707 - Gift of Tongues

Download paper_707.pdf

Rejected

Comments

[Dennis L. Wayman]

I would love to see us study the use of tongues in worship from a Wesleyan/Evangelical perspective. This paper 707 seems to build its case on a biblical literalism that would take the teaching of Paul to the Corinthian church and make it universally applicable, ie., “…two or three people speaking in an orderly fashion, one at a time, with an interpreter…” Is this a universal didactic portion of scripture, or a scripture we should interpret using the grammatical/historical context and seek the principles to apply to all churches?

Though we hold Scripture as our primary source of truth, we have also learned that God communicates through other means as well. At least three of these resources have been identified as joining scripture in the four pronged epistemology we call the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

In this instance we are informed not only by the pastoral counsel of Paul to the troubled church in Corinth, but we turn to:
TRADITION – and learn the lessons of church history. What have we learned from the use of tongues in worship? Is it beneficial or harmful? Does it unite the church or divide? Why do the vast majority of Christians in all of Christendom not use glossolalia in worship? And so on…. It is easy to see how the use of tongues in worship not only caused difficulty for the Corinthians but throughout history - however it is also necessary for us to look at churches that use the gift in this orderly manner. What happens in those congregations? We warn our churches about the danger of tongue use in our current disciplinary statement (as quoted in paper 707) while still affirming the gift of tongues, do we need to say more and is this proposal the correct addition?;
REASON – and what does the reasonable study of the linguistic, psychological and social nature of this gift tell us; We need to understand what it is – is it truly a language? (There seems to be some conflicting evidence being cited – what is the true case on this?) Is it a practice that truly matures and builds up a congregation – do they become more loving, honest, faithful. One of the problems cited by the charismatic movement itself has been the lack of emotional maturity in congregations that focus on an emotional experience rather than a holy life. Others have cited the lack of moral maturity for similar reasons in the more emotionally focused Pentecostal/charismatic congregations. Is this true? Or are we dealing with some other phenomena?;
EXPERIENCE – and what has been our experience? Those who find this gift in worship helpful – how is that true? In what ways is it helpful? In my own experience when I’ve heard the use of a gift of tongues in worship with a following interpretation, it seems to have little reference to the verbal expression either in length or tone. How do we know if an interpretation is that - a supernatural ability to understand what the person is saying – or is it something else? Listening to people with the gift of discernment they often feel uncomfortable in such experiences? Why? What else is going on at such moments? Our experiences will undoubtedly differ – but let’s bring them into the discussion as we seek the full counsel of God in this.

Denny

[Pastor Susan Wynn]

I would simply say that the context of 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14 is that Paul is giving Spirit-inspired instruction to the church as a whole. In Corinth the believers who were in error were babes in Christ; they were immature (1 Corinthians 3:1, 4:8), not filled with the Holy Spirit and the love of God, or as we say in Free Methodism, "entirely sanctified." I agree with Pastor Wayman that, as a result, the gift was misused, so that its immature practitioners became sounding gongs and clanging cymbals.

Paul closes these three chapters with what I believe is the final word on the gift of tongues, "Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things msut be done properly and in an orderly manner" (1 Corinthians 14:39-40).

I believe that we run the risk of grieving the Holy Spirit when we suggest that one of His gifts is not suitable for use in the church of Jesus Christ.

[Curtis Turner]

For information on "speaking in tongues," you might read "The Divided Flame," by one of our Free Methodist scholars, Dr. Howard Snyder. From my own point of view, tongues was considered by the Apostle Paul to be one of the lesser gifts which I Cor. 13 so eloquently states. It is by no means a measure of ones relationship to Christ, especially as it pertains to the "filling of the Holy Spirit." Some sectors of the pentecostal community use it as an acid test as to whether or not you are filled with the Holy Spirit. If that were true, probably 95% of Free Methodists would be disqualified. People who make their whole theology hinge on such an issue raised more questions than they do answers.

[Sarah Ehlers]

Having come from a Charismatic background, I have witnessed the gift of "tongues" used corporately in worship as well as in prayer meetings. I have a few comments that I would like to add.

1. Tongues and interpretation need not be similar in length or tone to be genuine. Consider Daniel's interpretation of God's writing on the wall in Daniel 5:26-28. He gave three sentences for three words.

2. I have heard of cases when the Holy Spirit has come upon someone and they have spoken in a known language (such as Chinese) that they had never been taught. In the book of Acts, the gift of tongues brought understanding. The listeners heard the message in their own languages. I agree this is not what happens where people are taught that everyone is given the gift and they must receive it. This teaching leads believers to simply make something up to please their leadership.

3. It has been my experience that churches, who do not accept tongues, rarely see the other gifts at use either. Paul affirms the necessity of all gifts within the church, “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee; …” I Corinthians 12:21a. Paul is addressing the contentious way they were using their gifts. He goes on to affirm the use of each gift and the importance of each member to whom they were given.

4. There is no revival without the power of the Holy Spirit at work. Please review Methodist history. It has always been a temptation to settle into a comfortable, non-controversial form of Godliness, but in such there in no power.

It seems that this resolution affirms that importance of propriety and the greater value of holiness without rejecting the gift of tongues completely.

[Barbara Witter]

In First Corinthians 1:5 Paul reminds the Chruch of Corinth that "in Him you have been enriched in every way--in all your speaking and in all your knowledge--because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed."

This tells us that all gifts of the Spirit, which Paul later writes about in detail (chapters 12-14) are still available to us as manifested by Christ's grace within His church and will continue until He returns.

As we've received salvation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit through childlike faith this same trusting faith is the avenue for receiving spiritual gifts. God will manifest His gifts of grace according to His will where they are welcome. A church divided on the use of gifts will see little evidence of them as we've seen throughout scripture that opened hearts united as one usher in God's Spirit

To have extensive dialogue on any of the gifts wouldn't necessarily bring more understanding. More likely it would feed doubt as human reasoning seldom adds truth to scriptures that only reveal so much concerning the gifts. Too often our speculations become groundwork for lifeless manmade traditions while the Holy Spirit grieves from rejection.

Any church which forbids tongues and interpretation of tongues to curb difficulties or divisions should also forbid other things which have caused divisions in the church i.e. building programs, traditional worship, contemporary worship, drama, varied musical instruments, creative movement, financial decisions, new pastors, people...just to name a few. The truth is human opinions and egos cause difficulties and divisions not God's gifts. "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." God's gifts are perfect, but once entrusted into redeemed humans our weaknesses tarnish them a bit. Thankfully, God is more forgiving than we are and continues to impart these gifts to His people despite human efforts to abolish those they fear, dislike or misunderstand.

Regarding the question as to why a spoken tongue can be longer or shorter than its interpretation, we need to remember it's an interpretation not a translation. The prophets performed acts without speaking one word then interpreted their act. Why wouldn't God speak to us in a different tongue with few words and interpret with many words in our understanding? Sounds like something a miraculous God could and would do.

I agree with Paul..."Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts (no exceptions mentioned)...Therefore... be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues...but everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

I'm not about to tell God any of His gifts are beneath human dignity.

[Curtis Turner]

The Apostle Paul also said, "I would rather speak five words with my understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

[Mark Adams]

The sense received in reading the discipline is that the gift of tongues is not appropriate in the Free Methodist Church. I think this resolution is a good attempt at seeking to allow for the gift's expression, and I believe this must be done within the church. My experience with church planting and cross-cultural ministry is that speaking in tongues is a common experience in many of our emerging churches, and much as the ban against early FM pentecostal bands caused B. T. Roberts some concern, I believe the church will limp along without allowing a for a well-reasoned, biblically sound statement that makes room for the gift (including prayer language). I do not feel this particular version of a resolution does this. It places too many restrictions and qualifications on the matter (spiritual gifts may not be 'taught' for example, but they sure can be nurtured; it does not private or prayerful use rather than public use).
While I respect Denny's statements regarding the psychology of glossolalia, similar statements could be made about a variety of religious experiences which we do not exclude from practice, conversion for example.
This resolution needs to be rethought but it is a brave and important step in the right direction.

[Jenny Switkes]

In opening, I want to mention that I am not a delegate to General Conference; I am a Free Methodist layperson and newly-licensed LMC.

I like this resolution.

First, it represents a thoroughly Biblical position on speaking in tongues. It Biblically restricts the usage of speaking in tongues to that of two or three people, one at a time, and only if there is interpretation. It clearly states that speaking in tongues cannot be taught. It makes it clear that speaking in tongues is not the only sign of a Spirit-filled life. It correctly emphasizes that those who speak in tongues are not holier than those who do not.

Secondly, I believe this resolution would change the tone of our doctrinal statements from one that is prohibitively cautious to one that is simply Biblical.

I hope that this resolution will be passed.

Sincerely,

Jenny