Re: Speaking in tongues
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:43 am
One of the (sort of) arguments put forward by Cessationists is that speaking in tongues is the “least” of the Spiritual gifts. Kind of a sour-grapesy, “Speaking in tongues isn't important, so why worry about whether speaking in tongues is for today anyway?” The idea of calling any gift from God unimportant seems pretty arrogant and outrageous to me, and I think any of the Spiritual gifts is very important at the time that gift is needed. At any rate, Paul contradicted this argument in verse 5: ”Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues ...”. Even allowing for the statement that followed, (”... but even more that you would prophesy”), it's safe to conclude that Paul saw speaking in tongues, properly used in the right contexts, as important. Putting the two statements together, it was Paul's desire that every believer in the church at Corinth would both speak in tongues and prophesy. And lest anyone mistake his comment in verse 5 for hyperbole, Paul also said (verse 18), ”I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all.”
Another, “You shouldn't want to do this anyway,” argument used by some Cessationists is based on the first half of verse 4: “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”. How selfish! Right?! And Christians shouldn't be selfish, right? Well … Paul didn't say this was selfish, only that the benefit of speaking in tongues, of it self, is limited. Were Paul saying that speaking in tongues is selfish, why would he say in verse 5, ”Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues”, and in verse 18, ”I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all”? Cessationists advancing this argument also ignore the second part of verse 5, “greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.” Properly used in the church, a message in tongues is accompanied by its interpretation, and thereby the church is edified, negating the speaking-in-tongues-is-selfish argument. More fundamentally, this argument doesn't make sense. Consider, why would the Holy Spirit give a gift that was entirely selfish?! The problem isn't that speaking in tongues, properly used, is selfish, but in the, ”Throw any and every kind of mud at the wall and see if any of it sticks,” mindset of those Cessationists who assert this argument.
Another misconception I've heard concerning speaking in tongues is that it was a gift to enable missionaries to preach the Gospel to people whose language the missionary doesn't understand. While something sort of like that did occur in Acts 2, and I wouldn't presume to say that God couldn't do that, 1 Corinthians 14:6-19 demonstrates that this is not the principal purpose of speaking in tongues. In this passage many/most of those hearing the message in tongues are assumed to be believers, and these believers need the message interpreted, as they do not understand the language of the message.
Over all, 1 Corinthians 14 – along with Ephesians 5:18-19 and Colossians 3:16 – describes a “church service” very different from what is currently done every Sunday in most Christian churches. Whether a Catholic church celebrating mass with much the same liturgy as has been used for many centuries or a simpler Evangelical-Fundamentalist church service featuring several hymns, a sermon, plus announcements, all have some things in common: the leader(s) plan and implement what happens; the congregation is partly audience, partly participant, doing what the leader(s) have planned. Sometimes I wonder if the Holy Spirit would be unable to work in many/most modern churches, for lack of room! In the kind of “church service” Paul described, any and every believer might on any day be a “worship leader”, a teacher, prophesying, praying for some need, with the Holy Spirit leading and the leaders of the congregation overseeing to ensure things didn't get out of order and teachings didn't contradict Scripture. I wonder whether a believer raised with modern leader-audience “church services” would even recognize the leadership of the Holy Spirit, orderliness, and ministry happening in the believers' assemblies Paul knew.
Another, “You shouldn't want to do this anyway,” argument used by some Cessationists is based on the first half of verse 4: “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”. How selfish! Right?! And Christians shouldn't be selfish, right? Well … Paul didn't say this was selfish, only that the benefit of speaking in tongues, of it self, is limited. Were Paul saying that speaking in tongues is selfish, why would he say in verse 5, ”Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues”, and in verse 18, ”I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all”? Cessationists advancing this argument also ignore the second part of verse 5, “greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.” Properly used in the church, a message in tongues is accompanied by its interpretation, and thereby the church is edified, negating the speaking-in-tongues-is-selfish argument. More fundamentally, this argument doesn't make sense. Consider, why would the Holy Spirit give a gift that was entirely selfish?! The problem isn't that speaking in tongues, properly used, is selfish, but in the, ”Throw any and every kind of mud at the wall and see if any of it sticks,” mindset of those Cessationists who assert this argument.
Another misconception I've heard concerning speaking in tongues is that it was a gift to enable missionaries to preach the Gospel to people whose language the missionary doesn't understand. While something sort of like that did occur in Acts 2, and I wouldn't presume to say that God couldn't do that, 1 Corinthians 14:6-19 demonstrates that this is not the principal purpose of speaking in tongues. In this passage many/most of those hearing the message in tongues are assumed to be believers, and these believers need the message interpreted, as they do not understand the language of the message.
Over all, 1 Corinthians 14 – along with Ephesians 5:18-19 and Colossians 3:16 – describes a “church service” very different from what is currently done every Sunday in most Christian churches. Whether a Catholic church celebrating mass with much the same liturgy as has been used for many centuries or a simpler Evangelical-Fundamentalist church service featuring several hymns, a sermon, plus announcements, all have some things in common: the leader(s) plan and implement what happens; the congregation is partly audience, partly participant, doing what the leader(s) have planned. Sometimes I wonder if the Holy Spirit would be unable to work in many/most modern churches, for lack of room! In the kind of “church service” Paul described, any and every believer might on any day be a “worship leader”, a teacher, prophesying, praying for some need, with the Holy Spirit leading and the leaders of the congregation overseeing to ensure things didn't get out of order and teachings didn't contradict Scripture. I wonder whether a believer raised with modern leader-audience “church services” would even recognize the leadership of the Holy Spirit, orderliness, and ministry happening in the believers' assemblies Paul knew.