Billy Belk: Unity of the Church

Yeah, what Billy said:

Billy Belk: Unity of the Church

I argued this point in a meeting concerning "targeted church plants" recently and I was told that it was nice to bring up such theological points, but in our day we must think about what works, and after all homogenous units work. It is a great shame when doctrine plays second fiddle to pragmatism in our ecclesiastical methodology. I was told by the "experts," "It's OK if you don't agree with us, but go out and prove us wrong."

I said, "I can't prove you wrong because you are right." What I meant by that is that it is absolutely true that people want to be with others who are just like them. But rather than catering to this carnal desire, the church of Jesus Christ ought to be preaching against it, calling it sin, and calling for repentance from it, not satisfaction of it.

We won't prove them wrong. Our church will not grow as fast or as large as a "targeted" church. But I will answer to God for my faithfulness to proclaim God's word in its fullness and to lead the church I serve to be a church for all people. That is what we are at Immanuel. And may God grant us the commitment and the endurance to keep at it in the future as boldly as we have in the past in spite of all internal and external obstacles that would seek to divert us from this mission.

Thanks Billy for a great post, and for letting me preach from your soap box.

On the Reading Shelf ... (10/24/06)

Currently I am reading:

Sharing Your Church Building by Ralph D. Curtin
Of Other Worlds by C. S. Lewis
Simple Church by Thom Rainer

The Healing Touch of Jesus: Mark 1:29-31

The miracles of Jesus have been classified into four categories: 1) casting out demons (which we observed in vv23-28); 2) physical healing; 3) the raising of the dead; and 4) miracles of the natural order. We find examples of all of these in the Gospel of Mark, with nearly half of the first ten chapters of this gospel dealing directly or indirectly with miracles performed by Christ.

We have before us today the first account in the Gospel of Mark of a physical healing. It is shortest miracle account in the Gospels. The parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke are no longer, amounting to only two verses in each one. That this story even appears at all in the Gospel of Mark is considered part of the evidence that he was writing information received from Peter. But even with such brevity, we see some enlightening truths concerning the power and authority of Jesus Christ.

Mark’s favorite word euthus (meaning immediately) occurs nearly 40 times throughout this gospel, eleven times in Chapter 1 alone, and twice in these three verses. They serve to show us not only the quick progression of time, but also the deliberate and decisive action of Jesus as He conducted His earthly ministry. One brief commentary on the Gospel of Mark by Ralph Martin is entitled simply, Where the Action Is.[1]

“Immediately” in verse 29 serves to show us that Jesus and his four new followers, Peter, Andrew, James and John, had just left the synagogue from Sabbath worship where Jesus had taught with authority and demonstrated His authority by casting a demon out of a man there. They went directly to the house shared by Simon Peter and Andrew. John tells us that Peter and Andrew were from Bethsaida, but it seems that at some point they had moved to Capernaum. Here they occupied a house shared by at least Peter’s wife and mother-in-law.

That Peter was married is evident from this passage and 1 Corinthians 9:5, which states that Peter’s wife was in the habit of accompanying him in his ministry travels. This is important for us to understand, for the Roman Catholic Church enforces a policy of celibacy in the priesthood, and views Peter as their founder and first leader of their historic movement. However, it is plain from Scripture that he was in fact married, and there seems to be no biblical reason for priests to be celibate. The early church father Clement of Alexandria reports that he also had children, and that his wife was martyred prior to Peter’s own death, taken from his side as he called out to her by name saying, “O thou, remember the Lord!”[2]

It was not uncommon for a married couple to live with extended family, owing to their own financial needs or the need to provide care to their relatives. It is possible that Peter’s father-in-law had died, and his mother-in-law was welcomed into his own household, or else that he and his wife had relocated to Capernaum to live with the mother-in-law either because of their own financial standing or to provide care for her. It is clear here that Andrew also lived with them, but it is unknown if he was married and had children.

It also seems apparent from several references in Scripture that Peter’s home in Capernaum became the base of operations for the Galilean ministry of Jesus. An archaeological discovery in Capernaum has been identified as the house of Peter just a short distance away from the remains of the first-century synagogue. Very early writing has been found on the walls there in Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Aramaic bearing Christian names and devotional sayings, indicating that it was an early gathering place for Christians as early as the latter part of the first century.[3]

Upon arriving at the home after the short walk from the Synagogue, Jesus learns that Simon Peter’s mother-in-law is lying sick with a fever. We cannot know exactly what illness she had, for in those days “fever” was considered an illness unto itself, not as a symptom of some other condition. In John 4:47-52, we learn from an unrelated account that fever was sometimes fatal. Just how sick Peter’s mother-in-law was, we do not know, but Luke adds the physician’s detail that her fever was “great.”

There is a movement within Christianity (just barely within I might add) today which says that sickness is an indicator of God’s displeasure with a person, or a sign of a lack of faith on the part of the afflicted. However, here was a home that was close to Jesus – the home of His first followers, a home that He loved and that loved Him, and yet to this home sickness came. We must put aside any notions that any and all sicknesses are God’s judgment or indictments of faithlessness.

The fact is that all of us are prone to sickness because of our fallen nature. Sickness and death were not the initial plan of God for humanity, but because of the entrance of sin at the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, all of our bodies are subject to corruption. Because of sin, we are subject to at least three forms of suffering. There is natural suffering – the kind caused by earthquakes and tornadoes because God’s created order has been defiled by sin. There is moral suffering because sin has so corrupted the hearts of mankind that we often inflict pain upon one another because of sinful choices. And there is physical suffering – cancer, heart-attack, infection, even the common cold – because we have inherited corruption in our bodies because of our fallen state. If anything, our physical infirmities ought to cause us to long all the more for the resurrection and for heaven, where we have been promised that there will be no more of it! But meanwhile, while we occupy these fleshly bodies, we will do battle with sickness. It will affect us directly, and we will be affected indirectly as it strikes our loved ones.

Peter’s mother-in-law lay sick with a great fever. Perhaps she was at death’s door, we do not know. But the passage before us indicates three realities that we must bear in mind as we seek the healing touch of Jesus.

I. Sickness and hardship provide us with an opportunity for intercession (v30).

Immediately they spoke to Jesus about her.

Because of the mention of fever in Leviticus 26:16 and Deuteronomy 28:22, many in that day viewed it as a mark of God’s judgment, and often it went untreated. The rationale was that if God inflicted it upon someone, then it should be left to God to intervene to relieve it. Perhaps this was how Peter’s mother-in-law had been treated. Perhaps no one would even seek the advice of a physician on her behalf, or having sought it, treatment had been refused for this reason. We do not know. It may even be the case that she was like the woman with the issue of blood in Mark 5. That woman, Mark tells us, had for twelve years “endured much at the hands of many physicians, and had spent all that she had and was not helped at all, but rather had grown worse.” Some of you can relate to that I am sure. It is also possible that the fever had come on her all of a sudden so that Peter and Andrew were at the synagogue and so they were unaware of her condition. Surely no wife or mother would look kindly on their husband or son bringing home distinguished company when they are in such sad shape. Perhaps it had come upon her while they had been away on a fishing enterprise, or traveling with Jesus.

But whatever she had been through in the past, her loved ones seized upon the opportunity they had before them and immediately spoke to Jesus about her. Now, what was their motive? Some have suggested that they were embarrassed by her condition. According to Jewish custom, the Sabbath meal was served immediately following worship at the Synagogue around the sixth hour, about 12:00 noon. So, perhaps it is the case that they were apologizing to Jesus that the meal was unprepared because the mother-in-law was unable to fix it, or the wife couldn’t prepare the meal because she was attending to her mother. But Luke specifies in Luke 4:38 that they were doing more than apologizing. They asked Him to help her. Having seen His authority over the demonic powers employed at the Synagogue, maybe He could also exercise authority over this sickness as well. So they interceded.

Intercessory prayer has been defined by many people and in many ways, but perhaps nowhere more vividly than in Tom Elliff’s book A Passion for Prayer. “Intercession is, by nature, the exercise by which an individual positions himself between two parties—one with a need and the other with the answer—and seeks to bring the two together. It is a matter of reaching out to take the hand of the one with the problem and reaching up to take the hand of the One with the provision and being willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary so that they meet.”[4] And when our loved ones are in the midst of sickness or hardship, or both as is often the case, we have the opportunity to become participants in the activity of God through intercession.

Often times, we may think the need is unimportant to God. He must have much more pressing business to tend to, we figure, than our loved one’s illnesses. What with all the wars and pestilences in the world, you know. Or we may wonder if our own motives are pure. Were Peter and Andrew really compassionate about the woman’s suffering, or did they merely want Jesus to tend to her so they could have their midday meal? But we must realize that God sees beyond our motives to the heart of the matter, and He is infinitely able to care for all matters in the world at the same time, be they great or small in our estimation. So we must seize upon the opportunity to place ourselves in the gap on behalf of the one in need and intercede for God to work in their lives, just as this woman’s loved ones did in her time of distress. Their need is our invitation to prayer—our opportunity to intercede to God on their behalf. And it would be sin on our part to fail to tell Jesus about it when He has said we may come boldly to the throne of grace, and that we may cast all of our cares upon Him, for He cares for us.

Now notice, if you will, the second reality present in these verses.

II. Jesus operates according to His own initiative (v31a)

He came to her and raised her up, taking her by the hand.

There are three verbs here. The subject of all of them is Jesus. He came. He raised. He took her by the hand. All that He did was according to His own initiative.

When the Peter told Jesus about his mother-in-law, He could have responded and said, “That’s a shame.” When they asked Him to help her, He could have said, “You know, I have had a busy day already, and it is the Sabbath, so I just want to rest for now.” He could have even made that sound spiritual by saying, “You know there are religious restrictions on what can be done on the Sabbath.” Later on we will see that Jesus becomes the target of a controversy because of healing on the Sabbath. The Rabbinic writings say that the only the only medical assistance that could be given on the Sabbath were when someone’s life was in danger (which may have been the case) or in a case of childbirth. One of the writings says, “If a man has a pain in his throat, they may drop medicine into his mouth on the Sabbath, since there is doubt whether life is in danger, and whenever there is doubt whether life is in danger, this overrides the Sabbath.”[5] Otherwise, people had to wait until sundown, marking the end of the Sabbath. You notice in verse 32 that this is what the rest of the townspeople did.

But Jesus did not do this. On His own initiative, in response to the intercession of His friends, He went into the room of the sick woman and administered His healing touch. The casting out of the demon in v25 occurred publicly, to validate for the people at the synagogue His divine authority. But this episode is private. There was no vindication of His identity or His mission, no confirmation of a doctrinal truth involved here. While this act of healing undoubtedly served to bolster the newfound faith of the fishermen, we cannot say this was His purpose. He does this simply and solely as an act of His divine love. He acted to relieve the suffering of one woman, and to lift the burden on the hearts of her loved ones.

There were no spells, no rituals, no incantations or magical methods. There was just the touch of the Master’s hand, the operation of His divine will, and the outworking of His authoritative power. And she was raised up and the fever left her. Neither conditions, nor diagnoses, nor prognoses, nor man-made religious limitations affect Jesus. He is all-powerful to perform His miraculous work on His own initiative whenever He so desires. We may intercede—in fact we have been invited and even commanded to do so—but, our intercession must allow for Him to take the initiative and do His work if He so desires, and accept His grace of endurance when He does not. In 2 Corinthians 12:7, when Paul prayed repeatedly for his thorn in the flesh to be removed, the Lord comforted him with the assurance that His grace was sufficient, and that His power would be manifested through Paul’s weakness.

God does not always heal. In the passage that follows this one in Mark, we see that the whole city brought their sick to Jesus, and He healed many, but Mark does not say that He healed them all. Sometimes God has a purpose in not healing just as He does in healing. When we intercede, we must leave room for God to operate according to His own initiative. Samuel Chadwick said, “I am bound to believe that sickness may be in the will of God, for the purpose of discipline, for the glory of His grace, and the Ministry of Christ.”[6] The question is not, “Do you have enough faith to be healed?” The question is, “Do you have enough faith to stay sick, and to hold on to Christ when He does not heal?” When He heals and when He does not are up to Him. We pray, and then we allow Him to work according to His own purposes. Sometimes His purpose is to act upon our prayers. Sometimes His purpose is to act differently, and through prayer, He helps us to understand His purposes better.

In the case of Peter’s mother-in-law, He healed her. And this brings us to the third reality in the text.

III. When Jesus works on our behalf, we should respond appropriately (v31b)

…and she waited on them.

More literally, we might say, she served them. If you have ever been sick with a high fever, you know that once the fever breaks, it takes a while for you to regain your strength to resume your normal activities. Over the summer, when I had pneumonia for three weeks, it was about two months before I could get back into the full swing of things. But this was not the case with Peter’s mother-in-law. Her healing was instant and complete. She needed no recovery time, no convalescent care. And out of gratitude to the One who had delivered her from her suffering, she instantly began to serve Him with love in her heart.

Some of you today could testify to great and mighty wonders that God has worked in your life. In fact, if you are born-again, you have received the greatest miracle of all. Now, how have you responded to Jesus in the wake of His work? Do you serve Him? If so, how? And if not, why not? If not, have you considered that perhaps you have taken His grace for granted, and responded with ingratitude as if you somehow deserved what He has done for you? Friends, if you deserved it, then it wouldn’t be grace. The only thing any of us deserve from God is wrath. But He has given us His grace in salvation. Others of you have experienced healing, provision, and deliverance from great needs and burdens in addition to salvation. With our mouths perhaps we pause for a moment and say, “Thank you God!” but with our lives which have been handed back to us through the grace and power of God, there is more that can be done. We can serve Him, and we should.

Now notice that the text does not merely say that she served Him. It says that she served them. Love and gratitude for God expresses itself not only in some devotional service that we render to God in our prayer closets, but in tangible and practical service that we render to God’s people. Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 25? He said, “I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.” But we will say to Him, “Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?” And He says, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.”

In your daily activity, you have the opportunity to show your love for God and your gratitude to Him for all that He has done for you as you serve one another in His name. Don’t try to be spiritual and say, “I serve God, not man.” Jesus says when you serve one another, you are serving Him. And this is an appropriate response for all the wonderful works of His grace we have experienced. This is how Peter’s mother-in-law responded. It is how you and I should respond as well.

I wonder today, do you take Jesus home with you from worship? Or do you leave Him at church? Like Peter and Andrew, invite Jesus to come home with you today. Don’t worry about the hardships or the ailments He will find there. Just tell Him all about it and ask Him to help. And allow Him to do that just as He sees fit. Maybe He will heal; maybe He will save; maybe He will deliver; maybe He will provide. Or maybe He will give an extra measure of grace for you to endure that hardship. Invite Him home with you and tell Him everything that concerns you and your house today. And when He moves to answer your prayers, serve Him. And serve one another in His name as a response to His grace.

---

[1] Ralph P. Martin, Mark: Where the Action Is (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1977).

[2] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History [Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, Translated by C. F. Cruse] (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 95-96.

[3] James R. Edwards, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 59; Lamoine F. DeVries, Cities of the Biblical World (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 273-274.

[4] Tom Elliff, A Passion for Prayer (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998), 124.

[5] Mishna Yoma 8:6, cited in R. T. France, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 149.

[6] Samuel Chadwick, The Path of Prayer, cited in Donald E. Demaray, Alive to God through Prayer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), 105.

C. S. Lewis -- The Prophet

I am currently reading C. S. Lewis's Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories (among other things). A piece within entitled "Unreal Estates" contains the transcript of a recorded dialogue between C. S. Lewis, Kingsley Amis, and Brian Aldiss. At one point, not far into the dialogue, Aldiss says to Lewis, "It's almost a quarter of a century since you wrote that first novel of the [space] trilogy." Lewis responds, "Have I been a prophet?" Aldiss says, "You have to a certain extent. ... ."

As I read that, I chuckled because in the piece just prior to "Unreal Estates," I was meditating on the notion that Lewis has been more prophetic about a number of things than he probably ever imagined. Consider the following from "A Reply to Professor Haldane." In order to understand it properly, you must understand that when he uses the word "democrat" he does not mean a party affiliation, but rather a supporter of the democratic system of government.
"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his beter impulses appear to him as temptations. ...

"Being a democrat, I am opposed to all very drastic and sudden changes of society (in whatever direction) because they never in fact take place except by a particular technique. That technique involves the seizure of power by a small, highly disciplined group of people; the terror and the secret police follow, it would seem, automatically. I do not think any group good enough to have such power. They are men of like passions with ourselves. The secrecy and discipline of their organisation will have already inflamed in them that passion for the inner ring which I think at least as corrupting as avarice; and their high ideological pretensions will have lent all their passions the dangerous prestige of the Cause. ...

"I must, of course, admit that the actual state of affairs may sometimes be so bad that a man is tempted to risk change even by revolutionary methods; to say that desperate diseases require desperate remedies and that neceessity knows no law. But to yield to this temptation is, I think, fatal. It is under that pretext that every abomination enters. Hitler, the Machiavellian Prince, the Inquisition, the Witch Doctor, all claimed to be necessary. ...

"[W]e have the emergence of 'the Party' in the modern sense--the Fascists, Nazis or Communists. What distinguishes this from the political parties of the nineteenth century is the belief of its members that they are not merely trying to carry out a programme but are obeying an impersonal force: that Nature, or Evolution, or the Dialectic, or the Race, is carrying them on. This tends to be accomplished by two beliefs which cannot, so far as I can see, be reconciled in logic but which blend very easily on the emotional level: the belief that the process which the Party embodies is inevitable, and the belief that the forwarding of this process is the supreme duty and abrogates all ordinary moral laws. In this state of mind men can become devil-worshippers in the sense that they can now honour, as well as obey, their own vices. All men at times obey their vices; but it is when cruelty, envy, and lust of power appear as the commands of a great super-personal force that they can be exercised with self-approval. ..."

As I read these words, I contemplated 100 applications of the principles Lewis unfolds here. So, I will not attempt to enumerate them all here. I will simply ask the question, "In what way do you believe that Lewis's words in this passage of this essay are prophetic, and especially relevant for our day? How would you apply his ideas to life inside the church? How would you apply these ideas to the goings on of the world, politics, the current state of global conflict, etc.?"

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.