What About Tongues? I think we're certainly confused on tongues. Here's what I mean by that. Tongues are marked by subjective certainty
for many. Some of you are thinking, "What about tongues? That's not a question at all. I speak in tongues in my private prayer closet,
or I speak in tongues in the church that I'm a part of so why is this even a question?" Subjectively, you've experienced this, so
you have certainty there. I want to be careful here, but the only problem
is not every religious experience is divine. Just because we've experienced something doesn't
make it true. I don't want to offend anyone in saying this,
but there are similar practices to tongue-speaking that are in other world religions such as
voodoo and witchcraft. There are certainly religious experiences
that are not from the Spirit of God. At the same time, tongues are marked by objective
confusion for many. There are many people who think tongues are
weird, dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. The Cessationists would say that tongues have
ceased, but I really believe that there is not strong biblical evidence for the cessation
of tongues or prophecy or healing just like we've seen. There is not strong biblical evidence. What do we think about these things then? Tongues defined. At Pentecost, tongues are intelligible languages
that may warrant translations. They are speaking in intelligible languages. They're speaking languages that are understood
by different people from different nations in Acts 2:1-12. Elsewhere—for example what Paul is addressing
in Corinth—tongues are unintelligible languages that may warrant interpretation. Not translation but interpretation because
they're unintelligible. They are not understandable without an interpreter. Speaking in tongues involves prayer or praise,
spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker. "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not
speak to men but to God." (1 Corinthians 14:2) Speaking in tongues is
primarily directed to God—prayer or praise, spoken in syllables not understood by the
speaker, primarily directed to God. 1 Corinthians 14:14 says, "For if I pray in
a tongue, my spirit prays..." It occurs in the Spirit. My spirit prays. That's what 1 Corinthians is talking about. Unintelligible languages that may warrant
interpretation such as prayer and praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker
but directed to God in the Spirit. Tongues described—in public. We have 1 Corinthians 14:27-28: "If anyone
speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should
keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God." Here's the picture: Paul says speaking in
tongues involves an interpreter who reports to the church the general meaning of what
is spoken. If there is no interpreter present, then the
speaker needs to be quiet. There must be an interpreter. Speaking in tongues is also characterized
by self-control. The New Testament does not give us room for
frenzy, disorderly conduct. There is self-control that is a fruit of the
Spirit, and it's so controlled here in 1 Corinthians 14, you have one, sometimes two and at the
most three people who would speak in tongues. The picture here is, even tongues at Pentecost,
they stopped speaking in those languages when Peter started to preach the gospel. Speaking in tongues involves an interpreter,
is characterized by self-control, and must edify the church and glorify God. All of these must be done for the strengthening
of the church. They must edify the church and glorify God. That's what happens in public. Tongues in private. "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself..."
speaks "...to himself and God." Paul seems to have a favorable view of people
who speak in tongues in private. I think it begs the question. I'll be honest, I've never spoken in tongues
in private or in public. I know people who have spoken in tongues in
private or public. I've been in situations of both. This picture is the private speaking in tongues. I don't think Scripture says there's no way
this could or should happen. At the same time, spiritual gifts are given
for the edification of the church. So, speaking in tongues in private, at least
causes some question of how this is edifying the church—edifying the people of God. If I have the gift of teaching, and I teach
in private, it's not going to be very good, but at the same time, I certainly respect
a lot of folks I know who have talked about a private prayer language, and there seems
to be room for that in 1 Corinthians 14:4 and 28. So, unless you take a completely Cessationist
view, I think there's an openness here in the New Testament to speaking in tongues. But the key question I want to make sure of
is this: Are tongues normative? I believe Scripture speaks very clearly on
this. Listen to this direct quote from a charismatic
manual: A person should claim this gift [talking about
tongues] in confidence when he is prayed with to be baptized in the Spirit. Yielding to tongues is an important first
step and it is worth putting effort into encouraging a person to yield to tongues, even to run
the risk of being labeled imbalanced. Often, people can be helped to yield to tongues
rather easily. After praying with a person to be baptized
in the Spirit, the team member should lean over or kneel down and ask the person if he
would like to pray in tongues. When he says, 'Yes,' he should encourage him
to speak out, making sounds that are not English. He should then pray with him again. When the person begins to speak in tongues,
he should encourage him, 'After you ask to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and ask for
the gift of tongues then yield to it. Begin by speaking out, if necessary, beginning
by just making meaningless sounds. The Holy Spirit will form them.' I do not believe Scripture backs that up. This is something the Spirit does in His sovereign
operation. If we're going to seek anything, we're to
seek gifts that most edify the church, which is why Paul says, "Seek prophecy." Even here in Acts 10 and Acts 19, they certainly
did not have the charismatic manual. At the same time, this question, "Are tongues
normative?" Again, look to Acts 10 and 19. These were very unique experiences that were
going on in this period in redemptive history, and I don't think they provide us with a foundation
to say, "Everybody should be based on Acts 19 because Paul placed his hands on these
guys, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Everybody who has the Spirit or is baptized
in the Spirit [which is a phrase that's not used there] should speak in tongues." I think that is going way beyond the bounds. I think that's taking, again, narrative passages
in Scripture and making them normative. Tongues in Acts occur in groups and their
primary purpose is to demonstrate the advancement of the gospel in light of this new period
in redemptive history. They occur in groups for the advancement of
the gospel. Speaking in tongues in Corinth is different. They occur with individuals who use this in
the context of the church and their primary purpose is to edify the church in worship. We have to be careful not to take narratives
like Acts 8, 10 or 19 and make them normative for everybody. "Well this happened to them so this has to
happen to everybody." This is a very basic Bible study principle. When you look at narratives in Scripture,
don't look at the narrative of Abraham offering his son Isaac on the sacrificial altar and
thinking, "Every dad needs to do this if he has faith in God." We don't say those things. We don't look at the story of Daniel and think,
"I'm going to prove my faith by going and spending the night with some lions," or "I'm
going to be Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and jump into a furnace." These narratives are not normative. There are points of Scripture that give us
commands. Let's follow those, and then seek to understand
narrative in the context of redemptive history. The conclusions to speaking in tongues are
that speaking in tongues is not normative evidence of New Testament faith. I'm not saying that Scripture is teaching
that tongues has ceased completely. I don't think Scripture speaks very clearly
on whether or not they have ceased, but I think Scripture does speak very clearly that
they are not normative evidence of New Testament faith, and they are not a necessary expression
of New Testament faith. Mighty movements of the Spirit of God have
not been hindered by people not speaking in tongues. This is very important. I'm not saying that if you speak in tongues
that's a bad thing by any means. I don't think Scripture speaks very clearly
on some of these things, but I think Scripture does speak clearly that we should not say
to others, "You need to speak in tongues as evidence that something has happened to you
in the Spirit." I think we focus on what we know from the
Spirit like the fruit of the Spirit, filling of the Spirit, the proclamation of the gospel
and the power of the Spirit. That should be happening—not tongues.
