Way or are there different Baptist Ways to play off of Bill Leonard’s thesis? I’m not saying that you should embrace tongues but until Southern Baptists embrace diversity more fully, you’ll always have controversy and will continue to be scrutinized each time you reject a certain theological position as being unbaptistic.
Whew, that was a long comment. Didn’t mean for it to be half that long.
brother Tim, you said:
“Some are accepting the classic understanding of “second blessing” doctrine and the pneumotology doctrine that we have within our ranks as being the same.”
I’m with you 100%. I hope that both Pentecostals/Charismatics and Cessationistic Baptists/Fundamentalists will BOTH be careful to compare apples with apples and not confuse the issues…there can be no progress or productive dialog so long as these issues are not kept clear and distinct.
Amen, brother.
BDW,
I’ve never heard of a “public prayer language.” There is either a private prayer language, which is a man praying in tongues to quietly to God, or a public tongue that is a message to be interpreted. Those are the only definitions I’ve ever seen biblically. It is quite easy to regulate all of this if we will use Scripture and stick to it and we need not be afraid of charismatic excesses if we disciple people correctly. But, since that is something that we struggle at, it is easier to create a new law or eliminate the practice altogether. I believe that Paul taught against this.
Tim,
Good article overall. I cannot speak for Dwight and I defend his right to go on TBN and share his views. I also think that it is hard to judge him for the comments of others. He should be judged on his own words. But, I do think that you have hit upon the crux of this issue and the reason why those of us who accept a PPL as biblical have continued to maintain that position: We see it as completely compatible with Baptist theology as stated in the BFM and see no reason why an acceptance of PPL necessarily leads to charismatic theology. There are other stop gaps that can be implemented to keep us from that apart from eliminating those with a PPL if they are acting humbly and not being divisive.
Thank you for this approach. I would be very encouraged to see dialogue along these lines continue. This is also the perspective of David Rogers and most of those who have disagreed with the IMB policies over the past two years. Does the possibility of common ground on the basis of Baptist soteriology and pneumatology exist? That is my belief and I actually just see PPL as a very minor issue. Other than that, we are in basic agreement.
To be thoroughly clear, I agree with you our belief is that PPL DOES NOT indicate a second blessing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is the belief that defines pentecostal/charismatic theology as Irreverend Fox has stated. I disavow the second blessing perspective and do not see PPL as related to that. That is why I am a baptist and not a pentecostal/charismatic. I believe that you recieve all of the Holy Spirit when you are saved and tongues IS NOT a sign of any separate baptism, yet it does exist as just one of many spiritual gifts that are given to some, not all believers. It is not the mark of any type of superior spirituality.
I am not being very clear tonight. Sorry. I’m pretty tired.
Big Daddy,
Bill Leonard and Tim Rogers?
Boy, That would certainly make a strange “matched pair of mules” pulling the SBC wagon. :-)
How would they understand “GEE” and “HAW” :-)
cb
Brother BDW,
The dissent of the CR would not have denigrated to controversy if those in leadership would have don what the Baptist in the pew directed concerning the Word of God. If the leaders during the time of the Resurgence would have only acquiesced to the direction some of the CR leaders were pointing there would have been no need of CR.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
That’s a weak response. Men like Mohler and Patterson have not chose silence when their dissent becomes controversial. Yet, you argue that otherwise and would require dissenters to shut up once the kitchen gets hot.
Alan,
I know there is no such thing as a Public Prayer Language. I was attempting to be cute. I do believe that speaking in tongues is the logical extension of a private prayer language. Can the SBC be okay with PPL but not tongues? Just as I believe that the ordination of women is the logical extension of allowing women to teach men the Bible in the seminary setting or allowing women to serve as deacons.
Brother Allan,
You say; “tongues IS NOT a sign of any separate baptism“. Can you tell me if these “tongues” are a known language,but unknown to the one speaking them, or is it estatic utterances. Also, if it is estatic utterances is that the same type of tongues that Brother Dwain Miller referenced is used in public worship in his example on the TBN broadcast?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother BDW,
Call it weak if you like, but that is the fact. Controversy came, not because the CR leaders we being put in place. The controversy came when the Conservatives had the majority. Thus when the Conservatives began expressing what the Baptist in the pew wanted to happen the Moderates jumped ship. Then claimed they were forced out of leadership. They were not forced out of leadership, they were told what to do by their Trustee Boards and refused to do it.
Blessings,
Tim
brother BDW and brother Tim
the issue at hand is not the validity of a PPL doctrine…but is rather if such a doctrine is tolerable in the SBC context. let’s debate that.
a similar debate can be had on the issue of “Calvinism” or various eschatologies, ecclesiologies, ect…obviously in each of those arena’s only one view is ultimately the most correct. but can we tolerate views on those issues some deem less than correct or even flat out wrong within the SBC?
or is there no room at all for a PPL doctrine being present in the convention? if not then we certaily have a big problem on our hands according to a recent Lifeway study.
Thus when the Conservatives began expressing what the Baptist in the pew wanted to happen the Moderates jumped ship.
If that’s the case, then why aren’t we seeing generous submission of current leaders to the “baptists in the pew” who are tired of extra-biblical laws being handed down from on high as grounds for missionary approval?
Brother Darby,
I think if you really pursue that avenue you will find that is not the Baptist in the pew perspective, but a perspective of a few disgruntled people that want other things, but using this as a smoke screen.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother IF,
I believe that if you will check with Dr. Ed Stetzer he would agree, that while I was off on some of my conclusions in the report, one part I was correct about was the theological understanding of tongues. This report did not differentiate what one really believed theologically about concerning PPL and tongues.
With Calvinism, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc., etc., all can be spoken about and defined. For example if I say that I can defend 4 of the points of Calvinism, does that make me a Calvinist? If I say that I can defend only two points of Calvinism, does that make me an Armenian? We can throw the terms out because we have bedrock principles that define them for everyone. However, when it comes to PPL and tongues, there is not bedrock principle to define it. The PPL doctrine is a new doctrine that came about within the last 30 years. No where throughout the history of Christendom is it found. You will find tongues, but one is hard pressed to find any doctrine of a PPL. If this is something that has been around and we can find a bedrock principle for it, where is the theologians that called for it? Where is the church councils that dealt with it?
Brother Allan Cross has done an excellent job describing the difference in the pneumotology doctrine, but the tongues still come from that doctrinal bend. While my favorite Moderate, Brother BDW, has described for us the logic that some see, I agree with that logic. His logic says that if PPL is allowed, then the natural logical move is public tongues and someone saying they were praying in their PPL. When asked about their Public use they will say that they were privately speaking to God. Thus private will be defined as something only between the one using the PPL and God, whether they pray in public or in private. Oh, and guess what? 1 Corinthians 14:2 will be their basis because, after all, Paul is giving instructions on how to act in public worship.
Blessings,
Tim
brother Tim…
please allow me to climb out to the end of this limb (and still scramble back if it starts to break)…
what if such a thing (praying or speaking in tongues out loud in corporate worship) falls within the greater scope of tolerable issues? what if 1 Corinthians 14:2 (and other passages) can be used as a basis for the practice?
if that is the case then we could not simply disregard it because it rests not upon the authority of personal experience. we’d have to at least confess that proper exegesis the field we are playing on. we already do not teach this view is “heresy” or “cultish”…I believe we call Pentecostals our brothers, correct?
remember…classic Pentecostalism teaches that tongues is THE initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. and because of that it is therefore, according to the AoG and nearly all Pentecostal denominations…for EVERY believer. that EVERY believer must earnestly seek this baptism and the physical evidence of it (it is wrong to say they seek tongues…according to them they are seeking the Spirit baptism and tongues then always accompanies the baptism as verification…)
keeping all of these parameters in mind…would it be acceptable within the context of the SBC to tolerate churches where people “speak in tongues” out loud, with subsequent interpretations…so long as they are careful to instruct their congregations that such gifts are not for everyone and does not serve as any evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit? Such a church would not be truly “Pentecostal”.
I’m not asking if the majority of the SBC would agree with such a doctrine…but can we tolerate such a church? The majority of the convention believes that Christ died for every single person who has ever or will ever live. A minority of weirdo’s believe He only died “for” His predestined elect…can we tolerate churches who teach such weird things? Where do we draw the line?
What was that? What is that snapping sound?
also…sorry for the long comment…I can’t stand when people write five volumes of systematic theology and church history in a single comment…sorry…
Brother IFox,
That is an interesting limb to climb out on…when you said,
“what if such a thing (praying or speaking in tongues out loud in corporate worship) falls within the greater scope of tolerable issues? what if 1 Corinthians 14:2 (and other passages) can be used as a basis for the practice?”
….since the Apostle Paul is in the midst of answering your question within the context of the entire letter.
It would be exegetical malpractice to substantiate an act of corporate worship within a letter where Paul has made it overtly obvious that this group of Christians are highly immature, and are acting in such bizarre ways….. I have not figured out in this blog what is making the context of the letter to the Corinthians so foreign to your minds.
Paul message is running the other direction. He is not trying to establish tongues. Tongues had already been established. He is admonishing the behavior of immature believers trying to use tongues. They (the immature Corinthian bunch) simply were in sin.
Where is the confusion??
Blessings,
Chris
Brother IF,
As for crawling out on a limb, do not let that worry you. I hear that is where the fruit is found. :^)
You ask questions that really challenge the boundaries of the envelope. What I am trying to say, may not be the same thing that you are questioning. I am asking our Brothers that say this doctrine is not the same as the classic pentecostal doctrine to distinguish between the two it for us. Brother Allan Cross, in his comments #8 & 9 has done just that. This is the way that I believe the conversation needs to be directed to alleviate the fears of those that see it as classic Pentecostalism. However, and this is the crisis that I believe Brother Allan and others will need to overcome for us, PPL is a new doctrine. This doctrine, while it is not associated with the pneumotology of the Pentecostals, is an outcome of the classic doctrine of Pentecostal speaking in tongues. Also, if you remember, Brother Dwight McKissic said on the TBN broadcast that Baptist had the doctrine of tongues before the Pentecostals and gave historic references.
Those types of closely associated beliefs are the ones that need to be distinguished. As for the soteriology doctrine, even Dr. Hershel Hobbs–an avowed Armenian–acknowledged that a person could not come to Christ on his own. The issue is not Calvinism that we need to take a stand on, it is Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinists that are hyper.
Blessings,
Tim
brother Chris,
you are missing the point of my question(s). I’m not arguing for it’s validation…I’m questioning it’s tolerability.
brother Tim,
thank you…and I agree with you.
Thanks IFox,
I read it as though you were legitimizing tolerance of something that the Apostle Paul is extremely clear about not tolerating.
My bad!
Never mind me…
Blessings,
Chris
To All,
Why does the discussion of a specific doctrinal issue always seem to evolve (or is it devolve?) into an attack on Calvinism? The issue at hand is the aberrant doctrine of modern-day “speaking in tongues” and the “private prayer language”.
I think that the question at hand is: Are tongues, ppl, experiential theology, and extra-biblical revelation a part of our Baptist Identity? If not, as I whole-heartedly suggest, then what is an avowed SBC pastor doing on TBN “evangelizing” for the cause of charismatic, third-wave theology and practice?
SOLA GRATIA!
Scott…because Calvinism is really WEIRD!
(I’m a 5 pointer missional type…I’m trying to fit in shhhh…)
to everybody…please take that last comment as it was intended…a joke about Calvinists and non-Calvinists…ok?
I’m not saying that Calvinists are either weird or unwelcome here.
I see it like this: The Church of Christ believes in baptism by immersion just like we do. They fully dunk the person and to the outside observer, their practice is the same as ours. But, it means something totally different. We do not believe that salvation happens during baptism. We reject their baptism because of what it means, not because it is baptism.
In the same way, PPL is in essence, the same as what the Pentecostals practice when it is used as a spiritual prayer language to God. But, it means something different for non-pentecostals. It is not the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It does not delineate between the spiritual haves and the have nots. PPL DOES NOT constitute new revelation from God. It is simply a supernatual mode of prayer from the spirit of the speaker to God, enabled by the Holy Spirit. The practice comes from 1 Cor. 14 and when quietly affirmed and used with humility, it poses no danger to the churches in the same way that speaking in tongues as a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit does. For Pentecostals, tongues are never the big deal. They are just the sign of the really big deal: The Baptism in the Holy Spirit as a subsequent experience to salvation with tongues as the SIGN.
Irreverend Fox asks some very penetrating questions. Even if you disagree with this perspective, is a Baptist PPL perspective something that can be tolerated? The fears of charismatic influence can be allayed by drawing the boundaries elsewhere, I believe. But, most want to draw boundaries to include their own perspective and exclude those that are different from them, it seems.
Scott,
Are you saying that Baptists do not engage in experiential theology? Our whole practice of salvation is quite experiential I would think. Also, I think that your use of the word “aberrant” to describe speaking in tongues is, well, aberrant. I don’t care if people have this gift or not and only a few in my church do, but as their pastor, I am not about to call them or something that they practice that I clearly see in the Bible as “aberrant.” That might be just me, however.
Alan,
Is there any other place where this PPL practice occurs, because 1 Corinthians 14 has nothing to do with anything except tongues / languages. If PPL is still extracted from the Corinthian passage, what is the language. Those that are practicing should know. The Apostle Paul knew what he was speaking with the tongues he is espousing. That’s the context. To say that PPL is in 1 Corinthians 14 is like saying the women at the end of the same chapter are not to speak in the church period,…. without realizing that it is speaking about tongues as well.
What were the other proof texts for this PPL practice?
Thanks,
Chris
Chris,
That is your interpretation of that passage. Many highly respected and highly qualified biblical scholars completely disagree with you. We are working from differing paradigms and I should not be forced to come over to your paradigm just because you don’t accept the validity of my argument. I don’t accept your interpretation as being valid – I think that you are completely wrong and I can back it up ad nauseum, but I respect your right to hold that interpretation on a disputable matter and I think that you can take that wrong interpretation to the mission field and it will not affect your service of the Lord one bit. In other words, I completely defend you right to be wrong on this matter (I hope that you can sense my playfulness in the preceding comments :) ).
I do not know you, Chris, and have not seen you around before, (I haven’t been very involved on the blogs the last couple of months myself) but I have defended this position for two years now and have written far more than I ever wanted to on the subject. I really care about PPL much less than it might seem. I only endeavor to write about it because otherwise qualified missionaries are being denied appointment because of a specific interpretation regarding a disputable matter. I think that we should be able to get along on this issue and find other ways to broker peace beyond eliminating people who hold to Baptist theology and are called and qualified for the mission field. That perspective is very important to me, much more so than trying to get everyone to agree about PPL. I just don’t think that people should be disqualified over it. If that controversy goes away, you will likely hear very little from me on the other issues that have been bandied about for the past two years.
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 nasb
Alan,
I agree with you,….that it would be silly to restrict someone that is experiencing this “phenomena” from the mission field. I would just pray that they would not teach their experience and try to compare it to what Paul is asserting in 1 Corinthians. It doesn’t pass the smell test,…. but I would be interested if there are any other places where this PPL crops up.
You have made it clear that we disagree on the interpretation and context of the passage, and that’s ok. It really is… Fortunately no one goes to hell for that! I am not an argumentative kind of guy….and I think most would agree. I like to study and see scripture as clearly as the Spirit allows. I make a lot of mistakes.
Let me ask you… since IFOX put forward this interesting text from Paul in 1:14-15. What is Paul’s context? What is Paul telling this group when he refers to himself in the first person and in context with the previous 13 verses?
Also, I would be interested in knowing who these respected scholars are? I really would….because I want to go and read their conclusions. I have read some, but not a whole lot on the subject. Sounds like you have, and I can benefit from your endeavors.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Allan,
Let’s look at a possible scenario. I do not want to make decisions based on fear, but I also understand there is logical outcomes to various practices. For example, as Brother BDW related above, the logical next step for women deacons is ordaining women pastors. Help me understand how PPL will not take the logical next step of tongues in public worship and word of knowledge and other open revelational practices of the classic Pentecostal/Charismatic practices.
Brother IF,
Please do not just place scripture in a comment without giving us your understanding of what you are trying to say. As we all know, we do interpret Scripture from different perspectives. :^)
Blessings,
Tim
it’s been my experience (how postmodern sounding of me) that in order to kill even a possible PPL interpretation of these passages, one must kill it with 1,000 qualifications.
I believe we could smother almost any other passage if we 1. intended to do so and 2. employed the same hermeneutic…it bothers me.
Sometimes I think people don’t want there to be such a thing as a PPL and they squirm all over the place to discredit even the possibility that these (admittedly few) passages might teach such a thing.
The only way, in my opinion, to deny the possibility of a PPL, in light of the texts…is to take a full blown cessationist view. Unless you are a cessationist I don’t know how else to get around this text.
but I can certainly tolerate both cessationist and continualist in the SBC.
brother Tim,
I’m an ultra suspicious and skeptical continualist.
also…this is it…then I get to take my wife out to dinner…
brother Tim,
I think brother BDW might be right…in fact…he probably is right.
The question is…does it matter? Can such diverse groups not only co-exist together within the SBC…but cooperate in church planting? Disaster relief? Obviously “no” to Pentecostals…but what about these other Baptists who believe in the possiblity of a PPL or who flat out claim to have one?
IFox,
I am not a cessationist, …but it appears that trying to get PPL into vs 14 is like pinning jello to the wall. I am just looking for some valid Pauline context.
One other thought when looking at 1 Corinthians 14, this entire section is a wonderful example of Paul’s continuance of his correction. What did he say….
Follow after1377 charity,26 and1161 desire2206 spiritual4152 gifts, but1161 rather3123 that2443 ye may prophesy.4395
(1 Corinthians 14:1)
The “but rather” is continuing with the admonition of the earlier chapters. In other words, Paul is telling us that he would rather that we speak clearly concerning the Gospel in an understandable tongue / language. In fact, that is the point of the entire chapter. This does not mean that tongues cease, or that we should not pursue spiritual things. But, what it does make extremely clear in context is that Paul is not surprised that this group has completely missed the boat on this spiritual thing called tongues. Why,… because they certainly missed the boat on numerous other “spiritual” aspects of the body of Christ. Further down the list of corrections he reflects on himself in the context of the group.
For1063 if1437 I pray4336 in an unknown tongue,1100 my3450 spirit4151 prayeth,4336 but1161 my3450 understanding3563 is2076 unfruitful.175
(1 Corinthians 14:14)
Because of the unmistakable context; we know that Paul is admonishing this group as he approaches verse 14 and then following, and Paul is crystal clear on the meaning. The meaning of this verse has nothing whatsoever to do with a prayer language for him personally. Paul would never just walk into a church and say 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 alone. He never did, and why would he? The meaning that Paul is conveying is obvious and is tied to the context and has all to do with he being understood… “my understanding (3563) is unfruitful.” The “nous” or “meaning” is Paul’s way of saying,… if he speaks in a tongue not recognized it will have “no meaning”, even though he has made it clear earlier that when he speaks in more tongues than all of them, it is understood “Jesus is Lord” (seen earlier in his letter). Paul is saying if I supplicate in tongues in the church and no one understands; the “meaning” is fruitless or unfruitful. When Paul is speaking in first person, it is in context with what is being presented to the church in this context. This is not as supplication for self,…as some might espouse…and some do,…they simply lift this scripture out of context to get a new meaning. To make it a singular aspect to Paul alone is to take it out of its original context.
That’s really my only contention with these verses that are used for the purposes of PPL. It simply can’t be preached in that fashion if it remains in its original context. (That’s not to say that some do preach it by lifting it out.)
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I appreciate your good spirit in this discussion. I like to discuss issues as well and I am perfectly fine with disagreement on this issue. I have worked with many who see this issue differently and I never feel the need to bring it up because the view that you have on this matters little to me unless you say that those who practice this and do so quietly and respectfully are disqualified from ministry. I take issue with that perspective and feel the need to speak up. Thank you for your refreshing humility. Tim, I appreciate you as well.
In regard to context, I agree with you that abuses were occuring. But, I believe that the abuse was that the Corinthians were taking a spiritual language that was meant for their edification as a prayer language to God (1 Cor. 14:2,28) and they were speaking to one another in tongues to show how spiritual they were. Clearly, they were missing the point. The purpose of tongues without an interpretation was to pray to God. It was only for the body if there was an interpretation. They were encouraged to pray with their spirit, but they were not to disregard the necessity of speaking and praying in the understanding, especially if they were in the church with other believers. I really do think that they were abusing the practice because they thought it was a mark of spirituality and not a way of prayer that God had provided for them to speak to Him alone, unless there was an interpreter. Then, the purpose would change and it would be a word of prophecy for the Body. That is the context that I see and the entire passage of 1 Cor. 12-14 fits nicely with that. It also is consistent with the rest of the letter.
I am not saying that your view is completely illegitimate. Many hold that view and they should be respected. Obviously, only one view is right and you should be convinced in your own mind as to what you believe. But, just because I think that you are wrong on this, if I were in power I would not disqualify you from service because to do so would bring reproach upon the gospel. If I disqualified you from service to your Lord based on your view of private prayer language, I would be elevating that to an issue that is worth dividing over. I would be making it a sin/disobedience issue or something else of great magnitude. That could be discussed further, I imagine.
As far as scholars, Wayne Grudem would provide a good starting point.
Tim,
What would keep PPL from spreading into other realms? First of all, we would have to make sure that those realms are unbiblical. I do not see the problem with a revelatory word in the sense of someone praying for someone else and believing that God gave them some direction or a word of encouragement for that person. We say all the time, “Brother, I was praying for you and I feel like God laid this on my heart.” Some my describe that as a word of knowledge or wisdom and if we tried to eliminate that practice from Baptist churches we would have quite a battle on our hands. Of course, all of that has to be tested by the Word of God and by prayer and should not just be received automatically.
If you are responding to the charlatans who have earpieces in their ears and are receiving “Words” from on high, then I agree that is a problem. But, that can be stopped rather easily by causing all things to be tested by the word and by not providing an environment for those abuses to occur. The real problem that we are dealing with actually involved fleshly behavior and false imitations of the real work of God in our life.
In short (sorry for the long post), what would keep PPL from moving further would be some basic biblical discernment and discipleship. We seem to feel more comfortable with rules than relationship in these things, but God really will guide us and empower us to do the right thing if we ask Him to and follow the order that Scripture gives us.
Thanks Alan,
I will go and read some of Grudem’s thoughts on this….his work is solid in MHO.
I guess that really is a good question. What is the purpose of tongues? Is it for personal edification or was it given to announce the gospel? What was it in this context?
Paul did say, “He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself” (14:4), and then he added for clarification, “Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the Church” (14:12). The gifts were given for the edification and profit of the entire Body of Christ as Paul is making clear in this passage, not merely one member. “The members should have the same care one for another” (12:25). Self-edification is contrary to the principle of love that is taught just preceding this admonition put forth in chapter 14, for “love seeketh not her own” (13:5). The gifts were given for the common good of all (12:7).
Paul continues to teach throughout his letters that the Holy Spirit’s purpose for tongues is for communicating the gospel clearly and for confirming the gospel message clearly. There was no ambiguity in his message concerning tongues. Tongues are always clear. There is not one time that real Tongues sent the wrong message. Speaking and hearing the gospel clearly is the true “charisma”, and that is Paul’s point to this prideful bunch of folks. Real tongues are easy to identify.
I have been given permanent, abundant, and abounding Pentecostal power …, not because of tongues, but because of Christ. Now that is something to shout about!
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Allan,
You have presented a great accountable issue when you say; We seem to feel more comfortable with rules than relationship in these things, but God really will guide us and empower us to do the right thing if we ask Him to and follow the order that Scripture gives us. As each church is an autonomous body, there needs to be rules regardless of relationship. Within my immediate family I have relationships with my brothers and sisters. But when my Daddy died there were some issues that needed to be handled because there were no clearly defined guidelines for us to navigate.
To All,
Thank you for an enjoyable comment stream. Next I have agreed with BDW and that is saying something. I certainly do commend everyone on the spirit of debate that we have encountered here. Brother Allan and I may never agree on how 1 Corinthians 14:2 is interpreted, but he is my Brother in Christ and I respect him as such.
Blessings,
Tim
Chris,
I could not agree with you more. Tongues are not a sign of power. I greatly side on the preaching of the gospel and a focus on Christ. Jesus should be our only focus. I am not a proponent or advocate of tongues, and if the mention of that gift ever takes away from giving glory to Christ, I would never mention it again. But, in this atmosphere, I just don’t want people who have reasonable convictions to be shut out.
Regarding edification, I really feel that Paul was talking about the focus on one or the group. Paul said that he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but Paul also said that he spoke in tongues more than them all, so there must have been merit to it. We do many things to edify ourselves like pray, read the Bible, and other Christian disciplines. It is not necessarily wrong in the right context. Jude 20 tells us to build ourselves up in the faith and pray in the Holy Spirit, so there is a correlation between praying in the Spirit and building oneself up.
Tim,
I have no problem with rules. My only point is that we should not create rules that eliminates people who are not really doing anything wrong for fear that their presence MIGHT lead to something else dangerous down the road. We should deal with the actual dangerous activity, not the fear of the dangerous activity. I just believe that it is possible to practice PPL within certain guidelines and be a great missionary. I say that because I am good friends with IMB missionaries who do just that. I think they should stay on the field and we need more like them.
I thank both of you guys for a gracious exchange. While we disagree, I affirm you in your walk with the Lord and your ministry. May God richly bless you.
Brother Alan,
I do not think the IMB guidelines cover those currently on the field. I believe they cover those applying. However, I believe if some on the field begin to promote that doctrine they will probably be called before their Regional Leader.
Blessings,
Tim
You are right that the guidelines are not retroactive. My point is that I have friends who are missionaries on the field who have a PPL (from private conversations in seminary about theology, the Bible, etc.) and they are doing an outstanding job. With the current guidelines, they would not be appointed today. I would hate to think that we were not sending the quality of people that we already have on the field because of an interpretation of Scripture on a disputable item like this. If the practice is so “aberrant” as it has been called, then why are the guidelines not retroactive? I am glad they they are not, but is it not logically inconsistent to allow missionaries with a PPL to remain on the field and keep new ones with a PPL off the field?
Tim,
I think you make a very wise point. We and any missionary for Christ should err on the side of the gospel being heard clearly; not leaving any opportunity for confusion or ambiguity. That is truly the theme of what the Apostle Paul puts forth to the Corinthian church. We should follow his lead in making sure that everyone we have the privilege to disciple learn to present the gospel in the clearest prophet able format possible.
Thanks for this post,
Chris
Alan and Tim,
It is unfortunate that the IMB has to even consider putting forth guidelines in this respect. Any gospel pastor should be very concerned when these things spring up. I’m sure Paul did not think twice about penning the letter to the Corinthian church when he received word from those associated with Chloe. We certainly realize now that the Spirit prepared these writings so that the churches would have a firm word of correction when operating in the spiritual.
-Chris
Brother Alan,
Your is something I need to think about. :^)
Seriously, I humanly can see how you can say that, but public relationally it is inconsistent to affirm one to go, then pull them back. Wouldn’t you agree with that inconsistency?
Blessings,
Tim
So, we let one go one year, then we keep another from going the next year? How does that make any sense?
If the practice is so dangerous, then how can we continue to support missionaries on the field who have a PPL right now? They are being supported with CP dollars, are they not? Yet, they believe and practice aberrant theology according to some, and it is alright to leave them on the field because of fear of a public relations disaster? Again, I do not think that they should come off the field, but if their beliefs are so dangerous as to warrant disqualifying others with the same beliefs, then how are they able to stay of the field, possibly for decades to come?
It just doesn’t make sense to me, but then again, none of this has made sense.
Tim: Funny thing is the IMB began promoting private prayer language when it made guidelines against it. Before it was praying in private, in the privacy of their prayer closet. There were husbands who did not know their wives had a PPL, and there were wives that did not know their husbands had a PPL. That is until the IMB decided to make it public.
Sister Debbie,
In all due respect, if a spouse has a spiritual practice that is so secretive it is kept from the other, there is more issues than a private prayer language. While we have debated this issue ad nasuem no one has ever brought this up as an issue before the IMB. Why is that? I believe that NAMB had much more strict policies in place before the IMB placed these guidelines on the table.
Brother Alan,
You make some interesting points. But lets face it, pragmatism has ruled the day for a while. You are not in the boat by yourself when you say changes need to be made. However, I believe you will find yourself paddling alone when everything has to be changed right this instance.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim: No one knew about the NAMB until the time of the IMB policies. I feel the same about the NAMB policy as well. I don’t think it’s an a bad thing if a gift is so private that at times they feel they should not even share it with their spouse. I believe these people did as God led them to do. Don’t turn it into a marriage problem that does not exist.
Tim,
We should not be so concerned about trying to legitimize whatever experience someone is having or even thinks they are having. Who cares? This PPL is not an established doctrine. It is merely someone’s opinion on how they view an experience they are having and then how they come to find it in scripture. I may sound like a broken record on this one….but it is obvious that Paul has no reason to try and create a PPL, this would be taking his message of 1 Corinthians out of its original context. To get some kind of doctrinal assertion of a “PPL” from this passage is extraordinary. This is precisely what the Apostle Paul is arguing against.
I don’t have a problem with someone that espouses that they have a PPL. Christians, whether pastors or not, make those kind of assertions all the time. What leaders should do in that circumstance, is not bring them off the mission field, but help them understand God’s word with more clarity and bring discipleship to them. Do what Paul did,….he sent a letter to the Corinthian mission field to edify and bring greater understanding. We should not shoot a maturing Christian in the foot,….lets lend a hand and bring him or her clearer understanding.
That was the Apostle Paul’s method.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim and Alan,
Comments 41 and 42 concerning non-retroactiveness (is that a word?) are very difficult for serving missionaries to believe. There are several of us who remember the Rushlikon comittment that was broken before the agreed time by trustees of the IMB. Even more of us remember that we would NOT be forced to sign the BF&M2K. So, when I hear that any policy or guideline will not be retroactive, I am more than a little skeptical.
Tim,
If pragmatism is ruling the day, then the Holy Spirit is not. If this new policy/guideline were concretely based in truth/the Word of God it would have been made retroactive. The fact that we supposedly have trustees who believe that PPL is so aberrant that missionaries with it are not to be appointed, yet they are so pragmatic that they will not make their conviction retroactive shows that they know that they would not have the support of Baptists when real live missionaries are affected. Or, they do not really believe that their convictions are biblical, because if they do and they have any courage, then they would not let pragmatism trump truth.
It would have been pragmatic for me to have stayed out of this. Because I have shared my convictions on the PPL/baptism issues I have been lumped in with the dissidents and any future I might have had in SBC circles is gone, not that I cared about that anyway – which is what freed me up to speak my mind. My comments are public record and if I ever want to pastor another church, they will be brought up. I have tried to carry myself with Christian decency in every comment, but I have also thought it more important to share my convictions on this issue than to be pragmatic and fear for my future or how things might come across in opposing the establisment on this issue. I do not say that to say that I am wonderful, but I only say that to express that I know the cost of speaking from conviction instead of pragmatism.
If our trustees are being pragmatic in their decision making, then we should not trust them. You can’t be pragmatic if your decisions run contrary to the Word of God. I AM GLAD that they did not make these policies retroactive. It is the only biblical thing that they did in my opinion, but it shows that they don’t really believe that their convictions are biblical, or they don’t think that holding biblical convictions is worth the ire that will be raised if you carry them to their logical conlcusion.
And please don’t point to the opposition that has been against them the past two years as an example of their courage. They never saw that coming and have tried to eliminate it at every turn by trying to silence Wade. They are furious about the opposition and they have chosen to ignore it. Actually, their decision to remove Wade and then their decision to rescind his removal was another example of pragmatism because they knew it would not fly at the convention because they had no proof of wrongdoing. If they did, they never shared it.
You’re right, Tim. This is the most pragmatic board of trustees in the SBC. I don’t think that we should trust them if they are going to be ruled by pragmatism. We need trustees who will be informed by the Word of God and have the courage to implement and defend their convictions, even in the face of opposition. Isn’t that what the Conservative Resurgence was about?
10-40 Window Missionary,
I pray that the policies WILL NOT be made retroactive. I understand your fear because the trustees have gone back on their word on that before. Yet another reason not to “trust” the trustees on this issue.
But, if they did make them retroactive I could at least applaud their consistency. I would oppose them, as I oppose them now, but I would at least believe that the reasons that they give for the policies are even somewhat plausible. As it now stands, they have no credibility on this issue because their reasoning makes no sense. It is not logical.
Alan,
I am glad your not being pragmatic :)
Your points should be heeded. Leaders must stand on scripture without equivocation, whatever the organization within the SBC.
-Chris
Brother Allan,
Please do not take my comments in this stream to mean that I promote the pragmatic approach. What I am trying to say is that it comes a point in time that you have to ask yourself the best way to approach a situation that results in the best for all. However, that approach should not trump scripture. While PPL is something that I do believe is not a proper exegetical result from Scripture, I am not willing to forsake those Southern Baptist that disagree. To do what you suggest would certainly abandon Missionaries that we committed to holding the ropes. I am not willing to release the ropes over this issue. I guess, I just am not willing to add more ropes with this disagreement.
One more thing. Are you saying that the IMB needs to make these policies retroactive? Is that your concern over the policies not being biblical, because they are not being made retroactive?
Brother 10-40 Missionary,
Rushlikon, as I remember, was refused funding because they kept teaching Neo-orthodoxy as the foundational theological position and anything outside of that was extreme. Thus, the very theological position the CR was calling SB back to was an extreme theological position for those teaching. Also, the BF&M2K was presented by Dr. Rankin to the M’s to sign. Which brings me to ask something. Would you believe it to be a travesty for an employee to have a change in his job description and be released if he did not agree to the change?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Chris,
Ok, lets go with your position. You said; “Do what Paul did,….he sent a letter to the Corinthian mission field to edify and bring greater understanding. We should not shoot a maturing Christian in the foot,….lets lend a hand and bring him or her clearer understanding.” How do we identify current M’s that have PPL? If it is a PPL, then no one but possibly the spouse knows about it. I do not think it to be wise to endorse a “witch hunt” in order to ferret out those with PPL. But, lets say that through and act of submission we have all of the current M’s with a PPL in a discipleship program. What do we do if they still do not believe a PPL is not scripturally based?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Now you’ve gone and done it. You put me on the spot!! :)
OK…let’s run with it.
So were in Kenya, Africa and the gospel is being presented, preached, and relationships in Christ are being forged in the field. The church is growing spiritually and possibly numerically. The gospel of Christ continues to be spoken of clearly throughout the church and men and women are trusting in Christ and understanding their union with Christ and the body is being edified……then say, some months later, someone, it could even be one of the missionaries, mentions to me about this praying experience they are having. They say that they are sure that when they are praying there is a newness of feeling closer to God than ever before, in fact there are times when they seem to move into another phase of this experience where it is as if God takes over their tongue during this time. We know that these folks are not some goofy extremists, they are our friends and brothers, and they are beginning to believe these things are profitable and that they need to be shared with the church. (This is where the Corinthian letter from the Spirit is extremely valuable to believers). Paul has declared to us what is profitable, valuable and what should be done. He makes it abundantly clear that we should run toward the five words (understanding) and walk away from the ten thousand (something not understood). But some folks can’t take that answer for what it is…and pride is why they can’t take the answer and move on. The Apostle Paul and the Spirit are fully aware of that problem.
This is how these things come to life…and these come to life out of immaturity. This is just part of being in the church.
My first instinct “as a missionary” would be to begin asking questions about this experience to my leadership. This is what Paul did on numerous occasions. There is no room for witch hunts, only good questions. If I am the missionary that is experiencing this contemporary labeled experience “PPL”, then I should without any reservation submit to my leadership. Of course, if the leadership is pushing PPL, then you really have a more difficult situation. When I say leadership, it is obvious that the leadership is the leadership associated to the church that is commissioning the mission.
Sister churches within the SBC may need to help other leadership, if they are allowed, in these situations. It is impossible if an organization, i.e. IMB or NAMB, tries to implement guidelines, because they are not leading the mission or commissioning the mission directly as a church body. It must come through the leaders involved with the church. You must get to the root of the pride. You simply have to begin to answer the question …is the mission to clearly preach, teach, and declare the gospel, or is it to push for freedoms that may or may not be profitable and that do not clearly display the Gospel. That is an easy question for me to answer and I would hope for every church leader within the SBC.
1. It should never turn into a witch hunt.
2. It is the simple maturing of believers, which may include the leadership as well.
3. It may take sending mature leaders deeper into the field to disciple.
4. Its not about PPL… it is about the Gospel.
5. Preach the word in season and out of season.
6. We submit to Christ and His Gospel.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim,
I would absoutely be against making the policies retroactive. I think that they are wrong and unbiblical as they stand, so I am thankful that at least the present missionaries are spared this. My point is that the trustees were terribly inconsistent with their policies. If something is wrong and harmful to the churches (according to the view of the trustees and Dr. Patterson), then it should be eliminated. Pragmatism should not play a role. The fact that we currently have missionaries with a PPL and everyone is fine with that undercuts the argument that PPL is harmful to the churches, as Dr. Patterson said. If pragmatism is tying the hands of the trustees, then they are not operating out of conviction, but out of fear of man. If fear is controlling then where is faith? Everything done without faith is sin, so it is possible to say that creating a policy to forbid PPL and not make the policy retroactive because of fear of the response is sinful behavior. I am not judging people, but I am trying to look at the situation honestly, even though I disagree with the direction.
And, I am not talking about the slow implementation of vision or things like that. That can be seen in the realm of discipleship. You can have convictions and take time to teach people the truth without compromising. But, the trustees have no plan for that. At least Chris has a plan, even though I disagree with its necessity, so he is being consistent. The trustees have just let the previous missionaries go on as they were before with no plan to enlighten them or correct them. They just don’t want new missionaries on the field who might believe the same way as some that are already on the field. This approach makes no sense and it shows the utter lack of wisdom of the trustees on this matter. They are not even true to their own convictions. How can they lead anyone else? Again, I am glad for their blind spot as I believe that to remove these missionaries would be a travesty, but it is no less a travesty than the one currently being committed by keeping otherwise qualified missionaries off the field while missionaries who believe exactly as they do are allowed to remain on the field.
Chris,
You are saying that those who believe in PPL are prideful and immature. Those are some lofty judgments that you are making about people just because they hold beliefs that you disagree with. Does every prayer that you pray have to do with promoting the gospel? Do you ever pray for comfort or for strength? Do you ever ask God to guide you in issues of your life not related to proclaiming the gospel? Missionaries are not evangelism robots, they are people who have needs and hunger for the Lord. If a PPL is part of their devotional life and God uses it to strengthen them and bless them, then how does that practice show pride? If they are using it as a badge of spiritual honor as the Corinthians did, then yes, you would be correct. But, if they are humble about it and are thankful for what God is doing and are not pushing it on others as a spiritual litmus test then I do not see where pride or immaturity is at work.
Tim,
In post #55 your comment about the defunding of Rushlikon was not quite 100% accurate. It had been agreed that a gradual decrease in support by the IMB (then the FMB) with an equal increase by European Baptists was in process, as agreed. But the CR people were not happy with the administration of Rushlikon and abruptly cut off funding, contrary to an agreement in place.
About Dr. Rankin and the BF&M2K…He stated that missionaries would not be required to sign it. Then reversed himself. Dr. Rankin is a man of high moral character who does not speak out of both sides of his mouth…the “word” among missionaries is that he acted preemptively in order to protect the missionaries. Given some of the actions of the BoT for the IMB, I can believe it, that he was “protecting” us.
And, Tim, as to your last point of changing a job description, please spell that out for me, as that just went right over my head. So, if you can, dumb it down so that I might understand what you are asking.
Brother 10-40 M,
When M’s came on as M’s they were asked to sign the ’63 BF&M as part of their job description. Thus, when the SBC passed the BF&M2k the “job description” was changed to reflect what the SBC believed. Therefore, signing the BF&M2k should be viewed as an updated job description that either a worker can agree to or not agree to. If the worker does not agree to the job description should the company be obligated to keep him on the work force?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
When I was in the appointment process, I was asked if I could live and work within the framework of the current BF&M. I was not asked to sign it.
So, now missionaries are being asked to sign a statement (or a creed), which SBC leaders are arguing is either sufficient or not. If, as some interpret the Garner motion…ahhhhh, you know how this ends, and it is waaaaaaay past my bedtime here. Thanks for allowing me to rant, and thank you for the civility of this blog. Not seeing enough of that, nowadays.
Dear 10-40 M,
What was Dr. Rankin protecting our missionaries from? From abiding to a document that we as Southern Baptists adopted to “…state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice.” (Emphasis mine.)
Southern Baptists voted the BFM2000 to be our confessional of beliefs. Southern Baptists expect those our convention employs to abide by it. Including our Trustees!
Blessings,
Ron P.
Tim,
What I do not understand, is the argument that has been raised since 2000, is that signing the BFM2000 being any sort of issue.
If I did not hold to it, I would not sign it. If I signed a document of beliefs but did not believe them, I would be a liar. If I could not sign and hold to the doctrinal guidelines that the SBC voted as “essential”, in good conscience I could not, nor would I want to work for the SBC. Though that does not affect any local church autonomy, it would preclude me from working for the convention.
Blessings,
Ron P.
Brother Alan,
I’m back from another Christmas party….I love this time of year! It’s a great opportunity share the gospel amid all of the fluff.
You bring up an excellent point about pride and then judging. My approach with anyone in the field would not be in a form of judgment concerning their convictions. Scripture is clear, and I think everyone agrees that we should submit to one another, and I would be the first to get in that line. You bring up another excellent point in that we should not work from the posture of fear,…because in essence that is sin. You are right!
What we must do is pray. Pray with understanding so that we are not tempted.
“For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. ”
(Philippians 1:8-11) nasb
When we have prayed then we begin to understand how to serve. I have not judged “PPL” because it is not able to be judged. What I can judge is the way people respond. If someone that is having this experience is “upset” because they feel like someone is trying to muffle them,…. or if they believe that someone is trying to say it is not real,….. or if they are upset that they can’t be upheld to teach this to someone, then this is where the wisdom of the Spirit through the Apostle Paul is captured. They would be as he has termed “immature” again, this is the context. He says,….What’s the problem then, is it difficult to love and edify one another, and lean toward understanding a language 200,000 percent more reliable. (That’s what 5 is when compared to 10,000). You see, what Paul has illustrated to us in 1 Corinthians, is that the immature will get upset, or repent and follow his lead…..and if we believe that….we agree with the Spirit of God (theopneustos). So, I should, as a missionary be 200,000 percent confident that my leadership is guiding me in a trustworthy direction. As a leader, I should at the very minimum, be willing to disciple, love, learn and edify the workers in the field.
This is far from judging…although we should judge rightly.
Blessings,
Chris
if the SBC messengers require people to sign the document then they should sign it or take a hike.
I’m not so sure the messengers would make that a requirement.
maybe I’m wrong.
IFOX,
I think I am agreeing with you…..
Signing something is meaningless, unless your value and operation is built upon “letters of commendation”. There is a better way.
-Chris
Tim,
Sorry to take up so much time…so I will try to back off on this one…..
Alan,
I did read Grudem’s Systematic Theology where he addresses prayer, Holy Spirit and tongues. I must say I was surprised with what I did not find.
His entire section on Prayer, pages 366-392 only sites a footnote on page 382, footnote 9, where he makes a distinction between Jude 20 and 1 Corinthians 14 (human vs. spirit).
The rest of the section did a good job of articulating different aspects of prayer, but no connection to PPL, other than a hint on page 382.
In his section on “The Work of the Holy Spirit”, on page 638, Grudem makes one statement .. “One specific kind of prayer that the New Testament says is empowered by the Holy Spirit is the gift of prayer in tongues (1 Cor. 12:10-11;14:2, 14-17).”
He introduces this one line in a five line paragraph explaining the prayer lives of individual believers….then he refers everyone to where he begins a more earnest discussion in pages 1069-1083, where he exposes his thoughts on why this apparent PPL may be occurring. This is woefully short of any substance. The problem with his entire treatment of tongues, even outside of this one area of focus “PPL”, is that he never once mentions context. I must say that is really surprising to me. I really like Grudem! I think he is solid. Yet on this subject, he has failed to put any of his findings into the context of the original writings. This is unfortunate for all his readers.
So I took a quick glance at what Calvin had to say, and his first impulse was to context. I looked to Boice, and his first impulse was to context. Harold Mare’s first impulse was to context. I realize that Grudem is putting forward a Systematic Theology, but I would caution anyone that reads this section to not complete your study without digging out the biblical context. It does have something to do with the meaning that the Apostle through the Spirit is trying to get across.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Chris,
Do not back off, unless it is your desire. I believe this conversation has been a good one.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Thanks,…..
I remembered a sermon that John Piper preached back in 1992 which helps to bring context to this subject,…. found at,
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByScripture/19/818_Living_in_the_Spirit_and_in_the_Body_for_the_Common_Good/
It helps fill in the blanks where Grudem may lack some context. This may bristle some of the cessationist’s in the crowd, but I believe his message on “Living in the Spirit and in the Body for the Common Good” is on target. What the Spirit of God manifests is always good. When it does come out wrongly or in error…It is just the people that are goofing it up, not God.
One thought he puts forth is very important…
“To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”
Piper says….Finally, the Spirit is manifest for this purpose: the common good. The Spirit does not give gifts and ministries so that we can boast in our spiritual prowess. He gives gifts and ministries for two reasons: to manifest himself and to help us do good to each other in the church. Gifts are for the glory of God and the good of the church.
This is right at the heart of our understanding of biblical theology: the pursuit of God’s glory and the pursuit of what is good for us are not two separate pursuits. If you want to do good for people, you try to manifest God to them. If you want to manifest God and make him known for who he really is, you make it your aim to do good to others.”
Well,….I am going to run off and try to finish up on the Romans 7:14 passage for Sunday Worship. What a great and wonderful line of scripture! Its hard to get this one into two or three sermons.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris: Would it surprise you to know that John Piper is not a cessationist? Far from it. I can link to proof if you would like.
You say that scripture is clear, but it evidently is not if we are discussing this. Even the best of conservative theologians disagree on this subject. Southern Baptists who claim the gift of PPL besides Dr. McKissic are Jerry Rankin. Where is the pride he shows? The late Bertha Smith who was a missionary. Show me her pride? George Ella, one of the greatest minds among Southern Baptists.
Sister Debbie,
I do not think Brother Chris has alluded to John Piper being a cessationist. I think if you will go back and re-read his comment you will find that he says that the quote he is about to present will cause cessationist to “bristle“.
Blessings,
Tim
Sister Debbie,
There are disagreements on this topic, but that is not the point that I am trying to show in light of 1 Corinthians. That has been my argument all along. Paul is very specific that something damaging is occurring on many fronts to the church throughout the Corinthian letter. One of those problematic fronts is speaking in tongues, which now some in our day and age attribute to a “PPL”.
There are two problems that I am trying to address.
1. First, that the letter to the Corinthians is correctional and that there are specific things that are being corrected. Grudem in his systematic theology does not address it, but instead uses the scripture to articulate a mirage (not with a lot of substance I might add). Piper does address it in context and I think he is correct.
2. Second, that the letter is not establishing, causing to be known, trying to give credence to any gift. In fact, the Apostle Paul addresses that earlier. The letter is simply acknowledging abuses to such. It is an error of exegetical proportion to use verses out of context to create a reason for something to practice.
As far as Dwight goes,…I think he is ok. I don’t know much about him, but I hope to get to know him someday if God allows. He seems like a sincere brother.
I am also not a cessationist. I do not believe scripture requires one to be.
Blessings,
Chris
As I said in a post before Chris, 1 Corinthians 14 is both instructional and correctional. Verses 1 and 2 cannot be skipped in the interpreting. It was because of abuses, probably many of the things Pentecostals have in their doctrine, the 1 Corinthians had in theirs. It didn’t make me bristle as it is what has been said all along, and I know all of John Piper’s view. That may make the difference. He isn’t filling in anything Grudem hasn’t said in my opinion. I think just as it’s important to read all of the scripture for context, it’s also good to know all the author’s writings on this subject for a proper view. As for Grudem, David Rogers has done a terrific set of posts that are located in his archive that spells out Grudem’s view from the bottom -up.
You can know what Dr. McKissic believes on private prayer language for example by doing a search and reading what he has written. It doesn’t take long to read and get an idea. I find that it’s a lot less cumbersome and misrepresentations are hard to do when dealing with the truth of what someone believes.
It’s clear Chris, you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours. You are relying on scripture as I am, as Alan is and Dwight. The question is, can Dwight be a trustee and believe as he does? The obvious answer is no. That is the part I object to. I have no problem with you having your view, but I do have a problem if you do not believe good men such as Dwight should be on a board of trustees, head of the IMB or in any other office.
Debbie,
Why can’t Dwight be a trustee?
Was he voted out or fired? If so…that would be unfortunate.
I still am not sure what I am trying to change your mind about….
-Chris
Sister Debbie,
Your statement implies that Dwight was forced off of the BoT at SWBTS. That is not the case. He said on TBN that he was not forced off and that he quit on his own free will.
Blessings,
Tim
Debbie,
I have taken your advice and went to see what Dwight has posted concerning his belief.
I have left a message on his site and I am looking forward to learning more concerning his conclusions.
This is what I have asked……
Dwight,
I am not a cessationist as well… and I do have a few questions relating to your stated belief where you say… “or praying with words not understood under the influence and control of the Spirit (I Cor. 14:2). How did you come to that understanding of the text?
This seems foreign to the context of the letter, especially 14: 1-4, and it is apparent that Paul is actually making the plea for the opposite of what you state.
I do agree with you that a tongue (language) is understood, and has always been understood, because that is the way of the Spirit of God has worked in every instance in scripture. The “groans” section is really another category not related to language. So of the three ways you describe about tongues, I was curious how you came to the decision to interpret 1 Corinthians 14: 1-4 as instruction and not correction.
It appears to be obvious that the context of verses 1-4 of the 14th chapter is from a stance of correction. In other words, Paul is trying to convince these Corinthian folk that it is better to be understood and is not establishing something different than what has already occurred previously concerning tongues.
Do you have a paper on how you come to this new position? If so,… I would like to read it if available.
Respectfully,
Chris
Tim: Come on Tim. It wasn’t from his own free will, but out of necessity. The pressures and the closed meeting? When it affected him mentally and physically? I wouldn’t say it was from his own free will. Kind of like Dr. Dilday and others left out “of their own free will.”
Chris: I think you did well in asking Dwight himself. I do believe in his archives there are some posts that tell what he believes as well. I appreciate the fairness in all of this Chris.
Sister Debbie,
No one said Dr. Dilday left of his own free will. He was fired.
Blessings,
Tim
Sister Debbie,
Before I hear back from Dwight, I want to comment on his seven points put forth as evidence for a private prayer language highlighted as the thrust of 1 Corinthians 14. (sorry for the length of the blog)
He states,…….
1. Paul clearly envisioned the gift of tongues included prayer to God (1 Cor. 12:10; 14:2, 13-14). Since Paul said, “He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God,” we know for sure then it is prayer. Furthermore, Paul makes it clear the person speaking in tongues in worship can control it and speak to himself and to God. If a person, speaking in tongues in worship can speak to God then, again, it is prayer. The Bible says in 1 Cor. 14:28, “…and let him speak to himself and to God (emphasis mine). THE STANDARD HERMENEUTICAL APPROACH IS IF THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES SENSE, WHY SEEK ANOTHER SENSE?
2. Praying to God in private tongues involves praise, “If you bless with the spirit,” thanksgiving, “At your giving of thanks” (1 Cor. 14:16), and general communication with God (1 Cor. 14:2).
3. Praying to God in tongues is not intended to be understood by man because the believer speaks “mysteries” to God (1 Cor. 14:2). The word mystery in the original language means “a hidden or secret thing not obvious to the understanding.”
4. Praying in tongues, in private, is speaking to God in a language not understood by man, “For no one understands him” (1 Cor. 14:2).
5. The person who is praying to God in tongues does not understand what he or she is saying. That person is praying as Paul said, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14).
6. Since the Bible describes tongues as speaking to God and not to men, whether or not the speaking to God would be with words understood (a language known on the face of the earth) or not understood (unintelligible or indeterminate speech) is somewhat irrelevant. Whatever the speech consists of, it is still prayer to God (1 Cor. 14:2).
7. Praying to God in tongues in private edifies the believer (1 Cor. 14:4). Paul said, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself….” An edified believer edifies the church and glorifies God.
Point #1: Dwight makes the assertion that Paul “envisioned” tongues including prayer. His assertion is not present in the text sited in light of the Pauline context to the Corinthian church. Paul is not having a vision of anything “new” concerning tongues. Paul is simply voicing a correction on how the established gift of tongues is being presented to the church for edification. If the passage is interpreted out of context or in isolation, the “envisioning” of Paul could be something new….yet even still, it would not be in context with the 1 Corinthian letter, nor would it be in context with the prophecy put forth by Isaiah. The new assertion by Dwight is unfounded hermeneutically. Even though the assertion of something new in this passage is unfounded, the reality of speaking/praying, making utterance in a tongue (language) is not unfounded. This is an important distinction in light of what Paul is actually teaching to the immature Christians at Corinth.
Point #2: Dwight seems to make the assertion that praying in a prayer language is a main point of the passage as he ties it to thanksgiving. I would challenge him on that assertion. Paul is using overt examples throughout the chapter to illuminate the misunderstanding of those present in Corinth concerning the gift of tongues.
Point #3: Dwight’s interpretation of this verse is completely in reverse of Paul. The verse is saying the opposite of what Dwight is implying. Paul is stating that the tongue should be understood. This is Paul’s main argument as he makes the point that someone cannot be understood when speaking in a tongue that is not understood by the hearer.
Point #4: This point is only supported if you conclude that one of Paul’s main points is about a prayer language. Paul never states or comes to that conclusion. In fact, Paul’s conclusion is the opposite.
Point #5: Again, this point is only supported if you believe that Paul’s reason for this chapter is to establish something new, instead Paul’s focus is to correct something that is out of order. Ignoring the context is the only way to get to a meaning beyond Paul’s conclusion in verse nineteen (19) of this section.
Point #6: I completely disagree with this assertion. This assertion has no foundation. Understanding tongues is not irrelevant, because all tongues are understood. In fact, every tongue that is spoken by way of the Holy Spirit is understood. In view that the language is not interpreted does not mean that the language is not real, clear and effective to the hearer where the Spirit has sovereignly appointed. There is no reason to believe that a tongue is meant to be, or its purpose is designed to be a mystery.
Point #7: This assertion simply misses the point of Paul’s teaching on tongues. Dwight ends his teaching with… “An edified believer edifies the church and glorifies God.” I completely agree,….but that statement is true in any circumstance and again it is not what Paul is addressing in this passage. In fact, Paul is saying…of course you can only edify yourself because you and God are the only ones that understand what you are saying. Paul would rather that these Corinthian’s understand the value of being understood. He felt so strongly about this that he said it is 200,000 percent more valuable to be understood than to speak in a tongue not understood.
Based upon what Dwight has put forth as his evidence in the seven points, I can easily argue that he has rushed to conclusions that are not present in the text, therefore they would qualify as wrong conclusions. This does not mean that he is not praying in tongues. That may very well be the case. But the 1 Corinthians passages that he sites do not support his conclusions. Paul’s teaching is not for something new or mysterious; his main goal is for clarity resulting in love.
Blessings,
Chris
Tim: That Dwight left completely out of his own free will might get past those who have not followed the whole story since last year. I don’t think even you can buy that. The pressures being great, the vote at the closed door meeting at SWBTS tells us a different story along with the censoring that occurred at the SWBTS chapel.
There are some things I disagree with Dwight on and there are many things I agree with him on. His rendering of 1 Corinthians 14:2 is one I agree with Dwight on. I can’t ignore this passage as well as many in chapter 12. For example, 12:7, also 14:26.
I believe in scripture interpreting scripture. In other words if I have a problem with a passage I look to other parts of scripture that speaks on a subject for clarification. Act 2, Peter says the operation of miraculous gifts was a characteristic of the New Covenant age of the church. 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 is another passage that I cannot ignore. Ephesians 4:11-13. Revelation 11 and the passage concerning the two witnesses.
Acts 10:38 tells me that we as true born again Christians, are empowered with the same Holy Spirit as Jesus Christ was while ministering on this earth. So many things in the NT are the same today and I see nothing in the scritptures that say sign gifts have ceased. Missionaries will tell you of miracles seen both in themselves and in others on the field that most Southern Baptists would not believe which is sad as I believe they miss out on many of God’s encouragements to us as Christians. Most missionaries do not speak of these things for the reason of being rejected, possibly taken out of the field or investigated or any number of reasons. George Ella, Bertha Smith(one of the greatest female SB missionaries of our time, I believe), Dr. Jerry Rankin, Dr. McKissic are all people that I would have a hard time calling liars or saying to them that their experiences are contrived. I believe them.
Chris: I do appreciate you taking the time to attempt to search out what Dr. McKissic actually believes and arguing against that. I do not expect agreeement, but your honesty in all this is something I not only appreciate but deeply respect. I mean that Chris.
Sister Debbie:
It is important to love one another as we discuss these matters and I believe the tone of this blog has been very good.
Here are several of things that I think you and I agree on and are supported biblically;
1. That the Holy Spirit has given gifts to the church for its edification.
2. That the gifts of the Spirit are in operation today.
3. That none of the gifts of the Spirit have ceased to operate.
4. That all of the gifts of the Spirit are to designed to edify the church.
One thing that seems to be elusive for some is this: deciding whether a tongue or tongues are always designed and revealed by God to be understood. That would include whether the understanding is direct or by interpretation. In either case, it is designed to be understood. Every application of scripture points to the fact that a tongue or tongues is an understandable language.
Some people try to cloud the understanding of tongues (either direct or by interpretation) in two other ways.
1. Angelic tongues
2. Groanings
The use of the word tongue with Angels does not imply that men speak like angels. In fact, it would be arguing for the distinction that there are human tongues and angelic tongues. There is not an indication that men spoke like angels, only a comparison by Paul, dramatically illustrating his main concern that the church is only edified when language is understood.
Groanings is in the context of the Spirit praying for us…this seems very clear since we do not know how to pray and the spirit of God intercedes for us.
Thanks for posts, …tongues is always an exciting study. God speaks clearly, always has and always will….. although, I have a tendency to be deaf, dumb and ignorant. Still working on that one :)
Blessings,
Chris