I have mentioned in the previous 5 posts that after 46 years of vocational ministry of which 36 years were that of a pastor of several local churches and almost 20 years of orthodox, interdenominational ministry encompassing the spectrum of evangelical thought, that I have a host of friends on either side of the theological divide on a number of issues. It can be a tricky road to articulate your personal views without alienating those with whom you may have disagreement. For me, I can fellowship with those of legitimate Christian faith and experience without having to land in the exact same theological square at every turn. I can respect a valid biblical position other than my own opinion. That said, I have biblical opinions too. So as I post and seek to encourage and strengthen the ranks of my continuationist friends (of which I am obviously one), I have no intention of disparaging my cessationist friends.
Spiritual Language
Critiquing Spiritual Language (Tongues) – A response (Part 5)
I have pondered and studied for years the dynamics of the Acts 2 outpouring. I need to give some context to my question as to why this might even be important, as well as answer the 5th critique which states:
Critique #5: Tongues were a known language.
I started my journey with Jesus in non-Pentecostal and non-charismatic circles. I could say that at the time it was “anti-Pentecostal” and gave no quarter to certain manifestations, especially the concept of unknown tongues. I tell you that because I sat in graduate school under that perspective and scholarship. I pastored during an early time period when my denomination superiors actively encouraged us to approach any member of our church practicing such things and exhort them to cease, even if their practice was in private. Ordination would be impossible if this manifestation was a part of your spiritual life. This stuff was serious business. So, I come at this from an initial, early disposition of great skepticism. My academic foundation taught that when the disciples were baptized with the Spirit, they supernaturally received the ability to speak in a KNOWN language not of their own. I have read Acts 2, what seems like thousands of times (maybe embellishment), and that interpretation never answered all my questions or satisfied certain mysteries for me. For example:
Critiquing Spiritual Language (Tongues) – A response (Part 4)
I understand people’s discomfort with tongues. I lived in that land of misunderstanding myself for many years. To me, tongues was emotionalism, hype, becoming frenzied, certainly irrational. It was an experience for the weak-minded. It didn’t fit in my hyper-rational filter of “discernment”. I discounted its reality without really laboring in the Scriptures in an honest way. I simply accepted the “exegesis” of those who also came with a built-in bias against such things. The result was an anemic and powerless Christian life which left me in a vulnerable and defeated place. I knew that state wasn’t God’s Will or promise, so for me, the question of whether or not I “had to” speak in tongues was becoming a moot point. While it has never been THE issue in church life, it was becoming THE issue in my own personal life. There had to be some divine assistance more readily available which could cut through the fog of defeat and produce a genuine and lasting victory. I cannot speak for everyone who criticizes spiritual language, but for me, there was a laziness in apprehending what the Bible was actually teaching. It was a sense of desperation that provided the open door for my eyes to be opened. This is why the next critique is of particular interest to me.
CRITIQUE #4 – It is FALSE that all believers should speak in tongues.
Critiquing Spiritual Language (Tongues) – A response (Part 3)
Again, I would suggest to any reader stumbling across these series of posts to go to my page and begin with Part 1.
I think Christian people, especially the next generation of young adults, are super inquisitive about the things of the Spirit. There is a hunger to simply know the Bible and God’s ways in an unvarnished, bottom-line sort of way. The American Church had its years experimenting with the “seeker” and “attractional” models of church life, and it left many people unsatisfied. So, there has awakened a hunger for the genuinely spiritual. That pursuit has brought great openness to the gifts of the Spirit. However, with that openness has come misunderstanding and even confusion. One of those is presented in common misconception in the third critique by this individual concerning the modern day manifestation of tongues.
CRITIQUE #3 – If in public, an interpreter must always be present and must interpret.
Critiquing Spiritual Language (Tongues) – A response (Part 2)
For those starting with this post, you may wish to go back and get the background of why these are appearing. I have always sensed a calling to answer those who mock, criticize, or diminish the on-going work of the Holy Spirit. It’s not because I feel like I have the intellectual firepower to answer every question, but it is more feeling like someone needs to defend the honor and place of the Holy Spirit Himself. I know He doesn’t need defending. The Holy Spirit has been managing His image for time and eternity and does not need me as His public relations person. The Holy Spirit is magnificently settled in His own identity. But He also inspired Paul to remind us that He can be quenched (I Thessalonians 5:19) and He can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30). The Bible unquestionably shows us that there are qualities and manifestations of the Spirit’s activity. We need to be reminded of these things on occasion and exercise caution as to how we discuss His presence in the life of the church and individual. Our personal feelings of discomfort with the Holy Spirit’s manifestation in a life or the Church is not a reason to dismiss Him. Sadly, many critiques of spiritual language boil down to an over reliance on rationalism and misidentifying what initially is thought to be emotionalism.
The second posted challenge to the speaking in tongues was much like the first, based on the individual’s veracity.
CRITIQUE #2 – “Tongues can be practiced in an ignorant, ungodly manner.”