Southern Baptists and Tongues

SWBTS takes stance against Pentecostal/charismatic doctrine - (BP)

In a move that many deemed inevitable in light of swirling controversies in Baptist Life, Southwestern Seminary has issued the following statement, according to Baptist Press (click link above for BP Story):

"Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will not knowingly endorse contemporary charismatic practices such as a private prayer language nor hire professors who advocate the practice."

It may be surprising for some to know that I applaud this statement for several reasons.

1) It shows consistency. While I was not in favor of the IMB policy on private prayer language, I do believe that if it is to remain in effect, then our other boards and agencies need to have consistent guidelines as well. We would not want to have a young seminary student being trained for missionary service who is encouraged by a seminary professor to practice prayer language, nor would we want them to think that what is acceptable for seminary students is off limits for missionaries.

2) It stops short of an inquisition or witch hunt. The Baptist Press article contains the following humble acknowledgement: “As it concerns private practices of devotion, these practices, if genuinely private, remain unknown to the general public and are, therefore, beyond the purview of Southwestern Seminary.” I think this is a fair statement. I do not practice private prayer language. I never have, and I doubt that I ever will. I do not even desire the experience. I have studied the relevant passages of Scripture, and I am convinced that it is not an authentic spiritual gift. However, this puts me at odds with some brothers and sisters who have had "an experience." Now, I judge the revelation of God's word to be more authoritative than experience, but I also recognize my own finitude and depravity. I know the Bible is infallible, but my own interpretation of it may be in error on some minor issues such as this one. So, if a person's prayer language is private, then I know nothing of it. It does not hinder our fellowship, and we do not collide convictions over it. It remains private to that person. But, if that person begins to flaunt their practice, or to argue for their right to exercise it, then it is no longer private. This brings me to the third reason why I think Southwestern did a good thing.

3) Tongues as a private prayer language is not a historically acceptable Baptist doctrine. Therefore, those who wish to practice tongues at all ought to realize that Baptist life does not afford the utmost liberty in that regard. Some may choose to keep it private for that reason. However, if one goes public with the practice or the argument for the practice, then one begins to march against the tide of our historical convictions, and has demonstrated himself or herself to be out of step with Southern Baptists. This person ought to consider that he or she would be more at home in another denomination rather than disrupting fellowship in Baptist life over an issue that is patently non-Baptist.

Imagine me instituting the practice of paedobaptism. If I did it out back in a creek, no one might ever know about it. But if I began to advertise, "At >>>>> Baptist Church, we baptize babies!" then I have put the name "Baptist" with a practice that is patently non-Baptist. At this point, I should choose which I prefer -- the name "Baptist" or paedobaptism. If I choose paedobaptism, then I ought to cease using the name Baptist. I would suggest that the same is true for those wishing to promote the practice of private prayer language.

4. I believe this statement was a positive step for Southwestern in light of the controversy sparked by the recent message delivered at their chapel by Pastor Dwight McKissic. Certainly he was aware of the current controversy, and the speculation concerning parties involved in it. Certainly he understood that as a Trustee, he has a certain obligation to "toe the party line" when speaking in an official capacity. However, in his sermon at the Southwestern Chapel, he openly advocated private prayer language and stated that he had learned the practice at the seminary and knew as a student that it was widely practiced.

The Seminary has not made copies of that message available. I believe that the seminary had every right to not make copies of that message available, and I have been uncomfortable with all the cries against them of "unfair censorship." Censorship would
involve Patterson going into the text of McKissic's sermon and changing it. Withholding the message from circulation was prudent. I have had some evangelists and guest speakers to come into my pulpits before and say some things which were absolutely intolerable. Not only have I corrected them publicly before the congregation, and talked privately about the issue with them, but I have also chosen not to allow the message to be circulated, lest an uninformed reader or hearer gather the impression that the individual speaks on behalf of the church. This is what SWBTS did with McKissic's message, and I think it was prudent.

I believe that his message was nearly if not flagrant insubordination and that his right to be a trustee ought to be called into question. I do not question his heart, his motives, or his walk with the Lord. I just question whether or not a person who openly advocates non-Baptist convictions ought to be in denominational leadership. Notice emphasis on the words "Openly Advocates."

Well, it seems like I had about ten more reasons, but they have either evaporated or been assimilated into what I have already said here. But I want to provide for the reader here the fruit of my own study of the relevant texts related to tongues. This is, with much prayer and wrestling, my interpretation. What follows are excerpts from sermons and lectures I have delivered over the last three years.

Unfortunately, the issue of tongues has divided more Christians than it has edified. Those who claim to have this gift have often been guilty of not exercising it in the humble love and communal service that 1 Corinthians 12-13 dictate. Likewise, those who do not have this gift have often not dealt lovingly with their brothers and sisters who claim to have had the experience of tongues. Fellowship between believers has been fractured over differences of understanding concerning tongues, resulting in divided churches and denominations.

As I survey the contemporary landscape, I detect four distinct views on the issue of tongues:

1. There are no tongues (1 Cor 13:8)

2. Tongues are actual languages which God empowers His people to speak to communicate His truth across a linguistic barrier (Acts 2:4-11). Some who hold this view also believe that early in church history, believers misunderstood this gift and began abusing it by speaking out in unintelligible utterances during worship services. They would say that when Paul speaks favorably about tongues, it is the legitimate, known languages. When he speaks unfavorably, it is the abuse of the practice.

3. Tongues are an ecstatic, uncontrollable utterance that overcome a person filled with the Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:23).
4. Tongues are a private prayer language (1 Corinthians 14:14-15, 28)

Today, denominationalism is being discarded. No longer are people loyal to a particular brand of Christianity. Now, as good as that sounds, and as much as we want to applaud that, the reasons for it are not as respectable. Today, Christians are saying doctrine no longer matters, and they are going to go worship wherever the music is good and wherever the people are nice, and wherever the church building is pretty. So, it is not unusual to find evangelicals in Pentecostal-type churches, and Pentecostals in evangelical churches.

So, what about it? What if someone speaks in tongues? Who are we to judge? We are not to be the judge of that person—but the Bible is to be the judge. So let’s look here at the meaning of tongues, and the proper uses and improper abuses of them.

In the first undisputed mention of tongues in the New Testament canon (leaving aside Mark 16 for text-critical purposes), we find in Acts 2:3 the phrase tongues as of fire. What does that mean?

You recall in Isaiah 6:5, when Isaiah said, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." In Isaiah 6:6-9a, he describes what happens next. "Then one of the seraphim flew to me, with a burning coal in his hand which he had taken from the altar with tongs. And he touched my mouth with it and said, 'Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven.' Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?' Then I said, 'Here am I. Send me!' And He said, 'Go, and tell….'

So Isaiah had to have his tongue purged of its iniquity before he could be a mouthpiece for God. Perhaps that is the idea here with the tongues of fire resting on the disciples.

Then in Acts 2:4, notice that as they were filled with the Holy Spirit, they began to speak with different tongues. Prior to this passage, the use of the word tongues has been to refer to the physical organ, or to be a metaphor for human speech, or to refer to known languages of the world. So we have no reason to assume that this is any different. They spoke in different tongues, meaning languages different than their own. They hadn’t studied these languages—the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Now, we can verify this by looking at Acts 2:6, which says that as they spoke in these other tongues, each person there heard them in their own dialect or language. The Christians were all Galileans the text says, but they were speaking the languages of the Parthians, the Medes, the Elamites, Mesopotamians, Judeans, Cappadocians, Pontians, Asians, Phrygians, Pamphylians, Egyptians, Libyans, Cyrenians, Romans, Cretans, and Arabs.

Then in Acts 2:11, we see that the words dialektos and glossais are used as synonymns here because they change from, “our own language” (v8) to “our own tongue.” So the tongues spoken of in Acts 2 are clearly other known languages and dialects in the world that God supernaturally gave the Christians the ability to speak.

Now why did God do empower His people at Pentecost to speak in tongues? So that these international people could hear these disciples of Jesus announce to them “the mighty deeds of God.” The gift of tongues was used in that situation to deliver the gospel message of Jesus Christ across a multifaceted language barrier. That was the original, biblical meaning of “speaking in tongues.” Stories are told of this occurring still today. When God desires to communicate the gospel across a seemingly insurmountable language barrier, it is not difficult at all to believe that He will supernaturally empower a person to do it.

With that in mind, it is easy to understand in 1 Corinthians 14 how Paul can say things like:

v5: “I wish that you all spoke in tongues”, because that would mean that they were having plenty of opportunities to share the gospel multiculturally.
v18: “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all,” meaning that he has more opportunities in his work as a traveling church planter to communicate Christ to those who speak other languages. He is thankful that God always gives him the ability to do so.
v22: “Tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers.” They are used of God to communicate the gospel to lost people who speak a different language, not to impress one another in the church.
v39: “Do not forbid to speak in tongues,” because we never know when someone is present who needs to hear something in their own language.

Unfortunately, even the early Christians didn’t always understand this. Thus Paul has to deal with the improper abuses of tongues. By the time of Paul’s ministry in Corinth, probably less than 20 years or so after Pentecost, there were already people abusing the gift of tongues. No doubt there were some saying that you weren’t spiritual if you didn’t speak in tongues, and there were those who, in an effort to appear spiritual, would just babble out syllables of nonsense and claim to have been overcome by the Spirit. But understand this: This is by no means the biblical, legitimate use of tongues. In fact, Paul has strong words against such counterfeit charismania.

He says that prophecy is better.

Notice he says, over and over again (1 Cor 14:1-6, v12, v19, vv23-25, v39) that prophecy is much more beneficial to the church than tongues. Why? Because people understand prophecy, they don’t understand this artificial babbling that is commonly called tongues. If the use of tongues is legitimate, then there must be a person present who needs to hear the message in another language, otherwise the act is “self-edifying,” (v5) boastfully saying “Look how spiritual I am.”

He also insists that tongues must be interpreted. So serious is Paul about this that he repeatedly warns that if a person speaks in tongues in a worship service, there absolutely must be an interpretation given (v13, 26-28). If there is no interpretation available, then the order is given to keep silent!

He also uses unflattering terms to refer to tongues. In verse 2, he says that one who speaks in this counterfeit mode of tongues does not speak to men. In saying that he speaks to God, he is perhaps commenting on the person’s spiritual pride, and perhaps saying only God knows if there is any meaning to his words or not. “No one understands!” he says.

In verse 6, he says that if he comes speaking to them in tongues it is of no profit to them. In v9, he calls it speaking into the air. In v14-15, he says that the mind is unfruitful. In v23, he says that it is a hindrance to the gospel, for the unbeliever will say we are “mad” if they see us all speaking in these counterfeit tongues. So I really wonder why anyone can say that we are encouraged to practice this at all? Obviously there is either a misunderstanding or a blatant disregard for the teaching of Scripture.

I am well aware that sincere followers of Christ will disagree with this interpretation. Therefore, I appeal to my brothers and sisters to hold in common with me several biblical truths that we can know for certain about tongues, regardless of our interpretation.

From 1 Corinthians 12:7 we understand that the working of all spiritual gifts must be for the common, as opposed to the individual, good of the body.

From 1 Corinthians 14:1-6 we can draw the following undeniable conclusions:
1) Love (in the way it is described in 1 Cor 13) is the most important thing to keep in mind when discussing or practicing spiritual gifts.
2) Prophecy is of infinitely greater value than tongues for the church.
3) Tongues are without value for the church unless there is an interpretation (from an independent source) to accompany them.

From verses 23-25 of the same passage we also understand that tongues are of limited or no value when it comes to unbelievers who observe them in practice in our worship. Tongues are a "sign to unbelievers" (v22), but only in the case that God gives them to proclaim the gospel across a language barrier. Otherwise, the sign only indicates madness on our part (v23).

From verses 26-40, we must agree that the following are clear biblical parameters:
1) Whatever is done in the name of Christ in the worship and ministry of the church must be done for the edification of one another in Christian maturity.
2) If tongues are practiced at all, they are to be practiced by no more than two or three people, in turn, and with interpretation.
3) If there is no one to interpret the tongues, then the person is out of order and must remain silent.
4) Confusion is not of God. He is a God of peace, and all that we do in His name should be done decently and orderly in order to reflect the excellence of His nature and His order.