From time to time, I see things in the press that move me to write out a few of my thoughts in response. The recent attacks on Governor Sarah Palin's Pentecostal heritage are a case in point. I have posted three such items on my Hillcrest Church Blog:
Click on any of the titles to be taken directly to that post.
I would love your thoughts!
The International Missions Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention recently decided to no longer appoint missionaries who pray in tongues privately. This has generated a lot of discussion in the blogosphere. One of the more interesting posts I have read is by Pastor Dwight McKissic entitled, "The IMB tongues policty: “Emotional Prejudice” or Exegetical Precision?" In his view, much of the current controversy within the Southern Baptist Convention regarding whether or not the exercise of a "private prayer language" (PPL) is proper for Baptist believers has much more to do with social prejudice and emotional backlash than with serious study of the Scriptures.
One comment posted by a reader named BaptistBlog adds to that analysis,The mystery is, how could a convention that is usually biblio-centric and exegetically accurate reject plain, clear, scriptural, authoritive, inerrant and infallible biblical truth regarding the Spirit’s gifting of some believers to pray in tongues in private according to the sovereign will of God (I Corinthians 12:7,10, 30; 14:2, 4, 5, 13-15)? Just as the SBC initially adopted unbiblical views on slavery, segregation and abortion, then later recanted, I believe the SBC will eventually adopt a biblical position on tongues or drop restrictions regarding private praying in tongues for staff as did Campus Crusade for Christ who once held similar strict cessationist, anti-tongues policies for staff and students.
...
Why is there such strong “emotional prejudice” or “charisphobia” driving this policy? In conclusion, I offer three reasons: (1) Tongues historically has been associated with Pentecostals and charismatics. Certainly there has been a lot of abuse and misuse of the gift of tongues, by some in the Pentecostal movement. There was an abuse and misuse of tongues in the Corinthian church. Paul did not use the abuse of tongues as a rationale to disallow or rule out tongues, he simply regulated the use of the gift of tongues rather than forbid praying tongues.
Because of an “emotional prejudice” toward Pentecostals or charismatics, many Southern Baptist reject any practice or belief no matter how biblical that has any remote association with Pentecostals. Let’s throw out the bathwater of misuse and abuse but let’s keep the baby.
(2) Tongues have been historically associated with poor and uneducated people. This is true. However, I’m aware of highly educated and wealthy people, many who are Southern Baptist and other Bible believing Baptists who pray in tongues in private. The IMB tongues policy is driven by an “emotional prejudice” toward poor and uneducated people. The posture is certainly elitist and arrogant.
(3) Tongue speakers have often held viewpoints that they were spiritually superior to others without this gift or they have expressed a Pentecostal viewpoint of “the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues” as an absolute normative or universal experience and as an experience subsequent to salvation. Baptists recognize that these viewpoints do not have a biblical basis. Paul makes it clear that all believers do not have the gift of tongues (I Corinthians 12:30 and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs simultaneous with salvation (I Corinthians 12:13). Baptists recognize that all who are genuinely born again have been baptized by the Holy Spirit at salvation, but all do not speak in tongues (I Corinthians 12:30). But because many Pentecostals have taught an erroneous viewpoint of tongues and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit along with being elitist and arrogant at times, many Southern Baptist respond in kind with an “emotional prejudice,” “charisphobia” and an elitist and arrogant attitude as well.
I pray that God will forgive us as Southern Baptists for rejecting the truth about tongues as taught in the Bible and for rejecting missionaries who speak in tongues in private prayer. As a fellow Southern Baptist I confess our unbelief, “emotional prejudice,” “charisphobia” and arrogance and ask the Lord’s forgiveness.
Tongues is commonly associated with the poor, and evidence of charismatic advances in the Third World is regularly cited as a cause for the kind of prohibitive policies aggressively implemented and vigorously defended by our more elite cessationist kinsmen. They won’t say it, but here’s what they mean:While I certainly do not have any desire to comment on the internal politics of a denomination of which I am not a part, and for which I have tremendous respect, coming as I do from a classical Pentecostal background, I was struck by McKissic's analysis of the role the desire for social respectibility and upward mobility may have played in shaping the posture some of his peers have adopted toward the gift of spiritual language.
Tongues will drive the Southern Baptist Convention away from her “solid roots” in Anglo-American culture to become like those wild tribal peoples who don’t know any better than to mutter gibberish to idols.
My own roots and life experience compell me to acknowledge that some segments of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have failed to observe fully biblical paradigms in the operation of spiritual gifts. I am deeply saddened, though, when I see some of my colleagues with similar backgrounds backing away from an integral part of the spiritual life of the church in the New Testament. The reality of supernatural experience was a key reason why our wing of the Christian church experienced such unprecendented global expansion throughout the last century. As we lead our people forward in this 21st century, let's be sure to lead them into all of God's truth and into all of the Spirit's fullness!"22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. … 24 But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”" (1 Corinthians 14:22-25, NIV)
Earlier, Dr. David Shibley's blog was carrying the text of his, "Open Letter to Southern Baptist Leaders" regarding the IMB Trustee's decision to no longer appoint missionaries who practice a private prayer language. It is now on the Charisma magazine's website. As a charismatic alumnus of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, his perspective is well worth reading.
His blog also contains other interesting posts, including his TOP 10 THINGS I AM LEARNING FROM FRONTLINE SHEPHERDS WORLDWIDE, and his 10 HOPES FOR FULFILLING THE GREAT COMMISSION.
The stunning rise in influence of bloggers on public opinion is nowhere more evident than in the ongoing controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention over the decision taken last year by their International Missions Board to ban the appointment of missionaries who exercise private prayer languages according to 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. (Marty Duren's SBC Outpost blog with over 600,000 hits is one notable example of this phenomenon.)
Without going into the details of that controversy, or the events that first attracted my attention to it, namely, the furor over local Pastor and SWBTS Trustee Dwight McKissic's sermon on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit in chapel at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary over in Fort Worth last summer, I must say that I found SBC President Morris Chapman's recent words on the apparent generation gap in their movement quite thought provoking. In his post entitled, "Are We Watering Down the Gospel and Weakening Our Collective Witness?", Dr. Chapman writes,
For the first time in history, the man on the street has equal access to the public through a brand new vehicle of communication … Access to the masses is no longer the reserved domain for leaders only … The Internet has provided a means and a medium by which the previously unheard can be heard. Such freedom without implementing certain disciplines can be intoxicating and a person can easily feel the license to say things he/she would never say in any other circumstances.The very opposite is true with my generation. Rather than being intoxicated with public discourse as a means for registering differences, my generation is tempted to do everything quietly, away from public view, with pre-set agendas, persuasive phone calls, and whispers in an attempt to control an otherwise neutral environment by whatever means is necessary to achieve a political end.No doubt, times are changing.The older and younger generations are separated by the greatest gulf in history due in no small part to "Al Gore's" invention of the Internet.
The contrast is revealing.
The older generation prefers to work with others one-on-one in an effort to influence them to embrace a particular opinion. The younger generations, due to the advent of the computer and Internet, prefer to speak openly, candidly, and publicly, often about personal opinions as well as private and/or corporate deliberations and decisions. The older generation has been inclined to persuade others by applying political pressures. The younger generations have been inclined to persuade others by informing the public and implying shame. Neither approach has room to boast as long as their accusations against each other have the common goal of demanding a specific answer without wise and careful deliberations in a context free from threats, intimidation, and rewards to the so-called "faithful." … Will the generation comprising the over 65 crowd, men and women who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps and slowly ascended into a role of leadership, ever connect with the new generations spawned by the Internet? To date, I think no one knows the answer. Sufficient time has not passed to make such judgments. It will be a tragedy for all generations if it doesn't happen.Sooner or later, all the lions of leadership walk haltingly off the scene and are left with little more than an occasional toothless roar that is barely heard and hardly noticed by the pride that he led with such majestic carriage. It will happen to us all regardless of our age at the present time. Younger generations are less conscious of that day because it seems so distant to them compared to older individuals. God designed it that way so that as the older generation begins to walk more cautiously and with increasing maturity, younger generations will bring vision, vitality, enthusiasm, energy, creativity, and innovation to any discussion, any project. Both the older and younger generations bring more to the table than my abbreviated list and both should engage in solutions to make the world better and our Convention more effective for the sake of Christ's Kingdom. To treat each other with contempt and disdain no doubt saddens the heart of God. We should talk with each other, not to or about each other. We should talk about issues, period!
I have never met Dr. Chapman, and quite honestly know very little about him, but I found his analysis of the immense difference in communication and leadership styles between older and younger Christian leaders at this point in time both fascinating and resonant with the ring of truth. Quite honestly, I bear scars in my own soul resulting from wounds suffered in past conflicts which were aggravated by the diametrically opposed approaches to dealing with the issues of leadership transition and congregational life he describes. Whichever side of the generational divide you find yourself on, taking the time to read the full text of his article and reflect upon his words will better prepare you to lead God’s people into this new millennium.
Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. His blog posts are often thought-provoking, such as his musings on capital punishment after reading John Grisham's, "The Innocent Man
His "Here Come the Pentecostals" is an interesting account of his own personal journey, coupled with some theological reflections about what he thinks penteocostals have got right...and wrong, particularly what he sees as an endemic fixation with material prosperity.
Here's his take on "cessationism":The cessationists argue that God ran out of juice. He used to give people these sorts of gifts in the apostolic age, but once that era was over, and once the canon showed up, such extraordinary spiritual gifts ceased. The chief proof text for this view is, believe it or not, 1 Cor. 13.8-12 which reads "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies they will cease; where there are tongues they will be stilled; where there is knowledge it will pass away. For we know in part and prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child. I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult I put childish ways behind me." Of course that is not all this paragraph says. It goes on to say 'Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror, then we shall see to face to face." What is Paul talking about? When will we see face to face, and know as we are known? Well for sure it was not when the second century A.D. began, nor when the Scriptures were canonized in the fourth century. The cessationists have tended to argue: 1)the word 'perfection' refers to the coming of the canon. When the NT showed up we didn't need these extraordinary spiritual gifts any more. Of course the major problem with that exegesis is that no one in Corinth in the A.D. 50s could possibly have understood Paul to mean 'the NT canon' by the word 'perfection'. And in fact this is not what Paul meant-- he's referring to the eschaton when we see Jesus face to face, when perfection really comes in the person of the Lord, when we finally know Him as we are known. Then indeed we will not need prophecy or tongues, and then indeed our knowledge will cease to be partial. Indeed, then faith will become sight, and hope will be realized, and love will be perfected and go on. There is no chance that the word 'perfection' means the canon here. The context is eschatological, and Paul is looking forward to what will be the case when Jesus returns. This is so very clear in 1 Cor. 15, the resurrection chapter, as well. 2) And of course if you are a student of Church History you know perfectly well the Holy Spirit has not run out of unction to function. Those spiritual gifts have been being poured out in every century since the second century until now. In America of course the Azuza Street Revival in 1905 was a landmark event for Pentecostals. Their growth has been pretty steady since then. We might as well just accept it and come to grips with it, even if its not our cup of tea.
Well worth the reading.
In Joel Willitts and Michael Bird’s blog, Euangelion, they have a great, though rather detailed, quote from the eminent evangelical theologian, D.A. Carson supporting the private use of a prayer language in light of 1 Corinthians 12:7.
