Posted by: Nick Norelli | October 9, 2007

On Speaking in Tongues

I’ve been wanting to blog about speaking in tongues for some time now but it will have to wait a little longer.  For now you can check out my comments over at the Parchment and Pen blog regarding the issue.  C. Michael Patton wrote a post entitled “The Rise of Intellectual Charismatics” to basically say that the world can no longer write Charismatics off as emotional nut jobs because now we got some highly trained, well respected, scholars (e.g. Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Craig Keener, et. al.) among our ranks.

It’s a pretty good post but the comments turned into a discussion on tongues  which I may or may not have had something to do with 

You can find my comments at #2, 29, 30, 33, 39, 47, 54, 59, 61, 67, 69, 72. 

B”H

By the way, I just remembered that Ben Witherington blogged on the gifts back in January.  This was the first post of his that I ever commented on.  It’s called “Here Come the Pentecostals” — it’s definitely worth a read.

Posted in Charismatic Issues, Theology

« Special Thanks to Sean from Theology & Snack
Penn & Teller - The Bible: Fact or Fiction? »

Responses

I purposely tried to avoid that topic over there. Many people can’t handle it, and then I can’t handle the way they react to it. Tongues and Spirit baptism can be talked about at a high and cordial level just like any other theological topic, but many people can’t get over something that happened to them some time at some church and then feel that they know everything they need to about it. My main area is Pentecostal theology, and I could show a lot of things about it from the Bible and history, but too often it isn’t worth it because people’s minds are already made up.

People talk about abuses within the charismatic movement, and those should be criticized lovingly. Less talked about are the abuses within evangelicalism. I’ve received plenty to the point that I no longer consider myself an evangelical for the most part. Think about this: you won’t get kicked out of a Pentecostal church for not speaking in tongues, but plenty have gotten kicked out of Baptist churches for speaking in tongues. Which is more tolerant and which is more fanatical?

And with regard to charismatic problems, I lay some of the blame at the feet of Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers for not going far enough to recover a biblical doctrine of the gifts and leaving us to have to figure out everything on our own 400 years later. In such a situation, mistakes will be made, but I see very little tolerance for them.

By: Sean on October 9, 2007
at 2:13 am

BTW, thanks for linking to Ben’s post. One more reason to like him. ;)

However, I have problems with all five of the points he made at the end of it. (Well, on review no. 5 is mostly o.k.) All of them can be refuted to varying degrees. This is also a good example, from a friendly source, of “The Pentecostals are of course wrong, and here are my easy answers as to why.” None of the issues are as simple as he presents them.

Charismatic presbyterian J. Rodman Williams deals with most of these in the second volume of his Renewal Theology and, in my opinion, presents a very persuasive case. He needs about 100 pages to do so. Most non-charismatics, however, are already convinced that they are right (after all, how could a Pentecostal know more about anything?), so they are happy with a few pat answers and not grappling with the text.

Sorry. Like I said, I’m touchy about this one. I try to do serious Pentecostal scholarship, but too many of my peers and mentors keep the conversation at the level of a middle school playgroudn fight and it frustrates me.

By: Sean on October 9, 2007
at 7:48 am

Think about this: you won’t get kicked out of a Pentecostal church for not speaking in tongues, but plenty have gotten kicked out of Baptist churches for speaking in tongues. Which is more tolerant and which is more fanatical?

Touché ;) And don’t get me started on Luther and Calvin!

I agree with Ben’s point #1 in as much as I believe that the tongues spoken in Acts 2 are different from the tongues spoken of if in 1Cor. 12-14. I don’t know that I’d say it’s not glossolalia though. I disagree with point #2 and point #3 is ambiguous. I don’t believe that speaking in tongues is the initial physical evidence that one has the Holy Spirit in their life, but I do believe it is the initial evidence that one has been baptized with the Holy Spirit (I do see a distinction between being baptized BY the Spirit into the body and being baptized WITH the Spirit after conversion). I agree with point #4 and point #5 really caused me to think. I think he has a good point.

By: Nick Norelli on October 9, 2007
at 9:56 am

The thing with his #1 is that Acts 2 is the only place where the tongues are closely identified with known languages. People get stuck on that then project their feelings about it onto all the other passages. Williams (among others) shows why this shouldn’t be done.

His #2 can be refuted easily from within Acts itself. The weight of Christian traditional, while not exactly equal to the view of classical Pentecostalism, also goes against the regular evangelical interpretation.

On #3, I love how so many people always say that “The bible says not everyone should speak in tongues.” Actually, the end of 1 Cor 12 doesn’t exactly say that. What 1 Cor. 14.5 says in the Greek is, “I want you all to speak in tongues.” Hmm. Sort of the opposite of what people claim. And, of course, no one in mainstream Pentecostalism says that tongues is the initial evidence that one “has the Holy Spirit.” It’s the initial evidence of subsequent Spirit baptism. Many people don’t like the idea of subsequent crises of grace; I don’t like sticking everything into the experience of justification-regeneration because it dilutes the message of justification by faith.

1 Cor. 12.13, which he uses to support #4 (which, by the way, you also disagree with by what you say in parenthesis), can be interpreted either way. So many people make that the key verse to the whole issue, but I think it’s actually a distraction. I don’t think what Paul says about a NT-times churches “we were all baptized… all were made to drink…” can automatically be assumed to true about Christians forever. I don’t think we can automatically apply it to churches 1,000 or 2,000 years later. In any event, it can’t be propped up as the single decisive text that negates all the evidence in Acts.

#5 is mostly semantical. One cannot get more of the Spirit, but the Spirit can get more of one, which should not be objectionable to any reasonable theology of spiritual formation, something evangelicalism generally lacks. That multi-stage salvation and/or experience of the Spirit occurred in Acts is irrefutable and acknowledged by all mainstream exegetes, who, if they want to deny it as normative, are generally forced to say something strange was going on there.

Sorry to continue ranting. Again, there is a lot more complexity to this than many people acknowledge, and I get perturbed by the insinuation (not necessarily by the great Dr. Ben but generally quite common) that Pentecostals believe what they do just to feel superior to other Christians.

By: Sean on October 9, 2007
at 11:02 am

His point 4 was:

the beginning of 1 Cor. 12 makes clear that being baptized by one Spirit into one body is language referring to the point of conversion and becoming part of the body of Christ, not some post-conversion experience.

I would agree that this is the focus in 1Cor. 12:13. Paul speaks of the Spirit as the Bapitzer in this verse — this is something common to all believers — we are placed into the body with this baptism.

I see Acts 2 as showing those who have already believed and been placed into the body as being baptized WITH the Spirit in fulfillment of what John the Baptist said concerning Jesus (Mk. 1:8).

So I don’t disagree with his specific point here, but I disagree with his general point of there being no subsequent Spirit baptism.

You said:

One cannot get more of the Spirit, but the Spirit can get more of one…

You’ll just have to forgive me, but I’m going to steal that from you! :-) It’s so true! And don’t worry about ranting — we certainly need more intelligent dialogue about Charismatic-Pentecostalism in the blogosphere (and hopefully it will extend to the rest of the world).

In regard to Pentecostals doing what they do just to feel superior to others, I don’t think for the most part that that is the case, but I have seen some examples of it and I believe that Paul did as well. That seems to be one of the contributing factors in the rebuke and correction he offers in 1Cor. 12-14.

B”H

By: Nick Norelli on October 10, 2007
at 2:01 am

You said:

One cannot get more of the Spirit, but the Spirit can get more of one…

You’ll just have to forgive me, but I’m going to steal that from you! :-)

:Not a problem, especially as I wasn’t the first to come up with that. Again, the issue that Dr. Ben brought up there in #5 wasn’t new to Pentecostals; it’s not like they thought it through before. And in my experience, it’s not those in the renewal movement who are most likely to forget about the personality of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding the last part–In just about every formal dialogue I’ve read on Pentecostal subjects, the words “spiritual elitism” always come up from the non-charismatics. If we have a healthy attitude, we come from the vantage that “Hey, there’s this great other thing God wants you to have even though you’re already saved!” Many interpret that as, “There’s something wrong/missing with you and your spiritual walk.” That automatically puts people, some of whom are not used to it at all, on the defensive and less likely to deal with the issues fairly.

I look at it this way: instead of trying to justify why my tradition, theology, or church has it all together, I freely acknowledge that I can learn from the many different perspectives present in the Body of Christ (yes, even the Calvinists) and that they can help make up the deficiencies of my knowledge and walk. That is how I wish others would look at the renewal movement, but there seems to be a different set of rules when it comes to this particular area.

By: Sean on October 10, 2007
at 3:16 am

In my first paragraph after the quote, the line should read

“It’s not like they HAVEN’T thought it through before.”

Which sort of changes the whole thing.

By: Sean on October 10, 2007
at 3:21 am

I have been attending Pentecostal churches for more than three years. I do not speak in tongues. I have no quarrel with those who do. Am I a second-class Christiann? Will I be discriminated d against for not speaking in tongues, i.e. precluded d from some forms of church service? Should I be?

By: Glenn Gilbert on October 18, 2007
at 2:13 pm

Glenn,

Am I a second-class Christiann?

If for the sake of argument you were a second class Christian, it wouldn’t be because you didn’t speak in tongues. But I’d say, no, you’re not a second class Christian.

Will I be discriminated d against for not speaking in tongues, i.e. precluded d from some forms of church service?

Well, I would pray not! But if you haven’t been excluded in the last 3 years I see no reason why they would exclude you now. But I have to be honest in saying that I don’t know every congregation that’s out there — there may be one that would exclude you for not speaking in tongues — I can’t know with certainty, but from my experience and apparently yours as well, this will not happen.

Should I be?

Absolutely not! The various charisms are manifestations of God’s grace through the Holy Spirit — they’re intended to build up the body in unity and love. They aren’t intended to exclude anyone whom the Spirit chooses not to manifest himself through.

Thanks for your questions/comments.

By: Nick Norelli on October 18, 2007
at 2:40 pm

We all know where statistics come from, but I recall hearing once that only 20-40% of people in the typical Pentecostal church speak in tongues. If everyone who didn’t were excluded, the movement wouldn’t be growing like it is.

By: Sean on October 18, 2007
at 9:14 pm

hmmm…. reading all this I thank God He left salvation at professing Christ and believing in your heart.

By: stamati on March 10, 2008
at 11:54 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories