Settle in. It’s a doozy.
During their meeting up in Huntsville, AL held Nov. 14-17, the trustees of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention approved a guideline and a policy. The guideline was on baptism. The policy was on tongues and prayer language. I wish to discuss the policy. You can view both at the IMB website, but I will reproduce the policy on tongues and prayer language below.
Policy on tongues and prayer language
TOPIC: MISSIONARY
SUBJECT: TONGUES AND PRAYER LANGUAGE
DATE: November 15, 2005
That the following policy regarding tongues and prayer language of missionary candidates be adopted:
GLOSSOLALIA
1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language of some people group.
2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.
3. In term of worship practices, the majority of Southern Baptist churches do not practice glossolalia. Therefore, if glossolalia is a public part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.
PRAYER LANGUAGE
1. Prayer language as commonly expressed by those practitioners is not the same as the biblical use of glossolalia.
2. Paul’s clear teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3. Any spiritual experience must be tested by the Scriptures.
4. In terms of general practice, the majority of Southern Baptists do not accept what is referred to as “private prayer language.” Therefore, if “private prayer language” is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.
APPLICATION
1. This policy is not retroactive.
2. Any exceptions to the above policy must be reviewed by the staff and the Process Review Committee.
This has caused quite an uproar among some Southern Baptists (probably mostly made up of the minority that do practice and accept) for a number of reasons. Chief among them being that Jerry Rankin, the IMB President, has publicly stated that he has practiced a private prayer language “for more than 30 years.” Under this new policy, if the IMB President left his position under the calling of God to serve as a missionary and desired to do so through the help and support of the organization that he leads, he would be denied. Well, technically he would have “eliminated himself…from being a representative…” The IMB wouldn’t deny him for something that isn’t covered doctrinally in the Baptist Faith and Message. This is quite a conundrum since it is Rankin himself who has come under fire numerous times, most critically for requiring that all missionaries on the field that were approved before 2000 sign an approval and adoption document of the BF&M 2000. This was seen as forcing doctrinal beliefs on missionaries in a creedal fashion (you won’t find creeds, Apostle or otherwise, cited or recited in most SBC churches), which Baptists have historically avoided citing the autonomy of the local church, who, in the case of Southern Baptist life, are technically the sending agents of any missionaries.
I first became aware of this issue in a recent edition of Christianity Today of which I am a subscriber (interestingly, Dean George of Beeson is one of the executive editors of this fine publication along with J.I. Packer and Thomas C. Oden [perhaps you've heard of them as well]). It was reported as a news story with none of the bias that I’m sure I’m displaying here. However, it piqued my interest and I began researching all I could about it. By the time I did so, position papers on both the tongues policy and the baptism guideline had been published (though conveniently not formally adopted) and Tom Hatley, Chairman of the IMB trustees, had written a letter to Baptists in general and then one to Baptist pastors in particular. All of these documents can be found on the IMB website, which I have linked above.
Hatley clearly states that the decision of the trustees to adopt this policy has little to do with Rankin other than the fact that the IMB President and others within the organization asked the full board to approve or disapprove the policy after it had been only adopted by the Personnel Committee. He’s also kind enough to give a decent explanation of a candidates approval process and how holes in the approval process helped make it necessary to adopt this particular policy. Other reasons for doing so asserted by Hatley are that 1. “some of our ministries in some of our regions were facing doctrinal challenges” 2. “we were receiving concerns from…pastors and others returning from mission trips…” that included “charismatic problems that would intrude into some of our mission work” and 3. “our doctrinal resolve needed to be affirmed.” However, notice under the “application” section of the policy that the policy is not retroactive. So, in no way does it address those concerns and doctrinal challenges that have already been on the field. Hatley acknowledges this in saying that “no one on the board thinks we should terminate a missionary for believing something we allowed at the time of their appointment” because “we already have policies in place to address these issues when they become problematic.” There’s already a process in place and the issue isn’t serious enough to result in termination of present missionaries but is serious enough to prevent any in the future from causing these dreaded charismatic problems.
Notice that in neither the policy nor Hatley’s letters (if you read them) are Scripture references given. But don’t worry. That’s what the Position Paper (that “has not been adopted by the board of trustees”) is for.
This paper begins by saying “while an exhaustive treatment of even the few biblical passages that make any mention of tongues is not practical for this rationale, dealing with those passages in context is extremely helpful and important.” I will deal with some of their context in a moment. But to begin with I want to say that they are certainly correct that passages should be dealt with in their context, but while they assert that an exhaustive treatment is not practical I should point out that they devote more of the paper to the “Historic Baptist Understanding” than they do to the passages of Scripture. Interesting. Let me address a few of this paper’s points.
They begin with the first instance of the gift of glossolalia that followed the coming of the Holy Spirit at the celebration of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2. Here those followers of Christ present were “filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” We then find that the people present could understand at least some of those speaking through hearing their own native language. The first argument made by the position paper is that the glossa (tongues) referred to were actual known languages. And because this same term is used in the passages in 1 Corinthians (where the issue of tongues is dealt with most directly) the conclusion is that when Paul writes of different kinds of tongues in 1 Cor. 12:10 he just means different languages (though it’s still quite amazing that it’s not languages the speakers have learned). At any rate this is all well and good, but since we are taking Scripture in context, then you must deal with Paul’s teachings on tongues in full context as well. This occurs primarily in 1 Corinthians 12-14. That’s right, over the course of three chapters. Including chapter 13. The love chapter. In the context of Paul’s letter, chapter 13 does address love and the lack of it in the lives of many in the Corinthian church. They were dealing with a multitude of sins, one being the abuse of Spiritual gifts, especially tongues. It had been elevated to even above the supremacy of Christ. They were holding it over people’s heads as a measure of superiority. They were acting without love. Thus Paul begins the love chapter (that wasn’t a chapter in his letter; that was added later, obviously) “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels…” Glossa is used here as well and refers to languages of men and languages of angels. It stands to reason that we don’t know what the language of angels is, or if there is more than one. Thus it seems appropriate to deem this an “unknown” language, though the position paper argues that such a thing doesn’t exist.
They also argue that tongues are a sign, which is supported by 1 Cor. 14:22, but they then move on to assert that it is only a sign for Jews, though Paul makes no distinction about that in chapter 14. He does say that Jews requested a sign in chapter 1 as well as that Gentiles requested wisdom, which is also a gift of the Spirit. At any rate they draw their support for this from Isaiah’s prophecy where he refers to “this people.” Though, this prophecy certainly was given to Jews and held a fulfillment for the Jews, those who study prophecy also know that it can carry on further meaning and fulfillment. For instance, messianic prophecies were not always understood as such. They had their own fulfillment at the time they were given and than had a future fulfillment that didn’t just apply to their initial audience. But at any rate, the position paper says that “in every instance of tongues in Acts there were Jews present and at least one apostle. It is true about the apostles. However, in order to make the argument for the Jews one has to consider Acts 19 where Paul visits Ephesus. Here he meets a group of people only referred to as disciples who had received the baptism of John. Paul baptizes them in Christ and they are filled with the Spirit and speak in tongues. In order to argue that they are Jews, one has to do so from silence because Scripture doesn’t say. This is faulty hermeneutics. Also, tongues was obviously being experienced in Corinth (abused or not) and there was not an apostle present, hence the need for Paul’s letter.
The writers of the position paper say that Paul wrote to Corinth “to correct a problem, not to encourage or promote a particular experience as a means by which to have a superior intimate relation to God.” This is true, but that sentence should be examined carefully because Paul does encourage and promote tongues here just not as a means to have a superior relation to God. He writes in 14:5, “Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.” Paul doesn’t require interpretation except for in public gatherings of worship where he places further restrictions on the use of tongues, though he does encourage all tongues-speakers to pray for interpretation (1 Cor. 14:13).
They also admit that a usage of tongues according to 1 Cor. 14:28 is to speak to God, though “some Baptists argue that the Corinthian practice is not, strictly speaking, an actual spiritual gift, because Paul defined a spiritual gift as “for the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7). True, but he also says in 14:4 that the one who speaks tongues builds up himself though in chapter 12 he obviously considers tongues a spiritual gift.
They argue that the work of the Spirit is to exalt Christ. True. Read John 14-16. Knowing this truth, they say that any teacher, teaching, or movement that exalts oneself rather than Christ is not from the Holy Spirit. I think this might imply that the tongues in Corinth weren’t from the Spirit since they were being used partially for this purpose, though also for the correct purposes as well. But then they say that the Corinthian Christians were just misusing the gift of tongues. So, I’m not sure what they’re trying to say.
At any rate they completely skip the parts of 1 Corinthians 14 where Paul does mention tongues being used in prayer other than that one instance in verse 28 that they write off because of the argument of “some Baptists.” Like verses 13-16 that say, “Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” So, should I not pray in tongues then? No. “What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?” The argument against this is that it implies prayer in a corporate setting and not in private. But elsewhere we are told to “pray in the Spirit” (Jude 20,21; Ephesians 6:18). Though tongues aren’t mentioned in those passages directly Paul does use the same language in 14:2 when he writes, “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (emphasis mine).
At any rate the writers of the position paper and the board of trustees if nothing else did ignore 1 Corinthians 14:39-40: “So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decent and in order” (emphasis mine, again).
I won’t even discuss the whole “the majority of Southern Baptists do not practice/accept” statements. After all, we made it a democracy and not a theocracy (though I’m not really trying to make a point about church leadership and organization; an extensive discussion of that here is not practical).
Seems like maybe they should have worked on addressing those abuses, like Paul did, and not forbidden what he taught not to.
But what do I know?
This is absolutely awesome. I love you and will reply in detail later.
Kinsley…you are a brilliant individual with a excellent understanding of scripture…it is disturbing to me how individuals (myself included) and groups formulates their own “Bible” or canon and glaze over what does not fit into their traditions, creeds, and practices…
Excellent points. I think it’s a control issue. If something is beyond understanding, it’s more likely to be seen as “out of control.” Especially because the tongues issue is such a hot topic between charismatics and non-charismatics. Like there’s a need to protect Baptist interests rather than Christian intrests (ie, furthering the Kingdom of God). I wonder what they would say about indigenous believers whom they support. Because let’s be honest, almost all the Chhurch in the rest of the world would be labeled charismatic by the Church in America. Would they stop support?
tongue speaking in the nt was speaking in known languages that was unknown to the speaker. it was not unknown jibberace. it was not ecstatic jibberace that is practiced today amongst the charismatic crowd. and, in all reality, the passages in corinthians about tongue speaking was an attempt to stop all the craziness that was going on amongst the tongue speakers. paul really was telling them to not let this turn into an emotional, wild, jibberace talking lunacy.
also, praying in the spirit has nothing to do with ecstatic jibberace. it is praying from your heart as well as your head. its praying according to the will of God and pouring your heart out to God. its not about some prayer language.
biblical tongue speaking was when a person was supernaturally able to speak to others of a different tongue and they could understand you. you are very misguided to see it any other way.
by the way, you can be full of the spirit and fired up for jesus and not speak in tongues. i have great times of prayer with the lord and have never spoken in “tongues.”
I never say anything about jibberace, ecstatic or otherwise. I do however point out that if there is a language of angels, we do not know what that language or languages is. Therfore, it is unknown, period. I agree that Paul was addressing abuses, but you are making hugle leaps to assume that it is talking about “emotional, wild, jibberace talking lunacy.” That is not in the Biblical passages at all. He was addressing, with regard to tongues, primarily how they had elevated it beyond its purpose and was using it as a measure of superiority, as some charismatic groups do, though not all. It is also irresponsible for you to say that ecstatic jibberace is what is practiced amongst charismatics today. This implies that Biblical tongue speaking is not practice.
Again, I agree that praying in the Spirt has nothing to do with ecstatic jibberace. I never said it did. But it is not praying with your heart and mind. Paul distinguishes between this. See 1 Corinthians 14:13-16 or where I quoted it above. Also, I don’t say that praying in the Spirit is “about” some prayer language, certainly it is greater than that. But it could inolve a prayer language.
I would argue that I am not misguided but that you are to see Biblical tongue speaking as doing so that others could understand. At times supernatural interpretation was required because others did not understand, and if interpretation was not available, Paul taught that the tongue should only be spoken to the speaker, himself or herself, and/or to God.
And of course you can ge full of the Spirit and “fired up for Jesus” and not speak in tongues, just as you can and not prophesy, and not preach, and not heal, and not have wisdom. Those are gifts of the Spirit. I’m glad to hear that you have great times of prayer with the Lord. You should never hear from anyone that “tongues” are required to do so.
Are you still involved in Randy’s new church plant?
Also, talked to Drew for a while about tour, he got most of my critical stuff, which mostly had to do with McManus. I’d love to talk about the drama and other stuff, and what your thoughts are concerning my first question, if you’re interested.
Got a comment from a dude who wants to use one of your scripts…I sent him to your xanga…Check it out.
Currently reading Rob Bell’s, Velvet Elvis…these issues are only “springs”!!!
I’m just not sure what to say…I’ve been very frustrated with the SBC leadership for the past decade.
Decisions like this have a lasting affect, much like the 2000 revision and the disney boycott.
I think SBC could be a good thing – even for 21st century thinkers because of principles like the autonomy of the church.
It seems decisions like these will only push us away.
I’ve got to stop. Post more when you can.
My dad told me that his interim pastor at his church says that churches shouldn’t even have By-Laws. Talk about slack eh?
I don’t know how to properly respond to this post. It’s hard to process. Conflicting thoughts so I suppose I’ll just not post coherently on this…
again, biblical tongue speaking is being able to speak a known language which is unknown to the speaker, and being able to speak it supernaturally. it is not ecstatic jibberace. it is not some mystical language of the angels. paul said that he had rather speak 5 words that people can understand than to speak a hundred that they cant. also, women are not to speak in tongues in public as commanded in the scripture, and this would end much of the charismatic movement if this was obeyed in these pentecostal type churches. most of the people who speak in tongues are women. also, did you know that the temple priestesses to an idol, a false goddess, in corinth could also speak in ecstatic jibberace? they would work themselves up emotionally into a frenzy and speak in jibberace, and then they would have sexual orgies in thier temple? and, this emotional, tongue speaking was creeping into the church and turning the church at corinth into some wild show like at the temple of this false goddess. so, paul wrote the corinthians to put this down…..to stop it. i am not against true tongue speaking. but, i am against wild, out of control, ecstatic jibberace which results in people going off the deep end. why speak in this unknown jibberace when we can speak to God from our hearts? in your own language? God can understand english.
I figured we could get a different perspective, an insider’s perspective if you will, considering that I am one of those “off the deep end” “charasmatics”. I could probably talk about this for a while, but I will make quick points as not to bore you. a) this is probably the most important to understand – A large percentage of the “charasmatic” church does not agree with the actions of many “pentecostal” churches. There is a big difference. b) What is wrong with being off the deep end? Jesus was. I mean how radical do you have to be to be considered “off the deep end”. Lose your life. The Gospel is off the deep end. c) the people who make tongue speaking a big deal are 1. the small sect of pentecostals who believe it is necessary for salvation 2. those in the evangelical community who do not understand it and thus try to make it a major issue – Most charasmatic Christians never even talk about tongues. It’s not that it isn’t a precious thing to us, but it isn’t a big deal. d) it doesn’t say that women are not to speak in tongues in public, it says they are not to speak whatsoever. Is this your position? e) where did the idea come from that a life with Jesus was emotionless? religion f) ‘why speak in this unknown jibberace when we can speak to God from our hearts? in your own language? God can understand english.’ – God can understand tongues and english and every other language. Paul answered your question. He said that He would pray in the spirit and in the understanding. When we pray in the Spirit, we pray mysteries from our spirit that only God knows. Therefore we are praying the perfect will of God. Things that otherwise we wouldn’t know to pray. - the rest of my points will be left to the scriptures.
‘biblical tongue speaking is being able to speak a known language which is unknown to the speaker, and being able to speak it supernaturally.’ – “For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.” 1 Cor14:2
’it is not some mystical language of the angels.’ - “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…” 1 Cor 13:1a
‘paul said that he had rather speak 5 words that people can understand than to speak a hundred that they cant.’ – “I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet IN THE CHURCH I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” 1 Cor 14:18,19
‘also, women are not to speak in tongues in public as commanded in the scripture’ – “Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.” 1 Cor 14:39
I know you posted this a while ago, but I’ve only just seen it. Interesting thoughts. I find the one comment that most charismatics don’t make a big deal out of speaking in toungues, forgeign to my experience. Though, it might be true outside of Pennsylvania. I don’t know that I personally have a big stake in the whole tongues issue outside of the doctrine of subsequence which seems textually untenable. It seems that the whole argument for the type of tongues that most people recognize in churches hinges on the “tongues of angels” phrase. If this phrase were literary–if it was a hyperbolic wouldn’t it be hard to find Biblical support for ecstatic utterances? One would have to say that the tongues normally experienced is speaking in the tongues of angels, right? This is the normative deal? But isn’t it possible to say that Paul is being hyperbolic to demonstrate the significance of love? Don’t we recognize literary hyperbolie for the other non tongue subjects? For example “If I have prophetic powers, (possibility like tongues of men) and understand all mysteries (who understands all mysteries?) and all knowledge (who besides God is omniscient?), and if I have all faith (who has all faith?)…” or “if I give away all that I have and give my body to be burned (that’s a lot of giving, but Paul isn’t suggesting it’s normative is he?)” Now this seems to me to be a reasonable interpretation of the tongues of angels. If it’s a reasonable interpretation than how does one justify the speaking of non-human languages? It seems as though most charismatics of whom I’m aware say that the normative thing is speaking in the tongues of angels, the special thing is speaking (unaided by study) in the tongues of men. Whereas nobody inverts the other things.
I think that I would agree with you that Paul is using hyperbole, though I would probably take his entire introduction as hyperboly. As if he were saying, “If I do all of this amazing spritual stuff and don’t have love what good am I.” I believe this is reasonable as well as your interpretation. However, I don’t think that necessarily denies the existence of an angelic language (or languages) nor of the possibility of men speaking it. I am not a charismatic myself (besides from previous conversations you know my adverse reactions to labels). However, I’m glad that you limit your generalization of most charismatics to just being those you know. Most I know and have studied don’t take the position that the norm is speaking in angelic languages, but rather men. When I heard this for the first time, it was a breaktrhough for me because, like you, up to that point most of my experience with “charismatics” was similar to what it seems your’s has been. At any rate, you have nice questions and interpretations, though I really meant that as a secondary issue in what I wrote. Thanks for reading.