Saturday, September 23, 2006
Tongues and Trances
The Southern Baptist convention is now through provocations raised through their international Mission Board having to confront the issue of speaking in tongues. In a very insightful commentary on his blog,
http://sbcglossolalia.blogspot.com/
Jerry Corbaley has raised some thought provoking questions. Here is the guts of his post.
Acknowledging your bias.
You have one, don’t fool yourself into thinking you do not.
The Primary Question: Do we even know what we are talking about?
1. There are a lot of different words being used for a variety of practices as if the words and practices are interchangeable. The assumption that the words and practices are interchangeable insures poor communication and misunderstanding. The different words used for the different practices are not interchangeable. If you ignore this, you are part of the problem. If you will take this to heart, you will see the poor communication and misunderstandings developing and will have the opportunity to increase clarity.
2. If Southern Baptists do not define glossolalia, we will not know what we are talking about. If you are unwilling to define glossolalia, then you do not know what you are talking about. Further, you will sense that you do not know what you are talking about, so your unwillingness to reach a corporate definition will be based on personal confusion and fear. Since you cannot decide nor define what glossolalia is, you will not want anyone else to decide either. If you have no working definition for glossolalia and are opposed to the practice, then that is bigotry. Both extremes are sinful. Brothers and sisters, we really ought to know what we are talking about.Definition of glossolalia
3. The spiritual gift of glossolalia is, and was, a language miracle. Language miracles are prominent in Biblical history. Adam and Eve were recipients of a language miracle. The people of Babel were recipients of a language miracle. Balaam’s donkey was the recipient of a language miracle. Isaiah in God’s throne room almost certainly included a language miracle. When God supernaturally enables one to speak a language that was not naturally learned, it is a language miracle. The spiritual gifts of glossolalia and the interpretation of glossolalia are also language miracles. When God supernaturally enables one to speak or interpret a language that was not naturally learned, it is a language miracle. It is shallow to ignore the Old Testament light and context regarding New Testament practice.
4. Can you improve on this definition of glossolalia, and the interpretation of glossolalia?
5. Do you agree that all spoken languages are specific phonetic sounds consistently related to specific rational meaning?
6. Do you agree that all languages can be easily verified with the presence of an interpreter of said language?
7. With tens of millions of people who assert they are gifted practitioners of glossolalia and millions of people who assert they are gifted with the interpretation of glossolalia, it should be rather a simple matter to verify the current phenomena as Biblical glossolalia.
8. Now would be a good time for the practitioners to do so. Will you cooperate?
9. With tens of millions of people who assert they are gifted practitioners of glossolalia and tens of thousands of people who are gifted at learning languages and breaking encoded information, it should still be possible to verify the current phenomena as biblical glossolalia even if there are no persons spiritually gifted with the interpretation of glossolalia.
10. Now would be a good time for the practitioners to cooperate. Will you do so?
11. Regarding spiritual gifts, should Southern Baptists embrace teachers who can’t teach, workers of miracles that don’t work, healers who can’t heal, and practitioners of language miracles that can’t help us proclaim the gospel across language barriers?
12. Should we have confidence in a verifiable practice that millions of practitioners refuse to verify?
13. Since hundreds of millions of brothers and sisters are in doubt about the veracity of the experience of those who assert the spiritual gifting of glossolalia, isn’t it incumbent upon the practitioners to walk into the light so that it can be plainly seen that what they are doing is done through God?
14. Is there not a desperate need to cross language barriers with the gospel of Jesus Christ in North America and around the world?
15. Let me stress again that I am not a cessationist. I find cessationist arguments unconvincing. I find assertions that SBC entities are dominated by cessationists to be false. What ever God has done he can do again. It is likely that all of us will receive a language miracle when we arrive in heaven.
16. If the spiritual gift of glossolalia and/or the interpretation of glossolalia is available, then we should cooperate with the practitioners. Period. Bigotry should have no place in our efforts to proclaim the gospel in every language. Do you agree?
17. Should Southern Baptists advocate or deny the current assertions of glossolalia without attempting to verify the assertions?
18. The SBC has two missions boards composed of missionaries, staff, and trustees that have more education and experience than any several of our seminaries combined. The mission boards are involved in crossing language barriers 24/7, in North America and around the world. The SBC has 7 fine seminaries, many fine universities and colleges, and active working relationships with Bible believing Christians around the world. Is there any group more qualified to discern if current assertions of glossolalia are true? Is there any group with more need to know?
19. What about other Christian organizations that we call Great Commission Christians? Would they be willing to walk into the light and reveal that what they are doing is plainly being done by God?
20. Do Southern Baptists really want to walk into the light on this issue?
Definition of Babble
21. My testimony is that I am acquainted with hundreds of people who babble and think it is the expression of glossolalia. I do not want to be offensive. I am choosing the word “babble” because it literally describes the practice I have observed repeatedly. If the SBC is going to dialog about glossolalia then we are going to have to get over emotional reactions to words that literally describe practice. I am truly sorry if people’s feelings get hurt. I am truly sorry if open discussion about the veracity of people’s sincere practice causes them discomfort. But the issue must be truth, not sincerity. There will be hurt feelings within sincere people on all sides of this issue. This pain has been going on for longer than any of us have been alive. To refuse to address this issue from fear of consequences and/or sentimentality is unacceptable. Since SBC entities were not allowed to handle the issue internally, with discretion, it is now very public. Perhaps it is for the best.
22. Babble is: to talk irrationally; to talk thoughtlessly, to say incoherently; incoherent talk or vocal sounds. Synonyms include twaddle, prattle, gabble and prate. Look it up for yourself. If you have a better word that literally describes the practice, let me know and I will adopt it immediately. If you think the definition does not fit the practice; then help me convince the practitioners to demonstrate that their verbal sounds contain rationality, thought and coherence. If the “babble” is rational, thoughtful and coherent, then it is language isn’t it? If the vocal sounds lack rationality, thought and coherence then it is babble. If it is language then we can cross language barriers with the gospel can’t we?
Private Prayer Language
23. There will be a sincere effort to frame the glossolalia issue as “private prayer language”. This is inaccurate from both the Biblical and experiential points of view. It is literally misleading though most who use it do not mean to mislead others. They just have not thought it through. I will address this assertion in reverse order; “language”, then “prayer”, then “private”.
24. If private prayer language is “language”, then specific phonetic sounds will have specific rational meaning. Like it or not, this is what spoken language is. Languages can be verified as languages. An interpreter can facilitate the verification. Even without an interpreter, a language can be verified from repeated observations of specific phonetic sounds if the observations and the context of the observations are known. With tens of millions of practitioners babbling, there is no lack of opportunity to observe the phonetic sounds and the context in which the sounds are uttered.
25. Why isn’t private prayer language babble?
26. If private prayer language cannot be discerned as language, how do the practitioners know it is “prayer”?
27. If a practitioner has verified their verbal expression as language through one who is gifted as an interpreter of glossolalia, then interpreters are available and should make themselves known so that we can set this matter to rest and use the gifts of glossolalia and the interpretation of glossolalia to cross language barriers with the gospel.
28. If the practitioner and interpreter do not wish to minister to the needs of the body of Christ in such a way; then their sincere testimony is suspect. Why would they not wish to do so? Have you ever met a spiritually gifted teacher who was reluctant to minister in the power of the Spirit?
29. If the verbal utterances of the practitioners are language, and have never been interpreted, then the practitioner does not know what they are saying. How does the practitioner discern the nature of the spirit speaking through them if they do not know what is being said? Because it “feels” good? Is that an adequate way to try the spirit? How can the practitioner not care to know what they are saying?
30. How can tens of millions of practitioners not ask themselves this question, organize, and do some corporate introspection and research to verify their practice? Come now brothers and sisters; become proactive in the process.
31. As a similar example, should Southern Baptists advocate the reality of the spiritual gift of “teaching” without the “teachers” bothering to validate what they are teaching? Should teachers check and see if anyone is learning?
32. Private prayer language is babble. It has yet to be demonstrated that it is language. It has yet to be demonstrated that it is prayer. It is also not reasonable to conclude that it is “private” in practice, or intended to be private in Scripture. Indeed, it would be sin for a practitioner of private prayer language to keep their practice private.
33. Let’s assume for the moment that the current expressions of babble are actual glossolalia. The Spirit moves the faithful Christian (gifted with glossolalia) to minister in the power of the Spirit in the local congregation. The Christian expresses their verbal sounds. To those in the congregation who do not recognize rational, coherent thought, the verbal sounds are babble. But there is an interpreter present who recognizes the meaning expressed in a language and interprets that meaning to the congregation in a language the congregation understands so that the church is edified. If there are unbelievers present who speak the language expressed by the practitioner, or some who are uninstructed, who also recognize the meaning in their own language, then they have received a message in the context of a supernatural sign. Great stuff if it is real. If this is real we need to participate don’t we?
34. As the months turn into years, the integrity of the expressions of glossolalia and the integrity of the interpretations of glossolalia are protected by the agreement, and character, of several interpreters of glossolalia. They verify each other’s accuracy. They would spot each other’s sin. The content of the messages, once interpreted, are subject to the prophets. Great stuff if this is what God is currently doing. What would you call it if this is what is being asserted by the practitioners and it is NOT what God is doing?
35. If the practitioner uttering verbal sounds does not find an interpreter present, then they are to cease speaking, because the congregation will only observe babbling. It is predictable that people will conclude that such a group is “out of their mind” (1 Co. 14:23). Yet God says (1 Co. 14:13) that the practitioner is to pray that he may interpret. That would require a desire to publicly express their “gift”. How is that “private”? The practitioner of a “private prayer language” is instructed by God to pray that he may publicly interpret the language he speaks? How could that remain private?
36. God says (1 Co. 12:7) that the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. The spiritual gifts are manifestations of the Holy Spirit to edify the church, not the individual (1 Co. 10:24; 10:33b; 13:5; 14:3-5; 14:12; 14:17; 14:26; 14:31). If the Spirit of God has empowered an individual with the spiritual gift of glossolalia, how can the practitioner refuse to speak it publicly without quenching the Spirit? Is that not sin? Would it not be sin to keep a gift designed to edify the church from edifying the church?
37. Will the practitioners respond that the “private prayer language” cannot be uttered audibly?
38. If the practitioner recognizes that the spiritual gift they have received is intended to edify the church (not themselves), then they must periodically speak publicly to see if one is present who is gifted with the interpretation of glossolalia. How is this private? If the practitioner finds no interpreter present on the first Sunday of the month, might not God empower a member of the congregation by the second or third Sunday of the month? How is one empowered with glossolalia to know if an interpreter is available without uttering potential babble on a periodic and recurring basis? How can this ever be private? How often do you want this to occur in your main worship service? Or is direct communication from God unwelcome on your Sunday mornings? One empowered by God to minister to the needs of the congregation must have an internal drive to do so. To assert the expression of glossolalia as a current spiritual gift and to assert that it is private has no Biblical basis and cannot be faithfully attempted; it is quenching the Spirit if it is real. Is it not disruptive in the extreme if it is not real?
39. If the current expressions of babble are truly glossolalia, then we absolutely cannot prohibit it from audible or silent expression (1 Cor. 14:37-39). I urge you to study the Scriptural text; we are commanded by God not to forbid glossolalia. Period. However, if the current expressions of babble are not glossolalia, then it can be forbidden. It is not glossolalia. In fact, if it is not glossolalia then it should be forbidden, shouldn’t it?
40. So, do we know what we are talking about? Do you have a working Biblical definition of glossolalia and the interpretation of glossolalia? If you will not decide, you will not have a rational voice in this issue.
41. Until reasons can be given to the contrary, the assertions of private prayer language should be called “babble”. That is literally what it is. Expressions of private prayer language must be shown to be “language” before it can be shown to be “prayer”. The teaching of Scripture prevents glossolalia from remaining private.
42. If the practitioners of babble want to verify their “gift” as glossolalia, then tens of millions of them worldwide should be able to do so. Will you please begin the process and save the body of Christ from months and years of uncertainty and division?
Testimony of the practitioners of babble
43. The testimony of our brothers and sisters who babble is still important. Like the rest of us, they are saved by grace and God uses them before they are perfect. The testimony of a babbler must be given the same weight as the testimony of a skeptic. Matters are established by testimony in the kingdom of God (Mt. 18:16). We must not lose sight of the fact that a babbler may be more blessed than a skeptic. You may have noticed that overweight Christians can still be effective Christians, and by grace can be more effective than physically fit Christians. Such is life in a sinful world. Let’s trust God’s grace through this.
44. There are some questions deserving answers that can help Southern Baptists faithfully address the controversy over glossolalia, babbling, and private prayer language. Such public testimony is a necessary part of the adoption of private prayer language amongst Southern Baptists. If the hundreds (thousands?) of Southern Baptist practitioners will honestly and publicly respond, then the congruence of their testimony is partial evidence of the veracity of their experience and gifting. In like manner, the absence of response is potential evidence of the weakness of their perspective.
45. You who are practitioners, will you respond? You have our attention. This is your cue. Respond where you like, but please publicly respond. The spiritual gifts are part of the good news, don’t be ashamed of it.
46. If private prayer language is private, then how does it spread?
47. If private prayer language is an advantage to the Christian, then how can you not proclaim it publicly?
48. If private prayer language is glossolalia, then how can you not demonstrate such and help the SBC fulfill the Great Commission?
49. If private prayer language is glossolalia, then how can you not periodically search for one who is gifted with the interpretation of glossolalia within your own congregation?
50. How can you conclude that you are practicing the spiritual gift of glossolalia, if you have not had your utterances interpreted many times?
51. How can you conclude that you are “praying” in glossolalia if you have never understood what you were saying?
52. How can you try the spirit (if any) behind your utterances if you don’t know what you are saying?
53. Is it unimportant to try the nature of the spirit empowering your experience?
54. What is the nature and advantage of the “edification” you receive when uttering your private prayer language? Can you describe it?
55. Is this edification exclusive to uttering a prayer language? That is; can the same edification be received through reading and memorizing Scripture, witnessing to the lost, feeding the poor and etcetera? What would you lose through stopping this practice?
56. The command of God in 1 Co. 14:37-39 (NIV) says you should ignore anyone who forbids glossolalia. Does this mean you don’t care what others think or say about private prayer language? Do you have divine permission, even direction, to display contempt toward Christian brothers and sisters who are unenlightened regarding private prayer language? Can you in good conscience ignore NAMB and IMB policy because God tells you to?
57. When you encounter a brother or sister who is struggling with a trial of faith in this world, would you encourage them to be edified through speaking in glossolalia?
58. If glossolalia is such an integral part of your own life, how could you not encourage others to seek such a blessing, such divine intimacy?
Questions for the SBC as a whole
59. What is the scope of babbling/glossolalia within the SBC?
60. Is the outcry from the bloggers in the margin over the last year representative of the SBC as a whole?
61. Is the outcry from the bloggers in the margin over the last year primarily doctrinal or overtly political?
62. Current policy within the NAMB and the IMB takes a dim view of the veracity of babbling. Should these mission agencies become advocates of babbling? Is any SBC institution better equipped to discern the veracity of babbling/glossolalia than our missions organizations?
63. Should the SBC Executive Committee become an advocate of babbling?
64. Is the rejection of babble a violation of local church autonomy? Have any churches been forced to change their doctrine?
65. If a Southern Baptist applies for a missionary appointment and is rejected because they practice babble, does that prevent them from going to the mission field? Are there not a hundred other ways to go?
66. Are individual Southern Baptists entitled to apply for appointment as a missionary, or entitled to an appointment as a missionary?
67. If the SBC decide to evaluate the babble/glossolalia issue; should we not consider the testimony and practice of other Great Commission Christians and our international Christian partners (who now outnumber us at least 4 to 1)?Why address the babble/glossolalia issue at all?
68. This may be difficult for many of you to understand. A few months ago I hosted a blog article regarding the IMB policy on glossolalia (now removed, I have other things to attend to). Two things were very evident from the multiplied thousands of words that were exchanged. One is that the vast majority of respondents did not know what they were talking about; they had no definition of glossolalia, and no personal experience with the practice. The second is that almost no one who practiced babbling would even try to answer questions that could build understanding of the babbling experience.
69. I now expect that the above is true of the vast majority of Southern Baptists. You have not seen the frequent results of babbling within churches. You have not yet spent months and years praying, studying and thinking through the issues. You are capable of wisdom and will achieve it, but not quickly. Thinking takes considerable time. Consensus takes a lot longer.
70. When a person babbles in a congregation, it has a dramatic effect on the entire group. They must conclude the babbler is out of their mind, or withhold judgment (rare), or decide the Holy Spirit is directly manifesting his divine presence through the faithfulness of the babbler. Those who continue babbling always opt for explanation number three, and assert their spirituality. While some intend and achieve humility, all (in a congregation that tolerates the occurrence) receive a significant boost to their influence within the congregation. Their babbling has publicly established their faithfulness and usefulness to God himself. God, himself, has publicly set them apart from the norm and spoken through them. Everything the babbler does and says receives increased respect. New believers are especially attracted to whatever “deeper life” or “fuller gospel” is available.
71. Now this is great stuff if it is real.
72. Influence is the fulcrum of the issue. If babbling is glossolalia, it is the supernatural manifestation of divine revelation and it deserves respect. Also, the interpreted message is the expressed will of God. Often babble is “interpreted” as praise. Often it grows to become “divine direction” and “divine interpretation”.
73. If voiced publicly and interpreted publicly, (if babble is not glossolalia) then, at best, it is emotional intuition and similar to rolling dice to discern what God is saying to the congregation.
74. If voiced publicly and interpreted publicly, (if babble is not glossolalia) then, it is by definition a false presentation of the voice of God expressed through false testimony.
75. Southern Baptist had better care about this issue.And it all returns to the primary question.
76. Do we know what we are talking about? If you do not have a Biblical definition of glossolalia, then you do not know what you are talking about.
http://sbcglossolalia.blogspot.com/
Jerry Corbaley has raised some thought provoking questions. Here is the guts of his post.
Acknowledging your bias.
You have one, don’t fool yourself into thinking you do not.
The Primary Question: Do we even know what we are talking about?
1. There are a lot of different words being used for a variety of practices as if the words and practices are interchangeable. The assumption that the words and practices are interchangeable insures poor communication and misunderstanding. The different words used for the different practices are not interchangeable. If you ignore this, you are part of the problem. If you will take this to heart, you will see the poor communication and misunderstandings developing and will have the opportunity to increase clarity.
2. If Southern Baptists do not define glossolalia, we will not know what we are talking about. If you are unwilling to define glossolalia, then you do not know what you are talking about. Further, you will sense that you do not know what you are talking about, so your unwillingness to reach a corporate definition will be based on personal confusion and fear. Since you cannot decide nor define what glossolalia is, you will not want anyone else to decide either. If you have no working definition for glossolalia and are opposed to the practice, then that is bigotry. Both extremes are sinful. Brothers and sisters, we really ought to know what we are talking about.Definition of glossolalia
3. The spiritual gift of glossolalia is, and was, a language miracle. Language miracles are prominent in Biblical history. Adam and Eve were recipients of a language miracle. The people of Babel were recipients of a language miracle. Balaam’s donkey was the recipient of a language miracle. Isaiah in God’s throne room almost certainly included a language miracle. When God supernaturally enables one to speak a language that was not naturally learned, it is a language miracle. The spiritual gifts of glossolalia and the interpretation of glossolalia are also language miracles. When God supernaturally enables one to speak or interpret a language that was not naturally learned, it is a language miracle. It is shallow to ignore the Old Testament light and context regarding New Testament practice.
4. Can you improve on this definition of glossolalia, and the interpretation of glossolalia?
5. Do you agree that all spoken languages are specific phonetic sounds consistently related to specific rational meaning?
6. Do you agree that all languages can be easily verified with the presence of an interpreter of said language?
7. With tens of millions of people who assert they are gifted practitioners of glossolalia and millions of people who assert they are gifted with the interpretation of glossolalia, it should be rather a simple matter to verify the current phenomena as Biblical glossolalia.
8. Now would be a good time for the practitioners to do so. Will you cooperate?
9. With tens of millions of people who assert they are gifted practitioners of glossolalia and tens of thousands of people who are gifted at learning languages and breaking encoded information, it should still be possible to verify the current phenomena as biblical glossolalia even if there are no persons spiritually gifted with the interpretation of glossolalia.
10. Now would be a good time for the practitioners to cooperate. Will you do so?
11. Regarding spiritual gifts, should Southern Baptists embrace teachers who can’t teach, workers of miracles that don’t work, healers who can’t heal, and practitioners of language miracles that can’t help us proclaim the gospel across language barriers?
12. Should we have confidence in a verifiable practice that millions of practitioners refuse to verify?
13. Since hundreds of millions of brothers and sisters are in doubt about the veracity of the experience of those who assert the spiritual gifting of glossolalia, isn’t it incumbent upon the practitioners to walk into the light so that it can be plainly seen that what they are doing is done through God?
14. Is there not a desperate need to cross language barriers with the gospel of Jesus Christ in North America and around the world?
15. Let me stress again that I am not a cessationist. I find cessationist arguments unconvincing. I find assertions that SBC entities are dominated by cessationists to be false. What ever God has done he can do again. It is likely that all of us will receive a language miracle when we arrive in heaven.
16. If the spiritual gift of glossolalia and/or the interpretation of glossolalia is available, then we should cooperate with the practitioners. Period. Bigotry should have no place in our efforts to proclaim the gospel in every language. Do you agree?
17. Should Southern Baptists advocate or deny the current assertions of glossolalia without attempting to verify the assertions?
18. The SBC has two missions boards composed of missionaries, staff, and trustees that have more education and experience than any several of our seminaries combined. The mission boards are involved in crossing language barriers 24/7, in North America and around the world. The SBC has 7 fine seminaries, many fine universities and colleges, and active working relationships with Bible believing Christians around the world. Is there any group more qualified to discern if current assertions of glossolalia are true? Is there any group with more need to know?
19. What about other Christian organizations that we call Great Commission Christians? Would they be willing to walk into the light and reveal that what they are doing is plainly being done by God?
20. Do Southern Baptists really want to walk into the light on this issue?
Definition of Babble
21. My testimony is that I am acquainted with hundreds of people who babble and think it is the expression of glossolalia. I do not want to be offensive. I am choosing the word “babble” because it literally describes the practice I have observed repeatedly. If the SBC is going to dialog about glossolalia then we are going to have to get over emotional reactions to words that literally describe practice. I am truly sorry if people’s feelings get hurt. I am truly sorry if open discussion about the veracity of people’s sincere practice causes them discomfort. But the issue must be truth, not sincerity. There will be hurt feelings within sincere people on all sides of this issue. This pain has been going on for longer than any of us have been alive. To refuse to address this issue from fear of consequences and/or sentimentality is unacceptable. Since SBC entities were not allowed to handle the issue internally, with discretion, it is now very public. Perhaps it is for the best.
22. Babble is: to talk irrationally; to talk thoughtlessly, to say incoherently; incoherent talk or vocal sounds. Synonyms include twaddle, prattle, gabble and prate. Look it up for yourself. If you have a better word that literally describes the practice, let me know and I will adopt it immediately. If you think the definition does not fit the practice; then help me convince the practitioners to demonstrate that their verbal sounds contain rationality, thought and coherence. If the “babble” is rational, thoughtful and coherent, then it is language isn’t it? If the vocal sounds lack rationality, thought and coherence then it is babble. If it is language then we can cross language barriers with the gospel can’t we?
Private Prayer Language
23. There will be a sincere effort to frame the glossolalia issue as “private prayer language”. This is inaccurate from both the Biblical and experiential points of view. It is literally misleading though most who use it do not mean to mislead others. They just have not thought it through. I will address this assertion in reverse order; “language”, then “prayer”, then “private”.
24. If private prayer language is “language”, then specific phonetic sounds will have specific rational meaning. Like it or not, this is what spoken language is. Languages can be verified as languages. An interpreter can facilitate the verification. Even without an interpreter, a language can be verified from repeated observations of specific phonetic sounds if the observations and the context of the observations are known. With tens of millions of practitioners babbling, there is no lack of opportunity to observe the phonetic sounds and the context in which the sounds are uttered.
25. Why isn’t private prayer language babble?
26. If private prayer language cannot be discerned as language, how do the practitioners know it is “prayer”?
27. If a practitioner has verified their verbal expression as language through one who is gifted as an interpreter of glossolalia, then interpreters are available and should make themselves known so that we can set this matter to rest and use the gifts of glossolalia and the interpretation of glossolalia to cross language barriers with the gospel.
28. If the practitioner and interpreter do not wish to minister to the needs of the body of Christ in such a way; then their sincere testimony is suspect. Why would they not wish to do so? Have you ever met a spiritually gifted teacher who was reluctant to minister in the power of the Spirit?
29. If the verbal utterances of the practitioners are language, and have never been interpreted, then the practitioner does not know what they are saying. How does the practitioner discern the nature of the spirit speaking through them if they do not know what is being said? Because it “feels” good? Is that an adequate way to try the spirit? How can the practitioner not care to know what they are saying?
30. How can tens of millions of practitioners not ask themselves this question, organize, and do some corporate introspection and research to verify their practice? Come now brothers and sisters; become proactive in the process.
31. As a similar example, should Southern Baptists advocate the reality of the spiritual gift of “teaching” without the “teachers” bothering to validate what they are teaching? Should teachers check and see if anyone is learning?
32. Private prayer language is babble. It has yet to be demonstrated that it is language. It has yet to be demonstrated that it is prayer. It is also not reasonable to conclude that it is “private” in practice, or intended to be private in Scripture. Indeed, it would be sin for a practitioner of private prayer language to keep their practice private.
33. Let’s assume for the moment that the current expressions of babble are actual glossolalia. The Spirit moves the faithful Christian (gifted with glossolalia) to minister in the power of the Spirit in the local congregation. The Christian expresses their verbal sounds. To those in the congregation who do not recognize rational, coherent thought, the verbal sounds are babble. But there is an interpreter present who recognizes the meaning expressed in a language and interprets that meaning to the congregation in a language the congregation understands so that the church is edified. If there are unbelievers present who speak the language expressed by the practitioner, or some who are uninstructed, who also recognize the meaning in their own language, then they have received a message in the context of a supernatural sign. Great stuff if it is real. If this is real we need to participate don’t we?
34. As the months turn into years, the integrity of the expressions of glossolalia and the integrity of the interpretations of glossolalia are protected by the agreement, and character, of several interpreters of glossolalia. They verify each other’s accuracy. They would spot each other’s sin. The content of the messages, once interpreted, are subject to the prophets. Great stuff if this is what God is currently doing. What would you call it if this is what is being asserted by the practitioners and it is NOT what God is doing?
35. If the practitioner uttering verbal sounds does not find an interpreter present, then they are to cease speaking, because the congregation will only observe babbling. It is predictable that people will conclude that such a group is “out of their mind” (1 Co. 14:23). Yet God says (1 Co. 14:13) that the practitioner is to pray that he may interpret. That would require a desire to publicly express their “gift”. How is that “private”? The practitioner of a “private prayer language” is instructed by God to pray that he may publicly interpret the language he speaks? How could that remain private?
36. God says (1 Co. 12:7) that the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. The spiritual gifts are manifestations of the Holy Spirit to edify the church, not the individual (1 Co. 10:24; 10:33b; 13:5; 14:3-5; 14:12; 14:17; 14:26; 14:31). If the Spirit of God has empowered an individual with the spiritual gift of glossolalia, how can the practitioner refuse to speak it publicly without quenching the Spirit? Is that not sin? Would it not be sin to keep a gift designed to edify the church from edifying the church?
37. Will the practitioners respond that the “private prayer language” cannot be uttered audibly?
38. If the practitioner recognizes that the spiritual gift they have received is intended to edify the church (not themselves), then they must periodically speak publicly to see if one is present who is gifted with the interpretation of glossolalia. How is this private? If the practitioner finds no interpreter present on the first Sunday of the month, might not God empower a member of the congregation by the second or third Sunday of the month? How is one empowered with glossolalia to know if an interpreter is available without uttering potential babble on a periodic and recurring basis? How can this ever be private? How often do you want this to occur in your main worship service? Or is direct communication from God unwelcome on your Sunday mornings? One empowered by God to minister to the needs of the congregation must have an internal drive to do so. To assert the expression of glossolalia as a current spiritual gift and to assert that it is private has no Biblical basis and cannot be faithfully attempted; it is quenching the Spirit if it is real. Is it not disruptive in the extreme if it is not real?
39. If the current expressions of babble are truly glossolalia, then we absolutely cannot prohibit it from audible or silent expression (1 Cor. 14:37-39). I urge you to study the Scriptural text; we are commanded by God not to forbid glossolalia. Period. However, if the current expressions of babble are not glossolalia, then it can be forbidden. It is not glossolalia. In fact, if it is not glossolalia then it should be forbidden, shouldn’t it?
40. So, do we know what we are talking about? Do you have a working Biblical definition of glossolalia and the interpretation of glossolalia? If you will not decide, you will not have a rational voice in this issue.
41. Until reasons can be given to the contrary, the assertions of private prayer language should be called “babble”. That is literally what it is. Expressions of private prayer language must be shown to be “language” before it can be shown to be “prayer”. The teaching of Scripture prevents glossolalia from remaining private.
42. If the practitioners of babble want to verify their “gift” as glossolalia, then tens of millions of them worldwide should be able to do so. Will you please begin the process and save the body of Christ from months and years of uncertainty and division?
Testimony of the practitioners of babble
43. The testimony of our brothers and sisters who babble is still important. Like the rest of us, they are saved by grace and God uses them before they are perfect. The testimony of a babbler must be given the same weight as the testimony of a skeptic. Matters are established by testimony in the kingdom of God (Mt. 18:16). We must not lose sight of the fact that a babbler may be more blessed than a skeptic. You may have noticed that overweight Christians can still be effective Christians, and by grace can be more effective than physically fit Christians. Such is life in a sinful world. Let’s trust God’s grace through this.
44. There are some questions deserving answers that can help Southern Baptists faithfully address the controversy over glossolalia, babbling, and private prayer language. Such public testimony is a necessary part of the adoption of private prayer language amongst Southern Baptists. If the hundreds (thousands?) of Southern Baptist practitioners will honestly and publicly respond, then the congruence of their testimony is partial evidence of the veracity of their experience and gifting. In like manner, the absence of response is potential evidence of the weakness of their perspective.
45. You who are practitioners, will you respond? You have our attention. This is your cue. Respond where you like, but please publicly respond. The spiritual gifts are part of the good news, don’t be ashamed of it.
46. If private prayer language is private, then how does it spread?
47. If private prayer language is an advantage to the Christian, then how can you not proclaim it publicly?
48. If private prayer language is glossolalia, then how can you not demonstrate such and help the SBC fulfill the Great Commission?
49. If private prayer language is glossolalia, then how can you not periodically search for one who is gifted with the interpretation of glossolalia within your own congregation?
50. How can you conclude that you are practicing the spiritual gift of glossolalia, if you have not had your utterances interpreted many times?
51. How can you conclude that you are “praying” in glossolalia if you have never understood what you were saying?
52. How can you try the spirit (if any) behind your utterances if you don’t know what you are saying?
53. Is it unimportant to try the nature of the spirit empowering your experience?
54. What is the nature and advantage of the “edification” you receive when uttering your private prayer language? Can you describe it?
55. Is this edification exclusive to uttering a prayer language? That is; can the same edification be received through reading and memorizing Scripture, witnessing to the lost, feeding the poor and etcetera? What would you lose through stopping this practice?
56. The command of God in 1 Co. 14:37-39 (NIV) says you should ignore anyone who forbids glossolalia. Does this mean you don’t care what others think or say about private prayer language? Do you have divine permission, even direction, to display contempt toward Christian brothers and sisters who are unenlightened regarding private prayer language? Can you in good conscience ignore NAMB and IMB policy because God tells you to?
57. When you encounter a brother or sister who is struggling with a trial of faith in this world, would you encourage them to be edified through speaking in glossolalia?
58. If glossolalia is such an integral part of your own life, how could you not encourage others to seek such a blessing, such divine intimacy?
Questions for the SBC as a whole
59. What is the scope of babbling/glossolalia within the SBC?
60. Is the outcry from the bloggers in the margin over the last year representative of the SBC as a whole?
61. Is the outcry from the bloggers in the margin over the last year primarily doctrinal or overtly political?
62. Current policy within the NAMB and the IMB takes a dim view of the veracity of babbling. Should these mission agencies become advocates of babbling? Is any SBC institution better equipped to discern the veracity of babbling/glossolalia than our missions organizations?
63. Should the SBC Executive Committee become an advocate of babbling?
64. Is the rejection of babble a violation of local church autonomy? Have any churches been forced to change their doctrine?
65. If a Southern Baptist applies for a missionary appointment and is rejected because they practice babble, does that prevent them from going to the mission field? Are there not a hundred other ways to go?
66. Are individual Southern Baptists entitled to apply for appointment as a missionary, or entitled to an appointment as a missionary?
67. If the SBC decide to evaluate the babble/glossolalia issue; should we not consider the testimony and practice of other Great Commission Christians and our international Christian partners (who now outnumber us at least 4 to 1)?Why address the babble/glossolalia issue at all?
68. This may be difficult for many of you to understand. A few months ago I hosted a blog article regarding the IMB policy on glossolalia (now removed, I have other things to attend to). Two things were very evident from the multiplied thousands of words that were exchanged. One is that the vast majority of respondents did not know what they were talking about; they had no definition of glossolalia, and no personal experience with the practice. The second is that almost no one who practiced babbling would even try to answer questions that could build understanding of the babbling experience.
69. I now expect that the above is true of the vast majority of Southern Baptists. You have not seen the frequent results of babbling within churches. You have not yet spent months and years praying, studying and thinking through the issues. You are capable of wisdom and will achieve it, but not quickly. Thinking takes considerable time. Consensus takes a lot longer.
70. When a person babbles in a congregation, it has a dramatic effect on the entire group. They must conclude the babbler is out of their mind, or withhold judgment (rare), or decide the Holy Spirit is directly manifesting his divine presence through the faithfulness of the babbler. Those who continue babbling always opt for explanation number three, and assert their spirituality. While some intend and achieve humility, all (in a congregation that tolerates the occurrence) receive a significant boost to their influence within the congregation. Their babbling has publicly established their faithfulness and usefulness to God himself. God, himself, has publicly set them apart from the norm and spoken through them. Everything the babbler does and says receives increased respect. New believers are especially attracted to whatever “deeper life” or “fuller gospel” is available.
71. Now this is great stuff if it is real.
72. Influence is the fulcrum of the issue. If babbling is glossolalia, it is the supernatural manifestation of divine revelation and it deserves respect. Also, the interpreted message is the expressed will of God. Often babble is “interpreted” as praise. Often it grows to become “divine direction” and “divine interpretation”.
73. If voiced publicly and interpreted publicly, (if babble is not glossolalia) then, at best, it is emotional intuition and similar to rolling dice to discern what God is saying to the congregation.
74. If voiced publicly and interpreted publicly, (if babble is not glossolalia) then, it is by definition a false presentation of the voice of God expressed through false testimony.
75. Southern Baptist had better care about this issue.And it all returns to the primary question.
76. Do we know what we are talking about? If you do not have a Biblical definition of glossolalia, then you do not know what you are talking about.
# posted by Groseys messages @ 10:10 AM 
